Ulpian

ULPIAN
ULPIAN
Pioneer of Human Rights
TONY HONORÉ
Second Edition
1
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford  
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogotá Buenos Aires Cape Town
Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi
Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi
Paris São Paulo Shanghai Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw
with associated companies in Berlin Ibadan
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
© Tony Honoré 2002
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First edition published 1982
Second edition published 2002
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Data Avaliable
ISBN 0–19–924424–3
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
Typeset by Hope Services (Abingdon) Ltd.
Printed in Great Britain
on acid-free paper by
T. J. International Ltd., Padstow, Cornwall
To Detlef Liebs
studiosus studioso
Preface
T H E first edition of this work on Ulpian, the early third-century lawyer from
Syria, came out in 1982. Though there had been substantial articles on Ulpian
by Pernice (1885), Jörs (1903), and Crifò (1976), mine was the first modern
study of his life and works at book length. Texts from Ulpian take up two-
fifths of Justinian’s sixth-century Digest, for many centuries the staple of legal
education. For most topics Justinian’s compilers chose Ulpian’s account as
their core text. Through the Digest his exposition of the law has influenced the
western legal tradition at least as much as that of any later writer, including
Irnerius, Grotius, Blackstone, Pothier, and Savigny.
I set out to study him as a writer and imperial office-holder in the Severan
age (AD 193–235) and, as Millar put it, a figure in the complex cultural land-
scape of the Roman empire. Assessments of his role differ. In Syme’s eyes
(1972) Ulpian, a lawyer in politics, deserted his books to ingratiate himself
with the ruling dynasty and paid the penalty when he was murdered by rebel-
lious troops. To me, in contrast, his career was that of an intellectual in
government, concerned to give effect in law and administration to the cos-
mopolitan ideas of his time.
The book had a mixed reception. It was welcomed by Rodger (1983), Liebs
(1984), Birks (1983), and Millar (1986), a welcome tempered by admonitions
against pushing the evidence too far. Gordon (1984) and Crifò (1985) had
reservations about the analysis of Ulpian’s style. The book was sharply criti-
cised by Watson (1983) and, more soberly, by Frier (1984), whose point of
view was close to that of Syme. Birks showed that Watson’s criticisms were
largely mistaken. But some of the points made by scholars, favourably dis-
posed or sceptical, need to be taken seriously and some arguments in the first
edition strengthened. As Frezza (1983) pointed out, there was an imbalance
between my depiction of Ulpian as a writer and as a lawyer in government.
One problem in writing about Ulpian is that hardly anyone has read the
bulk of his surviving work, which runs to some 300,000 words. Most students
of the ancient world read some Ulpian, and his work has been available in a
consolidated form since Lenel’s Palingenesia of 1889. But most scholars read
only as much as is needed for the purpose in hand. The Digest, and with it the
western legal tradition, is in thrall to Ulpian, but he comes in bits and pieces.
The sporadic reader can easily miss the quality and flavour of his writing.
The first edition sought to fix the main features of Ulpian’s style and, on
this basis, to distinguish between the works that are genuinely his and the five
attributed to him that are in my view spurious. There is no need to change the
lists of genuine and spurious works arrived at (Chapters 5 and 10), though
viii Preface
some scholars still defend the authenticity of Rules in one book (Liber singu-
laris regularum) and possibly Replies (Responsa). Some argue that Opinions,
though not a work of Ulpian, is classical. The debate continues.
The list of mature works that seem certainly or probably genuine comprises
216 or 217 books in all. By a book is meant a liber of on average 10,000 to
12,000 words, corresponding to a modern chapter. Most of Ulpian’s work
can be dated to Caracalla’s sole rule (December 211–April 217). My hypoth-
esis was that Ulpian’s massive survey was composed in the five years 213–17,
after and in the light of the enactment of Caracalla’s Antonine constitution,
which is traditionally (and I think rightly) dated to 212. The author may have
planned to continue writing after 217 and, in particular, to compete his
commentary On Sabinus. If so, he did not or could not carry out his plan. The
five-year period 213–17, Quinquennium Ulpiani, was devoted to a large-scale
exposition of law and public administration for the benefit of rulers and
citizens of the new cosmopolis. Undertaken privately but with official encour-
agement, it was, as Liebs (2000) points out, a forerunner of the later Roman
codifications by Gregorius, Hermogenianus, Theodosius II, and Justinian.
If Ulpian composed his survey in the five years 213–17 he must have com-
posed at speed and worked to a plan. I suggested in the first edition that his
plan was to complete a chapter (liber) a week, apart from a holiday period of
eight weeks. To some this seemed absurd. But, as emerges in Chapter 8, the
argument for my suggestion is stronger now that it was in 1982.
In this and other respects I am tempted to say that most of the detailed
conclusions reached in the first edition were correct or at least defensible but
that the book was not reader-friendly. It did not sufficiently stress certain
themes that mark off Ulpian’s contribution to Roman law from that of oth-
ers. It did not do justice to the egalitarian philosophy that inspired his work,
to his use of dictation, his easy shifting from Latin to Greek, and his empir-
ical approach to the solution of legal problems. The work lent itself to cari-
cature as ‘Law on the Installment Plan.’ Caricatures distort but also
illuminate. So in this edition the emphasis has changed. Three new chapters
have been added and one discarded. Certain themes, previously muted, are
now stressed. I now think (Chapter 2) that Ulpian dictated the whole of his
survey of Roman law. His survey reflects speech, not writing. In the ancient
world dictation was important to the Roman government and to Christian
writers but was not confined to them. Dictation accounts for the linking of
sentences, the conversational flow, the sense of debate, and the superficial
egocentricity of an author who, though self-confident, often expressed his
opinion in a tentative way. Oral composition fits the many examples he gives
by way of illustration and his recourse to argument by analogy (Chapter 4).
In the upshot Ulpian reasons rather as do common lawyers, whose style
derives from a practice of oral exchange between judges and counsel and of
argument from example.
Preface ix
Moreover, Ulpian is the Roman lawyer whose thinking most clearly has a
basis in theory. His philosophy, implied in his Teaching Manual (Institutiones)
and elsewhere, is cosmopolitan and egalitarian (Chapter 3). It fitted the con-
temporary extension of citizenship to all free people in the Roman empire.
Ulpian here reflects, but also promotes, the Zeitgeist. He can therefore justly
be accounted a pioneer of the human rights movement. Drawing mainly on
the Stoic conception of natural law, his philosophy allows slaves the share in
human dignity that is required by the belief that human beings are born free
and equal. At present, when human rights are widely debated, it may promote
a balanced view to see them in a perspective that goes back to antiquity.
Human rights are not a product of the Enlightenment, still less of the twenti-
eth century, as some otherwise well-educated people suppose. The values of
equality, freedom, and dignity, to which human rights give effect, formed the
basis of Ulpian’s exposition of Roman law as the law of a cosmopolis. The
citizens of the empire did not enjoy political freedom. But they possessed civil
rights, and Roman lawyers were concerned to see that these were respected.
To ensure this respect was the emperor’s duty. No one made a greater contri-
bution to this end than Ulpian, whose mission was to expound Roman law to
the rulers and citizens of the cosmopolis as a system of law based on reason,
utility, and equity. That is one reason why the study of Roman law can never
be out of date.
The book has been reshaped in, I hope, a more reader-friendly style. This
has meant, among other changes, translating into English the titles of
Ulpian’s works. Latin cannot be avoided in a work that turns in good part
on the style and outlook of a Latin author. As much Latin as possible has,
however, been translated or relegated to the footnotes. If the result strikes
some students of the ancient world as odd, this is the price to be paid for
introducing a great writer to the wider audience he deserves.
I am grateful to Dr Dennis Flynn for his help with computing problems,
and to Dr Leofranc Holford-Strevens, to whose scholarly acumen as copy-
editor both editions of this work owe a debt.
T.H.
Contents
List of Ulpian’s Works with Method of Citation xii

1. Background and Career 1
2. The Oral Style 37
3. The Cosmopolis and Human Rights 76
4. The Empirical Method 94
5. Genuine Works 105
6. Sources and Scholarship 126
7. Dates and Plan I: On the Edict 158
8. Dates and Plan II: Quinquennium Ulpiani 177
9. Dates and Plan III: Lesser Works 189
10. Spurious Works 206
11. Epilogue 227
TABLES
I. List of Latin Words and Phrases 231
II. References to Legal Texts 243
Bibliography 283
Index 297
List of Ulpian’s Works with
Method of Citation
Certainly or probably genuine

English title Latin title with number of books (chapters)
and abbreviation
On the Edict Ad edictum praetoris 81 (ed.)
On Sabinus Ad Masurium Sabinum 51 (Sab.)
The Julio-Papian Law Ad legem Iuliam et Papiam 20 (Iul. Pap.)
Disputations Publicae disputationes 10 (disp.)
The Proconsul De officio proconsulis 10 (off. proc.)
Tribunals De omnibus tribunalibus 10 (omn. trib.)
Taxation De censibus 6 (cens.)
Trusts De fideicommissis 6 (fid.)
Adultery Ad legem Iuliam de adulteriis 5 (adult.)
Appeals De appellationibus 4 (appell.)
The Aelio-Sentian Law Ad legem Aeliam Sentiam 4 (Ael. Sent.)
The Consul De officio consulis 3 (off. cons.)
The Market-Masters’ Edict Ad edictum aedilium curulium 2 (ed. aed. cur.)
Teaching Manual Institutiones 2 (inst.)
Engagement to Marry De sponsalibus 1 (spons.)
Consular Judges De officio consularium 1 (off. consular.)
The Community Treasurer De officio curatoris reipublicae 1 (off. cur.
reip.)
Excuses De excusationibus 1 (excus.)
The Praetor for Guardianship De officio praetoris tutelaris 1 (off. pr. tut.)
The Prefect of Police De officio praefecti vigilum 1 (off. pr. vig.)
The Quaestor De officio quaestoris 1 (off. quaest.)
The Urban Prefect De officio praefecti urbi 1 (off. pr. urb.)
The Speech of Marcus and De oratione divi Antonini et Commodi 1 (orat.
Commodus Ant. et Comm.)
Notes on Marcellus’ Digest Notae ad Marcelli Digesta 31 (Marc. dig.)
Notes on Papinian’s Replies Notae ad Papiniani Responsa 19 (Pap. resp.)
Rescripts of Septimius Severus Aug. 202–May 209
Spurious
Encyclopaedia Pandectae 10 (pand.)
Replies Responsa 2 (resp.)
List of Ulpian’s Works with Method of Citation xiii
Opinions Opiniones 6 (opin.)

Rules in one book Regulae 1 (lib. sing. reg.)
Rules in seven books Regulae 7 (reg.)
1
Background and Career

D O M I T I U S U L P I A N U S , the lawyer from Tyre, was a leading intellectual of
the Severan dynasty (AD 193–235)1 and, along with the physician and poly-
math Galen, the most influential writer of the time. He spelt out the cos-
mopolitan ideology of the age in its legal and administrative aspects. How
should his career be judged? Was he ‘the scholar who deserts his books for
favour of princes and governmental employment, to a calamitous end’2 or the
writer whose ‘new formulation of Roman law made this intractable material
so flexible that it could time after time be adapted to new situations right up
until the twentieth century’?3 To answer, we need to study his background
and career.
I. THE POLITICAL BACKGROUND
The dynasty founded by Septimius Severus was concerned to present itself in

relation to the preceding Antonine dynasty. Both grappled, in the end unsuc-
cessfully, with a problem about the imperial succession. The empire was best
governed by an able and experienced ruler, chosen without regard to family.
The mechanism of adoption made this possible. A ruler could during his life-
time adopt a successor from outside his family. On the other hand there was
pressure for an emperor with a legitimate son to promote the son during his
lifetime as a junior or associate ruler, ‘Caesar’ or junior ‘Augustus’. Despite
doubts, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (AD 161–80) did not follow the recent
convention that a Roman emperor should adopt a successor. It would have
been awkward to disinherit his son Commodus, a lazy and frivolous young-
ster, whom he had made Caesar at the age of five. In 177, when the boy was
1 Lenel (1889) 2.379–1200, 1264 with Sierl (1960) 12–7; Pernice (1885/1962); Kalb (1890)
126–35; Schulze (1891); Jörs (1903); Fitting (1908) 99–120; P. Krüger (1912) 239–50; Volterra
(1937); Berger (1952) 750; Leclercq (1952); Wenger (1953) 519f., 526f.; Pflaum (1960–1) no.294;
Mayer-Maly (1961); Honoré (1962a) 207–12 (unreliable); Frezza (1968); Syme (1970/1979);
Carcaterra (1972); Orestano (1973a); Nörr (1973); Crifò (1976); Nörr (1978) 131–6; Honoré
(1982); Rodger (1983); Birks (1983); Frezza (1983); De Marini Avonzo (1982); Liebs (1984);
Mantello (1984); Lannata (1984) 214–9; Liebs (1987a); Yaron (1987); Honoré (1988); Waldstein
(1985); Crifò (1985); Millar (1986); Schermaier (1993); Winkel (1993); Marotta (2000); Honoré
(2001). Literature on his career n.49
2 Syme (1980) 102 = (1984) 1412 3 Liebs (1997) §424 p. 187
2 1. Background and Career
fifteen, Marcus promoted him joint Augustus and so ensured that he would
in due course succeed his father as emperor. The reign of Commodus (180–92)
ended in misgovernment and murder. Of the various contenders who emerged
in 193, the ultimate victor was Septimius Severus (193–211).4 But it took two
civil wars and nearly four years for him to become sole master of the Roman
world. The effort left its mark both on him and on the empire.
The rule of the Severans was harsher but more cosmopolitan than that of the
Antonines. Severus needed to establish a link with Marcus, since Marcus was
then and later considered a model ruler. So in 195, after defeating his rival
Pescennius Niger, he arranged to be adopted by Marcus. The adoption was a
fiction, since Marcus had been dead fifteen years. Nevertheless it was
put through in detail. Severus’ elder son, Bassianus (generally known as
Caracalla), then aged eight or nine, received the dynastic name ‘Antoninus’.5
Severus tried, however, to avoid repeating Marcus’ mistake over Commodus,
who had been allowed too much freedom. He gave Caracalla a good education
and saw to it that he had military experience. He made him consul three times
during the next sixteen years, and from 197 or 198 introduced him to civil and
legal business as joint Augustus. Caracalla was able, though not in a literary
way, quick-witted, a good judge of character. He had plebeian tastes, liked sol-
diering, and was not averse to menial tasks. With the soldiers he was and
remained popular.
At times one could think of him as a future emperor who would justify the
name Antoninus. At others he appeared unhinged. Then his violent temper
and bitter feuding with Geta, his younger brother, left no room for illusion.
Geta, a year younger, was thought incompetent.6 After Caracalla was pro-
moted Augustus, the younger son was kept in the subordinate position of
Caesar for another eleven years. Ultimately Severus, perhaps on the pretext of
administrative convenience, made Geta a third Augustus during the British
campaign of 209, so that there was someone left behind at York to attend to
civil business while he and Caracalla went on campaign in Scotland. He
thereby committed the empire to the joint succession of the two brothers. Once
again, dynastic considerations overrode the claims of good government.
Septimius followed the traditional Roman policy of extending the limits of
empire. Not specially gifted as a general, he repeatedly won victories in both
civil and external wars. In 197, when the civil wars were over, he invaded
Parthia and pushed the frontier of the empire eastwards. At the end of his
4
Hasebroek (1921) has a good account, with dates. See also Platnauer (1918), Hammond
(1940), Murphy (1945), Hannestad (1944), Barnes (1967), Alföldy (1968), Herzig (1972), and
Birley (1988) with bibliography 258–73 and prosopography 212–29
5
Dio 78.1–10 (hostile); Herodian 4.7.4–7; RE 2.2434 Aurelius (46); Schulze (1909). For
Caracalla as a judge Nörr (1972b) 25; Kunkel (1953/1974) 255. On young emperors Hartke
(1951)
6
Dio 77.7.1–2; Herodian 3.10.3–4; 4.3.2–4.4.3; Fluss (1923); Alföldy (1972) 19
reign, in 209–11, he tried to advance the British frontier north into Scotland,
perhaps with a view to occupying the whole island. When he died in February
211 the attempt was anyhow abandoned and the army, with the two emper-
ors Caracalla and Geta, returned to Rome. They were accompanied by two
eminent lawyers: Papinian, a supporter of the joint succession, and Ulpian,
who turned out to be a supporter of Caracalla.
Severus had debts to the army. It was the troops of Pannonia that had
brought him to power, and his campaigns required loyal troops. The balance
between civil and military power shifted in favour of the soldiers. They
obtained concessions: higher pay, permission to live with their wives.7 The
events of 193–7 revived the lesson of AD 68, that the army legions made and
unmade emperors. Severus took steps to ensure that in future the praetorians
in Rome, who had killed Pertinax and made Didius Iulianus emperor, would
not do this again. In 193 he tricked and disarmed them.8 But this tour de force
was not a long-term solution to the problems of military indiscipline. An
emperor could not survive if the troops and their generals were disloyal to
him.
Severus was well equipped to manage civil as well as military affairs.
Though not as well educated, says Dio, as he would have liked to be, he had
an inquiring mind. Trained in ‘philosophy’, he was a man of many ideas but
few words.9 Whether he had received any legal education is obscure, but he
was a good administrator and assiduous as a judge.10 He claimed, though not
bound by law, to conform to it.11 He appointed lawyers to important posts.
Paul’s reports of decisions in the imperial council12 show that he took an active
part in legal argument and was prepared to differ from the opinions of his
lawyer councillors, particularly Paul.13 He was keen to improve the working
of the legal system. The cumbrous operation of the permanent criminal com-
missions (quaestiones perpetuae), which from the republic onwards had exer-
cised criminal jurisdiction in Rome, now ceased.14 The urban prefect in Rome
was given unlimited jurisdiction at first instance over crimes committed in the
7
Herodian 3.8.5. Whether soldiers’ marriages were previously void in certain cases is debat-
able: see Kaser (1971) 1.317. Herodian 3.8.4–5 also mentions the right to wear gold rings (the
mark of equestrian rank, in practice confined to centurions and other middle-ranking officers).
See also Whittaker (1969–70) 2.308–9
8 Herodian 3.13.2–12
9 Dio 77.16.1–2; Eutropius 8.9.1 cf. HA Severus 18.5–6. He composed an autobiography:
Dio 75.7.3; Herodian 2.9.4; Victor 20.22

10 Dio 77.16.17.1–2; HA Severus 8.4; Birley (1988) 164–5
11 J. Inst. 2.17.8: Severus et Antoninus saepissime rescripserunt: licet enim legibus soluti sumus,
attamen legibus vivimus. The formulation is probably Ulpian’s in view of the parallel licet . . . atta-
men in CJ 5.18.2 (4 Apr 207) and the Institutes text (saepissime rescripserunt) comes from his
work: ch.2 n.769
12 Lenel (1889) 1.959–65, 1111–2 nos. 57, 58, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68.2, 69, 70.1, 2, 73, 5, 76, 7,
79, 878
13 Coriat (1997) 561–3 14 Garnsey (1967)
city or within a hundred miles of it. The praetorian prefect15 had similar juris-
diction in Italy beyond the hundred-mile limit,16 and unlimited appellate juris-
diction in both civil and criminal cases.17 In this he acted, theoretically, as the
emperor’s delegate.18
Delegation was inevitable, especially with an emperor as ambitious as
Severus. The office of praetorian prefect, now generally held by two prefects
at a time, had grown piecemeal into the most important in the empire next to
that of the emperor himself. Originally a military post,19 its duties spread
from the command of the praetorian guard, stationed in Rome, to the super-
intendence of the armies in the provinces. Its civil business, especially legal
appeals, now increased to the point at which one of the two prefects was
sometimes a lawyer. It was thus that, following Tarrutienus Paternus
(177–82)20 in the reign of Commodus, Papinian (205–12), Macrinus (212–7),
Ulpian (222–3/4), and conceivably Paul (219–20), men whose careers were
purely civilian, came to hold this, the highest equestrian office.
Another aspect of the administration of justice was the rescript system.21
The emperor provided what was in effect a free legal advice service, for which
the secretary for petitions (a libellis) was responsible. One could petition
about anything: privileges, pardon for crimes, grants of land, honours. But
when a petition involved a point of law it was referred to the secretary for
petitions who drafted a reply for the emperor’s consideration. From the
Severan age far more rescripts on points of law survive than from previous
reigns, and there is no doubt that their number really increased. In this
domain, too, the emperor took his duties seriously.
It was the concern of the government for civil administration that made the
age a great one for law and lawyers. The Severan jurists, Papinian, Paul,
Tryphoninus, Messius, Menander, Ulpian, Modestinus, all equestrians, had an
interest in seeing that justice was freely available and that law prevailed.22
Whether they were advising the emperor as members of his council, composing
rescripts for him as secretaries for petitions, or writing treatises for the use of
governors, judges, officials, and private citizens, they were conscious of being
members of an élite circle of lawyers. It is a mistake to think of advice given to
the emperor as ‘bureaucratic’, private writing or practice as ‘free’.23 Both rested
on professional discipline, and the test of their worth was the opinion of fellow
members of the élite. There is nothing to suggest that lawyers felt under pres-
sure to slant their opinions in a sense favourable to the government.
15
Howe (1942) 42; Strachan-Davidson (1912) 1.158
16
Collatio 14.3.2 (Ulp. 9 off. proc. referring to the Lex Fabia); Passerini (1939) 236
17 Mommsen (1887–8) 2.1113f.; Ensslin (1954) 2391; Kaser (1966) 365; Howe (1942) 29f.
18 Howe (1942) 40 19 Howe (1942) 7; Palanque (1933); Durry (1938); Passerini (1939)
20 AE 1971.534; CIL VI.4.1.27118; Lenel (1889) 2.335; Pflaum (1960–1) 1.420–2; Kunkel
(1967) 219–22 (‘Tarruntenus’); Giuffrè (1974b) 61–5; Liebs (1976) 341–4; HLL 4 §419.6
21 Honoré (1994) ch.2 22 A. Stein (1927); Howe (1942) 43; Schiller (1953)
23 As does Syme (1972) 406 = (1984) 863
Severus was the only emperor apart from his rival Albinus to come from
Africa. He was also the first emperor not to be of purely Italian stock.24 That
does not make him an ‘African emperor’,25 but it helps to explain the
cosmopolitan outlook of his regime. He came from an area where Punic was
spoken,26 and was himself fluent in the language. Punic is the language
that Ulpian mentions as an example, after Latin and Greek, as one that
the parties to certain transactions may choose.27 Severus’ second wife, Julia
Domna, came from a part of Syria where, though Punic had not been
spoken for two centuries or more, the vernacular was Aramaic. Ulpian also
mentions this language (‘Assyrian’) as a language that can be used for certain
legal transactions.28 This does not imply that these languages were commonly
used to make contracts or create trusts. Ulpian’s point is that for informal or
semi-formal transactions any language may be used provided it is understood
by the parties. The new citizens are reassured that they can participate in the
legal system to which they are subject without mastering Latin or Greek.
Though he wrote in Latin, the language of Roman law, the readership for
which he was writing included Greeks, many of them newly enfranchised as
citizens, as we shall see in chapter 3.29
It was an opportunistic act on the part of Severus’ son Caracalla in AD 212
to make all free inhabitants of the empire, with obscure but unimportant
exceptions, Roman citizens. But it fitted the spirit of the dynasty and the age.
By the Antonine constitution (constitutio Antoniniana)30 the different
provinces, east, west, north, and south, were put on a level. Other distinctions
too were blurred. With their new privileges, soldiers had a status closer to that
of civilians. Women were more prominent than before, both as property own-
ers and in politics. In the imperial circle the Syrian princesses Julia Domna,
her sister Julia Maesa, and Maesa’s two daughters Soaemias and Mamaea
had influence behind the scenes. But they also figure prominently, with
official titles, on coins,31 and Caracalla entrusted his correspondence to his
mother Julia Domna.32 Rank and class still depend on wealth,33 but other
boundaries, social and conceptual, are blurred.
24 Birley (1988) 1–22 25 Title of Birley (1988)

26 Birley (1988) 35 (Septimius and Julia Domna will have had three languages in common:
Greek, Latin, and Aramaic) cf. Millar (1968)
27 D 32.11 pr (2 fid: sermone non solum Latina vel Graeca, sed etiam Punica vel Gallicana vel
alterius cuiuscumque gentis), 45.1.1.6 (48 Sab: omnis sermo)

28 D 45.1.1.6 (48 Sab.). On Ulpian’s familiarity with Aramaic see Manthe (1999)
29 Ch.3 n.119–42
30 Literature in Gianelli–Mazzarino (1956) 2.397; v. Rohden (1896) 2446; Millar (1962);
Gilliam (1965); Sasse (1958), (1965); De Visscher (1961); Seston (1966); Gundel (1966); Segrè
(1966); Saumagne (1966); d’Ors (1966); Gaudemet (1967) 528; A. H. M. Jones (1968); Talamanca
(1971); Herrmann (1972); Wieling (1974); Wolff (1976); Buraselis (1989); Honoré (1996) 383
31
RE 11.916, 926, 948; Mattingly 52 (1975) 156–70 and passim; Robertson (1977) 98–102,
127–33, 163–8
32 33
Dio 79.18.2–3 Garnsey (1970) 221f.
The levelling that occurred caused strains and resentments. The wars of
Marcus had brought to a close the days when the resources of government
amply met military and civil requirements. Even without civil war, the end of
the second century would not have been comfortable. Civil war set the emperor
and senate at variance. At the behest of Didius Julianus, the senate in 193
declared Severus a public enemy. Later it changed sides, but lost prestige.34
When in 196–7 Severus quarrelled with his Caesar, Clodius Albinus, many sen-
ators sided with Albinus, a man who prided himself on his clemency.35 Severus,
whose character fitted his name, was shocked. When he defeated Albinus he
had some dissident senators executed on his own authority. This was to violate
the model of a good ruler, and mistrust festered.36
Like many a ruler Severus came over time to rely increasingly on his own
family and associates. He trusted a kinsman and friend of his youth, Fulvius
Plautianus, to whom he was bound by emotional ties, and treated him almost
as a partner.37 A man of ability and, like Severus, from Africa, in the end
Plautianus became sole praetorian prefect and accumulated great power. Had
it not been for Severus’ two sons, the situation would have been manageable.
Severus would have made his friend a Caesar or junior Augustus, and
Plautianus in due course might have proved himself a good emperor. But
Caracalla had been given the name Antoninus in 195 and made Augustus in
197 or 198, so that this course was ruled out. The clash was resolved in
another way. By an ingenious plot Caracalla and his mother Julia Domna
trapped Plautianus and had him killed in 205.38 The strain was temporarily
reduced, but effective rule had once again been sacrificed to dynastic interests.
Two praetorian prefects were then appointed, one military, Laetus, and one
civilian, the lawyer Papinian. Severus, conscious of the tension between his
sons, tried to improve their ways by moving them from Rome to the Italian
countryside (205–7),39 and later took them with him to Britain on his last mil-
itary expedition (208–11).40 When he died Julia Domna tried to keep the
peace between them.41 She failed. At the end of 211 Caracalla had Geta mur-
dered in her presence.42 She still tried to compensate for her elder son’s lack
of balance. Later her niece Julia Soaemias tried in turn to restrain her son
Elagabal (218–22),43 but with no more success. So intractable were the prob-
lems of an empire conducted by, or in the name of, young men spoiled by
34 35
Dio 74.16–7 Herodian 3.5.2; Dio 75.7–8
36
Dio 76.8.4; Herodian 3.8.1–3
37
A. Stein (1912) 270–8; PIR2 F 554; Howe (1942) 69 no.17; Grosso (1968a) 7; Birley (1988)
128, 162–3, 207. Their quarrels and reconciliations and Severus’ remorse after Plautianus’ death
point to the truth of Herodian 3.10.6 cf. Dio 77.5.1–2
38
Dio 77.3–4; Herodian 3.11.1–3; 3.12.12 (giving an official version); Hohl (1956) 33; Birley
(1988) 161–3
39 40 41
Herodian 3.13.1 Herodian 3.14–5; Dio 77.11–3 Herodian 4.3.8–9
42
Dio 77.18.2–3
43
Herodian 5.5.5–6; 5.7.1–3. On Elagabal see Hay (1911), Barnes (1972), Pflaum (1978)
early adulation that some Romans became disillusioned with the tradition
that saw in public service the true end of human endeavour.
In this age of strain the minds of many thoughtful people turned inwards.
There were powerful Christians. The ex-slave Callistus took the see of Rome
(c.217–23) 44 against the challenge of his opponent and critic Hippolytus. Julia
Mammaea, the mother of Alexander Severus, ‘a most religious woman, if ever
there was one’ and a supporter of Ulpian in his later years, was inquiring
enough to bring the Christian intellectual Origen from Antioch by military
escort for a meeting.45 Other religions, hovering on the border of monotheism,
attracted devotees. The cult of Elagabal, the god of Emesa, whence Julia
Domna and her family came, was one, a cult unknown to Greeks and
Romans.46 Elagabal, the last Antoninus, nicknamed from the god to whom he
was devoted, saw the deity as a jealous god. His demands, hardly less exclusive
than those of Jehovah, led the emperor-priest to challenge the traditional
Roman state religion.47 Elagabal wanted to invert the relations of politics and
religion. Far from being the handmaid of state policy, as hitherto, religion was
to be the prime concern of the emperor and people.48 Elagabal’s reign warns
us that, in sacred affairs also, the easy-going days are over. It foreshadows the
Christian revolution that is to come a century later.
II. ULPIAN’S CAREER: SOURCES
The main source of information about Ulpian’s career 49 is his own writings.
These survive to the extent of about 300,000 words, roughly an eighth of the
original, and tell us, directly or by inference, a good deal. They were in the
main composed under Caracalla’s sole rule (211–7) as the references to joint
constitutions of him (imperator noster, imperator Antoninus) and his dead but
deified father (divus pater, divus Severus) make clear.50
Apart from this, two rescripts of Alexander Severus51 mention the two pre-
fectures that Ulpian held in 222 under that emperor. There is an inscription
in his honour from Tyre that records these prefectures.52 A papyrus from
44
Gianelli–Mazzarino (1956) 2.291f.
45
Eusebius, Church History (Hist. Eccl.) 6.21 cf. 6.28.1: ‘the household of Alexander consisted
mostly of believers’
46 Herodian 5.3.5 47 Herodian 5.5.3–10; 5.6.3–10; 6.1.3 48 Herodian 5.7
49 Bremer (1883); Balog (1913) 339–421; A. Stein (1943); Howe (1942) 44–52, 75f., 100–5;
Pflaum (1948) 41–5; Kunkel (1967) 245–54; Pflaum (1960–1) 2.762–5 no.294;
Modrzejewski–Zawadski (1967); Grosso (1968b); Syme (1970/1979), (1972/1984), (1980/1984);
Honoré (1982) 1–46; Liebs (1987b) 76f., 90–2, 110, 113f.; Salway (2000) 137f.
50 Ch.7 n.21–70; ch.8 n.2–12, 23–41; ch.9 n.11–2, 50–1, 93–6, 104–7, 130–1
51 CJ 8.37.4 (31 March 222), 4.65.4.1 (1 Dec 222)
52 AE 1988.1051 pp.285f: Domitio Ulpiano praefecto/praetorio eminentissimo viro/iurisconsulto
item praefecto/annonae sacrae Urbis, Seberia/Felix Aug(usta Ty)riorum col(onia) metropol-

(is)/p(at)ria. Cf. Vézin (1991). It is clear from this that Ulpian never became a senator
Egypt shows that he was killed before May/June 224.53 Of the historians
Dio,54 as summarized by Xiphilinus, mentions his prominent role early in
Alexander’s reign, about which Herodian is silent.55 Aurelius Victor (c.369)56
mentions him briefly, as do the epitomes of Festus (363–70)57 and Eutropius
(364–78).58 There is an important passage in Zosimus (c.500)59 and briefer
ones in Zonaras (1118–43)60 and Syncellus.61 The ‘mythistorical’ Augustan
History of the late fourth century, drawing on Marius Maximus, Herodian,
Victor, and other sources, along with a talent for invention, gives him a
prominent role in the lives of Niger,62 Elagabal,63 and especially Alexander
Severus.64 He is there depicted as guiding the young emperor Alexander’s
footsteps in the paths of justice. This shows that towards the end of the fourth
century Ulpian was highly regarded in certain pagan circles in Rome. It can
be used with caution to fill out some aspects of his career. Following Straub
(1978), I have assumed that, at least in certain instances, the author had access
to reliable information about the law and lawyers.65 In dealing with them his
method is often distortion of the truth rather than pure invention. At times it
seems that the distortions have a serious purpose. It is not impossible that the
author was himself a lawyer.
III. NAME AND ORIGIN: TYRE
Ulpian’s fellow lawyers call him Ulpianus or, in Greek, Ολπιανς.66 But a
few texts, including two rescripts of Alexander, speak of Domitius Ulpianus.67
So does a text of Ulpian’s contemporary Paul, in which he reproduces a letter
from a friend or client that refers to an opinion of Ulpian.68 Lactantius calls
him Domitius69 and both Modestinus and Dio have ∆οµτιος Ολπιανς.70
The gentile name Domitius is confirmed by the inscription found in Tyre.71
53
P.Oxy. 2565: Barns–Parsons–Rea–Turner (1966) 102 54 Dio 80.1.1; 2.2–4
55
Herodian 6.1.4 says in general terms that legal and civil business was entrusted under
Alexander to men of eloquence and legal experience
56 The Caesars (De Caesaribus) 24
57 Summary of Deeds of the Roman People (Breviarium rerum gestarum populi Romani) 22 pace
Spagnuolo Vigorita (1990)

58 Summary from the Foundation of Rome (Breviarium ab urbe condita) 8.23
59 New History (nova) 1.11.2 cf. Lydus (490–c.560) Magistrates (De magistratibus) 1.48
60 Annals (Annales) 12.15 61 Chronography (Chronographia) 1.673
62 HA Pescennius Niger 7.2 63 HA Antoninus Heliogabalus 16.1
64 HA Severus Alexander 15.6, 26.5, 27.2, 31.1, 34.6, 51.4, 67.2, 68.1
65 Honoré (1987), (1994b), (1998a) ch. 8
66 D 27.1.2.9 (Mod. 2 excus.); 27.1.8.9; 27.1.10.8 (3 excus.); Dio 80.1.1; 2.2–3; Syncellus,
Chron. 1.673; Zonaras 12.15 cf. 26.6.2.5 (Mod. 1 excus.); 27.1.4.1 (2 excus: Ολπιανς
κρτιστος); 27.1.13.2 (4 excus: ∆οµτιος Ολπιανς)
67 CJ 8.37.4 (31 March 222); 4.65.4.1 (1 Dec. 222); HA Severus Alexander 68.1
68 D 19.1.43 (Paul 5 quaest.)
69 Church Teaching (Div. inst.) 5.11.19 70 Dio 80.1.1; D 27.1.13.2 (Mod. 1 excus.)
71 AE 1988.1051; above n.52
No other Domitius Ulpianus is known, unless we can make something of an

inscription on a water-pipe found some seven miles from Centumcellae
(Civitavecchia).72 Here, near Santa Marinella, on the coast north-west of
Rome, a pipe belonging to a large building was found with the inscription:
CNDOMITIAN . NIULPIANI
A number of scholars, including Kunkel, have taken this to refer to the

lawyer.73 If the inscription is read continuously, the reading ‘Domitiani’ is not
possible, in view of the double N, and it seems better to read it as:
CN DOMITI ANNI ULPIANI
though the dot between the two Ns is awkward. If this reconstruction is cor-
rect, the owner of the large country house near Rome was Gnaeus Domitius
Annius Ulpianus. Is he the lawyer Ulpian? There is a possible point of con-
nection apart from the name. The villa belonged to a wealthy man and a
statue of Meleager has been found in the area. Meleager,74 poet and Cynic
philosopher of the first century BC, came from Gadara but lived in Tyre.
Ulpian also came from Tyre. The statue seems appropriate to the residence of
a wealthy scholar proud of his connection with Tyre. He might be the lawyer
or some other member of a well-educated family from that area.
The lawyer took pride in his connection with Tyre. He combined working
in Rome or as part of the emperor’s entourage with strong provincial links.75
In his work on Taxation (De censibus), written under Caracalla and probably
datable to 213,76 Ulpian describes Tyre as his town of origin, splendid, famed
for its various quarters, possessing an ancient history, strong in arms, faithful
to its treaty with the Romans:77
est in Syria Phoenice splendidissima Tyriorum colonia, unde mihi origo est, nobilis
regionibus, serie saeculorum antiquissima, armipotens, foederis quo cum Romanis
percussit tenacissima.
He calls Tyre his ‘origo’. Origo is local citizenship at birth,78 citizenship of

origin. As Ulpian points out,79 the status of citizen of a municipality is
acquired by birth (nativitas), manumission, or adoption. To this a law of
Diocletian and Maximian added co-option (adlectio).80 This last law refers to
‘origo’ where one would expect birth to be mentioned. The terms could, it
seems, be used synonymously. So Ulpian was a citizen of Tyre through birth
72
CIL XI.3587 = XV.7773
73
Kunkel (1967) 252; Crifò (1976) 738; A. Stein (1903); PIR 21 19, 25; 32 39; Passerini (1939) 324
74 75
Geffcken (1931); Radinger (1895); Wifstrand (1926) Liebs (2001) v–xv
76
Ch.9 n.11–25
77
D 50.15.1 pr (Ulp. 1 cens.). On Tyre see Krall (1888), Fleming (1915) and on municipal
administration Liebenam (1900), Vittinghoff (1951), Nörr (1969)
78 79
Nörr (1963) 525 = (1965) 433. D 50.1.1 pr (2 ed.)
80
CJ 10.40.7 pr (Dio. et Max. AA et CC: cives quidem origo manumissio adlectio adoptio facit)
in lawful marriage. Citizenship depended on the father’s status as a citizen,

not on the son’s place of birth, which might take place anywhere. Tyre was
Ulpian’s home town ( patria),81 the focus of his local allegiance, as distinct
from Rome, the common fatherland of all Roman citizens (communis
patria).82 He took pride in his dual identity.
No other lawyer speaks of his home town in similar terms, but then no
other Roman lawyer, except perhaps Celsus and Iavolenus a century earlier,
is so extrovert. None of them refers, as does Ulpian, to ‘my fellow citizen’
(popularis meus).83 Tyre, like other Syrian cities, jostling for honour and posi-
tion, aroused strong loyalties. Its fame for valour went back to its resistance
to Alexander the Great in BC 332. From BC 64 the Romans recognized and
maintained its autonomy, though that meant less from the second century AD
than it had earlier. In AD 66 Tyre took part in the war against the Jews, to
whom it was hostile. An ally of Rome (civitas foederata) from early times, the
city provided auxiliary cohorts for the Roman army from the end of the first
century AD. Hadrian admired the orator Paul of Tyre and, when drawn into
a bitter war against the Jews in AD 132–5, gave it the title of metropolis. With
its weaving, metalworking, and glass manufacture, above all its purple dyes,
it prospered in the peaceful days of the empire, 84 and maintained trading sta-
tions at Puteoli85 and Rome.
Ulpian’s attachment to Tyre was reciprocated. A column inscribed in his
honour has been found there.86 It records his offices of prefect of supply and
praetorian prefect to Alexander Severus. Tyre, still a free city, 87 played a part
in the civil war that brought Septimius Severus to power. After Pertinax was
murdered on 28 March 193 Septimius and Pescennius Niger were proclaimed
emperor by their respective armies at Carnuntum on the Danube and Antioch
in Syria.88 Septimius occupied Rome and then, on 9 July, left for the east to
confront Niger. In the last months of the year he won an important victory
over Niger at Cyzicus on the Dardanelles. In 194 Niger’s support dwindled,
as Egypt and Arabia went over to Severus. Severus won another victory a lit-
tle further to the east, between Cius and Nicaea, perhaps in January 194, and
his army, overrunning Bithynia and Galatia, marched into Cappadocia.
While this was happening, says Herodian, local rivalries broke out in Syria.89
Laodicea, the enemy of Antioch, and Tyre, the rival of Berytus, declared for
Severus. When the retreating Niger reached Antioch, he heard of the defec-
tion of Laodicea and Tyre and dispatched Moroccan spearmen and archers,
who looted and set fire to the two cities. There may have been another reason
81 D 48.22.7.15 (Ulp. 10 off. cons.)
82 D 48.22.18 pr (Call.); 27.1.6.11 (2 excus.); 50.1.33 (Mod. 1 manu.); Spagnuolo Vigorita
(1996)
83 D 45.1.70 (11 ed.)
84 Eissfeldt (1939) 1876; Kunkel (1967) 249517; Crifò (1976) 739; Rey-Coquais (1978) 44, 54f.
85 CIL X 1601, CIG V 853 86 AE 1988.1051 87 Liebs (1984) 442
88 Hasebroek (1921) 190f.; Downey (1961) 89 Herodian 3.2.7–3.3.5
why Tyre supported Severus. Tyre and Sidon were the founding cities of
Carthage, and Severus, apart from his Caesar, Clodius Albinus, was the first
and only emperor from Africa.
To prevent a repetition of the revolt that Niger had mustered in the east,
the victorious Septimius divided Syria into two. He deprived Antioch of its
status as capital of the much-truncated Syria Coele, and made Tyre capital of
the newly founded Syria Phoenice. Many of his supporters came from these
provinces.90 Phoenice extended to the north to include Emesa and Palmyra.
It became the seat of the council (κοινν) of Syria and of the High Priest of
Phoenicia (φοινικρχης).91 Some years later, perhaps after 198, Severus made
Tyre a Roman colony and settled in it veterans of Legio III Gallica.92 It was
now called the metropolitan colony of Septimius Severus (Colonia Septimia
Severa metropolis). Ulpian mentions, after the lyrical passage quoted,93 that
Severus and Caracalla conferred Italian rights (ius Italicum) on Tyre, for its
‘signal and outstanding loyalty to the state and the Roman empire’.94
Caracalla probably became Augustus in the autumn of 197,95 so that this
grant cannot have occurred earlier. It may have been made along with the
grant of colonial status, or perhaps later. Italian right96 carried with it notable
privileges, including a degree of autonomy and exemption from capitation
and land tax (tributum capitis, tributum soli).
It has been said that Elagabal reduced Tyre in rank because of a military
revolt, and that Alexander Severus restored it to its previous position.97 In the
civil war between Macrinus and Elagabal in 218 Sidon, Tyre’s twin town,
sided with Elagabal. While it is not proved that Tyre sided with Macrinus, it
evidently lost some privileges, and is not called a colony or metropolis on
coins of Elagabal apart from the early ones. It seems, then, to have suffered
disgrace, but not immediately on the fall of Macrinus. Whether the disgrace
was connected with a revolt of Legio III Gallica, which, having raised
Elagabal to the throne, later rebelled, is uncertain, since the legion was not
stationed in Tyre itself but in nearby Raphanae. At any rate Alexander
restored Tyre’s privileges, as one would expect given his dependence on
Ulpian in the early part of his reign.98
Ulpian’s connection with Tyre has elicited puzzlement on another point.
Is he identical with the Oulpianos who presides as toastmaster in the
Sophists at Dinner (Deipnosphistae) of Athenaeus?99 The relation between
90 Leunissen (1989); Millar (1993) 91 Eissfeldt (1939) 1900

92 Eissfeldt (1939) 1900 93 Above n.77
94 D 50.15.1 pr (1 cens: ob egregiam in rem publicam imperiumque Romanum insignem fidem);
Ziegler (1978) 498

95
Kienast (1995) 162
96
Premerstein (1917) 1238; Luzzatto (1951) 79; Vittinghoff (1951) 465; Berger (1953) 530;
Ziegler (1978) 499
97 98 99
Eissfeldt (1939) 1900–1 See Ziegler (1978) 493 A. Stein (1943)
them has been canvassed in writings about Ulpian and his career. It merits
a brief discussion.100
The Sophists at Dinner is a work in fifteen books in the form of a sympo-
sium, or discussion at dinner. The talk, in turns entertaining and boring, is
about the meaning and derivation of words and the passages in which they
feature in Greek literature. Oulpianos, the toast-master, refuses to eat a dish
before he is satisfied about the etymology of the word used to name or
describe it.101 He is depicted as a learned but bad-tempered pedant, con-
cerned to preserve the purity of Greek from Roman intrusion.102 He pretends
not to understand Latin words or their derivatives.
None of this would point to a connection with the lawyer were it not that
Oulpianos is described as coming from Tyre.103 The date of the Sophists at
Dinner must be later than 192, since in book 12 the author refers to
Commodus, who died in 192, in a disrespectful way. Commodus ‘in our own
times’ sat in his chariot, with Hercules’ club beside him and a lion skin spread
out below, ‘trying unsuccessfully to imitate the God’.104 Some of the particip-
ants in the symposium are drawn from real life. The host Larensis, a Roman
knight, who gives the party in Rome, seems to be P. Livius Larensis, known
from a touching but undated inscription on a tombstone dedicated to him by
his wife.105 Galen the doctor, also a guest, can hardly be other than the famous
anatomist and physiologist who, like the guest, came from Pergamum.106 The
real Galen, born in 129, is now thought to have lived on into his eighties, per-
haps as late as 216.107 At the end of the work Oulpianos dies,108 while nothing
is said of Galen, who is presumably still alive. So the dramatic date can hardly
be later than 216.
Some scholars, beginning with Kaibel, have identified Oulpianos with
Ulpian.109 Others, such as Kunkel, have for good reason dissented.110
Athenaeus could hardly depict Ulpian, who died in 223 or 224, as dying
during Galen’s lifetime. In any case they differ intellectually. Oulpianos,
assuming he is a real person, is a partisan of Greek culture, an Atticist in mat-
ters of language. He is a word-fancier,111 hypercritical,112 and is nicknamed
100 Kaibel (1887) intro: Dittenberger (1903) 1–28; P. Krüger (1912) 239143; Kunkel (1967)
249–51; Crifò (1976) 715–34. The references to Oulpianos in Athenaeus’ text are collected in
Kaibel (1887) 3.564 cf. Jörs (1903) 5.1435. Background in Bowersock (1969); Swain (1996) 43–64.
Editions by Kaibel (1887) and Gulick (1927–41) cf. for technique Mengis (1920)
101 Athenaeus 9.401 cf. Swain (1996) 49–51 102 Athenaeus 3.12f, 3.98c, 8.361
103 Athenaeus 1.1d (Τριος) cf. 8.346c (Σρων) 9.368c (Συραττικ)
104 Athenaeus 12.537; Wenger (1953) 232112 105 CIL VI 2126
106 Mewaldt (1912); PIR2 G 24. He was born in 129 and according to the Suda attained 70 but
in reality lived to some date between 204 and 216: Swain (1996) 368–9, 430–2
107 Nutton (1995) 25–39 108 Athenaeus 15.686c
109 Kaibel (1887) 1.vif.; Mengis (1930) 23 f.; Crifò (1976) 721–2, 734 contra Wenger (1933)
23214
110 Wenger (1933) 23214 ; Kunkel (1967) 251
111 Athenaeus 9.401b: ροντιστ κα λογιστ 112 Athenaeus 14.613c: ιλεπιτιµητ#ς
‘Mr Is-the-term-found-or-not?’.113 Though both were scholars, intellectually

he is very unlike Ulpian. At least at a cultural level Oulpianos rejects Rome.
The last thing to which he would apply himself is the study of Roman law.
Ulpian by contrast is proud of the connection of Tyre with Rome and is
devoted to the law of Rome, its most lasting cultural achievement. He could
be thought of as rejecting the values of Hellenism.114 He was one of those
easterners, crucial to the development and transmission of Roman law, who
found in it a systematic discipline whose intellectual demands were compara-
ble to those of Greek literature and philosophy (‘wise, precise, varied,
admirable, and in a word very Hellenic’).115 Crifò sees a parallel between
Ulpian’s discussion of the meaning of terms used in legacies and Oulpianos’
inquiries into etymology. But the gulf is deep. In interpreting legacies the
lawyer’s guide is the intention of the testator, to be gathered from common
usage or from the testator’s own habits of speech, rather than the etymology
of the word on its own. To decide whether a legacy of papyrus (chartae)
includes books (libri) one may have to look at whether the testator was a
scholar, whether he possessed anything apart from books, and at the fact that
some people call books ‘papyrus’.116 In reality the only points common to
Oulpianos and Ulpian, apart from the name, consist in the attachment of
both Oulpianos, the ‘Syratticist’,117 and Ulpian to Tyre and Syria. That does
not make them the same person. But though Oulpianos is not Ulpian, they
may both have belonged to a family of scholars from Tyre. Oulpianos could,
for instance, have been Ulpian’s father, uncle, or brother, perhaps someone
against whose Attic classicism Ulpian was reacting.118
Kunkel suggests that Ulpian’s pride in both Tyre and Rome can best be
explained if his family was descended from Roman or Italian merchants who
had been established in Tyre for some generations.119 The gentile name
Domitius is found less in the eastern than the western provinces, and may go
back to the first century AD, when senatorial families with this name such as
the Ahenobarbi, Calvini, and Corbulones had not yet disappeared.120 The
combination Gnaeus Domitius was commoner among first-century senator-
ial families than later. If Ulpian owned the house at Centumcellae121 he may
have been descended from a forebear who acquired Roman citizenship in the
first century. The governor of Syria in AD 60–3 was Gnaeus Domitius
113 Athenaeus 1.1c: Κειτοκειτος 114 Frezza (1983) 415–6

115 Gregorius (Thaumaturgus), Thanks to Origen 7 = Crouzel (1969) 148 referring to about
230 AD; Millar (1978) 187; (1986) 272
116 D 32.52.4 (24 Sab: . . . nec chartis legatis libri debebuntur, nisi forte et hic nos urserit volun-
tas: ut puta si quis forte chartas sic reliquerit ‘chartas meas universas’ qui nihil aliud quam libros
habebat, studiosus studioso: nemo enim dubitabit libros deberi. namque et in usu plerique libros
chartas appellant) cf. 50.16.60 pr (69 ed: ‘locus’ and ‘fundus’: it is not size but intention—nostra
affectio—that determines whether something is one or the other)
117 Athenaeus 9.368c 118 Syme (1980) 101 = (1984) 1411123
119 Kunkel (1967) 248 120 Kunkel (1967) 253 121 Above n.71–4
Corbulo, the only Domitius known to have governed the province before
Ulpian’s time. Corbulo had a stepson Annius Vinicianus, so that this second
gentile name, found on the Centumcellae pipe, could go back to the same
period.122 If these clues are reliable, Ulpian’s family had probably been estab-
lished in Tyre for a considerable time. He certainly knew Greek as well as
Latin, and may have known Aramaic. But the attempt to show that his writ-
ing betrays strong Semitic or Greek influence has so far carried little convic-
tion.123 He composes in Latin but has a good command of Greek, as is shown
in many texts where he gives the Greek equivalent of some Latin term or
inserts a brief word or phrase, but never a whole sentence, in Greek. His Latin
is at times colloquial, because he is dictating, but it is clear and correct, closer
to some first-century Latin, for example that of Quintilian, than to third-
century Latin. Cicero and Quintilian seem to have had a strong influence on
his style and thought.
IV. THE REIGN OF SEVERUS 193–211
Ulpian must have been born about 170.124 His career can be divided into
three periods. Comparison of his private writings with the rescripts of the
early third century shows that he was drafting rescripts as secretary for peti-
tions (procurator a libellis) or his assistant on behalf of Severus and Caracalla
from at latest August 202 to at earliest May 209. From 213 to 217 under
Caracalla and Macrinus he composed his major restatement of Roman law in
the light of the Antonine constitution of 212, according to a plan explained in
chapters 7–9. In March 222 he was prefect of supply (praefectus annonae) and
in December of that year praetorian prefect (praefectus praetorio), a post that
he held under Alexander Severus until his assassination in 223 or 224. There
are gaps between the first and second period, and between the second and
third. These can be filled to some extent from a combination of evidence and
speculation. But we know nothing about his career before 202.
Frezza supposes him to have had a period practising as an advocate before
202/3.125 This is possible but not proved. It has also been suggested that he
began as assessor to a praetor, or to Papinian, or with a procuratorship in
Gaul. None of these ideas withstands careful scrutiny, if ‘assessor’126 is taken
to refer to a junior paid post, often held by a trained lawyer, of the sort about
which Paul wrote a monograph.127 But if by ‘assessor’ is meant a legal expert
122 Kunkel (1967) 254
123 Heineccius, ‘De Ulpiani Hebraismis’, (1765–71) 2.249; Kunkel (1967) 251; Kalb (1888)
127; Volterra (1937) 3.158–63; Wenger (1953) 519311; Yaron (1987) 3–17
124 Liebs (1997) §424
125 Frezza (1983) 415, citing the reference to popularis meus in D 45.1.70 (11 ed.)
126 Hitzig (1893); Behrends (1969) 192–226; Coriat (1997) 243
127 D 1.22.1 (Paul 1 de off. adsessorum)
who is a member of a magistrate or official’s council128 there is evidence that

Ulpian acted in this capacity both to praetors in Rome and to Papinian as
praetorian prefect. This does not shed light, however, on his early career. His
advising Papinian and the praetors belongs to a period after 202.
The idea that Ulpian was assessor to a praetor comes from a text in Edict
book 11,129 which is probably to be dated 213.130 Ulpian says that he knows
from personal experience (ex facto scio) that when the Campanians terrorized
someone into making them a promise in writing (no doubt to repair or con-
struct a public work) Caracalla gave a rescript to the effect that the person
who had made the promise could approach the praetor to be freed from it and
restored to his previous position. When Ulpian was sitting with the praetor
(me adsidente) the praetor ruled that the person in question could either sue
the Campanians or wait to be sued by them and then raise coercion as a
defence.
The rescript must belong to the early part of Caracalla’s sole rule, and so
consequently must Ulpian’s advice to the praetor. Ulpian was sitting with
him as legal adviser, and by implication the praetor took his advice. Jörs
pointed out that Ulpian could not have held the junior post of paid assessor
as late as the reign of Caracalla.131 It is in any case not shown that ordinary
republican magistrates such as the urban praetor had paid assessors in the
second century AD.132 Even if they did, Ulpian’s role here was that of an emi-
nent lawyer advising a magistrate as a friendly duty, not that of a young man
with legal training holding a junior paid post. Adsidere does not in this con-
text mean to act as a paid assessor but to act as a member of the praetor’s
council to advise him on the law.133 In the case discussed the praetor was
faced with the technical problem of how to give effect to Caracalla’s rescript.
Ulpian provided the answer, or rather alternative answers.
The text shows nothing about Ulpian’s early career but throws light on how
he spent his time after ceasing to be secretary for petitions in 208 and before
undertaking his massive programme of writing in 213. Some other texts seem
to stem, though less obviously, from Ulpian’s experiences in advising praetors.
In his Trusts (De fideicommissis) he discusses a gift in trust of water to a freed
slave.134 He was consulted (consulebar) and replied (dicebam) that a trust of
this sort was valid in dry areas like Africa and Egypt. The imperfect shows that
this was not a written juristic reply (responsum). Nor is it a statement made in
the course of a disputation, since that would be introduced by ‘it is asked’
(quaeritur) or the like. Ulpian was probably consulted by the praetor for trusts
128
e.g. Celsus senior in D 31.29 pr (Cels. 36 dig.). Kunkel (1967) 331697 contra Wenger (1953)
519311; NNDI (1964) 355
129 130 131
D 4.2.9.3 (11 ed.) Ch.8 n.15–21 Jörs (1903) 1438
132
Seeck (1894) 423–6; Kaser (1966) 367; Kunkel (1967) 331 but contra Behrends (1969) 192,
216 citing Seneca, Peace of Mind (De tranq. animi) 3.4
133 134
D 1.22.6 (Pap. 1 resp.) D 34.1.14.3 (2 fid.)
(praetor fideicommissarius). In another text he mentions a trust by which a

legatee is asked to emancipate his children.135 Ulpian remembers saying (reti-
neo me dixisse) that the children could not sue on the trust, because the prae-
tor for trusts does not protect child beneficiaries of a trust as he does slaves.
Again, this is a probably a case where he was consulted by the praetor for
trusts.
Ulpian seems also to have advised the praetor for guardianship ( praetor
tutelaris). An incomplete text from his Office of the Praetor for Guardianship
(De officio praetoris tutelaris) say that he remembers (memini) that on his
advice (me suadente) the praetor decided to compel a freed slave to act as
curator for the son of the woman who had freed him.136 A few other texts,
based on Ulpian’s recollection, also look as if they might record advice given
by him to one of the praetors in Rome.137 The most likely periods are 205–7,
when Ulpian was with Severus in Rome as secretary for petitions, and 211–2,
after his return from the Scottish campaign but before his major literary
enterprise that began in 213.
As an equestrian, Ulpian would be junior in rank to the praetors whom he
advised, who were senators. His intellectual authority, however, was great. In
Edict book 5 he says that when he was in a country-house with a praetor he
allowed ( passus sum) a slave to be freed before the praetor though no lictor
was present.138 Julian in a previous generation merely persuaded (suasi) some
praetors who consulted him that it was proper for them to manumit their
slaves with their rod of office (vindicta).139 The text from book 5, and the
incident in the country house, must be earlier than 213.140
Two passages of the Augustan History say that Ulpian and Paul were legal
advisers to Papinian.141 This, if correct, must mean that they were members
of his council of advisers when he was praetorian prefect (205–11). A Digest
text confirms it for Paul.142 The praetorian prefect’s advisers seem to have
been chosen by the emperor personally,143 since the praetorian prefect exer-
cised jurisdiction on the emperor’s behalf. It is quite possible that Severus
chose Paul and Ulpian for this role, and if assessores in the second HA pas-
sage is taken to mean members of Papinian’s council, there is no objection to
it. As appears from the discussion of sources in chapter 6,144 Ulpian was close
to Papinian, the only lawyer whom he cites in the imperfect. The context is the
135 136
D 35.1.92 (5 fid.) Frag. Vat. 220 (1 off. pr. tut.); Pernice (1885) 355
137 D 4.3.2 (11 ed.), 26.1.18 pr (2 fid.); 36.1.18.5 (4 fid.), Frag. Vat. 242 (1 off. pr. tut.)
138 D 40.2.8 (5 ed.). Dorotheus in the Basilica (Heimbach 4.624) has Ulpian sitting with the
praetor ( %&τινι συν#δρευσα) but in the context this can only mean ‘advising’
139 D 40.2.5 (Iul. 42 dig.) cf. 22.1.3.3 (Pap. 20 quaest.) 140 Ch.8 n.15–21
141
HA Pescennius Niger 7.3–4 (qui Papiniano in consilio fuerunt); Severus Alexander 26.5 (qui
tamen ambo assessores Papiniani fuisse dicuntur)
142
D 12.1.40 (Paul 3 quaest.)
143
CIL XI 6337: Ti. Claudius Zeno Ulpianus ex sacra iussione adhibitus in consilium praef.
praet. item urbi; Pflaum (1960–1) no.294; Howe (1942) 37
144
Ch. 6 n.18–24
interpretation of Severus’ speech to the senate that validated gifts between

husband and wife if the donor died without revoking the gift.145 Ulpian
records what Papinian said about this in the course of discussion (recte
putabat . . . non putabat). The context might be a disputation, which Ulpian
was attending as a pupil or follower of Papinian, or a discussion in a case
heard by Severus in which they were both members of the emperor’s council.
A third suggestion about Ulpian’s early career is that he held a post, for
example a procuratorship, in Gaul.146 Ulpian mentions Gaul or things Gallic
from time to time. The Gallic language can be used to create a trust.147 ‘My
Italian estate’ includes slaves normally employed in Italy who are sent else-
where, for example to Gaul,
to collect debts or buy supplies.148 Adjoining provinces are those that adjoin Italy, for
example Gaul.149 A testator can impose a legacy on ‘the heir to my Gallic property’.150
A wife’s personal effects, not part of her dowry, are called παρερνα by the
Greeks but peculium by the Gauls. Calder points out that peculium is used in
Galatia as well as Gaul.151 None of these passages requires that Ulpian held
a post in Gaul, though as an equestrian he probably held one or more provin-
cial procuratorships early in his career.152 He travelled with Severus in 208
through Gaul on the way to Britain, and came back without him in 211. So
he knew something of Gaul. But he may not have had a close connection with
it. Unlike Paul,153 he does not list anywhere in Gaul as having Italian rights
(ius Italicum).154 The examples of languages other than Latin and Greek,
which in his Trusts (213 or 214) are Punic and Gallic,155 become Punic and
Assyrian (Aramaic) in the later books On Sabinus (216).156 In 214 a testator
speaks of his Gallic estate157 while in 216 a tutor is appointed to a ward’s
‘African or Syrian estate’.158 Caracalla and Julia Domna had moved east in
the interval, and Ulpian may have done the same.159 On the other hand he
may have remained in Rome with its convenient access to libraries.
We do not know how Ulpian’s career began, nor where he studied law, nor
who his teacher or teachers were. At some stage he must have taught law pri-
vately, because he refers to Modestinus as his pupil, studiosus meus.160
Moreover, Marcianus, writing after Caracalla’s death in 217, was clearly his
pupil.161 Ulpian’s Teaching Manual (Institutiones) also points to time spent
teaching. So do his ten books of Disputations (Publicae disputationes), which
involved the public discussion of moot points of law. He will have engaged in
145 D 24.1.23 (6 Sab.) 146 Bremer (1883) 84 147 D 32.11 pr (2 fid.)

148 D 28.5.35.3 (4 disp.) 149 D 50.16.99.1 (1 off. cons.) 150 D 30.4.1 (5 Sab.)
151 Calder (1923) 8
152 Liebs (1984) 442 153 D 50.15.8 (Paul 2 cens: Lyons and Vienne)
154 D 50.15.1 (1 cens.) 155 D 32.11 pr (2 fid.) 156 D 45.1.1.6 (48 Sab.)
157 D 30.4.1 (5 Sab.) 158 D 26.2.15 (38 Sab.)
159 For the dates of composition of these works see ch.8 n.15–6; ch. 9 n.33–56
160 D 47.2.52.20 (37 ed.) 161 Liebs (1997) §428.1
both public and private teaching. The references he makes to special condi-
tions in Arabia,162 Egypt,163 Asia,164 and Africa165 show that he was abreast
of conditions in a number of provinces.166 But he need not have held posts in
those provinces. His upstage way of referring to magistrates and high officials
suggests a man who has not spent much time in humble provincial posts and
has long been associated with the central government. My guess is that
Ulpian assisted Papinian at least for part of the time when the latter was
drafting rescripts for Severus as secretary for petitions (194–202). The secre-
tary for petitions ( procurator a libellis, later magister libellorum) was the
official who dealt with petitions to the emperor that raised points of law, at
any rate those of any difficulty, and suggested a draft reply. The drafts were
often, though of course not always, accepted without modification and in due
course issued as imperial rescripts.167 If Ulpian assisted Papinian in this way
he could have been with Severus for much of his reign, including his visit to
Egypt in 199–200 and to Syria in 201.168 Though the post of assistant to the
secretary for petitions is not attested its existence cannot, given the increased
volume of work in Severus’ reign, be ruled out.
Secretary/assistant for petitions (202–9). That Ulpian held the office of secre-
tary for petitions ( procurator a libellis) is asserted in a muddled passage of the
Augustan History.169 Eutropius170 and Festus171 both say that he held this
office under Alexander. That is impossible,172 since within three weeks of
Alexander’s becoming Augustus Ulpian is already a prefect.173 Nor is the vari-
ant suggested by Syme that Ulpian was secretary to Alexander as Caesar
viable,174 though a Caesar could have a secretary for petitions.175 The HA
account is more plausible if only because by implication it puts Ulpian’s tenure
of the office of petitions in the reign of Severus.176 The passage says that
Pescennius Niger proposed that assessors should administer the departments
in which they had been assessors. Severus and others adopted this policy, as is
162
D 47.11.9 (9 off. proc.)
163
D 47.11.10 (9 off. proc.), 32.55.5 (25 Sab.): see Bonneau (1969)
164 165
D 1.16.4.5 (1 off. proc.) D 34.1.14.3 (2 fid.) contra Bremer (1868)
166
D 3.2.4.2 (6 ed.), 32.55.6 (25 Sab.)
167 Honoré (1994) 43–8. Millar (1992) 648–52 thinks this model too bureaucratic for the
period
168 Coriat (1997) 386–8. Birley (1988) 133 thinks that by 198 both Papinian and Ulpian were
influential. Contrary to the accepted view which treats him as African (Liebs 1997, § 416) Birley
makes Papinian Syrian
169 HA Pescennius Niger 7.3–4: intimavit, ut assessores, in quibus provinciis adsedissent, in
his administrarent. Quod postea Severus et deinceps multi tenuerunt, ut probant Pauli et Ulpiani
praefecturae, qui Papiniano in consilio fuerunt ac postea, cum unus ad memoriam alter ad libellos
paruisset, statim praefecti facti sunt
170 Eutropius 9.33: adsessorem habuit vel scrinii magistrum Ulpianum, iuris conditorem
171 Festus 22
172 Despite Syme (1980) 81 = (1984) 1395. For differing views see Coriat (1997) 261, 559, 570
173 CJ 8.37.4 (31 March 222) 174 cf. Syme (1980) 93 = (1984) 1405
175 CIL XIV.5347 (L. Volusius Maecianus) 176 Jörs (1903) 1437
shown by the prefectures of Paul and Ulpian. Both were councillors of

Papinian, and after Paul had become secretary for records and Ulpian for peti-
tions, they were immediately made prefects. Garbled as this is, the historical
evidence is consistent with its being in part correct.177 Ulpian was secretary for
petitions, he and Paul were councillors of Papinian, he succeeded Papinian (as
secretary for petitions, not as prefect), and he ultimately (though not at once)
became prefect of supply and then praetorian prefect.
The first secure date in Ulpian’s career is 30 August 202, when we find
the first rescript that can unequivocally be attributed to his drafting.178 He
succeeds Papinian, whose last securely datable rescript was issued on 12
February 202.179 Indeed Ulpian may have succeeded him earlier, since a
rescript of 25 March 202180 is equivocal in point of style.181 It may be
Papinian’s or may belong to a period of overlap.182 By this is meant a time
when Papinian had left office and his successor Ulpian was presenting
Papinian’s draft to the emperor with his own modifications.183 The earlier
date is not impossible, since Severus returned to Rome from the east in the
spring of 202 and the change from one secretary to the next may be connected
with his return. The text of 30 August 202 points more decisively towards
Ulpian’s authorship.184
‘Who would deprecate the appeal to variations of vocabulary and style
when they occur in a large mass of homogeneous material?’185 It is through
parallels of style and vocabulary that we reach the conclusion that Ulpian was
drafting imperial rescripts from August 202 at the latest until May 209.186
Sixty-six of them have survived from Justinian’s Codex and three from other
sources.187 Adding to these fourteen undated rescripts of Severus and
Antoninus in the same style and twelve from Justinian’s Digest and Institutes
we arrive at a total of ninety-five rescripts that can be attributed to the scholar
from Tyre. His period of office is just over six years, a long time. It is true that
seven rescripts composed in April and August–September 205, the crisis year
when Plautianus fell, seem to be by a different hand, perhaps that of
Papinian.188 But this is a small proportion of the total. Liebs,189 in answer to
177 Liebs (1987b) 111f.; Syme (1980) 86f. = (1984) 1399f. is highly sceptical
178 CJ 2.1.3–3.9.1 (30 Aug 202) 179 CJ 2.3.2 (12 Feb 202)
180 CJ 2.3.3 (25 March 202)
181 In the first edition of Emperors and Lawyers I dated Ulpian’s tenure of office from this
rescript (Honoré 1981, 59–64). In the second edition I postponed it out of caution to CJ 5.66.1,
5 April 203 (Honoré 1994, 81)
182 Honoré (1994) 80 183 Honoré (1994) 62–3
184 CJ 2.1.3–3.9.1 (30 Aug 202): ‘permultum interest’ points strongly to Ulpian: ch.2 n.688–93.
The parallel of authority and equity (auctoritas, aequitas) in 2.1.3 is also telling
185
Syme (1980) 95 = (1984) 1406–7
186
Honoré (1981) 59–64; (1994) 81–91; Birks (1983) 153; Liebs (1997) §424 p.176
187
Honoré (1994) 81 n. 65–6; 131 n.789–90. He may also have drafted Caracalla’s speech to
the senate about donations between husband and wife: below n.240; Birley (1988) 166–7
188 189
Honoré (1994) 86 n.168–9 Liebs (1983a) 496; (1987) 179; (1997) §424 p.176
Syme,190 has suggested that Ulpian, though drafting imperial rescripts for
Severus, did not hold the office of secretary for petitions for the whole period.
In the first two years, up to the fall of Plautianus in 205, Aelius Coeranus191
was secretary, paid at the 300,000 sesterces rate, and Ulpian was his assistant,
paid at the lower 60,000 sesterces rate. It is, however, possible that Coeranus
was secretary for petitions to Caracalla while Ulpian was secretary to
Severus, since each Augustus will have had his own secretary, though only the
rescripts issued by the senior Augustus were collected as having general
authority.
The important point is that the rescripts from August 202 onwards are in
Ulpian’s style and reflect his vocabulary. Allowance must, however, be made
for the fact that in composing rescripts Ulpian is composing in writing
whereas his works in his own name are dictated and come some years later.192
His literary style, as it emerges from texts in Justinian’s Digest, is discussed in
chapter 2. The parallels between what he wrote as a private author and the
rescripts of April 203 to May 209 were set out in the first edition of this
book193 and in Emperors and Lawyers.194 They will not be repeated here. But
it is important for the understanding of Ulpian’s public role to illustrate one
feature of the rescripts for which he was responsible: the vigour and directness
of their approach, unparalleled in the later principate. This vigour contrasts
with the understatement that Papinian favoured both in his private writing
and in the rescripts he drafted for Severus between September 194 and
February 202.195
A rescript of Papinian’s time can modestly end ‘you will not raise the
defence in vain’ (non inutiliter defenderis).196 Ulpian is forthright. He often
begins a rescript by advising or scolding the petitioner. ‘Approach the gover-
nor’ (Adite praesidem);197 ‘You wrongly believe’ (Falsa suasione credis),198
‘You are asking for something unjust and unusual’ (Neque aequam neque usi-
tatam rem desideras);199 ‘It is unusual and a bad example’ (Insolitum est et
grave exemplo);200 ‘You are asking for something contrary to law’ (Incivilem
rem desideras), 201 ‘You are wrong to be afraid that’ (Frustra times);202 ‘Your
thinking accords with legal principle’ (Secundum rationem iuris existimas);203
‘We do not see why you want’ (Non animadvertimus cur velis);204 ‘You should
know’ (Scire debes).205 He can also criticize judges: ‘The procurators were
wrong in refusing’ (Non recte procuratores noluerunt);206 ‘The judge was too
190 Syme (1980) 94 = (1984) 1406

191 PIR2 A 191; Heberdey (1912) 125; Honoré (1994) 191 192 Ch.2 n.6–11
193 Honoré (1982) 191–205
194 Honoré (1981) 59–64; (1994) 81–6 cf. Coriat (1997) 271–2, 279–80; Liebs (1997) §424a
195 Honoré (1994) 76–81 196 CJ 2.3.2 (1 Feb 202) 197 CJ 3.8.1 (19 Nov 203)
198 CJ 5.62.1 (1 May 204 ) 199 CJ 4.2.1 (1 July 204) 200 CJ 9.41.2 (11 Sept 204)
201 CJ 6.2.2 (29 Nov 204) 202 CJ 5.37.1 (20 Sept 207)
203 CJ 5.18.2 (4 Apr 207) 204 CJ 3.26.2 (20 Sept 207)
205 CJ 7.74.1 (1 May 209) 206 CJ 8.40.3 pr (16 Aug 208)
hasty in ordering’ (Nimis propere iudex iussit).207 He freely resorts to impera-

tives: approach, show, summon, take care, take action, press on, sue, offer,
pay (adite,208 docete,209 evoca,210 curate,211 age,212 insta,213 actionibus
utaris,214 offerte,215 exsolve216). Papinian’s rescripts run only to a single
imperative, ‘allege’ (adlega).217
Along with this extrovert manner goes an explicit statement of rule-of-law
values, of which the most striking comes in a famous rescript of Severus and
Antoninus cited in Justinian’s Institutes. ‘Though’, the emperors say, ‘we are
not bound by the laws we live by the laws.’.218 The construction licet . . . atta-
men points to Ulpian’s drafting.219 The idea he expresses is of course not his
invention. It reflects the ideology of Severus and his age, and the emperor had
to endorse all rescripts in his own hand. Ulpian, in the emperor’s name,
makes a serious effort to persuade the petitioner that the answer to his or her
petition is just,220 rational,221 necessary,222 and indeed that the petitioner
knows it is correct.223 Reason is at least on a level with authority: ‘reason
urges and Marcus ruled’ in favour of a solution to a problem in the law of
wills.224 Millar plausibly suggests that Ulpian’s characteristic style and
approach were formed during this period spent as one of Severus’ secre-
taries.225
As secretary for petitions Ulpian will have accompanied Severus, Julia
Domna, their two sons, and Papinian, now praetorian prefect, across Gaul to
Britain for the emperor’s campaign in the north of Britain. We have eight
rescripts for 208, only four for 209. Two of these, dated 1 January and 1 May,
are clearly Ulpian’s.226 The third, of 13 July, 227 may also be, but may instead
belong to a period of overlap when a draft by Ulpian was modified by his suc-
cessor, whose style is closer to that of Papinian. A rescript of 31 December
209228 is certainly by the incoming secretary.
207 208 209
CJ 7.53.1 (30 Jan 206) CJ 3.8.1 (19 Nov 203) CJ 3.8.1 (19 Nov 203)
210 211
CJ 2.12.3 pr (23 Aug 204) CJ 6.2.2 (29 Nov 204)
212 213
CJ 5.37.1 (20 Sept 206) CJ 5.37.1 (20 Sept 206)
214 215
CJ 2.31.1 (Sev. et Ant. undated) CJ 12.33.1 (Sev. et Ant. undated)
216 217
CJ 4.61.3 (Sev. et Ant. undated) CJ 8.2.1 (25 Dec 197)
218
Just. Inst. 2.17.8: licet enim legibus soluti sumus, attamen legibus vivimus
219
The only other example of this construction in the rescripts comes in CJ 5.18.2 (4 Apr 207);
Honoré (1994) 83126–7
220
CJ 4.2.1 (1 July 204: neque aequam neque usitatam rem desideras); 6.46.2 pr (22 July 205);
2.12.4 (4 Jan 207: aequum est); 3.28.4 (10 March 208: non est aequum); 4.61.1 (Sev et. Ant.
undated: non est aequum)
221 CJ 6.26.2 (27 July 204: ratio suadet); 2.3.4 (10 Feb 206: nulla ratio permittit); 5.18.2 (4 Apr
207: secundum rationem iuris); 7.45.1 (29 May 208: non videtur rationem habere); 8.13.4 (30 May
208: non habet rationem)
222
CJ 6.3.1 (30 Dec 204: nisi necessitas suaserit)
223
CJ 6.3.1 (30 Dec 204); 4.2.1 (1 July 204); 5.15.1 (20 July 204); 5.69.1.2 (12 Oct 205); 8.15.2
(14 Oct 205); 5.62.3 (15 March 206); 8.40.3.1 (16 Aug 208); 7.74.1 (1 May 209) cf. CIL 3.14203.8
224
CJ 6.26.2 (27 July 204: et ratio suadet et divus Marcus pater constituit)
225 226
Millar (1986) 277 CJ 7.62.1 (13 Jan 209), 7.7.41 (1 May)
227 228
CJ 8.18.1 (13 July 209) CJ 7.8.3 (31 Dec 209)
Why did Ulpian’s term of office end in the summer or autumn of 209?
Presumably because he accompanied Severus and Caracalla on their cam-
paign in Scotland, while Julia Domna and Geta remained behind in York.229
Geta was left in charge of the civil business of the empire, including the issu-
ing of rescripts.230 During the course of the year Geta was belatedly made an
Augustus, eleven years after his brother. His promotion was known in Athens
in October or November 209.231 In 210 Severus, ill with gout, remained in
York while Caracalla again campaigned in Scotland. There were prepara-
tions for another campaign, but Severus died at York on 4 February 211.
V. THE REIGNS OF CARACALLA AND MACRINUS
On Severus’ death the imperial party returned to Rome. Severus had wanted
both sons to succeed him, and both had their supporters. Papinian, a close
friend of Severus, supported the idea of joint rule, and Ulpian’s successor as
secretary, whose identity is not known, remained in office at least until 26
November 211.232 This was shortly before Geta was lured to a meeting with
their mother, supposedly of reconciliation, and treacherously murdered on 19
or 26 December of that year.233 This secretary (no.3) 234 was presumably a pro-
tégé of Papinian and a supporter of Geta. A rescript of 28 Dec. 211235 perhaps
belongs to a period of overlap with the next secretary. No.3 was replaced at the
beginning of January at the latest,236 probably by Arrius Menander,237 a
lawyer and imperial councillor during the reign of Severus who had written a
treatise on military law and who was clearly Caracalla’s choice. Papinian was
dismissed as praetorian prefect after Severus’ death238 and executed in 212 on
the basis of charges brought by the praetorian guards after Geta’s death.239
Ulpian escaped Papinian’s fate. He sided with Caracalla in good time.
What he wrote in Caracalla’s reign, especially in the early years, treats him in
flattering terms and points to a good relationship between them.240 In 211
229 230
Dio 76.13; Hasebroek (1921) 142–3, 148–9; Gilliam–Mann (1976) Herodian 3.14.9
231
Kienast (1995) 166; Birley (1988) would postpone his promotion to 210, but the change of
secretary for petitions in 209 suggests that 209 is correct
232 Honoré (1994) 86–8 233 Kienast (1995) 166
234 Secretary no.3 in Honoré (1994). The secretaries are listed at pp.190–1
235 CJ 6.44.1 (28 Dec 211) 236 CJ 5.75.1 (5 Jan 212)
237 Lenel (1889) 1.695–700; D 4.4.11.2 (Ulp. 11 ed.); Giuffrè (1974a); Honoré (1994) 88–91;
Liebs (1997) §419.7

238 239
Dio 78.1.1 Dio 78.4.1a
240
Ch.7 n.20–2, 30–4; ch.8 n.2–5. The close connection may go back to 206, when Caracalla
was riding high after the fall of Plautianus. Caracalla’s speech to the senate of that year about
gifts between husband and wife sounds as if it was drafted by Ulpian, who was then secretary for
petitions and writes about it with enthusiasm: D 24.1.32 pr, 2 (33 Sab: Antoninus Augustus ante
excessum divi Severi patri sui oratione in senatu habita auctor fuit senatui censendi . . . ‘fas esse eum
quidem qui donavit <posse> paenitere: heredem vero eripere forsitan adversus voluntatem supre-
mam ius qui donaverit durum et avarum esse’)
there were indeed arguments to support Caracalla. Though Severus ulti-

mately decided on a joint succession and enjoined harmony on his children,
he had allowed eleven years to pass before raising Geta to the status of
Augustus which his brother, only one year older, had held all that time. All
that Severus did up to 209 pointed to respect for Caracalla’s abilities and con-
tempt for those of Geta, though some of those hostile to Caracalla, such as
Herodian, later attributed to Geta increasing signs of moderation and serious
interests.241 Unless the two rulers were on good terms and the junior
respected the senior, as in the case of Marcus and Verus, the auguries for joint
rule were not favourable. The Roman law of intestate succession, which pro-
vided that surviving children should be joint heirs,242 could not determine
succession to the position of emperor, which was not hereditary.
For whatever reasons, Ulpian survived and worked to further Caracalla’s
ambitious aims. The bulk of his work was composed in the five years 213–7.
This is a conclusion that the references to emperors in his work make almost
inescapable.243 An older view that goes back to Mommsen244 is that he com-
posed most of his work earlier but revised it under Caracalla. The hypothesis
is not supported by internal evidence and is inconsistent with Ulpian’s having
been secretary for petitions in 203–9, when the first drafts would presumably
have been composed, and with his having dictated his works. It is an inven-
tion, meant to explain how so much was achieved in so short a time—a pre-
Ulpian parallel to the pre-Digest which was at one time wheeled on to explain
how Justinian’s Digest was compiled so quickly.245 In fact Ulpian had, apart
from drafting rescripts in 203–9, so far written little that has survived. A
monograph on Excuses (De excusationibus), which deals with the grounds on
which one may refuse to act as guardian, belongs to the reign of Severus or at
any rate the period before Caracalla’s sole rule.246 This may have been the
work that led to his being appointed secretary for petitions, as in the parallel
case of Menander’s work on military law.247 His critical notes on Marcellus’
Digesta must be a work of his youth.248 His notes on Papinian’s Responsa 249
are confined to the first nine books, composed and perhaps published before
Severus’ death. Ulpian could have annotated these books in 211 or 212. The
first five books of Ulpian On the Edict are to be dated some time before 213.
They may have been written in the first five weeks of 211, when everyone was
waiting for Severus to die. That is technically possible, since the imperial
241
Herodian 4.3.2–3 cf. Alföldy (1972)
242
The principle went back to the XII Tables: Kaser (1971) 695
243
Millar (1986) 274; Liebs (1997) §424 A; below ch.7 n.8–92
244
Mommsen (1904–13) 2.158–9, revived by Frier (1984) 863
245
Peters (1913) cf. Rodger (1983) 393–4
246 247
Frag. Vat. 125, 147, 149; Lenel (1889) 2.899–903: ch. 9 n.13 Honoré (1994) 85–91
248
Lenel (1889) 1.595–620 nos.37, 47, 107, 118, 200: Wolf (1959) 524f.; Liebs (1997) §424 p.179
249
Lenel (1889) 1.881–926 nos.396, 414, 526, 528, 529, 578, 624, 625, 626; Schulz (1961) 277–9;
Wieacker (1960) 341f.; Liebs (1997) §424 p.179
court moved with its books and files, but is no more than a guess. It is not
clear what office, if any, Ulpian held after ceasing to be secretary for petitions
in 209.
The scenario that best fits his subsequent career, and especially his literary
activity in 213–7, is that he remained close to the imperial family.250 His con-
cern for problems of public administration, on which he wrote more exten-
sively than anyone else, points in the same direction. Like Julia Domna he
was from Syria. A link with the imperial family is indicated by Ulpian’s state-
ment in Taxation (De censibus), probably to be dated 213,251 that he knows
that Caracalla allowed his cousin Julia Mammaea to retain the consular dig-
nity acquired though her first marriage, though she later married a husband
not of consular rank.252 Her second husband was in fact Gessius Marcianus,
father of Alexianus, the future emperor Alexander Severus. Ulpian is not cit-
ing a published rescript. He is reporting an item of inside knowledge. Julia
Mammaea dominated her son Alexianus and came to rely on Ulpian when
her son became emperor in 222. So Ulpian was in some way close to the
Syrian branch of the imperial family. But he was also close to Severus, and
knows that Arrius Menander, was, exceptionally, excused from a guardian-
ship already assumed.253 Menander was one of Severus’ legal counsellors,
later promoted by Caracalla to be secretary for petitions.
Given the outlook that emerges from his writing Ulpian will on theoretical
as well as practical grounds have favoured and, I suspect, advocated the
extension of citizenship that Caracalla effected by the Antonine constitution
(constitutio Antoniniana) of 212.254 That step, though presaged by earlier
developments, was revolutionary.255 As the Tabula Banasitana of 177 shows,
a generation earlier it was a complicated matter, involving the emperor’s
council, to obtain Roman citizenship.256 Up to 212 the customary law of var-
ious ethnic groups, the ius gentium, had been an element on which Roman law
drew for certain purposes, which might include criticism of existing civil law
institutions. Now Roman law became the ius gentium, the law of peoples.
Once that step had been taken, it was crucial to provide for the citizens of the
empire, new and old, a clear exposition of the common law to which they were
subject and in doing so to bring out its universal and rational character. This,
Ulpian, with his deep understanding of the problems of provincial adminis-
tration,257 was uniquely well qualified to do.
250 Syme (1971) 154 251 Ch.9 n.11–26 252 D 1.9.1 pr (2 cens.)
253 D 4.4.11.2 (Ulp. 11 ed.). On Menander see Jörs (1895); Liebs (1997) §419.7; Honoré (1994)
88–91
254 Literature above n.30; Birley (1988) 190: Paul and Ulpian may have recommended this
enactment
255 For the parallel between the constitutio Antoniniana and the extension of citizenship to
non-white South Africans, along with legal implications, see Honoré (1990); Mandela (1993).
For a more conservative interpretation see Sherwin-White (1972).
256 257
Seston–Euzennat (1971) 468–90 Millar (1986) 275
The traditional date of the Antonine constitution has been challenged.258

But the argument in favour of a later date has not won general acceptance.
There are two ways of approaching the problem. In Edict book 22 Ulpian
says that all those in the Roman world have been made citizens by the
emperor Antoninus (Caracalla).259 On the argument presented in chapters 5
and 6, Edict books 6 to 31 were composed in AD 213, so that book 22 should
fall about the middle of the year or a bit later. If that is right, the Antonine
constitution cannot have been issued later than the first half of 213.
An alternative approach is to date the constitution, which took the form of
an imperial edict, independently of Ulpian’s text and then to relate Ulpian’s
programme to it. One argument for 212 is that Dio deals with the edict,260
which he says was meant to raise revenue, along with other events that
occurred after Geta’s murder at the end of 211. That murder is often taken to
be the occasion for the thanks that Caracalla appears to have offered the
gods, along with the extension of citizenship, for his escape from Geta’s
alleged plot.261 In the famous Giessen papyrus the edict that follows the one
relating to citizenship is dated 11 June 212 and was posted in Alexandria on
10 February 213. The third edict on the papyrus belongs to 215 or 216. If the
text are in chronological order the grant of citizenship should precede the date
of the second edict.
Other arguments have been based on the speed with which newly enfran-
chised citizens, having been emancipated by Aurelius Antoninus (Caracalla),
adopted the name Aurelius. The evidence is not easy to interpret, because it
would take some time for all but the politically alert to understand the impli-
cations of the change. Moreover, the use of the name Aurelius can have expla-
nations other than recent enfranchisement by Caracalla. Gilliam262 mentions
a gravestone from Saittai in Lydia that records the death of a lady on 3 March
213. Though she is not called Aurelia her husband and sons are given that
name. An inscription of 1 January 213 records as M. Aurelius Claudius
Pompeianus a man who on the same day eight years later is simply Claudius
Pompeianus.263 Neither inscription is conclusive, but no positive evidence
points to a date later than the traditional 212. That being so, there is no obsta-
cle, it seems, to the interpretation of Ulpian’s great survey of Roman law that
I favour. It was not simply an attempt to rival or surpass the work of Paul but
a response to the transformation of the Roman empire into a cosmopolitan
society, of which the Antonine constitution was the legal expression. Ulpian
began it in 213, the year after the issue of the Antonine constitution, and
258 Millar (1962); Crifò (1976) 627

259
D 1.5.17 (22 ed: In orbe Romano qui sunt ex constitutione imperatoris Antonini cives Romani
effecti sunt)
260 261
Dio 78.9.4–5 P. Giessen 40; Sherwin-White (1973) 279f.
262
Gilliam (1965) 74; Herrmann (1972) 528 cf. for earlier evidence Bell (1947)
263
CIL XIII.7338; AE 1962.228; Schleiermacher (1961) 166–8
continued composing it for the five years 213–7. The ideological grounds for
this interpretation will be set out in chapter 3.
There was some evolution in the attitude of Ulpian and other lawyers to
Caracalla over the years when writing his survey of Roman law. From some
time about the middle of 213 he gives Caracalla priority over Severus when he
mentions the two together as authors of a law. It is now ‘our emperor
Antoninus with his father’ rather than ‘the deified Severus and our
emperor’.264 Perhaps the German campaign of 213, as a result of which
Caracalla was acclaimed Magnus Antoninus, points to his increasingly auto-
cratic frame of mind. There is some evidence that as the reign progressed
Ulpian came to feel some constraint. Texts that rest on the author’s personal
experience (with ‘I know’ or the like) belong to 213 or 214 and do not reap-
pear until Caracalla is dead.265 Passages in which Ulpian adopts a con-
descending tone towards emperors, including Caracalla, also come to an end
after 214.266 A text fairly early in 217 points out that, contrary to Cicero’s
view, a defendant to a lawsuit may fail to appear through fear of a tyrant’s
cruelty, enemy attack, or domestic sedition.267 This, which may reflect the
atmosphere of the time, seems to be the only surviving reference in Roman
legal literature to the effect of tyranny on legal obligations.
In the reign of Macrinus, which began on 11 April 217, Ulpian speaks of
Caracalla simply as ‘Antoninus’ or ‘the emperor Antoninus’, and gives
Severus back his priority.268 Despite the assassination of Caracalla, Ulpian
completed his programme of writing for the year 217, either during 217, as I
think most likely, or a few months later. Liebs has argued that he was at some
stage banished by Macrinus, who was defeated by Elagabal on 8 June 218 and
later killed. Ulpian need not have been with the imperial court when he was
writing. Perhaps he moved eastward in Caracalla’s last years,269 but one
could take a text of 216 about a wife’s listing property that does not form part
of her dowry ‘as we commonly see happen in Rome’270 to imply that he stayed
in Rome, where there were good library facilities.
VI. THE REIGNS OF ELAGABAL AND ALEXANDER (218–223/4)
If Ulpian carried through his plan, set out in chapters 7 to 9, by the end of
217, it is not clear that he published anything afterwards. In 1962 I supposed
that Ulpian revised his Taxation (De censibus) 271 under Elagabal. This was
because both Ulpian272 and Paul in his parallel work273 attribute the grant of
Italian right to Emesa to ‘our emperor’ (imperator noster), who in Paul’s case
264 265 266
Ch.7 n.33–70 Ch.9 n.11–23, 63, 108 Ch.9 n.63–4
267 268 269
D 42.4.7.4 (59 ed.) Ch.7 n.88–92 Above n.125–9
270 271
D 23.3.9.3 (31 Sab: ut Romae vulgo fiero videmus) Honoré (1962a) 212
272 273
D 50.15.1.4 (1 cens.) D 50.15.8.6 (Paul 2 cens.)
(imperator noster Antoninus) seems to be Elagabal. But the emperor

Antoninus who gave Emesa the Italian right and made it a colony is more
likely to be Caracalla, whose mother’s family came from there.274 Lenel
thought that Ulpian’s Adultery (De adulteriis in five books)275 was written
after Caracalla’s death.276 This could in my view be the case since Adultery
best fits the year 217, for two-thirds of which Macrinus was emperor. But
Mommsen is in any case probably right to think that the reference to the
deified Severus and Antoninus (divi Severus et Antoninus) in book 1 is a ret-
rospective insertion.277
We lack reliable clues to Ulpian’s career under Elagabal (16 May 218 to 11
March 222).278 So we have to read history backwards. In Alexander’s reign
Ulpian emerges as a close collaborator of Alexander’s mother Julia
Mammaea and almost a guardian of the young emperor.279 Hence it is reas-
onable to suppose that in the conflict between Elagabal and his mother
Soaemias on the one hand and Alexander and Mammaea on the other in late
221 and 222,280 Ulpian sided with Alexander. The background is that late in
Elagabal’s reign an attempt was made, on the initiative of Julia Maesa, who
had originally contrived his promotion, to restore his standing by marrying
him in 221 to Annia Faustina, a descendant of Marcus. She also persuaded
him to adopt his cousin Alexianus, aged about 12, and appoint him Caesar on
or about 26 June 221. The future emperor was now given the prestigious name
Alexander.281 These measures failed. Elagabal divorced Faustina and many
of his supporters deserted him. The conflict in which Ulpian seems to have
sided with Alexander was precipitated by their grandmother Julia Maesa’s
decision to switch her favour from one grandson to the other.282 This led to
Elagabal’s downfall. On 13 March 222 he, his mother Soaemias, and his two
praetorian prefects were murdered.283 Alexander succeeded him and on 14
March was given the usual formal titles by the senate. He, like Elagabal,
claimed to be Caracalla’s son.
Did Ulpian hold office under Elagabal? The Augustan History, in a passage
that contains an in-joke about Ulpian’s On Sabinus (that he dedicated some
of his books to Sabinus, a man of consular rank), says that Elagabal ‘removed
Ulpicianus the lawyer as being a good man’.284 From the context this
supposedly took place at the beginning of 222.285 Perhaps in the conflict
between Elagabal and Alexander the former took some action against Ulpian
274 Gualandi (1963) 2.200–1; d’Ors (1942–3) 42–3; contra Mommsen (1870, 1904–13) 2.16853;
Karlowa (1885–1901) 2.784; Fitting (1908) 97; P. Krueger (1912) 238123

275 Ch.9 n.122–32 276 Lenel (1889) 2.9312 277 Mommsen (1904–13) 2.169
278 Liebs (1987a) 176–82 has a good discussion 279 Zonaras 12.15; Zosimus 1.11.2
280 HA Antoninus Heliogabalus 13–5 281 Herodian 5.7.3. See Dušanić (1964)
282 Herodian 5.7.1–3 283 Dio 79.21.1; Herodian 5.8.8; HA Ant. Heliogab. 17.4–7
284 The name Ulpicianus is otherwise unattested. The passage is made up of a series of jokes
designed to mislead: Liebs (1987a) 177

285 Liebs (1987b) 176
as a supporter of Alexander’s. Yet Ulpian probably held office under

Elagabal, at least for a time. Many respectable people did. He is attested as
prefect of supply (praefectus annonae) only three weeks into Alexander’s
reign,286 and may have held this office, or another prefecture, such as police,
under Elagabal.287 The office is not mentioned in the inscription honouring
Ulpian in Tyre,288 but, given that Elagabal’s memory had been condemned,
one would not expect it to be. The Augustan History says that Elagabal con-
ferred the prefecture of supply on very low creatures, who reduced the supply
of oil, which Alexander restored.289 Victor says that Alexander retained
Ulpian in the praetorian prefecture, to which Elagabal had appointed him.
He also recalled Paul from exile and by his treatment of these lawyers showed
his zeal for equity and his attitude towards the best people.290
Victor cannot be right as regards the praetorian prefecture. Elagabal’s two
praetorian prefects, who remained loyal to him, were killed at the same time
as their master.291 But he may have run together two reports, each correct in
itself: that Alexander retained Ulpian as prefect and that he was praetorian
prefect under Alexander.292 Ulpian may have held a lesser prefecture, such as
police293 or supply, under Elagabal,294 and Alexander kept him in this post.
There was some continuity between the officials of Elagabal and Alexander.
Valerius Comazon, urban prefect twice under Elagabal, later dismissed,
returns as urban prefect for the third time under Alexander.295 Rescripts of 3
February 296 and 19 February 222,297 in the last month of Elagabal’s rule, seem
to be by the same hand as those of the first months of Alexander.298 Indeed a
text of 30 December 218,299 preserved in the epitome of the Gregorian code, is
apparently in the same style. So Alexander’s first secretary for petitions had
held office under Elagabal and may have held the office for most of Elagabal’s
reign. The replacement of Elagabal by Alexander was the result of a coup. But
it did not amount to a change of dynasty, let alone a revolution.
286 CJ 8.37.4 (31 March 222)

287 Liebs (1987b) 181 mentions a possible prefecture of police followed by supply
288 AE 1988.1051
289 HA Sev. Alexander 22.2 including a barber named Claudius: HA Ant. Heliogab. 12.1
290 Victor, Caes. 24 291 Dio 80.21.1 292 Liebs (1984) 443
293 This (appointment as praefectus vigilum) would have to be before 220: Baillie Reynolds
(1926); Liebs (1987a) 181

294 There is room for a prefect of supply in 220/1: Pavis d’Escurac (1976) 359f.
295
Hanslik (1939); PIR1 V 42; Pflaum (1960–1) no. 290; Howe (1942) 74 no.30
296 297
CJ 9.1.3 (3 Feb 222) CJ 4.44.1 (19 Feb 222)
298
Honoré (1994) 95–8 (secretary no.6); Liebs (1997) §428.6. Liebs calls him Ulpianus II and
he may be the author of ‘Ulpiani’ Pandectarum libri X and liber singularis, a work wrongly attrib-
uted to Domitius Ulpianus in Justinian’s Florentine Index 24.7 but whose author could have
been another Ulpianus. This might explain the statements in Eutropius, Breviarium 8.23, Festus,
Breviarium 22, and HA Severus Alexander 26.5 that ‘Ulpianus’ is said to have been head of a
bureau under Alexander: nam et consiliarius Alexandri et magister scrinii Ulpianus fuisse perhi-
betur
299
Epit. Cod. Greg. Herm. Vis. 14.1 (30 Dec 218)
According to the Augustan History, ‘some say that Paul and Ulpian were
made prefects by Elagabal, others by Alexander.’300 The author does not
specify that they were made praetorian prefects. We know, however, that
Alexander made Ulpian praetorian prefect in 222.301 Elagabal may have con-
ferred the same honour on Paul if we suppose that the Julia Paula whom he
married in 219 was the lawyer’s daughter.302 In that case Paul will have been
banished when Elagabal divorced Paula in 220 and Victor’s statement that he
was restored by Alexander becomes plausible. Elagabal made Paul praetorian
prefect and later banished him. He appointed Ulpian, who was junior to Paul,
to a lesser prefecture. Alexander restored Paul, who was certainly alive in his
reign,303 and made him one of his councillors.304 He initially kept or rein-
stated Ulpian as prefect of supply but soon promoted him to the praetorian
prefecture. The career structure secretary (for petitions)–prefect (for supply)
was not unusual.305
On 31 March 222 a rescript states the law ‘according to a reply (responsum)
of Domitius Ulpianus prefect of supply, lawyer, and my friend.’306 ‘Friend’
emphasizes that the person mentioned enjoys the emperor’s confidence. Its
technical meaning is that of a person admitted, or who would if present be
admitted, to greet the emperor at his morning salutation.307 The prefecture of
supply demanded administrative competence.308 Just over eight months later
Ulpian has been promoted praetorian prefect. A rescript of 1 December 222
tells the owner of a warehouse, a victim of breaking and entering, to approach
the provincial governor, who, if he thinks a heavy punishment is called for,
will send the culprit to ‘Domitius Ulpianus, praetorian prefect and my par-
ent.’309 Parens can be used in rescripts both of real parents and of earlier
emperors. Indeed Alexander does just this in a rescript of 3 December 222.310
The term as applied to Ulpian is highly honorific, and supports the idea that
his relation to Alexander was close.
Both offices are also attested by a column in Ulpian’s honour found in
Tyre.311 The promotion from prefect of supply to praetorian prefect was not
unusual.312 Praetorian prefects, especially on the civil side, were mainly
300 HA Severus Alexander 26.5 301 CJ 4.65.4 (1 Dec 222)
302 ILS 477: Iuliae Corneliae Paulae Aug(ustae). There is a marble bust of her in the museum
at Ephesus (Inv. no.1566). Mentioned as possible by Syme (1980) 99 = (1984) 1410 and accepted
by Liebs (1997) §423
303 D 31.87.3 (Paul 14 resp.) 304 HA Severus Alexander 68.1 305 Coriat (1997) 271
306 CJ 8.37.4 (31 March 222: secundum responsum Domitii Ulpiani praefecti annonae iuris con-
sulti amici mei).

307 Oehler (1894); Crook (1950) 163136; Grosso (1968b) 207f.; D 49.1.1.3 (1 appell.) cf.
D 37.14.17 pr (Ulp. 11 leg. Iul. Pap.)

308 Pavis d’Escurac (1976); Coriat (1997) 216
309 CJ 4.65.4.1 (1 Dec 222: ad Domitium Ulpianum praefectum praetorio et parentem meum)
310 CJ 7.66.2 (3 Dec 222: bona ad successorem pertinere parentibus meis placuit)
311 AE 1988.1051
312 Howe (1942) 16f.; Modrzejewski–Zawadski (1967) 565, 610–1; Ensslin (1954); Reinmuth
(1967).
recruited from prefects of Egypt, prefects of supply, and prefects of police

(praefecti vigilum). An able secretary for petitions might hope to proceed to a
prefecture and, exceptionally, to a praetorian prefecture. Papinian became
praetorian prefect in 205 three years after his tenure of office as secretary for
petitions, which ended in 202.313 Modestinus was secretary for petitions in
223–5, and then prefect of police, probably about 228.314 The structure of
Ulpian’s career conforms broadly to the pattern for the period.
Ulpian’s promotion to the praetorian prefecture is likely to have been pro-
cured by Valerius Comazon315 and Julia Maesa, who was still alive at the time,
rather than Julia Mammaea.316 It occurred in two stages. First, he was placed
over the two existing praetorian prefects, Julius Flavianus and Geminius
Chrestus, who had been appointed at the beginning of Alexander’s reign, in a
supervisory role. This was to repeat a mistake that had ended in disaster when
Papyrius Dionysius was similarly promoted in the reign of Commodus.317
Flavianus, praetorian prefect under Elagabal, was now prefect for the second
time, while Chrestus had governed Egypt in 219–21. Later Ulpian had
Flavianus and Chrestus put to death and became sole prefect.318 This may
have happened in the summer of 222,319 but an autumn date is not impossible.
The number of rescripts increases from September onwards, which points to a
more stable administration. A new secretary for petitions, replacing the secre-
tary left over from Elagabal’s reign, comes into office not later than 15
October 222.320 Ulpian now had for a time the sort of pre-eminence formerly
enjoyed by Plautianus. Though, unlike Plautianus, not related to the imperial
family by marriage, so far as we know, he was Mammaea and Alexander’s
man of confidence.
The details of Ulpian’s spectacular rise and fall are not clear. Dio, as sum-
marized by Xiphilinus, speaks of him with some disdain. When he became
emperor Alexander entrusted to ‘one Domitius Ulpianus’ the command of the
praetorians and the other affairs of state. Dio was absent from Rome at the
time and excuses himself for not giving a full account of affairs there. Returning
to Ulpian, he says that he corrected many of the abuses introduced by Elagabal,
but put Flavianus and Chrestus to death in order to succeed them. Not long
afterwards he was attacked by the praetorians at night and killed, though he
ran to the palace and took refuge with the emperor and his mother.321
313 Jörs (1894); PIR2 A 388; Pflaum (1960–1) no.220; Kunkel (1967) 224; Honoré (1994)
76–81; Liebs (1997) §416

314 Brassloff (1912) 668: PIR2 H 112; Kunkel (1967) 259; Honoré (1994) 101–7 (secretary no.8)
315 Syme (1972) 407 = (1984) 865 316 Zosimus 1.11.2
317 Pflaum (1960–1) 472 no. 181; Liebs (1984) 444; (1987a) 175
318
Dio 80.2.2; Zosimus 1.11.3; Zonaras 12.15
319
Modrzejewski–Zawadski (1967) 565 cf. Jardé (1925) 37; Howe (1942) 100
320
It now appears that this secretary (Honoré 1994, pp.98–101) may have been Licinius
Rufinus: Millar (1999) 90–108
321
Dio 80.2.2–4
Epagathus, a powerful figure of freeman stock, who had engineered Ulpian’s

downfall, was then sent to Egypt as prefect, since there might have been a dis-
turbance in Rome had he been punished there. He was later taken to Crete and
executed.322
Zosimus has a slightly different account.323 The young Alexander’s good
disposition aroused hopes for his reign. He appointed Flavianus and
Chrestus prefects. They were not without experience in military affairs and
were highly capable in civil matters. But Mammaea placed Ulpian over them
as a supervisor and virtually a joint emperor. Ulpian was an outstanding
lawyer, able to handle current affairs and foresee future needs. In disgust at
Ulpian’s promotion the soldiers secretly plotted to do away with him.
Mammaea heard of this and made away with the plotters. Ulpian then
became sole prefect. But he was suspect to the troops for reasons which
Zosimus cannot accurately explain, since historians differ on the matter. A
revolt occurred and he was attacked by the praetorians at night. He made for
the palace and the protection of Alexander and Mammaea. The soldiers fol-
lowed and the emperor could not save him.
Zosimus’ account is plausible and can be reconciled with Dio’s. To put
Ulpian over Flavianus and Chrestus was an unwise measure and must have
aroused great resentment. Possibly the demoted prefects planned to do away
with Ulpian, so that he and Mammaea may have thought that a pre-emptive
strike was called for. On the other hand Flavianus and Chrestus may, like
Papinian, have been charged with some offence, found guilty, and executed.
Though Dio, who wrote when Mammaea was still alive, does not mention
it, Zosimus is surely right in attributing Ulpian’s brief ascendancy to Maesa
and Mammaea. The evidence of the Augustan History on this point has also,
with due caution, to be taken into account. The author says that Alexander
regarded Ulpian as his guardian, at first against his mother’s wishes. Later she
was grateful to him for assuming that role.324 Perhaps Mammaea at first
favoured Flavianus and Chrestus, then switched to Ulpian. In a later passage
the HA says that early in Alexander’s reign his wise councillors (largely imag-
inary, but they include Paul and Ulpian) were brushed aside by a band of
evil men.325 These evil councillors (presumably including Flavianus and
Chrestus) were killed and driven away. The good councillors then took over.
The various accounts agree in substance. Unlike Flavianus and Chrestus,
Ulpian had no prestige with the army. His qualifications were purely civil.
Even lawyer-emperors (Galba, Macrinus) did not last long. How long was he
322 Dio 80.2.3

323 Zosimus 1.11.2–3 cf. Syncellus, Chron., p. 437 Mosshammer; Jörs (1903) 1437
324 HA Severus Alexander 51.4
325 HA Severus Alexander 68.1: et hos quidem malorum cohors depulerat, quae circumvenerat
Alexandrum primis diebus. The author has a story along similar lines about the evil ‘Turinus’ at
35.5–36.3
in power? He may have been murdered as early as 223.326 The argument for
this date depends partly on Dio’s statement that he was killed ‘not long after’
the removal of Flavianus and Chrestus327 and partly, it was supposed, 328 on
the album of Canusium, dated October 223.329 The album mentions among
senatorial patrons of the town T. Lorenius Celsus, M. Aedinius Iulianus,
L. Didius Marinus, and L. Domitius Honoratus. It was argued by Pflaum
that these were the current and recent ex-praetorian prefects. Since Ulpian
was not mentioned, he must have been dead when the album was inscribed.
Salway has, however, shown that the persons concerned were chosen as
patrons because of their ability to advance the interests of Canusium. They
are listed in an order that probably reflects their precedence as members of
Alexander’s council. There is no implication, and in three of the cases no evid-
ence, that they were at the time or had been praetorian prefects.330 The album
has therefore no bearing on whether Ulpian was still praetorian prefect in
October 223.
Another sliver of evidence is that Dio says that during Ulpian’s lifetime a
quarrel arose between the people of Rome and the praetorian guards, who
fought for three days with loss of life on both sides. When the soldiers, who
were getting the worst of it, threatened to set fire to buildings the civilians
reluctantly came to terms with them. These disturbances seem to be those
recorded by the Chronicon Paschale for three successive days and nights in
223.331 Ulpian’s murder must have occurred after these disturbances, and, if
he took steps to discipline the soldiers, may in some way have been connected
with them. The murder must in any case have taken place before the middle
of 224. A papyrus published in 1966 shows that Epagathus, who was largely
responsible for Ulpian’s downfall, and was then sent to Egypt as prefect, was
in office there in May or June 224.332 Consistently with this, the lawyer may
have been assassinated in late 223 or early 224.
It was earlier supposed that Ulpian survived until 228.333 I shared this
view,334 which Xiphilinus’ summary of Dio seemed to support. Dio, excusing
himself for his thin account of the early years of Alexander, explains that, after
an illness, he went to govern his province of Africa, then, on returning to Italy,
was sent as governor first to Dalmatia, then to upper Pannonia. The praetori-
ans complained to Ulpian about Dio, since he ruled the Pannonian troops
with a firm hand and the praetorians feared that they would be subjected to
326
Grosso (1968b); Syme (1970/1984); Coriat (1997) 233; Liebs (1987b) 110–8: Liebs (1997)
§424 p.177
327 Dio 80.2.2
328 Pflaum (1948) 37f.; Modrzejewski–Zawadski (1967) 565–611; Mercogliano (1993) 400–7
329 CIL IX 338; Salway (2000) 330 Salway (2000) 168
331 Chron. Pasch. ann. 223: διανυκτρευσις
332 P.Oxy. 2565: Barns–Parsons–Rea–Turner (1966) 102; Grosso (1968b)
333 Still supported by Bauman (1995)
334 Honoré (1962a) 194, 207. So did virtually all scholars except Howe (1942) 100f.
similar discipline.335 Presumably they meant to warn Ulpian against attempt-

ing to discipline them. On another reading of Xiphilinus’ abbreviation of Dio,
the praetorians, besides complaining about Ulpian, also complained about
Dio.336 Alexander, however, disregarded their complaints and appointed Dio
to a second consulship, with the emperor himself as his colleague.337 They
were consuls together in 229.
From the summary of Dio one would infer that his second consulship fol-
lowed closely on the complaints to Ulpian. In that case Ulpian must still have
been alive about 228. But, given that the précis of Dio is highly compressed,
there may have been a long interval between the complaints to Ulpian about
Dio and Alexander’s granting him a second consulship, presumably in 228. In
that case Dio may have held his governorships of Africa and Dalmatia under
Elagabal and his career is one of those that illustrates the continuity in office
holding from the reign of Elagabal to that of Alexander. The supposed prae-
torian complaints to Ulpian about Dio’s conduct as governor of Pannonia
are nevertheless mysterious, unless their point was to forestall disciplinary
measures against the praetorians in Rome by Ulpian himself.
It is impossible to be sure, but my guess is that Ulpian’s sole prefecture ran
from October 222 to some time after October 223 and covered at least the
period of office of secretary for petitions no.7,338 to whom we owe ninety-six
rescripts, the highest number that survive for a single year. No.7 may have
been Paul’s pupil Licinius Rufinus.339 The new secretary no.8, who took
office from the end of October 223, was probably Ulpian’s pupil Herennius
Modestinus.340 It would not be surprising if Ulpian had a hand in his appoint-
ment.
The period during which Ulpian was effectively in charge of the imperial
administration turns out to have been only a year or eighteen months.
According to the Augustan History Alexander was a good emperor because
he treated Ulpian as his mentor and governed chiefly according to his
advice.341 The author’s general strategy is to contrast the good Alexander
with the evil Elagabal and to argue, with Honorius in mind, that the quality
of a young emperor’s rule depends on his being surrounded by good advisers,
in Alexander’s case by Ulpian. At first sight this assessment is absurd. In the
time available the most Ulpian could have done was to give a shape to the civil
administration that to some extent persisted after he was dead. Some abuses
of Elagabal’s reign were remedied.342 Buildings and shrines to the traditional
Roman gods were restored.343 Some of those dismissed by Elagabal were
335 Dio 80.4.2

336 Cleve (1988) 122. On this reading the complaints would have to have come from the
Pannonian troops
337 Dio 80.5.1 338 Honoré (1994) 98–101 339 Millar (1999) 104
340 Honoré (1994) 101–7 341 HA Severus Alexander 51.4
342 Dio 80.2.2 343 Herodian 6.1.3
rehabilitated.344 A great many rescripts were issued. For the rest, there are
parallels between what Herodian, who does not mention Ulpian, reports and
an Augustan History version that attributes much of what Herodian says to
Ulpian but adapts it to the administrative practice of the late fourth century.
According to Herodian, who presents Alexander’s reign in a pro-senatorial
light, civil business and administration was now put in the hands of men of elo-
quence and those skilled in law. There was a council of sixteen senators.345 The
docile Alexander was encouraged to spend most of the day on judicial
duties.346 In the Augustan History version the emperor always devoted the
afternoon to signing and reading letters in the presence of the heads of the
imperial bureaus for letters, petitions, and records (scrinia).347 He gave
instructions that the heads of the bureaux and learned lawyers who were loyal
to him, of whom Ulpian was then the chief, should examine and order state
business and litigation before the business or lawsuit was submitted to himself.
He issued no constitution without the advice of twenty learned lawyers and at
least fifty men of eloquence, so that the quorum should not be less than that
for a resolution of the senate.348 Herodian says that Julia Mammaea put the
palace under strict guard so that Alexander was isolated from potentially cor-
rupting friends and bad influences. The Augustan History version takes the
form that Alexander insisted on Ulpian being present at private audiences and
when he was sitting as a judge.349 He granted no one a private audience except
Ulpian.350 According to Herodian, Alexander ruled without putting people to
death, even those guilty of serious crimes, and executed no one without
trial.351 A rescript of 11 April 223, which falls in Ulpian’s period of ascend-
ancy, announces a policy of restricting prosecutions for treason and, in par-
ticular, refusing to treat a judge’s disregard of a constitution as treason.352
Appointments were made according to precedent, and on the advice of those
best qualified to judge,353 decency prevailed.354 The Augustan History, citing
Herodian, says that he never put a senator to death.355 The various embellish-
ments that the History adds—for instance that Alexander freed himself from
the influence of eunuchs356 and enjoyed Ulpian’s stimulating conversation at
dinner357—are inventions that can safely be disregarded. But that Ulpian con-
tributed in various ways, mainly but not wholly by his writings, to the ideal of
344 Herodian 6.1.3 345 Herodian 6.1.2 cf. 7.1.3

346 Herodian 6.1.4 347 HA Severus Alexander 31.1
348 HA Severus Alexander 16.1 cf. CTh. 6.4.9 (11 Apr 356) which prescribes a quorum of fifty
349 350
HA Severus Alexander 31.1–3; 67.2 HA Severus Alexander 67.2
351
Herodian 6.1.7; 6.9.8
352
CJ 9.8.1 (11 Apr 223: etiam ex aliis causis maiestatis crimina cessant meo saeculo, nedum
etiam admittam te paratam accusare iudicem propterea crimine maiestatis, quod contra constitu-
tionem eum dicis pronuntiasse) cf. CJ 4.1.2 (27 March 223)
353 354
Herodian 6.1.3–4 CJ 9.9.9 (26 Jan 224: castitas temporum meorum)
355 356
HA Severus Alexander 52.2 HA Severus Alexander 67.1
357
HA Severus Alexander 34.6
constitutional government, of which the mythology of Alexander’s reign is an

expression, is not in doubt.
It seems to me that the Augustan History is right in treating Ulpian as the
person who set the tone for Alexander’s reign so far as law and civil adminis-
tration are concerned.358 After his death others, such as Modestinus, carried
his cosmopolitan and humanist ideas forward. As in the case of Papinian and
Macrinus, who did not survive long when Severus and Caracalla were no
longer there to protect them, the troops needed little provocation to turn
against a lawyer-prefect who lacked military clout.359 Military weakness
destroyed Ulpian and in the end Alexander Severus too, but on the civil side
the lawyer’s legacy and that of the dynasty were lasting.
According to Syme, Ulpian ‘deserted the routine pursuits of legal erudi-
tion, insinuated himself into the favour of the court and responded to the call
of duty or hazard, or the promptings of an eager ambition’.360 This verdict
seems perverse. Central to Ulpian’s thinking as a lawyer was his commitment
to the cosmopolitan and egalitarian trends of the Severan age and to the
dynasty that favoured them. He saw it as his mission to put the ‘true philoso-
phy’361 into practice, so far as he could, given the constraints of positive law.
Like Irnerius, Grotius, Savigny, and other great lawyers he combined teach-
ing and practice with government office. He was a lawyer and intellectual in
government. Chapter 3 develops this theme is more detail.
I end with a summary of Ulpian’s probable career. (Gnaeus) Domitius
(Annius) Ulpianus was born about 170, a citizen of Tyre and a Roman citi-
zen by birth. From August 202 at latest until May 209 he was drafting
rescripts for Severus and Caracalla. At least from 205 onwards he did so as
secretary for petitions (procurator a libellis). He was a member of Papinian’s
council of advisers when Papinian was praetorian prefect (205–11). He did a
good deal of teaching, which included public disputation. He on occasion
gave legal advice to the urban praetor, the praetor for trusts (praetor fideicom-
misarius) and the praetor for guardianship (praetor tutelaris) in Rome. He
accompanied Severus and his sons on the expedition to Britain in 208–11. He
took Caracalla’s side in the conflict with Geta and was close to the Syrian
princesses. His outlook was attuned to the cosmopolitan ideology of the
Antonine constitution of 212. In the light of this ideology he undertook in
213–7 a large-scale restatement of Roman law in some 217 books. Under
Elagabal he may have been prefect of supply (praefectus annonae). Alexander
retained or reinstated him in this post in March 222 and promoted him later
in 222 to supervise the two existing praetorian prefects, Flavianus and
358 Marotta (2000) 76f. makes a more ambitious attempt to detail Ulpian’s programme of
reform. See also Champlin (1978). Against a leading role for Ulpian see Cleve (1988). On
Alexander see Jardé (1925)
359 Syme (1972) 408f. = (1984) 867f. 360 Syme (1972) 408 = (1984) 868
361 D 1.1.1 pr (Ulp. 1 inst.); below ch.3
Chrestus. He had Flavianus and Chrestus executed about October 222 and
became sole praetorian prefect. In that capacity he remedied some of the
abuses of Elagabal’s reign and improved the civil administration. Some time
between October 223 and May/June 224 the praetorian troops mutinied, with
Epagathus playing a leading role, and Ulpian was murdered. When attacked
he fled to the palace but Alexander and Julia Mammaea were unable to pro-
tect him.
2
The Oral Style

T H E study of Ulpian’s Latin style1 helps to settle which of the works attrib-
uted to him are authentic2 and how far texts that are said to have been wholly
or partly changed by later editors are genuine. To the extent that his style
varies or develops over time, it also helps to decide the order in which he com-
posed his works. Moreover, since style and thought cannot in the end be kept
apart, it throws light on his character and outlook.
In settling what is distinctive about Ulpian’s style I have confined myself to
comparing him with other legal writers. On the whole lawyers’ prose tended
to be old-fashioned, to evolve less quickly than lay or religious writing.
Obviously Ulpian, like other lawyers, was influenced by the authors he had
read, in his case notably by Cicero and Quintilian.3 In this regard Nörr’s
study of citations of Cicero by the classical lawyers is of great value.4
A main concern of this book is however to find criteria for identifying the
texts that are genuinely Ulpian’s. For this purpose it is better to start from a
limited and manageable body of legal texts. An earlier generation thought
that the Roman lawyers wrote in a more or less uniform style.5 But Ulpian’s
prose differs in important ways from that of most other legal authors. It is
true, as Rodger points out,6 that some allowance must be made for the fact
the excerpts in Justinian’s Digest from Ulpian’s work usually form the basic
account of a legal topic such as deposit, while the material included from, say,
Paul or Pomponius is more marginal. Paul or Pomponius may have said
much the same thing in the basic account they gave. But often the dispropor-
tion between Ulpian’s use of ordinary Latin expressions and that of other
authors cannot be accounted for on that basis. The differential use of these
ordinary expressions makes passages by Ulpian, in my view, fairly easy to
recognise.
1 Earlier efforts by Pernice (1885), Volterra (1937). For Ulpian’s use of Greek see ch.3
n.119–46
2 Mostly collected in Lenel (1889) 2.379–1200, 1230 nos 5–8. Rescripts drafted by him in
Honoré (1994 diskette) 96–201 omitting 122–7, 135–7, 168, 174

3 Kalb (1890) 126; Crifò (1985) 606, 611–2 4 Nörr (1978)
5 Savigny (1814) 157; Beseler (1910–30) 3.3 cf. Rodger (1983) 383; but Pernice’s study of
Ulpian (1885) assumed the contrary and Kalb (1890) 135 pointed out that, while Ulpian likes cer-
tain unusual expressions, Paul avoids anything of the sort, so that it is virtually impossible to
assign any text to Paul on grounds of style alone
6 Rodger (1983) 386–8
38 2. The Oral Style
Many of the features that make his style distinctive stem from the fact that,
apart from the rescripts he composed on behalf of the emperor Severus, his
works were in my view virtually all dictated. It is no news that, as Kalb
noticed,7 legal authorship is often closer to speech than writing, but Ulpian is
in this respect exceptional. This may seem surprising, since only an author
with a very clear mind can dictate on the scale on which Ulpian seems to have
done without devoting a great deal of time to correcting the dictated version.
But to compose some 217 books in the short period of five, or at most six,
years, dictation was called for. It would also, given the rush, have been impos-
sible to spend much time revising the text. So what we have is, in my view,
largely what Ulpian dictated. As will be seen, the distinctively Ulpianic turns
of phrase are often those one would expect to come across in speech rather
than writing. Moreover the fact that the same phrases recur again and again
points to oral composition. They make his work unexciting, as Pernice
pointed out,8 but at the same time reassuring. They convey a sense of orderly
progression from topic to topic. If Ulpian had composed in writing or thor-
oughly revised the text dictated his work would be more varied.
One drawback of dictation9 is that it can lead to slips as a result of mis-
hearing. For instance the scribe hears alicui as alii.10 But Ulpian had a clear
idea of what he wanted to say and his train of thought is usually easy to
follow. He has of course some idiosyncrasies: a liking for superlatives and a
preference for the future over the present tense, which is also a mark of the
praetor’s edict.
I. METHOD
This study gives pride of place to texts attributed to Ulpian in Justinian’s

Digest. The texts from other sources are treated as supplementary. The Digest
texts are provisionally regarded as authentic, though what Ulpian wrote has
sometimes been wrongly copied or consciously changed. Justinian’s compil-
ers had authority to make changes, generally referred to as interpolations,11
7
Kalb (1890) 126; Crifò (1985) 605, who draws attention to Vico’s parallel between the lan-
guage of the comedians and the lawyers
8 9
Pernice (1885) Yaron (1987) 16
10
D 8.5.8.5 (17 ed: alii hactenus facere licet should be alicui hactenus facere licet) cf. 15.2.1.10
(29 ed: recte actum est for recte actum esset); 9.1.1.7 (18 ed: dolore concitatus for dolone concita-
tus; 3.1.1.5 (6 ed: a Carfania for a C. Afrania). All seem to stem from mishearings and there must
be others. I am grateful to Detlef Liebs for these examples. For dictation error in the context of
the Vindolanda Tablets see Bowman–Thomas (1994) no.234: feramus tempestates et hiem (for
etiam) si molestae sint
11
For the view that I pay insufficient attention to interpolations see Crifò (1985) 606–7. But
when suspect expressions are concentrated in particular authors they are unlikely to have been
interpolated by Justinian’s compilers. Suppose these turns of phrase are due to the interpolators.
Then either they will appear at random throughout those texts on which the committee in
but their authority was confined to shortening the texts and ensuring that they
read smoothly and agreed with other legal texts. We must be on the lookout
for changes, but not for the licence that a modern editor would take for
granted in preparing a new edition of a law book. The changes detected, for
instance by Kalb,12 in texts attributed to Ulpian, do not distort the picture of
style and outlook that emerges if we take what is attributed to him largely at
face value. When interpolation (interp.) has been suspected I have referred to
a 1927 collection of suspect words and phrases by Citati, though that now
needs updating.13 Texts of Ulpian from outside the Digest, in particular the
rescripts that in my view he composed for Severus and Caracalla in AD 202–9,
are initially disregarded for purposes of the analysis of his style. The argu-
ment for attributing them to Ulpian14 rests in part on how far they resemble
Ulpian’s writings in his own name. It would be question-begging, when fixing
the elements of his style, to assume that he composed them. Moreover they
are instances of written, not oral composition.
For purposes of this study there has to be a way of deciding when a specific
word or phrase has been used. The method adopted will emerge from one or
two examples. Take the phrase parvi refert (it makes little difference). The
phrase is taken to have been used whether the formulation runs parvi refert,
parvi autem refert, parvi enim refert, or parvique refert. These all count as
instances of parvi refert. But the forms parvi referre or parvique referre are not
counted as instances of parvi refert, because they report an opinion in indirect
speech rather than stating it directly. Again, Ulpian’s inversion of the normal
word-order is important. So the phrase et ait (Pomponius etc.) that Ulpian
often uses in giving the view of another author is not taken to extend to et
(Pomponius) ait. Nor does erit dicendum extend to dicendum erit. But the
adjective aequissimus (‘fairest, most equitable’) is taken to include the femin-
ine and neuter forms aequissima and aequissimum, as in aequissimum est (‘it is
most equitable’), since the point being made concerns the author’s fondness
for the superlative form of aequus rather than for any particular inflection of
the word.
Anther point concerns words and phrases that Ulpian attributes to other
authors.15 Are these to count as Ulpian’s or those of the other author? On the
whole Ulpian’s habit is to rewrite in his own words what the other author
question worked, which they do not, or they will represent a deliberate decision to use them in
Ulpian. For that the only half-reasonable explanation would be that they had established that
these were typical Ulpianisms that would make their interpolations seem more authentic. Schulz
(1951) is perversely radical about a text of Ulpian the genuineness of which was confirmed by a
papyrus. Cf. Stroux (1950)
12 Kalb (1888) 68–84. As to other supposed changes he was sometimes wrong, partly through
his belief that all classical authors lived in Rome and partly because accurate means for compar-
ing them were not then available: Kalb (1888) 68 n.1
13 Citati (1927). Fuller references to indivdual texts in Ind. Interp. (1929–35) which also needs
updating
14 Above ch.1 n.192–225; Honoré (1982) ch.8; (1994) 81–6 15 Crifò (1985) 606
says.16 Take as an example parvi refert. Ulpian uses parvi refert in 28 Digest
texts against at most two in other authors.17 But in seven texts Ulpian says of
another author such as Pomponius that the other author thinks that so-and-
so makes little difference (e.g. parvi referre putat . . .).18 We should not assume
that in these seven cases the other author really used the phrase parvi refert
rather than something equivalent that Ulpian converts into parvi referre. So
these seven texts, quite apart from the fact that they are in the infinitive form
parvi referre, are not counted as instances where either Ulpian or the other
author has used the phrase parvi refert. On the other hand when Ulpian
attributes the use of the phrase to another author in direct speech, as he does
of Julian in one text, this use can properly be assigned to the author he cites.19
Sometimes Ulpian, instead of rewriting his source, copies another author
without mentioning him.20 In that case the words and phrases are attributed
to both authors, and are not counted as distinctively Ulpianic.
Take, again the superlative aequissimus (‘most equitable’). Ulpian accounts
for 80 Digest mentions of it out of 86, the others coming from Gaius and Paul.
There is also one mention outside the Digest, in Gaius’ Institutes. But in eight
of Ulpian’s 80 texts he attributes the use of aequissimus in indirect speech to
Labeo, Pomponius, Papinian, or Julian. Even if these eight texts were treated
as not being Ulpian’s the use of aequissimus would be overwhelmingly
Ulpianic. But they need not in my view be so treated, since if these four
authors really used aequissimus the word should occur at least once or twice
in texts taken from their works, which it does not. It is rather that Ulpian has
turned what they said (e.g aequum est) into, say, aequissimum est. With nisi
forte (‘unless perhaps’), another favourite, the position is similar. Here
Ulpian has 95 Digest mentions out of 117, but four Ulpian texts read as
though nisi forte were a direct quotation from another author.21 If these are
excluded from the Ulpian count, which is then 91, and added to the citations
directly taken from other authors, which then come to 26, Ulpian still has
more than three-quarters of the surviving texts with nisi forte. This is in gen-
eral enough for the expression to be counted as Ulpianic. But for a reason that
will be explained nisi forte is not taken as a distinctive mark of our author’s
style.
16
There is an example of his doing this with a rescript of Pius in D 49.1.14 pr compared with
D 49.1.5.1 (Marci. 1 appell.); Yaron (1987) 7
17
Below n.201
18
D 4.8.7 pr (13 ed.); 4.9.1.7 (14 ed.); 14.4.5.7 (29 ed.); 7.1.12.4 (17 Sab.); 38.1.7.1 (28 Sab.);
47.2.7.3 (41 Sab.)
19
D 34.3.5.2 (23 Sab: et parvi, inquit, refert <Iulianus>)
20
e.g. D 37.8.1 pr (Ulp. 40 ed.) = D 38.6.5 pr (Pomp. 4 Sab.); D 50.16.177 (Ulp. 47 Sab.) = D
50.17.65 (Iul. 54 dig.); Crifò (1985) 606
21
D 6.1.1.2 (16 ed: Pomponius); 17.2.63.3 (31 ed: Marcellus); 19.1.11.18 (32 ed: Iulianus);
37.10.1.8 (41 ed: Pomponius)
In general the method followed here is the same as in my other studies of

the Roman legal authors.22 Words, phrases, and constructions are picked out
that distinguish Ulpian’s prose from that of other lawyers, especially con-
temporaries. How distinct they must be to count as marks of his style, as
fingerprints, no algorithm can settle. To some extent a scholar must go by his
feeling for the nuances of language and the personality that lies behind the
words. But discipline must accompany intuition.
The material consists, as stated, of the texts attributed to Ulpian in
Justinian’s Digest. They amount to between 40 and 42 per cent of the whole,
according to whether the count is of words or lines.23 To qualify for inclusion
in the list of marks of style the convention I adopt is that the word or phrase
must occur in Ulpian’s Digest texts three times more often than in all other
legal writers combined. Ulpian’s uses must amount to three-quarters of the
whole. But the use must not be contextual in the way in which technical legal
terms can be. For example, in texts dealing with marriage one expects nuptiae
(‘marriage’), to occur frequently. If the passages dealing with marriage come
largely from one author, that does not make a frequent mention of nuptiae a
mark of his style.
The next stage is to eliminate words and expressions that occur in Ulpian
not much more frequently than in one of his contemporaries. The convention
I have adopted here is that the word or expression must appear in Ulpian’s
texts at least four times as often as in the contemporary’s work. The texts of
Paul, a contemporary, amount to about 17 per cent of the Digest as against
Ulpian’s 40 to 42 per cent. We have about two and a half times as much
Ulpian as Paul. So if there are twenty texts of Ulpian there should not be more
than two of Paul if the word or phrase is to be listed as a mark of Ulpian’s
style. A single text from another writer does not, however, rule out an expres-
sion as Ulpianic provided that Ulpian’s texts amount to three-quarters of the
whole. An example of how this guideline works in practice is provided by the
phrase nisi forte already mentioned. Though Ulpian has over three-quarters
of the nisi forte texts in the Digest there are five nisi forte texts in Digest
fragments from Marcellus, who provided just over 1 per cent of the Digest
material. So Marcellus is relatively fonder of the phrase than Ulpian. Indeed,
since Ulpian in his youth annotated Marcellus’ work and uses Marcellus
extensively as a source in his commentary on the reading praetor’s edict, it
may well be that Ulpian’s liking for the phrase derived from Marcellus. The
phrase is one of which Ulpian makes free use but it is not distinctively
Ulpianic. These rough and ready guides do not rest on any statistical theory24
but they yield results that fit common sense and are fairly robust. They are
guidelines, not rigid rules.
22
Honoré (1978), (1981), (1994), (1998)
23
Words 41.56% (Honoré–Menner 1980, intro. § 4); lines 40.73% (Honoré 1972, 291)
24
Honoré (1978) xv–xvi, 71–6, (1981) x–xiii, cf. Ellegård (1962)
The delineation of style does not rest on distinctiveness alone. If it did, to

catalogue marks of style would be a mechanical process. An author’s style
emerges from marks that not only distinguish him from others but also per-
vade his work and cohere. A distinctive feature may be confined to a particu-
lar work or period of writing. In that case it is a mark of the style of that work
or period but not of the author’s writing as a whole. This is important when
it comes to fixing the order of composition of Ulpian’s works in chapters 7
and 8. Though on the whole his style remains consistent throughout, at times
he takes up expressions that he later drops. These passing traits help to settle
dates.
At first sight it may seem that one-off words and phrases (hapax legomena)
cannot throw light on an author’s style. They may however do so in one of
two ways. An author may have a liking for unusual words, and an accumula-
tion of one-offs will point to that liking. Or a group of one-offs may have
common features other than being unusual. They may, for example, have
similar roots. Nothing special turns on the fact that suasor, ‘persuader’, is
found in the Digest in only one text, which is attributed to Ulpian.25 But sua-
sus is also an Ulpian one-off,26 which points to a fondness for the root
suadere, where other writers prefer persuadere and its derivatives.
Again, a number of one-offs may have a similar syntactical function. Little
significance attaches on its own to the fact that ceteroquin is found in two
Digest texts of Ulpian and no one else.27 But this is only one of a range of con-
junctions and linking phrases that are confined, or almost confined, to him.28
Ceteroquin can therefore take its place as part of a pervasive feature of his way
of linking sentences and phrases.
This leads to the third feature to be looked for in listing marks of style, that
they should cohere.29 They should add something to what in the end will be
an identikit of the author, not just a lengthy catalogue. Some words and
expressions satisfy all three features. They are distinctive, pervasive, and
coherent with other expressions. An example is proinde, ‘and so’, used as a
conjunction. This occurs 214 times in the Digest in Ulpian’s work and at most
four times (perhaps only once) in that of other lawyers.30 It is not only a dis-
tinctive but a pervasive feature of his writing. It occurs in twelve different
works attributed to him and in 48 different books out of 81 in his On the
Edict. It also fits a general feature of his writing, for it illustrates his insistence
25 D 4.4.13 pr (11 ed.)

26
D 9.2.9.1 (18 ed.). Suasio in CJ 5.62.1 (1 May 204) is also hapax for legal authors and imper-
ial constitutions. This affords some evidence that Ulpian was the secretary who composed this
rescript for Severus and Caracalla
27 28
Below n.121 Below n.108–37
29
Frezza (1983) 413 points out that coherence of style does not serve to identify the author
Ulpian with the praetorian prefect of Alexander’s reign. All it shows is that a certain body of
work can plausibly be attributed to a single author
30
Below n.42–7
on linking a sentence to what precedes. But, in building up a picture of

Ulpian’s style proinde, which occurs 214 times, differs only in degree from the
term suasor, which occurs only once.31 That fits the image of a writer who
prefers the shorter word suadere for persuadere and its derivatives. One exam-
ple of this preference for the shorter word is the expression in necem 32 (‘to the
detriment’) instead of in detrimentum. In Latin literature, not only in legal
writing, in necem is unique to Ulpian.33 Indeed the most apparently isolated
one-offs must be listed among potential marks of style, if only because I may
not have perceived their bearing on the wider scene. The long, though incom-
plete, list of marks of style in this chapter assists, but does not foreclose, crit-
ical judgment.
The use made of marks of style is threefold. Their presence in a text is some
evidence of its genuineness. The absence from a work, and to a lesser extent a
text, of any mark of Ulpian’s style is some evidence of its spuriousness. The
concentration of marks in two or more works is some evidence that these were
composed about the same time. But the weight to be put on these inferences
varies. The fact that proinde, a pervasive feature of Ulpian’s style, is absent
from the Opiniones attributed to him, excerpts from which in the Digest run
to several thousand words, is a strong argument against the genuineness of
that work. The presence of proinde in De officio curatoris reipublicae, of which
we have only five excerpts, favours the genuineness of that work. The absence
of suasor and suasus from these works, on the other hand, has no bearing on
their genuineness.
The prime test of genuineness must be internal consistency. Chapter 10
argues that five works attributed to Ulpian in the Digest text headings
(inscriptions) are not his. Their style lacks any of the typical marks of his writ-
ing. So far as genuine Ulpian works are concerned, they have certainly suf-
fered from mistakes in copying and the deliberate changes made by Tribonian
and his colleagues. But in tracking changes it is important to ask whether the
style of the suspect text conforms to Ulpian’s general way of writing. A few
instances are listed at the end of this chapter where some scholars have, I
think, been over-hasty in assuming that Ulpian did not say what the Digest
records him as having said. To stress this point is not to deny the importance
of the study of interpolations but to emphasize, as most scholars now do, the
need for caution in pursuing it. The compilers liked to find precise verbal
authority for what they included in the Digest, even if this amounted only to
a few words, rather than to rewrite texts.34 What is crucial to the present study
31 Below n.606
32 All ten texts: D 4.4.13 pr (11 ed.); 49.1.14 pr (14 ed.); 15.1.21 pr; 15.3.10.6 (29 ed.); 38.5.1.6,
19 (44 ed.); 29.4.4. pr (50 ed.); 36.4.5.15 (52 ed.); 44.6.1.1 (76 ed.); 47.20.3.1 (8 off. proc.)
33 Yaron (1987) 7 finds this puzzling
34 e.g. D 9.2.6, 10, 16, 20, 35—all fragments of a sentence attributed to a different author from
the main part of the sentence. The compilers did not take the easy course of rewriting the main
text because they were not entitled to do so
is that interpolation by Justinian’s compilers could not account for the con-
centration of particular suspect words or phrases in the work of a particular
author.35 All nine Digest texts with si mihi proponas (‘if you put it to me’) are
attributed to Ulpian. Eight of them have been suspected of interpolation.36
Surely the phrase, though suspect in another author, cannot be thought alien
to Ulpian? It could only have been introduced into the Ulpian texts alone by
a post-classical editor of his work. But there is no solid evidence that his work
was re-edited in post-classical times,37 though sporadic glosses or comments
on the text were incorporated in it when copied. Even if it was re-edited, why
should the editor introduce this phrase? I have occasionally drawn attention
to a text that is clearly interpolated or attributed to the wrong author, but
there are not enough instances of this sort to cast doubt on the overall picture
of Ulpian’s style that the Digest texts present.
What, then, are the main features of the writings of the scholar from Tyre
who has left so strong a mark on the law of Europe and on countries influ-
enced by European trade, colonization, or settlement? His style is clear, sim-
ple, consistent, and personal. It is an oral style, of which the only other clear
example in Roman legal literature is Gaius’ Institutes. His writing betrays the
fact that he is dictating. He links sentences and phrases so as to make the
argument flow, even if this means, as it often does, beginning a sentence with
‘and’ (et).38 If the very ordinary Latin phrases proinde, proinde si, and proinde
et si occur 214 times in his work and at most six in that of other authors it is
because the linking phrases ‘and so’, ‘and so if’, ‘and so even if’ come natur-
ally when one is talking but are much less natural in written composition. The
Latin magis est means ‘the better view is’, a phrase much used by lawyers,
including Roman lawyers. But et magis est (‘and the better view is’) is almost
monopolized by Ulpian, who has 88 texts out of 102 with this phrase. The
reason, again, is that in speech it is natural to add the et, but in writing one
inserts a pause, a real or notional full stop, before telling the reader which
view is better. Again, quid tamen si (‘but what if’), a natural phrase in speak-
ing, but less at home in a text composed in writing, is found in Ulpian 42 times
out of 43 instances.39
Consistently with this oral method, Ulpian prefers short to long words and
short clauses to complex syntax. His prose is forceful, direct, and forward-
looking. As in the praetor’s edict, the future tense is favoured. A contract ‘will
be’ (rather than ‘is’) valid. He takes pain to avoid clusters of verbs at the end
of a sentence, especially verbs drawn from different clauses. So he sometimes
puts the direct object after the main verb, and often the participle after the
auxiliary. His prime aim is to be clear, and the reader is seldom in doubt what
35 36
Kalb (1890) 133–4 Below n.223; Crifò (1985) 606
37
Daube’s argument for re-editing (1973) is based on the unfounded prejudice that Paul and
Ulpian could not have cared about keeping slave families together
38 39
Below n.48–102 Below n.151
he means. Lucidity comes at a cost to elegance and variety. His is a plain Latin
prose in which familiar phrases recur. His frequent references to himself, as in
ego puto (‘I think’), also stem in part from dictating, since in speaking it is
more difficult to avoid referring to oneself than in writing. As Birks pointed
out,40 it was a mistake on my part to accuse him in the first edition of ego-
centricity. But in any case Ulpian, though respecting the opinions of other
authors, is self-confident. From this point of view his tone echoes that of the
lawyers of the age of Trajan and Hadrian, for example Iavolenus and Celsus
the younger. Not for him the muted reflections of his elder contemporary
Papinian, who never uses the word ego. A candid writer, Ulpian makes a
point of stating his opinion, even if hesitantly (‘I should think’, putem; ‘I
believe’, credo). Much of his writing, not only in Disputations (Publicae
Disputationes), which record moot points, reads like a debate between him-
self, his colleagues, and by implication the reader: ‘you may say’ (dicas); ‘sup-
pose’ (pone, finge), ‘you should take it’ (accipias). Ulpian regularly gives
reasons, often rather summary ones, for his conclusions.
In listing the words and phrases that satisfy the tests described and count
as marks of Ulpian’s style I have mentioned or referred to all the instances of
the word or phrase to be found in the Digest in Mommsen’s reading of the
text. Ulpian’s texts are listed first. They are classified according to the work
they come from. First come the major treatises On the Edict (Ad Edictum; ed.)
and On Sabinus (Ad Sabinum; Sab.), then the medium-scale works The
Proconsul (De Officio Proconsulis; off. proc.), Disputations (Publicae
Disputationes; disp.), Tribunals (De Omnibus Tribunalibus; omn. trib.), and
The Julio-Papian Law (Ad legem Iuliam et Papiam; leg. Iul. Pap.). Lastly the
minor works are listed in alphabetical order. Then may come ‘cf.’ followed by
instances of the expression or related expressions from legal sources outside
the Digest attributed to Ulpian. When there are Digest texts from other
authors there follows the word ‘but’ and instances of the word or phrase from
texts of the other authors. The reader can in this way count and, if necessary,
look up the legal texts deriving from Ulpian and the other writers. When there
are thirty or more texts of Ulpian, so that to cite them would be to overload
the footnotes, I have usually referred the reader to the relevant fiche in the
Concordance to the Digest Jurists (1980),41 published on microfiche, instead
of setting them out in a footnote. The texts in the fiches are in alphabetical
order, so that, for example, to find instances of Ulpian’s use of proinde ac si
one looks at fiche 67. This contains Ulpian’s Digest texts from POSSESSIONEM
to PROPRIUS. Within the fiche one looks for the texts listed under PROINDE.
These are set out alphabetically according to the word following PROINDE, so
that PROINDE AC SI comes near the beginning of the PROINDE texts. Those schol-
ars who do not have access to Honoré–Menner can find most of the relevant
40 Birks (1983) 171 41 Honoré–Menner (1980)

passages, though sometimes with more difficulty, in the Vocabularium

Iurisprudentiae Romanae (VIR).
II. MARKS OF STYLE
The marks of style to be listed, which do not purport to be exhaustive, are

grouped under headings: (i) conjunctions and other introductory phrases;
(ii) expository phrases; (iii) phrases expressing Ulpian’s attitudes to legal propo-
sitions; (iv) uses of the future instead of the present tense; (v) inversions of the
traditional Latin word-order; (vi) verbs; (vii) nouns and nominal phrases; (viii)
adjectives and participles used as adjectives; (ix) adverbs and adverbial phrases.
Appendix 1 lists in alphabetical order all the words and phrases mentioned.
(i) Conjunctions and other introductory phrases. Ulpian likes to link sen-
tences. He begins each sentence but the first with a conjunction or transitional
phrase. He does not like unlinked sentences, anacoloutha. A conjunction that
is virtually confined to Ulpian is proinde, which means ‘hence’. It is used either
on its own or in combinations such as proinde si, proinde et si, and proinde
tamquam si.42 All sixty-four instances of proinde et si in the Digest are from
Ulpian,43 as are eighty-five out of eighty-eight with proinde si 44 and sixty-five
of sixty-eight in which proinde is a conjunction on its own.45 In all, then, the
Digest yields 214 texts of Ulpian in which proinde means ‘hence’ and only six
from other authors. A remarkable concentration. Nor are all the other six
texts real exceptions. One is probably due to Justinian’s compilers,46 and a
second may also be compilatorial.47 The use of this word in legal writing, used
to draw a conclusion from what precedes, is virtually an Ulpian fingerprint.
He often uses et (‘and’) to link sentences or clauses. This, a notable feature
of his prose, points to the habit of dictating. Combinations of et and putare
(‘to think’) furnish many examples. All thirty-one Digest texts with et putem
(‘and I should think’) are attributed to Ulpian.48 So are eight of nine texts
42
Proinde can also mean ‘just (as)’ or ‘just (as if)’, as in proinde ac or atque. This is a use of
which Gaius, Inst. has many examples. It is not Ulpianic: VIR 4 (1) 1222.23–31
43
Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 67 PROINDE ET SI; VIR 4.1222.31–44
44
Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 67 PROINDE SI; but D 34.5.13.4 (Iul. 1 ambig.); 9.2.22 pr (Paul
22 ed.); 13.7.16.1 (Paul 29 ed.) cf. Gaius, Inst. 2.79. D 47.2.21.8 (‘Paul’ 40 Sab.) is an Ulpian text
45
Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 67 PROINDE; VIR 4.1222.8–19 but D 12.1.8 (Pomp. 6 Plaut);
33.1.21.4 (Scae. 22 dig.); 48.19.28.6 (6 cogn.) cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.14 but interp. Citati (1927) 70:
Vassalli, Schulz
46 D 9.2.22 pr (Paul 22 ed.), intended to link the Paul text to the preceding Ulpian text
47
D 13.7.16.1 (Paul 29 ed.), intended to link what follows to the correct but compilatorial
statement ‘contrariam pigneraticiam creditori actionem competere certum est’
48
D 19.1.13.3 (32 ed.); 25.4.1.9 (34 ed.); 27.9.5.4; 27.9.5.12 (35 ed.); 47.2.52.6 (37 ed.); 39.3.6.2
(53 ed.); 40.12.18 (55 ed.); 42.3.6; 42.6.1.8, 16 (64 ed.); 43.5.3.15 (68 ed.); 42.8.10.5 (73 ed.); 44.2.9
pr (75 ed.); 44.4.4.24; 44.6.1.1 (76 ed.); 36.3.1.11 (79 ed.); 38.4.3.5 (14 Sab.); 23.3.9.3 (31 Sab);
24.1.32.28 (33 Sab.); 23.3.38 (48 Sab.); 18.4.2.10; 45.1.38.12 (49 Sab.); 48.2.7.2 (7 off. proc.);
with et magis puto (‘and I rather think’),49 nineteen of twenty with et non
puto,50 all eleven with et ego puto51 and all three with et verum/verius puto.52
Even plain et puto occurs in his work 112 times out of 126.53 Fourteen
instances come from other lawyers,54 and one of these, attributed to Paul, is
really a text of Ulpian.55 Nor is this all: et sunt qui putent56 and et putamus57
are also confined to Ulpian.
So are many other phrases in which et is the first element in the phrase con-
necting a sentence with the previous one. One of the criticisms of the first edi-
tion was that sometimes there are only one or two instances of the phrases
introduced by et that I cite.58 Often, of course, there are more. But the crucial
point is that among Roman lawyers the overwhelming bulk of these et phrases
come from Ulpian, as VIR confirms.59 In some of these et introduces a verb: et
(magis) arbitror,60 et constat,61 et credo,62 et dicendum erit,63 et dico,64 et non
dubito,65 et eveniet,66 et exstat/extat,67 et finge,68 et intererit,69 et magis est,70 et
50.13.1.4; 50.13.1.15 (8 omn. trib.); 48.5.2.5 (8 disp.); 40.5.24.16, 17; 40.5.26.6 (5 fid.); 48.5.26.4
(2 adult.); 49.4.1 pr (1 appell.)
49
D 25.4.1.8 (34 ed.); 26.7.5.5 (35 ed.); 27.4.1.5 (36 ed.); 1.5.10 (1 Sab.); 24.1.21 pr (32 Sab.);
24.1.32.14 (33 Sab.); 48.19.9.14 (10 off. proc.); 25.3.5.1 (2 off. cons.) but 32.64 (Afr. 6 quaest.) cf.
19.1.13.9 (Ulp. 32 ed: et puto magis)
50
D 2.2.3.4 (3 ed.); 4.4.3.4 (11 ed.); 5.3.25.6 (15 ed.); 50.14.2 (31/1 ed.); 49.17.8 (45 ed.);
29.4.1.5 (50 ed.); 47.9.3.7 (56 ed.); 42.6.1.1 (64 ed.); 28.3.6.10 (10 Sab.); 32.52.5 (24 Sab.); 23.3.9.3
(31 Sab.); 23.2.29 (36 Sab.); 26.1.6.4 (38 Sab.); 47.2.39; 47.2.43.8 (41 Sab.); 42.2.6.4 (5 omn. trib.);
5.1.52.4 (6 fid.); 40.9.14 pr (4 adult.); 42.1.15.7 (3 off. cons.) but 43.24.21.1 (Pomp. 29 Sab.)
51
D 3.5.3.11 (10 ed.); 9.2.11.10 (18 ed.); 29.5.5.1 (50 ed.); 47.8.2.27 (56 ed.); 43.19.3.16 (70 ed.);
44.4.4.23, 29 (76 ed.); 7.1.13.3, 5 (18 Sab.); 34.2.27.1 (44 Sab.); 18.4.2.3 (49 Sab.)
52
D 35.1.10 pr (23 Sab.); 1.14.3 (38 Sab.); 41.1.33 pr (4 disp.)
53
Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 56 ET cf. Kalb (1890) 131 who points out that one of the texts
attributed to Gaius (D 18.6.2.1) is really from Ulpian
54
D 16.1.32.2 (Pomp. 1 SCC); 29.4.3 (Pomp. 3 Sab.); 18.6.2.1(Gaius 2 rer. cott.); 17.1.49
(Marc. 6 dig.); 3.4.6.2 (Paul 9 ed.); 4.8.32.16 (Paul 13 ed.); 18.5.3 (Paul 33 ed.); 22.1.38.14 (Paul
6 Plaut.); 42.1.51.1 (Paul 2 man.); 34.9.5.5 (Paul 1 fisc.); 46.1.71 pr (Paul 4 quaest.); 31.69.4 (Pap.
19 quaest.); 37.8.7 (Tryph. 16 disp.); 48.18.10.2 (Arc. Char. 1 test.)
55
D 3.4.6.2 (Paul 9 ed. = Ulp. 9 ed.), below n.827–8
56 57
D 41.2.13.2 (72 ed.); 36.1.17.3 (4 fid.) cf. 40.5.24.19 (5 fid.) D 33.8.6.2 (25 Sab.)
58 59
Watson (1983) but see Birks (1983) 180 VIR 2.530–536 et (praecedit controvesia)
60
D 13.7.24.2 (30 ed.); 18.3.4.4; 19.1.11.18 (32 ed.); 27.3.1.20 (36 ed.); 37.4.3.9 (39 ed.);
38.2.12.4 (44 ed.); 33.7.12.14 (20 Sab.); 32.70.12 (22 Sab.); 29.1.19.2 (4 disp.); 48.5.4.2 (8 disp.);
36.1.18.7 (2 fid.) cf. Kalb (1890) 131
61
D 13.7.24.1; 16.3.7.3 (30 ed.); 24.3.24 pr (33 ed.); 28.2.1 (1 Sab.); 45.1.29.1 (46 Sab.)
62 63
D 28.3.6.6 (10 Sab.); 32.11.21 (2 fid.); 17.1.29.3 (7 disp) D 5.3.25.9 (15 ed.)
64 65
D 38.17.1.10 (12 Sab.) D 25.1.5.1 (36 Sab.); 47.3.2 (42 Sab.); 39.5.7.2 (44 Sab.)
66
D 37.6.1.19 (40 ed.)
67
D 27.7.4 pr; 27.8.1.2 (36 ed.); 39.2.15.12 (53 ed.); 43.20.1.27 (70 ed.); 43.24.11.1, 8 (71 ed.);
48.18.1.27 (8 off. proc.); 40.5.30.6 (5 fid.); 21.1.8 (1 ed. cur.)
68 D 5.1.18.1 (23 ed.) 69 D 18.6.4 pr (28 Sab.)
70 Eighty-eight of 104 texts: Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 56 ET MAGIS EST but D 30.24.3
(Pomp. 5 Sab.); 33.7 (Pomp. 8 Q. Muc.); 39.3.22 (Pomp. 10 var. lect.); 45.1.137.2 (Ven. 1 stip.);
2.14.30.2 (Gaius 1 ed. prov.); 46.3.72.4 (Marc. 20 dig.); 31.28 (Marc. 29 dig.); 6.1.6 (Paul 6 ed.);
4.2.21.4 (Paul 11 ed.); 11.3.14.2 (Paul 19 ed.); 16.2.9.1 (Paul 32 ed.); 43.24.6 (Paul 67 ed.);
23.3.56.3 (Paul 6 Plaut.); 32.89 (Paul 6 Iul. Pap.); 20.1.16.8 (Marci. 1 form. hyp.); 38.4.9 (Mod. 9
pand.). D 47.2.21.5 (‘Paul’ 40 Sab.) is an Ulpian text
erit procedendum,71 et (parvi) refert,72 et retineo,73 et scio,74 et mihi (magis,

verius) videtur,75 et visum est.76 Sometimes et is followed by est as an auxiliary:
et est decretum,77et est dubitatum,78 et est relatum,79 et est rescriptum,80 et est
quaestio tractata.81 At other times the est is existential: et est actio,82 et est epis-
tula,83 et est pactio.84 In others, again, it is followed by a predicate: et est expe-
ditius,85 et est frequentissima,86 et est optimum,87 et est simile,88 et est
utile/utilius/utilissima.89 When the predicate follows est the effect is markedly
emphatic. When est follows the adjective the emphasis is less: et absurdum est,90
et difficile est.91 In yet other phrases the combination of et with an introductory
adverb is distinctive: et per contrarium,92 et facilius,93 et fortassis (with dicere
etc.),94 et fortius (with dicere),95 et generaliter,96 et regulariter,97 et recte/rectis-
sime,98 et versa vice.99
A common phrase is et ait (‘and so-and-so says’) followed expressly or by
implication by the name of the author whose view is reported e.g. et ait
Iulianus . . . or quaeritur apud Pedium . . . et ait. This type of introductory
phrase occurs 118 times in texts of Ulpian in the Digest100 and 5 times in other
authors.101 One of the two instances in Paul is, however, perhaps a covert
citation of Ulpian.102
71
D 7.8.6 (17 Sab.)
72
D 4.2.9 pr (11 ed.); 12.4.3.7 (26 ed.); 15.3.1.2 (29 ed.); 29.4.1.1 (50 ed.); 40.12.8.2 (55 ed.);
43.20.1.21 (70 ed.); 43.24.1.2 (71 ed.); 44.4.4.1 (76 ed.); 7.4.1 pr (17 Sab.); 34.3.5.2 (23 Sab.);
40.7.3.1 (27 Sab.); 47.2.3.1 (41 Sab.); 45.2.3 pr; 46.1.6.1 (47 Sab.); 28.5.35.1 (4 disp.); 36.1.3.2 (3
fid.) cf. 26.7.54 (Tryph. 2 disp: et multum refert)
73 74
D 35.1.92 (5 fid.) D 48.13.7 (7 off. proc.)
75
D 3.1.1.10 (6 ed.); 3.5.5.8 (10 ed.); 14.5.4.4; 15.2.1.7 (29 ed.); 25.6.1.10 (34 ed.); 37.4.1.7 (39
ed.); 38.5.1.22 (44 ed.); 43.24.1.5 (71 ed.); 10.2.49 (2 disp.); 36.1.1.17 (3 fid.)
76 77 78
D 18.4.2.6 (49 Sab.) D 36.1.1.13 (3 fid.) D 13.6.5.11 (28 ed.)
79 D 11.5.1.3 (23 ed.); 21.2.4 pr (32 ed.); 43.24.13.5 (71 ed.)
80 81
D 47.10.13.7 (57 ed.); 40.5.24.5 (5 fid.) D 18.4.2.7 (49 Sab.)
82 83 84
D 47.5.1.2 (38 ed.) D 19.2.19.2 (32 ed.) D 2.14.1.2 (4 ed.)
85 86
D 7.9.9 pr (51 ed.) D 42.4.7.2 (49 ed.)
87 88
D 43.29.3.12 (71 ed.) D 43.26.1.3 (1 inst.)
89
D 43.26.6.4 (71 ed.); 43.8.2.37 (76 ed.); 49.4.1.5 (1 appell.)
90
D 2.13.6.9 (4 ed.) but interp. Citati (1927) 1: Gradenwitz and others
91
D 21.1.38.4 (2 ed. cur.) 92 D 21.1.23.9 (1 ed.cur.)
93
D 14.1.1.5 (28 ed.); 42.4.3.1 (49 ed.)
94
D 32.55.7 = 50.16.167 (25 Sab.); 40.5.24.2, 17 (5 fid.)
95
D 7.9.3.4 (79 ed.); 26.2.10.2 (36 Sab.)
96
Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 56 (forty-four texts) but D 9.4.2.8 (Afr. 6 quaest.); 21.2.24
(Gaius 1 ed. cur.); 24.2.6 (Iul. 62 dig.); 21.1.41 (Paul 2 ed. cur.); 28.2.28.3 (Tryph. 20 disp.)
97 D 15.3.3.2 (29 ed.); 30.71.1 (51 ed.); 7.1.25.5 (18 Sab.)
98 D 4.8.21.11 (13 ed); 10.2.8.1 (19 ed.); 39.9.1.1 (41 ed.); 29.4.4.1 (50 ed.); 47.8.4.3 (56 ed.);
42.4.7.7 (59 ed.); 43.24.13.5 (71 ed.); 36.3.1.13 (79 ed.); 7.6.1.3 (18 Sab.); 40.4.13.2 (5 disp.)
99
D 43.29.3 pr (71 ed.); 44.5.1.12 (76 ed.); 45.1.1.3 (48 Sab.)
100
Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 56 ET AIT
101
D 39.6.31.3 (Gaius 8 ed. prov.); 8.3.35 (Paul 15 Plaut.); 23.2.60.4 (Paul 1 orat. Ant. et
Comm.); 30.114.3 (Marci. 8 inst.); 29.5.15 pr (Marci. 1 del.)
102
D 23.2.60.4 (Paul. 1 orat. Ant. et Comm: below n.832)
To return to linking phrases without et: nec non (‘as well as’)103 and nec non
et,104 long ago picked out by Kalb as Ulpianic,105 are linking phrases meaning
‘and’. Per contrarium (‘on the other hand’), which occurs twenty-nine times in
the Digest in texts of Ulpian and twice in Marcianus,106 an author whose style
was influenced by Ulpian’s, is used to make a contrast.107 There are other link-
ing phrases confined or almost confined to Ulpian’s writings. Some, drawing
a conclusion from what has gone before, have much the same meaning as
proinde: idcircoque,108 eapropter,109 inde,110 sic deinde.111 Others introduce
provisos or limitations on what has preceded: dummodo non,112 dummodo
sciat/sciamus.113 There is adversative force in verum tamen or verumtamen,114
103
Nineteen of 22 texts: D 4.6.26.4 (12 ed.); 11.6.7.2 (24 ed.); 14.3.5.17 (28 ed.); 15.3.3.6 (29
ed.); 27.9.3.5; 27.9.5.10 (35 ed.); 36.4.3.1 (52 ed.); 28.8.3 (60 ed.); 43.3.1.3 (67 ed.); 36.3.1.8 (79
ed.); 29.2.5 pr (1 Sab.); 7.8.10 pr (17 Sab.); 7.1.13.2 (18 Sab.); 48.19.9.1 (10 off. proc.); 24.3.22.6
(3 disp.); 26.5.6 (8 omn. trib.); 50.16.141 (8 Iul. Pap.); 49.14.16 (18 Iul. Pap.); 25.3.5.4 (2 off.
cons.) but 45.1.58 (Iul. 54 dig.); 37.1.6.1 (Paul 41 ed.); 49.1.16 (Mod. 6 diff.)
104
Nine of 11 texts: D 3.2.23 (8 ed.); 37.15.7.4 (10 ed.); 4.6.1 pr; 4.6.28 pr (12 ed.); 43.16.1.2;
50.16.60 pr (69 ed.); 36.3.1.8; 43.16.1.2 (79 ed.); 47.2.12.2 (29 Sab.) but 2.14.9 pr (Paul 72 ed.);
49.16.3.17 (Mod. 4 poen.)
105
Kalb (1890) 132–4
106
D 23.4.6 (4 ed.); 2.4.8.1 (5 ed.); 4.4.22 (11 ed.); 8.5.8.5 (17 ed.); 17.2.52.18 (31/2 ed.);
19.1.13.5, 25 (32 ed.); 25.3.1.11, 13 (34 ed.); 26.7.9.9; 27.3.1.2 (36 ed.); 37.9.1.7 (41 ed.); 39.3.1.21
(53 ed.); 28.1.20.2 (1 Sab.); 29.2.30.5 (8 Sab.); 7.2.8; 7.8.4.1 (17 Sab.); 33.3.1.10 (19 Sab.); 33.8.6.4
(25 Sab.); 23.2.12.2 (26 Sab.); 8.2.17.1 (29 Sab.); 24.1.11.5 (32 Sab.); 47.2.46.8 (42 Sab.); 45.1.1.6
(48 Sab.); 48.22.7.12 (10 off. proc.); 3.3.28 (1 disp.); 48.19.1.2 (8 disp.); 2.15.8.25 (5 omn. trib.);
21.1.23.9 (1 ed. cur.) but 36.1.34 (Marci. 8 inst.); 34.9.2.2 (Marci. 11 inst.) cf. Kalb (1890) 130
107
Ch.6 n.71–2, 80–1
108
Seventeen of 19 texts: D 3.2.13.7 (6 ed.); 17.1.14 pr (31/1 ed.); 26.7.9.6 (36 ed.); 37.4.3.4 (39
ed.); 37.10.5.1; 37.10.3.7 (41 ed., twice); 38.5.3 pr (44 ed.); 39.3.4.2 (53 ed.); 42.1.4.1 (58 ed.);
43.16.1.24 (69 ed.); 43.20.1.25 (70 ed.); 43.24.15 pr (71 ed.); 47.11.7 (9 off. proc.); 28.3.12 pr (4
disp.); 40.9.12. pr (4 adult.); 25.3.5.8 (2 off. cons.), but 47.2.71 (Marc. 8 dig.); 23.2.57 (Marci., cit-
ing divi fratres)
109
D 3.1.1.1 (6 ed.); 10.3.4.4 (19 ed.); 28.7.8.2 (50 ed.); 47.10.17.9 (57 ed.); 40.7.9 pr (28 Sab.);
39.4.14 (8 disp.)
110
Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 60 INDE (thirty texts where inde means ‘hence’) but D 47.2.1.1
(Paul 39 ed.); 26.7.37.2 (Pap. 11 quaest.); 20.1.16.6 (Marci. 1 hyp.); 35.1.52 (Mod. 7 diff.); cf.
Gaius, Inst. 2.218; Frag. Vat. 90 (Ven 1 interd.?) cf. VIR 3.698
111
D 45.1.72.2 (20 ed.); 11.7.31 pr (25 ed.); 15.1.1 pr (29 ed.); 48.22.6.1 (9 off. proc.);
21.1.25.10 (1 ed cur.); 44.3.5.1 (3 disp.); 17.1.29.3 (7 disp.); 36.1.6.2 (4 fid.); 35.1.92 (5 fid.)
112
D 50.1.25 (1 ed.); 16.3.7.2 (30 ed.); 29.4.6 pr (50 ed.); 43.22.1.8, 9 (70 ed.); 7.4.5 pr (17 Sab.);
47.20.3.2 (8 off. proc.); 48.18.1.13 (8 off. proc.); 50.13.1.10 (8 trib.); 22.1.33 pr (1 off. cur. reip.)
but 17.1.60.2 (Scae. 1 resp.)
113
D 9.3.5.5 (23 ed.); 16.3.1.10 (30 ed.); 27.9.7.4 (35 ed.); 42.3.6 (64 ed.); 43.16.3.9 (69 ed.);
46.2.2 (4 Sab.); 46.4.6 (47 Sab.); 1.16.4.2 (1 off. proc.); 47.17.1; Collatio 7.4.1 (8 off. proc.);
21.1.1.2 (1 ed. cur.) but interp. Citati (1927) 32: Beseler
114
Twenty-nine of 33 texts: D 17.2.63.8 (31/2 ed.); 19.1.11.5, 18; 19.1.17.7 (32 ed.); 4.4.49 (35
ed.); 27.2.2.2 (36 ed.); 28.1.22.4 (39 ed.); 37.5.8.2; 37.5.10.2 (40 ed.); 38.5.1.15 (44 ed.); 38.2.14.4
(45 ed.); 38.6.1.3 (46 ed.); 38.11.1.1 (47 ed.); 42.8.10.3 (73 ed.); 44.4.4.33; 44.5.1.10 (76 ed.);
35.3.1.12; 36.3.1.19, 20 (79 ed.); 33.4.1.10 (19 Sab.); 41.1.20.1 (29 Sab.); 25.1.7 (36 Sab.); 29.1.28
(36 Sab.); 9.2.41 pr (41 Sab.); 47.2.46.8 (42 Sab.); 28.5.35 pr; 28.5.35.3 (4 disp.); 37.14.16 pr (10
Iul. Pap.); 48.5.10.2 (4 adult.) but 48.10.6 pr (Afr. 3 quaest: verum testamentum, Mommsen);
33.1.19.1 (Scae. 17 dig: velim, Mommsen) 22.5.13 (Pap. 1 adult.); 20.6.8.7 (Marci. 1 hyp.); interp.
Citati (1927) 91: Beseler
tamenetsi . . . tamen,115 and attamen, the latter standing alone116 or preceded

by quamvis,117 etiamsi,118 or qualiterqualiter.119 Several phrases reinforce what
has gone before: idem ac si (and inflections),120 ceteroquin,121 quin immo etiam
(a lapse into pleonasm),122 constat enim,123 nonnumquam enim,124 sane enim,125
sed enim,126 ubi enim,127 unde enim,128 utique etiam,129 non tantum . . . autem,130
non tantum . . . verum etiam,131 non tantum . . . verum (without etiam),132 non
solum . . . verum etiam si,133 non solum verum etiam quoque,134 non solum verum
115 116
D 14.6.7.11 (29 ed.) D 17.2.33 (31/2 ed.); 21.1.1.10 (1 ed. cur.)
117
D 24.3.24.5 (33 ed.); 25.4.1.11 (34 ed.); 27.2.1.2, 26.7.3.3 (35 ed.); 11.1.16 pr, 1 (37 ed.);
38.5.1.6, 21 (44 ed.); 37.9.7.2 (47 ed.); 29.5.1.13 (50 ed.); 30.71.5 (51 ed.); 47.2.17.2 (39 Sab.);
47.1.1 pr (41 Sab.); 39.5.7.4 (44 Sab.); 26.5.12.1 (3 off. proc.); 26.5.8.1 (8 omn. trib.); 23.2.27(3
Iul. Pap.) but 22.3.9 (Cels. 1 dig.); 47.2.21.10 (Paul 40 Sab. = Ulp., Mommsen); interp. Citati
(1927) 12: Beseler and others
118
D 17.2.63 pr (31/2 ed.); 29.3.8 (50 ed.); 39.3.4 pr (53 ed.); 42.6.1.3 (64 ed.); 47.2.7.1 (41
Sab.); 47.2.46 pr (42 Sab.)
119
D 47.2.46 pr (42 Sab.)
120
D 46.7.5.4 (77 ed.); 30.53.2 (25 Sab.); 8.4.6.2 (28 Sab.); 26.8.5.4, 6 (40 Sab.) but 40.5.26.7
(Ulp. 5 fid. citing Trajan); 45.2.12.1 (Ven. 2 stip.)
121 122
D 28.5.35.3 (4 disp.); 49.14.29 pr (8 disp.) D 10.3.7.13 (20 ed.); 9.4.35 (41 Sab.)
123
D 26.7.3.2 (35 ed.); 43.20.1.13 (70 ed.); 28.6.2.4 (6 Sab.); 33.7.12.2 (20 Sab.)
124
D 26.4.5.3 (35 ed.); 43.20.1.13 (70 ed.); 48.18.1.27 (8 off. proc.)
125
D 26.7.3.6 (35 ed.); 26.7.7.12 (35 ed.); 39.3.1.23 (53 ed.); 32.49.4 (22 Sab.); 38.1.9.1 (34
Sab.) cf. Collatio 12.7.8 (18 ed.)
126
Twenty-four of 26 texts: D 5.3.11 pr (15 ed.); 6.1.1.3 (16 ed.); 6.2.7.13 (16 ed.); 37.9.7.1 (47
ed.); 40.12.7.2, 3 (54 ed.); 47.9.3.3 (56 ed.); 42.5.24.2 (63 ed.); 43.19.3.4 (70 ed.); 36.3.1.19 (79 ed.);
46.6.4.3; 35.2.47 pr (79 ed.); 35.1.10 pr (23 Sab.); 26.8.5.2 (40 Sab.); 47.1.1 pr (41 Sab.); 39.5.7.5
(44 Sab.); 50.4.6.5 (4 off. proc.); 47.18.1.2; 48.18.1.3 (8 off. proc.); 48.19.9.11 (10 off. proc.);
21.1.38.7 (1 ed. cur.); 39.5.12 (3 disp: sed etenim, Mommsen); 36.1.23.3 (5 disp.); 49.14.29 pr (8
disp.) cf. Collatio 14.3.2 (9 off. proc.) but D 34.3.20.1 (Mod. 10 resp.); 45.1.63 (Afr. 6 qu: etenim,
Mommsen)
127
D 6.1.9 (16 ed.); 38.9.1.6 (49 ed.); 40.5.4.5 (60 ed.); 43.16.1.35 (69 ed.); 24.3.2.2, 37.4.17 (35
Sab.); 21.1.37 (1 ed. cur.) but 28.6.23 (Pap. 6 resp.)
128
D 44.4.4.23 (76 ed.)
129
D 25.6.1.11 (34 ed.); 37.6.1.2 (40 ed.); 47.8.2.10 (56 ed.); 40.5.4.3, 14 (60 ed.)
130
Thirteen of 14 texts: D 13.7.9.1 (28 ed.); 26.10.3.2 (35 ed.); 26.7.9.7 (36 ed.); 47.4.1.14 (38
ed.); 47.9.3.3 (56/1 ed.); 43.24.3.3 (71 ed.); 24.1.3.9 (32 Sab.); 26.4.3.9 (38 Sab.); 16.3.11 (41 Sab.);
45.1.1.2 (48 Sab.); 18.4.2.4 (49 Sab.); 21.1.38.10 (2 ed. cur.); 36.1.18.2 (2 fid.) but 15.1.47.4 (Paul
4 Plaut.)
131
Twenty-six of 29 texts: D 26.7.9.7; 27.4.1.5 (36 ed.); 37.4.3 pr (39 ed.); 37.5.5 pr (40 ed.);
37.9.1.15; 37.10.1.5 (41 ed.); 38.2.16.8 (45 ed.); 38.7.2.1 (46 ed.); 36.4.5.28 (52 ed.); 8.5.10.1 (53
ed.); 39.3.8 (53 ed.); 47.10.15.19 (57 ed.); 28.8.7.2 (60 ed.); 43.22.1.1 (70 ed.); 43.24.15.8;
50.17.157.2 (71 ed.); 42.8.10.20 (73 ed.); 35.3.1.11 (79 ed.); 7.4.10.1 (17 Sab.); 26.4.3.9 (38 Sab.);
48.18.1.23 (8 off. proc.); 21.1.38.10 (2 ed. cur.); 36.1.18.2 (2 fid.); 26.5.7 (1 omn. trib.); 23.2.43 pr
(1 Iul. Pap.); 25.3.5.12 (2 off. cons.); but 35.1.50 (Ulp. 1 off. cons. citing Pius); 3.5.18.4 (Paul 2
Ner.); 7.1.3.1 (Gaius 2 rer. cott.)
132
D 17.1.12.9 (31 ed.); 1.9.10 (34 ed.); 47.10.17.19 (57 ed.); 43.5.1.2 (68 ed.); 44.4.4.33 (76
ed.); 26.8.5 pr. (40 Sab.); 13.7.4; 47.2.27 pr (41 Sab.); 48.19.9.13 (10 off. proc.); 10.2.49 (2 disp.);
50.16.131.1 (4 Iul. Pap.); 49.1.6 (2 appell.) but 47.2.21 pr. (Paul 40 Sab. = Ulp. Mommsen)
133 D 4.3.1.8; 4.3.3 (11 ed.); 15.1.11.9 (29 ed.); 37.5.6.4; 37.5.8.6 (40 ed.); 37.9.1.14 (49 ed.);
42.8.3.1 (66 ed.); 43.16.1.33 (69 ed.); 40.7.3.3 (27 Sab.)

134
D 38.2.10.1 (44 ed.); 43.20.1.37 (70 ed.); 38.16.1.11 (12 Sab.); 1.1.1.1 (1 inst.)
quoque (without etiam),135 non solum . . . verum omnino,136 and non solummodo
. . . sed et.137 Questions are put with an ergo,138 an vero et,139 num forte,140
utrum autem,141 and utrum . . . an vero.142 Sive autem,143 solet autem,144 quia
autem,145 and interdum autem146 foreshadow a minor modification of what has
gone before. Interdum tamen,147 interdum . . . licet,148 bring in more radical
variations. Si quidem . . . si autem149 points to an antithesis.
Ulpian likes to argue by analogy, to point to examples that are sufficiently
like the one just discussed to be decided in the same way. Some of the linking
phrases fit this trait. The reasoning often proceeds from case to case in the
manner of the common lawyer trained in the Anglo-American tradition, with
135 D 9.4.5.1 (3 ed.); 3.3.39 pr. (9 ed.); 4.4.18.5 (11 ed.); 4.1.6; 4.7.4.2 (13 ed.); 10.4.3.9 (24 ed.);
13.6.5.8 (28 ed.); 14.4.1.5; 14.6.9.3; 15.1.1.6 (29 ed.); 25.5.1.1 (34 ed.); 37.11.2.4 (41 ed.); 29.5.1.7
(50 ed.); 36.4.5.12 (52 ed.); 47.10.11 pr (57 ed.); 11.8.1.8 (68 ed.); 50.16.60.1 (69 ed.); 43.19.5.2 (70
ed.); 29.2.30.1 (8 Sab.); 7.8.2.1 (17 Sab.); 34.3.3.4 (23 Sab.); 46.8.20 (1 disp.); 15.1.3.6 (2 disp.);
23.2.43.4 (1 Iul. Pap.) but 15.1.49 (Pomp. 4 Q. Muc.)
136
D 50.16.178 pr (49 Sab.) 137 D 50.1.8 (1 ed.)
138
D 11.1.9.4 (22 ed.); 15.2.1.7 (29 ed.); 26.4.5.3 (35 ed.); 26.4.5.4 (35 ed.); 27.9.3.5 (35 ed.);
46.1.8.3 (47 Sab.); 45.3.11 (48 Sab.) but 37.8.7 (Tryph. 16 disp.)
139
D 17.1.8.4 (31/1 ed.); 37.5.8.1 (40 ed.); 7.8.10.2 (17 Sab.); 7.6.1.3 (18 Sab.); 26.1.3.2 (37
Sab.)
140
D 4.4.16 pr (11 ed.); 10.3.7.13 (20 ed.); 26.2.17.2 (35 ed.); 43.18.1.2 (70 ed.); 1.7.15.2 (25
Sab.) but 49.16.3.7 (Mod. 4 poen.)
141
Fifteen of 16 texts: D 2.14.7.8 (4 ed.); 7.6.5.1 (17 ed.); 38.5.1.6 (44 ed.); 29.3.2.7; 29.5.3.14
(50 ed.); 39.2.30.1 (81 ed.); 28.1.5 (6 Sab.); 38.17.1.11 (12 Sab.); 7.8.10.3 (17 Sab.); 7.6.1.3 (18
Sab.); 33.8.8.8 (25 Sab.); 29.1.19.1 (4 disp.); 36.1.11.2 (4 fid.); 25.3.5.2, 20 (2 off. cons., twice); but
10.2.54 (Ner. 3 membr.) cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.189
142
Twenty-one of 25 texts: D 2.8.2.5 (5 ed.); 4.6.28.3 (12 ed.); 5.3.23 pr (15 ed.); 10.3.23 (32
ed.); 19.2.11 pr. (32ed.); 37.6.1.13 (40 ed.); 38.5.1.14.(44 ed.); 29.4.10.2 (50 ed.); 39.2.13.2 (53ed.);
42.4.5.3 (59 ed.); 40.5.4.3 (60 ed.); 46.7.5.7 (77 ed.); 38.4.1.8 (14 Sab.); 7.8.10.2 (17 Sab.); 41.9.1.2
(31 Sab.); 41.1.23.3 (43 Sab.); 48.19.8.7 (9 off. proc.); 48.19.9.14 (10 off. proc.); 23.3.5.1, 2 (2 off.
cons., twice); 40.9.30.4 (4 Ael. Sent.) but 24.1.31.4 (Pomp. 14 Sab); 18.6.2.1 (Gaius 2 rer. cott.);
44.7.44.6 (Paul 74 ed.); 35.1.82 (Call. 2 quaest.)
143
Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 72 SIVE AUTEM (33 texts) but D 7.2.4 (Iul. 35 dig.); 13.6.18.1;
16.3.14.1 (Gaius 9 ed. prov.); 24.2.2.3 (Gaius 11 ed. prov.); 39.4.13.2 (Gaius 13 ed. prov.); 18.1.58
(Pap. 10 quaest., interp.); 50.4.18.29 (Arc. Char. 1 mun. civ.)
144
D 42.6.1.1 (64 ed.); 43.5.3.10 (68 ed.); 47.20.3.2 (8 off. proc.); 48.19.9.4 (10 off. proc.)
145
D 16.3.1.47 (30 ed.); 43.3.1.4 (67ed.); 43.18.1.6; 43.20.1.31 (70 ed.); 43.23.1.7;
43.24.15.12 (71 ed.); 26.1.3.1 (37 Sab.) but 49.14.42.1 (Val. 5 fid.)
146
D 4.4.13.1 (11 ed.); 9.1.1.15 (18 ed.); 14.5.4.1 (29 ed.); 7.9.1.7 (79 ed.); 29.2.21.1 (7 Sab.);
26.4.1.3 (14 Sab.) cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.199; 4.127; D 34.5.13.6 (Iul. 1 ambig: autem interdum) but
interp. Citati (1927) 48: Pernice and others
147
Eleven of 13 texts: D 27.6.5 (12 ed.); 4.4.19 (13 ed.); 6.2.11.3 (16 ed.); 11.1.11.3 (22 ed.);
9.3.5.2 (23 ed.); 10.4.11.1 (24 ed.); 47.10.17.13 (57 ed.); 7.2.1.3 (17 Sab.); 7.1.25.1 (18 Sab.);
46.3.12.1 (30 Sab.); 21.1.1.9 (1 ed. cur.) but 30.12.3 (Pomp. 3 Sab.); 11.3.14.9 (Paul 19 ed.) cf.
Gaius, Inst. 4.155
148
D 3.3.39.1 (9 ed.); 4.4.13.1 (11 ed.); 6.2.11.3 (16 ed.); 9.3.5.2 (23 ed.); 12.6.26.12 (26 ed.);
38.16.1.7 (12 Sab.) but 36.4.15 (Val. 7 act. = Venuleius: Krüger) cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.176: licet . . .
interdum; D. 4.8.15 (Ulp. 13 ed.); 28.3.3.6 (Ulp. 3 Sab.)
149
Thirteen of 15 texts: D 14.3.1 (28 ed.); 15.3.3.10 (29 ed.); 29.4.10.2 (50 ed.); 49.17.2 (67 ed.);
43.8.2.28 (68 ed.); 43.24.13.7 (71 ed.); 42.8.10.1 (73 ed.); 44.4.4.17 (76 ed.); 46.1.33; 46.7.5.6 (77
ed.); 35.3.1.4 (79 ed.); 7.4.10.7 (17 Sab.); 21.1.4.4 (1 ed. cur.) but 25.4.1 pr. (Ulp. 34 ed. citing divi
fratres); 36.1.67.3 (Maec 5 fid.)
expressions such as ‘but suppose’ ( finge autem)150 ‘but what if?’ (quid tamen
si),151 ‘but if . . . equally’ (sed et si . . . aeque),152 and ‘unless perhaps’ (nisi
forte)153 also revealing his interest in whether the law would be the same if the
facts were slightly different.
(ii) Expository phrases. These introduce the point of law to be discussed, the
opinions of a jurist, or the implications of an argument. Quaestionis est154
and quaestio in eo est155 is an example. The opinions of other lawyers are
reported with alioquin . . . inquit,156 forte . . . inquit,157 nisi forte . . . inquit,158
plane . . . inquit,159 or extat sententia.160 Relevant points are called to
mind with meminisse oportet,161 meminisse oportebit,162 meminisse autem
150 Fifteen of 17 texts: D 4.4.3.6; 4.4.7.11 (11 ed.); 4.6.23.4 (12 ed.); 4.8.3.1 (13 ed.); 5.3.31pr
(15 ed.); 6.1.13 (16 ed.); 11.7.4 (25 ed.); 14.1.1.5 (28 ed.); 14.4.7 pr. (29 ed.); 17.2.52.10 (31/2 ed.);
7.1.17 pr (18 Sab.); 36.2.14.2 (24 Sab.); 2.15.8.20 (5 omn. trib.), 36.1.13.3 (4 fid.); 48.5.24.1 (1
adult.) but 13.7.8 pr. (Pomp. 35 Sab.); 37.8.7 (Tryph. 16 disp.); interp. Citati (1927) 33, 40:
Schulz, Appleton, etc.
151
Forty-two of 43 texts: D 26.7.23 (9 ed.); 3.5.5.3 (10 ed.); 4.8.7.1; 4.8.21 pr, 10; 26.7.25 (13 ed.);
5.3.25.17; 5.3.31.1 (15 ed.); 11.7.20 pr; 47.12.3.5 ( 25 ed.); 12.2.34 pr (26 ed.); 13.5.14.2 (27 ed.);
14.1.1.5 (28 ed.); 14.4.5.8; 14.4.7.1; 15.3.3.9 (29 ed.); 17.1.8.8 (31 ed.); 19.2.13.3; 19.2.9.1;19.2.15.4
(32 ed.); 27.4.1.6 (37 ed.); 47.4.1.3 (38 ed.); 37.10.5.5 (41 ed.); 46.7.5.6 (77 ed.); 28.2.12.1 (9 Sab.);
28.3.6.9 (10 Sab.); 38.17.2.34 (13 Sab.); 7.1.12.2; 7.1.68 pr; 7.4.10 pr; 29.2.21.3 (17 Sab.); 7.1.25.1
(18 Sab.); 34.3.5 pr (23 Sab.); 30.50.2 (24 Sab.); 33.8.6.4 (25 Sab.); 40.7.6.1 (27 Sab.); 18.2.9 (28
Sab.); 17.2.14 (30 Sab.); 24.1.21.1 (32 Sab.); 24.1.32.5 (33 Sab.); 5.1.50.1 (6 fid.); 48.5.18.3 (2 adult)
but 39.4.13.3 (Gaius, 13 ed. prov.) cf. 35.2.11.6 (Pap. 29 quaest: quid tamen dicemus?)
152 Twenty-five of 27 texts: D 10.3.7.13 (20 ed.); 11.6.1.1 (24 ed.); 15.1.9.6; 15.1.30.2 ; 15.3.3.1
(29 ed.); 27.5.1.5 (36 ed.); 9.4.38.3 (37 ed.); 12.1.12 pr; 39.4.12.2 (38 ed.); 37.6.1.11; 37.6.1.17 (40
ed.); 36.4.5.14 (52 ed.); 28.5.9.20 (5 Sab.); 30.37.1 (21 Sab.); 40.7.3.4 (27 Sab.); 18.2.4.5 (28 Sab.);
26.1.14.5 (37 Sab.); 26.8.5.5 (40 Sab.); 45.1.41 pr (50 Sab.); 47.20.3.1 (8 off. proc.); 24.3.64.4 (7
Iul. Pap.); 36.1.3.5 (3 fid.); 36.1.9 pr (4 fid.); 40.9.12.2 (4 adult.); 42.1.15.11 (3 off. cons.) but
40.5.49 (Afr. 9 quaest.); 7.1.60 pr (Paul 5 sent.) cf. Gaius, Inst. 2.193 (uncertain)
153
Above n.20–4
154
Eleven of 12 texts: D 5.1.2.5 (3 ed.); 11.3.9.3 (23 ed.); 11.7.8 pr (25 ed.); 12.1.11 pr (26 ed.);
27.2.1.2 (34 ed.); 29.4.10.2 (50 ed.); 44.2.7.1 (75 ed: magnae quaestionis est); 7.1.25.3 (18 Sab.);
18.2.2 pr (28 Sab.); 15.1.3.6 (2 disp.); 40.5.26.6 (5 fid.) but 32.89 (Paul 6 Iul. Pap.) cf. est quaes-
tionis: 15.1.9.6; 15.1.11.3 (Ulp. 29 ed.); 47.10.9 pr (Ulp. 57 ed.); fuit quaestionis: 15.2.1.7 (Ulp. 29
ed.); 29.4.1.12 (50 ed.); 29.2.24 (7 Sab.); 7.8.2.1 (17 Sab.); 36.2.12.1 (23 Sab.) but 37.7.9 (Tryph.
6 disp.); quaestionis non est: 50.16.164 pr (Ulp. 15 Sab.)
155
D 37.6.1.21 (40 ed.); 43.26.6.4 (71 ed.); 47.2.43.11 (41 Sab.); 41.1.23.1 (43 Sab.) but
23.2.60.4 (Paul 1 orat. Ant. et Comm.), the latter perhaps derived from a work of Ulpian
156
D 4.7.4.2 (13 ed.); 39.2.15.12 (53 ed.); 47.10.17.19 (57 ed.); 21.1.1.9 (1 ed. cur.); 29.2.42 pr
(4 disp.) cf. Frag. Vat. 87 (Ulp. 17 Sab.)
157
D 4.2.3.1 (11 ed.); 43.23.1.8 (71 ed.)
158
D 3.5.5.14 (10 ed.); 4.9.3.1 (14 ed.); 6.1.1.2 (16 ed.); 17.2.63.3 (31/2 ed.); 19.1.11.18 (32 ed.);
37.10.1.8 (41 ed.); 7.1.25.5 (18 Sab.).
159
D 10.2.20.3 (19 ed.); 16.1.6 (29 ed.); 17.1.12.2 (31/1 ed.); 33.9.3.2 (22 Sab.); 21.2.21.3 (29
Sab.) cf. Frag. Vat. 80 (Ulp. 17 Sab.)
160
D 27.7.4 pr.(36 ed.); 39.2.15.12 (53 ed.); 42.4.7.16 (59 ed.); 43.20.1.17 (70 ed.); 43.24.11.1,
8 (71 ed.); 44.4.4.8 (76 ed.)
161
D 25.4.1.9 (34 ed.); 43.26.4.1 (71 ed.); 30.49.8 (23 Sab.); 24.2.11.2 (3 Iul. Pap.); 25.3.5.9 (2
off. cons.); 40.2.16 (2 Ael. Sent.) but 49.1.4.5 (Macer 1 appell.)
162
D 5.2.8.14 (14 ed.); 14.3.13.1 (28 ed.); 47.2.93 (38 ed.); 39.1.5.2, 10 (52 ed.); 47.10.7.2;
47.10.15.23 (57 ed.); 39.5.7.5 (44 Sab.); 1.16.10 pr (10 off. proc.); 39.6.37 pr (15 Iul. Pap.); 36.1.6.1
(4 fid.)
debemus,163 dummodo meminerimus,164 or notandum quod.165 Secundum quod

dictum est166 draws an inference from what precedes.
(iii) Phrases expressing Ulpian’s attitudes to legal propositions. Ulpian

expresses his attitude towards the points of law he discusses in distinctive
ways. To summarize a branch of the law or a principle generaliter dicendum
est (‘in general it must be said’),167 or something akin, is a favourite. Half a
dozen phrases disclaim doubt: dubio procul,168 nemini dubium est,169
nequaquam dubium est,170 non dubitamus,171 nulla dubitatio est172 (the last fol-
lowed by the infinitive or accusative and infinitive) and quis dubitat?173
Nequaquam ambigendum174 and non est ambiguum175 are two other expres-
sions used to deny that the law is uncertain. Non est incognitum176 denies
obscurity, non est incivile177 legal impropriety. The correct view is heralded in
positive form by dici oportere in various forms,178 and by melius dicetur,179
magisque est/erit,180 servari oportet,181 and sciendum,182 either put baldly, or,
163 D 43.20.1.44 (70 ed.) but interp. Citati (1927) 13 (Berger) 164 D 21.1.1.8 (1 ed. cur.)
165 D 3.4.5 (8 ed.); 9.2.25.2 (18 ed.); 11.5.1.2 (23 ed.); 13.6.1.1 (28 ed.); 25.4.1.5 (34 ed.);
39.2.15.3 (53 ed.) cf. notandum est quod: 10.4.3.2 (24 ed.); 25.3.1.5 (34 ed.); 37.4.10.3 (40 ed.);
43.15.1.6 (68 ed.); 21.1.25.7 (1 ed. cur.); 48.5.28.16 (3 adult.) but 37.4.4 pr. (Paul 41 ed.); notandum
erit quod: 3.6.3.3 (Ulp. 10 ed.); 4.6.21.1 (12 ed.) but interp. Citati (1927) 61 (Pringsheim, Beseler)
166 D 4.2.16.1 (11 ed.)
167 D 13.3.1 pr (27 ed.); 40.12.12.3 (55 ed.); 47.8.2.23 (56/1 ed.); 42.5.9.4 (62 ed.); 43.13.1.3 (68
ed.); 43.19.3.10 (70 ed.); 35.3.3.8 (79 ed.); 47.2.27 pr (41 Sab.); 41.1.23.2 (43 Sab.) cf. generaliter
dicendum erit and related expressions 4.6.26.9 (12 ed.); 13.7.9.3 (28 ed.); 47.4.1.6 (38 ed.);
37.11.1.9 (39 ed.); 37.10.1.3 (41 ed.); 29.1.13.2 (45 ed.); 43.26.8.6 (71 ed.); 48.19.8.7 (9 off. proc.);
36.1.17.2 (4 fid.); 40.5.24 pr (5 fid.); 48.5.16.4 (2 adult.) cf. Frag. Vat. 210 (off. pr. tut.) but interp.
Citati 41: Eisele and others
168 D 5.3.31.2 (15 ed.); 24.3.22.7 (33 ed.); 43.12.1.5 (68 ed.); 36.1.23.5 (5 disp.); 40.9.30.2 (4 Ael.
Sent.)
169 D 43.16.1.22 (69 ed.); 21.2.17 (29 Sab.); 23.3.5.11 (31 Sab.); 47.2.48.7 (42 Sab.); 46.1.8.6 (47
Sab.); 48.18.1.20 (8 off. proc.); 32.11.6 (2 fid.) but interp. Citati (1927) 32: Beseler
170 D 19.1.13.7 (32 ed.); 29.5.3.11 (50 ed.); 45.2.3.1; 46.1.8.12 (47 Sab)
171 D 3.3.33.1 (9 ed.); 11.1.11.8 (22 ed.); 37.5.5.8 (40 ed.); 37.9.1.15 (41 ed.); 23.2.45.3 (3 Iul.
Pap.); 4.6.38.1 (6 Iul. Pap.) cf. 14.4.5 pr. (19 ed: nec nos dubitamus)
172 Twenty texts: D 27.5.1.3 (36 ed.); 28.1.22.6; 37.1.3.6 (39 ed.); 37.5.8.4 (40 ed.); 37.13.1.1 (45
ed., twice); 48.19.2.1 (48 ed.); 47.10.11.9 (57 ed.); 24.1.5.15 (32 Sab.); 26.4.2 (37 Sab.); 18.1.28;
47.2.25.2 (41 Sab.); 50.2.3.2 (3 off. proc.); 48.19.8.12 (9 off.proc.); 27.9.8 pr. (2 omn. trib.); 1.10.1.2
(2 off. cons.); 49.15.9 (4 Iul. Pap.); 48.2.5 (3 adult.); 48.5.30.9 (4 adult.); 1.10.1.2 (2 off. cons.)
173 D 39.1.5.12 (52 ed.); 39.2.24 pr (81 ed.); 46.4.8 pr. (18 Sab.); 47.10.30 pr (42 Sab.); 48.19.6
pr (9 off. proc.) but interp. Citati (1927) 31: Bonfante

174 175
D 44.4.4.26 (76 ed.) D 48.2.19 pr (4 disp.) but interp. Citati (1927) 10: Pringsheim
176 D 5.2.8.11 (14 ed.) 177 D 34.1.14.1 (2 fid.)
178 D 4.6.26.9 (12 ed.); 24.3.7. 12 (31 Sab., twice); 17.1.29 pr. (7 disp.); 5.1.52.2 (6 fid.); all dici
oportet; 30.43.1 (21 Sab: dici oportebit); 10.4.7.4 (24 ed.); 12.4.5.4 (2 disp.); 33.4.2 pr. (5 disp.) all
oportere dici; 47.2.46.5 (42 Sab: dici oporteat) but 34.9.22 (Tryph. 5 disp: non oportere dici)
179
D 4.8.21.10 (13 ed.); 29.4.10.2 (50 ed.); 39.2.15.13 (53 ed.); 43.16.1.38 (69 ed.); 30.41.4 (21
Sab.); 49.4.1.9 (1 appell.) but 24.1.31.3 (Pomp. 14 Sab.)
180
D 42.4.3.3 (59 ed.); 40.5.4.15, 16, 22 (60 ed., thrice); 28.8.8 (61 ed.); 29.2.71.1, 9 (61 ed.,
twice); 44.2.7.3 (75 ed.); 46.7.3.3, 8 (77 ed.); 45.3.7 pr. (48 Sab.); 37.14.16.1 (10 Iul. Pap.); 49.4.1.9
(1 appell.) but interp. Citati (1927) 54
181 182
D 27.9.11 (3 off. proc.) D 42.8.6.7 (66 ed.); 47.15.2 (9 off. proc.)
more expansively, illud sciendum est.183 Sed est verius184 and est tamen
verius185 also serve this purpose and, finally, palam est186 followed by the
accusative and infinitive or the infinitive alone. Credo (‘I think’)187 is more
tentative. The author endorses the opinions of other jurists with placet sen-
tentia,188 sententiam puto veram/veriorem189 or with sententia mihi . . .
vera/verior videtur.190 He underlines the virtue of the solution espoused with
benignum est,191 (sententia) habet aequitatem,192 habet rationem,193 non est
sine ratione,194 and est tamen tutius.195 In rejecting wrong views or conduct,
183
Eighteen of 19 texts: D. 29.5.1.24 (50 ed.); 7.9.9.1 (51 ed.); 42.4.7.13 (59 ed.); 5.1.19.4 (60
ed.); 42.6.1.10 (64 ed.); 42.8.6.9 (66 ed.); 43.20.1.23 (70 ed.); 43.24.3.1 (71 ed.); 21.1.4.1 (74 ed.);
44.4.4.34 (76 ed.); 46.7.5.8 (77 ed.); 46.6.4.2; 7.9.1.2 (79 ed.); 24.1.7.9 (32 Sab.); 21.1.1.3;
21.1.19.4; 21.1.29 pr. (1 ed. cur.); 49.1.8 (4 appell.) but 18.6.18 (Pomp. 31 Q. Muc.) cf. 14.3.15
(Ulp. 28 ed: novissime sciendum est); 28.8.3 (60 ed: illud sciendum)
184
All twelve texts: D 4.2.9.8 (11 ed.); 4.3.7.3 (11 ed.); 6.1.15.3 (16 ed.); 27.3.1.4 (36 ed.);
28.7.8.5 (50 ed.); 44.4.4.8 (76 ed.); 7.4.29.2 (17 Sab.); 7.5.3 (18 Sab.); 34.3.5.2 (23 Sab.); 24.1.32.27
(33 Sab.); 26.2.10.3 (36 Sab.); 36.1.6.1 (4 fid.)
185
D 11.7.2.1 (25 ed.); 40.5.4.1 (60 ed.)
186
D 42.8.3 pr (66 ed.); 43.16.1.24 (69 ed.); 43.21.1.7 (70 ed.); 44.4.2 pr. (76 ed.); 46.7.5.3 (77
ed.); 19.1.10 (47 Sab.); 18.4.2.3; 45.1.38.3 (49 Sab.); 49.4.1.11 (1 appell.) cf. 43.29.3.13 (71 ed:
palam erit); 35.3.3.3 (79 ed: palam sit).
187
Nineteen of 21 texts: D 4.4.7.2 (11 ed.); 11.7.14.2 (25 ed.); 18.2.16 (32 ed.); 25.6.1.11 (34
ed.); 37.5.3 pr (40 ed.); 43.19.1.11 (70 ed.); 28.3.6.6 (10 Sab.); 30.34.4 (21 Sab.); 32.70.9, 11 (22
Sab.); 40.7.3.17 (27 Sab.); 24.1.33.1 (36 Sab.); 48.19.9.3 (10 off. proc.); 29.2.42 pr. (4 disp.);
17.1.29.3 (7 disp.); 32.11.21 (2 fid.); 36.1.13.3 (4 fid.); 48.5.18 pr. (2 adult.); 29.1.6 (2 appell.) but
40.4.55 pr. (Maec. 2 fid.); 30.115 (Ulp. 2 inst. giving form of fideicommissum)
188
D 5.3.13.1 (nobis); 5.3.18 pr. (15 ed.); 10.4.19.1 (24 ed: nobis); 19.1.13.14 (32 ed: mihi);
42.8.10.16 (73 ed.); 1.6.6 (9 Sab: nobis); 33.6.13 (23 Sab: mihi); 18.4.2.7 (49 Sab: mihi) cf. 47.2.43.5
(41 Sab: placeat)
189
With variants in the word-order: D 14.1.1.8 (28 ed.); 15.3.13 (29 ed.); 25.4.1.13 (34 ed.);
42.7.2.5 (65 ed.); 28.2.3.4 (1 Sab.); 7.1.7.1; 7.1.9.2; 7.1.12 pr; 7.4.10.7; 28.5.17.1 (17 Sab); 7.1.13.3
(18 Sab.); 30.44.2 (22 Sab.) but 38.1.4 (Pomp. 4 Sab.) cf. 5.3.13. 8 (Ulp. 15 ed.); 11.3.11 pr (23
ed.); 15.1.11.2 (29 ed.); 39.2.15.34 (53 ed.); 43.19.3.16 (70 ed.); 44.4.4.6 (76 ed.); 21.1.33 pr. (1 ed.
cur.) cf. 40.7.3.2 (27 Sab: veram putamus sententiam)
190
D 2.7.1.2 (5 ed.); 15.3.7.5 (29 ed.); 16.3.1.33 (Ulp. 30 ed.); 43.8.2.42 (68 ed.); 21.1.6.1 (1 ed.
cur.); 28.5.9.14 (5 Sab.); 7.8.12.1 (17 Sab.); 24.2.4 (26 Sab.); 40.7.9.2 (28 Sab.) but cf. 18.1.35.2
(Gaius 10 ed. prov.)
191
D 21.1.49 (8 disp.); 32.5.1 (1 fid.) but interp. Citati (1927) 14: Gradenwitz etc.
192
Nine of 10 texts: D 2.2.1 pr (3 ed.); 3.5.3.9 (10 ed.); 14.4.7.1 (29 ed.); 17.2.63.5 (31/2 ed.);
47.4.1.1 (38 ed.); 37.6.1 pr (40 ed.); 37.10.3.13 (41 ed.); 43.26.2.2 (71 ed.); 23.3.16 (34 Sab.) but
43.26.15 pr (Pomp. 29 Sab.)
193
Twenty-six of 27 texts: D 19.1 32 (11 ed.); 4.8.21.4 (13 ed.); 9.2.27.11; 9.4.2.1 (18 ed.);
10.3.7.8 (20 ed.); 12.2.9.6 (22 ed.); 11.7.2.8. (25 ed.); 14.5.4.5 (29 ed.); 17.1.12.5 (31/1 ed.); 18.3.4.1
(32 ed.); 37.10.3.13 (41 ed.); 42.4.3 pr. (49 ed.); 39.2.13 pr. (53 ed.); 5.1.19.2 (60 ed.); 20.1.21.1 (73
ed.); 7.9.7 pr; 35.3.1.6 (79 ed.); 28.6.10.6; 28.5.6.4 (4 Sab.); 7.1.12.4; 7.4.3.2 (17 Sab.); 34.2.19.3
(20 Sab.); 41.9.1.4 (31 Sab.); 24.1.5.15 (32 Sab.); 27.3.5 (43 Sab.); 45.1.3.1 (49 Sab.) but 49.14.14
(Gaius 11 Iul. Pap.) cf. 13.6.7.8 (Ulp. 28 ed: videtur habere rationem); 27.3.17 (Ulp. 3 off. cons:
non habet rationem, citing Sev. et Ant.)
194
D 13.7.11.4 (28 ed.); 14.4.9.2 (29 ed.); 42.4.7.11 (59 ed.); 16.2.13 (66 ed.); 28.5.9.4 (5 Sab.);
7.1.9.4 (17 Sab.); 37.4.17 (35 Sab.)
195
D 39.2.4.6 (1 ed.)
he resorts to nec ferendus est,196 grave est,197 and improbum est.198 A currently
accepted solution is endorsed by et ita utimur199 or et hodie hoc iure utimur.200
‘It makes little difference’ ( parvi refert) 201 denies a distinction, while ‘unless
perhaps’ (nisi forte) draws attention to one, both with typical understatement.
For nisi forte Ulpian has 91 texts out of 117, but as explained the phrase does
not count as Ulpianic in view of its frequent use by Marcellus.202 Both
authors like to argue from case to case and to qualify what other authors say
by pointing out that the law might be different if the facts were slightly dif-
ferent.
In expressing his view on points of law Ulpian makes free use of the first
person singular, unusually for the Severan age. His uses of ego, me, and mihi
to refer to himself, rather than to a character in a legal example (‘if I sell you
a horse’), amount to 175 out of a total of 270, or 65 per cent. This is a good
deal higher than the 41 per cent that Ulpian’s excerpts form of the whole
Digest, but short of the 75 per cent that would qualify for use as a mark of
Ulpian’s style. Iavolenus203 and Celsus,204 in the age of Trajan, used the first
person singular relatively more freely than Ulpian was to do later. But among
his contemporaries Ulpian stands out for his frequent resort to the first per-
son. He uses it at about three times the rate of Papinian205 and Paul.206 What
is more, his uses tend to be emphatic. Thus, ego puto, a more categorical
expression than ego autem puto, ego non puto, etc., is Ulpianic in the context
of the Digest as a whole. He has 42 instances of it out of 51.207 So are ego
196
Ten of 11 texts: D 3.3.25 (9 ed.); 12.2.34.7 (26 ed.); 24.3.24.2 (33 ed.); 9.4.8 (37 ed.);
42.6.1.12, 15 (64 ed.); 23.3.33 (36 Sab.); 26.10.5 (3 disp.); 2.1.15 (2 omn. trib.); 22.6.6 (18 Iul. Pap.)
cf. Frag. Vat. 207 (off. pr. tut.) but 45.1.99 pr (Cels. 38 dig.).
197 D 13.5.1 pr (27 ed.) cf. 12.3.4 pr (36 ed: grave videbatur).
198 D 28.7.8.6 (50 ed.); 21.4.49 (36 Sab.)
199 D 42.7.2.5 (65 ed.); 18.2.9 (28 Sab.); 50.17.23 (29 Sab.); 23.3.5.9 (31 Sab.); 47.2.41.3 (41
Sab.); 45.1.38 pr (49 Sab.)

200 D 49.1.14 pr (14 ed.); 42.4.7.13 (57 ed.); 49.12.1 (4 appell.)
201 Twenty-eight of 30 texts: D 23.1.18 (6 ed.); 13.5.27 (14 ed.); 5.3.25.5 (15 ed.); 9.2.29.2 (18
ed.); 14.1.1.6; 14.3.7.1 (28 ed.); 14.4.5.3; 15.1.3.2 (29 ed.); 26.7.7.1 (31 ed.); 27.8.1 pr (36 ed.);
9.4.38 pr (37 ed.); 37.10.1.4; 37.10.3.9 (41 ed.); 29.4.1.1; 29.5.3.24 (50 ed.); 40.12.8.2 (55 ed.);
47.10.9.2 (57 ed.); 44.5.1.8 (66 ed.); 43.24.1.2 (71 ed.); 38.16.2.3 (13 Sab.); 7.4.1 pr (17 Sab.);
32.49.4 (22 Sab.); 40.7.3.1 (27 Sab.); 8.4.6 pr; 38.1.7.7 (28 Sab.); 47.2.3.1 (41 Sab.); 45.2.3 pr;
46.1.6.1 (47 Sab.) but D 13.1.17 (Pap. 10 quaest.); 3.4.6.1 (Paul 9 ed. = Ulp.) cf. 34.3.5.2 (Ulp. 23
Sab: et parvi, inquit, refert <Iulianus>). Noted by Kalb (1890) 130
202 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 64 NISI; VIR 4.149–150; above n.21–2, 24
203 Five texts, plus eight in comments on Labeo 204 Nine texts
205 Seven texts
206 Twenty-two texts
207 Above n.51 (11 texts) plus Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 54 EGO PUTO (31 other texts) but
D.29.2.62 (Iav. 1 post.Lab.); 35.1.40.3 (Iav. 2 post. Lab.); 40.7.39.2 (Iav. 4 post. Lab.); 8.1.20
(Iav. 5 post. Lab.); 46.3.73 (Marc. 31 dig.); 4.2.4 (Paul 11 ed.); 17.1.58 (Paul 4 quaest.); 46.8.15
(Paul 14 Plaut.); 45.1.91.6 (Paul 17 Plaut.) cf. VIR 4.1349–50
adquiesco,208 ego adsentio,209 ego arbitror,210 ego credo,211 ego moveor,212 ego
opinor,213 ego quaero,214 and ego scio.215
Papinian, a restrained writer, does not once use ego. Ulpian does so on 102
occasions. But although self-confident his use of ego etc. need not point to
egotism. In speaking as opposed to writing it is hardly possible to avoid a
fairly frequent resort to ‘I’. Other phrases that make use of the first person,
though without ego, include mea fert opinio ‘my opinion is’,216 invenio ‘I
find’,217 memini ‘I remember’,218 ausim dicere ‘I dare say’,219 retineo 220 ‘I
remember’, quaero ‘I ask’ (where it is the jurist, not the person consulting him,
who inquires),221 and volo tractare,222 ‘I want to discuss’. One phrase deserves
special mention. Si mihi proponas, ‘if you put it to me’, comes in nine texts of
Ulpian and in no one else.223 It shows that he conceives himself as engaged in
a debate with the reader. These illuminating texts are drawn not merely from
Disputations, where they might be expected, but from the major commen-
taries on the praetor’s edict and on Sabinus. Other phrases, finge autem,
which we have already met,224 accipe,225 accipies,226 and dicas,227 point the
same way.
It is a little more difficult to assess Ulpian’s use of the plural nos or nobis
(‘we, us’) of himself. Of about 58 such texts in the Digest 31 come from our
author, which is, again, at 53 per cent, more than proportionate to the volume
of his surviving texts, but lower than for the first person singular. It is some-
times difficult to know whether nos means ‘lawyers’ or ‘those interested in the
question’, or ‘the author’. The range of cases runs from quis nos sacerdotes
appellet,228 ‘one could call us lawyers priests’ through aliud erit nobis dicen-
dum,229 ‘I/ we lawyers shall have to say something different’, to et a nobis et a
Papiniano probatum est,230 ‘I approve, and so does Papinian’.
208 D 38.1.7.1 (28 Sab.) 209 D 43.20.1.17 (70 ed.)

210 D 4.3.13.1; 4.4.3.4 (11 ed.); 41.1.44 (19 ed.); 10.4.11.1 (24 ed.); 16.3.1.38 (30 ed.); 43.26.8.5
(71 ed.); 33.7.12.14 (20 Sab.); 30.39 pr. (21 Sab.); 32.70.12 (22 Sab.); 32.55.2 (25 Sab.); 18.6.4 pr
(28 Sab.); 23.4.4 (31 Sab.); 18.4.2.17 (49 Sab.); 15.1.36 (2 disp.); 8.5.26. 1 (2 adult.) but 41.1.63.3
(Tryph. 7 disp.) cf. Kalb (1890) 131
211 D 48.5.18 pr (2 adult.) 212 D 4.3.7.8 (11 ed.)
213 D 27.4.1.7 (36 ed.) but interp. Citati (1927) 63: Beseler, Levy
214 D 3.5.9.1 (10 ed.); 15.4.1.2 (29 ed.); 33.4.1.12 (19 Sab.) cf. 19.1.11.6 (Ulp 32 ed: ego illud
quaero); 35.2.56.1 (Marc. 22 dig.)

215 D 48.19.3 (14 Sab.)
216
D 27.9.7.3 (35 ed.); 48.19.6 pr (9 off. proc.) cf. 24.1.32.14 (33 Sab.)
217 D 27.1.15.16 (1 excus.); 39.3.1.20 (53 ed.); 36.1.15.4 (4 fid.)
218 D 7.8.2.1 (17 Sab.); 36.1.18.5 (2 fid.); Kalb (1890) 129
219 220
D 38.16.1.1 (12 Sab.) D 35.1.92 (5 fid.)
221 222
Above n.214 and D 12.3.4.2 (36 ed.) D 24.1.32.14 (33 Sab.).
223
D 16.1.8.13 (29 ed.); 44.4.4.23 (66 ed.); 28.6.10.5 (4 Sab.); 32.52.7a (24 Sab.); 17.2.55;
46.3.12.3 (30 Sab.); 24.1.5.1; 49.17.6 (32 Sab.); 40.4.13.3 (5 disp.)
224 225 226
Above n.150 Below n.420 D 5.3.25.8 (15 ed.)
227
D 23.3.39.1 (33 ed.); 28.5.2.1 (2 Sab.); 23.4.4 (31 Sab.); 39.5.7.3 (44 Sab.)
228 229
D 1.1.1.1 (1 inst.) D 7.4.10.11 (7 Sab.)
230 D 24.1.32.27 (33 Sab.) but interp. Citati (1927) 61: Beseler
The use of nos by a legal author to refer to himself does not seem to be
recorded before Pomponius231 and Gaius.232 There is no such use, for exam-
ple, in Labeo, Iavolenus, or Celsus, and the one instance attributed to Julian
in the Digest is palpably interpolated.233 It is tempting to think that the habit
spread to legal writing from an academic context. It expresses the relation of
the teacher and author to those who, by reading his work, hope to learn and
so are, in a sense, his pupils. In the Antonine and Severan ages most legal
authors make occasional use of the idiom.234 What marks Ulpian, once again,
is the categorical use of nos with the present indicative to underline his own
opinion. This manner of writing does not appear, so far as I can judge, in
other legal writers. Thus we have in Ulpian’s texts nos consentimus,235 nec nos
dubitamus,236 nos opinamur,237 nos probamus,238 and nos putamus,239 expres-
sions which would be taken as compilatorial were they not confined to
Ulpian. Closely related to these are uses of verbs in the first person plural
without nos, in which the subject is not specified, but the author probably
intends himself to be understood: non dubitamus,240 invenimus,241 novimus,242
opinamur,243 ostendimus,244 (supra) probavimus,245 putavimus,246 specta-
mus,247 subsistimus,248 vetamus.249
As stated, it is at times unclear whether the subject is ‘we’ or ‘lawyers’.
The author may not himself have been sure. This is true of addimus,250
adhibemus,251 admittimus (a favourite),252 aestimamus,253 animadvertimus,254
231 D 1.2.2 pr (Pomp. 1 enchir: necessarium itaque nobis videtur . . . demonstrare)
232 D 44.7.1.15 (Gaius 2 rer. cott: non de eo nos loqui). This may not convince those who think
Res cottidianae late or postclassical, but cf. 39.4.5.1 (Gaius ed. pr. urb: quaerentibus nobis), 1.2.1
(1 XII tab: libentius nos ad lectionem producunt), Inst. 1.188 (nosque . . . hunc tractatum executi
sumus), 4.60 (sed nos apud quosdam scriptum invenimus)
233 D 9.2.51.2 (Iul. 86 dig), embedded in a long Tribonianic passage
234 Three texts in Africanus, 2 in Scaevola, 2 in Callistratus, 3 in Tryphoninus, 6 in Papinian,
4 in Paul, 2 in Macer, 1 in Modestinus

235 D 17.2.29.2 (30 Sab.) 236 D 14.4.5 pr. (29 ed.) 237 D 43.21.3.2 (70 ed.)
238 D 19.1.11.3 (32 ed.); 28.5.9.5 (5 Sab); 35.2.82 (8 disp.) 239 D 4.8.17.4 (13 ed.)
240 Above n.171
241 Spicil. Solesm. ed. Pitra (6 ed. Pal. 1.282 14); D. 38.17.2.47 (13 Sab.). D. 45.3.11 (Ulp. 48
Sab.) and 45.3.12 (Paul 10 quaest.) are not unequivocally self-referential

242 D 45.1.26 (42 Sab.)
243 D 11.3.1.1 (23 ed.); 43.21.3.2 (70 ed.); 28.5.4.2 (4 Sab.); 12.3.1 (51 Sab.)
244 Twelve of 13 texts: D 19.1.11.16 (32 ed.); 26.7.3.2; 26.10.1.5 (35 ed.); 27.7.4 pr (36 ed.); 38.6.1.4
(44 ed.); 50.16.195.3 (46 ed.); 28.5.4.2 (4 Sab.); 7.1.25.1; 7.1.25.6 (18 Sab.); 18.6.4.2 (28 Sab.);
28.5.35.2 (4 disp.); 36.1.13.1 (4 fid.) but 28.2.29.5 (Scae. 6 quaest.) cf. ostendi 14.4.3.2 (Ulp. 29 ed.)
245 D 14.3.13.2 (28 ed.); 30.71.4 (51 ed.); 40.5.24.18 (5 fid.) 246 D 4.4.3.2 (11 ed.)
247 Fourteen texts: D 3.5.9.1 (10 ed.); 4.4.3.1 (11 ed.); 9.3.5.11 (23 ed: expectamus?); 15.1.11.2;
5.3.3.6 (29 ed.); 17.2.63.6 (31/2 ed.); 38.2.3.20 (41 ed.); 49.17.8 (45 ed.); 47.8.2.22 (56/1 ed.);
42.4.7.15 (59 ed.); 43.29.3.1 (71 ed.); 34.2.19.13, 20 (20 Sab.), 24.1.32.14 (33 Sab.)
248 D 3.3.33 pr. (9 ed) 249 D 3.3.33 pr. (9 ed.)
250 D 41.2.13.1 (72 ed.); 1.1.6 pr. (1 inst.) 251 D 25.4.1.3 (34 ed.); 28.1.22.5 (39 ed.)
252 D 3.3.33 pr. (9 ed.); 14.1.1.5 (28 ed.); 37.5.1.2 (40 ed.); 37.9.1.5; 37.11.2.4 (41 ed.); 38.6.1.6
(46 ed.); 47.8.4.3 (56 ed.); 43.24.9 pr; 43.24.11.13 (71 ed.); 38.16.2.5; 38.17.2.17 (13 Sab.); 38.4.3.2
(14 Sab.); 24.1.32.18 (33 Sab.); 26.1.3.1 (37 Sab.); 48.5.28.2 (3 adult.)
253 D 9.2.21.2 (18 ed.) 254 FV 156 (1 excus.)
applicamus,255 comparamus,256 computamus,257 credimus,258 damus (actionem

etc.),259 defendimus,260 demonstramus,261 desideramus,262 detrahimus,263 distin-
guimus,264 ducimus,265 efficimus,266 movemur,267 observamus,268 punimus,269
quaerimus,270 referimus,271 requirimus,272 revocamus,273 sequimur,274 solemus
dicere,275 tollimus,276 trahimus,277 and videmus.278 There are some future forms:
accomodabimus,279 adsumemus,280 aestimabimus,281 cogemus,282 contribue-
mus,283 convertemus, 284 deliberabimus,285 excusabimus,286 exigemus,287
eximemus,288 exsequemur,289 numerabimus,290 observabimus,291 restituemus,292
sequemur,293 servabimus,294 subveniemus.295
The number and variety of forms in which Ulpian speaks for lawyers or for
the Roman government is a measure of his self-confidence. These traits
emerge in texts where the author treats his own opinions about the law, rather
than the law itself, as the object of debate. Here are some of them:
‘No one should suppose that I think . . .’ (haec utique nemo credet in testamentis nos
esse probaturos;296 nec quisquam putet hoc nos existimare).297
255 256
D 33.8.8.8 (25 Sab.) D 1.5.10 (1 Sab.); 50.17.209 (4 Iul. Pap.)
257
D 41.3.6 (11 ed.); 42.1.4.5 (56 ed.); 42.8.16.4 (66 ed.); 32.52.1 (24 Sab.); 24.3.7.8 (31 Sab.);
49.4.1.5 (1 appell.)
258
D 28.5.1.5 (1 Sab.); 24.1.5.15 (32 Sab.)
259
Eleven texts: actionem D 3.6.5.1 (10 ed.); 47.12.3.9 (25 ed.); 14.1.1.20 (28 ed.); 43.18.1.4 (70
ed. = 50.17.156.1); 47.2.12.2; 47.2.14.17 (29 Sab.) cf. 14.4.9.2 (29 ed. = 50.17.44 actionem under-
stood) cf. 4.6.28.3 (12 ed.); 26.10.1.3 (35 ed.); 13.4.2.3 (37 ed.); 38.2.3.20 (42 ed.)
260 261
D 24.1.32.14 (33 Sab.); 40.5.26.1 (5 fid.) D 50.16.195.2 (46 ed.); 15.1.41 (43 Sab.)
262
D 50.16.199 pr (8 omn. trib.)
263
D 15.3.10.8 (29 ed.); 33.8.8.8 (25 Sab.); 1.1.6 pr. (1 inst.)
264 265
D 28.6.10.6 (4 Sab.); 7.1.22 (18 Sab.) D 23.3.23 (35 Sab.)
266 267
D 1.1.6 pr. (1 inst.) D 4.4.3.4 (11 ed. nec eo movemur quod . . .)
268 269
D 17.2.63.8 (31/2 ed.); 36.4.5.3 (52 ed.) D 38.17.2.34 (13 Sab.)
270 271
D 9.2.5.2 (18 ed.); 38.5.1.1 (42 Sab.) D 15.1.41 (43 Sab.)
272 273
D 38.5.1.1 (42 Sab.) D 37.14.16.1 (10 Iul. Pap.)
274
D 36.4.5.21 (52 ed.); 39.3.1.23 (53 ed.); 50.17.9 (15 Sab.); 26.2.10.1 (36 Sab.); 50.17.34 (45
Sab.); 45.1.41 pr (50 Sab)
275
D 2.14.10.2 (4 ed.); 16.3.1.18 (30 ed.); 19.1.13.31 (32 ed.); 37.1.3 pr (39 ed.); 47.9.1.2 (56
ed.); 47.10.7.1 (57 ed.); 50.16.46 pr. (59 ed.); 43.12.1.14 (68 ed.); 44.1.2.4 (74 ed.); 28.5.6.2 (4 Sab.);
35.1.9 (20 Sab.); 34.3.5 pr (23 Sab.); 45.1.38.9; 50.16.178.2 (49 Sab.) cf. 2.14.7.5 (4 ed.); 28.5.3.4
(3 Sab.); 5.1.61 pr (26 ed.); 29.3.2.1 (50 ed.). Dicere solemus: D. 50.16.111 (Iav. 6 Cass.); 47.10.1
pr. (Ulp. 56 ed.)
276 277
D 15.3.10.8 (29 ed.) D 13.5.16.4 (27 ed.); 24.1.3.3 (32 Sab.)
278 279
D 33.7.12.27 (20 Sab.); 23.3.9.3 (31 Sab.); 1.1.1.3 (1 inst.) D 40.5.30.4 (5 fid.)
280 281
D 45.1.41 pr (50 Sab.) D 42.3.6 (64 ed.)
282 283
D 39.3.1.23 (53 ed.); 25.3.5.4 (2 off. cons.) D 29.4.6.2 (50 ed.)
284 285 286
D 29.4.2.1 (7 Sab.) D 3.1.1.5 (6 ed.) D 9.4.2.1 (18 ed.)
287 288
D 14.1.1.16 (28 ed.); 37.11.1.4 (39 ed.); 37.5.10.1 (40 ed.) D 47.10.17.7 (57 ed.)
289 290 291
D 3.1.1.10 (6 ed.) D 9.2.21.1 (18 ed.) D 38.5.1.13 (44 ed.)
292
D 42.2.6.6 (5 omn. trib.)
293
D 16.3.1.1 (30 ed.); 33.1.3.3 (24 Sab.); 45.1.41 pr (50 Sab.)
294 295 296
D 44.4.4.31 (76 ed.) D 42.6.1.6 (64 ed.) D 32.1.1 (1 fid.)
297
D 6.2.7.17 (16 ed.) cf. 9.2.27.9 (18 ed.); 11.7.4 (25 ed.); 26.7.3.2 (35 ed.); 26.7.9.1 (36 ed.)
‘I remember saying that . . . ’ (et retineo me dixisse . . . ;298 ut in iunctura argentea scio
me dixisse).299
‘The deified Marcus replied in accordance with my view’ (secundum nostram senten-
tiam etiam divus Marcus rescripsit)300
‘I noted in a comment on Marcellus that I did not think this should be said to apply
to all wrongs’ (apud eum notavi non de omni iniuria hoc esse dicendum me putare)301
Ulpian uses nos and me about equally in these texts. It would be hard to find any
parallel to them in Roman legal literature. But, as will appear in chapter 7,302 an
assured sense of his standing is a feature of the earlier rather than the later years
of Caracalla’s sole reign.
(iv) Uses of the future instead of the present tense. A feature of writing about
law not shared by other branches of learning is that statements of law can be
in either the present or the future tense. ‘The contract is binding’ and ‘the con-
tract will be binding’ are equivalent. The tense has no temporal connotation,
but the future draws attention to the hypothetical character of statements
of law in relation to assumed facts. Perhaps, too, the use of the future fits a
forward-looking, optimistic, outlook, the optimism of a lawyer who is
confident that the correct view will prevail.
Ulpian is a partisan of the future tense. Whether he is so to a greater extent
than any other Digest lawyer could not be settled without excessive labour.
But it is clear that Ulpian often uses, at least as a variant, the future form of
a verb when others confine themselves to the present. An example is dicendum
erit,303 ‘it will have to be said’, viz. that the law is so and so. Whereas dicen-
dum est is commonly found in legal writing, dicendum erit304 and erit dicen-
dum305 come 179 times in texts of Ulpian and only 15 times in other writers.
Confined to Ulpian are the forms et dicendum erit,306 et ita erit dicendum,307
et generaliter dicendum erit,308 et generaliter erit dicendum,309 and et ideo
298 D 35.1.92 (5 fid.) 299 D 34.2.19.8 (20 Sab.); Pernice (1885) 382
300 D 29.1.3 (2 Sab.) 301 D 47.10.11.7 (57 ed.) 302 Below ch.9 n.10–23
303 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 53 DICENDUM. cf. VIR 2.217–9
304 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 53 DICENDUM ERIT (77 texts), but D 36.1.67.1 (Maec. 5 fid.);
23.2.48 pr (Ter. Clem. 8 Iul. Pap.); 4.2.17 (Paul 1 quaest.); 31.82 pr (Paul 10 quaest.); 18.1.15.2
(Paul 5 Sab.); 41.3.44.4 (Pap. 23 quaest.); 2.8.15.5 (Marci. 1 appell.); 48. 19.10.2 (Macer 2 pub.
iud.). The non-Ulpian texts mostly have idem dicendum erit or the like
305 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 55 ERIT DICENDUM (102 texts) but D 13.6.13.2 (Pomp. 11
Sab.); 39.2.29 (Gaius 28 ed. prov.); 28.5.48 pr (Afr. 4 quaest.); 33.9.4.5 (Paul 4 Sab.); 38.2.42.2
(Pap. 13 quaest.); 34.5.15 (Marci. 2 reg.); 20.1.16.8 (Marci. 1 hyp.)
306 D 5.3.25.9 (15 ed.) cf. 43.21.3.6 (70 ed: et erit dicendum)
307 D 4.4.3.3 (11 ed.) 308 D 13.7.9.3 (28 ed.) 309 D 43.26.8.6 (71 ed.)
dicendum erit.310 Idem erit dicendum comes in 81 texts of Ulpian311 and 6 of

other lawyers,312 dicendum erit or erit dicendum (without et or idem) in 92 texts
of Ulpian out of 96.313 Probandum erit (‘it will have to be approved’ viz. that
the law is such-and-such) is parallel.314 Of 33 texts with erit probandum or
probandum erit 32 are Ulpian’s.315 For the commonest form, idem erit proban-
dum, all 22 texts are his; so are the 2 texts with idemque erit probandum. There
is a contrast between cessat, ‘does not apply’, and cessabit, ‘will not apply’.
According to my criteria, cessat is not Ulpianic, since, though 81 texts out of
101 come from him,316 the 20 from other lawyers include 12 from Paul.317
Cessabit is a different matter. Here 44 texts out of 46 are Ulpian’s;318 there are
also three texts, all his, with cessabunt.319
Accipere tells the same story. The Tyrian has all 21 texts with accipiendum
erit320 and erit accipiendum (‘it will have to be accepted that . . .’),321 together
with 25 of accipiemus out of 28,322 and all seven of accipietur.323 He has the
only texts with erit admittendum324 and erit notandum.325 All 13 instances of
310 D 38.17.2.9 (13 Sab.) 311 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 59 IDEM

312 Above n.305 313 Above n.304–5
314 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 67 PROBANDUM. VIR 4.1174–84 is not helpful in this connec-
tion
315 D 15.1.11.7 (29 ed.); 17.1.8.6 (31/1 ed.); 38.5.1.6; 38.5.1.20 (44 ed.); 39.2.15.34 (53 ed.);
47.10.5.3 (56/2 ed.); 47.10.13.5 (57ed., twice); 42.1.5.1 (59 ed.); 40.5.4.5, 17 (60 ed.); 42.6.1.10
(64 ed.); 41.2.4; 43.3.1.12 (67 ed.); 11.8.1.3 (68 ed.); 43.17.4 (70 ed.); 43.24.3.4 (71 ed.);
43.24.15.11; 43.24.11.8, 13 (71 ed.); 20.6.4.1; 42.8.2; 42.8.10.20 (73 ed.); 44.2.7 pr; 44.2.7.5 (75
ed.); 44.4.4.21; 44.5.1.6 (76 ed.); 29.2.6.2 (6 Sab.); 18.2.4.6 (28 Sab.); 45.3.11 (48 Sab.);
48.22.7.11 (10 off. proc.); 24.2.11.2 (3 Iul. Pap.); 49.9.1 (4 appell.) but 28.5.85.1 (Paul 23
quaest.)
316 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 51 CESSAT but interp. Citati (1927) 16 Beseler etc cf. VIR
1.725–6 17
317 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 51 CESSAT
318 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 51 CESSABIT
319 D 2.1.7.2 (3 ed.); 25.3.5.19 (2 off. cons.); 42.1.15.6 (3 off. cons.)
320 D 39.2.15.35 (53 ed.); 33.9.3.6 (22 Sab.); 36.1.18.4 (2 fid.)
321 D 4.4.9.5 (11 ed.); 12.2.7 (22 ed.); 21.2.37.1 (32 ed.); 27.3.1.15 (36 ed.); 38.8.1.8 (46 ed.);
42.6.1.13 (64 ed.); 28.6.2 pr. (6 Sab.); 38.16.2 pr (13 Sab.); 38.17.2.43 (13 Sab.); 30.34.4 (21 Sab.);
18.6.4.2 (28 Sab.); 25.1.5 pr (36 Sab.); 30.74 (4 disp.); 9.2.49.1 (9 disp.); 39.6.37 pr (15 Iul. Pap.);
36.1.18.3 (2 fid., twice ); 48.5.24.4 (1 adult.) cf. 4.6.26.5 (12 ed.); 6.2.9.1 (16 ed: both erit accipi-
enda); 40.4.13.3 (5 disp: erunt accipienda)
322 D 2.8.2.3 (5 ed.); 3.2.2.1 (6 ed.); 4.9.1.5 (14 ed.); 5.3.20.15 (15 ed.); 9.2.5.1; 9.2.27.17(18
ed.); 14.1.1.21; 50.16.185 (28 ed.); 37.11.1.6 (39 ed.); 38.8.1.4 (46 ed.); 48.19.2.2 (48 ed.);
40.12.22.1 (55 ed.); 47.8.2.11; 47.8.4.3 (56 ed.); 50.16.45 (58 ed.); 40.5.4.11 (60 ed.); 46.7.3.6 (77
ed.); 7.9.3.1 (79 ed.); 23.3.33 (6 Sab.); 21.1.23.2; 21.1.27; 21.1.31.12 (1 ed. cur.); 40.16.2.1 (2 off.
cons.); 1.12.1.8 (off. pr. urb.); 23.2.43.8 (1 Iul. Pap.) cf. Collatio 2.4.1 (18 ed.), Frag.Vat. 188
(off.pr. tut.) but D 13.6.18 pr. (Gaius 9 ed. prov.); 24.2.9 (Paul 2 adult.); 48.16.13 pr (Paul 3
adult.)
323 D 4.6.21.3 (12 ed.); 5.2.8.9 (14 ed.); 38.8.1.5 (46 ed.); 47.9.1.2 (56/1 ed.); 33.6.11 (23 Sab.);
46.1.8.7 (47 Sab.); 28.5.35 pr (4 disp)

324 D 50.2.2.5 (1 disp.); 43.24.13.4 (71 ed.) cf. 5.4.1.4 (15 ed: erit admittenda)
325 D 3.6.3.3 (10 ed.); 4.6.21.1 (12 ed.)
consequenter dicemus 326 and 26 of 27 with consequens erit dicere 327 come from
him. So do all three with definiemus,328 all five with dicet quis,329 six of seven
with melius dicetur,330 all seven with officium erit (of the praetor etc.).331 He
has the only passages with accedendum,332 recedendum,333 and distinguendum
erit.334 He alone writes in ea erit causa, as opposed to in ea causa est.335
Aequissimum est is found in other writers, but aequissimum erit (‘it will be
most equitable’) only in Ulpian, 26 times.336 Nullius momenti est occurs in
others, nullius erit momenti only in our author.337 Meminisse oportet is found
in others, meminisse oportebit is Ulpianic.338 Locus est, ‘there is room for . . .’,
is fairly common in legal writing, erit locus and locus erit with 22 mentions
between them, are confined to Ulpian.339 The list includes erit consequens,340
difficile erit,341 dubium non erit,342 fortasse or fortassis with the future indica-
tive,343 and gravabitur.344 We have already met et eveniet,345 et intererit,346
and et erit procedendum.347 Ulpian’s liking for future tenses is not a constant.
326
D 12.2.11.1 (22 ed.); 17.1.10.3 (31/1 ed.); 25.2.17 pr (34 ed.); 27.9.5.14 (35.ed.); 37.5.3.5 (40
ed.); 43.16.3.15 (69 ed.); 30.49.1 (23 Sab.); 18.6.1 pr (28 Sab.); 24.1.7.3 (32 Sab.); 48.22.7.13 (10
off. proc.); 10.2.49 (2 disp.); 28.5.35.1 (4 disp.); 4.6.38 pr (6 Iul. Pap.) cf. 37.6.5 pr. (79 ed: conse-
quenter erit dicendum)
327 D 11.1.9.4 (22 ed.); 26.10.1.4; 26.10.3.6; 27.9.5.3 (35 ed.); 29.1.11 pr (45 ed.); 29.6.1.1 (48
ed.); 47.10.3.1 (56/2 ed.); 47.10.17.1 (57 ed.); 42.1.4.4 (58 ed.); 42.4.7.3 (59 ed.); 40.5.4.5 (60 ed.);
43.4.3 pr (68 ed.); 43.24.15.12; 46.7.3.7 (71 ed.); 43.32.1.4 (73 ed.); 44.2.7.3 (75 ed.); 39.5.19.3;
44.6.1.1 (76 ed.); 46.7.5.3 (77 ed.); 46.6.4.7 (79 ed.); 39.2.30.1 (81 ed.); 18.4.2.11, 16 (49 Sab.);
46.4.13.1 (50 Sab.); 2.12.1.1 (4 omn. trib.); 36.1.17.9 (4 fid.) cf. Frag. Vat. 269 (46 Sab.) but
29.1.41.5 (Tryph. 18 disp.)
328
D 37.1.3.2 (39 ed.); 25.1.3.1 (36 Sab.); 26.1.3.1 (37 Sab.)
329
D 27.9.7 pr (35 ed.); 38.17.2.41 (13 Sab.); 32.55.7; 50.16.167 (25 Sab.); 41.1.33.1 (4 disp.)
330
Above n.179
331
D 39.2.4 pr. (1 ed.); 6.1.9 (16 ed.); 7.6.5.6 (17 ed.); 10.3.6.9 (19 ed.); 26.7.5.8 (35 ed.);
36.4.5.22 (52 ed.); 39.3.6.6 (53 ed.)
332 333 334
D 42.1.4.3 (58 ed.) D 43.29.3.7 (71 ed.) D 44.2.11.10 (75 ed.)
335 D 42.4.7.5 (59 ed); 2.11.4.1 (74 ed.); 45.1.38.22 (49 Sab.)
336 D 3.5.13 (10 ed.); 4.8.13.4 (13 ed.); 5.3.13.9 (15 ed.); 5.3.37 (15 ed.); 4.9.7.3 (18 ed.); 14.3.11
pr (18 ed.); 14.3.11.5 (28 ed.); 16.3.1.27 (30 ed.); 17.1.12.9 (31/1 ed); 25.4.1.8 (34 ed.); 26.10.3.7
(35 ed.); 27.3.1.11 (36 ed.); 37.4.3.4 (39 ed.); 37.5.3.6 (40 ed.); 36.4.5.30; 39.1.5.10 (52 ed.);
47.10.7.2. (57 ed.); 43.14.1.7 (68 ed.); 43.18.1.5 (70 ed); 30.53.8 (25 Sab.); 21.1.17.19 (1 ed. cur.);
36.1.23.3 (5 disp.); 2.15.8.22 (5 omn. trib.); 36.1.6.3 (4 fid.); 40.5.24.14 (5 fid.); 42.1.15.9 (3 off.
cons.) cf. Kalb (1890) 132
337 D 29.1.15.1 (45 ed.); 26.8.5.2 (40 Sab.); 46.4.13.1 (50 Sab., twice); 2.15.8.17 (5 omn. trib.);
26.5.8.1 (8 omn. trib.) cf. 50.9.4.2 (1 off. cur. reip: ullius erit momenti)
338 Above n.162
339 D 4.2.9.1 (11 ed.); 9.1.1.7; 9.2.7.4 (18 ed.); 14.6.7.12 (29 ed.); 26.7.5.3 (35 ed.); 27.4.1.3 (36
ed.); 13.1.10.2; 47.4.1.11 (38 ed.); 38.5.1.17 (44 ed.); 39.2.15.33 (53 ed.); 43.12.1.15 (68 ed.);
43.20.1.14 (70 ed.); 39.1.20.2, 7; 43.24.9.3 (71 ed.); 43.22.1.5 (73 ed.); 18.4.2.11 (49 Sab.); 21.1.1.5
(1 ed. cur.); 10.2.49 (2 disp.); 36.1.1.12 (3 fid.); 36.1.17.9 (4 fid.); 37.14.16.1 (10 Iul. Pap.) cf. locus
non erit 40.4.12 (50 ed.); 39.1.20.13 (71 ed.)
340 D39.5.19.3 (76 ed.); 50.17.34 pr (45 Sab.) 341 D 50.16.99.2 (1 off. cons.)
342 D 12.2.11.3 (22 ed.)
343 D 6.1.15.1 (16 ed.); 15.1.30.6 (29 ed.); 37.10.5.3 (41 ed.); 50.16.167 (25 Sab.); 32.55.7 (25
Sab.); 50.13.1.3 (8 omn. trib.)

344 D 43.16.1.15 (69 ed.) 345 Above n.66 346 Above n.69 347 Above n.71
It curves upward to a peak and then declines,348 a variation that helps to plot
the order of his works.
(v) Inversions of the traditional Latin word-order. The reader will already
have noticed some inversions of the classical literary Latin word-order. The
auxiliary often comes before the main verb, erit admittendum for admittendum
erit, est decretum for decretum est. The object sometimes follows the verb:
habet aequitatem 349 or habet rationem 350 instead of aequitatem/rationem
habet. There are other instances with habere and other verbs followed by a
noun.351 This verb–object order in Ulpian’s writing rests, no doubt, on his
habit of dictating that carries with it a tendency to slip into the order that pre-
vailed in ordinary speech. It does not predominate in his writing, but it occurs
more frequently than in other legal authors of his and earlier ages. In later
Latin inversions of this sort become standard.352
If we begin with a more striking feature, the inversions of erit and the
gerundive, we find, taking the -um ending to include endings in -a or -us, a
long list. Apart from erit accipiendum, admittendum,353 dicendum,354 notan-
dum,355 probandum,356 and procedendum,357 there are uses, confined to
Ulpian among lawyers, of erit agendum,358 audiendum,359 cavendum,360 cogen-
dum,361 concedendum,362 conveniendum,363 dandum (actio etc.),364 decurr-
endum,365 defendendum,366 descendendum,367 detrahendum,368 excipiendum,369
348 Honoré (1982) 189–90
349 D 3.5.3.9 (10 ed.); 14.4.7.1 (29 ed.); 17.2.63.5 (31/2 ed.); 37.10.3.13. (41 ed.)
350 Above n.193
351 D 37.15.5.1 (10 ed.); 4.8.31 (13 ed.); 12.1.9.3 (26 ed.); 14.4.1.3 (29 ed.); 47.6.1.1 (38 ed.);
47.10.7.1 (57 ed.); 44.4.4.10; 44.4.7.1; 44.5.1.6 (76 ed.); 35.3.3.1 (79 ed.); 32.50.4 (23 Sab.); 33.8.6.1
(25 Sab.); 25.1.1.1, 2; 26.2.10.2 (36 Sab.); 46.3.7 (43 Sab.); 2.15.8.24 (5 omn. trib.) all with habere,
cf. 4.4.25 (Gaius 4 ed. prov: nullam habet dubitationem); CJ 2.11.8 (20 Feb. 205: non laesit exist-
mationem tuam); 5.37.1 (20 Sept 206: times administrare res adulescentis); D 3.3.39.1 (9 ed: agit
quamcumque actionem); 4.4.9.4 (11 ed: capit restitutionem); 27.3.1.19 (36 ed: gerunt tutelam);
9.2.27.29 (18 ed: tollit actionem); 37.11.1.8 (39 ed: facit testamentum); 29.4.1.10 (50 ed: si possideat
hereditatem); 39.3.1.23 (53 ed: non cogemus vicinum aggeres munire); 38.17.2.34 (13 Sab: matris
punimus consilium); 7.6.1.1 (18 Sab: sequitur usumfructum); 47.2.17.3 (40 Sab: movet quaes-
tionem); 27.1.7 (1 excus: dat excusationem); 48.5.14.10 (2 adult: accusat mores). There are plenty
of examples but the older object–verb form predominates
352 Pompeius in Keil (1855–80) 5.139–50; Kaster (1988) 139–60 353 Above n.321, 324
354 Above n.305 355 Above n.325 356 Above n.315 357 Above n.71
358 D 2.7.3 pr (5 ed.); 9.2.27.17, 28 (18 ed.); 13.6.3.4 (28 ed.); 47.10.15.29 (57 ed.); 43.5.3.5 (68
ed.); 10.3.12 (71 ed.); 19.5.14.3 (41 Sab.)

359 D 3.3.25 (9 ed.); 38.5.1.15 (44 ed.); 36.1.13.2 (4 fid.); 1.12.1.5 (1 off. pr. urb.)
360 D 39.2.15.31 (53 ed); 39.2.15 pr (53 ed.); 46.7.3.3 (77 ed.); 39.1.21.6 (81 ed.)
361
D 4.8.17.4 (13 ed.); 40.5.24.12 (5 fid., twice) 362 D 40.2.20.2 (2 off. cons.)
363
D 4.9.3.3 (14 ed.); 15.2.1.7 (29 ed.); 17.1.6.1 (31/1 ed.); 29.4.10.2 (50 ed.)
364
D 3.3.27.1 (9 ed.); 3.5.11.1 (10 ed.); 4.3.7.9; 4.3.13 pr (11 ed.); 9.2.7.3; 9.2.11.8 (18 ed.);
47.12.3.11 (25 ed.); 42.8.6.11 (66 ed.); 43.17.4 (70 ed.); 24.3.64.9 (7 Iul. Pap), but 40.5.37 (6 fid.
citing divus Marcus)
365 366
D 11.6.5 pr. (24 ed.) D 50.2.3. pr. (3 off. proc.)
367
D 4.6.26.9 (13 ed.); 43.33.2 (73 ed); 7.5.11 (18 Sab.)
368 369
D 44.4.4.16 (76 ed.); 39.5.12 (3 disp.) D 44.4.4.16 (76 ed.)
exigendum,370 faciendum,371 ignoscendum,372 innovandum,373 inspiciendum,374

interponendum,375 interpretandum,376 intuendum,377 invidendum,378 liberan-
dum,379 movendum,380 obiciendum,381 observandum,382 permittendum,383
plectendus,384 praestandum,385 prospiciendum,386 provocandus,387 quaeren-
dum,388 ratum habendum,389 redhibendum,390 reducendum,391 referendum,392
repellendum,393 requirendum,394 restituendum,395 revocandum,396 satisdan-
dum,397 sequendum,398 servandum,399 spectandum,400 statuendum,401 subve-
niendum,402 transeundum,403 transferendum,404 tribuendum,405 utendum.406
Indeed, the use of the erit plus gerundive construction is itself a mark of
Ulpian’s style. It occurs in his work at least 250 times,407 against 35 for all
other lawyers: 9 for Paul, 7 for Papinian (mainly in the negative form non erit
. . .), and 6 for Pomponius.408 Its use in a legal text may be taken as a pointer
to Ulpian’s authorship.
Another set of inversions involve putting est as an auxiliary before the
main verb, as in est agitatum,409 est constitutum,410 est decretum,411 est
370 D 36.4.3.2 (52 ed.) 371 D 4.4.7.8 (11 ed.); 37.6.1.17 (40 ed.)
372 D 38.17.2.44. (13 Sab.) 373 D 49.7.1.1 (4 appell.)
374 D 46.3.24 (47 ed.); 43.13.1.8. (68 ed.)
375 D 37.6.1.11 (40 ed.); 7.5.10.1 (79 ed.)
376 D 43.3.1.11 (67 ed.) 377 D 43.13.1.8 (68 ed)
378 D 7.8.4 pr. (17 Sab.) 379 D 34.3.5.4 (23 Sab)
380 D 43.29.3.13 (71 ed.) 381 D 21.1.59.1 (74 ed.)
382 D 26.7.3.5 (35 ed.); 43.15.1.6 (68 ed.) 383 D 42.5.15 pr (62 ed.)
384 D 11.7.8.2 (25 ed); 48.19.9.15 (10 off. proc.); 48.5.30.2 (4 adult.)
385 D 19.1.13 pr (32 ed.); 30.47.1 (22 Sab.); 37.11.5.1 (4 disp.)
386 D 37.10.3.12 (41 ed.) 387 D 49.3.1 pr, 1; 49.4.1.4 (1 appell.).
388 D 26.10.3.7 (35 ed.) 389 D 12.2.5 pr. (22 ed.) 390 D 21.1.12.1 (1 ed. cur.)
391 D 13.3.3 (27 ed.) 392 D 37.9.7.1 (47 ed.); 33.4.1.4 (19 Sab.)
393 D 38.2.14.11 (45 ed.); 36.2.14.2 (24 Sab.) 394 D 2.15.8.9 (5 omn. trib.)
395 D 4.4.3.4 (11 ed.); 24.1.7.3 (32 Sab.) 396 D 42.8.10.11 (73 ed.)
397 D 36.4.3.2 (52 ed.) 398 D 48.19.32 (6 ed.); 29.4.6.1 (50 ed.); 30.39.1 (21 Sab.)
399 D 3.2.19 (8 ed.) 400 D 6.2.7.13 (16 ed.); 13.3.3 (27 ed.)
401 D 2.11.2.8 (74 ed.) 402 D 38.2.8.1 (43 ed.); 2.11.2.2 (74 ed.)
403 D 39.1.1.1 (52 ed.) 404 D 3.3.25 (9 ed.); 21.1.38.3 (2 ed. cur.)
405 D 14.4.5.9 (29 ed.) 406 D 43.13.1.12 (68 ed.)
407 Texts in n.305, 309, 311, 313, 315, 321, 324, 325, 352–406
408 Above n.305 and D 41.1.65.3 (Lab. 6 pith.); 35.1.68 (Iav. 2 Cass.); 41.2.51 (Iav. 5 post.
Lab.); 28.6.16 pr (Pomp. 3 Sab.); 21.2.16 pr (Pomp. 9 Sab.); 34.2.34.2 (Pomp. 9 Sab.); 31.43.1
(Pomp. 3 Q. Muc.); 36.1.72.1 (Pomp. 2 fid.); 32.13 (Maec. 2 fid.); 40.5.32 pr (Maec. 15 fid.); 38.5.6
(Iul. 26 dig.); 48.5.6 pr (Pap. 1 adult.); 36.3.5.3; 24.3.40 (Pap. 28 quaest.); 46.1.51.2 (Pap. 3 resp.);
31.76 pr. (Pap. 7 resp.); 31.77.16 (Pap. 8 resp.); 3.4.6 pr (Paul 9 ed. = Ulp. 9 ed.); 12.2.30.2 (Paul
18 ed.); 10.1.4.1 (Paul 23 ed.); 10.2.29 (Paul 23 ed.); 15.1.26 (Paul 30 ed.); 17.2.65.3 (Paul 32 ed.);
3.3.61 (Paul 1 Plaut.); 48.20.7.1 (Paul 1 port. lib. damn.); 27.1.45.4 (Tryph. 13 disp.); 3.5.28 (Call.
3 ed. mon.); 20.6.8.14 (Marci. 1 hyp.)
409
D 15.1.36 (2 disp.)
410
D 2.13.4.5 (4 ed.); 3.6.5 pr; 22.1.37 (10 ed.); 4.4.3.1 (11 ed.); 4.1.6 (13 ed.); 13.6.5.2 (28 ed.);
17.1.12.9 (31/1 ed.); 42.8.10.13 (73 ed.); 28.3.6.8, 10 (10 Sab.); 50.12.3 pr (4 disp., twice); 48.1.5.1
(8 disp.); 40.5.24.21 (5 fid.) but 50.16.244 (Lab. 4 pith. interp.); 16.3.24 (Pap. 9 quaest.); 3.5.27
(Tryph. 2 disp.); 47.22.1.2 (Marci. 3 inst., derivative)
411
Above n.77
expressum,412 est quaesitum,413 est rescriptum,414 est tractatum.415 Sometimes

when used as a copulative est comes before the subject: est autem manumissio
de manu missio.416 The initial est et, found in 13 texts, is confined, among
Digest jurists, to Ulpian.417 Initial est hoc, also Ulpianic, comes three
times.418
Of inversions of object and verb we have mentioned habet aequitatem,
habet rationem, and others.419 It is unnecessary to list more. The reader will
be on the lookout for this trait. These various forms of inversion have two
purposes. One is to avoid concentrations of verbs at the end of a sentence,
in order to keep the various clauses of which it is composed separate.
This involves putting the verb at the beginning or middle rather than at the
end of a clause. The other is the wish to emphasize the most important word,
which must therefore, by way of climax, come at the end of a clause or
sentence.
(vi) Verbs. A verb which VIR notes as typical of Ulpian is accipere in the sense
‘take’, ‘construe’, ‘interpret’.420 We have come across erit accipiendum, accip-
iemus, and accipietur.421 A number of other forms of accipere count as marks
of his style. One is accipe, of which all 14 instances come from Ulpian.422
Others are accipias,423 accipies,424 accipere debes,425 accipere debemus, for
which Ulpian has 82 texts of 87,426 accipere debeamus,427 accipere nos debere,428
and accipere nos oportet.429 For accipimus he has 60 texts out of 62,430 and for
412
D 4.4.19 (13 ed.); 28.3.6.9 (10 Sab.)
413
D 3.3.37.1 (9 ed.); 14.4.5.7 (29 ed.); 42.5.9.5 (62 ed.); 43.3.1.8 (67 ed.); 43.24.1.3 (71 ed.);
28.2.6 pr. (3 Sab.); 7.1.13.5 (18 Sab.); 34.2.19.2 (20 Sab.); 47.2.17.1 (40 Sab.) but 36.1.46.1 (Marc.
15 dig.) cf. 41.9.1.2 (31 Sab: est quaestio volgata)
414
D 3.2.2.2 (6 ed.); 4.2.16.2; 4.4.20.1; 13.7.36 pr. (11 ed.); 4.6.26.9 (12 ed.); 13.7.13 pr (28 ed.);
47.10.13.7 (57 ed.); 29.2.25.2 (8 Sab.); 29.1.9.1 (9 Sab.); 38.16.1.1 (12 Sab.); 36.1.19.1 (15 Sab.);
30.41.7 (21 Sab.); 34.3.9 (24 Sab.); 26.8.5.3 (40 Sab.); 48.18.4 (3 disp.); 49.1.10.4 (8 disp.);
40.5.24.5 (5 fid.); 42.1.59.1 (4 omn. trib.); 50.13.1.12 (8 omn. trib.)
415 D 34.3.7 pr. (23 Sab.) 416 D 1.1.4 (1 inst.)
417 D 3.2.2.2 (6 ed.); 3.3.39.6 (9 ed.); 37.12.1.4 (45 ed.); 43.24.7.4 (71 ed.); 49.14.25 (19 Sab.);
8.2.3 (29 Sab.); 12.7.1 pr (43 Sab.); 50.15.1.2, 3 bis, 5, 10, 11 (1 cens)
418 D 1.19.1.2 (16 ed.); 47.10.7.1 (57 ed.) 419 Above n.310–2 420 VIR 1.94.34
421 Above n.321–3
422 D 11.4.1.5; 39.2.4.1 (1 ed.); 2.4.4.2 (5 ed.); 3.1.1.9 (6 ed.); 3.2.6 pr. (6 ed.); 3.5.3.2 (10 ed.);
4.8.21.3 (13 ed.. = iudex); 39.2.15.5 (53 ed.); 43.20.1.39 (70 ed.); 43.30.3.6 (71 ed.); 29.2.30.1 (8
Sab.); 28.2.12 pr. (9 Sab.); 7.1.13.8 (18 Sab.); 21.1.25.2 (1 ed. cur.) cf. Frag. Vat. 321 (8 ed.)
423 D 15.1.3.7 (29 ed.); 28.1.20.3 (1 Sab.); 29.2.30.1 (8 Sab.); 21.1.19.4 (1 ed. cur.)
424 D 5.3.25.8 (15 ed.) 425 D 43.23.1.8 (71 ed.)
426 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 49 ACCIPERE DEBEMUS but D. 35.2.74 (Gaius 3 leg.ed.urb.);
6.1.78 (Lab. 4 pith. = Paul); 20.6.8.11 (Marci. 1 hyp.); 46.3.98.3 (Paul 15 quaest.); 27.1.45.3
(Tryph. 13 disp.) cf. VIR 1.95–6
427 D 14.6.7.3 (29 ed.); 38.17.1.12 (12 Sab: ? debemus)
428 D 4.8.11.2 (13 ed.); 11.5.1.2 (23 ed.)
429 D 26.2.3.1 (35 ed.); 38.5.1.4 (44 ed.); 38.8.1.6 (46 ed.); 50.16.99.1 (1 off. cons.)
430 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 49 ACCIPIMUS but D. 9.2.45 pr (Paul 10 Sab.); 43.3.2.1 (Paul
63 ed.) cf. VIR 1.95

sic accipiendum est and variants (accipienda sunt, est accipiendum, sunt accipi-
enda), 20 instances out of 21.431 It is a remarkable concentration.
Putare is another verb that elicits Ulpian’s favour. The forms et puto, et
putem, et magis puto, et ego puto, et non puto, and et verum/verius puto have
been mentioned already.432 To these can be added ut puta, which occurs in the
Tyrian’s writings 298 times out of 317.433 Of the remaining 19 texts Paul has
13. Despite this distribution, several scholars have had the temerity to list it
as unclassical.434 Other Ulpianic forms of putare include puto autem,435 puto
tamen,436 putavimus tamen,437 and et (recte) putat followed by the name of the
author.438
No other verbs are as Ulpianic as accipere and putare. But there are a num-
ber that occur once or more in his texts and not at all, or much more rarely,
in other Digest writers. I list them alphabetically:
adaequare,439 addere,440 artare,441 capessere,442 causari,443 commonere,444 commo-
vere,445 commundare,446 concumbere,447 confringere,448 conivere,449 conqueri,450
431
D 50.16.3 pr (2 ed.); 9.4.3; 50.16.6.1 (3 ed.); 2.14.7.5 (4 ed.); 3.5.3.1 (10 ed.); 11.1.4.1. (22
ed.); 13.5.1.1 (27 ed.); 19.2.19.2 (32 ed.); 27.4.3 pr (36 ed.); 37.5.8 pr; 37.6.1.23 (40 ed); 39.4.3.1
(55 ed.); 40.12.10 (55 ed.); 42.1.5.1 (59 ed.); 43.8.2.32 (68 ed.); 39.2.24 pr (81 ed.); 28.1.21.2 (2
Sab.); 29.2.30.3 (8 Sab.); 27.1.3 (1 off. pr.tut.); 49.3.1 pr (1 appell.) cf. Frag. Vat.186 (1 off. pr.
tut.) but 47.2.4 (Paul 9 Sab.)
432
Above n.48–53
433
Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 74 UT PUTA and cf. Frag. Vat. 177 (17 Sab.) but D 11.7.4.3,
2.7.4 pr (Paul 4 ed.); 4.8.19.2; 4.8.28 (Paul 13 ed.); 10.1.4.8 (Paul 23 ed.); 2.14.9 pr (Paul 62 ed.);
19.1.4.1 (Paul 5 Sab.); 12.6.15 pr. (Paul 10 Sab.); 9.4.31 (Paul 7 Plaut: delete, Mommsen); 31.8.3
(Paul 9 Plaut.); 45.1.91.1 (Paul 17 Plaut.); 12.6.21 (Paul 3 quaest.); 28.6.38.1 (Paul 1 sec. tab.);
11.7.4.3 (Pap. 8 quaest.), 22.1.3.2 (Pap. 20 quaest.), 45.2.9 pr (Pap. 27 quaest.); 48.5.39 pr (Pap.
36 quaest.); 5.1.45 pr (Pap. 3 resp., Mommsen); 14.2.4.2 (Call. 2 quaest.) cf. ut . . . puta 47.2.22.1
(Paul 9 Sab.); puta ut 19.5.5.2 (Paul 5 quaest.). Noted by Kalb (1890) 130
434
Citati (1927) 72: Eisele, Bonfante, Pringsheim, Donatuti, and others
435
D 50.1.27.2 (2 ed.); 3.1.6 (6 ed.); 6.1.37 (17 ed.); 15.3.3.10 (29 ed.); 19.5.20.1 (32 ed.);
44.4.4.22 (76 ed.); 38.17.2.37 (13 Sab.); 7.1.70.4 (17 Sab.)
436 Eight of 9 texts: D 5.3.25.5, 15 (15 ed.); 11.7.14.11 (25 ed.); 16.3.1.12 (30 ed.); 49.14.6 pr (63
ed.); 33.9.1 (24 Sab.); 48.3.4 (9 off. proc.); 49.1.3.3 (1 appell.) cf. Frag.Vat. 71 (17 Sab.); 198 (1
off. pr. tut.) but D. 4.6.13.1 (Paul 12 ed.)
437 D 4.4.3.2 (11 ed.)
438
D 2.2.3.1 (3 ed.); 3.1.1.10 (6 ed.); 4.8.21.11 (13 ed.); 5.3.13.4 (15 ed.); 12.6.26.13 (26 ed.);
16.3.1.11 (30 ed.); 39.1.3.2 (52 ed.); 28.5.17.4 (7 Sab.); 38.17.2.44 (13 Sab.); 38.4.5.1 (14 Sab.);
7.1.12.5; 7.2.1.1 (17 Sab.); 7.6.1.3 (18 Sab.); 47.2.12.2 (28 Sab.)
439 D 30.41.13 (21 Sab.)
440 D 3.2.6.6 (6 ed.); 19.2.13.5; 19.2.19 pr (32 ed.); 47.8.2.23 (56/1 ed.); 41.2.13.1 (72 ed.);
16.3.11 (41 Sab.)

441 D 42.1.2 (6 ed.); 38.9.1.12 (49 ed.); 43.24.5.1 (71 ed.); 2.11.2.8 (74 ed., twice); 48.19.8.7 (9
off. proc.) but interp. Citati (1957): 12: Beseler, H. Krüger

442 Frag. Vat. 155 (1 excus.)
443 Nine of 11 texts: D 14.3.11.3 (28 ed.); 16.3.3 (30 ed,); 42.6.1.12 (64 ed.); 43.24.13.5 (71 ed.);
2.11.2.8 (74 ed.); 30.50.1 (24 Sab.); 32.11.8 (2 fid.); 36.1.13 pr (4 fid.); 40.5.24.14 (5 fid.) but
2.15.12 (Cels. 3 dig.); 40.7.34.1 (Pap. 21 quaest.)
444 445
D 13.6.12.1 (29 Sab.) D 9.1.1.4 (18 ed.); 11.7.6 pr (25 ed.); 39.6.2 (32 Sab.)
446 447
D 34.2.25.10 (44 Sab.) D 1.6.6 (9 Sab.)
448 449
D 9.2.27.31 (18 ed.); 10.4.9 pr (24 ed.); 39.2.24.9 (81 ed.) D 40.1.4.1 (6 disp.)
450
D 29.5.1.3 (50 ed.); 47.10.7.2 (57 ed.)
consciscere,451 boni consulere,452 dehonestare,453 delitescere,454 demerere,455 demor-

ari,456 satis desiderare,457 devocare,458 diffindere,459 dilapidare,460 discutere ( = diiu-
dicare),461 disicere,462 ratione duci,463 effervescere,464 eloqui,465 ad praetorem
evocare,466 exaggerare,467 exoriri,468 exornare,469 recte exprimere,470 facessere,471 flag-
itare,472 ante oculos habere,473 illicere,474 immergere,475 immorari,476 imprecari,477
inaugere,478 increscere,479 inrepere,480 insinuare,481 interfrigescere,482 intermiscere,483
intribuere,484 invalescere,485 obdurare,486 obviam ire,487 operiri (with the dative),488
recolere,489 reconducere,490 recorrigere,491 relaxare,492 relevare (reum),493 remeare,494
remorari,495 resilire,496 retorquere,497 revereri,498 rodere,499 sapere,500 seducere,501
sopire,502 sortiri (metaphorical),503 studere ( = take pains),504 subterfugere,505 tractare
(intransitive, = debate),506 transformare,507 transvolare,508 vigere,509 vituperare.510
451 D 21.1.17.4; 21.1.23.3 (1 ed. cur.)

452 D 23.4.4 (31 Sab.); 23.3.12.1 (34 Sab.); 50.2.3 pr (3 off. proc).
453 D 50.13.1.5 (8 omn. trib.) 454 D 11.4.1.2 (1 ed.)
455 D 16.1.2.3 (29 ed.) 456 D 5.1.2.4 (3 ed.)
457 D 3.3.35.3 (9 ed.); 36.4.1.1; 36.4.3.2 (52 ed.) 458 D 37.10.1.11 (41 ed.)
459 D 2.11.2.3 (74 ed.) 460 D 4.4.11.6 (11 ed.); 5.3.25.11 (15 ed.); 26.4.1 pr (14 Sab.)
461 D 4.8.13.2; 4.8.25.1 (13 ed.); 48.2.6 (2 off. proc.)
462 D 43.24.7.6 (71 ed.)
463 D 11.3.5 pr (23 ed.); 40.12.12.3 (55 ed.); 29.2.30.3 (8 Sab.); 47.14.1.4 (8 off. proc.)
464 D 21.1.17.4 (1 ed. cur.) 465 D 3.2.13.6 (6 ed.); 22.5.12 (37 ed.); 46.8.12.2 (80 ed.)
466 D 25.4.1.2, 9 (34 ed.) 467 D 43.19.3.15 (70 ed.); 50.2.3.1 (3 off. proc.)
468 D 1.15.2 (1 off. pr. vig.)
469 D 15.3.3.4 (29 ed.); 11.8.1.6 (68 ed.); 32.49 pr (22 Sab.); 25.1.7 (36 Sab.)
470 D 34.2.19.13 (20 Sab.); 50.15.3.1 (2 cens.) 471 D 48.2.4 (2 adult.)
472 D 47.1.2.5 (43 Sab.)
473 D 13.4.4.1 (27 ed.); 27.2.3.2 (1 omn. trib.); 48.5.14.5 (2 adult.) 474 D 25.4.1.8 (34 ed.)
475 D 29.2.20.2 (61 ed.) 476 D 39.2.13.21 (53 ed.) 477 D 47.20.3.1 (8 off. proc.)
478 D 40.12.27.2 (2 off. cons.) 479 D 39.3.1.16 (53 ed.); 33.7.12.27 (20 Sab.)
480 D 13.5.14.1 (27 ed.) cf. Collatio 15.2.2 (7 off. proc.)
481 D 37.10.3.5 (41 ed.); 32.11.2 (2fid.)
482 Frag. Vat. 155 (1 excus.) but interp. Citati (1927) 48: Albertario
483 D 28.1.21.3 (2 Sab.) 484 D 14.4.9.2 (29 ed.) 485 D 33.7.12.27 (20 Sab.)
486 D 48.5.28.11 (3 adult.) 487 D 1.18.13.1 (7 off. proc.); 47.11.6 pr (8 off. proc.)
488 D 50.13.1.11 (8 omn. trib.); 48.5.16.1 (2 adult.) 489 D 47.10.11.1 (57 ed.)
490 D 19.2.13.11 (32 ed., twice) 491 D 49.1.1 pr (1 appell.)
492 D 4.2.14.11 (11 ed.)
493 D 16.1.8.10 (29 ed., twice); 17.1.12.9 (31/1 ed., twice); 46.3.24 (47 Sab.)
494 D 50.16.141 (8 Iul. Pap.)
495 D 28.3.6.9 (10 Sab.); 38.16.3.9 (14 Sab.) but interp. Citati (1927) 78: Albertario
496 D 18.2.9 (28 Sab.) 497 D 38.2.14.6 (45 ed.) 498 D 3.1.15 (6 ed.)
499 D 19.2.13.6 (32 ed.); 37.11.1.11 (39 ed., twice)
500 D 23.2.9 pr (26 Sab.); 24.3.2.2 (35 Sab.); 26.2.10.3 (36 Sab.) 501 D 43.29.3.5 (71 ed.)
502 D 38.17.1.12 (12 Sab.); 48.5.30.5 (4 adult.) but interp. Citati (1927): 83: Kalb
503 D 37.4.3.5 (39 ed.); 42.8.10.1 (73 ed.); 1.9.8 (6 fid.); 40.2.20.2 (2 off. cons.); 48.5.18.6 (2 Iul.
Pap.)
504 D 3.5.5.5 (10 ed.); 9.3.1.2 (23 ed.); 1.7.15.2 (26 Sab.) 505 D 42.5.36 (45 Sab.)
506 Nine of 11 texts: D 10.4.3.14 (24 ed.); 15.2.1.8; 15.3.10.2 (29 ed.); 17.2.58 pr (31/2 ed.);
30.39.6 (21 Sab.); 34.3.7 pr (23 Sab.); 48.19.9.10 (10 off. proc., twice); 36.1.18.5 (2 fid.) but
18.1.57.2 (Paul. 5 Plaut.); 37.14.17 pr (Ulp. 11 Iul. Pap. citing divi fratres)
507 D 7.1.13.7 (18 Sab) 508 D 41.1.44 (19 ed.)
509 D 38.2.12.5 (44 ed.); 47.2.46 pr (42 Sab) 510 D 4.7.4.1 (13 ed.)
There are two more elaborate verbal constructions. In ea condicione est, ut

. . . , ‘he it is in the position that . . . ’, occurs 13 times,511 and there are seven
variants, all confined to Ulpian.512 In ea causa est, ut . . . . which means the
same, occurs 16 times in his work,513 and there are another 20 texts of Ulpian
with variants of this phrase in the present or future indicative.514 Other writ-
ers use the expression in ea causa esse in the infinitive or subjunctive.515
Ulpian prefers to be categorical.
(vii) Nouns and nominal phrases. There is nothing special to note apart from a
certain liking for diminutives: alicula,516 domuncula,517 frivusculum,518 locu-
lus,519 operula,520 sarcinula,521 tabernula,522 viaticulum,523 vulnusculum.524 (Sig-
naculum,525 though confined to Ulpian, is not a diminutive but a deverbative.)
The remaining nouns may be listed alphabetically:
abusus,526 adfirmator,527 adgressus,528 adiutorium,529 adparitio,530 adpendix,531
adpulsus,532 adsessorium,533 alternatio,534 apertura,535 apex,536 audacia,537 calcula-
tor,538 calliditas,539 colloquium,540 commendatio,541 comminatio,542 concubitus,543
contaminatio,544 corruptela,545 corruptor,546 curiositas,547 decus,548 dedecus,549 vera
511
D 18.7.1 (32 ed.); 26.7.7 (35 ed.); 29.1.13.3 (45 ed.); 38.8.1.8; 38.8.1.9 (46 ed.); 47.9.3 pr
(56/1 ed.); 43.19.1.2 (70 ed.); 44.2.7.2 (75 ed.); 40.7.2 pr (4 Sab.); 26.2.16 pr (39 Sab.); 40.5.45.2 (5
disp.); 40.1.4.12 (6 disp.); 23.2.27 (3 Iul. Pap.)
512
D 42.1.4.1 (58 ed.); 42.8.6.1 (66 ed.); 39.5.7.6 (44 Sab.); 50.4.6.1 (4 off. proc.); 10.2.49 (2
disp.); 28.5.35.3 (4 disp.); 33.4.2.1 (5 disp.)
513
D 11.1.11.4 (22 ed.); 37.4.1.5 (39 ed.); 37.12.1 pr (45 ed.); 29.4.1.1 (50 ed.); 5.1.19.2 (60 ed.);
29.2.20.1 (61 ed.); 12.6.9 (66 ed.); 41.2.6 pr (70 ed.); 39.1.20.5; 43.29.3.3 (71 ed.); 21.1.59 pr (74
ed., twice); 26.8.5.3 (40 Sab.); 45.1.1.2 (48 Sab.); 45.1.38.22 (49 Sab.); 49.1.1.3 (1 appell.)
514
D 5.1.5 (5 ed.); 4.7.4.3 (13 ed.); 14.5.4.5 (29 ed.); 26.10.3.18 (35 ed.); 37.4.8.11 (40 ed.);
29.5.3.12 (50 ed.); 40.12.12.3 (55 ed.); 47.10.3.4 (56/2 ed.); 47.10.13.2 (57 ed.); 42.4.7.5 (59 ed.);
42.8.6.2 (66 ed.); 2.11.4.1 (74 ed.); 28.3.6.7 (10 Sab.); 26.1.3 pr (37 Sab.); 47.2.17.2 (40 Sab.);
45.1.38.22 (49 Sab.); 40.5.26.10 (5 fid.); 26.5.12 pr; 50.2.3.1 (3 off. proc.); 48.5.14.7 (2 adult.)
515
D 19.1.7 (Pomp. 10 Sab.); 38.2.25 (Iul. 1 Urs. Fer.); 14.6.14 (Iul. 12 dig.); 41.4.7.4 (Iul. 44
dig.); 20.4.9 pr (Afr. 8 quaest.); 16.1.13.2 (Gaius 9 ed. prov.); 27.10.5 (Gaius 9 ed. prov.); 26.2.1.1
(Gaius 12 ed. prov.); 26.7.57.1 (Scae. 10 dig.); 40.5.29 (Paul 3 fid.); 46.5.5 (Paul 48 ed.)
516 517 518
D 34.2.23.2 (44 Sab.) D 47.12.3.11 (25 ed.) D 24.1.32.12 (33 Sab.)
519 520 521
D 32.52.9 (24 Sab.) D 50.14.3 (8 omn. trib.) D 4.6.15.3 (72 ed.)
522 523
D 5.1.19.2 (60 ed.) D 5.1.18.1 (23 ed.) but interp. Citati (1927) 91: Solazzi
524 525
D 21.1.1.8 (1 ed. cur.) D 16.3.1.36 (30 ed.)
526
D 12.2.11.2 (22 ed.); 7.8.12.1 (17 Sab.); 7.5.5.1, 2 (18 Sab.)
527 528
D 4.4.13 pr (11 ed.); 27.7.4.3 (36 ed.) D 36.1.18.7 (2 fid.)
529 530 531
D 47.2.50.3 (37 ed.) D 21.2.50 (25 ed.) D 29.2.35 pr (9 Sab.)
532
D 8.3.5.1 (17 ed.); 43.20.1.18 (70 ed., twice); 34.1.14.3 (2 fid.); 8.3.1.1 (2 inst.)
533 D 2.14.12 (4 ed.); 47.10.5.8 (56/2 ed.)
534 D 11.3.9 pr (23 ed.); 13.4.2.3 (27 ed., twice); 47.10.7.4 (57 ed.)
535 536
D 28.5.3.4 (3 Sab.) D 17.1.29.4 (7 disp.)
537 538
D 39.4.12 pr (38 ed., twice) D 38.1.7.5 (28 Sab.); 50.13.1.6 (8 omn. trib.)
539 540
Below n.618 D 48.5.10.2 (4 adult.)
541 542
D 4.1.1 (11 ed.); 1.16.4.3 (1 off. proc.) D 26.7.7.7 (35 ed.); 37.14.1 (9 off. proc.)
543 544
D 35.1.15 (35 Sab.) D 48.5.2.3 (8 disp.)
545
D 11.3.9.1 (23 ed.); 49.14.29 pr (8 disp.)
546 547
D 11.3.9.3 (23 ed.); 11.3.11.1 (23 ed.); 49.14.20 pr (8 disp.) D 22.6.6 (18 Iul. Pap.)
548 549
D 3.1.1 pr (6 ed.); 39.1.20.10 (71 ed.) D 4.6.10 (12 ed.); 37.4.3.5 (39 ed.)
distinctio,550 dulcitudo,551 efficacia,552 elatio,553 elocutio,554 excessus (death),555

exhortatio,556 exiguitas,557 experimentum,558 fervor,559 fons (metaphorical),560 forti-
tudo,561 frivolum,562 fulcimentum,563 gestus,564 imminutio,565 immunditiae,566 impos-
tor,567 impostura,568 inceptum,569 incolumitas,570 incredibilitas,571 indevotio,572
indicatio,573 insolentia,574 instigatus,575 instinctus,576 intellegentia,577 interrogator,578
interventio,579 interventor,580 nervus,581 obscaenitas,582 obventio,583 occultatio,584
occursus,585 ostentatio,586 paratio,587 pedester,588 penuarius,589 protervitas,590 ratioci-
natio,591 recisio,592 redditio,593 redemptura,594 remotio,595 repertorium,596 reposito-
rium,597 repudiatio,598 resolutio,599 revocatio,600 sepositio,601 series,602 sobrietas,603
socordia,604 solitudo,605 somnus,606 stupratio,607 suasor,608 suasus,609 sustentatio,610
taciturnitas,611 tarditas,612 territio,613 tumor,614 variatio,615 vaticinatio,616 vitupera-
tio.617
550 D 2.14.7.14 (4 ed.); 4.3.9.3 (11 ed.); 12.1.11 pr (26 ed.) 551 D 42.8.10.10 (73 ed.)
552 D 22.1.33 pr. (1 off. cur. reip.) 553 D 11.7.14.3 (25 ed.)
554 555
D 22.5.12 (37 ed.); 46.8.12.2 (80 ed.) D 24.1.32 pr (33 Sab.)
556 D 1.1.1.1 (1 inst.) 557 D 19.2.15.5 (32 ed.) 558 D 19.5.20 pr, 1 (32 ed.)
559 D 19.2.15.2 (32 ed.); 48.5.16.6 (2 adult.) 560 D 50.16.195.4 (46 ed.)
561 562 563
D 21.1.38.7 (2 ed. cur.) D 13.7.11.5 (28 ed.) D 33.7.12.19 (20 Sab.)
564
D 26.7.23 (9 ed.); 3.5.5.13 (10 ed.); 26.10.3.9; 26.7.5.2; 26.10.3.10 (35 ed.); 27.3.1.13;
27.5.1.5 (36 ed., interp.); 46.3.14.1 (30 Sab.)
565 566
D 28.5.35.2 (4 disp.) D 43.23.1.2 (71 ed.)
567
D 50.13.1.3 (8 omn. trib.); 21.1.4.2 (1 ed. cur.)
568
D 47.20.3.1 (8 off. proc.) cf. Collatio 15.2.1 (2 off. proc.)
569 570
Collatio 15.2.1 (7 off. proc.) Frag. Vat. 123 (1 excus.)
571 572 573
D 48.5.30 pr (4 adult.) D 33.9.1 (24 Sab.) D 19.1.13.3 (32 ed.)
574 D 22.1.33 pr (1 off. cur. reip.) 575 D 9.1.1.6 (18 ed.)
576 D 47.11.5 (5 off. proc.) cf. Collatio 15.2.5 (7 off. proc.) 577 D 28.1.20.9 (1 Sab.)
578 D 11.1.11.7 (22 ed.) 579 D 4.4.7.3 (11 ed.)
580 D 37.15.7.5 (10 ed.); 15.1.3.9 (29 ed.) 581 D 48.18.1.20 (8 off. proc.)
582 D 1.12.1.8 (1 off. pr. urb.)
583 D 22.1.3.4 (15 ed.); 14.1.1.15 (28 ed.); 27.9.5.9 (35 ed.); 7.1.7.1 (17 Sab.)
584 D 42.4.7.4 (59 ed.) 585 D 42.4.7.13 (59 ed.) 586 D 13.6.3.6 (28 ed.)
587 588 589
D 30.39.7 (21 Sab.) D 43.12.1.14 (68 ed.) D 33.9.3.11 (22 Sab.)
590 591 592
D 47.4.1.1 (38 ed.) D 14.4.5.16 (29 ed.) D 28.5.35.1 (4 disp.)
593 594
D 16.1.8 pr (29 ed.); 21.1.21 pr. (1 ed. cur.) D 14.3.5.2 (28 ed.)
595 596
D 50.16.10 (6 ed.); 26.10.4.2 (1 omn. trib.) D 26.7.7 pr (35 ed.)
597 D 34.2.19.10 (20 Sab.)
598 Eleven of 12 texts: D 38.6.1.3 (44 ed.); 38.9.1.7, 11 (49 ed.); 29.2.13 pr, 2; 29.2.17.1;
29.2.21.3 (7 Sab.); 38.16.2.7 (13 Sab.); 24.1.5.13 (32 Sab.); 49.17.9 (4 disp.); 36.1.15.5 (4 fid.) but
19.2.25.2 (Gaius 10 ed. prov.)
599 600 601
D 41.2.13.2 (72 ed.) D 5.1.2.3 (3 ed.) D 50.12.2.2 (1 disp.)
602 603
D 37.11.2.4 (41 ed.); 50.15.1 pr (1 cens.) D 1.7.17.4 (26 Sab.)
604 605
D 2.12.1.1 (4 omn. trib.) D 47.10.7.8 (57 ed.); 47.14.1.1 (8 off. proc.)
606
D 26.8.1.1 (1 Sab.); 34.2.25.10 (44 Sab.); 21.1.14.4 (1 ed. cur.)
607
D 23.2.43.1 (1 Iul. Pap.)
608
D 4.4.13 pr (11 ed.) but interp. Citati (1927) 83: Pringsheim
609
D 9.2.9.1 (18 ed.)
610 D 24.3.22.8 (33 ed.) 611 D 19.2.13.11 (32 ed.) but interp. Citati (1927) 86: Kalb etc.
612 D 26.7.7.3 (35 ed.) but interp. Citati (1927) 86: Beseler, Kunkel
613 D 47.10.15.41 (57 ed.) 614 D 9.2.27.17 (18 ed.); 21.1.14.8 (1 ed. cur.)
615 D 14.3.11.5 (28 ed.) 616 Frag. Vat. 148 (1 excus.)
617 D 34.2.23.2 (44 Sab.)
All twenty-five texts with calliditas are attributed to Ulpian.618 Even if two or
three are compilatorial, or are cited from another author or a rescript,619 the
concentration is striking. He clearly disliked craftiness, and thought of him-
self as a candid person.620
(viii) Adjectives and participles used as adjectives. Those peculiar to Ulpian

among Digest authors include:
accusatorius,621 acerbus,622 adsuetus,623 ambitiosus,624 amicalis,625 armipotens,626
authenticus,627 calcitrosus,628 captus (deceived),629 cavus,630 clivosus,631 consimilis,632
consuetus, 633 contemptibilis,634 contestatorius,635 contumeliosus,636 crassus,637 dela-
torius,638 docilis,639 dolosus,640 exclusorius,641 exemptilis,642 facinorosus,643 fanati-
cus,644 feriaticus,645 fessus,646 formalis,647 fluviatilis,648 gulosus,649 gutturosus,650
immutabilis,651 impetiginosus,652 impetrabilis,653 inaequus,654 inargutus,655
incautus,656 incogitabilis,657 incultus,658 incuriosus,659 indemnatus,660 indoctus,661
618 D 2.14.7.9 (4 ed.); 4.1.1; 4.3.1 pr, 2; 4.3.7.10; 4.4.3.1 (11 ed.); 11.3.3 pr (23 ed.); 10.4.11.1
(24 ed.); 15.3.3.9; 16.1.2.3 (29 ed.); 50.17.47 pr (33 ed.); 17.1.6.7; 50.14.2 (31/1 ed.); 24.3.22.8 (33
ed.); 47.4.1.1 (38 ed.); 29.4.1 pr (50 ed.); 40.12.12.3 (55 ed.); 40.12.14 pr (55 ed.); 42.6.1.5 (64 ed.);
43.24.1.1; 43.29.3.5 (71 ed.); 47.20.3.1 (8 off. proc.); 21.1.1.2 (1 ed. cur.); 17.1.29.5 (7 disp.); 49.4.1
pr (1 appell.)
619 D 4.3.1.2 (11 ed.); 17.1.6.7 (31 ed.); Crifò (1985) 607
620 Cf. n.640 (dolosus), 736 (callide), 740 (dolose). Frier (1984) 859 thinks that this inference
‘descends to bathos’. But a person who is continually on the lookout for a particular vice must
feel strongly about it
621 D 48.5.18.1 (2 adult.); 48.5.30.8 (4 adult.) 622 D 22.1.33 pr (1 off. cur. reip.)
623 D 19.2.15.2 (32 ed.)
624 D 4.4.3 pr (11 ed.); 22.1.33 pr (1 off. cur. reip.); 50.9.4 pr (1 off. cur. reip.) cf. 36. 1.67.2
(Maec. 5 fid: ambitiose) but interp. Citati (1927) 10: Vassalli

625 D 17.1.10.7 (31/1 ed.) 626 D 50.15.1 pr (1 cens.)
627 D 10.2.4.3; 10.2.8 pr. (19 ed.). Used as a noun in 29.3.12. (Ulp. 13 Iul. Pap.) and Paul. Sent.
5.12.11
628 D 9.1.1.4 (18 ed.); 21.1.4.3 (1 ed. cur.)
629
Twenty-seven of 28 texts: D 4.4.3.3, 4, 5, 7, 10; 4.4.5; 4.4.7.1, 4, 5, 7; 4.4.9.2; 4.4.11.2, 3, 4,
5, 6; 4.4.13 pr ; 4.18.1; 13.7.36.1 (11 ed.); 4.6.28.1 (12 ed.); 4.1.6 (13 ed.); 12.2.9.4 (22 ed., twice);
15.1.5 pr (29 ed.); 16.3.1.42 (30 ed.); 15.1.36 (2 disp., twice) but 4.4.29 pr (Mod. 2 resp.). Perhaps
this word is too contextual to count
630 D 43.23.1.4 (71 ed.) 631 D 43.8.5.32 (68 ed.) 632 D 34.2.23.2 (44 Sab.)
633 D 36.1.23.3 (5 disp.) 634 D 21.2.37.1 (32 ed.); 1.16.9.2 (2 off. cons.)
635 Frag. Vat. 156 (1 excus.)
636 D 47.10.7.7 (57 ed.); 1.12.1.10; 22.1.33 pr (1 off. cur. reip.)
637 D 22.6.6 (18 Iul. Pap.) 638 D 22.6.6 (18 Iul. Pap.)
639 D 21.1.37 (1 ed. cur.) 640 D 4.3.1 pr (11 ed.)
641 D 44.1.2.2 (74 ed.) 642 D 34.2.25.11 (44 Sab.)
643 D 2.1.3 (2 off. quaest.) 644 D 21.1.1.9 (1 ed. cur.)
645 D 2.12.2 (5 ed.) 646 D 39.6.5 (2 inst.)
647 D 35.2.62.1 (1 Iul. Pap.) 648 D 14.1.1.6 (28 ed.) 649 D 21.1.4.2 (1 ed. cur.)
650 D 21.1.12.2 (1 ed. cur.) 651 D 40.7.9.1 (28 Sab.) 652 D 21.1.6.1 (1 ed. cur.)
653 D 43.20.1.43 (70 ed.) 654 D 33.1.3.2 (24 Sab.) 655 D 7.5.5.1 (18 Sab.)
656 Collatio 12.5.2 (8 off. proc)
657 Frag. Vat. 75.5 (17 Sab.) but interp. Citati (1927) 46: Beseler
658 D 28.8.7.3 (60 ed.) 659 D 22.1.33 pr. (1 off. cur. reip.)
660 D. 28.1.9 (45 ed.) 661 D 21.1.19.4 (1 ed. cur.)
inexcusabilis,662 infaustus,663 inscius vel/et invitus,664 intimus,665 inutilis,666 nota-

bilis,667 nugatorius,668 obsequens,669 occultus,670 olitorius,671 opacus,672 par
(atque),673 pavidus,674 quantuluscumque,675 reprobus,676 spatiosus,677 squalidus,678
subsidiarius,679 subsimilis,680 succedaneus,681 sumptuosus,682 superstitiosus,683 super-
vacaneus,684 suppellecticarius,685 suspendiosus,686 tempestivus,687 venatorius,688 vin-
demiatorius.689 There are a number with the intensitive prefix per-, meaning ‘very’:
perexiguus,690 perlucidus,691 perlusorius,692 permodicus,693 pernecessarius, 694 and
perpaucus.695
Comparative adjectives include audacior,696 cautior,697 contumeliosior,698

cultior,699 durior (sententia) 700 and indubitatior.701 Among superlatives we
find aequissimus,702 angustisssimus,703 antiquissimus,704 audacissimus,705 cer-
tissimum (est),706 durissimus,707 exploratissimus,708 facillimus,709 frequentis-
simus,710 improbissimus,711 indignissimus,712 saevissimus,713 severissimus,714
splendidissimus,715 tenacissimus,716 usitatissimus,717 and verissima (senten-
tia).718 Of these aequissimus is the most important. In its various inflections,
662 663
D 5.1.50.1 (6 fid.) D 34.9.9.1 (14 Iul. Pap.)
664 D 9.2.27.30 (18 ed.); 23.3.34 (43 ed.); 43.24.15 pr (71 ed.) but 46.3.78 (Iav. 11 Cass.) cf.
Frag. Vat. 269 (Ulp. 46 Sab.)
665 D. 4.8.3.1 (13 ed.); 7.1.13.8 (18 Sab.)
666 D 45.1.1.5 (twice); 46.4.8 pr (48 Sab.); 37.11.6 (8 disp.)
667 D 3.1.1.5 (6 ed.) 668 D 21.1.17.14 (1 ed. cur.)
669 D 1.16.9.3 (2 off. proc.)
670 D 11.1.11.8 (22 ed.); 14.4.7 pr (29 ed.); 37.6.1.11 (40 ed.); 18.6.4 pr (28 Sab.); 29.3.10.2 (13
Iul. Pap.)
671 672
D 7.1.13.4 (18 Sab.) D 50.13.1.11 (8 omn. trib.); 48.5.16.1 (2 adult.)
673 674
D 43.8.2.42 (68 ed. = 50.17.150) D 21.1.4.3 (1 ed. cur.)
675 676
D 38.2.6 pr (43 ed.) D 13.7.24.1 (1 ed., thrice)
677 678
D 39.2.15.13 (53 ed.); 7.8.4 pr (17 Sab.) D 47.10.15.27 (57 ed.)
679 680
D 27.8.1 pr, 4 (36 ed.) D 35.3.1.5 (79 ed.)
681 682
D 26.7.3.8 (35 ed.); 27.8.4 (3 disp.) D 28.8.5.1 (60 ed.)
683 684
D 21.1.4.9 (1 ed. cur.) D 26.7.9.6 (36 ed.)
685 686
D 33.7.12.31 (20 Sab.) D 3.2.11.3 (6 ed.)
687 688
D 36.1.13.4 (4 fid.) D 48.19.8.11, 12 (9 off. proc.)
689 690
D 3.3.78 pr (20 Sab.) D 5.3.13.5 (15 ed.)
691 692
D 34.2.19.17 (20 Sab.) D 49.1.14 pr (14 ed.)
693 D 11.7.20.1 (25 ed.) 694 D 4.4.11.4 (11 ed.); 26.10.1 pr (35 ed.)
695 D 46.5.1.5 (77 ed.) 696 D 47.4.1.1 (38 ed.)
697 D 46.5.1.4 (70 ed.) 698 D 47.10.7.7 (57 ed.)
699 D 33.7.8.1 (20 Sab.) 700 D 3.2.13.7 (6 ed.)
701 D 43.13.1.8 (68 ed.) 702 Below n.719–721 703 D 40.9.12.6 (4 adult.)
704 D 50.15.1 pr (1 cens.); 50.3.1 pr (3 off.proc.); 1.13.1 pr (1 off. quaest.);
705 706
D 37.10.1.5 (41 ed.) D 7.4.5.2 (17 Sab.); 40.5.24.9 (5 fid.)
707 708
D 5.1.19.2 (60 ed.); 38.2.1 (42 ed.) D 39.1.5.4 (52 ed.)
709 710
D 12.2.3 pr (22 ed.) D 42.4.7.2 (59 ed.)
711 712
D 3.1.1.5 (6 ed.) D 23.4.11 (34 ed.)
713 714
D 24.3.22.8 (33 ed.) D 3.1.1.5 (6 ed.)
715 716 717
D 50.15.1 pr (1 cens.) D 50.15.1 pr (1 cens.) D 27.1.19 (35 ed.)
718
D 19.1.11.16 (32 ed.); 32.11.20 (2 fid.); 36.1.15.3 (4 fid.). Est verissimum: 9.2.5.2 (18 ed.);
9.2.27.3 (18 ed.); verissimum videtur: 11.1.11.12 (22 ed.)
particularly aequissimum erit719 and aequissimum est,720 Ulpian accounts for

80 Digest instances out of 86.721 Utilissimus occurs five times.722
(ix) Adverbs and adverbial phrases. The adverbial phrase eo loci723 ‘at that
place’ and similar phrases (alio loci,724 aliquo loci,725 quo loci,726 eodem loci,727
certo loci728) are notably Ulpianic.729 Many Ulpianic adverbs are related to
the verb or noun forms already mentioned. Thus, abusive730 is related to
abusus,731 acerbe732 to acerbus,733 benigne dicere734 to benignum est,735 cal-
lide736 to calliditas,737 contumeliose738 to contumeliosus,739 dolose740 to dolo-
sus,741 minus dubitanter742 and indubitanter743 to a number of expressions
rejecting doubt,744 incaute745 to cautior,746 notabiliter747 to notabilis,748
sobrie749 to sobrietas,750 and sumptuose751 to sumptuosus.752 There is a group
of negative adverbs: (non) difficile,753 gravate,754 idonee,755 mediocriter,756
719
Above n.336 (26 texts)
720
Fifteen texts: D 4.6.26.9 (12 ed.); 11.1.11.8 (22 ed.); 10.4.11 pr (24 ed.); 13.6.7.1 (28 ed.);
14.5.2.1 (29 ed.); 19.1.13.20 (32 ed.); 47.6.1.2 (38 ed.); 37.4.3.4 (39 ed.); 37.8.1.1 (40 ed.); 38.2.8 pr
(43 ed.); 43.19.3.7 (70 ed.); 2.11.2.1 (74 ed.); 36.3.1.19 (79 ed.); 42.1.57 (2 disp.); 17.1.29.6 (7 disp.)
cf. est aequissimum 3.1.1.6 (6 ed.); 14.4.5.13 (29 ed); 19.2.9.1 (32 ed.); 29.5.3.17 (50 ed.)
721
Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 49 AEQUISSIMA, AEQUISSIMUM; VIR 1.296 but D 16.2.5 (Gaius
9 ed. prov.); 17.1.22.4 (Paul 32 ed.); 14.2.2 pr (Paul 1 SC Tert.); 48.20.7 pr (Paul 1 port. lib.
damn.); 38.17.5 pr (Paul 1 SC Tert.); 36.1.1.2 (Ulp. 3 fid. citing SC Trebellianum) cf. Gaius, Inst.
4.71. Interp. Citati (1927) 8: Bonfante, Wylie
722
D 47.6.1 pr (38 ed.); 43.15.1.1 (68 ed.); 43.21.1.1 (70 ed.); 43.26.6.4 (71 ed.); 10.3.21 (30
Sab.)
723
Nineteen of 20 texts: D 50.1.27.3 (2 ed.); 4.8.21.10 (13 ed.); 9.2.29 pr (18 ed.); 10.4.11.1 (24
ed. twice); 13.4.2.8; 13.5.16.1 (27 ed.); 29.5.1.27 (50 ed.); 39.1.5.2, 3 (52 ed.); 5.1.19.2 (60 ed.);
11.8.1.8 (68 ed.); 43.20.1.17 (70 ed.); 8.2.17 pr (29 Sab.); 47.2.3.2 (41 Sab.); 48.19.9.6 (10 off.
proc.); 50.16.199 pr (8 omn. trib.); 5.1.52.3, 4 (6 fid.); 48.5.10.2 (4 adult) but 14.2.10.1 (Labeo 1
pith. Paul epit.)
724 725
D 4.8.21.10 (13 ed.) D 18.7.1 (32 ed.)
726
D 16.3.5.1 (30 ed.) but 6.1.6 (Paul 6 ed.)
727 728
D 42.4.7.13 (59 ed.) but 22.2.1 (Mod. 10 pand.) D 5.1.19.1, 2 (60 ed.)
729 Kalb (1890) 134–5
730 D 50.1.1.1 (2 ed.); 50.16.15 (10 ed.); 29.3.2.1 (50 ed.); 47.10.15.40 (57 ed.)
731 Above n.526 732 D 43.30.1.5 (71 ed.) but interp. Citati (1927) 1: Eisele
733 Above n.622
734 D 38.2.14.2, 8 (45 ed.); 36.4.1 pr (52 ed.); 42.5.24.3 (63 ed.); 7.4.1.2 (17 Sab.); 35.1.10 pr (23
Sab.); 24.1.34 (43 Sab.); 50.2.2.3 (1 disp.) but interp. Citati (1927) 14: Beseler etc
735 Above n.191
736 D 4.3.9.1 (11 ed.); 4.8.31 (13 ed.); 16.1.2.3 (29 ed.); 47.8.2.8 (56/1 ed.); 26.8.5.4 (40 Sab.)
737 Above n.539, 618 738 D 7.1.27.1 (18 Sab.) but Gaius, Inst 1.141
739
Above n.636
740
D 4.4.3.1 (11 ed.); 4.8.31 (13 ed.); 5.3.25.5 (15 ed.); 10.4.9.2 (24 ed.); 11.6.3 pr (24 ed.);
44.4.2.5 (76 ed.); 42.5.31.2 (2 omn. trib.)
741 Above n.640 742 D 15.1.9.5 (28 ed.) 743 D 37.11.2.7 (41 ed.)
744 Above n.65, 78, 168–173
745 D 28.4.1.1 (15 Sab.) cf. Collatio 12.5.2 (8 off. proc: incautus?)
746 Above n.697; incautus, above n.656, 745 747 D 47.10.15.26 (56/2 ed.)
748 Above n.667 749 D 4.4.11.4 (11 ed.); 26.5.12.1 (3 off. proc.)
750 Above n.603 751 D 39.2.37 (42 Sab.) 752 Above n.682
753 D 1.18.13 pr (7 off. proc.) 754 D 1.16.7 pr (2 off. proc.)
755 D 27.8.1.17 (36 ed.) 756 D 47.10.7.2 (57 ed.) but interp. Citati (1927) 56: Beseler
passim,757 plene,758 principaliter,759 secure,760 specialiter,761 and turpiter.762

Some of these are used, by way of meiosis, with a double negative: (non)
improprie,763 inconsulte,764 indigne, 765 infavorabiliter,766 inhoneste,767 insup-
tiliter.768
There is exaggeration in Ulpian’s use of saepissime, ‘very often’, and cotti-
die, ‘every day’. The former cannot technically be listed as a mark of his style,
since there are, besides 29 Ulpianic texts, 3 of Marcianus.769 But this can be
accounted for by the writer’s influence on his younger contemporary. Despite
one text of Gaius, cottidie, used in this loose manner, counts as Ulpianic.770
The same writers feature in the profile of eleganter. Ulpian is a neat and lucid,
rather than an elegant, writer, but he admired elegance. He uses the adverb in
39 texts of the 42 in which it occurs in the Digest, there being also two
instances in Gaius and one in Marcianus.771
Other adverbs wholly or almost wholly confined to Ulpian include:
avare,772 circumspecte,773 collusorie,774 congruenter,775 criminaliter,776 destricte,777
diverse,778 frugaliter,779 generaliter,780 hoc animo (followed by quasi,781 quod,782 or
757 D 4.4.11.3 (11 ed.); 27.9.5.9, 14 (35 ed.); 37.9.7.1 (47 ed.)
758 D 11.1.9.4 (22 ed.); 34.4.7 (24 Sab.) 759 D 47.10.7.1 (57 ed.)
760 D 18.2.11 pr (28 Sab.)
761 D 19.1.17.6 (32 ed.); 18.1.24 (28 Sab.) but 7.1.43 (7 reg: non . . . specialiter)
762 D 12.5.4.3 (26 ed.) 763 D 38.16.1 pr (12 Sab.); 50.16.130 (2 Iul. Pap.)
764 D 4.4.11.4 (11 ed.) 765 D 40.2.20.1 (2 off. cons.)
766 D 50.2.2.6 (1 disp.) but interp. Citati (1927) 47: Albertario 767 D 50.16.46.1 (59 ed.)
768 D 2.14.7.6 (4 ed.); 28.5.1.5 (1 Sab.)
769 D 3.2.2.2 (6 ed.); 4.4.20.1; 13.7.36 pr (11 ed.); 4.6.26.9 (12 ed., twice); 4.1.6 (13 ed.); 5.2.8.2
(14 ed.); 11.7.6 pr (25 ed.); 27.2.1.3 (34 ed.); 12.3.4 pr; 26.7.9 pr; 27.3.1.15 (36 ed.); 47.4.1.7 (38
ed.); 37.5.5.6 (40 ed.); 47.10.13.7 (57 ed.); 43.24.13.5 (71 ed.); 42.8.10.13, 14 (73 ed.); 44.4.4.26 (76
ed.); 28.3.6.8 (10 Sab.); 34.2.9 (24 Sab.); 47.2.12.2 (29 Sab.); 48.18.1.7 (8 off. proc.); 50.15.4.10 (3
cens.); 13.7.26 pr (3 disp.); 29.7.1 (4 disp.); 40.5.24.21 (5 fid.); 37.14.16 pr (10 Iul. Pap.); 49.2.1.4
(1 appell.) but 39.4.16.4 (Marci. 1 del.); 48.15.3 pr (Marci 1 pub. iud.); 48.24.2 (Marci 2 pub. iud.)
cf. Kalb (1890) 132, who points out that two or three instances seem to have been treated as
enough to justify saepissime
770 D 4.4.7.8 (11 ed.); 12.1.9.8 (26 ed.); 26.10.1 pr (35 ed.); 43.26.6.4 (71 ed.); 23.1.4.1 (35 Sab.)
but 20.1.15.1 (Gaius 1 hyp.); interp. Citati (1927) 23: Pernice etc.
771 D 5.1.2.5 (3 ed.); 2.14.1.3; 2.14.7.2, 10; 2.14.10 pr; 36.1.17.6 (4 ed.); 3.5.9.1 (10 ed.); 4.2.9.1;
4.3.7 pr (11 ed.); 4.8.21.11 (13 ed.); 10.2.18.4 (19 ed.); 10.3.7.13 (20 ed.); 10.4.3.11 (24 ed.);
15.1.9.4 (29 ed.); 13.7.24 pr; 16.3.1.33 (30 ed.); 18.3.4.2 (32 ed.); 25.3.1.10 (34 ed.); 13.1.12 pr, 1
(38 ed.); 29.5.1.12; 29.5.3.30; 37.8.1.16 (50 ed.); 39.2.15.28 (53 ed.); 12.6.23 pr (3 Sab.); 7.2.1.3 (17
Sab.); 32.52.7 (24 Sab.); 18.2.4.5 (28 Sab.); 21.2.21.1 (29 Sab.); 17.2.14 (30 Sab.); 24.1.7.4 (32
Sab.); 24.3.14.1 (36 Sab.); 9.2.41.1; 47.2.71 (41 Sab.); 12.6.43; 17.1.19 (43 Sab.); 29.2.40 (4 disp.);
35.2.82 (8 disp.); 40.5.30.14 (5 fid.); 1.1.1. pr (1 inst.) but D 22.1.19 (Gaius 6 XII tab.); 2.2.4
(Gaius 1 ed. prov.); 15.1.40 pr (Marci. 5 reg.) cf. 46.3.103 (Maec. 2 fid: elegantissime); 26.7.61
(Pomp. 20 epist: elegantius); VIR 2.456
772 773 774
D 1.16.6.3 (1 off. proc.) D 4.4.7.8 (11 ed.) D 30.50.2 (24 Sab.)
775 776
D 45.1.1.6 (41 Sab.) D 47.2.93 (38 ed.) but interp. Citati (1927) 24: Albertario
777
D 3.3.13 (8 ed.); 4.4.7.8 (11 ed.); 4.8.15 (13 ed.); 48.18.1.26 (8 off. proc.)
778 779
D 33.6.9.3 (23 Sab.) D 27.2.3.3 (36 ed.)
780
Above n.96 (et generaliter), n.167.308–9 (generaliter dicendum est etc.)
781
D 11.7.14.7 (25 ed., twice); 29.2.20.1 (61 ed.); 42.6.1.10 (64 ed.); 43.16.3.6 (69 ed.); 38.4.1.6
(14 Sab.); 24.1.32.5 (33 Sab.); 33.4.2 pr (5 disp.)
782
D 24.1.22 (2 Sab.)
standing alone783), immoderate,784 imperite,785 impotenter,786 incolorate,787 inconsid-

eranter,788 incunctanter,789 indifferenter,790 pecuniarie,791 perquam,792 perraro,793
pervicaciter,794 qualiterqualiter,795 regulariter,796 secure,797 sordide,798 sufficienter,799
tamdiu (with donec800 or quoad801 or standing by itself802), usquam,803 verecunde,804
versa vice,805 and vigilanter.806
Some adverbs appear in the comparative form: circumspectius,807 civil-

ius,808 dilucidius,809 solutius,810 subtilius,811 timidius,812 tolerabilius,813 and vio-
lentius.814 Others are in the superlative: atrocissime,815 consultissime,816
diligentissime,817 rectissime (ait,818 rescripsit,819 scribit,820 videtur)821 and
tardissime.822
The foregoing account could not, in the nature of things, be very lively. Yet
with its help the alert reader should often be able to tell genuine from spur-
ious Ulpian, though each text needs naturally to be examined on its merits.
783
D 12.4.3.8 (26 ed.); 29.2.20.1 (61 ed.); 42.6.1.10 (64 ed.); 43.16.3.6 (69 ed.); 38.4.1.6 (14
Sab.); 24.1.32.5 (33 Sab.); 33.4.2 pr (5 disp.)
784 785
D 21.1.17.3 (1 ed. cur.) D 9.2.7.8 (18 ed.); 11.6.1.1 (24 ed.)
786 787 788
D 1.16.9.5 (2 off. proc.) D 4.4.18.1 (11 ed.) D 26.10.3.17 (35 ed.)
789
D 40.2.20 pr (2 off. cons.)
790
D 1.13.1.3 (1 off. quaest.) but interp. Citati (1927) 47: Pringsheim
791
D 16.2.10.2 (63 ed.)
792
Thirteen of 14 texts: D 3.3.1.2 (9 ed.); 10.4.1 (24 ed.); 27.3.1.4 (36 ed.); 37.8.1.10 (40 ed.);
28.7.8 pr (50 ed.); 42.4.3 pr (59 ed.); 20.1.6 (73 ed.); 36.3.14.1 (79 ed.); 1.16.4.6 (1 off. proc.);
48.20.6; 48.22.7.22 (10 off. proc.); 50.16.99.2 (1 off. cons.); 40.9.12.1 (4 adult.) but 1.2.2.44
(Pomp. 1 enchir.) cf. Kalb (1890) 132
793
Six of 7 texts: D 42.1.2 (6 ed.); 4.4.3 pr; 4.4.18.1 (11 ed.); 42.6.1.1 (64 ed.); 1.9.12 pr (2 cens.);
26.10.7.3 (1 omn. trib.) but 1.3.5 (Cels. 17 dig.)
794
D 26.10.3.16 (35 ed.)
795
All eleven texts: D 4.4.7 pr (11 ed.); 9.2.7.1 (18 ed.); 26.7.5.10 (35 ed.); 47.4.1.2 (38 ed.);
42.6.1.15 (64 ed.); 43.16.3.17 (69 ed.); 43.24.11.12; 50.16.63 (71 ed.); 46.8.12.3 (80 ed.); 47.2.46 pr
(42 Sab.); 48.21.1 (8 disp.)
796
D 5.3.9 (15 ed.); 15.3.3.2 (29 ed.); 30.7.1.1 (51 ed.); 7.1.25.5 (18 Sab.) but interp. Citati
(1927) 77: De Francisci
797 798
D 5.2.8.6 (14 ed.) D 26.7.7.2; 26.10.3.5 (35 ed.)
799 800
D 7.1.15.2 (18 Sab.); 24.3.14 pr (36 Sab.) D 13.1.10.2 (38 ed.); 34.1.14 pr (2 fid.)
801 802 803
D 42.4.5.1 (59 ed.) D 48.19.6 pr (9 off. proc.) D 1.9.1.1 (62 ed.)
804
D 39.2.4.5 (1 ed.); 24.3.21.6 (3 disp.); 1.12.1.8 (1 off. pr. urb.) but interp. Citati (1927) 90:
Albertario
805
D 39.3.6.3 (53 ed.); 40.12.1.1 (54 ed.); 43.29.3 pr (71 ed.); 44.5.1.12 (76 ed.); 36.3.1.11 (79
ed.); 24.1.33.1 (36 Sab.); 45.1.1.3 (48 Sab.)
806 807 808
D 27.9.5.10 (20 Sab.) D 37.9.1.18 (41 ed.) D 25.5.1.2 (34 ed.)
809 D 15.1.19.1 (29 ed.) 810 D 11.7.14.14 (25 ed.)
811 D 12.4.3.8 (26 ed.); 49.15.15 (12 Sab.) 812 D 29.2.42 pr (4 disp.)
813 D 50.5.13.3 (23 ed.) 814 D 9.2.29.7 (18 ed.) 815 D 1.6.2 (8 off. proc.)
816 817
D 28.7.8 pr (50 ed.) D 37.10.3.5 (41 ed.) cf. Collatio 11.7.5 (8 off. proc.)
818
D 10.2.18.1 (19 ed.); 17.1.12.14 (31/1 ed.); 29.4.10 pr (50 ed.); 47.8.4.3 (56/1 ed.); 23.3.5.9
(31 Sab.); 40.4.13.2 (5 disp.); 23.2.43.3 (1 Iul. Pap.)
819
D 17.1.6.7 (31/1 ed)
820
Eight of 10 texts: D 13.7.36 pr (11 ed.); 9.2.23.4 (18 ed.); 19.2.19.6 (32 ed.); 37.9.1.11;
37.10.3.13 (41 ed.); 39.2.15.10 (53 ed.); 42.4.7.7 (59 ed.); 39.2.40.1 (43 Sab.) but 35.1.62.1 (Ter.
Clem. 4 Iul. Pap.); 34.2.34.2 (Pomp. 9 Q. Muc.)
821 822
D 4.2.14.5 (11 ed.) D 43.24.15.4 (71 ed.)
Chapters 5 and 10 use it to set up two lists, one of genuine, the other of spu-
rious compositions. It may be of interest here to sketch some other ways in
which the study of Ulpian’s style can be fruitful.
One is that a grasp of the elements of style can help us to recognize as
Ulpian’s a passage that the Digest attributes to another author. There is a
chapter of the Digest that deals with actions by and against corporate bodies
(universitates).823 A two-thirds majority was needed to authorize someone to
bring or defend an action in the name of a corporate body. How was the two-
thirds reckoned? A text from Ulpian On the Edict says that, according to
Pomponius, a father can vote for a son and a son for his father if they are both
members of the local council.824 The sentence continues with an excerpt
attributed to Paul, which says that persons in the same power (e.g. two sons
both in their father’s power) can vote for one another, since their act is done
as councillors, not in a domestic capacity.825 The same voting rule applies to
appointments to local office (honores):
D. 3.4.5 ULPIANUS libro octavo ad edictum Illud notandum Pomponius ait, quod et
patris suffragium filio proderit et filii patri,
D 3.4.6 pr PAULUS libro nono ad edictum item eorum, qui in eiusdem potestate sunt:
quasi decurio enim hoc dedit, non quasi domestica persona. quod et in honorum peti-
tione erit servandum.
The last sentence in reality continues Ulpian’s text, not Paul’s. The construc-
tion erit followed by the gerundive is common in Ulpian but very rare in
Paul.826 The passage in question continues with other Ulpianic phrases. For
instance, we find, a little later (3.4.6.1) parvi refert, which occurs in thirty-
seven texts of Ulpian and otherwise only once in Papinian and once (this text)
in Paul.827 Then there is a sentence (3.4.6.2) beginning et puto828 and another
short sentence (et constitui ei potest: 3.4.6.3) beginning with et. Indeed the
whole passage, from quod et in honorum petitione to the end of D 3.4.6, though
attributed to Paul, is really a passage from Ulpian that continues D 3.4.5.
Justinian’s compilers are responsible for the mistake. They normally took
Ulpian’s Edict as the fundamental text and inserted in it shorter passages
from Paul and Gaius when that seemed appropriate.829 At the end of the Paul
insertion they or the person who copied the text forgot to repeat the previous
text heading (Ulpianus libro octavo ad edictum) before going back to the text
of Ulpian. 830
This example throws light on how Justinian’s commissioners worked. The
next tells us something unsuspected about Paul. A resolution of the senate at
the instance of Marcus and Commodus laid down that a guardian could not
marry off his female ward to his son. Paul wrote a commentary on this Speech
823 D 3.4 824 D 3.4.5 (Ulp. 8 ed. = 9 ed., Lenel) 825 D 3.4.6 pr (Paul 9 ed.)
826 Above n.352–408 827 Above n.17 828 Above n.53
829 Honoré (1970) 250, (1978) 151–70 830 Honoré (1978) 166–70
of Marcus and Commodus (liber singularis ad orationem divi Antonini et

Commodi), from which Justinian’s compilers included two excerpts.831 The
longer of them is in Paul’s flat style, apart from a passage in the middle of sec-
tion 4 with the phrase quaestio in eo est,832 which is Ulpianic.833 As the dis-
cussion of this passage in chapter 6 shows,834 there is reason to think that Paul
is here drawing on a lost work of Ulpian. He does not say so. But neither Paul
nor Ulpian, eminent contemporaries, overtly cites the other.
An understanding of Ulpian’s style also helps with the problem of inter-
polations by Justinian’s compilers. Indeed it supports the conclusion that
‘very often what we read in the Digest does in essence reproduce the actual
words of the jurists who wrote in the High Empire, battered but not re-written
in the sixth century’.835 An earlier generation readily assumed that Justinian’s
compilers felt free to alter the classical texts. They had authority to do so,
however, only to reduce the bulk of the classical texts, to harmonize them,
and to make them read smoothly. That provided a considerable but not
unlimited scope for introducing changes. There is often doubt whether a text
has been altered and, if so, how. But an interpolation is not likely to be in the
distinctive style of the original author to whom it is attributed. The compil-
ers, men of Greek culture, were not expert in Latin pastiche.
Take an example from a famous text on agency.836 The owner’s general
agent sells property and promises security to the buyer. Papinian thinks that
the buyer can sue the owner in a supplementary action (utilis actio) on sale, if
the owner had authorized his general agent to sell. The general agent is in a
position like the manager of a business (institor). Conversely, says Ulpian, the
owner can sue the buyer in a supplementary action on sale.
Si procurator vendiderit et caverit emptori, quaeritur an domino vel adversus
dominum actio dari debeat. et Papinianus libro tertio responsorum putat cum domino
ex empto agi posse utili actione ad exemplum institoriae actionis, si modo rem venden-
dam mandavit: ergo et per contrarium dicendum est utilem ex empto actionem
domino competere.
Is this genuine Ulpian? The proposition stated is obviously fair. If the buyer
is entitled to sue he should also be liable to be sued. But it is bold, and hence
suspect. Yet per contrarium is found twenty-nine times in Ulpian and only
twice in any other lawyer (both times in Marcianus, who is very close to
Ulpian).837 Quite apart from Ulpian’s known concern with equity, this sup-
ports the genuineness of the text.
831 832 833

D 23.2.20; 23.2.60: Lenel (1889) 1.1145–6 D 23.2.60.4 Above n.155
834 835
Ch.5 n.35–40 Millar (1986) 275–6
836 837
D 19.1.13.25 (32 ed.) Above n.106–7
3
The Cosmopolis and Human Rights

U L P I A N ’s work was in my view rooted in his ideology.1 The thinking that
nourishes it is cosmopolitan and egalitarian. Following on the extension of
citizenship by the Antonine constitution,2 he expounds Roman law as a law
based on the view that all people are born free and equal and that all possess
dignity. These three values, freedom, equality, and dignity, are the essential
elements of what we now term human rights. Some contemporary lawyers
shared Ulpian’s views, which in part reflected the Zeitgeist. Others wrote
nothing that has survived.3 Ulpian is the first lawyer who can, given the scale
of his work and its influence, properly count as the pioneer of the human
rights movement.
I. THE TRUE PHILOSOPHY
Unlike other legal authors, the Tyrian embraces a distinct theoretical point of
view. To understand it, one must put on one side the famous ‘precepts of law’
attributed to him,4 including ‘giving each his due’. This humdrum endorse-
ment of existing law does not come from a genuine work of Ulpian. Both
Frezza5 and Waldstein6 wrestle nobly to reconcile ‘giving each his due’ with
Ulpian’s concern to show what, from the standpoint of true philosophy,
really is due to each of us. Their instincts are sound, and they downplay the
precept as an element in Ulpian’s outlook. His genuine point of view emerges
from a well-known passage in his Teaching Manual (Institutiones). There he
derives the term ‘law’ (ius) from justice and relates it to four interconnected
elements: art, religion, ethics and philosophy.7 Law is the art or technique of
1 On the importance of ideology to at least some Roman lawyers see Nörr (1972a),(1976),
Carcaterra (1972), Klami (178), Bretone (1969),(1982), Waldstein (1994),(1995a). On human

rights in particular see Gaudemet (1987),(1998), Polaček (1988), Honoré (1998b). For the influ-
ence of philosophical logic see Miquel (1970)
2 3
Ch.1 n.30 Liebs (1980) 162–74
4
D 1.1.10 pr, 1 (1 reg: Iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuendi. Iuris
praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere). For the back-
ground see ch.10 n.123–51
5 6
Frezza (1983) Waldstein (1995b)
7
D 1.1.1. pr, 1 (1 inst: Iuri operam daturum prius nosse oportet, unde nomen iuris descendat. est
autem a iustitia appellatum: nam, ut eleganter Celsus definit, ius est ars boni et aequi. Cuius merito
quis nos sacerdotes appellet: iustitiam namque colimus et boni et aequi notitiam profitemur, aequum
the good and equitable. Lawyers can rightly be called priests of the law, for
they mark off the equitable from the inequitable, the lawful from the unlaw-
ful, and try to make people good by providing threats and incentives. They
cultivate true, not sham philosophy. A later passage from Ulpian’s Tribunals
repeats the view that there is a close connection between law and religion,
since knowledge of law is something sacred. He draws a parallel between
teachers of philosophy and law, neither of whom should press for monetary
rewards, though it is not wrong to receive money from pupils if they offer it.8
These remarks are not merely decorative, but neither are they self-
explanatory. The ‘elegant’ view that law is the art of the good and equitable,
consisting of the range of skills needed to see that justice is done, comes from
Iuventius Celsus, who wrote a century earlier.9 Ulpian’s older contemporary
Paul says that there is a type of law, natural law, that is always good and
equitable.10 Ulpian does not dissent, but he goes further. The lawyer is con-
cerned with the techniques by which what is good and equitable can be given
practical effect. His remarks can be understood in the light of what Galen, the
other leading intellectual of the age, says about medicine. Galen is now
thought to have died between 20411 and 216.12 He remained in Rome from
about 169 and Ulpian must have known him. Galen says that medicine is an
art13 and that arts must be useful.14 His list of arts includes law. But though
medicine is an art the true doctor must, Galen says, also be a philosopher.15
He regarded himself as the one person who successfully combined philosophy
with medicine.16 The study and practice of medicine should, in other words,
have a theoretical background. A good doctor embraces logic and reason. He
renounces superstition and despises money.17
Ulpian’s thought follows on the same lines as Galen’s.18 He combines the
belief, stated by Celsus, that law is an art with the view, put earlier by Cicero
ab iniquo separantes, licitum ab illicito discernentes, bonos non solum metu poenarum, verum etiam
praemiorum quoque exhortatione efficere cupientes, veram nisi fallor philosophiam, non simulatam
affectantes).
8 D 50.13.1.5 (Ulp. 8 omn. trib: Proinde ne iuris quidem civilis professoribus ius dicent
<provincial governors dealing with claims for fees>: est quidem res sanctissima civilis sapientia,
sed quae pretio nummario non sit aestimanda nec dehonestanda, dum in iudicio honor petitur, qui in
ingressu sacramenti offerri debuit. quaedam enim tametsi honeste accipiantur, inhoneste tamen
petuntur)
9 10
Frezza (1983) 417 D 1.1.11 (14 Sab.)
11
His work On Theriac to Piso (De theriaca ad Pisonem) must be later than 204 (Swain 1996,
368–9, 430–2) and has flattering references to Severus and Caracalla which could be taken as
praise of their egalitarian stance (Buraselis 1989, 25f.)
12 Nutton (1995) 25–39 showing that the Suda date (199/200) is mistaken; Swain (1996) 357–79
13 Galen, Advice on Arts (Προτρεπτικ ς λγος ες τς τχνας, ed. Kühn 1821) 1 ch.14:
νοµικ τχνη
14 Galen, Advice ch. 9: βιωελς
15 Galen, The Best Doctor a Philosopher ( Οτι ριστος ατρ ς κα ιλσοος), ed. Kühn
1.53–63; Lannata (1984) 214–9
16 Swain (1996) 366–7 17 Galen, Advice p.60 cf. D 50.13.1.15 (Ulp. 8 omn. trib.)
18 For Galen’s influence on Ulpian see Lannata (1984) 214–9
78 3. The Cosmopolis and Human Rights
in the mouths of Atticus and Marcus,19 that the discipline of law must be
based on philosophy. What does he understand by art? It is worth looking at
what he says about medicine. When discussing claims for fees by members of
various professions, including doctors, he says that those who perform incan-
tations, imprecations, and exorcisms cannot claim fees in the way that doc-
tors can, because these techniques are not part of medicine.20 They are the
work of people commonly called impostors, though there are some who
affirm that these techniques have done them good. In much the same way law
is in Ulpian’s view an art with a specific end to be attained by rational means.
As medicine is the art of healing, so law is the art of seeing that justice is done.
The lawyer learns the rules and techniques that serve this end. He must, like
the doctor, embrace reason and renounce superstition. That a certain opinion
about the law ‘has reason’21 (habet rationem) is way of saying that it is right.
And law, like medicine, must be pursued for its own sake and not for
money.22
Ulpian’s search for a philosophy underpinning law is not surprising.
Around AD 200 intellectuals were becoming dissatisfied with the view that
whatever is traditional or customary in a society is automatically right. They
were looking in both politics and religion for something more universal,
rational, and philosophical. Origen, for example, another contemporary,
speaks of the true philosophy of Christ.23 Indeed any discipline that was sys-
tematically concerned with right and wrong, even rhetoric, could lay claim
to a philosophy. Law is concerned with the difference between right and
wrong, lawful and unlawful, and so is in this broad sense a philosophical dis-
cipline. But to understand Ulpian’s ‘true philosophy’ more precisely we
must pinpoint the sham philosophy with which he contrasts it.
His rejection of sham philosophy24 lends itself to several interpretations.25
One, congenial to Plato, is that sham philosophy is sophistry, which he
regarded as subversive of morality. An alternative view is that sham philoso-
phy consists in embracing principles that have no practical application. Both
law and medicine are applied disciplines, concerned to see that what is correct
in theory is put to use in order to heal or do justice. Sham philosophy, in con-
trast, lacks utility, a notion to which Ulpian often appeals. Sham philosophy
may also be hypocritical. Here the standard example is the philosopher
who is after money, when a philosopher’s aim should be to pursue truth and
19
Cicero, Laws (De legibus) 1.5.17
20
D 50.13.1.3 (8 omn. trib: non tamen si incantavit, si imprecatus est, si, ut vulgari verbo impos-
torum utar, si exorcizavit: non sunt ista medicinae genera, tametsi sint, qui hos sibi profuisse cum
praedictione adfirment)
21 22
Ch.2. n.167 (26 of 27 texts) D 50.13.1.5 (8 omn. trib.)
23
Origen, Homily on Genesis 9.2
24
Possible sources: Aristotle, Metaph. 4.2.1004b; Cicero, De fin. 2.21; Quintilian, Inst. 12.3.12
25
Waldstein (1994),(1995a),(1996) 59–71
wisdom.26 Not to apply in practice what one in theory believes is for Ulpian,
I think, a sign that one’s philosophy is a sham. To quote Euphrates as
reported by Pliny the Younger, the person who practises what philosophy
teaches, for instance judging cases, participates in philosophy.27 A fourth
possible interpretation of sham philosophy is that it is of the sort that lends
itself to irrational techniques, of which incantation and exorcism are exam-
ples. This objection does not apply directly to law, though it may imply criti-
cism of lawyers who do not give reasons for their opinions, as Ulpian is on the
whole careful to do. The true philosophy, then, will be useful and based on
reason, and the true philosopher will be honest, not hypocritical.
But Ulpian’s view that lawyers aim at the true philosophy28 goes, I believe,
beyond a concern with right and wrong and a rejection of philosophy that is
unpractical, dishonest, or irrational. His defence of law as the true philosophy
is in part a reply to Cicero’s reproach in Pro Murena, where the orator is con-
cerned to show that rhetoric is superior to law as a qualification for public
office. According to Cicero, lawyers make no more than a wordy pretence of
wisdom.29 Stripped of the cloak of secrecy with which the pontiffs surrounded
it, law was revealed as a trivial pursuit. Ulpian in response lays claim on
behalf of lawyers to genuine wisdom. His philosophy has accordingly a posi-
tive content.
One way in which this is shown is in the emphasis in his writing on what is
natural,30 including natural equity,31 rather than artificial or, like the Roman
ius civile, confined to a given society rather than universal. The contrast
between natural and civil justice and law was a commonplace in both philos-
ophy and law. Ulpian, however, interprets it differently from his predecessors
such as Gaius. To them the natural is morally superior to the civil in that the
common custom of various peoples, the ius gentium, is founded on natural
reason and hence has a higher status than the law adopted by a particular
state, say Rome or Athens.32 ‘Nature’ can be used to criticize the narrowness
or technicality of the law of a particular state and as an instrument to broaden
and simplify the law. Ulpian, however, takes the law of nature not to be
26 D 50.13.1.4 (Ulp. 8 omn. trib.); 50.5.8.4 (Pap. 1 resp: etenim vere philosophantes pecuniam
contemnunt, cuius retinendae cupidine fictam adseverationem detegunt)

27 Pliny, Letters 1.10: ille <Euphrates> me consolatur, adfirmat etiam esse hanc philosophiae et
quidem pulcherrimam partem, agere negotium publicum, cognoscere iudicare, promere et exercere
iustitiam, quaeque ipsi doceant in usus habere; Mantello (1984)
28
Possible source: Cicero, Tusc. 4.6. There is a good discussion by Birks (1983) 171–3
29
Cicero, Pro Murena 14.30 (ista vestra verbosa simulatio prudentiae) cf. 11.25 (trivial pre-
occupation with letters and divisions between words) and Quintilian, Inst. 12.3.11. Of course
Cicero’s attitude to lawyers varied according to mood and forensic need
30 D 15.1.7.7 (29 ed.); 50.16.42 (57 ed.); 43.16.1.27 (69 ed.); 1.5.24 (27 Sab.); 19.5.4 (30 Sab.);
50.17.32 (43 Sab.)

31 D 4.4.1 pr (11 ed.); 12.4.3.7 (26 ed.); 13.5.1 pr (27 ed.); 15.1.11.2 (29 ed.); 47.4.1.1 (38 ed.);
37.5.1 pr (40 ed.); 37.10.3.13 (41 ed.); 43.26.2.2 (71 ed.); 38.16.1.4 (12 Sab.)
32 Gaius, Inst. 1.1: quod vero naturalis ratio inter omnes homines constituit, id apud omnes popu-
los peraeque custoditur vocaturque ius gentium, quasi quo iure omnes gentes utuntur
embodied in common custom, the ius gentium, but to be morally superior to it.
In the conditions of his time this was a rational point of view. Roman law had
been extended to all the free peoples of the empire, so that the contrast
between the civil law and common custom was now of purely historical inter-
est. Roman law had in effect become the ius gentium. The role of natural law
in justifying some institutions and criticizing others persisted but was wider
than the role formerly performed by the ius gentium. Slavery is the prime
example of an institution contrary to nature but recognized by the ius gentium,
which ‘encroached on’ (invasit) the law of nature.33 Although most criticism of
law in the Roman world was criticism of its administration rather than its sub-
stance,34 in this instance an important institution is open to moral criticism.
Where does this line of thought come from? Philosophically minded
lawyers are not members of this or that school of philosophy. It is a mistake
to attribute to a lawyer a system of philosophy rather than a set of values.35
The nature of the discipline requires lawyers to be eclectic, to compromise
between different aims. They must be faithful to the wording of authoritative
texts, take account of the purposes they embody, and try to reach conclusions
that are morally acceptable in the particular case. Ulpian is conscious of all
three aims but inclines to give priority to achieving an equitable solution
in the particular instance. Nevertheless, it seems that Ulpian’s outlook was
predominantly Stoic. He shares with the Stoics the view that we are born free
and equal and should live according to nature.36 The precepts of nature are
accessible to reason, in which all share. Humans form a community and relate
to one another and to the gods by virtue of their power of reason.37 As
Marcus Aurelius says, if the mind is common to all, then so is reason and the
reasoning that enjoins what is to be done or avoided. It follows that law is also
common to all, and that we are all citizens in a polity of a sort (πολτευµα). It
follows further that the universe is a kind of city, in which the whole race of
men participate. From where else than from this common city is our mind,
reason, and sense of law derived?38 Marcus is not describing the Roman con-
stitution of his time, in which citizenship was restricted and eagerly sought,
but his universal city represents the ideal to which the Antonine constitution
later tried to give effect.
The Stoic thinkers and those influenced by Stoicism whom Ulpian is most
likely to have absorbed are Chrysippus, the emperor Marcus, and in ethical
matters Cicero.39 Marcianus, almost certainly Ulpian’s pupil and the lawyer
33 34
D 1.1.4. (1 inst.) Nörr (1974) 148–51
35
Sokolowski (1902); Voggensperger (1952)
36
e.g. Cicero, Ends (De finibus) 4.14: convenienter naturae vivere
37
Schmerkel (1982) 2 ch.5
38
Marcus, Meditations 4.4. Of Ulpian’s likely sources Cicero, On Laws 1.23.33 said much the
same cf. Zecchini (1995)
39
D 42.4.7.4 (59 ed.), citing and criticizing an unknown passage of Cicero, speaks to famil-
iarity with his works
who most resembles him in style and thought,40 cites the definition of law by
‘the leading Stoic philosopher Chrysippus’.41 Law is sovereign over all things
divine and human. It should preside over the good and the bad alike and be
the criterion of what is just and unjust. It should be the leader and ruler of
those called by nature to live in society, prescribing to them what is to be done
and what avoided. The passage cited from Chrysippus agrees closely with
Ulpian’s exposition of law in relation to philosophy, religion and ethics. It
supports the idea that the philosophy he has in mind is mainly Stoic.42
One indication of this is that to Ulpian all humans are by the law of nature
born equal.43 It was the Stoa that first recognized this, beginning with the
equality of husband and wife. Incidentally Ulpian may have been the first per-
son to express in writing the idea that spouses take one another for better or
worse.44 To the Stoics marital equality constituted a first step towards respect
for children, who must be allowed to educate themselves even against the
wishes of their father.45 That duty of respect extends to slaves, for to
Chrysippus a slave is a person hired for life, subordinate to the person who
hired him but not possessed or owned by him. As human beings slaves and
free men are equal,46 for by nature no one is a slave. Nor is anyone noble by
birth. Only that person is free and noble who acts rightly.47 But, despite these
radical beliefs, Stoicism did not have a political programme.48
Crifò attaches importance to the circle of Julia Domna as an element in
Ulpian’s thinking.49 According to Philostratus of Lemnos Julia was the centre
of a group who shared intellectual or philosophical interests.50 The sophist
Philiscus of Thessaly won her patronage by attaching himself in about 212 to
the ‘geometers (i.e. mathematicians) and philosophers who surrounded her’.51
She persuaded Philostratus to write the life of Apollonius of Tyana,52 which he
did, but only after her death in 217. Apollonius was a miracle-worker and saint
(or, on a hostile view, a charlatan) of the time of Domitian, before whom he is
said to have been strikingly outspoken in his own defence. Philostratus’ life was
40 Liebs (1997) §428.1

41 D 1.3.2 (Marci. 1 inst: philosophus summae stoicae sapientiae Chrysippus)
42 Fragments collected in Arnim (1903–24); history in Pohlenz (1970)
43 D 50.17.32 (Ulp. 43 Sab.)
44 D 24.3.22.7 (Ulp. 33 ed: quid enim tam humanum est, quam ut fortuitis casibus mulieris mar-
itum vel uxorem viri participem esse?) cf. Swain (1996) 119f.
45 Edelstein (1966) 73f.
46 Arnim (1903–24) 3 frag. 351 cf. Seneca, Letters (Epist.) 47.11; Favours (De benef.) 3.21.2;
3.22.3
47 48
Edelstein (1966) 83–4 Sandbach (1975) 141.
49
Crifò (1976) 734–6; Nörr (1972a) 20; RE 11.923, 926: Benario (1958); M. Gilmore Williams
(1902); Mundle (1961); Birley (1988) 168
50
Sophists 2.30.1, describing her as a ιλσοος; Dio 75.15.7; 77.18.3; Bowersock (1969) 101f.;
Swain (1999) 176f.
51
Philostratus, Sophists 622.
52
Philostratus, Apollonius (Vit. Apoll.) 1.3; Nörr (1972a) 21; MacMullen (1967). Caracalla
also honoured him in 214/5: Dio 77.18.4
a defence of the ‘Pythagorean’ way of life which was now giving traditional
Greek philosophy a religious angle. Some Christians took the life of Apollonius
as a pagan counterpart to the Gospels.53 Though Ulpian must have known
Julia Domna, it is a question how far he sympathized with the partly mystical
values that the life of Apollonius seeks to propagate. Himself outspoken and
self-confident, he will have admired the freedom of speech, παρρησα, that is
attributed to Apollonius of Tyana.54 Whether we can go further is unsure.
Frezza has urged that Ulpian’s outlook is drawn from Neoplatonic rather
than Stoic sources.55 Neoplatonism was popular in his time, especially in the
circle surrounding Julia Domna. Frezza56 cites in support the view that
Ulpian takes of animals. Ulpian asserts that natural law applies to all
animals, whether domesticated or wild. They are considered, he says, to know
from experience (peritia), not merely by instinct, about what we call marriage,
the procreation of children and their education.57 As regards damage done by
animals Ulpian makes the owner’s liability depend on whether the animal
acted contrary to nature.58 Owners are liable for the actions of badly behaved
animals, who act contrary to nature, but not for well-behaved ones. Here,
too, he attributes a limited rationality to animals. The Stoic view was differ-
ent. Chrysippus asserts that other animals serve man and the gods, and that
humans do no wrong in using animals for their own purposes.59 The
Christians too, if Origen is representative, thought of man as the sole rational
creature. Lower animals, he says, are governed wholly by instinct.60 But the
Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry of Tyre, born about 234, a decade after
Ulpian’s death, affirmed, as against Chrysippus and the Stoics, the rational
character of animals.61 Ulpian could not have read his work, but it may be
that his view that the law of nature applied to animals was influenced by
Neoplatonic philosophy. That view implies respect for animals so far as they
have reason, but is not the same thing as attributing rights to animals. There
remains a difference between human beings, who are members of a commun-
ity of rights and obligations embodied in law, and animals, who participate to
some extent in reason and are to that extent subject to natural law. Lawyers
are used to drawing on a variety of sources, and the influence on Ulpian of
Neoplatonic thinking, if it existed, does not detract from the conclusion that
the mainstream of his thought was Stoic.
53 Eusebius, Against the Life of Apollonius (Contra vitam Apoll.); Lactantius, Divine Teaching
(Div. inst.) 5.3. There are parallels in Apollonius 8.30–1

54 Philostratus, Apollonius 1.28–32; 4.44; 5.28; 6.32; 7.11, 32; 8.5
55 56
Frezza (1968),(1983) cf. Modrzejewski (1976)
57
D 1.1.1.3 (Ulp. 1 inst: hinc <from natural law> descendit maris atque feminae coniunctio,
quam nos matrimonium appellamus, hinc liberorum procreatio, hinc educatio: videmus etenim
cetera quoque animalia, feras etiam istius iuris peritia censeri). Criticized by Watson (1983) but
the criticism, if warranted, should be directed at Ulpian not at me cf. Birks (1983) 175–6
58
D 9.1.1.7 (Ulp. 18 ed)
59
Cicero, Ends 3.20.67. On the status of animals in antiquity see Dierauer (1977).
60 61
Origen, Against Celsus (Contra Celsum) 4.86f. Beutler (1953) 311
This is probably true also of Ulpian’s view of the relation between law and
religion. Gellius, in the course of a passage citing Chrysippus, represents the
judge as the priest of justice.62 Demosthenes, cited by Marcianus, described
law as an invention and gift of the gods.63 Stoics respected the gods and the
numinous, but Stoicism was not a religion. Nörr has offered a perceptive
insight into Ulpian’s view of the relation of law to religion.64 Now that think-
ing people were no longer content with the traditional way of life, serving the
state and conforming to received laws and customs, some found solace in new
religions, such as Christianity or sun-worship. At a time when Tertullian had
abandoned law for religion65 and Gregory the Wonder-Worker was soon to
do the same, a lawyer who was alive to the new currents needed to defend his
calling by showing that it possessed a sacred element. This did not mean that
he had to embrace any of the competing religions. All, says Ulpian, may take
an oath ‘according to their own superstition’, though probably not if it is a
‘religion publicly disapproved’.66 Ulpian speaks of Jewish superstition67 and
we need not suppose that he thought much more highly of Christianity,
though it had adherents in the imperial household. Since Julia Mammaea met
Origen, Ulpian may have known something of Christianity at first hand. It is
true that his work The Proconsul contained a list of imperial rescripts directed
against Christians.68 But he could hardly fail to list these, since his treatise
was meant to help provincial governors perform their duties according to law
and current administrative practice. The list does not in itself demonstrate
hostility to Christianity. Nevertheless his attitude to it is likely to have been
ambiguous. He will have welcomed the universalism and care for the weak
that marked Christianity. A tolerant attitude to religious diversity, such as the
Augustan History attributed to Alexander Severus,69 is not ruled out. But he
will have been hostile to any tendency to seek private salvation rather than to
shoulder public responsibility. Public law combines religion with service to
the state. It is concerned with sacred things, priests, and magistrates.70
62
Gellius, Attic Nights 14.4.3 (. . . iudicem, qui iustitiae antistes est)
63
Demosthenes, Against Aristogeiton 1, 25.16; D 1.3.2 (Marci. 1 inst.)
64
Nörr (1973) 555; Frezza (1968) 368
65
Q. Septimius Tertullianus (c.160–240) expressed hostility to the Roman empire after his
conversion to Christianity (c.195) and to Montanism (c.207). He is probably the same as the con-
temporary lawyer Tertullianus: Lenel, 1889, 2.342–4; Steinwenter (1934) 844–5; Kunkel (1967)
236; Barnes2 (1985) 22–9; Orestano (1973b); Nörr (1974) 55f.; Martini (1975) 79–124; Liebs
(1976) 294 n.37a; Lehmann (1982) 194–202, 279–84; Liebs (1997) §417.2
66
D 12.2.5.1, 3 (Ulp. 22 ed: quod propria superstitione iuratum est, standum rescripsit <divus
Pius> . . . sed si quis illicitum iusiurandum detulerit, scilicet improbatae publice religionis, videamus
an pro eo habeatur atque si iuratum non esset: quod magis existimo dicendum)
67
D 50.2.3.3 (Ulp. 3 off. cons.) but recording a tolerant ruling by Severus and Caracalla
68
Lactantius, Divine Teaching 5.11
69
HA Severus Alexander 22.4 (toleration of Jews and Christians), 29.2 (statues of Apollonius,
Christ, Abraham, Orpheus, and others). The report may not be entirely the product of late
fourth-century wish-fulfilment: Swain (1999) 176
70
D 1.1.1.2 (Ulp. 1 inst.)
Quintilian’s attitude to public affairs,71 rather than Seneca’s, shaped that of

Ulpian.
His religious concern, Nörr argues, is not to adhere to one of the new reli-
gions but to show that law, like philosophy, is in some sense a sacred calling.72
Gaius in his work on the Twelve Tables had already spoken of the impropri-
ety of approaching the study of law without considering its origins and, as it
were, with unwashed hands. The phrase suggests religious initiation.73
Ulpian, speaking of payments by law students to their teachers, says some-
thing parallel. They should offer an honorarium on initiation to the cult (in
ingressu sacramenti).74 Other disciplines thought on similar lines. Aristides
regarded oratory as having a religious element that involved initiation.75
Clearly, if lawyers are in some sense priests of justice, to embark on the study
of law is a form of initiation. In a phrase that has echoes of Cicero,76 lawyers
have a cult of justice (iustitiam colimus). Ulpian is making a lofty claim, one
that goes beyond the reason that Gaius put forward for teaching legal history.
Nevertheless to Ulpian law is not and should not be a mystery.77 On the con-
trary he is concerned to disseminate a knowledge of it as widely as possible
and to demonstrate that it is accessible to human reason.
II. HUMAN RIGHTS
Ulpian’s philosophy, then, was in tune with the movement that led to the
Antonine constitution and he may well have advocated the extension of citi-
zenship that it brought about. The motives behind the Antonine constitution
were perhaps three. Least important is the desire to increase tax revenue,78
though Dio, a senator, makes it the principal aim.79 Given the hostility of the
senate to Caracalla and the dilution of status that the Antonine constitution
involved, that is not unexpected. In practice the amount raised by extending
inheritance tax could not be great given that the richer provincials were often
citizens already. Non-citizens already paid capitation and land taxes. To
point to tax revenue as the explanation of the Antonine constitution is as silly
as to attribute Scottish devolution to the desire of the British Labour party to
win extra seats in Scotland in 1997. In both cases the occasion may have been
relatively trivial,80 but the root causes of constitutional change lay deep. And
Dio himself does not reject the idea of the cosmopolis. On the contrary, he
puts the case for universal citizenship in the mouth of Maecenas.81
71 Quintilian, Rhetorical Teaching (Inst. or.) 11.1.35; Barnes (1968)

72 Nörr (1973) 568 (imitatio philosophiae). 73 D 1.2.1 (1 leg. XII tab.)
74 D 50.13.1.5 (Ulp. 8 omn. trib.) 75 Aristides, Oration 34 Lenz–Behr
76 Laws 1.33.48 77 Against: Nörr (1973) 360 78 Marotta (2000) 166–71
79 Dio 77.9.5 80 Marotta (2000) 167f. 81 Dio 52.19.6
Of greater significance to Caracalla psychologically was the desire to

appease the gods, or nominally to thank them for the removal of Geta, and
to increase their circle of worshippers.82 The third strand, cosmopolitanism,
was, however, the most important. The dynasty drew strength from areas that
were not wholly Italian or western: Africa, Syria, Greece. Septimius Severus
seems to have been the first emperor to have been of non-Italian extraction on
his father’s side.83 He was fluent in Punic.84 In the east universalist religions
were gaining ground: sun-worship and various form of monotheism. Though
no intellectual, Caracalla was quick-witted and alive to the prevailing cur-
rents of opinion, some of them associated with his mother. A lawyer from
Syria, exposed to the same currents and aware of the simplification that com-
mon citizenship would bring, might well support and even suggest the change.
It was the sort of grand but simple idea to appeal to Caracalla, an intelligent
man bent on achieving greatness, but impatient of niceties. If it possessed an
anti-establishment flavour that may have been to his taste. He liked to mix
with soldiers, live austerely, and take his share of menial tasks. To irritate the
senate and existing citizens may not have displeased him.
Ulpian’s exposition of Roman law and administration in over 200 books can
be regarded as the legal corollary of the cosmopolitan and egalitarian move-
ment that culminated in the Antonine constitution. The interpretation of the
law, the adjudication of disputes and the exercise of discretion by public
officials should take account of the natural freedom, equality and dignity of all.
Roman law possessed a technical remedy, the action for wrongs (actio iniuri-
arum), that was designed to protect bodily integrity, reputation, and human
dignity. It could be used to give effect to the principle of respect for natural free-
dom and equality. Ulpian cites Labeo for the proposition that the wrongs that
the action seeks to remedy are either against the body, or relate to dignity or
reputation.85 To be beaten up or defamed infringes a person’s dignity. Hence
dignity, as the core of one’s personality, can be taken as the overarching value
that the action for wrongs seeks to protect. It is in practice those forms of
unfreedom and inequality that infringe human dignity that the law, then and
now, takes account of and seeks, so far as is consistent with authority, to cor-
rect. It is true that Ulpian recognizes degrees of dignity. Men have more than
women.86 Married women have more than concubines.87 Slaves, by implica-
tion, often have less. All are equal in that they possess dignity but, in contrast
with modern thinking, the degree of dignity varies from person to person.
These three principles—freedom, equality, and dignity—lie at the root
of the contemporary civil rights movement. The trend towards enacting char-
ters of rights is no more than an attempt to cast in concrete form what these
82 P.Giess. 40.11 83 Birley (1971) 35f. 84 Victor, On the Caesars (De Caes.) 20.8
85 D 47.10.1.2 (Ulp. 56 ed: Labeo ait . . . omnemque iniuriam aut in corpus inferri aut ad digni-
tatem aut ad infamiam pertinere)
86 D 1.9.1 pr (62 ed: maior dignitas est in sexu virili) 87 D 32.49.4 (Ulp. 22 Sab.)
principles require in a modern society. Because they form the framework and
underpinning of Ulpian’s writing, he is properly to be regarded as the first
human rights lawyer. He did not originate either the philosophical thinking
or the law on the subject, but he played a major role in elaborating, dis-
seminating and justifying it.
Something must be said about the Roman constitutional background. The
cult of liberty was an ancient Roman theme, resolving in a legal context into a
preference for liberty ( favor libertatis)88 in interpreting laws or private docu-
ments. ‘It is well known that many decisions are reached against the rigour of
the law and in favour of freedom.’89 This explains why everyone has the right
to demand that a free person be produced in order to ensure that he or she is
not being treated as a slave. ‘No one is barred from taking action in favour of
freedom.’90 It served to explain and justify the principle that gave citizenship
to freed slaves irrespective of their sex or ethnic origin. This ‘great benefit’,91
the policy of equal citizenship (isopoliteia), was attributed to the king Servius
Tullius, and attested by a third-century-BC inscription.92 It was inconsistent
with the widely held view that slaves owe their status to natural deficiencies or
to their own fault rather than to bad luck.93 And if in principle slaves could
became citizens why should not the free people of the empire all be citizens?
This point of view triumphed in 212 with the Antonine constitution.
The constitution did of course not apply to slaves, who did not then or later
acquire the right to be freed except in special circumstances, for example
when a price had been laid down for their freedom and they had paid it. By
Ulpian’s time, however, and in his work, the personality and dignity of a slave
(persona servi) has come to be recognized, at least to a limited extent. Hadrian
and Pius deprived the slaveowner who had treated his or her slave brutally of
the ownership of the slave.94 This was to recognize the slave’s right to a min-
imum of decent treatment. Speaking of the urban prefect’s office Ulpian says
that he should hear complaints from slaves of their owners’ cruelty or harsh-
ness, of being starved or treated obscenely or being forced into prostitution.95
In the Severan period the law, as Ulpian presents it, goes further. A sexual
88
e.g. D 43.29.3.9 (Ulp. 7 ed.); 40.5.24.10; 40.5.45.1 (5 disp: a legatee given a small legacy can
be forced to free an expensive slave); 50.17.122 (Gai. 5 ed. prov.); CJ 7.2.15.1a (531–2)
89 90
D 40.5.24.10 (5 fid.) D 43.29.3.9 (71 ed.)
91 D 38.2.1 pr (Ulp. 42 ed: tam grande beneficium, quod in libertos confertur, cum ex servitute
ad civitatem Romanam perducantur)

92 SIG3 543 (214 BC)
93 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities (Antiquitates Romanorum) 4.22–4 (τ"# $σει
%λλ’ ο& τ"# τ$χ"η)

94 D 1.6.2 = Collatio 3.3.2–3 (Ulp. 8 off. proc.)
95 D 1.12.1.8 (Ulp. 1 off. pr. urb: Quod autem dictum est, ut servos de dominis querentes prae-
fectus audiat, sic accipiemus non accusantes dominos (hoc enim nequaquam servo permittendum est
nisi ex causis receptis) sed si verecunde expostulent, si saevitiam, si duritiam, si famem, qua eos pre-
mant, si obscenitatem, in qua eos compulerint vel compellant, apud praefectum urbi exponant. hoc
quoque officium praefecto urbi a divo Severo datum est, ut mancipia tueantur ne prostituantur)
assault on a slave by someone other than the owner gives the slaveowner an
action for wrong (actio iniuriarum) against the other person.96 The reference
to obscene treatment shows that the law aimed indirectly at protecting the
slave against the owner’s sexual advances.
But sexual exploitation is merely one example of treatment that a slave
should not be obliged to put up with. Ulpian discusses and rationalizes the
bringing of actions for assault on or insult to a slave in the slave’s name, but
by the slaveowner,97 ‘If someone wrongs a slave, but not with a view to insult-
ing the slaveowner, the magistrate must not let the wrong go unpunished,
especially if the wrongdoer has beaten or tortured the slave. Obviously even
a slave resents that.’98 Moreover, the action for wrong to a slave is not
confined to physical assaults. If the third person has mildly hit or insulted the
slave the magistrate will not give an action against him. But if he has seriously
defamed the slave, the magistrate must inform himself about the slave’s qual-
ity, character, and occupation. The magistrate will then take account not only
of the wrong done but of the personality of the slave (persona servi) to whom
it has been done, and will allow or deny an action accordingly.99
Despite the fact that slaves, like others under disability, needed someone
else to sue on their behalf, this legal remedy views the slave as a person
endowed with dignity. In another context Ulpian says that slaves have the
right to injure themselves. ‘Even a slave has by nature the right to do violence
to himself.’100 Slaves are not bound to keep themselves in good condition
merely in the owner’s interest. Human dignity gives them the right to disable
themselves from leading a life that appears intolerable. So the owner cannot
deduct anything from a slave’s private fund (peculium) on the ground that the
slave has purposely injured him- or herself. Moreover slave couples living
together should not be split up, so that a buyer who finds that one of the cou-
ple bought is diseased will have to return both.101
96 97
D 47.10.9.4 (Ulp 57 ed.) D 47.10.15.34, 44, 48 (Ulp. 57 ed.)
98
D 47.10.15.35 (Ulp. 57 ed: si vero non ad suggilationem domini id fecit, ipsi servo facta ini-
uria inulta a praetore relinqui non debuit, maxime si verberibus vel quaestione fieret: hanc enim et
servum sentire palam est) cf. 47.10.15.43
99
D 47.10.15.44 (Ulp. 57 ed: Itaque praetor non ex omni causa iniuriarum iudicium servi nomine
promittit: nam et si leviter percussus sit vel maledictum ei leviter, non dabit actionem: at si infamatus
sit vel facto aliquo vel carmine scripto, puto causae cognitionem praetoris porrigendam et ad servi
qualitatem: etenim multum interest, qualis servus sit, bonae frugi ordinarius dispenator, an vero vul-
garis vel mediastinus an qualisqualis: et quid si compeditus vel malae notus vel notae extremae?
Habebit igitur praetor rationem tam iniuriae quae admissa dicitur quam personae servi, in quem
admissa dicitur, et sic aut permittet aut denegabit actionem). ‘These provisions on wrongs done to
the slave cannot be explained away as redressing damage to the owner’s property, for which a dif-
ferent remedy was available, or as defending his reputation. They are available when the wrong to
the slave is not an insult to the owner’ (non ad suggilationem domini id fecit: D 47.10.15.35).
100 D 15.1.9.7 (Ulp. 29 ed: licet enim etiam servis naturaliter in suum corpus saevire)
101 D 21.1.35 (1 ed. cur.) cf. 33.7.12.33 (20 Sab.). Daube (1973) went to the length of postu-
lating a post-Constantinian edition of Ulpian to explain away this text. But, though the text reads
ungrammatically because the compilers have run together several cases, the discussion is entirely
in line with the Stoic view that slaves are members of the family
It is nature that gives the slave this right, and nature is specially relevant
here because debts between owner and slave are a matter of natural, not civil
law.102 The natural freedom and equality of mankind is, we have seen, a
theme of certain Stoic philosophers.103 What is of interest here is that among
lawyers only Ulpian and three of his lesser contemporaries take account of
this theory in order to justify certain legal rules and principles. Ulpian says
that slavery and the freeing of slaves depend on common customary law (ius
gentium) because by the law of nature all are born free. The grant of freedom
was originally unknown because slavery was unknown.104 Florentinus, whose
exact dates are unknown105 but who is more or less contemporary with
Ulpian since he copies a text of Paul,106 says that slavery is an institution by
which we are subjected to the dominion of others contrary to nature.107
Marcianus, a pupil of Ulpian writing after Caracalla’s death,108 says that a
freed slave can be restored on the emperor’s initiative to the status of being
freeborn. That means, says Marcianus, the state in which all men were origin-
ally born, not that in which the person concerned was born, since he or she
was born a slave.109
These three texts come from works addressed to students. Some may dis-
miss them as ornamental. That cannot be said of a text where Ulpian says that,
though in civil law a slave neither owes nor is owed money, slaveowners can
sue third persons for debts due to their slaves, and can be sued by a third per-
son for debts due from their slaves up to the amount of the slave’s private fund
(peculium). For though in civil law slaves are considered not to exist, it is dif-
ferent in natural law. So far as natural law is concerned, all men are equal.110
This is said in passing, as self-evident. In dealing with a similar problem
Tryphoninus, who was alive in 213, hence at the time of the Antonine consti-
tution, appeals to natural freedom. A slaveowner ‘owes’ his slave money and,
after the slave is freed, pays the freed slave because he wrongly thinks he is
legally bound (i.e. by civil law) to do so. Can the ex-owner recover the
payment? No, because the debt he acknowledged was owing by nature. Since
freedom, says Tryphoninus, forms part of the law of nature and domination
102
D 28.1.20.7 (Ulp. 1 Sab.)
103
Above n.25–30. The natural freedom of all to worship as they think best is asserted by
Tertullian, Ad Scapulam 2.1.2, written in the same year as the Antonine constitution: humani iuris
et naturalis potestatis est unicuique quod putaverit colere. The idea was abandoned by Theodosius I
104
D 1.1.4 (Ulp. 1 inst: cum iure naturali omnes liberi nascerentur nec esset nota manumissio,
cum servitus esset incognita)
105
Probably early third century: Liebs (1976) 348f.; (1997) §428.3; Querzoli (1996) 33f.;
Marotta (2000) 156185
106
D 38.2.28 (Flor. 10 inst.) copying D 48.20.7.1 (Paul 1 port. lib. damn.)
107 108
D 1.5.4.1 (Flor. 9 inst.) Liebs (1997) §428.1; Honoré (1982) 216; (1994), 94–5
109
D 40.11.2 (Marcian. 1 inst.)
110
D 50.17.32 (Ulp. 43 Sab: quod attinet ad ius civile, servi pro nullis habentur: non tamen et
iure naturali, quia, quod ad ius naturale attinet, omnes homines aequales sunt) cf. 28.1.20.7 (1 Sab:
slaves cannot witness wills because they do not wholly share in the civil law)
(i.e. slavery) was introduced by custom, when it is a matter of recovering a pay-

ment one goes by nature in deciding what was owing.111
These five texts belong to the same period and come from lawyers whose
origin was eastern or who were working in the east.112 They were open to
philosophical influences but were not philosophers. If some lawyers of the
Severan age with an eastern orientation (not for example Papinian, whose
background is African) adopt the theory of human equality to explain and
develop certain legal rules it is because they reflect and at the same time wish
to propagate this idea. They want to draw practical consequences from it
rather than to treat it as mere theory. There were undoubtedly those who,
while in theory accepting the idea of human equality embodied in the
Antonine constitution, in practice objected to the dilution of the citizen body
and the consequent devaluation of the right of citizenship. Ulpian will have
condemned their sham philosophy. A remark of Galen may be in point. He
praises Septimius Severus and Caracalla for not wanting to keep for them-
selves or for a restricted circle a new and effective medical remedy,113 as hap-
pened in the time of Marcus, but for putting it at the disposition of all. This
may be mere flattery or may genuinely reflect the cosmopolitan tendencies of
the dynasty. In theory these cosmopolitan tendencies extended to the use of
languages other than Latin and Greek, and certainly the use of Greek was
now more widely accepted. For example, should a notice withdrawing a busi-
ness agent’s power to contract be in Greek or Latin? It depends on the area.114
As to other languages, whether many people really made trusts and entered
into stipulations in Punic, Gallic, or ‘Assyrian’ may be doubted. That they
had the right to do so115 was a recognition that they were citizens of a cos-
mopolis.
There was a social as well as an ethnic aspect to Ulpian’s cosmopolitanism.
It is the provincial governor’s duty to protect the weak in his province.116
Small people, such as fishermen and bird-catchers, attract his interest. If
someone stops me fishing in the sea many lawyers think I can bring an action
against him, as I can against someone who stops me using the public baths or
sitting in the theatre. What is the position if a landowner tries to stop me
fishing in front of his house? The sea and the seashore are common to all, like
the air, and many rescripts lay down that no one can be prevented from
fishing or catching birds, provided they do not enter on another’s land to do
so. Nevertheless landowners do in fact prevent people fishing in front of their
land. The fisherman can then sue them by the action for wrongs.117 A person
111
D 12.6.64 (Tryph. 7 disp: ut enim libertas naturali iure continetur et dominatio ex gentium
iure introducta est, ita debiti vel non debiti ratio in condictione naturaliter intellegenda est)
112 113
HLL 4 § 424, 428.3, 428.1, 417.3 The Theriac (above n.4)
114
D 14.3.11.3 (28 ed: litteris utrum Graecis an Latinis?)
115 116
D 32.11 pr (Ulp. 2 fid.); 45.1.1.6 (48 Sab.) D 1.16.9.5 (Ulp. 2 off. proc.)
117
D 47.10.13.7 (Ulp. 57 ed.)
to whom the emperor has granted the right to draw water from a public
source may in certain cases sue one who prevents him exercising that right,
again by the action for wrongs.118 The action for wrongs is therefore the legal
technique for vindicating human rights so far as they were recognized in
Ulpian’s time. After the extension of citizenship by the Antonine constitution
this action will have been the remedy available to anyone who was denied the
new citizen rights such as the right to hold public office.
What potential readership was Ulpian addressing? There are two interest-
ing clues to this. One consists in his use of Greek in a corpus of work basically
written in Latin, the language of Roman law. There are a number of sound
reasons for a legal author writing in Latin to include on occasion a passage in
Greek. Some presuppose that an excuse is needed for departing from the
Latin norm. One example is when the law to be discussed, for example, a
rescript, was issued in Greek119 or when the will or other document to be
interpreted is in Greek.120 Another is when the author wants to embellish his
text by citing a passage from a Greek author such as Homer,121 Plato,122
Xenophon,123 Demosthenes,124 Theophrastus,125 or Chrysippus.126 A third is
when he wishes to inform the reader of the Greek equivalent of a Latin
term,127 or the formula to use in Greek for some purpose, for example when
formally acknowledging the payment of a debt.128 A fourth is when the
author purports to derive a Latin term from a Greek root.129 None of these
involve the writer in identifying himself with Greek-speaking people or
adopting their culture. On the contrary, to say ‘the Greeks call this a so-and-
so’ implies a certain distance.
Ulpian does sometimes tell us what the Greek term is for so-and-so,130 but
a more typical use of the language is for him to insert a Greek word or two in
a Latin sentence as being more expressive or conveying nuances that the Latin
equivalent would not convey. This is a form of codeswitching.131 The contrast
can be illustrated from the phrase 'ν πλ(τει which means ‘in a broad sense’.
Paul says ‘this (proof of the date of building) is to be taken, as the Greek
expression goes, 'ν πλ(τει.’132 Ulpian in contrast says ‘this (time when a pay-
ment is ratified) is to be taken 'ν πλ(τει,’133 or ‘this (value of a slave at time of
118 D 43.20.1.43 (Ulp. 70 ed.) 119 e.g. D 8.3.16 (Call. 3 cogn.); 5.1.37 (5 cogn.)
120 e.g. D 34.1.6 (Scae. 18 dig.); 40.4.60 (24 dig.); 40.5.46.3 (Ulp. 6 disp)
121 122
D 18.1.1.1 (Paul 33 ed.) D 50.11.2 (Call. 3 cogn.)
123 D 47.22.4 (Gai. 4 XII tab.) 124 D 48.19.16.6 (Saturninus 1 poen. pag.)
125 D 1.3.3 (Pomp. 25 Sab.); 5.4.3 (Paul 17 Plaut.) 126 D 1.3.2. (Marci. 1 inst.)
127 e.g. D 19.2.25.6 (Gai. 10 ed. prov.) 128 e.g. D 46.4.8.4 (Ulp. 48 Sab.)
129 e.g. D 50.16.233.2 (Gai. 1 xii tab.)
130 D 47.9.3.6 (56 ed.); 43.8.2.22 (68 ed.); 23.3.9.3 (31 Sab.); 47.2.3 pr; 50.16.177; 46.1.8 pr (47
Sab.); 50.14.3 (8 omn. trib.); 12.1.10.4 (1 ed. cur)

131 Adams (forthcoming) ch.3; Romaine (1995) 120–80.
132 D 22.3.28 (Labeo 7 pith. Paul. epit: et hoc ita, quod Graece dici solet, 'ν πλ(τει)
133 D 46.8.12.2 (80 ed: hoc tamen 'ν πλ(τει accipiendum et cum quodam spatio temporis nec min-
imo nec maximo)

death) will have to be looked at 'ν πλ(τει.’.134 To use Greek without apology
implies that the reader is bilingual and is attuned to the nuances of Greek.
Sometimes the Greek phrase is one current among educated Latin-speaking
people, or is one for which there is no obvious Latin equivalent. At others,
words such as %σα)ς (‘unclearly’) are chosen because, though there is a Latin
equivalent (obscure), the Greek is more vivid and makes a better contrast, in
the context of a slave’s ability to speak properly, with %σµως (‘unintelligi-
bly’). In general the author feels free to address a readership that is in part
Greek or has learnt Greek. Of the 48 instances that I have come across of this
direct use of Greek in the legal literature 38 come from Ulpian135 and three
from his pupil Marcianus.136 Of the earlier writers there is one text of the
Augustan Labeo,137 one of Celsus,138 and three of Julian139 from the time of
Hadrian or a little later, and perhaps one each of Ulpian’s younger contempor-
aries Papinian140 and Paul.141 Many of the code-switches are reminiscent of
134 D 13.3.3 (27 ed: si vero desierit esse in rebus humanis, mortis temporis: sed 'ν πλ(τει secun-
dum Celsum erit spectandum)

135 D 1.3.30 (4 ed: quod distat *ητ ν %π διανοας, hoc distat fraus ab eo, quod contra legem fit);
2.14.7.2 (4 ed: hoc συν(λλαγµα et hic nasci civilem obligationem . . . contractum, quod Aristo
συν(λλαγµα dicit); 42.4.2.4 (5 ed: haec verba παρατατικ)ς scripta sunt); 4.8.29 (13 ed: nam τ"#
δυν(µει a reo petit); 4.9.1.3 (14 ed: ut ναυ$λακες et diaetarii. . .quod χειρµβολον appellant);
10.2.20.7 (19 ed: unum ex filiis %γωνοθεσαν suscepturum); 11.1.11.5 (22 ed: non respondit, id est πρ ς
-πος); 12.2.13.2 (26 ed: et quasi µονοµερς condictio ei dari debet); 13.3.3 (27 ed: sed 'ν πλ(τει
secundum Celsum erit spectandum); 14.1.1.12 (28 ed: quaedam naves onerariae, quaedam (ut ipsi
dicunt) 'πιβατηγο sunt); 27.9.3.4 (35 ed: Si ius 'µυτευτικ ν vel 'µβατευτικ ν habeat pupillus);
47.2.52.20 (37 ed: τ#ς γον#ς dumtaxat χ(ριν); 28.1.22.5 (39 ed: dum tamen habeat χαρακτ#ρα);
39.3.1.9 (53 ed: sulcos aquarios qui .λικες appellantur); 47.10.5.10 (56 ed: is qui 'πιγρ(µµατα pro-
duxerit); 5.1.19.2 (60 ed: quasi ab eo qui παραπλε/ emit); 42.5.15 pr (62 ed: %ναγραν facere);
43.12.1.2 (68 ed: perenne est, quod semper fluat, %ναος torrens 0 χειµ(ρρους); 43.17.3.7 (69 ed: non
ab eo qui κρυπτς possideret, sed ab eo cuius aedes super κρυπτς essent); 46.8.12.2 (80 ed: hoc autem
'ν πλ(τει accipiendum); 7.8.10.1 (17 Sab: sed si χρ#σις sit relicta); 32.70 pr (22 Sab: quod tinctum
non est sed α&τους); 30.53.5 (non ut carnem praestet vel cetera λεψανα); 32.55.5 (25 Sab: cum
ξ$λον hoc et naves ξυληγς appellant, quae haec %π τ)ν 3λ)ν deducunt); 18.1.9.2 (28 Sab: quia
eadem prope ο&σα est); 8.2.17.2 (29 Sab: si forte κατ %νταν(κλασιν lumen devolvatur); 47.2.43.9
(41 Sab: quid ergo, si ε4ρετρα quae dicunt petat?); 21.1.9 (44 Sab: nec qui %σα)ς loquitur: plane qui
%σµως loquitur, hic utique morbosus est); 45.3.13 (48 Sab: hic τ σ(ζον corrumpit stipulationem et
solutionem); 47.11.9 (9 off. proc: plerique inimicorum solent praedium σκοπελζειν); 48.19.9.8 (9 off.
proc: quibus sententia praecipitur δηµοσων %πχεσθαι); 32.1.2 (1 fid: nec testamenti ius faciendi
habent, cum sint %πλιδες); 36.1.17 pr (4 fid: plerique 6ποκοριστικ)ς patrimonium suum peculium
dicunt); 21.1.1.7 (puta θσις febris; aediles bis κατ το7 α&το7 idem dixisse); 21.1.1.9 (veluti con-
tingeret ρενητικ8)); 21.1.10.4 (sed et νυκτ%λωπα morbosum esse constat); 21.1.14.8 (1 ed. aed. cur:
si quis %ντι%δας habeat . . . et si %ντι%δες hae sunt quas existimo . . . qui %ντι%δας habet vitiosus est)
136
D 20.1.11.1 (1 form. hypoth: Si %ντχρησις facta sit); 48.3.6.1 (2 iud. pub: et ideo cum quis
%ν(κρισιν faceret); 48.19.17.1 (1 inst: quidam %πλιδες sunt, hoc est sine civitate)
137
D 28.7.20 pr (Iav. 2 post Lab: %δ$νατος condicio)
138
D 33.10.7.2 (Cels. 19 dig: sono quodam κα τ"# %ν(ρθρ8ω ων"# dicere)
139
D 38.7.1 (Iul. 27 dig: haec verba παρατατικ)ς accipiuntur); 38.16.8 pr (59 dig: per abu-
sionem vel potius %ναορικ)ς accidit); 30.104.1 (1 Urs. Ferox: %δ$νατος condicio). Julian seems
to have known the philosopher Euaretus (ILS 7776) and to have spent time at the temple of
Asclepius at Pergamum about 145–7 with Aelius Aristides (or. 48.9: Behr, 1986, 2)
140
D 48.5.6.1 (Pap. 1 adult: lex stuprum et adulterium promiscue et καταχρηστικ9τερον appellat)
141
D 36.1.83 (Paul 2 decr: cum solus Foebus egisset µονοµερ)ς)
Cicero’s practice, especially in his letters, or may be drawn from a pool of stock
terms used in rhetorical instruction.142
This sudden shift after 212 in the way in which certain legal writers use
Greek points to a change in the intended readership of legal works. It counts
as part of the cultural change of which the Antonine constitution is the most
prominent legal expression. It does not imply that Ulpian sheds his Roman
identity. He does not. The Greeks call public roads βασιλικ(ς, our people
(nostri) call them praetorias, others consulares vias.143 He wishes, however, to
emphasize his dual identity, Tyrian and Roman.144 In this he is, to judge from
surviving legal texts, unique, though many lawyers were from the provinces
and retained links with their origins, as inscriptions prove.145 The other
reason for Ulpian’s switches into Greek is in my view his desire, as an act of
solidarity, to accommodate the greatly increased body of Greek-speaking
citizens.146 He wants openly to speak to them as participants in the cos-
mopolitan legal system.
The second clue to the intended readership concerns Ulpian’s effort to per-
suade the reader of the justice of the items in the praetor’s edict. Lawyers of
the middle and later principate appealed to values to justify their decisions
more freely than their predecessors,147 and this was pre-eminently true of
Ulpian. He was conscious of the fact that the new citizens needed to be per-
suaded that in being made subject to Roman law they were not being treated
arbitrarily. Readers of Edict cannot fail to notice the pains he takes to show
that the edict is suited not only to the traditional Roman ways but is useful,
equitable, and adapted to the needs of all. Often he points to the utility148 or
necessity149 of the provision in the praetor’s edict, a utility that can be either
public or private150 or both.151 It might consist, for instance, in the need to
protect travellers by sea or land who are forced to entrust goods to a ship’s
captain or innkeeper,152 or in the interest the holder of a right of way over
neighbouring land has in seeing that the road is kept in good repair.153 Other
practical aims are mentioned: the difficulty of proof,154 the need to protect
minors, to uphold the family, and to provide incentives for burying corpses
142 143
Adams (forthcoming) ch.3 D 43.8.2.22 (68 ed.)
144
On code-switching see Myers-Scotton (1993, 1998) and on its relation to identity Adams
(forthcoming) ch.3
145 146 147
Liebs (2001) xi–xv Adams (forthcoming) ch.3 Wieacker (1977) 29–38
148
D 3.5.1 (10 ed.); 4.1.1 (11 ed.); 4.9.1.1 (14 ed.); 9.3.1.1 (23 ed.); 14.1.1 pr (28 ed.); 14.4.1 pr
(29 ed.); 47.6.1 pr (38 ed.); 47.9.11 (56 ed.); 43.15.1.1 (68 ed.); 43.18.1.1; 43.19.3.12; 43.21.1.1;
43.22.1.7 (70 ed.)
149
D 10.4.1 (24 ed.); 16.3.1.2, 4 (30 ed.); 26.10.1 pr (35 ed.); 47.9.1.1 (56 ed.); 42.8.1.1 (66 ed.);
43.20.1.39 (70 ed.)
150
D 43.8.2.1 (68 ed.); 43.9.1.1 (69 ed.); 1.14.3 (38 Sab.); Steinwenter (1939) 84–102; Longo
(1972) 7–71; Marotta (2000) 93–6
151
D 47.8.2.1 (56 ed.); Pliny the Younger, Panegyric 67.8; Marotta (2000) 147–63
152 153 154
D 4.9.1.1 (14 ed.) D 43.19.2.12 (70 ed.) D 11.1.2 (22 ed.)
and for guardians to spend their own money on behalf of their wards.155
Respect for magistrates156 and the need to see that their orders are
enforced157 are also stressed. Moreover new legislation must possess ‘clear
utility’.158
A value that Ulpian stresses at least as much as utility is fairness or equity
(aequitas),159 sometimes natural equity.160 Equity is related in his thinking to
equality, not directly, but in the sense that it requires the interests of each per-
son to be taken into account and given equal weight. Equity requires that the
parties should be on a level, so that for example the right to sue goes with lia-
bility to be sued,161 and benefit and liability go hand in hand.162 Those who
are weak or have been deceived must be protected against the strong and the
deceivers. In this connection Ulpian often denounces craftiness (calliditas)
and stresses provisions in the edict directed against the crafty,163 or those who
exploit others,164 or which serve to protect the ill-informed.165 The special
feature of natural equity is that it operates even when the civil law does not
cater for the problem. For example, it takes account of agreements that are
not enforceable by civil law,166 protects persons who have technically come of
age but are immature,167 and prevents slaves due to be freed from taking
advantage of legal technicalities.168 Natural equity is not fundamentally dif-
ferent from civil equity, but the equitable solution to a problem may or may
not already have been embodied in the civil law.
Some justifications offered are therefore practical, and consist in the good
consequences, represented by utility, of having certain provisions in the
praetor’s edict. Others are moral, and consist in giving due weight to the
interests of all, regarded as of equal worth, and represented by the notion of
equity. Whether Ulpian has provided a good justification for a given provi-
sion of the edict is sometimes questionable. What is not in question is his
determination to persuade the citizens of the new cosmopolitan society
created by the Antonine constitution that the laws governing their lives are
not arbitrary. There are good reasons for these laws, reasons that apply uni-
versally.
155 D 11.7.12.3 (25 ed.); 27.4.1 pr (36 ed.); 28.8.7.1 (60 ed.); 38.6.1.5 (46 ed.) cf. 43.8.2.10 (64
ed: public nuisance)

156 D 3.1.1 pr (6 ed.) 157 D 43.4.1.1 (62 ed.) 158 D 1.4.2 (4 fid: evidens utilitas)
159 D 2.2.1 pr (3 ed.); 2.13.1 pr ; 2.13.4.1; 27.6.1 pr (12 ed.); 14.3.1 (28 ed.); 37.6.1 pr; 37.8.1.1
(40 ed.); 37.11.2 pr (41 ed.); 37.12.1 pr (45 ed.); 43.3.1.1, 2 (62 ed.); 43.16.1.1 (69 ed.)
160 D 2.14.1 pr (4 ed.); 4.4.4 pr (11 ed.); 13.5.1 pr (27 ed.); 47.4.1.1 (38 ed.); 37.5.1 pr (40 ed.);
43.26.2.2 (71 ed.)

161 D 3.4.7 pr (10 ed.) 162 D 14.3.1 (28 ed.)
163 D 4.1.1; 4.3.1 pr (11 ed.); 29.4.1 pr (50 ed.); 40.12.14 (55 ed.); 43.24.1.1 (71 ed.); 21.1.1.2 (1
ed. cur.)
164 D 2.7.1 pr (5 ed.); 38.2.1 pr (42 ed: former owners of freed slaves); 39.4 12 pr (38 ed: tax-
gatherers’ staff); 38.1.2 pr (38 ed: patrons of freed slaves)

165 D 11.6.1 pr (24 ed.) 166 D 2.14.1 pr (4 ed.); 1.5.1 pr (27 ed.)
167 D 4.4.4 pr (11 ed.) 168 D 47.4.1.1 (38 ed.)
4
The Empirical Method
T H E last chapter was about the theoretical basis of Ulpian’s work. This one
is about the method he adopted in solving legal problems.1 His method was
empirical in two ways that mark him off to some extent from other Roman
lawyers. But only to some extent. Whereas his oral style and egalitarian phi-
losophy contrast rather sharply with those of other leading Roman lawyers,
his method of argument differs from some of theirs only in degree.
One way in which his method is empirical is that he likes to give and argue
from examples, to proceed by trial and error. It emerged from the study of
his style in chapter 2 that over 90 per cent of the uses of the phrase ‘for
instance’ (ut puta) in Digest texts are his.2 He is keen on arguing from exam-
ples: ‘it makes little difference if . . . ( parvi refert)’3 and of proceeding from
one example to another ‘but what if . . .’ (quid tamen si?)4 or ‘unless perhaps
. . .’ (nisi forte).5 To give and argue from examples is even more a feature of
the Anglo-American common law, both in its origin and in its modern form
of reliance on precedent. It involves arguing from analogy or lack of anal-
ogy.6 It involves refusing to commit oneself to a broad principle until one can
see how it will apply to a particular set of facts.
A second way in which Ulpian’s method is empirical is in his practice of
balancing a number of considerations before reaching a conclusion: it is plu-
ralistic and shies away from commitment to a single overriding principle. The
judge, magistrate, or legal consultant, accepting that law serves more than
one value, must see to what conclusions the different values would lead
before making a choice between them, if that should prove necessary. The
considerations that mainly concern Ulpian are (i) the wording of laws, con-
tracts, wills, and other documents (verba); (ii) the purpose or intention that
lies behind them (mens); (iii) public policy in the guise of utility (utilitas); and
(iv) the moral acceptability of the conclusion to which these considerations
point. In particular, would it be equitable (aequum)? This last value prefigures
a feature of Anglo-American law, namely the use of equity to outflank
morally unacceptable features of the strict common law. But in using it
1
On various aspects of this see Mantello (1995) (nominalism and linguistic theory); Falcone
(1997), Tondo (1998)
2 3
Ch.2 n.433 (298 out of 315) Ch.2 n.17 (28 out of 30)
4 5
Ch.2 n.151 (43 out of 44) Ch.2 n.21–2, 24, 153 (91 out of 117)
6
Bretone (1982) 311
Ulpian, like the best Anglo-American lawyers, pursues moderation. No con-

sideration is consistently given overriding weight. Sometimes the wording or
purpose of a law or the demands of utility rule out the morally best solution.
At others the judge or magistrate has enough leeway to do justice in the indi-
vidual case. But the honest lawyer may be led to express even his considered
view in a tentative way, as Ulpian often does, ‘and I should think’ (et putem),
‘and I rather think’ (et magis puto), ‘and the better view is’ (et magis est). The
contrast with other Roman lawyers in this regard is one of degree, not kind,7
but it is a feature of his writing.
Of course the parallels between Ulpian’s method and that of Anglo-
American lawyers cannot be pressed very far given the radically different
society in which Roman law operated. But neither are these parallels to be
underestimated. Some Roman lawyers, like some modern lawyers,
approached legal problems empirically. Ulpian was one of these. This did not
preclude his working within the philosophical framework, explained in the
last chapter, constituted by respect for human equality, liberty, and dignity.
But it governed his approach to the detailed application of these principles.
This chapter gives some illustrations of his method.
It is Ulpian’s regular practice to give examples. There is nothing special
about giving examples, particularly when teaching, but the practice is not
shared by other Roman lawyers, at least not to the same extent. The point of
giving examples is to make the issue to be discussed more vivid and concrete.
Here are some examples of Ulpian’s examples. Some crimes are confined to a
particular province, for instance σκοπελισµς in Arabia, which consists in
putting stones on one’s neighbour’s land to indicate that anyone who culti-
vates there will suffer an unpleasant death.8 It is a legal wrong to insult
another person. But if for example someone declines to agree to an honour
for another person, for instance putting up a statue, is this a legal wrong?9
Sometimes the praetor allows a suit for an uncertain part of an inheritance.
For example the son of a deceased brother claims and there are also pregnant
wives of deceased brothers who may have children entitled to a share.10
Sometimes a slave in whom there is a life interest acquires something and it is
doubtful whether he acquires it for the owner or the usufructuary. For exam-
ple, someone has bought and taken delivery of the slave but not yet paid the
price. Creditors can obtain a separation of their debtors’ estate in certain
cases: for example, someone has a debtor Seius, and Seius dies leaving an
insolvent heir Titius.11 The interdict on ejection by force applies only to those
ejected from the soil (solum), for example from land or a building on the
land.12 We often keep a usufruct in slaves though making no use of their ser-
vices, for example because the slave is ill or an infant or too old.13
7 8 9
Horak (1976) D 47.11.9 (Ulp. 9 off. proc.) D 47.10.13.4 (Ulp. 57 ed.)
10 11 12
D 5.4.1.5 (10 ed.) D 42.6.1.1 (64 ed.) D 43.16.1.2 (69 ed.)
13
D 7.1.12.3 (17 Sab)
96 4. The Empirical Method
These examples merely point to a wish on the author’s part to make plain
what it is he is talking about. Once we have an example or a range of exam-
ples the next question is how the law should handle them. As mentioned, the
second way in which Ulpian’s method is empirical is that he seeks a balance
between various considerations before reaching an opinion on a point of law.
Pernice complained that he came to conclusions not on strictly legal grounds
but for reasons of convenience or policy. There is substance in Pernice’s
complaint, and it is to Ulpian’s credit that there is. He wants to find equitable
solutions to legal problems and to fit the law to the society in which it oper-
ates, when this can be done with due regard to the constraints set by the
system as a whole. In finding the solution to legal problems some lawyers give
precedence to following settled rules, others to adherence to principle, others
again to the search for a morally acceptable solution in the particular case.
Ulpian inclines more to the last category, but always has regard to binding
texts and to the opinions of other lawyers of standing, whether he agrees with
them or not.
His discussions often appeal to the interpretation of texts of authority, to
utility, and/or to equity. The interpretation of a text involves two elements,
the wording of a law or private document (verba) and its purpose or the inten-
tion behind it (mens, sententia). A leading text, near the beginning of On the
Edict, says that ‘according to the laws’ means according to both the purpose
and the wording of the laws.14 Ulpian does not say that, if the two clash, the
purpose must prevail over the wording. In the process of interpretation both
must be taken into account and one has sometimes to choose between them.
The same is true of agreements. Whether an agreement not to sue means an
agreement not to sue a particular person or not to sue at all depends both on
the words used and the intention of the parties.15 In deciding whether a trust
to free a slave has been created one must pay attention not only to the word-
ing of the will but to the intention of the testator.16
Here are some more examples. Papinian says that a condition on which a
gift depends, say a gift of freedom, cannot be ‘taken back’ (adimi) because it
was not given in the first place. Conditions are ‘attached’ to gifts (adscriptae),
not ‘given’. Ulpian comments that it is better to give effect to the intention of
the person who purports to ‘take back’ the condition than to keep to the strict
meaning of the words used. So someone who has attached a condition to a
gift can take it back,17 whereupon the gift, as he or she intended, becomes
unconditional. Again, a rescript required a surviving mother to petition for
14 D 50.16.6.1 (3 ed: verbum ‘ex legibus’ sic accipiendum est: tam ex legum sententia quam ex
verbis)
15 D 2.14.7.8 (4 ed: non minus ex verbis quam ex mente convenientium aestimandum est)
16 D 40.5.24.8 (5 fid.)
17 D 34.4.3.9 (24 Sab: sed melius est sensum quam verba amplecti et condicione sicut adscribi, ita
et adimi posse)
guardians to be appointed to her children under age, on pain of losing her

right of intestate succession to the children. Ulpian, in a passage that throws
light on his general approach to interpretation, holds that a mother must in a
proper case apply for a curator rather than a guardian to be appointed,
though the rescript does not mention curators.18 The same rescript required
her to apply for the appointment of guardians a second time if the first lot of
guardians were excused from office or rejected. Ulpian holds that though
death is not specifically mentioned, she must also reapply if the first appointed
guardians die.19 These interpretations are meant to give effect to the purpose
of the rescript, which is to make sure that in return for the right of intestate
succession a mother attends to the interests of her children under age. In gen-
eral the purpose of a law (utilitas) can justify an extensive interpretation. The
judge can properly interpret a text in a way that favours that purpose.20
It does not follow that in Ulpian’s view the wording of a text can be over-
ridden merely because the law it lays down seems unreasonable. If a slave-
owner bequeaths a slave his freedom along with the slave’s private fund
(peculium) any debt of the slave to the owner must be deducted from the fund
before it is handed over. It follows, according to Ulpian, that what the owner
owes the slave should be added to the slave’s fund. There should be a balance
of benefit and burden. But this is contrary to a rescript of Severus and
Caracalla, which Ulpian interprets narrowly, but to which he defers.21 Again,
a wife who divorced was forbidden to free any of her slaves within sixty days
before the divorce. This was because she might free a slave to avoid his being
tortured, and so avoid having him disclose her adultery. The prohibition
applied even to slaves working in the fields or in another province, which is
very hard, says Ulpian (since they could not know what was happening in the
house), but that is the way the law is worded.22 And where the purpose of a
provision is not clear it may be better to stick closely to the wording of a law.
Someone who contracted with a ship’s captain could sue the entrepreneur, the
shipper, on the contract for the full amount owing provided that the captain
was acting as such with the shipper’s consent. If the shipper was a slave or son
in power, his owner or father could be sued. But for the owner or father to be
liable in full, rather than up to a fixed limit, was it enough that the owner or
father knew that his slave or son was running a shipping business, or must he
have agreed to their running it? Despite the public importance attaching to
shipping, it is better in case of doubt, says Ulpian, to stick to the wording of
the edict and require actual consent.23
18 D 38.17.2.29–31 (13 Sab.)

19 D 38.17.2.40 (13 Sab: puto, licet verba deficiunt, sententiam constitutionis locum habere)
20 D 1.3.13 (1 aed. cur: quotiens lege . . . introductum est, bona occasio est cetera, quae tendunt
ad eandem utilitatem, vel interpretatione vel certe iurisdictione suppleri)

21 D 33.8.6.4 (25 Sab.) 22 D 40.9.12.1 (4 adult: sed ita lex scripta est)
23 D 14.1.1.20 (28 ed: in re igitur dubia melius est verbis edicti servire)
So much for interpretation. Utility and equity enter into interpretation

since they may be relevant to the purpose of a statute or private document.
But utility and equity24 can be important independently. A good judge,
before deciding, should also take account of both. Utility,25 giving effect to
both public and private interests, was a main aim of both public and private
law,26 an aim Ulpian shared with his contemporaries Papinian and Paul and
the emperors of the age. The table that follows shows that references to util-
ity (utilis, utilitas) and its opposite (inutilis, inutilitas) are commoner under the
Severans than earlier.
Authors % of Digest Mentions Per 1% of Digest
Lawyers up to Julian 9.1 11 1.2
Pomponius to Scaevola 17.8 27 1.5
The Severans 72.4 180 2.5
Within the last group we can separate the figures for Papinian, Paul, and
Ulpian respectively.
Papinian 5.7 20 3.5
Paul 16.7 42 2.5
Ulpian 41.6 107 2.6
Among the lawyers of the age Papinian seems to have had the strongest
attachment to utility as a guide. Ulpian follows suit, and fills in details.
Equity is particularly related, we saw, to equality,27 but it is used by Ulpian
in a broad enough way to cover other moral considerations. Sometimes the
nature of the action is such as to incorporate equitable considerations.
Sometimes the just solution can be arrived at by resort to a supplementary
action on the facts (actio in factum). Sometimes there is a plain stand-off
between law and equity.
Here are some examples of the first sort. The law gave an action against the
estate of a deceased person for the recovery of funeral expenses incurred by
someone other than the heir, provided the claimant had not paid for the
funeral merely as an act of piety. What of the case where the heir has forbid-
den the claimant to arrange and pay for the funeral? The claimant neverthe-
less does so. Ulpian puts various possibilities, for example that the heir
forbids the testator’s son to arrange for the funeral. You might argue in that
case that if the son paid for the funeral he did so out of family piety, not with
a view to reimbursement. Or suppose that the testator had asked the person
who arranged and paid for the funeral to do so. The testator’s wish would not
necessarily be conclusive, because the person requested might arrange for a
funeral that was extravagant in relation to the testator’s resources. Ulpian
24 D 13.4.4.1 (17 ed.), 11.7.14.13 (25 ed.) 25 Millar (1986) 275
26 D 1.1.1.2 (Ulp. 1 inst: sunt enim quaedam publice utilia, quaedam privatim)
27 Ch.3 n.159–68
sums up his view by saying that the just judge should not simply act on the
analogy of cases where one person intervenes in another’s affairs, but act in a
broadly equitable way, as the nature of the action allows him to.28 The pas-
sage in which he discusses this action for funeral expenses gives a good idea
of how, in his view, considerations of equity depend on the facts of the case.
Again, the praetor’s edict provided that an action could be brought against
a debtor in one place, say Alexandria, for a debt due in another, say Ephesus.
On occasion, says Ulpian, the right course in trying such an action is to decide
that the debtor is not liable to pay at the place where he is sued provided he
gives security for payment at the place agreed. For instance, the debtor might
have money readily available on deposit in Ephesus. The action for a debt due
in a particular place had a discretionary element, and the judge trying it
should keep his eye on the equity of the matter.29
Sometimes the right course from the point of view of equity is to resort
to a supplementary action (actio in factum). Of the Digest texts that give a
supplementary action Ulpian has 71 out of 118, which comes to three-fifths,
a disproportionately great but not overwhelming use of the notion.30 In one
text Ulpian says that if a co-heir incurs liability through mistakenly selling a
slave belonging to the deceased who was given his freedom in the will, it is
equitable to give him a supplementary action against his co-heir to recoup a
share of the loss. In this connection he remarks that when an action or defence
is not strictly available a supplementary action or defence can be given (i.e. if
it would be equitable to do so).31 Fruits from your tree fall on my land. I let
my cattle eat them. Aristo, who discusses three possible actions, thinks that
none of them will, for technical reasons, fit the facts. Well then, says Ulpian,
a supplementary action must be made available.32 One man pushes another,
who in turn pushes a slave and thereby kills him. Can the first man be sued
for wrongfully killing the slave? Proculus said not. The first man did not kill
the slave. The second was not at fault. In that case, says Ulpian, a supple-
mentary action must be given against the first man.33 A testator makes a slave
heir if no child is born to him. When he dies his wife is said to be pregnant. In
the case of a free person appointed heir there was a procedure under the edict
for ensuring that the wife really was pregnant and that a spurious child was
not smuggled in as the testator’s. Ulpian, following an opinion of Aristo, says
that the slave, though not strictly within the terms of the edict, has an inter-
est in the matter, which is also a public interest in the authenticity of family
succession. He should therefore be allowed to petition for the procedure to be
28
D 11.7.14.13 (Ulp. 25 ed: et generaliter puto iudicem iustum non meram negotiorum gestorum
actionem imitari, sed solutius aequitatem sequi, cum hoc ei et natura actionis indulget)
29
D 13.4.4.1 (Ulp. 17 ed: in summa aequitatem quoque ante oculos habere debet iudex, qui huic
actioni addictus est)
30 31
VIR 2.786–7. D 10.2.49; 19.5.21 (2 disp)
32
D 19.5.14.3 (Ulp. 41 Sab: erit agendum points to the genuineness of the phrase)
33
D 9.2.7.3 (Ulp. 18 ed: again, actio erit danda points to genuineness)
set in motion. Suppose, again, I give you some money intending a gift, but
you think it is a loan. Can I recover the amount? Julian held that there was no
gift and possibly no loan either. Ulpian agrees that there is no contract, and
in principle an action for recovery (condictio) lies. But you have spent the
money, as I intended you should, and recovery would be unjust. Hence you
are entitled, says Ulpian, if I bring an action to recover the money, to plead
my dishonesty as a defence.34
Sometimes there is a straightforward stand-off between strict law and
equity. Supposing a slave contracted a debt and his owner then died leaving
more than one heir. If the other party to the contract sues one of the heirs, the
others are in law free of liability, even though the heir sued was held liable
only to the extent of his share of the slave’s fund (peculium). But, says Ulpian,
though that is the position in strict law, an action should be given against the
other heirs so that they will be freed from liability only to the extent that the
creditor actually receives payment.35 A father who made his son heir could
provide by a secret instrument that if the son died under age the inheritance
should go to someone else. In the case in issue the son died under age and his
mother claimed the inheritance on the ground that the secret instrument had
been revoked. It was held that it had not been revoked. Then the mother dis-
covered that the father had not executed a secret instrument in the first place.
Could she reopen the case? Neratius points out that the final judgment (res
iudicata) bars her from doing so. Ulpian agrees that this is a case of res
iudicata, but says that the mother must be given a remedy because the earlier
proceedings related only to the revocation of the secret instrument, not its
existence.36 A testator leaves a legacy and asks the legatee by way of trust to
emancipate his (the legatee’s) own child. If the request had been to emanci-
pate a slave there was a legal procedure for ensuring that it was given effect.
But Papinian points out that no such procedure exists in the case of a child,
and Ulpian admits that he had formerly taken the view that the law of trusts
provides no remedy in such a case. The legatee should, however, says Ulpian,
be compelled to emancipate the children outside the normal course of law
(extra ordinem). Otherwise the intentions of testators will be thwarted.37 He
cites a ruling of Severus along the same lines.
Humanity is another value to which Ulpian appeals, especially when liberty
is in question. Anyone may appeal against a sentence in a criminal trial, not
only the accused but anyone else, and may do so even if the person sentenced
does not want an appeal.38 Anyone may bring proceedings for the production
of a freeman who is thought to be wrongfully detained (the equivalent of
34
D 12.1.18 pr (Ulp. 7 disp.)
35
D 15.1.32 pr (2 disp: sed licet hoc iure contingat, tamen aequitas dictat <rescissorium> iudi-
cium in eos dari, qui occasione iuris liberantur, ut magis eos perceptio quam intentio liberet)
36 37
D 44.2.11 pr (Ulp. 75 ed.) D 35.1.92 (5 fid.)
38
D 49.1.6 (2 appell: credo enim humanitatis ratione omnem provocantem audiri debere)
habeas corpus) because anyone is entitled to take action in favour of free-

dom.39 The underlying thought is that, since we are all born free, common
humanity permits a stranger to intervene in this way to save another.
Ulpian’s philosophical outlook influences his moral opinions. His regard
for human equality emerges in two texts on the equality of husband and wife.
In one of these, following a ruling of Caracalla later cited by Augustine, he
attacks the double standard of sexual morality. He points out that the judge
who tries a charge of adultery should ask himself whether the husband by his
own chaste life was setting his wife a good example, since it is the height of
injustice for a husband to demand of his wife a virtue that he does not him-
self display.40 More important, and expressing a view that is surely original in
the ancient world, Ulpian embraces the principle that one takes one’s spouse
for better or worse. In discussing divorce for insanity he says that spouses
should tolerate a good deal of eccentricity on one another’s part. If there are
intervals of sanity or if the mental disease, though permanent, can be toler-
ated by those around her (he is speaking of a mentally disturbed wife), the
marriage should on no account be dissolved. ‘For’, he says ‘what is more
human than for a husband to share his wife’s or a wife her husband’s misfor-
tunes?’41 The concept of sharing also applies to ordinary partners. In relation
to them Ulpian makes the point that sharing in profit should go along with
sharing in loss, so that if a partner brings into account something wrongfully
acquired, the other partners, if they know it was wrongfully acquired, must
share in any penalty incurred.42 The value of human ties, in comparison with
love of property, is brought out in a text that protects a slaveowner against
having to sell a slave who is his natural parent or brother in order to give
effect to a legacy. On the other hand the owner of a drinking-cup might in a
similar case be forced to sell it at its market value. ‘The status of human beings
is different from that of other things.’ 43 When there is a legacy of slaves work-
ing on an estate it is presumed that their wives and children are included. It is
not to be supposed that the testator intended a painful separation.44 As
regards moral vices Ulpian is particularly hard on dishonesty (calliditas).45
He several times assimilates fault bordering on intentional wrongdoing (culpa
39 D 43.29.3.9 (71 ed.)

40 D 48.5.14.5 (Ulp. 2 adult: periniquum enim videtur esse, ut pudicitiam vir ab uxore exigat,
quam ipse non exhibeat) cf. Augustine, On Adultery to Pollentius 2.7
41 D 24.3.22.7 (Ulp. 33 ed: quid enim tam humanum est, quam ut fortuitis casibus mulieris mar-
itum vel uxorem viri participem esse?) cf. Swain (1996) 119f.
42 D 17.2.55 (30 Sab: aequum est enim, ut cuius participavit lucrum, participet et damnum)
43 D 30.71.3–4 (Ulp. 51 ed: alia enim condicio est hominum, alia ceterarum rerum)
44 D 33.7.12.7 (Ulp. 20 Sab: neque enim duram separationem iniunxisse credendus est)
45 Ch.2 n.539, 618
dolo proxima) to deliberate wrongdoing (dolus).46 Grossly to disregard the

interests of others is almost dishonest.
To keep in balance the competing claims of the wording of texts, the pur-
poses they are meant to serve and the demands of morality, requires a sense
of balance and moderation. The pursuit of this unexciting virtue is essential
to a well-ordered civil society. Ulpian possessed it. Public administration, for
example, must be conducted without laxity, but without pressing harshly on
the citizen. A provincial governor should steer a line between a total refusal
of gifts offered, which is discourteous, and acceptance of everything offered,
which is contemptible.47 As regards delation (informing the government of
tax evasion) a path must be trodden between supine blindness to the facts and
over-scrupulous inquisition.48 What should a provincial governor do if he
finds that a local authority has put its funds into something that does not yield
interest? He should not be harsh or insulting (perhaps the money is invested
in a project to which the local community attach great importance) but
combine efficiency with moderation and humanity.49 A guardian fails to sell
perishable goods belonging to his ward in good time, and the ward suffers a
loss. Is it an excuse that he was waiting for his fellow-guardians to agree to the
sale, or that they wished to put the matter off? He will not easily be excused.
His duty is to act without haste but also without undue delay.50 The praetor
could compel an attorney to defend an action in certain cases. Julian listed
some exceptions, for instance if the attorney was away on the business of the
local authority. The excuse, says Ulpian, should neither automatically be
accepted not systematically denied. The praetor should take each case on its
merits.51 The sentencing of criminals is discretionary, but whether a light or a
heavy sentence is imposed the sentence must not be excessively light or
heavy.52 But I agree with Rodger that Ulpian does not automatically favour
a compromise between conflicting views.53 It is of the essence of an empirical
approach to be flexible.
46 D 2.13.8 pr (4 ed.), 11.1.11.11 (Ulp. 22 ed.), 16.3.7 pr (30 ed.), 47.4.1.2 (38 ed.), 43.26.8.3 (71
ed.), 30.47.5 (22 Sab,), 27.8.4 (3 disp.), 36.1.23.3 (5 disp.). The number of texts and the repetition
of the formula culpa dolo proxima tells against interpolation. There is one such text in Marcianus:
D 47.9.11 (Marci. 14 inst.) cf. 26.7.7.2 (Ulp. 35 ed: lata neglegentia)
47 D 1.16.6.3 (Ulp. 1 off. proc: nam valde inhumanum est a nemine accipere, sed passim vilissi-
mum est et omnia avarissimum)

48 D 22.6.6 (Ulp. 18 ed: ut neque neglegentia crassa aut nimia securitas expedita sit neque dela-
toria curiositas exigatur)

49 D 22.1.33 pr (Ulp. 1 off. cur. reip: dummodo non acerbum se exactorem nec contumeliosum
praebeat, sed moderatum et cum efficacia benignum et cum instantia humanum)

50 D 26.7.7.1 (Ulp. 35 ed: non quidem praecipiti festinatione sed nec moratoria cunctatione)
51 D 3.3.13 (Ulp 8 ed: sed haec neque passim admittenda sunt neque destricte deneganda, sed a
praetore causa cognita temperanda)

52 D 49.1.6 (1 appell: Hodie licet . . . quam vult sententiam ferre, vel graviorem vel leviorem, ita
tamen ut in utroque moderationem non excedat)

53 Rodger (1983) 389–90
Once a conclusion has been reached on the way in which the law applies to
a given set of facts, it is a question whether the law would be the same if the
facts were slightly different. Indeed Ulpian quite often qualifies a conclusion
with a possible exception ‘unless perhaps’ (nisi forte)54 to ensure that what he
says is not taken too broadly.55 The implication is not that the result would
certainly be different if the facts were different but that it might be. At other
times Ulpian commits himself to the view that the result would be the same if
the facts were different: ‘it matters little that . . .’ ( parvi refert . . .)56 or ‘but
even if so-and-so were the case . . . equally’ (sed et si . . . aeque).57 At others
again he raises the question ‘but what if?’ (quid tamen si?)58 and embarks on
a further discussion that may end either way. All these lines of discussion rest
on the assumption that the limits of a principle are to arrived at by trial and
error: by trying the rule out in a range of fact-situations.
Here are some examples of the first sort. If a testator who by will leaves tan-
gible property in trust sells the property during his lifetime without intending
to extinguish the trust, the trust is not extinguished. If he leaves a debt in trust
but exacts the debt during his lifetime the law is the same. Unless perhaps,
says Ulpian, there is a difference between the two cases. The tangible prop-
erty continues to exist but the debt does not.59 A father cannot dissolve the
engagement of a daughter whom he has emancipated. So if he has given prop-
erty by way of dowry to the daughter’s fiancé, and then changes his mind
about the proposed marriage, she can defy him by marrying her fiancé. He
cannot recover the money on the ground that the object for which it was
handed over has failed. Unless perhaps, says Ulpian, one argues that he
handed over the property on the basis that, whether or not the marriage took
place, he could recover it if (in the end) he did not agree to the marriage.60 The
‘perhaps’ is to be taken seriously, as we see from another example. An execu-
tion creditor can seize a debt owed to his debtor, provided it is admittedly
due. If the debt is said not to be due, the fairest course is not to seize it, unless
perhaps one says that, as in the case of pledged corporeal property, the mag-
istrate should decide whether the debt really is due. But there is a rescript to
the contrary.61 So, by implication, the two cases are in law the same.
To say that it matters little (parvi refert) if the facts are somewhat different
is a way of avoiding too narrow a statement of the law. A couple of examples
will suffice. If the legitimacy of two children under puberty is in issue and one
of them reaches puberty, the decision must be deferred until the other also
reaches puberty. It matters little whether the one still under puberty is plain-
54
Ch.2 n. 21–4, 153
55
Many nisi forte texts have been suspected of interpolation, some perhaps rightly. But since
more than three-quarters of the nisi forte texts come from Ulpian (Ch.2 n.20–4) the great major-
ity must be genuine
56 57 58 59
Ch.2 n.17 Ch.2 n.152 Ch.2 n.151 D 32.11.12–13 (2 fid.)
60 61
D 23.1.10 (3 disp.) D 42.1.15.9 (3 off. cons.)
tiff or defendant.62 A shipper is the person who pays the expenses and takes
the profits from operating a ship, whether the owner of the ship or someone
who has chartered the ship for a term or permanently. It matters little whether
the shipper is male or female, the head of a family, a child in power, or a slave.
But a child under age requires his or her guardian’s authority.63 As these
examples indicate ‘it matters little’ is in practice an euphemism for ‘it does not
matter’. The same is true of ‘but even if . . . equally’ (sed et si . . . aeque). If a
slave has by will been given his freedom if he climbs the Capitol, and the heir
prevents him he becomes free. But even if he is to be free if he pays one co-heir
and another prevents him, he will equally be free.64
The ‘but what if’ cases include some in which Ulpian’s train of thought
comes through with special clarity. The seller of a slave who was a thief was
liable in the action of sale if he knew of the slave’s fault, but not otherwise.
What if he did not know but told the buyer that the slave was honest and so
got a better price? Ulpian tentatively asserts that the seller is liable in the
action on sale (et putem teneri). True, he did not know. But he should not
rashly have asserted something that he did not know to be true.65 Hadrian by
rescript imposed a penalty on those who bury a corpse in a town. But what if
the statute of the local authority allows burial in the town? The answer is that
imperial rescripts possess a general force and should prevail everywhere.66 A
suit to enforce a testamentary trust must be brought where the greater part of
the inheritance lies. In deciding where this is, the rule to apply is that debts do
not diminish the assets in any particular area, because they burden the estate
as a whole. But what if certain assets are earmarked, say, for maintenance to
be provided in Rome? In that case, says Ulpian, I should think that this
reduces the Rome assets, so that the bulk of the inheritance may lie else-
where.67
These few examples, which could be multiplied many times over, give an
idea of the open and empirical character of Ulpian’s work. He shares these
features with several other Roman lawyers but in my view surpasses them in
candour and clarity. Although there are important differences between the
development of the law by lawyers, like Ulpian, who hold or have held
prominent positions in government and its development in the common law
world by a specialized group of judges, the parallels are a good deal closer
than is commonly supposed.
62 63 64
D 37.10.3.8–9 (41 ed.) D 14.1.1.15–16 (28 ed.) D 40.7.3.3–4 (27 Sab.).
65
D 19.1.13.3 (32 ed.). This highly Ulpianic text (quid tamen si . . .et putem) has often been sus-
pected of interpolation
66 67
D 47.12.3.5 (25 ed.) D 5.1.50. pr.–1 (6 fid.)
5
Genuine Works
T H I S chapter makes use of the analysis of style in chapter 2 to identify the
works attributed to Ulpian that are genuinely his. Chapter 11 deals with five
works that have been falsely attributed to him. The genuine works are
identified by the same technique as in the first edition but the evidence is set
out in a different way. There the method consisted in taking each book of
Ulpian’s works and listing the footnotes in the chapter on Ulpian’s style that
referred to a word or expression to be found in that book. That method was
accurate but not reader-friendly. To discover why the work or book was said
to be genuine Ulpian the reader had to look up the footnotes.
In this edition I have instead set out some but by no means all of the
Ulpianic words and phrases that appear in each book directly. The ones cho-
sen are those that are most typical of Ulpian’s manner and occur fairly often
in his writings. Provided the words and phrases chosen occur seldom in other
Digest authors it is relatively easy to judge the cogency of the argument for
authenticity that they provide. The reader will notice how important word-
order is in bringing out what is distinctive about Ulpian’s writing. Between 40
and 42 per cent of the material in Justinian’s Digest is attributed to Ulpian.
But a number of common words and phrases occur only or predominantly in
his Digest texts.1 This makes it fairly easy to recognize genuine Ulpian.
The argument that texts attributed to Ulpian are really by him depends on
the assumption that his style was reasonably coherent. The evidence to be pre-
sented shows that, if the major commentaries On the Edict and On Sabinus are
genuine, a number of other works attributed to our author are written in a
similar style and can also be taken as genuine. This argument could satisfy a
reader who was worried about extraneous elements in texts attributed to
Ulpian, for example marginal glosses made on manuscript copies of his work
or interpolations due to Justinian’s compilers. The argument goes to show
that, despite these intrusions in the texts and despite some mistakes in copy-
ing, the style of many works attributed to Ulpian remains distinctive. The
same is true of individual texts and sentences, though these have to be con-
sidered on their merits, one at a time. If a text contains a phrase such as
proinde, ut puta, or erit dicendum, Ulpian is likely to be its original author,
even if it has been partly altered in editing. Pastiche by post-classical editors
1
e.g. proinde, ut puta, et ait . . ., erit dicendum
106 5. Genuine Works
or by Justinian’s compilers, all basically Greek-speaking, can, I suggest, be

virtually ruled out.
The argument for the genuineness of the twenty-three works listed in this
chapter is, however, different from the argument developed in chapter 10
about works falsely attributed to Ulpian. The spurious works are, in my view,
almost wholly spurious. Little or nothing in them is taken from the real
Ulpian. The arguments for genuineness, on the other hand, are of varying
strength. Seventeen works, ranging from the eighty-one books On the Edict to
three one-book monographs seem on grounds of style and vocabulary, apart
from other evidence, to be genuine. For three other works (below nos. 18, 19
and the hypothetical 23) the style is consistent with Ulpian’s. Given the attri-
bution of these works to him in Justinian’s Digest and the compilers’ so-called
Florentine Index, they are probably genuine. In three others (nos. 20–2) there
are too few lines to make a judgment possible. The case for their genuineness
rests entirely on the Digest headings and the Florentine Index. Finally there
are five works, examined in chapter 10, that seem to be spurious.
When a work is shown to be genuine it does not follow that the texts cited
from it in the Digest or elsewhere contain nothing by another hand. The texts
have been preserved in works copied in post-classical times and edited by
Justinian’s compilers or by private entrepreneurs. The private editors, to
judge from the spurious Rules in one book, examined in chapter 10,2 have
altered the classical originals very little. Justinian’s compilers, on the other
hand, were told to reduce the volume of classical texts by a factor of twenty,3
to harmonize the law so as to remove contradictions,4 and to make the text
read smoothly.5 These instructions justified and indeed required what are
called interpolations. But Justinian’s compilers did not have a general man-
date to rewrite the classical texts. Their instructions gave them limited pow-
ers. Whether a particular text has been altered and, if so, how is a question to
be considered in the light of these instructions.
The evidence for the genuineness of certain works attributed to Ulpian will
now be set out, beginning with the major commentaries. The number of each
book, and the number of lines in it that have been preserved in Justinian’s
Digest, as set out in Lenel’s Palingenesia, are first listed. Then follow some of
the words and phrases typical of Ulpian that are found in that book. I have
chosen mainly connective words and phrases that occur fairly frequently in
Ulpian’s work and that owe little to the legal context. The number of times
they occur in each book is not mentioned in this chapter but can be ascer-
tained from Table I, read with the relevant footnote in chapter 2 and, if nec-
essary, the relevant fiche in Honoré–Menner (1980) or the relevant entry in
2 3 C Tanta (16 Dec 533) 1

Ch.10
10 n.8–94
4 C Deo 5
D Auctore (15 Dec 530) 4, 8, 9; C Tanta 10, 15 C Tanta 10
VIR. Examples of Ulpianic words and phrases were multiplied in the first edi-
tion. This edition is more selective.
The meaning of the word or phrase relied on as an indication of Ulpian’s
authorship is explained in chapter 2. For example, inde refers to the conjunc-
tion meaning ‘hence’, not the adverb meaning ‘thence’. Again proinde refers
to the word in the meaning ‘and so’, not to its use in a phrase such as proinde
ac si where it means ‘just (as if)’. The reader should bear in mind that some
expressions such as proinde (‘and so’) and quid tamen si (‘but what if?’) are so
often found in Ulpian and so rarely in other legal authors, that even standing
alone they point to genuineness.
I. THE MAJOR COMMENTARIES
1. On the Edict (81 books)
Book and lines

1 (148) accipe; accipere debemus
2 (111) et refert; sunt accipienda; eo loci; ut puta
3 (183) proinde; quaestionis est; et non puto; et puto; accipimus; cessabunt; eleganter
4 (369) per contrarium; solemus dicere; et magis est; est constitutum; erit dicendum;
eleganter; aequissimum est; ut puta
5 (213) per contrarium; accipe; accipiemus; accipere debemus; accipimus; cessabit;
est responsum; in ea sunt causa; ut puta
6 (374) et mihi videtur; et generaliter; idcircoque; parvi refert; est rescriptum; est
aequissimum; accipe; accipiemus; accipere debemus; accipimus; saepissime; ut puta
7 (72) et puto; aequissimum putavit; accipimus
8 (81) nec non; accipe; accipere debemus; erit dicendum
9 (268) et ait; quid tamen si; admittimus; nec ferendus est; erit dandum; erit audien-
dus; erit dicendum; ut puta
10 (361) quid tamen si; et ego puto; et midi videtur; et generaliter; et ait; nec non; spec-
tamus; aequissimum erit; sunt accipienda; accipe; est constitutum; erit danda; erit
dicendum; eleganter; ut puta
11 (1001) proinde; et non puto; ego arbitror; credo; finge enim; quid tamen si; et magis
est; per contrarium; et refert; et generaliter; et ait; habet rationem; spectamus; est con-
stitutum; est rescriptum; erit dandum; erit dicendum; erit accipiendum, cessabit;
accipere debemus; accipimus; saepissime; eleganter; perraro; ut puta
12 (343) proinde; et generaliter; et puto; ego puto; et ait; nec non; finge enim; est
rescriptum; accipimus; erit accipienda; cessabit; aequissimum erat; saepissime; ut puta
13 (423) proinde; inde; et puto; quid tamen si; finge enim; habet rationem; aequissi-
mum erit; est constitutum; accipe; in ea causa non est; eleganter; saepissime; eo loci;
ut puta
14 (393) proinde; inde; et puto; ego puto; parvi refert; meminisse oportebit; cessabit;
erit dicendum; accipiemus; accipere debemus; saepissime; ut puta
15 (631) proinde; quid tamen si; et non puto; finge enim; et dicendum erit; sed enim;
parvi refert; aequissimum est/erit; dubio procul; accipiemus; accipies; erit dicendum;
ut puta
16 (369) proinde; et puto; et ait; sed enim; finge enim; erit accipienda; erit dicendum;
ut puta
17 (343) et puto; per contrarium; et ait; accipere debemus; erit dicendum
18 (660) proinde; inde; et ego puto; et generaliter; et ait; habet rationem; parvi refert;
aequissimum erit; erit danda; erit dicendum; cessabit; accipiemus; accipere debemus;
eo loci; ut puta
19 (377) et generaliter; et puto; ego arbitror; et ait; eleganter; ut puta
20 (100) habet rationem; cessabit; erit dicendum; eleganter; ut puta
21 (35) accipere debemus
22 (396) proinde; ego puto; et ait; habet rationem; consequenter dicemus; consequens
erit dicere; aequissimum est; erit accipiendum, accipere debemus; in ea causa est; ut
puta
23 (402) proinde; ego puto; quaestionis est; et finge; et est relatum; et ait; accipere
debemus; accipimus; erit dicendum
24 (315) proinde; inde; ego arbitror; et ait; nec non; erit dicendum; aequissimum est;
accipere debemus; accipimus; eleganter; eo loci; ut puta
25 (393) quid tamen si; et generaliter; ego puto; credo; finge enim; quaestionis est; et
ait; habet rationem; erit dandum; aequissimum visum est; cessabit; accipere debemus;
saepissime; ut puta
26 (404) proinde; quaestionis est; quid tamen si; et puto; et refert; quid tamen si; accip-
imus; non est ferendus; ut puta
27 (283) proinde; quid tamen si; et puto; et magis est; et generaliter; cessabit; eo loci;
ut puta
28 (678) proinde; quid tamen si; finge enim; et puto; ego puto; et est dubitatum; et
generaliter; et ait; nec non; parvi refert; admittimus; est constitutum; est rescriptum;
meminisse oportebit; aequissimum erit; accipiemus; accipere debemus; accipimus; erit
dicendum; cessabit; aequissimum est; ut puta
29 (1296) proinde; est quaestionis; quid tamen si; finge enim; si mihi proponas; et mihi
videtur; et puto; ego puto; et ait; nec non; habet rationem; parvi refert; spectamus; erit
probandum; erit dicendum; cessabit; est aequissimum; accipere debemus; accipimus;
in ea causa est; est constitutum; si mihi proponas; eleganter; ut puta
30 (400) proinde; inde; et arbitror; ego arbitror; et magis est; et constat; et ait; sole-
mus dicere; aequissimum erit; erit dicendum; eleganter; ut puta
31 (633) proinde; inde; quid tamen si; finge enim; et non puto; per contrarium; et ait;
idcircoque; verumtamen; quid tamen si; spectamus; aequissimum erit; est constitu-
tum; erit probandum; habet rationem; cessabit; erit dicendum; parvi refert; con-
sequenter dicemus; ut puta
32 (772) proinde; quid tamen si; et putem; et puto; ego puto; credo; et arbitror; per
contrarium; et est relatum; et ait; verumtamen; habet rationem; ostendimus; solemus
dicere; erit dicendum; est aequissimum; erit accipiendum; accipere debemus; in ea
condicione est; eleganter; ut puta
33 (222) et puto; et constat; nec ferenda est; est rescriptum; dubio procul
34 (447) quaestionis est; et magis est; et putem; et magis puto; credo; et mihi videtur;
per contrarium; et ait; meminisse oportet; consequenter dicemus; aequissimum erit;
accipere debemus; saepissime; eleganter; ut puta
35 (779) proinde; et putem; et puto; et magis est; et generaliter; nec non; erit dubita-
tio; et ait; verumtamen; ostendimus; parvi refert; aequissimum erit; accipere debemus;
accipimus; cessabit; consequenter dicemus; consequens erit dicere; erit dicendum; in ea
condicione est; ut puta
36 (490) proinde; quid tamen si; et magis est; ego puto; et puto; et arbitror; per con-
trarium; et exstat; et generaliter; et ait; idcircoque; verumtamen; non tantum . . . verum
etiam; nulla dubitatio est; parvi refert; ostendimus; aequissimum erit; erit accipien-
dum; saepissime; ut puta
37 (233) proinde; et putem; et ego puto; parvi refert; nec ferendus est; ut puta
38 (345) proinde; quid tamen si; et magis est; et generaliter; sed et si . . . aeque; mem-
inisse oportebit; aequissimum est; accipere debemus; accipimus; cessabit; erit dicen-
dum; saepissime; eleganter
39 (288) proinde; et arbitror; et mihi videtur; credo; et magis est; idcircoque; verum-
tamen; nulla dubitatio est; solemus dicere; non tantum . . . verum etiam; aequissimum
est/erit; accipiemus; accipere debemus; erit dicendum; in ea causa est
40 (626) proinde; et ego puto; credo; et magis est; et ait; verumtamen; non tantum
. . . verum etiam; sed et si . . . aeque; nulla dubitatio est; admittimus; aequissimum
est/erit; erit dicendum; cessabit; consequenter dicemus; non est in ea causa; saepissime;
ut puta
41 (491) proinde; quid tamen si; et magis est; per contrarium; et generaliter; idcir-
coque; habet rationem; parvi refert; spectamus; admittimus; non tantum . . .verum
etiam; est aequissimum; accipere debemus; erit dicendum; ut puta
42 (84) et magis est; erit dicendum; spectamus
43 (72) aequissimum est; ut puta
44 (239) proinde; et magis est; et arbitror; et puto; et mihi videtur; et ait; idcircoque;
verumtamen; accipere debemus; accipimus; erit audiendus; erit probandum; ut puta
45 (267) proinde; et non puto; et generaliter; verumtamen; non tantum . . . verum
etiam; nulla dubitatio est; spectamus; aequissimum visum est; erit dicendum; con-
sequens erit dicere; in ea causa est; in ea condicione est; ut puta
46 (195) verumtamen; ostendimus; admittimus/admittemus; non tantum . . . verum
etiam; erit accipiendum; accipere debemus; accipiemus; in ea condicione est; ut puta
47 (40) verumtamen; sed enim
48 (36) nulla dubitatio est; accipiemus; accipere debemus; consequens erit dicere; ut
puta
49 (138) proinde; et magis est; et generaliter; nulla dubitatio est; habet rationem; ut
puta
50 (652) proinde; et ego puto; et non puto; et magis est; et ait; quaestionis est/fuit; illud
sciendum est; parvi refert; est aequissimum; accipere debemus; accipimus; erit dicen-
dum; in ea causa est; eleganter; perquam; eo loci; ut puta
51 (71) illud sciendum est; aequissimum est; ut puta
52 (422) proinde; inde; et puto; et magis est; et ait; nec non; sed et si . . . aeque; mem-
inisse oportebit; et generaliter; non tantum . . . verum etiam; aequissimum erit;
accipere debemus; accipimus; eo loci
53 (622) proinde; inde; per contrarium; ego puto; et puto; et putem; et magis est; et
extat; et generaliter; et ait; idcircoque; non tantum . . . verum etiam; habet rationem;
aequissimum erit; accipe; accipiendum erit, erit probandum; erit dicendum;
spectabimus; cessabit; eleganter; ut puta
54 (87) sed enim; erit dicendum; ut puta
55 (175) proinde; et putem; et puto; et generaliter; parvi refert; accipiemus; accipere
debemus; accipimus; cessabit; non est in ea causa; ut puta
56 (424) proinde; et non puto; et ego puto; et magis est; et generaliter; sed enim; sed
et si . . . aeque; spectamus; admittimus; dicere solemus; accipiemus; accipere debemus;
accipimus; consequens erit dicere; erit probandum; cessabit; in ea causa est; in ea
condicione est; ut puta
57 (517) proinde; est quaestionis; et est rescriptum; et ait; nulla dubitatio est; parvi
refert; solemus dicere; meminisse oportebit; non tantum . . . verum etiam; aequissi-
mum erit; accipere debemus; accipmus; erit probandum; consequens erit dicere; non
est in ea causa; saepissime; ut puta
58 (72) et ait; idcircoque; accipiemus; accipere debemus; consequens erit dicere; in ea
condicione sunt
59 (209) proinde; et generaliter; ego puto; et puto; et ait; illud sciendum est; specta-
mus; solemus dicere; habet rationem; accipere debemus; erit probandum; erit dicen-
dum; cessabit; consequens erit dicere; perquam; in ea erit causa
60 (239) proinde; et puto; et magis est; sed et si . . . aeque; nec non; illud sciendum est;
habet rationem; non tantum . . . verum etiam; accipiemus; erit probandum; erit dicen-
dum; cessabit; consequens erit dicere; in ea causa est; eo loci
61 (158) proinde; et generaliter; accipimus; erit dicendum; in ea causa est; ut puta
62 (158) proinde; est quaesitum; ego puto; et ait; debemus accipere; erit dicendum
63 (117) sed enim; aequissimum est; accipimus; cessabit; ut puta
64 (166) et putem; et non puto; illud sciendum est; nec ferendus est; est aequissimum;
erit accipiendum; erit probandum; perraro; ut puta
65 (45) —
66 (125) proinde; si mihi proponas; et ait; illud sciendum est; accipere debemus; erit
danda; non est in ea causa; in ea condicione est; ut puta
67 (141) nec non; est quaesitum; aequissimum visum est; accipere debemus; accip-
imus; erit probandum; erit dicendum; cessabit
68 (666) proinde; inde; et puto; et putem; et generaliter; dubio procul; solemus dicere;
aequissimum erit; accipimus; erit probandum; cessabit; consequens erit dicere; eo loci;
ut puta
69 (459) proinde; est quaesitum; ego puto; et ait; et generaliter; nec non; idcircoque;
nulla dubitatio est; fuit aequissimum; accipimus; consequenter dicemus; ut puta
70 (635) proinde; inde; et ego puto; credo; et magis est; et extat; et refert; et ait; et gen-
eraliter; idcircoque; sed enim; illud sciendum est; non tantum . . . verum etiam; aequi-
ssimum erit/est; accipe; accipimus; erit dandum; erit dicendum; erit probandum; in ea
causa est; in ea condicione est; eo loci; ut puta
71 (924) proinde; est quaesitum; ego arbitror; ego puto; ego putem; et mihi videtur; et
magis est; et exstat; et est relatum; et generaliter; et ait; idcircoque; illud sciendum est;
parvi refert; spectamus; admittimus; meminisse oportet; non tantum . . . verum etiam;
accipe; accipimus; consequens erit dicere; erit probandum; erit dicendum; in ea causa
est; saepissime; ut puta
72 (75) et puto; ego puto
73 (273) proinde; et putem; et puto; et magis est; verumtamen; habet rationem; est
constitutum; non tantum . . . verum etiam; accipimus; erit probandum; consequens
erit dicere; saepissime; perquam; ut puta
74 (168) proinde; ego puto; et ait; illud sciendum est; solemus dicere; aequissimum est;
accipere debemus; in ea erit causa; ut puta
75 (148) proinde; quaestionis est; si proponas mihi; et putem; et ait; et generaliter; erit
probandum; consequens erit dicere; in ea condicione est; ut puta
76 (483) proinde; et putem; et ego puto; si mihi proponas; et magis est; et refert; et gen-
eraliter; et ait; verumtamen; illud sciendum est; parvi refert; aequissimum est; erit
probandum; erit dicendum; consequens erit dicere; saepissime; ut puta
77 (201) quid tamen si; et magis est; illud sciendum est; accipiemus; accipere debemus;
consequens erit dicere; ut puta
78 (13) —
79 (467) proinde; et putem; et puto; ego puto; et generaliter; et ait; nec non; verumta-
men; sed enim; illud sciendum est; habet rationem; non tantum . . . verum etiam; aeq-
uissimum est; accipiemus; accipimus; erunt dicenda; consequens erit dicere; cessabit;
perquam; ut puta
80 (86) ego puto; et ait; ut puta
81 (181) et ait; ego puto; accipimus; consequens erit dicere; ut puta
All the books except 65 and 78 contain some typical word or expression. On
average one can expect one of these chosen words or expressions every thirty or
so lines, though there are naturally variations: the forty-five lines from book 65
do not have any. Despite its general consistency over the whole eighty-one
books, there are points at which Ulpian’s phrasing and vocabulary varies in the
course of the edictal commentary. These points, which provide clues to his cho-
sen method and rate of composition, are discussed in chapter 7.6 The abiding
6
Ch.7 n.101–19
impression is however consistency. Thus, ut puta (‘for example’) occurs in sixty

different books of the edictal commentary, proinde (‘and so’) in forty-eight, et
ait . . . (‘and so-and-so says’) in thirty-nine. The tone is remarkably even.
2. On Sabinus (51 books)
Much the same is true of Ulpian’s other major commentary, which concerns
civil, as opposed to praetorian law. Here, too, the coherence of style is striking.
Book and lines

1 (185) per contrarium; et magis puto; nec non; accipias; ut puta
2 (81) et puto; ut puta
3 (100) et puto; quid tamen si; ut puta
4 (180) si/nisi mihi proponas; ego puto; habet rationem; ostendimus; solemus dicere;
in ea condicione est; ut puta
5 (141) sed et si . . . aeque; ut puta
6 (138) proinde; ego puto; erit probandum; erit accipiendum; ut puta
7 (169) quid tamen si; fuit quaestionis; ut puta
8 (156) ego non puto; per contrarium; est rescriptum; accipe; accipias; ut puta
9 (56) quid tamen si; est rescriptum; accipe; erit dicendum
10 (123) proinde; quid tamen si; et non puto; et credo; est constitutum; in ea causa
sunt; saepissime; ut puta
11 (7) —
12 (165) proinde; et magis est; est rescriptum; accipere debemus; erit dicendum; ut puta
13 (286) quid tamen si; et puto; parvi refert; admittimus; accipere debemus; accip-
imus; erit accipiendum; erit dicendum; ut puta
14 (178) inde; et putem; et puto; et magis est; admittimus; accipere debemus; erit
dicendum; ut puta
15 (111) proinde; quaestionis non est; et ait; est rescriptum
16 (37) —
17 (622) proinde; fuit quaestionis; quid tamen si; et puto; ego puto; nec non; per con-
trarium; et parvi refert; et ait; habet rationem; non tantum . . . verum etiam; erit dicen-
dum; et erit procedendum; eleganter; ut puta
18 (398) proinde; inde; nec non; quaestionis est; quid tamen si; finge enim; et ego puto;
et generaliter; et ait; ostendimus; accipe; accipimus; erit dicendum; ut puta
19 (153) proinde; per contrarium; et puto; ego puto; et ait; verumtamen; cessabit
20 (462) proinde; inde; et magis arbitror; et puto; ego puto; et ait; ego arbitror; spec-
tamus; solemus dicere; habet rationem; accipimus; erit dicendum; ut puta
21 (244) proinde; et puto; credo; ego arbitror; sed et si . . .aeque; est rescriptum; accip-
imus; erit accipiendum; erit dicendum; ut puta
22 (256) proinde; credo; et ego arbitror; parvi refert; accipiendum erit; ut puta
23 (324) proinde; inde; fuit quaestionis; quid tamen si; et puto; et refert; et ait; sed
enim; parvi refert; solemus dicere; meminisse oportet; consequenter dicemus; erit
dicendum
24 (294) proinde; inde; quid tamen si; finge enim; si mihi proponas; et non puto; et ait;
est rescriptum; erit dicendum; aequissimum; saepissime; eleganter; ut puta
25 (202) proinde; quid tamen si; et putamus; et puto; ego arbitror; et magis est; per
contrarium; et ait; aequissimum erit; accipimus; cessabit; ut puta
26 (139) proinde; per contrarium; et puto
27 (208) proinde; inde; quid tamen si; et puto; credo; sed et si . . .aeque; et parvi refert;
ut puta
28 (426) proinde; inde; quaestionis est; quid tamen si; et puto; ego arbitror; et gener-
aliter; et ait; sed et si . . .aeque; parvi refert; ostendimus; accipimus; erit accipiendum;
erit probandum; consequenter dicemus; eleganter; ut puta
29 (323) inde; per contrarium; et puto; nec non; verumtamen; non est in ea causa;
saepissime; eleganter; eo loci
30 (231) quid tamen si; si mihi proponas; et puto; et ait; accipere debemus; cessabit;
erit dicendum; eleganter; ut puta
31 (315) proinde; et putem; et non puto; ego puto; ego arbitror; habet rationem;
accipere debemus; cessabit
32 (443) proinde; quid tamen si; si mihi proponas; et magis est; et magis puto; per con-
trarium; et ait; nulla dubitatio est; illud sciendum est; habet rationem; consequenter
dicemus; eleganter; ut puta
33 (226) proinde; quid tamen si; et putem; et magis puto; et generaliter; spectamus/
spectabimus; admittimus; accipere debemus; erit dicendum; ut puta
34 (128) inde; et puto; et generaliter; ut puta
35 (68) et puto; est rescriptum; accipimus
36 (208) proinde; et magis est; et non puto; et ego non dubito; credo; verumtamen;
admittimus; ferendum non est; accipiemus; erit accipiendum; eleganter; ut puta
37 (64) et ait; nulla dubitatio est; admittimus; in ea causa est
38 (97) proinde; et non puto; non tantum . . . verum etiam
39 (41) proinde; in ea condicione est; erit dicendum
40 (150) proinde; sed enim; sed et si . . . aeque; est rescriptum; in ea causa est; ut puta
41 (320) proinde; inde; et magis est; et non puto; per contrarium; et generaliter; et ait;
verumtamen; sed enim; nulla dubitatio est; et parvi refert; eleganter; eo loci; ut puta
42 (278) proinde; per contrarium; ego puto; et non dubito; et ait; verumtamen;
accipere debemus; accipimus; ut puta
43 (229) proinde; ego non dubito; et magis est; et ait; spectamus; habet rationem; aeq-
uissimum visum est; erit dicendum; consequens erit dicere; eleganter
44 (157) et ego puto; et non dubito; sed enim; meminisse oportebit; in ea condicione
sunt
(45) —
46 (151) et ait; erit dicendum; ut puta
47 (165) et parvi refert; et generaliter; cessabit
48 (203) proinde; per contrarium; et putem; et puto; erit probandum; erit dicendum;
accipimus; in ea causa est; ut puta
49 (309) et putem; et ego puto; et ego arbitror; solemus dicere; et magis est; et ait;
habet rationem; aequissimum videtur; erit dicendum; consequens erit dicere; in ea erit
causa; ut puta
50 (115) et puto; et generaliter; sed et si . . .aeque; consequens erit dicere; ut puta
51 (45) ut puta
The authenticity of Ulpian’s On Sabinus is not in doubt. The style is again
consistent. Thus, ut puta occurs in thirty-four books, proinde in twenty-seven,
and et ait . . . in seventeen. The typical expressions occur a bit less frequently
than in On the Edict, on average one in every thirty-four lines. Books 11, 16,
and 45 with seven, thirty-seven, and thirty-five lines respectively, lack the
chosen marks of the author’s style. But in general terms the excerpts from
books 16 (four uses of the future: locum habebit; repetetur; erit . . . necessar-
ius; valebit) and 45 (erit consequens; quid ergo si; et verum est) conform to his
manner.
II. THE MEDIUM-SCALE WORKS
There is good evidence for the authenticity of the treatises in ten and twenty
books: The Proconsul (De officio proconsulis), Disputations (Disputationes),
Tribunals (De omnibus tribunalibus), and The Julio-Papian Law (Ad legem
Iuliam et Papiam).
3. The Proconsul (10 books)

Book and lines
1 (74) dummodo sciat; elegantissime; perquam
2 (87) dicendum erit
3 (60) nulla dubitatio est; in ea est causa
4 (69) sed enim; accipere debemus; in ea sunt condicione
5 (37) —
6 (24) —
7 (170) et putem; et scio; saepissime
8 (288) proinde; et exstat; et ait; sed enim; sed et si . . . aeque; non tantum . . . verum
etiam; saepissime
9 (207) proinde; et magis est; sed enim; idcircoque; nulla dubitatio est; ut puta
10 (195) per contrarium; et magis puto; nec non; credo; sed enim; accipere debemus;
meminisse oportebit; erit probandum; consequenter dicemus; perquam; eo loci; ut
puta
Books 5 and 6, with thirty-seven and twenty-four lines respectively, lack the
chosen marks of Ulpian’s style, but the other books contain enough to show
that Ulpian is the author. There is on average a typical word or expression
every thirty-three lines. This innovative treatise displays great political wis-
dom. Though Schulz says that the style departs from the classical,7 the words
and phrases he lists do not bear him out.
4. Disputations (10 books)
Book and lines

1 (129) per contrarium; accipere debemus
2 (210) proinde; quaestionis est; et magis est; et mihi videtur; ego arbitror; aequissi-
mum est; cessabit; consequenter dicemus; in ea condicione est; ut puta
3 (198) et puto; nec non; sed enim; est rescriptum; nec ferendus est; erit dicendum;
saepissime; ut puta
4 (372) proinde; et ego puto; et puto; et arbitror; credo; et refert; idcircoque; verum-
tamen; ostendimus; est constitutum; aequissimum est; erunt accipienda; consequenter
dicemus; saepissime; in ea sunt condicione; ut puta
5 (278) proinde; nisi mihi proponas; sed enim; dubio procul; aequissimum erit;
accipere debemus; accipimus; in ea condicione est; erit dicendum
6 (162) proinde; et puto; cessabit; in ea condicione est; ut puta
7 (253) proinde; et credo; et puto; aequissimum est; erit dicendum; ut puta
8 (304) proinde; et putem; et puto; et magis arbitror; et magis est; per contrarium;
sed enim; est constitutum; est rescriptum; erit dicendum; eleganter
9 (13) erit accipiendum
10 (9) —
Book 10, with nine lines of excerpt, contains no chosen mark of Ulpian’s
style. The other books all do. Beseler stated dogmatically that this work was
not by Ulpian.8 Schulz argued that the text reached the compilers much
altered by post-classical editing. Beseler’s commented that ‘this for practical
purposes comes to much the same thing for the legal historian’.9 But the sur-
viving excerpts contain the Ulpianic phrases listed above and the mode of
reasoning found in it is typical.10 The texts are largely genuine, and conform
7
Schulz (1946) 245. That D 47.11.9 (9 off. proc.) is not Ulpian’s because it concerns only
Arabia, an imperial province, is a mistake: ut puta points to the text being genuine. Imperial
provinces were included in the work on the proconsul.
8
Beseler (1925) 2251; (1930) 190: (1936) 1.313 9
Schulz (1946) 240
10
Ch.2 n.30, 72, 106, 114, 154, 244, 318, 326, 336, 410, 426, 433, 511, etc.; Mayer-Maly (1961) 568
in style to the rest of Ulpian’s work, given that oral debate on points of law
conducted in public has its own conventions. Indeed we find on average a typ-
ical word or expression once in every twenty-eight lines, which is above aver-
age. Any passages and phrases that Justinian’s compilers have altered must
be winkled out one by one.
5. Tribunals (10 books)
Book and lines

1 (77) non tantum . . .verum etiam; perraro
2 (58) et puto; nulla dubitatio est; nec ferendus est; accipimus; admittemus
3 (18) —
4 (61) et magis est; est rescriptum; consequens erit dicere
5 (183) finge enim; et non puto; et puto; per contrarium; aequissimum erit; cessabit;
erit dicendum; ut puta
6 (0) —
7 (0) —
8 (100) proinde; et non putem; nec non; est rescriptum; accipere debemus; accip-
imus; eo loci; ut puta
9 (9) —
10 (0) —
The five books that lack marks of style have no or few lines of text. The
remaining books have enough to show that Ulpian is the author. Indeed the
work yields a typical word or expression on average once every twenty-five
lines.
6. The Julio-Papian Law (20 books)
Book and lines

1 (99) proinde; ego puto; et magis est; non tantum . . .verum etiam; accipiemus;
accipere debemus; accipimus
2 (26) et puto
3 (96) proinde; meminisse oportet; accipere debemus; accipimus; erit probandum; in
ea condicione est
4 (30) et magis est; nulla dubitatio est
5 (13) —
6 (25) consequenter dicemus
7 (43) sed et si . . . aeque; erit dandum; accipimus
8 (37) nec non; erit dicendum; ut puta
9 (6) —
10 (29) verumtamen; saepissime

11 (47) erit dicendum
12 (0) —
15 (12) meminisse oportebit; erit accipiendum
16 (7) —
17 (0) —
18 (40) nec non; nec ferenda est; accipere debemus
19 (5) —
20 (9) —
No less than seven books out of twenty lack the chosen marks of style, but
from none of them do more than thirteen lines survive. There are enough typ-
ical words and phrases in the remaining thirteen books to show that this
large-scale commentary is authentic Ulpian. Indeed there is on average a
characteristic word or expression every eighteen lines.
III. LESSER WORKS
The two major commentaries and the four medium-scale works attributed to
Ulpian are, we have seen, coherent in style and can be accepted as substantially
genuine. The same is not true of all the minor works that stand in his name in
Justinian’s Digest or the Florentine Index. Some are demonstrably genuine.
Others are consistent in style with Ulpian’s authorship and, given that they are
attributed to him, are likely to be genuine. For some the evidence is so scanty
that no conclusion can be drawn from the texts on their own. Any inference of
genuineness rests on the inscriptions in the Digest or the attribution in the
Florentine Index alone. Others, to judge from the textual evidence, are spurious.
Ulpian’s work on trusts falls in the genuine class.
7. Trusts (6 books)
Book and lines

1 (105) proinde; accipere debemus; erit dicendum
2 (294) proinde; et magis arbitror; et credo; et puto; non tantum . . . verum etiam; erit
dicendum; erit accipiendum; ut puta
3 (159) inde; et mihi videtur; et refert; et est decretum; sed et si . . . aeque
4 (329) proinde; inde; finge autem; ego puto; credo; et generaliter; sed et si . . . aeque;
aequissimum erit; meminisse oportebit; erit audiendus; erit dicendum; consequens erit
dicere; eleganter
5 (404) proinde; quaestionis est; et putem; et exstat; et est rescriptum; ostendimus; est
constitutum; est rescriptum; aequissimum erit; erit dicendum; in ea causa est/sunt;
saepissime; eleganter; ut puta
6 (112) quid tamen si; et magis est; et non puto; eo loci; ut puta
There is evidence of authenticity from all six books. On average a typical
phrase or word comes every twenty-eight lines.
8. Taxation (6 books)
Books and lines

1 (30) —
2 (18) perraro
3 (40) saepissime
4 (6) —
5 (2) —
6 (0) —
The stylistic argument for the genuineness of this six-book work rests on the
presence in book 1 of the et est . . . construction (e.g. est et Palmyrena civitas
. . .), which occurs five times,11 and the superlatives splendidissima, antiquis-
sima, and tenacissima.12 In book 2 recte expressum est, referring to a rescript
of Caracalla, exhibits a form of condescension peculiar to Ulpian.13 The forty
lines of excerpts from book 3 contain two characteristic marks. But the bulk
of this passage appears to be taken from the regulations for compiling the
census ( forma census). Taken as a whole the evidence that this work is
authentic is adequate. It is indeed from it that we learn of Ulpian’s connec-
tion with Tyre,14 which is confirmed by an inscription.15
9. Adultery (5 books)
Books and lines:
1 (46) finge autem; erit accipiendum
2 (200) proinde; quid tamen si; ego arbitror; ego credo; et putem; et puto; et gener-
aliter; accipimus; non est in ea causa; ut puta
3 (79) quid tamen si; nulla dubitatio est; admittimus; ut puta
4 (120) et non puto; verumtamen; sed et si . . . aeque; nulla dubitatio est; accipere
debemus; eo loci
5 (26) proinde; accipere debemus; accipimus
All five books speak to authenticity. A typical word or phrase occurs on aver-
age every twenty lines.
11 D 50.15.1.2, 3, 5, 10, 11 (1 cens.) 12 D 50.15.1 pr (1 cens.); ch.2 n.654–66
13 Ch.2 n.470 14 D 50.15.1 pr (Ulp. 1 cens.) 15 AE 1988.1051
10. Appeals (4 books)
Books and lines

1 (188) proinde; et putem; et puto; et magis est; accipimus; in ea causa est; erit proban-
dum; saepissime; ut puta
2 (10) credo
3 (2) —
4 (76) illud sciendum est; et generaliter; erit probandum
Books 1 and 4 contain ample marks of Ulpian’s style and the authorship of
the treatise is not in doubt.
11. The Consul (3 books)
Books and lines:

1 (55) et magis est; accipere debemus; perquam; ut puta
2 (218) et magis puto; et magis est; nec non; idcircoque; meminisse oportet; non tan-
tum . . . verum etiam; accipiemus; accipere debemus; cessabunt
3 (136) et non puto; et magis est; sed et si . . . aeque; aequissimum erit; cessabunt
All three books point to Ulpian’s authorship. There is on average something

typical every 24 lines.
12. The Market-Masters’ Edict (2 books)
Books and lines:

1 (749) proinde; ego puto; et puto; per contrarium; et exstat; et ait; sed enim; illud sci-
endum est; aequissimum erit; accipe; accipiemus; accipere debemus; accipias; cessabit;
erit dicendum; ut puta
2 (104) non tantum . . . verum etiam; ut puta
The linguistic evidence of authenticity is adequate, though on average a typi-

cal word or phrase occurs only once every forty-five lines.
13. Teaching Manual (2 books)
Books and lines:

1 (99) eleganter; ut puta
2 (70) aequissimum putavit
To the Digest excerpts from book 2 have been added forty-three lines from
the Collatio, and Lenel prints some other fragmentary lines from outside the
Digest. The linguistic evidence of genuineness is adequate (e.g. est appellatum;
et est simile; est autem manumissio; aequitate motus) though the number of
typical words and phrases is small.
14. The Aelio-Sentian Law (4 books)
Books and lines

1 (3) —
2 (14) proinde; meminisse oportet
3 (0) —
4 (20) dubio procul
Given the paucity of lines, the words and phrases set out support the gen-
uineness of this work.
Three one-book monographs can be classed on linguistic grounds as genuine.
15. The Community Treasurer (1 book)
Book and lines

1 (67) proinde; accipimus; ut puta
16. The Praetor for Guardianship (1 book)
Book and lines

1 (339) proinde; nisi mihi proponas; ego puto; et puto; nec ferendus est; accipiemus;
sunt accipienda
To the nineteen lines from the Digest are added some 320, often fragmentary,
from the Vatican Fragments. The authenticity of the work is not in doubt, for
it contains a number of Ulpianic words and phrases apart from those listed.
The frequency of the listed words and phrases, one every forty-eight lines, is,
however, on the low side. The work is a second edition of Ulpian’s early work
on Excuses (below no. 18).16
17. The Urban Prefect (1 book)
Book and lines

1 (72) accipiemus; erit audiendus
The presence of these two marks of Ulpian’s style supports the claim of this
work to be genuine.
16 Liebs (1997) §424.10

This brings to an end the list of works that can be attributed to Ulpian on
grounds of style alone.
18. Excuses (1 book)
Book and lines

1 (214) et extant; accipienda est
To the eight lines from Justinian’s Digest must be added some 206 from the
Vatican Fragments, some as fragmentary as the traditional name suggests.
The linguistic arguments for the genuineness of this work are inconclusive.
The general impression created by the texts is, however, consistent with
Ulpian’s manner. Thus quia est iniquum followed by the accusative and
infinitive is a striking inversion.17 Habent excusationem,18 habent immuni-
tatem,19 and habent vacationem 20 instead of excusationem/immunitatem/
vacationem habent conform to the word-order he favours.21 Non com-
putabitur 22 is a use of the future also found in Ulpian’s On Sabinus.23 Scio
dubitatum . . . invenio tamen24 illustrates a form of reasoning that has paral-
lels in his other works.25 Hence Excuses falls in the second class of works
mentioned above. It is consistent with Ulpian’s authorship but does not
point unequivocally to it. Schulz argued that it was not a work of Ulpian.26
But three texts in it reappear virtually unchanged in The Praetor for
Guardianship (no.16 above),27 so that its genuineness does not depend on
internal evidence alone. When the whole evidence is taken into account, it
can be classed as genuine. But it is an early work, composed before the death
of Septimius Severus,28 and before the author’s style had fully matured. The
Praetor for Guardianship is a second edition of Excuses, composed about
215.29
17 Frag. Vat. 153 cf. non est iniquum followed by accusative and infinitive (D 43.29.3.13, Ulp.
71 ed.)
18 Frag. Vat. 124; D 27.1.8.9 (Mod. 3 excus.) cf. Frag. Vat. 142 19 Frag. Vat. 134, 138
20 Frag. Vat. 137 21 e.g. non habet excusationem (D 50.5.13.2, Ulp. 23 ed.)
22 Frag. Vat. 161 cf. D 24.3.7.12 (Ulp. 31 Sab.) 23 D 24.3.7.12 (Ulp. 31 Sab.)
24 D 27.1.15.16 (Mod. 6 excus.)
25 Scio quaesitum (D 49.1.3 pr, 1 appell.; 28.5.35.1, 4 disp.); scio tractatum (43.8.2.33, 68 ed.);
invenio rescriptum (36.1.15.4, 4 fid.), invenio relatum (39.3.1.20, 53 ed.); invenimus rescriptum
(38.17.2.47, 1 Sab.)
26 Schulz (1961) 318–20
27 D 27.1.7 (1 excus.) = Frag. Vat. 185, 240 (1 off. pr. tut.). Frag. Vat. 145 (1 excus.) = part of
Frag. Vat. 222 ( 1 off. pr. tut.). D 27.1.15.16 (1 excus.) is a slightly shortened version of Frag. Vat.
189 (1 off. pr. tut.)
28 Lenel (1889) 2.8991; Liebs (1997) §424.10 29 Ch.7 n.104–12
19. The Quaestor (1 book)
Book and lines

1 (29) —
The presence of indifferenter,30 one of a group of similar adverbs,31 and of the

superlative antiquissima 32 argues for genuineness. So does the word-order ad
animadvertendum facinorosos homines.33 But the linguistic evidence is incon-
clusive. On the basis of language alone Ulpian’s authorship is plausible but
not proven.
In three cases where textual evidence is lacking, no conclusion can be
reached on linguistic grounds alone. Any presumption of genuineness—and
these works are assumed to be genuine in the absence of evidence to the con-
trary—rests on the ascription of the work to Ulpian in the Digest and the
Florentine Index.
20. The Prefect of Police (1 book)
Book and lines

1 (1) —
21. Consular Governors (1 book)
The three lines, though the author does not say so, are taken from a constitu-
tion of Marcus.34 The construction is non-Ulpianic, and, if the source were
not known, would even suggest that the work was spurious. As it is, no con-
clusion can be drawn.
1(3) —
22. Engagement to Marry (1 book)
Book and lines

1 (7) —
From these few lines no conclusion can be drawn.

This list of Ulpian’s writings is not necessarily complete. There is some evid-
ence that he wrote a monograph about the speech of Marcus and Commodus
to the senate on the marriage of guardians to their female wards.
30 D 1.13.1.3 (1 off. quaest.) 31 Ch.2 n.763–8

32 D 1.13.1 pr (1 off. quaest.); ch.2 n.702–22 33 D 2.1.3 (1 quaest.)
34 D 42.5.24.1 (Ulp. 63 ed.)
23. The Speech of Marcus and Commodus (1 book?)
1(?) —
The Digest contains two excerpts from a one-book work by Paul on this sub-
ject.35 The second of them contains a passage strongly reminiscent of Ulpian
(quaestio in eo est . . . et ait Papinianus).36 The first phrase occurs, apart from
this text, only in four texts of Ulpian.37 The et ait . . . formula is found, apart
from this text,38 117 times in Ulpian and only once in Paul.39 The suspicion is
that Paul drew on an earlier work by Ulpian on the same subject. He could
have done so, since he was still active in the reign of Alexander.40
In the upshot, the works that, on the basis of style, are clearly genuine, com-
prise:
On the Edict (81 books)
On Sabinus (51 books)
The Proconsul (10 books)
Disputations (10 books)
Tribunals (10 books)
The Julio-Papian Law (20 books)
Trusts (6 books)
Taxation (6 books)
Adultery (5 books)
Appeals (4 books)
The Aelio-Sentian Law (4 books)
The Consul (3 books)
Teaching Manual (2 books)
The Market-Masters’ Edict (2 books)
The Community Treasurer (1 book)
The Urban Prefect (1 book)
The Praetor for Guardianship (1 book)
The works which are on linguistic grounds consistent with authenticity com-
prise:
Excuses (1 book)
The Quaestor (1 book)
(hypothetically) The Speech of Marcus and Commodus (1 book?)
Those which are neutral from a stylistic point of view, and which can be
assigned to Ulpian only on the basis that the sources make this attribution
and the evidence of the texts does not contradict it, comprise:
35
D 23.2.20; 23.2.60 (Paul 1 or. d. Ant. et Comm.)
36 37 38
D 23.2.60.4 (Paul 1 or. d. Ant. et Comm.) Ch.2 n.155 Ch.2 n.99–102
39 40
Ch.2 n.101–2 D 31.87.3 (14 resp.), 49.1.25 (20 resp.)
The Prefect of Police (1 book)

Consular Governors (1 book)
Engagement to Marry (1 book)
Besides these works Ulpian annotated the Digest (Digesta) of Marcellus41 and
the Replies (Responsa) of Papinian.42 He twice mentions his notes on
Marcellus,43 and three passages from Marcellus in Justinian’s Digest record
a note of Ulpian.44 In a fourth, where the identity of the annotator is not dis-
closed, he is the most likely author.45 These rather critical notes on an author
whom Ulpian admired and used freely in his edictal commentary must belong
to his youth. Ulpian may also have annotated Iavolenus’ Letters (Epistulae).
In a text from these Letters a variation of the facts is introduced with ‘And
what shall we say . . . ?’ (quid enim dicemus . . . ?) and continues ‘we shall not
be in doubt’ (non dubitabimus).46 This last expression is paralleled, apart from
this text, only in an Ulpian text.47 His hand must be suspected, the more so as
the theme he introduces, that good faith might make a difference, is also the
theme of one of his notes on Marcellus.48 Perhaps the manuscript of
Iavolenus that Justinian’s compilers used came from one that had been in
Ulpian’s possession. Ulpian’s technique in these notes is much the same as in
his later writing. He questions whether the same result would follow in law if
the facts were slightly different.
Eight or nine passages in Papinian’s Replies record a note made by
Ulpian.49 These notes were declared invalid by Constantine I to cut short dis-
putes between lawyers and out of respect for Papinian’s eminence.50 Justinian
reinstated them so that he, or in effect Tribonian, could decide whether in a
given instance Papinian’s view was better than that of Paul, Ulpian, or
Marcianus.51 In another text Justinian’s Digest does not say that a passage
from Papinian’s Questions is a note,52 though it clearly is. Lenel thought that
this note might be by Paul or Ulpian. It has a sentence beginning ‘and it has
been laid down’ (et est quidem constitutum), which is characteristic of
Ulpian.53 Ulpian’s notes on Papinian’s Replies and possibly his Questions
41 Lenel (1889) 1.595–620 nos.37, 47, 107, 118, 200; Reggi (1954) 21–86; Wolf (1959) 524–7,
532f.; Liebs (1997) §424.4

42 Lenel (1889) 1.883–926 nos.396, 414.2, 526, 528, 529, 578, 624, 625, 626; Balog (1913)
451–509; H. Krüger (1930) 303–12; Wieacker (1960) 341f.; Santalucia (1965) 99–146; Schulz
(1961) 277–9; Liebs (1997) §424.5
43 D 9.2.41 pr (41 Sab.). 47.10.11.7 (57 ed.)
44 D 20.1.27 (Marc. 5 dig.), 26.7.28.1 (8 dig.), 29.7.9 (9 dig.) 45 D 29.7.19 (Marc. 14 dig.)
46
D 38.5.12 (Iav. 3 epist.); Eckardt (1978) 132f.
47
D 27.8.1.2 (36 ed.) cf. ch.2 n.171 (non dubitamus) in a typically future version
48
D 20.1.27 (Marc. 5 dig.)
49
D 50.8.4 (Pap. 1 resp.), 3.5.30.2 (2 resp.), 37.6.9 = P. Krüger (1881) 86, 88, 89 (all 5 resp.);
Frag. Vat. 66 (7 resp.)?; P. Krüger (1884) 171, 176, 177; D 40.4.50 = P. Krüger (1884) 173, 179
(all 9 resp.)
50 51
CTh 1.4.1 (28 Sept. 321/4) C Deo Auctore 6 (15 Dec 530)
52 53
D 16.3.24 (Pap. 9 quaest.) Ch.2 n.77–81
belong to his maturity, not his youth, since Papinian’s Replies are dated to the
period 206 to 21254 and his Questions to the early or middle 190s.55
Finally we must take note of the 95 rescripts that Ulpian composed for
Septimius Severus between April 203 and May 209.56 These forceful and self-
confident rulings stand comparison with any body of third-century rescripts.
From Ulpian’s point of view, however, they count as an early work.
Moreover, rescripts were written out, not dictated, so that they strike one as
rather more formal than Ulpian’s later works.
54 Liebs (1997) §416 B7 55 Liebs (1997) §416 B5

56
Honoré (1994) 81–6; above ch.1 n.169–227
6
Sources and Scholarship
H O W good a scholar was Ulpian? What first-hand sources did he use? Is his
reputation for lucid and accurate exposition based on the accident that
more of his work has survived than that of other Roman lawyers? Views have
differed.
In 1885 Pernice wrote an article, ‘Ulpian as a Writer’.1 In it he criticized
Ulpian’s works, in particular On the Edict, as unoriginal and unsystematic.
Each bit of the commentary was written in isolation, so that, over the whole
work, the same subject recurred twice or more. The author used arguments of
policy and convenience to support doctrinally wrong solutions. His work was
aimed at judges with little legal expertise. He often cited the views of earlier
lawyers from secondary sources without disclosing that he was doing so. ‘The
aim of this contribution will be achieved’, Pernice concluded, ‘if it succeeds in
putting people on their guard against Ulpian’s writings from various points
of view. When he speaks in his own name he may have copied from others.
When he cites others he does not usually go back to the original source. When
he asserts positive, historical facts without authority his statements must be
taken with the greatest reserve. When he attempts to develop the law on his
own initiative, he lacks for the most part incisiveness and creative power.’2
In 1905 Ulpian found a partial defender in Jörs.3 In his article for
Pauly–Wissowa Jörs came to the rescue so far as the use of sources was con-
cerned. Ulpian had used a wider range of original legal writings than Pernice
allowed for. When he used secondary sources he was following current prac-
tice. But Jörs was not wholehearted. He doubted that the Tyrian had com-
posed the bulk of his works for the first time in the reign of Caracalla. That
would have been impossible in the time available. In particular, adapting a
point made by Mommsen,4 Jörs argued that Edict up to book 52 was drafted
in the reign of Severus and then revised under Caracalla, when the later books
were added. If Ulpian’s repute as a scholar rose from the ashes, his claim to
speed of composition sank.
The views of Pernice and Jörs were influenced by notions drawn from mod-
ern scholarship and, in part, from the intellectual climate of the time. Pernice
failed to see that in the ancient world to cite from secondary sources was often
a necessity. The author has read the original and made notes on it, but does
1 Pernice (1885) 443 2 Pernice (1885) 484 3 Jörs (1903) 5.1435, 1455
4 Ch.7 n.71–86
not have it available at the time of writing. If he does, it is time-consuming to

consult it. Generally papyrus must be unrolled to find the relevant passage
and then rolled up again. To locate a text in a roll interrupts the flow of com-
position. So an author who wants to compose with reasonable speed must use
as the basis of his text a small number of sources that lie open before him as
he writes. He can supplement these with notes from his previous reading.
Even with a well-stocked library, this is the best way to write a large-scale
work.
From the reader’s point of view it was in the ancient world no less difficult
to look up citations. In a voluminous work such as Edict, it was particularly
awkward for the reader to look up passages earlier or later than the one open
before him. Out of consideration for his readers, not scholarly incompetence,
Ulpian wrote each section of edictal commentary, so far as possible, as a self-
contained unit. This involved repetition, and some danger of inconsistency.
The examples cited by Pernice of internal inconsistencies in Ulpian’s work are
quite minor,5 and at times simply show that different interpretations of a term
suit different legal contexts.6 But it is true that Ulpian, though he has a coher-
ent philosophy of law,7 lacks a systematic analytical framework, such as that
of the nineteenth-century pandectists. He does not use general notions to link
together the different branches of the law, or try to deduce particular solu-
tions from these notions. He attempts rather to solve legal problems in a way
that seems appropriate to the context. His solutions aim to be beneficial (utile)
or just (aequum) in the individual case.
Pernice did not appreciate that Ulpian was catering for two types of reader.
The busy judge or assessor or practitioner wants to discover the state of the
law of, say, deposit as quickly as he can. He finds in Edict book 30 a com-
mentary on deposit that includes general topics relevant to the law of deposit
such as fault (dolus, culpa). But fault has to be explained again in the context
of other contracts. The practising lawyer cannot be told to refer back to what
has been said about it in some other context. On the other hand, the scholarly
reader is given ample references to the literature and to imperial laws. These
include, as we shall see, references by work and book to the main sources that
Ulpian consults or summarizes as he writes.
Pernice’s views are based, then, on a misunderstanding of the needs of
Ulpian’s readers. Jörs, on the other hand, underestimated the capacity for work
of scholars in the ancient world and their relative freedom from distraction.
Nowadays it takes weeks or months to write a chapter or article. The ancient
world was simpler. Post arrived sporadically, not every day. Methodical people,
like Ulpian and Tribonian, with secretaries to take dictation, could devote
5
Pernice (1885) 451f.; Jörs (1903) 5.1458
6
e.g. different definitions of credere/creditor ‘lend, creditor’ in D 50.16.12 (6 ed.) and 12.1.1.pr
(26 ed.) and of bona ‘goods’ in D 37.1.3 pr (39 ed.), 36.4.5.6 (52 ed.) and 50.16.49 (59 ed.)
7
Ch.3
128 6. Sources and Scholarship
themselves to their work day after day, week after week. They were expected to
be regular and assiduous. In seeking, then, to assess Jörs’s opinion that Ulpian
could not have written for the first time what he appears to have written under
Caracalla, we must disabuse ourselves of the atmosphere of a modern law
faculty or government office. If Ulpian’s career has been correctly dated in
chapter 1,8 he held the office of secretary for petitions (a libellis) from 202 and
began writing systematically only from 213. He had at least ten years to read
and make notes in the intervals of official duty. He had access to past imperial
rescripts and to recent constitutions. He could arrange excerpts from what he
read under title headings according to the scheme of the praetor’s edict and the
Digests (Digesta) of authors such as Celsus, Julian, and Marcellus. When the
time came to launch the ambitious programme of 213–7 Ulpian needed to do lit-
tle original research. It was enough to return to the main sources and to supple-
ment these from notes, weaving the whole together in a way that was coherent
from the point of view of topic rather overall structure. The sources having been
assembled, he saved time and kept the flow by dictating.9
I. THE MAIN SOURCES
Apart from Labeo and Paul, Ulpian’s main sources are not in doubt, at least
for the major commentaries On the Edict and On Sabinus. He used the
Questions (Quaestiones) and Replies (Responsa) of Papinian, the Digests
(Digesta) of Celsus, Julian, and Marcellus, and the commentaries of
Pomponius On the Edict and On Sabinus. Pernice also listed among main
sources the Questions and Replies of Scaevola.10 There is no evidence, how-
ever, that Ulpian used Scaevola’s Replies, and references to his Questions are
sporadic. Pernice accuses Ulpian of using Scaevola’s Questions without
acknowledgement. But Ulpian tends to generalize what Scaevola presents as
the solution to a problem presented by a particular set of facts.11
Pemice was right, however, to stress that in the major commentaries Ulpian
often took a single source as the main basis of his exposition of a topic. Thus
on false guardians12 Ulpian relies mainly on Pomponius. For possession
against the terms of a will13 he follows Marcellus. On the Lex Aquilia14 Celsus
is the leading source. On legacy of usufruct or use15 Julian is the model, with
supplements from Celsus and Marcellus. Deposit16 draws on Pomponius,
Julian, and Marcellus. In many titles On the Edict and On Sabinus the author
seems to use a selection of these sources and passes from one to the other as
occasion prompts.
9 10
Hagendahl (1971), Schlumberger (1976) Pernice (1885) 459
11
Compare D 46.3.27 (Ulp. 28 ed.) with 45.1.131.1 (Scaev. 13 quaest.)
12
Quod falso tutore auctore gestum esse dicatur
13 14
De bonorum possessione contra tabulas Ad legem Aquiliam
15 16
De usufructu et usu legato Depositi vel contra
Is this impression correct? One way to test it is to analyse the passages in

which Ulpian cites an author by book or by work and book, e.g. Iulianus libro
septimo digestorum or Pomponius libro vicensimo quarto. When the reference
is in this form the author implicitly claims to have read the original. He risks
the reader’s wrath if the passage cannot be found. Certainly there are cases
where the citation is at one remove (A in such-and-such a book cites B’s opin-
ion).17 But if it is in general right to assume that the citations by book and/or
work (henceforth called ‘book citations’) point to a source that the author
claims to have read in the original, the works most often cited in this way are
likely to have been the sources most consulted during the process of com-
position.
References of this sort are unevenly distributed among the Digest lawyers.
The table that follows gives the number of book citations for each author who
makes one, along with the percentage which his work forms of the whole
Digest.18 From this table the average frequency of book citations in each
author’s work can be derived.
Some prominent authors, such as Julian and Marcellus, make no book
citations. In general, book citations before Ulpian are rare. Authors have one
or two such citations for each 1 per cent of material included in the Digest.
Ulpian, on the other hand, has about a dozen, and, following him,
Marcianus. So Ulpian gives book citations at five or six times the rate of his
predecessors. He purports to be more scholarly or more helpful to his readers
Digest lawyers: frequency of book citations

Author Refs./book % of Digest Refs./1% of Digest
Labeo 4 1.08 3.7
Iavolenus 2 1.01 2.0
Celsus 1 0.91 1.1
Pomponius 3 4.41 0.7
Africanus 2 1.74 1.1
Scaevola 2 4.92 0.4
Callistratus 3 1.12 2.7
Papinian 2 5.69 0.4
Paul 32 16.74 1.9
Ulpian 520 41.56 12.5
Marcianus 28 2.43 11.5
17
D 33.9.3.2 (Ulp. 22 Sab., citing Aristo, who cites Labeo libro nono posteriorum)
18
Honoré–Menner (1980) intro. para. 4 for the percentages and fiches 1, 5, 6, 11, 15, 19, 25,
34, 41, 45 and 62 for the libro/libris references
than they. Which authors does he cite? Five stand out, as will be seen from the
table that follows, which gives the number of Ulpian’s book references to
other authors.
Legal authors cited by Ulpian by book
Julian 172
Pomponius 84
Papinian 65
Marcellus 63
Celsus 62
Neratius 17
Labeo 11
Pedius 9
Cassius 7
Scaevola 7
Ofilius 6
Sabinus 5
Maecianus 3
Mucius 3
Africanus 1
Arrianus 1
Puteolanus 1
Servius 1
Tertullian 1
Venuleius Saturninus 1
The book citations for five authors, Julian, Pomponius, Papinian, Marcellus,
and Celsus are by far the most numerous. Why did Ulpian choose them?
Papinian is the only contemporary to appear in the list. Clearly Ulpian
was a close associate of Papinian, the only contemporary lawyer whom he
cites in the imperfect, which points to oral discussion.19 A hint that he learnt
something from Papinian personally is worth noting. Ulpian is reticent about
his teachers. Apart from himself,20 he uses noster of no one except the
emperor,21 meus only of a fellow citizen of Tyre.22 In Edict book 69 he dis-
cusses the common view (quod volgo dicitur) that we can keep possession of
winter and summer pastures during the intervening months when we are away
by intention alone (animo). Ulpian says that he learnt (didici) that Proculus,
who said that we can, meant this as an example of a general principle about
retaining possession.23 From whom did he learn this? A difficult passage
of Papinian,24 which has been altered by the compilers, seems to treat the
19 D 24.1.23 (6 Sab.) 20 Ch. 2 n.300 21 e.g. ch.7 n.21–4, 30–6, 50–6, 88–90
22 D 45.1.70 (11 ed: populari meo Glabrioni Isidoro)
23 D 43.16.1.25 (69 ed.) cf. 41.2.27 (Proc. 5 epist.)
24 D 41.2.44.2; 41.2.46 (Pap. 23 quaest).
temporary abandonment of winter and summer pastures as an example of a

general rule that possession of land left temporarily unoccupied may be
retained by intention alone. Was it, then, from Papinian that Ulpian learned
to interpret the remark of Proculus in this way?
Despite his admiration for Papinian, whose Replies (Responsa) he anno-
tated, Ulpian does not use the whole of his work as a source. From the thirty-
seven books of Questions he cites up to book 19.25 Perhaps Justinian’s edictal
committee struck out later book citations.26 From Papinian’s nineteen books
of Replies we have book citations by Ulpian up to book 11.27 None can be
plausibly assigned to any later book. The explanation is perhaps that the
Replies were composed, at least from book 14 onwards,28 after the death of
Severus. The later books may have been available too late for Ulpian to digest
before, in 213, he launched his five-year programme of writing. After that
there was no time to keep abreast of new material apart from imperial con-
stitutions. The earlier books of Papinian’s Replies must however have been
available before. In Trusts Ulpian’s mentions an oral discussion in which he
cited the ninth book of Papinian’s Replies.29 The context is probably a dispu-
tation. After 213 Ulpian can hardly have had time for disputations, so that
probably at least the first nine books of Papinain’s Replies were available ear-
lier. They may have been published or made available to a few chosen
lawyers. Ulpian annotated the Replies and would have used the later books
had they been available. But, again, it is not certain that his annotations
stretched beyond book 9.30
The four other principal sources—Celsus, Julian, Pomponius, and
Marcellus—all belong to the first two-thirds of the second century. The most
recent of them, Marcellus, was an author whose Digest, in thirty-one books,31
Ulpian annotated and whose views he often adopted. Marcellus was a pupil
of Julian, whose work dominated the jurisprudence of the second century.
This is reflected in the number of times Ulpian cites him by book, twice as
often as the next most cited author, Pomponius. All but one of the Julian cita-
tions probably refer to his ninety-book Digesta.32 The remaining one refers to
Julian’s edition of Minicius.33 Ulpian may have had a substantial collection
of Julian’s writings, including unpublished manuscripts, for he says of Julian
on six occasions that he ‘very often writes’ or ‘very often wrote’34 a phrase he
uses otherwise only once of a legal writer, of a collection of materials by
Vivianus.35
25 26 27
D 7.8.4.1 (17 Sab.) D 29.2.20.3, 4 (61 ed.) D 30.41.5 (21 Sab.)
28
D 34.9.18 (Pap. 14 resp: divus Severus)
29
D 35.1.92 (5 fid: Papinianum libro nono responsorum scribere referebam)
30
Lenel (1889) 1.926, citing P. Krüger (1884) 171, 177
31
Lenel (1889) 1.590–632; Kunkel (1967) 213–4; Liebs (1997) §415.4
32
Lenel (1889) 1.318–484
33
Lenel (1889) 1.484–90; Kunkel (1967) 157–66; Liebs (1997) §414
34 35
Saepissime scripsit/scribit Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 71; Honoré (1964) 13
The references to Pomponius36 are fewer than half those to Julian, but in
long stretches of major commentary Ulpian clearly followed Pomponius’ On
the Edict (83 books)37 and On Sabinus (36 books).38 There are also references
to Pomponius’ Letters (Epistulae),39 to his Readings (Variae lectiones),40 and
his work on stipulations,41 the latter not available to Justinian’s compilers.
Ulpian probably read these lesser works, but used them only marginally.
Against fifty-one citations from Pomponius On the Edict and twenty-four
from On Sabinus we have nine from lesser works. Pernice pointed out that
Ulpian used Pomponius in fits and starts. Some titles seem to be derived
almost exclusively from him; in others he is absent. The reason for this per-
haps lies in the scale on which Pomponius wrote. His On the Edict outran all
other edictal commentaries. Hence for many topics Ulpian, working to a plan
that confined his edictal commentary to a fixed number of books, could not
afford to reproduce Pomponius in detail. In others, where Pomponius was
relatively economical, he could.
The last major source is Iuventius Celsus the younger.42 Ulpian cites by
book his Digest (Digesta), in 39 books,43 his Letters (Epistolae),44 and his
Questions (Quaestiones).45 Only the first of these was available to Tribonian,
and all but three of Ulpian’s citations appear to come from it.
The sources on which Ulpian principally relied in his major commentaries
were therefore seven:
Julian’s Digest 171 book citations from 90 books
Marcellus’ Digest 63 book citations from 31 books
Celsus’ Digest 59 book citations from 39 books
Pomponius On the Edict 51 book citations from 83+ books
Pomponius On Sabinus 24 book citations from 36 books
Papinian’s Questions 36 book citations from 37 books
Papinian’s Replies 28 book citations from 19 books
Relatively speaking Papinian’s Replies (if we assume that Ulpian had only the
first fourteen books available), Marcellus’ Digest, and Julian’s Digest were
the most thoroughly excerpted. Together the seven sources provided material
for almost every title of Ulpian’s major commentaries but not for some of the
more specialized works. But is the list of major sources complete? In particu-
lar ought Labeo and Paul to feature in it?
36
37 38
Lenel (1889) 2.15–44 cf. D 38.5.1.14, 27 (Ulp. 44 ed.) Lenel (1889) 2.86–148
39 40
Lenel (1889) 2.52–3 Lenel (1889) 2.53–8
41
Lenel (1889) 2.151; D 7.5.5.2 (18 Sab.)
42 43
Lenel (1889) 1.127–170; Kunkel (1967) 146–7 Lenel (1889) 1.127–69
44
Lenel (1889) 1.169; D 4.4.3.1 (11 ed.)
45
Lenel (1889) 1.169; D 12.1.1.1 (26 ed.); 28.5.9.2 (5 Sab.); 34.2.19.3 (20 Sab.)
In the Digest Ulpian cites the innovative Augustan lawyer Antistius Labeo
by book only eleven times.46 Three come from Labeo’s commentary on the
urban edict,47 one from his work on the edict of the peregrine praetor,48 six
from his Posthumous Works (Posteriora),49 one from his Plausible Views
(Pithana).50 One would expect more. Ulpian’s references to Labeo total 350
overall, which puts Labeo second only to Julian, who is cited 601 times. Is the
reason for the small number of book citations that Ulpian nearly always cited
Labeo at second hand? There is evidence that Labeo may be underrepre-
sented as regards book citations.
Ulpian cites earlier authors by book throughout the Sabinian commentary
and sporadically in certain other works: Trusts, Disputations, Tribunals, Office
of Proconsul, Office of Quaestor, Appeals. In Edict, however, book citations,
though numerous, continue only till the end of book 52.51 Is this because, as
Jörs thought,52 they were put in during Ulpian’s supposed first draft, made in
the reign of Severus, which stopped at book 52? Or is this feature due to
Justinian’s compilers, who stopped excerpting references to book-numbers at
this point?
According to the theory set out in chapter 8 Ulpian reached book 56 by the
end of 215. He continued with Sabinus books 26 to 51 in 216.53 Even if Ulpian
changed his way of citing at the end of 216 one might expect book citations in
books 53 to 56 On the Edict. There are none. Perhaps this was an accident of
excerpting. Moreover Appeals (De appellationibus), probably to be assigned
to 217,54 does contain a book citation.55 Even more telling, passages where
Ulpian cites his source with inquit, ‘his words are’, introducing an exact quo-
tation, usually run parallel to those in which he cites by book. Inquit passages
are found in the later books of Edict.56 The aim of these two devices is simi-
lar, to give the reader the exact words of the source or point the reader to the
place where he can find the exact words. So Ulpian is not likely to have kept
inquit but jettisoned citations by book in the last twenty-nine books of Edict.
More probably the compilers struck out book citations but kept inquit. To
strike out book citations did not change the sense of the text, but striking out
inquit would.
In my view the edictal committee, which progressively reduced the amount
of material it excerpted, followed this policy.57 Its second stint in excerpting
46 Lenel (1889) 1.502–58; Kunkel (1967) 32–4
47 D 11.4.1.5 (1 ed.); 50.16.19 (11 ed.); 4.8.7 pr (13 ed.) 48 D 4.3.9 4a (11ed.)
49 D 4.3.9.3 (11 ed.); 28.5.13.5, 6; 28.5.17.5 (7 Sab.); 7.8.2.1 (17 Sab.); 33.9.3.2 (22 Sab.)
50
D 46.4.8.2 (48 Sab.)
51
D 39.1.1.10; 39.1.5 pr; 39.1.5.16 (all 52 ed. citing Cels. 10 dig, Iul. 12 dig and Iul 49 dig.
respectively)
52 53 54
Jörs (1903) 1439–40 Ch. 8 n.15–6 Ch. 9 n.115–21
55
D 49.4.1.14 (1 appell., citing Iul. 40 or 45 dig.)
56
D 47.10.13.4 (57 ed.); 43.8.2.40 (68 ed.); 43.16.1.35; 43.17.3.4 (69 ed.); 41.2.6 pr; 43.19.1.11
(70 ed.); 43.24.3.4; 43.23.1.8 (71 ed.); 39.1.21.7 (81 ed.)
57
Honoré–Rodger (1970) 246, 296–306
Ulpian’s Edict began about the middle of book 52.58 If the stint really began
at book 53 this would explain the absence of book citations from then on
better than a supposed change of practice by Ulpian himself. The other com-
mittees need not have followed suit, so that a book citation, as mentioned, is
found in Appeals, probably excepted by the Sabinian committee in 217.59 It is
to be noted that book citations are absent from Ulpian’s Market-Masters’
Edict, which was composed about 213, but which Justinian’s compilers
excerpted after book 81 On the Edict. The change of policy stemmed from the
compilers, not Ulpian.
Despite Jörs, then, Ulpian probably continued to cite sources by book
throughout Edict. This bears on the paucity of book citations of Labeo in the
last block of edictal commentary, when Labeo is mentioned no fewer than 105
times. Indeed in this part of On the Edict he outstrips all other sources, includ-
ing Julian. The compilers have obscured the extent to which Ulpian, with the
original text of Labeo before him, cited Labeo by book.
I mentioned Ulpian’s use of inquit, which introduces an exact quotation.
Ulpian refers to named authors with inquit in the Digest 165 times. There are
only thirty uses of inquit by other Digest authors: Labeo 4, Celsus 1, Gaius 3,
Pomponius 1, Africanus 3, Paul 14, Marcianus 4. Ulpian purports, therefore,
to cite another author verbatim far more often than his predecessors. The
authors whom he cites in this way largely correspond to those in the list of
book citations set out earlier.60 Here is the list for inquit:
Julian 57, Pomponius 20, Celsus 16, Labeo 13, Marcellus 12, Papinian 12, Pedius 7,
Vivianus 5, Masurius Sabinus 3, Neratius 3, Caelius Sabinus 3, Scaevola 2, Africanus
2, Aristo 2, Cassius 1, Maecianus 1, Nerva, 1, Octavenus 1, Fulcinius 1, Quintus
Mucius 1, Ofilius 1.
The main difference between this list and the earlier list of book citations is
that Labeo appears about as often as Celsus, Marcellus, and Papinian. So it
seems that Labeo should be added to the list of Ulpian’s main original
sources. It is not likely that the verbatim citations of Labeo are taken from
Celsus or Pomponius, since these authors hardly ever cite with inquit or by
book. Ulpian cites Labeo with inquit in Edict books 31, 53, 57, 62, 68, 71, 76,
and 81 and Sabinus books 17 and 49.61 More than half the inquit references
come from the last segment of Ulpian’s edictal commentary. This supports
the view that Justinian’s edictal committee struck book references from this
block of edictal commentary and so led to an underestimate of the extent to
which Ulpian used Labeo as an original source. Jörs saw more clearly than
58 Bluhme (1820/1960) 279f.; 59f.; Honoré–Rodger (1970) 277–9, 287, 298–9

59 Ch.9 n.115–21 60 Above n.18–9, 45–6
61 D 17.1.10.8 (31 ed.); 39.2.15.33; 39.3.4 pr (53 ed.); 47.10.13.4 (57 ed.); 42.5.15.1 (62 ed.);
43.8.2.40 (68 ed.); 43.23.1.8; 43.24.5.12; 43.24.7.3; 43.30.3.4 (71 ed.); 44.4.4.15 (76 ed.); 39.1.12 pr
(81 ed.); 7.1.12 pr (17 Sab.); 18.4.2.17 (49 Sab.)
Pernice that, while many citations of Labeo are taken from secondary
sources, quite a lot are not.62
The list of sources referred to by book or with inquit excites puzzlement
because, of contemporary authors, only Papinian is thus cited. Why does
Ulpian not cite Julius Paulus (Paul),63 a younger contemporary who had pub-
lished works On the Edict and On Sabinus shortly before, and had written sev-
eral monographs on topics that were to concern Ulpian also? Ulpian does not
cite Tryphoninus,64 an eminent contemporary, or Callistratus,65 the latter
perhaps because he was a provincial writer. He cannot have been ignorant of
Paul’s published works. Yet he seems to overlook them.
Was he, as has often been suggested, motivated by personal rivalry?66 The
suggestion has some apparent merit. Ulpian wrote on many of the topics that
Paul had covered not long since, but adopts different methods. For instance
he cites by book or with inquit far more often than Paul.67 He seems to be
writing for a more scholarly readership. He is more concerned than Paul to
justify the provisions of the praetor’s edict.68 But this last feature of Ulpian’s
work can be explained by the need to convince the new citizens, subject since
the Antonine constitution to Roman law, of the merits of the edict. He may
have thought that Paul’s works needed to be recast to meet the new dispen-
sation. Even if there was some rivalry, this does not imply that he had a low
opinion of Paul as a lawyer.
There is some reason to think that Ulpian, in composing his major com-
mentaries, made use of Paul’s work. It would, in the first place, have been
strange not to profit from recent publications by a lawyer of standing and a
member of the imperial council. Secondly, as an earlier study suggested,69 it
is easier to explain the textual chains in the Digest if we suppose that for long
stretches the main commentaries used by Justinian’s compilers ran parallel.
This made possible a technique of excerpting by which, for example, Ulpian,
Paul, and Gaius On the Edict could be read together.70 Ulpian’s was taken
as the main text. Short excerpts from the others were added when their
commentaries diverged. This parallelism was only possible, if, to take the
same example, Ulpian used Paul On the Edict and Paul used Gaius On the
Provincial Edict. The argument is no doubt suggestive rather than com-
pelling. There are also a few passages in which it seems likely that Paul used
Ulpian as a source, again without naming him.71
62
Jörs (1903) 1477f, noting D 39.3.1.20 (53 ed.: apud Labeonem autem invenio relatum); 7.8.2
(17 Sab: apud Labeonem memini tractatum) against Pernice (1885) 476f.
63
64
65
Lenel (1889) 1.82–106; Kunkel (1967) 235; Liebs (1976) 310f., 323f.; (1997) §430.1
66 67 68
e.g. H. Krüger (1912) 298 Above n.18–9 Ch.3 n.143–63
69 70
Honoré (1963) 362 Honoré–Rodger (1970) 250f.
71
D 23.2.60.4 (1 or. d. Ant et Comm.), ch.5 n.35–40; and perhaps 27.9.13.1 (1 or. d. Severi)
A further modest argument in favour of Ulpian’s use of Paul rests on the

resemblance of their choice of words. This was tested statistically in the fol-
lowing way. Fifty common Latin words were selected (e.g. si, non, est, et) and
the frequency with which the various jurists represented in the Digest use
them was ascertained with the help of Honoré–Menner (1980). There are thir-
teen authors from whom we have enough Digest material to make reliable
estimates of the frequency with which they use these words. For each of the
fifty words they can be ranged in order according to the frequency with which
they use the word. For each pair of authors we can measure whether
one member of the pair tends to come closer to or further from the other
member of the pair in these lists. This can be measured by a Spearman non-
parametric correlation, which gives an estimate of the probability that the
resemblances between the members of each pair are not due to chance. A high
probability of this, close to unity, is therefore an indication of a close resem-
blance in point of style, and a low correlation points to a lesser probability of
a close resemblance. Ulpian correlates with each of the other twelve authors
on the basis of the fifty common words and expressions as follows:
Ulpian 1.0000
Marcianus 0.9780
Paul 0.9774
Pomponius 0.9545
Gaius 0.9491
Tryphoninus 0.9401
Julian 0.9390
Marcellus 0.9343
Modestinus 0.8939
Callistratus 0.8768
Africanus 0.8646
Papinian 0.8569
Scaevola 0.7700
The results of this calculation are plausible. The last five writers in the table are
authors of whom Ulpian make little use, except for Papinian, whose style is
markedly different from Ulpian’s, perhaps in part because Papinian’s provin-
cial connection was with Africa and Ulpian’s with Syria. Marcianus, whose
correlation with Ulpian is close to unity, copies him in many respects, for
instance in often giving book citations of earlier writers. Marcianus’ main
sources are like Ulpian’s. He cites Papinian 14 times, Marcellus 10, Pomponius
8, Julian 7, Celsus and Scaevola 4 each.72 Eight citations of Papinian,73 7 of
72
Honoré–Menner (1980) fiches 19, 20
73
D 20.4.12.5, 6, 9 (Marci. 1 hyp.); 20.1.11.2 (1 hyp.); 48.21.3; 49.14.18.10 (1 del.); 48.17.1.4
(2 pub. iud.); 30.113.5 (7 inst.)
Marcellus,74 5 of Pomponius,75 3 of Julian,76 2 of Celsus77 and one each of

Labeo,78 Scaevola,79 and Chrysippus80 are by book. The resemblance to
Ulpian’s use of sources is striking, and on the statistical test explained no two
legal authors in the Digest are as close in word use as Ulpian and Marcianus,
who was probably his pupil. Marcianus was primarily a teacher, as his sixteen-
book advanced Teaching Manual (Institutiones) shows.81
The correlation between Ulpian and Paul is statistically hardly less striking
than that between Ulpian and Marcianus. This is not to be accounted for
merely by the spirit of the age or the fact that they were contemporaries.
Papinian, Tryphoninus, and Callistratus were also contemporaries, but their
word use is a good deal less close to Ulpian’s that that of Paul. The simplest
explanation is that Ulpian quite often copied Paul. As Pernice noted, he also
copies from the next closest person on the list, Pomponius.82 Whether Ulpian
used Gaius, the next closest to Ulpian after Pomponius, is less certain. That
Paul used Gaius is clear enough. For example the phrase ex diverso, one of
Gaius’ favourite phrases, which comes in twelve texts of his Institutes,83 also
comes in eleven Digest texts of Paul84 and otherwise only once in Papinian85
and once in Ulpian.86 The Ulpian passage may have been taken from Paul. So
the relatively high correlation between Ulpian and Gaius may merely reflect
the use by Ulpian of Paul and by Paul of Gaius. Direct use of Gaius by Ulpian
is not ruled out, but the evidence does not require it.
If Paul was one of Ulpian’s major sources, why does he not cite him by name?
This can be explained even if the two lawyers were on good terms and respected
one another’s work. So far as I can see, the Severan lawyers never cite a living
author by name. Papinian cites no one more recent than Africanus.87
Callistratus stops at Julian88 and Papirius Fronto.89 Tryphoninus, writing
under Severus or Caracalla, mentions Papinian, but only as secretary for peti-
tions, not as an author.90 The most recent author he cites is Scaevola.91 Ulpian
cites the Questions and Replies of Papinian in Edict, Sabinus, Disputations,
74 D 12.4.13 (Marci. 3 reg.); 40.5.55.1 (4 reg.); 34.9.3 (5 reg.); 40.15.1.4; 49.14.18.10 (1 del.);
30.114.3 (8 inst.); 25.7.3.1 (12 inst.)

75 D 20.1.13.2; 20.2.2, 5 pr (1 hyp.); 41.2.43.1 (3 reg.); 22.1.32 pr (4 reg.)
76 D 20.5.7 (1 hyp.); 38.2.22 (1 inst.); 36.2.20 (6 inst.)
77 D 28.5.52.1 (3 reg.); 36.1.34 (8 inst.) 78 D 18.1.45 (4 reg.)
79 D 20.3.1.2 (1 hyp.) 80 D 1.3.2 (1 inst.)
81 Lenel (1889) 1.652–75; Honoré (1994) 68, 94–5; Kunkel (1967) 258–9; Liebs (1983a) 497f.;
Liebs (1997) §428.1.

82 Pernice (1885) 459, 463, 473
83
Gaius, Inst. 1.39, 78, 133; 2.64, 137, 245; 3.84, 126, 201; 4.3, 77, 109
84
D 6.1.35 pr (21 ed.); 47.10.6 (55 ed.); 10.2.41 (1 decr.); 26.7.53; 32.97 (2 decr.); 8.4.18 (1
man.); 24.3.17 (7 Sab.); 27.1.31.4 (6 quaest.); 46.1.56.1 (15 quaest.); 18.1.57.2 (4 Plaut.); 44.7.47
(14 Plaut).
85 86
D 22.3.26 (Pap. 20 quaest.) D 21.1.17.14 (Ulp. 1 ed. cur.)
87 88
D 35.1.71 pr (Pap. 17 quaest.) D 5.1.36.1 (Call. 1 cogn.); 49.14.3 pr (3 iur. fisc.)
89 90
D 14.2.4.2; 50.16.220.1 (Call. 2 quaest.) D 20.5.12 pr (8 disp.)
91
D 20.5.12.1 (8 disp.); 49.17.19 pr (18 disp.)
Tribunals, and Trusts. But all these works by Ulpian, apart from the first five
books of Edict, were written in 213 or later,92 when Papinian, who was killed in
later 212, was dead.93 In these first five books, written when Papinian was
alive,94 Ulpian refers to him only once in the words ‘I know Papinian gave a
reply,’ which is a reminiscence, not a quotation from a published work.95
It is true that in On Sabinus book 6 Ulpian appears to cite his younger con-
temporary Marcianus.96 But Sabinus went into a second edition,97 and this
isolated reference to Marcianus could be a later addition to the text. There is
no parallel elsewhere in Ulpian to the sentence ending ut . . . videtur,98 an
untypically weak ending. This phrase may therefore belong to the second edi-
tion of On Sabinus, the date of which we do not know. Marcianus himself,
writing after the death of Caracalla, cites no one later than Papinian,99 not
even Ulpian, which is remarkable given Ulpian’s evident influence over him.
Paul once refers to a reply of Ulpian cited to Paul by someone consulting
him.100 He disagreed with it. This is not a citation from a published work,
and, though Ulpian gave replies (responsa), it is not clear that he published
any.101 In five texts Paul refers to Papinian. In one he speaks of Papinian
hearing a case as praetorian prefect.102 Two others mention views expressed
by Papinian as a member of the Severus’ council.103 The other two passages
cite opinions from book 5 of Papinian’s Replies.104 The first is from a work
composed by Paul in Caracalla’s sole reign.105 The other cannot be dated, but
the passage in question is probably copied from a work of Ulpian.106 In that
case it was written in 213 or later.107 There is nothing to show, then, that Paul,
any more than the other Severan writers, cited living authors.
Given this, the problem is not to explain, by reference to rivalry, why Paul
and Ulpian do not overtly cite one another but rather why the Severans, unlike
their predecessors, do not refer to living authors. They may have been afraid of
giving offence, of iniuria. If it is in order to cite a living author, it may be insult-
ing not to cite what he has written, or to disagree with it. It is safe, on the other
hand, to express one’s opinion of a dead author or to pass over his view in
silence. Until recently English judges had a convention that the works of living
authors should not be cited in court.108 The point was to save both judge and
author embarrassment. The Severan lawyers may have had a similar sensitivity.
92 Ch.9 n.65–6, 11–34, 140 93 Dio 78.4.1a; Liebs (1997) §416
94 Perhaps in early 211: ch.1 n.249–250
95 D 2.14.7.5 (4 ed: responsum scio a Papiniano)
96 D 28.1.5 (6 Sab: iam enim complesse videtur annum quintum decimum, ut Marciano videtur)
97 C. Cordi (16 Nov 534) 3 98 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 74
99 Fourteen times e.g. D 48.16.14.5, 10, 13 (1 SC Turpillianum)
100 D 19.1.43 (5 quaest.) 101 Ch.10 n.4–5, 219–57 102 D 12.1.40 (3 quaest.)
103 D 29.2.97; 49.14.50 (3 decr.)
104 D 27.9.13.1 (Paul 1 or. d. Sev.); 23.2.60.4 (1 or. d. Ant. et Comm.)
105 D 27.9.13 pr (1 or. d. Sev: imperator Antoninus et divus pater eius)
106 Ch.2 n.101–2, 155, 832 107 Ch. 9 n.137–40
108 Nicholls v. Ely Beet Sugar Factory Ltd. [1936] Ch. 343, 349
II. OTHER FIRST-HAND SOURCES
The list of authors cited by book or with inquit affords evidence of other first-
hand sources used by Ulpian. I begin with those nearest to him in time.
(a) Cervidius Scaevola109 cannot be accounted a major source but Ulpian
cites him seven times by book110 and twice with inquit.111 All the explicit ref-
erences are to Scaevola’s Questions (Quaestiones). In all he mentions Scaevola
31 times.112 It is not clear that Ulpian used any other work of the Antonine
lawyer who taught Paul and Tryphoninus. He refers to him in his major com-
mentaries and four times in his Disputations, which correspond to Scaevola’s
Questions.113 There is one citation in Ulpian’s Adultery,114 which may how-
ever be taken from Paul’s monograph on the same subject.115
(b) Sextus Caecilius Africanus,116 a pupil of Julian who was active under
Pius, is cited once by book117 and twice with inquit.118 There is no evidence
that Ulpian used the nine books of his Questions, which were available to
Justinian’s compilers.119 The work Ulpian refers to in On Sabinus is
Africanus’ otherwise unknown Letters (Epistolae) in at least twenty books.120
Perhaps the work consisted of Africanus’ correspondence with Julian, which
Ulpian had acquired. The inquit passages come in Ulpian’s Adultery.121 In all
Ulpian cites Africanus only eight times.122 His relative neglect of a well-
known, though unoriginal, author may show that he preferred to rely on the
text of Julian rather than Africanus’ comments on his teacher’s work.
(c) Ulpian cites Volusius Maecianus,123 a member of Marcus’ judicial
council and prefect of Egypt, thrice by book124 and once with inquit.125 All
four passages come from Maecianus’ sixteen books on Trusts. Ulpian
mentions Maecianus sixteen times in all,126 ten in his Trusts127 and thrice in On
Sabinus.128 One citation in On Sabinus is to Maecianus’ Trusts.129 Ulpian must
109 Lenel (1889) 2.215–322; Kunkel (1967) 217–9; Liebs (1997) §415.6
110 D 4.4.11.1 (11 ed.); 41.3.10.2; 50.16.26 (16 ed.); 13.4.2.3 (27 ed.); 28.6.10.6 (1 Sab.); 7.1.25.6
(18 Sab.); 41.1.23.3 (43 Sab.)
111 D 13.4.2.3 (27 ed.); 41.3.10.2 (16 Sab.) 112 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 71
113 D 12.1.7 (Ulp. 1 disp.); 23.3.43 pr (3 disp.); 36.1.23 pr (5 disp.); 35.2.35 (6 disp.)
114 D 23.5.13.4 (5 adult)
115 Paul was a pupil of Scaevola: D 2.14.27.2 (Paul 3 ed.); 23.3.56.3 (Paul 6 Plaut.); 28.2.19
(Paul 1 Vitell.); Kunkel (1967) 244

117 D 30.39 pr (Ulp. 21 Sab.) 118 D 48.5.14.1 (2 adult.); 40.9.12.6 (4 adult.)
119 Above n.18–9, 59–61 120 D 30.39 pr
121 D 48.5.14.1 (Ulp. 2 adult.); 40.9.12.6 (Ulp 4 adult.)
122 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiches 50 (Africanus), 51 (Caecilius)
124 D 36.1.17.6, 13 (Ulp. 4 fid.), 7.1.72 (17 Sab.) 125 D 36.1.17.6 (4 fid.)
126 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 63
127 D 32.11.1, 15 (2 fid.); 36.1.1.8 (3 fid.); 36.1.17 pr, 3, 6, 8, 9 twice, 13 (4 fid.)
128 D 7.4.3 pr (7 Sab.); 7.1.72, twice (17 Sab.) 129 D 7.1.72 (17 Sab.)
have used this work directly. In The Proconsul Ulpian cites Maecianus when
dealing with a law about murder, the Lex Pompeia de parricidiis.130 This prob-
ably refers to Maecianus’ fourteen-book work on public prosecutions (De
iudiciis publicis), which was available to Justinian’s compilers,131 and possibly
to Ulpian. It is not clear from what intermediate source he could have cited it.
(d) Neratius Priscus,132 a leading lawyer of the reign of Trajan, is cited sev-
enteen times by book133 and three times with inquit.134 The citations show that
Ulpian used Neratius’ Parchments (Membrana),135 Replies (Responsa),136
Letters (Epistulae),137 and his edition of Plautius.138 Only the first two reached
Justinian’s compilers. The citations come in Ulpian’s On the Edict, his On
Sabinus, and once in Disputations. In all Ulpian names Neratius as a source
seventy-six times.139 A good many of these citations are probably first-hand.
They include references in books on the praetor’s and the market-masters’
edicts from which the edictal committee seem to have struck out book cita-
tions.140
(e) Ulpian cites Vivianus, a late first- or early second-century writer, five
times with inquit but never by book.141 The reason for the lack of book cita-
tions is probably, again, that many of the citations come in the later books On
the Edict or in The Marker-Masters’ Edict. Scaevola142 and Ulpian used
Vivianus’ collection of material, which included excerpts from republican
authors. They refer to it with phrases such as ‘it is stated in Vivianus’ or ‘I find
in Vivianus’. Ulpian cites him 19 times in all, always in On the Edict or The
Market-Masters’ Edict.143 Justinian’s compilers did not have his work to
hand.
( f ) Sextus Pedius, a writer of the second half of the first century AD,144 is
cited nine times by book145 and six times with inquit.146 Ulpian mentions him
forty times in all.147 His works were not available to Tribonian, but he com-
posed a commentary on the praetor’s edict in at least twenty-five books. This
130 D 48.9.6 (8 off. proc.) 131 Lenel (1889) 1.587–8
132 Lenel (1889) 1.763–88; Kunkel (1967) 144–5
133 D 5.3.13.3 (15 ed.); 8.3.3 pr, 2, 3 twice; 8.3.5.1 (17 ed.); 12.4.3.5 (26 ed.); 14.6.7 pr ., twice);
15.1.9.1 (29 ed.); 19.1.11.12 (32 ed.); 13.1.12.2 (38 ed.); 7.1.7.3, 7.2.3 pr (17 Sab.); 33.7.12.35, 43
(20 Sab.); 36.1.23.3 (1 disp.)
134 D 10.4.9.8 (24 ed.); 33.7.12.43 (20 Sab., twice)
135 D 5.3.13.3 (15 ed.); 8.3.3 pr, 2, 3 (17 ed.); 12.4.3.5; 13.1.12.2 (26 ed.); 7.1.7.3 (17 Sab.)
136 D 14.6.7 pr; 15.1.9.1 (29 ed.); 19.1.11.12 (32 ed.); 7.2.3 pr (17 Sab.); 36.1.23.3 (5 disp.)
137 D 33.7.12.35, 43 (20 Sab.) 138 D 8.3.5.1 (17 ed.)
140 D 47.10.1.8, 9 (56 ed.); 47.10.7.5 (57 ed.); 42.4.7.16 (59 ed.); 43.24.7.1 (71 ed.); 20.2.3 (73
ed.); 44.2.9.1, 11 (75 ed.); 44.4.4.18 (76 ed.); 21.1.15.3 (1 ed. aed. cur.)
141 D 43.16.1.47 (69 ed.); 21.1.1.9 (1 ed. cur. aed., thrice); 21.1.17.4 (1 ed. cur.)
142 D 29.7.14 pr (Scae. 8 quaest.) 143 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 75
145 D 3.5.5.11 (10 ed.); 4.2.7 pr; 4.2.14.5; 4.3.1.4 (11 ed.); 4.7.4.2; 4.8.7 pr; 4.8.13.2 (13 ed.);
14.4.1.1 (19 ed.); 15.1.7.3 (29 ed.)

146 D 3.5.5.11, 13 (10 ed.); 4.7.4.2; 4.8.13.2 (13 ed.); 15.1.7.3 (29 ed.); 21.1.23.9 (1 ed. cur.)
Ulpian cites by book in Edict books 10 to 29.148 The citations in the later
books of Edict, which lack book references, are either direct or come via Paul,
who also used Pedius as a source.149 Pedius also wrote on the market-masters’
edict.150 This work was used by Ulpian, perhaps directly, though in that case
the edictal committee has left out Ulpian’s book references to Pedius.151
(g) Probably for the same reason Caelius Sabinus,152 who was consul in AD
69 and succeeded Cassius as head of the Sabinian school, is cited three times
with inquit153 but never by book. The inquits come from Ulpian’s Market-
Masters’ Edict, which dealt with a topic on which Caelius wrote. Ulpian men-
tions him thirteen times in this commentary, fourteen if a text with ‘Caecilius’
is amended.154 Ulpian used Caelius as a main source for this work, but not in
other works. Caelius’ works were not available to Justinian’s compilers.
(h) Cassius Longinus,155 conservative co-founder of the Sabinian school,
restored from exile by Vespasian, is cited seven times by book,156 once with
inquit.157 No work of Cassius was available to Justinian’s compilers. Ulpian
cites from his Civil Law (Libri iuris civilis) up to book 10.158 All the citations
come in Ulpian’s On Sabinus. Presumably Cassius’ work was based on
Sabinus’ Civil Law. The inquit passage, on the other hand, refers to a note of
Cassius in his work dedicated to Vitellius.159 It looks as if Ulpian consulted
these notes and Cassius’ Civil Law at first hand. He mentions Cassius eighty-
five times in all.160 Many of these texts must have been taken at second hand
from Ulpian’s main sources, such as Celsus, Pomponius, and Julian.
(i) Ulpian cites Masurius Sabinus161 five times by book 162 and three times
with inquit.163 The book citations refer not to the well-known Civil Law (Ius
civile) of Sabinus, the text on which Ulpian’s On Sabinus was a commentary,
but to his books dedicated to Vitellius (Libri ad Vitellium). One of the inquit
passages, however, seems to refer to Sabinus’ Civil Law.164 Vitellius was not
a legal writer, as assumed by Lenel165 and others, but someone to whom
Sabinus dedicated one of his works.166 This work must have been available to
Ulpian, who could have used it as a direct source. In all Ulpian refers to
148 Above n.145 149 D 12.1.6 (Paul 28 ed.); 37.1.6.2 (41 ed.) 150 Lenel (1889) 2.6–7
151 Excerpted by Justinian’s compilers after On the Edict book 81, though written by Ulpian
in 213 or 214 some years beforehand: ch.9 n.26–33
152 Lenel (1889) 1.78–82: Kunkel (1967) 131–3
153 D 21.1.17.1, 16 (1 ed. cur.); 21.1.38.11 (2 ed. cur.)
154 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 51 and D 21.1.14.10 (1 ed. cur.)
155
Lenel (1889) 1.110–26: Kunkel (1967) 130–1
156
D 29.2.25.4 (Ulp. 8 Sab.); 7.1.7.3; 7.1.9.5; 7.1.23.1; 7.1.70 pr, 2 (17 Sab.); 26.1.3.2 (37 Sab.)
157 158
D 33.7.12.27 (20 Sab.) D 7.1.70 pr (17 Sab.)
159
D 33.7.12.27 (20 Sab.). Vitellius was a dedicatee, not a legal author: Liebs (1980) 138–9
160 161
Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 51 Lenel (1889) 2.187–216; Kunkel (1967) 119–20
162
D 33.7.8 pr ; 33.7.12.27; 34.2.19.17 (Ulp. 20 Sab.); 32.45; 33.9.3 pr (22 Sab)
163 164
D 33.9.3 pr (22 Sab.); 18.2.11 pr (28 Sab.) D 18.2.11 pr (28 Sab.)
165 166
Lenel (1889) 1.1301–8 Liebs (1980) 138–9
Sabinus 119 times,167 but many of these citations must be taken from later
writers such as Pomponius, Celsus, and Julian.
(j) Working back, we now come to the republican authors. Ofilius168 is
cited six times by book169 and once with inquit,170 Quintus Mucius171 three
times by book172 and once with inquit.173 Pernice denied that any republican
texts were available to Ulpian.174 Jörs argued that these two at least were read
by him.175 In my view Ulpian excerpted these works from Sabinus’ work ded-
icated to Vitellius.176 The citations from Ofilius’ Actions (Libri actionum) and
Divisions of the Law (Libri iuris partiti) come in Ulpian’s Sabinus books 22
and 25.177 Those from Q. Mucius’ Civil Law (De iure civili) seem to come in
Ulpian’s Sabinus books 22, 25, and 44.178 But, as Lenel points out, the text in
book 44 is out of place, and we should read book 24 instead of 44.179 The text
is concerned not with the edict of the curule aediles, the subject of book 44,
but with a legacy of silverware. Finally, the books of Sabinus dedicated to
Vitellius are mentioned only in books 20 and 22 On Sabinus.180 Books 20–5
of this work are on legacies.181 Sabinus in this work, I suggest, collected texts
on legacies, which included excerpts from Q. Mucius and Ofilius, and Ulpian
drew on this collection. It is interesting that the text mentioning the two
republican authors is, uniquely, in the plural.182 A joint citation of this sort is
more natural if the source is a collection of readings. In all Ulpian cites Ofilius
thirty-two times183 and Q. Mucius twenty-one,184 but many of these citations
are likely to come at second hand from Labeo’s Posthumous Works
(Posteriora), Celsus, or Pomponius.
So far all the authors listed have been cited both by book and with inquit,
so that we can be fairly sure that Ulpian cited them from an original source
or collection of material. The rest he cites in only one mode, and for the most
part once only. So the citation is more likely to have been taken from a sec-
ondary source. By book Ulpian cites Tertullianus’ Questions (Quaestiones),185
Puteolanus’ Assessorship (Adsessoriorum libri),186 Arrianus’ On Interdicts (De
interdictis),187 Quintus (Venuleius) Saturninus’ On the Edict (Ad edictum),188
and Servius’ work dedicated to Brutus (Ad Brutum).189 Tertullianus
(Tertullian), plausibly to be identified with the Christian apologist, wrote
167 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 71 168 Lenel (1889) 1.795–804; Kunkel (1967) 29–30
169 D 33.9.3.5, 8 (Ulp. 22 Sab.); 32.55.1, 2, 4, 7 (25 Sab.) 170 D 33.9.3.9 (22 Sab.)
171 Lenel (1889) 1.757–64
172 D 33.9.3 pr (Ulp. 22 Sab.); 32.55 pr (25 Sab.); 33.2.27 (44 Sab.)
173 D 33.9.3.9 (22 Sab.) 174 Pernice (1885) 475f. 175 Jörs (1903) 1475–6
176 177 178
Above n.159, 163–4 Above n.169–70 Above n.172
179
Lenel (1889) 2.11791 180
Above n.162 181
Lenel (1889) 2.1079–109
182
D 33.9.3.9 (22 Sab: Quintus Mucius et Ofilius inquiunt, of which the natural translation is
‘Q. Mucius, cited with approval by Ofilius, says’.)
183 184
Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 65 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 69
185 186 187
D 29.2.30.6 (Ulp. 8 Sab.) D 2.14.12 (Ulp. 4 ed.) D 5.3.11 (Ulp. 15 ed.)
188
D 34.2.19.7 (Ulp. 20 Sab.). On his citations of (Venuleius) Saturninus see Liebs (1984) 449
189 101
D 14.3.5.1 (Ulp. 28 ed.); Liebs (1980) 138
later than Pomponius but before Ulpian.190 His Questions in eight books were
read by Justinian’s commission. Ulpian, a near contemporary who kept to
legal studies, would naturally have read them. In his Sabinus he cites
Tertullian three times.191 Puteolanus seems to have written in the late second
century and Ulpian presumably cites him at first hand.192 The Tyrian also
refers to Arrianus,193 a first- or more probably second-century author, who
wrote On Interdicts and other works, four times.194 He probably read On
Interdicts, but the other citations may be second-hand. Servius is the famous
republican author Servius Sulpicius Rufus, consul in BC 51.195 Ulpian men-
tions Servius thirty-eight times in all.196 Most of these citations will be sec-
ond-hand, from Labeo’s Posthumous Works or Pomponius, from whom
Ulpian may have taken the book citation.197 The citation of Quintus
Saturninus On the Edict,198 whom Ulpian cites in a text about a legacy of
gold, may rest on a mistake as to author or title. The definition of gold is not
likely to have been discussed in a work On the Edict.199 Saturninus, if Ulpian
cited him, is perhaps to be identified with Venuleius Saturninus200 rather than
Claudius Saturninus, writers of the early and late second century respec-
tively.201 They were mistakenly identified with one another in the Florentine
Index and by Lenel,202 but distinguished by Kunkel and Liebs.203
One last jurist whom Ulpian cites by book204 is Urseius.205 He was a first-
century AD author whose work Julian edited.206 Ulpian, who does not tell us
the title of Urseius’ work, cites him four times, always for an opinion of
Sabinus,207 Cassius,208 or Proculus.209 Ulpian used his work, it seems, at first
hand but only as a source of the views of more eminent writers.
Some authors appear only in one or two inquit texts and are not cited by
book. Ulpian twice uses inquit of Titius Aristo,210 a distinguished lawyer of
the late first century of humble origin, a freed slave or the descendant of a
freed slave.211 He has forty-five references to Aristo, but most of them will
have been taken from Neratius, Pomponius, or Paul, who used Aristo as a
190 Lenel (1889) 2.341–4; Steinwenter (1934); Kunkel (1967) 236–40; Barnes (1985) 22–9;
Liebs (1997) §417.2; cf. ch.3 n.65

191 D 28.5.3.2 (3 Sab.); 29.2.30.6 (8 Sab.); 38.17.2.44 (12 Sab.)
192 Lenel (1889) 2.186; Liebs (1997) §419.5
193 Lenel (1889) 1.69–70; Kunkel (1967) 243; Liebs (1997) §419.4
194 D 5.3.11 pr (15 ed.); 43.3.1.4 (67 ed.); 28.5.19 (7 Sab., twice)
195 Lenel (1889) Pal. 2.322–34; Kunkel (1967) 25 196 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 71
197 D 34.2.19.7 (20 ed.) 198 Kunkel (1967) 181 199 Lenel (1889) 2.12095
200 Kunkel (1967) 181; Bonini (1962) 119f.; Liebs (1984) 449; Liebs (1997) §419.3
201 Kunkel (1967) 184; Liebs (1997) §430.2 202 Ind. Flor. 21; Lenel (1889) 2.1208–1214
203 Above n.200–1 204 Collatio 12.7.9 (Ulp. 18 ed.)
205 Lenel (1889) 2.1202; Kunkel (1967) 145–6 206 Lenel (1889) 1.490–6
207 Collatio 12.7.9 (18 ed.)
208 D 44.5.1.10 (76 ed.) cf. D 7.4.10.5 (17 Sab: Cassius apud Urseium scribit)
209 D 9.2.27.1 (18 ed.) cf. 39.3.11.2 (Paul 49 ed.)
210 D 43.24.11.11 (76 ed.); 33.9.3.2 (22 Sab.)
211 Lenel (1889) 1.59–70; Kunkel (1967) 141–4
source. It is not certain that Ulpian knew Aristo’s work, which was not avail-
able to Justinian’s compilers, at first hand. Octavenus, an author of the same
period,212 is cited once with inquit.213 Pomponius and Paul both cite
Octavenus, Pomponius no doubt directly. Ulpian mentions him eight
times,214 once with ut apud Pomponium scriptum est,215 which shows that on
that occasion he took Octavenus’ opinion from Pomponius. In other texts
Ulpian cites Octavenus in the imperfect, which again indicates dependence on
Pomponius.216 Probably Ulpian did not read Octavenus at first hand but
took the references from Pomponius and Paul. Octavenus’ work was not
available to Justinian’s compilers. Ulpian once cites Nerva the elder with
inquit217 in a text from book 71 On the Edict.218 The author in question is the
emperor Tiberius’ friend M. Cocceius Nerva, consul suffect in AD 22. Ulpian
cites him fifteen times.219 It is not clear that Ulpian read his work at first hand:
the references may come from collections of material by Atilicinus220 or
Vivianus.221 Nerva’s writings did not survive to the age of Justinian. Lastly
there is one inquit text222 for Fulcinius Priscus,223 an author of the first century
AD whom Pomponius and Paul also cite, Paul twice in the imperfect.224
Ulpian’s inquit, which is one of his only two references to Fulcinius, may be
derived from Pomponius or Paul.
In sum, Ulpian was widely read. He had a well-stocked library, especially
of more recent authors. The sources he read first-hand were probably more
extensive than appears from the Digest. Thus Vatican Fragments 59–64,
70–1, 74–89, which contain excerpts on usufruct from Ulpian’s Sabinus book
17, have a wider range of citations and more book references than the corre-
sponding passages that appear in the Digest.225 Justinian’s compilers were
obliged to cut down on references in order to keep the Digest within the pre-
scribed limits, and Ulpian, who likes to refer to original sources when he can,
will have suffered disproportionately from this policy. That is not to say that
Ulpian eschews citation at second hand when the original or a verbatim quo-
tation is not available. On the contrary, he freely resorts to it, as do other
Roman lawyers. To these second-hand citations we now turn.
212 Lenel (1889) 2.794–6 213 D 9.2.27.25 (Ulp. 18 ed.)

214 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 65 215 D 5.3.16 pr (Ulp. 15 ed.)
216 Honoré (1962b) Tabula laudatoria XI 217 Lenel (1889) 1.787–90; Kunkel (1967) 120
218 D 43.24.3.4 (Ulp. 71 ed.) 219 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 64
220 Below n.241–56 221 Above n.35, 141–3 222 D 25.1.1.3 (Ulp. 36 Sab.)
223 Lenel (1889) 1.179–80; Kunkel (1967) 137
224 D 31.49.2 (Paul 5 Iul. Pap.); 43.16.8 (54 ed.). Perhaps Paul and Ulpian used a collection of
materials by Fulcinius that included opinions of Labeo and Mela: below n.269–70
225 Lenel (1889) 2.1056–65
III. COLLECTIONS OF LAWYERS’ OPINIONS
The discussion of first-hand sources revealed two collections of material

which Ulpian probably used; one perhaps by Sabinus in his work dedicated
to Vitellius,226 concerned with legacies and dating from the time of Augustus,
and a second by Vivianus227 compiled about the end of the first century AD. A
third author, Urseius,228 seems to have been used purely as a source of other
lawyers’ opinions.
One of the signs that a collection of material is being used as a source is the
running together of two or more opinions: for example, Nerva Atilicinus
responderunt. Another is the use of the ‘there exists’ (ex(s)tat), as in ‘there
exists an opinion’ (extat sententia). A third is the use of apud (‘in’ in the sense
of the French chez), as in apud Trebatium relatum est ‘it is recorded in Trebatius
that . . . ’. The running together of opinions is a sign, not of course conclusive,
that they have been found in a single source. Ex(s)tat implies that a text is cur-
rently available in some source other than its author’s own publication. Apud
points to an edition or collection of the work of another authors or authors.
We begin with Ulpian’s citations of republican jurists, which are often
listed in a string, as the following examples illustrate: Ofilius et Trebatius
responderunt;229 scribit enim Labeo et Trebatius;230 Labeo et Cascellius
aiunt;231 Cascellius et Trebatius putant;232 Gallus Aquilius Ofilius Trebatius
responderunt;233 Quintus Mucius et Ofilius negaverunt.234 What explains these
joint citations? In Labeo’s Posthumous Works, edited by Iavolenus, the
republican authors are always cited in a definite order, as follows: Q. Mucius,
Gallus, Servius, Ofilius, Cascellius, Trebatius, and Tubero.235 The opinion of
Labeo himself, as befits the title of the work, is generally put first.236 Ulpian’s
citations conform to the same order, with the minor variation that he some-
times follows chronological order and so puts Labeo after Trebatius.237
This suggests that Ulpian derived these citations from Iavolenus’ edition of
Labeo’s Posthumous Works, which he cites by name six times.238 In one text
226 Above n.163–6, 176 227 Above n.35, 141–3 228 Above n.205–9
229 D 4.8.21.1 (13 ed.) 230 D 19.1.13.22 (32 ed.) 231 D 39.3.1.17 (53 ed.)
232 D 43.24.1.7 (71 ed.) 233 D 30.30.7 (Ulp. 19 Sab.) 234 D 33.9.3.9 (22 Sab.)
235
D 18.1.79 (Labeo et Trebatius); 24.3.66.1 (Labeoni Trebatio); 24.3.66.2 (Labeo Trebatius);
28.6.39 pr (Labeonis, Ofilii, Cascelii, Trebatii); 28.6.39.2 (Ofilius Cascellius); 32.29 pr (Cascellius
Trebatius); 32.29.1 (Quintus Mucius et Gallus); 32.100.1 (Ofilius Trebatius); 32.100.4 (Labeo
Trebatius); 33.4.6.1 (Ofilius Cascellius); 33.6.7 pr (Ofilius Cascellius Tubero); 33.7.4 (Labeo
Trebatius); 33.7.25.1 (Labeo Trebatius); 33.7.26.1 (Labeo Cascellius Trebatius); 33.10.10 (Labeo
Ofilius Cascellius); 33.10.11 (Labeo Trebatius); 34.2.39 pr (Ofilius Labeo); 35.1.40.4 (Labeo Ofilius
Trebatius); 40.7.39 pr (Quintus Mucius Gallus et ipse Labeo . . . Servius Ofilius); 40.7.39.1 (Labeo
Ofilius); 40.7.39.4 (Labeo Ofilius . . . Labeonis et Ofilii); 49.15.27 (Labeo Ofilius Trebatius)
236
The only exception is D 34.2.39 pr (Iav. 3 post. Lab.)
237
D 10.3.6.6 (Ulp. 19 ed.); 40.7.3.11 (27 Sab.)
238
D 4.3.9.3 (11 ed.); 28.5.13.5, 6; 28.5.17.5 (7 Sab.); 7.8.2.1 (17 Sab.); 33.9.3.2 (22 Sab.)
Ulpian gives Iavolenus’ opinion immediately after that of Labeo, which also
points to his using Iavolenus’ edition or epitome of Labeo.239 Whether Labeo
made the collection of opinions which form the basis of the strings of citation
himself, or used someone else’s collection, is not clear. Certainly his collection
was distinct from that apparently to be found in Sabinus’ work dedicated to
Vitellius,240 which was confined to legacies.
Atilicinus241 is an author whose name often appears as a member of a
string, for example: Proculus Atilicinus;242 Nerva Atilicinus;243 Sabinus
Atilicinus.244 Sometimes the order is reversed, as in: Atilicinus Sabinus
Cassius;245 Atilicinus Nerva Sabinus.246 Ulpian sometimes inserts et between
the names.247 Julian248 and Paul do not.249 But clearly all three are directly or
indirectly using the same collective source, probably a collection made by
Atilicinus himself. Atilicinus was a mid-first-century contemporary of
Proculus;250 so he was either junior to or coeval with the other authors listed.
His name, however, appears either first or last in the lists. When it comes last
it is in the natural chronological position of the editor of a collection of opin-
ions by others. When it comes first this is a sign that a later author is consult-
ing the edited work (and so names the editor first) and then reverts to
chronological order when he comes to name the authors cited by the editor.
This is why, in the lists Atilicinus Sabinus Cassius251 and Atilicinus Nerva
Sabinus,252 the latest writer is named first and the earliest second. If, on the
other hand we find Atilicinus in the middle, as in Neratius Atilicinus
Proculus,253 the source is not the collection of juristic opinions by Atilicinus
but some work of Neratius or (at two removes) Pomponius in which use was
made of Atilicinus’ collection. Ulpian cites Atilicinus eleven times,254 but may
not have used his collection directly. Though he does say of one opinion of
Atilicinus that it exists, he does not claim to find any information ‘in
Atilicinus’ (apud Atilicinum). His sources for the Atilicinus citations are likely
to have been one or more of Neratius, Pomponius, Julian, and Paul, all of
whom he used directly.
Atilicinus, then, collected opinions of Nerva, Proculus, Sabinus, and
Cassius and added his own. Ulpian probably cited him at second hand and
the authors whose opinions he collected at third hand. The form of citation
depends on the intermediate source. Thus, Pomponius usually mentions his
source first. Taking Aristo’s opinion from a work of Neratius, he cites
239 D 18.4.2.17 (49 Sab.) 240 Above n.168–173

241 Lenel (1889) 1.71–4; Kunkel (1967) 129–30
242 D 4.8.21.9 (Ulp. 13 ed.); 8.3.5.1 (17 ed.); 15.1.17 (29 ed.)
243 D 44.4.4.8 (76 ed.) cf. 34.3.16 (Paul 9 Plaut.) 244 D 10.3.6.4 (Ulp. 19 ed.)
245 D 17.2.52.18 (31 ed.) cf. 45.2.17 (Paul 8 Plaut.) 246 D 35.2.49 pr (Paul 12 Plaut)
247 Above n.242–4 248 D 12.4.7 pr (Iul. 16 dig: Nerva Atilicinus)
249 Above n.243, 245–6 250 D 23.4.17 (Proc. 11 epist: Atilicinus Proculo suo salutem)
251 D 17.2.52.18 (Ulp. 31 ed.); 45.2.17 (Paul 8 Plaut.) 252 D 35.2.49 pr (Paul 12 Plaut.)
253 D 2.14.27 pr (Paul 3 ed.) 254 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 50
Neratius before Aristo,255 though Aristo was senior.256 So when Ulpian men-
tions Atilicinus first in a list, his source is probably Neratius or Pomponius
rather than Celsus or Julian, who prefer chronological order.
Titius Aristo annotated Labeo,257 Sabinus,258 and Cassius259 and may also,
Lenel thinks, have published a collection of legal sources, no doubt with com-
ments of his own.260 Ulpian cites Aristo’s notes on Cassius261 and cites Aristo
45 times in all.262 But he does not seem to have used Aristo’s collection of
material, if it existed, directly. He does not cite texts ‘in Aristo’ (apud
Aristonem). His source is rather Neratius, Pomponius, or Paul. Pomponius
made free use of Aristo’s work which, to go by a Paul text, he seems to have
edited.263
Ulpian seems, then, to have used the collections of material by Sabinus,
Labeo, Urseius, and Vivianus directly but those of Atilicinus and perhaps
Aristo only indirectly. Does this conclusion adequately account for his use of
ex(s)tat and apud? He uses ‘there exists’ (ex(s)tat) of opinions of Ofilius,264
Servius,265 Sabinus,266 Cassius,267 Nerva,268 Atilicinus,269 and Neratius.270
All these might be found in the works of Sabinus ad Vitellium, Labeo,
Urseius, Vivianus, Neratius, or Pomponius, if we assume that the opinion of
Nerva and Atilicinus was reproduced by Neratius or Pomponius. The list of
authors in whose work (apud quos) Ulpian finds information is longer. They
comprise Mucius, Servius, Servii auditores, Ofilius, Trebatius, Labeo, Mela,
Vitellius, old writers (veteres), Sabinus, Cassius, Minicius, Pedius, Plautius,
Urseius, Celsus, Vivianus, Pomponius, Julian, Marcellus, Scaevola, and
Tertullian.271 Most of these are authors whom Ulpian consulted at first hand
or whose works were excerpted or edited by others whom he consulted at first
hand. The two who do not fit this scheme are Mela and Plautius.
Fabius Mela272 was a lawyer of the early empire, probably a contemporary
of Labeo. Ulpian cites him thirty times,273 and also cites opinions of Aquilius
Gallus and Servius ‘in Mela’ (apud Melam).274 Another Ulpian text couples
the opinions of Labeo and Mela.275 Paul couples Mela and Fulcinius.276
Africanus cites the tenth book of some work of Mela.277 It is not easy to see
255 D 30.45 pr (Pomp. 6 Sab.); 40.7.5 pr (8 Sab.); 17.2.62 (13 Sab.)

256 D 40.4.46 (Pomp. 7 var. lect: Aristo Neratio Appiano [Prisco scr. Mommsen] rescripsit)
257 D 28.5.17.5 (Ulp. 7 Sab.); 43.24.5 pr (71 ed.)
258 Frag. Vat. 88 (Ulp. 18 Sab.); 7.8.6 (17 Sab.); 33.9.3.1 (22 Sab.)
259 D 7.1.7.3 (Ulp. 17 Sab.); 7.1.17.1 (18 Sab.); 39.2.28 (81 ed.)
260 Lenel (1889) 1.611 261 Above n.259 262 Honoré–Menner (1980) 50
263
D 24.3.44 pr (Paul 5 quaest: est relatum apud Sextum Pomponium digestorum ab Aristone
libro quinto)
264 265 266
D 43.20.1.17 (Ulp. 70 ed.) D 27.7.4 pr (36 ed.) D 39.2.15.12 (53 ed.)
267 268 269
D 43.24.11.1 (71 ed.) D 44.4.4.8 (76 ed.) D 44.4.4.8 (76 ed.)
270 271
D 42.4.7.16 (59 ed.) Texts in Honoré–Menner (1980) 50
272 273
Lenel (1889) 1.691–6; Kunkel (1967) 16 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 63
274 275
D 19.1.17.6 (32 ed.); 33.9.3.10 (22 Sab.) D 19.2.13.8 (32 ed.)
276 277
D 25.2.3.4 (Paul 7 Sab.) D 50.16.207 (Afr. 3 quaest.)
from what secondary source Ulpian derived his citations of Mela. One possi-
bility is a collection of material by Fulcinius Priscus.278 Texts of Paul lead one
to think that he used such a collection, which included opinions of Labeo and
Mela.279 Ulpian may have had access to the same source, or may have read
Mela at first hand.
Plautius is discussed in the next section.
IV. SOURCES CITED AT SECOND HAND
When Ulpian cites from collections of lawyers’ opinions he cites second hand,
but the editor of the collection generally gives the text of the original author
verbatim. In the instances now to be considered Ulpian takes from his pri-
mary source, especially his main sources, opinions that he finds mentioned in
them, but not necessarily verbatim. That he often did this is obvious. Ulpian
makes no attempt to hide it. For example he says ‘I read that Cato writes
. . .’,280 ‘It is said that Mauricianus thought . . .’,281 ‘Tubero defines, as Celsus
reports . . .’.282
Pernice reproached Ulpian for citing at second or third hand.283 He was
particularly critical of his habit of citing at second hand without saying so.
That Ulpian did this is, again, clear. Discussing the vesting of annuities, he
favours vesting at the beginning of the year: ‘Labeo, Sabinus, Celsus, Cassius,
and Julian approved this’.284 The Digests of Celsus and Julian are among
Ulpian’s main sources.285 For Celsus, Labeo and Sabinus are important
sources.286 Julian often cites Cassius.287 On the other hand Celsus cites
Cassius only once 288 and Julian cites Labeo only twice.289 We can infer that
in Ulpian’s text the citations of Labeo and Sabinus are taken from Celsus,
that of Cassius from Julian. Hence the text, if expanded, would read ‘Celsus
argues for the vesting of an annuity at the beginning of the year and cites in
support Labeo and Sabinus. Julian also favours the beginning of the year and
cites in support Cassius.’ There are a number of parallels, in which the indir-
ect source precedes the main source, as in: ‘and so Sabinus and Celsus
write’290 or ‘Labeo and Marcellus write’.291 The citation of Sabinus is taken
from Celsus, and that of Labeo from Marcellus. Another way of presenting
an indirect citation is illustrated by: ‘Celsus writes, and Tubero approves that
278 279
Above n.60–1, 222–4 D 31.49.2 (Paul 5 Iul. Pap.); 25.2.3.4 (7 Sab.)
280 D 21.1.10.1 (1 ed. cur: Catonem quoque scribere lego)
281 D 41.10.1.1 (15 ed: Mauricianus dicitur existimasse)
282 D 15.1.5.4 (29 ed: Tubero definit, ut Celsus refert) 283 Pernice (1885) 473f.
284 D 36.2.12.1 (23 Sab: et Labeo Sabinus et Celsus et Cassius et Iulianus hoc probaverunt)
285 Above n.9–10, 18–9 286 Honoré (1962b) 137–40 287 Honoré (1962b) 155–60
288 D 33.7.12.20 (Ulp. 20 Sab.) 289 D 13.4.2.8 (Ulp. 27 ed.); 44.4.4.1 (76 ed.)
290 D 43.26.8.1 (71 ed: et ita Sabinus et Cassius scribunt)
291 D 12.5.4.3 (26 ed: Labeo et Marcellus scribunt)
opinion.’292 The late-republican writer Tubero could not approve the opinion
of his second-century AD successor Celsus. So Ulpian here mentions first the
source, Celsus, then the author cited in the source, Tubero. We can be sure of
this because Celsus cites Tubero as often as he cites any author except
Proculus.293 It says something for Ulpian’s scholarly integrity that in three of
the five texts in which he cites Tubero he makes it clear that Celsus is the
source of the citation. One could argue from this for his direct use of, say,
Mela as a source.294
When Ulpian uses a primary source A, who cites his own primary source B
first, then a third source C, cited by B, he generally follows the order BCA.
Thus ‘Neratius and Aristo and Pomponius approve . . .’.295 Ulpian is here
using Pomponius as a primary source, Pomponius has used Neratius, and
Neratius has cited Aristo. Pomponius tends to cite his source in reverse
chronological order in such cases,296 and Ulpian does the same. There can be
slightly more complicated cases in which Ulpian’s primary source has himself
used two primary sources. An example is ‘Labeo, Neratius, and Aristo think
. . .’.297 Here it is likely that Ulpian has taken the citations from Pomponius,
who himself used two sources, Labeo and Neratius, and found Aristo’s opin-
ion in Neratius. On the other hand when Ulpian puts Aristo in the right
chronological order as in ‘and that was the view of Aristo, Neratius, and
Julian’298 it is likely that Ulpian is using Julian alone as a primary source,
since Julian when he cites normally keeps to the correct chronological
order.299 Sometimes it is difficult to be sure of the primary source, for exam-
ple ‘Labeo and Sabinus think and we approve . . .’300 or ‘Labeo and Cassius
write.’301 Here it is not likely that Ulpian is using Labeo at first hand. The pri-
mary source might be Celsus, Julian, Neratius, Pomponius, or collections of
material by Urseius, Vivianus, or Fulcinius. There are many possibilities.
To go further along these lines would be to analyse the use of sources by
Ulpian’s own main sources. This lies outside the scope of the present work.
But there remain some authors cited by Ulpian who have not yet been men-
tioned. Aufidius Chius,302 a lawyer of the Flavian period, is once cited for an
opinion of Atilicinus.303 Ulpian once cites Publicius, who wrote under
Hadrian or the early Antonines,304 Paconius,305 cited by Paul306 as well as
292 D 7.8.2.1 (17 Sab: Celsus scripsit, quam sententiam et Tubero probat)
293 Honoré (1962b) 137–40 294 Above n.272–9
295 D 28.5.9.14 (5 Sab: et ita Neratio et Aristoni videtur et Pomponius probat); 7.2.3.2 (17 Sab.)
296 Above n.255–6 297 D 28.5.9.14 (5 Sab: Labeo Neratius et Aristo opinantur)
298 D 35.1.7 pr (18 Sab.) 299 D 9.1.24.1 (15 dig.); 12.4.7 pr (16 dig.); 40.12.30 (5 Minic.)
300 D 19.1.11.3 (32 ed: et Labeo et Sabinus putant et nos probamus)
301 D 28.2.6 pr (3 Sab: et Labeo et Cassius scribunt)
302 Kunkel (1967) 135–6; Martial 5.61.10; apparently a freedman
303 Lenel (1889) 1.75–6; Frag. Vat. 77 (17 Sab.)
304 D 38.17.2.8 (13 Sab: Africanus et Publicius temptant dicere); Lenel (1889) 2.186; Hanslik
(1959); Kunkel (1967) 185–6; Liebs (1997) §415.3

305 Lenel (1889) 1.804; D 13.6.1.1 (28 ed.) 306 D 37.12.3 pr (Paul 8 Plaut.)
Ulpian but of unknown age and Cartilius,307 a lawyer of the Augustan age or
early empire. Ulpian cites Plautius,308 a writer of the Flavian dynasty whose
work was edited by Iavolenus, Neratius, Pomponius, and Paul, only once.309
Even then he cites it not for Plautius’ opinion but for that of the authors
whom he cites.310 Presumably Ulpian knew his work but did not think highly
of him. Marcus Vindius Verus,311 consul in AD 138, is mentioned thrice.312
One text suggests derivation from Julian,313 another from Pomponius.314
Iunius Mauricianus,315 active under Pius, comes in twice, once with
‘Mauricianus is said to have thought’,316 which is clearly second hand. The
citation may have come to Ulpian through Paul, who cites him.317
There are a number of members of the ‘Proculian’ school, deriving from
Labeo and Proculus, whom Ulpian cites but does not seem to have known at
first hand. The earliest is M. Cocceius Nerva the elder.318 The famous
Proculus,319 active under Nero, is cited forty-five times320 but never by book
or with inquit. Ulpian does not seem to have read his epistulae, though these
were available to Justinian’s compilers. Ulpian cites a note by Proculus on
Labeo, for which Celsus is his source.321 Proculus’ notes on Labeo’s
Posthumous Works may have come to Ulpian via Iavolenus.322 Virtually all
Ulpian’s main sources cite Proculus. Hence there is no need to suppose that
Ulpian read him in the original. Nor need we assume that he had read Nerva
the younger,323 father of the emperor of AD 96–8, who was a contemporary of
Proculus. Ulpian cites him five times, once along with Pegasus.324 The
chronological order is upset, so that this citation may come via Pomponius.
The next head of the Proculian school is Pegasus.325 Like Aufidius and Aristo
he was a man of humble origin whose career illustrates how law was then as
later a channel of social mobility. Pegasus rose to be urban prefect under
Vespasian. Ulpian cites him twenty-three times, but never by book or with
inquit.326 There is evidence that Pomponius327 and Julian328 were the sources
from which Ulpian derived these citations. Pegasus is often cited in combina-
tion: Trebatius et Pegasus,329 Labeo et Pegasus,330 Sabinus et Pegasus,331
307 Lenel (1889) 1.106; D 13.6.5.13 (28 ed.); Kunkel (1967) 122–3
308 Lenel (1889) 2.13–4; Kunkel (1967) 134 309 D 7.2.1.3 (Ulp. 17 Sab.)
310 Ibid: omnes enim auctores apud Plautium de hoc consenserunt
311 Lenel (1889) 2.1223–4; Kunkel (1967) 167–8 312 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 75
313 Frag. Vat. 77 (17 Sab: Vindius tamen, dum consulit Iulianum)
314 D 5.1.5 (5 ed: Pomponius et Vindius scripserunt) cf. 2.9.2.1 (Paul 6 ed.)
315 Lenel (1889) 1.690–2; Kunkel (1967) 176–7 316 D 41.10.1.1 (15 ed.)
317 D 6.1.35.1 (Paul 21 ed.) 318 Above n.217–21
319 Lenel (1889) 2.159–84; Kunkel (1967) 123–9; Honoré (1962b) 472–93
320 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 67 321 D 3.5.9.1 (10 ed.)
322 D 7.8.1.4 (17 Sab.) 323 Lenel (1889) 1.791–2; Kunkel (1967) 130
324 D 3.2.2.5 (6 ed: Pegasus et Nerva filius responderunt)
325 Lenel (1899) 2.9–12; Kunkel (1967) 133–4
326 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 66 327 D 7.1.12.2 (17 Sab.)
328 D 7.1.25.7 (18 Sab.) 329 D 41.1.41 (9 ed.)
330 D 33.7.12.3 (20 Sab.) 331 D 12.5.4 pr (26 ed.)
Proculus et Pegasus,332 Cassius et Pegasus.333 Perhaps Pegasus made a collec-

tion of previous opinions to which he added his own comments. This could
have served as a source book. But if it existed it was not available either to
Ulpian or to Justinian’s compilers. The last head of the Proculian school to
be mentioned is Iuventius Celsus the elder,334 father of the author of Digesta
which Ulpian used as a main source. Ulpian’s one reference to him comes
from his son’s work.335
This analysis of Proculian sources confirms the impression that Ulpian in
general preferred writers of the Sabinian school, with whom he was better
acquainted at first hand. But even with them he was selective. Iavolenus
Priscus, the first-century author who was Julian’s teacher, was head of the
Sabinian school, but is cited only three times. One of these texts suggests that
Ulpian knew Iavolenus’ fifteen books Readings from Cassius (Ex Cassio),336
a second that he knew his ten books of Labeo’s Posthumous Works.337 There
is some evidence that Ulpian annotated Iavolenus’ epistulae.338 Why, then
does he refer to him so little? Perhaps he did not esteem him highly as a
lawyer.
Ulpian cites two republican writers not so far mentioned. Alfenus Varus,339
a pupil of Servius, is mentioned seven times.340 The texts could come from
Labeo’s Posthumous Works,341 Pomponius,342 or Paul.343 Aufidius Namusa,344
another pupil of Servius, is cited twice. The same intermediate sources come to
mind.
Ulpian’s use of juristic sources is scholarly, at least as thorough as that of
other Roman lawyers. Of course, as Pernice discerned, he did not disdain the
use of secondary material when the primary source was not available. He used
the sources selectively. He preferred the more original authors. Celsus apart,
he favours writers of the pragmatic Sabinian rather than the more principled
Proculian school. The charge that he passed over his contemporary Paul out
of rivalry is not made out. Ulpian transmitted to posterity much of what was
best in Roman jurisprudence.
332 D 15.1.30 pr (29 ed.) 333 D 7.1.12.2 (17 Sab.)

334 Lenel (1889) 1.127–8; Kunkel (1967) 137–8 335 D 12.4.3.7 (26 ed.)
336 337
D 28.2.6 pr (3 Sab.) Above n.49, 184–5, 196–7, 234–6
338
D 38.5.12 (Iav. 3 epist. contains what looks like a note by Ulpian: quid enim dicemus? . . .
non dubitabimus)
339
Lenel (1889) 1.38–54; Kunkel (1967) 29
340
Honoré–Menner (1980) 50 (Alfenus), 75 (Varus)
341
D 32.29.2 (Lab. 2 post. Iav. epit.)
342
D 50.16.239.6 (Pomp. 1 enchir.); 18.1.18.1 (Pomp. 9 Sab.)
343
D 17.2.65.8 (Paul 32 ed.); 39.3.2.5; 50.16.77 (49 ed.) and, for Paul’s epitome of Alfenus’
Digest Lenel (1889) 1.45–53
344
Lenel (1889) 1.75–6; Kunkel (1967) 30–1 cf. D 35.1.40.3 (Iav. 2 post .Lab.); 33.5.20;
33.4.6.1 (Lab. 2 post. Iav. epit.); 39.3.2.6 (Paul 49 ed.)
V. IMPERIAL SOURCES
Private jurisprudence was not the whole story, nor even, in Ulpian’s time, the
main theme. Imperial constitutions were taking centre stage. These were still
primarily rescripts,345 documents addressed to private individuals or officials
answering questions put to the emperor, sometimes about law.346 In answer-
ing them the emperor’s practice was to state the existing law and a lawyer
drafted his reply. If the emperor wished to legislate, he had recourse to an
edict, such as the Antonine constitution, or a resolution of the senate (sena-
tusconsultum) passed at the emperor’s instance, for which the imperial address
(oratio) was now treated as the authoritative text.
We need to be alive to a certain irony. Ulpian cites many constitutions of
Severus, Severus and Caracalla, or Caracalla alone.347 When he cites one with
approval, he is not infrequently citing a text in the preparation of which he or
Papinian or Menander or some other professional colleague played a role.
His situation is not so different from that of Tribonian, praising himself in
texts issued by Justinian but composed by himself as quaestor.348
The table that follows349 presents a picture of the gradually changing
weight of imperial constitutions in relation to private jurisprudence. To
ensure that frequency of citation is a reliable index of the author’s practice,
the authors listed in rough chronological order are confined to those for
whom we have at least 3,000 words in Justinian’s Digest. So far as citing pri-
vate authors is concerned, jurists vary a great deal. Those most given to cita-
tion, Labeo, Pomponius, and Ulpian, come from three different centuries.
What they have in common is a lively interest in scholarship. Those authors
who are mainly oriented towards practice, like Scaevola and Papinian, cite
earlier authors sparingly. So, for a different reason, does Callistratus, a
provincial writer mainly concerned with criminal and public law,350 an impe-
rial domain. Yet when all necessary allowances have been made, Ulpian
stands out in the Severan age for his concern with the scholarly literature, a
concern stronger than Paul’s and much stronger than that of Marcianus, the
two contemporaries who mainly expound private law.
The extent to which the various authors refer to imperial constitutions
varies with the topic but, in contrast with their citing private authors, the fre-
quency changes over time. In the first century imperial law is a negligible ele-
ment in legal writing. In the second its weight relative to private scholarly
opinion grows. Callistratus writes in an eastern environment in the reign of
Severus but cites him with or without Caracalla only four times in eighty-nine
345 346
Coriat (1997) 647–8 Honoré (1994) 33–70 with literature
347
There are carefully compiled tables in Coriat (1997) 639–41, 647–8
348 349
Honoré (1978) 204 Honoré–Menner (1980) relevant fiches and intro. § 4
350
Lenel (1889) 1.82–106; Kunkel (1967) 235; Liebs (1997) §430.1
Frequency of citation of authors and emperors

Author % of Citations Citations Citations Citations
Digest of authors per 1% of emperors per 1%
Labeo 1.08 101 93 0 0
Iavolenus 1.01 11 11 0 0
Iulianus 4.40 51 12 2 0
Pomponius 4.41 361 82 30 7
Gaius 3.95 87 22 12 3
Africanus 1.74 14 8 8 5
Scaevola 4.92 27 5 16 3
Callistratus 1.12 9 8 89 79
Papinian 5.69 48 8 72 13
Paul 16.74 694 41 116 7
Ulpian 41.56 2577 62 461 11
Tryphoninus 1.28 15 12 18 14
Marcianus 2.43 62 26 148 61
Modestinus 2.44 27 11 110 45
references to emperors. His centre of gravity lies in the emperors of the late
Antonine age. Even before Severus, therefore, the emperor’s rescripts had
become the dominant source of law in the provinces, especially criminal and
public law. Papinian reflects a further development. He had a wide private
practice, not confined to public law, yet he too, though sparing in his mention
of either, cites emperors more than private authors. In Paul and Ulpian, on
the other hand, the balance is different. They put in five or six references to
private authors for each citation of imperial law. The main reason is that in
their major commentaries they summarise the whole of the relevant law
rather than the points of growth. Marcianus, who follows Ulpian in so much,
tilts the balance the other way. He has more than two constitutions to each
citation of a private author. Modestinus has four times as many. This pre-
dominance of imperial sources heralds the decline of private legal writing, the
so-called ‘end of the classical age’.
Ulpian lives in the middle of this shift in the relative importance of imper-
ial and private sources of law. He chooses between juristic and imperial
sources according to the context. In private law he cites rather few constitu-
tions; in public law, to which he made an original and creative contribution,
many. In Justinian’s Digest he is recorded as citing the text, or part of the text,
of 69 constitutions.351 Of these twenty-nine come from areas of public law:
351 Gualandi (1963) 1.17–229

thirteen from The Proconsul,352 eight from The Consul,353 two from The
Community Treasurer,354 two from The Urban Prefect,355 two from
Tribunals,356 and two from Appeals.357 Seven of these come from Severus and
Caracalla, two from Severus alone, two from Marcus alone, five from
Marcus, and Verus, eight from Pius, and five from Hadrian. This gives an
idea of the slow but regular development of public law in the Antonine age.
Ulpian cites constitutions in any number only from Trajan onwards. The
figures are: Caesar 1, Augustus 5, Claudius 2, Nero 2, Titus 1, Domitian 1,
Nerva 1, Trajan 14, Hadrian 48, Pius 113, Marcus and Verus 43, Marcus alone
65, Marcus and Commodus 2, Severus alone 46, Severus and Caracalla 61,
Caracalla 46, imperator 1, princeps/principes 9. The list suggests that Ulpian’s
reading went back to Trajan and Hadrian. The first constitutions he cites ver-
batim come from a chapter in Trajan’s official instructions (mandata)358 and
from two rescripts of Hadrian.359 Ulpian is selective about emperors as he is
about private authors. He certainly knew some rescripts of Commodus and
Pertinax, but he does not cite any, despite the fact that Callistratus,360
Papinian,361 Marcianus,362 and Modestinus363 cite Commodus, while
Callistratus364 and Modestinus365 cite Pertinax. A certain fastidiousness or
caution is at work here. Paul shares it.
It can be assumed that when Ulpian cites the text of a constitution he has
consulted the text. This could be found in the Book of Petitions and Rescripts
(Liber libellorum rescriptorum, evidenced for Gordian III),366 which probably
refers to the posting-up of a batch of petitions and replies in public, later
stored in an archive. Another source was provided by private collections of
laws. One collection that gave at least some texts of rescripts of Marcus and
Verus or of Marcus alone was that of Papirius Iustus, whose twenty books of
imperial constitutions (De constitutionibus) were available to Justinian’s com-
pilers.367 Pernice thought that Ulpian did not use this collection, but the texts
he cites are on different points from those recorded by Papirius.368 It is true
352
D 1.16.6.3 (1 off. proc.); 26.5.12.2 (3 off. proc.); 50.4.6 pr; 50.7.7 (4 off. proc.); 48.8.4.2 (7
off. proc.); 1.6.2; 48.6.6; 48.18.1.1, 16, 22, 27; 47.14.1 pr (8 off. proc.); 48.20.6 (10 off. proc.)
353
D 35.1.50; 40.12.27 pr (1 off. cons.); 25.3.5.7, 14; 34.1.3 ( 2 off. cons.); 1.7.39; 27.3.17;
50.12.8 (3 off. cons.)
354 355
D 50.12.1.5; 50.10.5 pr (1 off. cur. reip.) D 1.12.1.4; 1.15.4 (1 off. urb. pr.)
356 357
D 50.13.1.10, 12 (8 omn. trib.) D 49.1.1.1 (1 appell.); 49.9.1 (4 appell.)
358 359
D 29.1.1 pr (45 ed.) D 37.10.3.5 (41 ed.); 29.5.1.28 (50 ed.)
360 361
D 12.3.10 (Call. 1 quaest.); 35.3.6 (4 cogn.) D 22.3.26 (Pap. 20 quaest.)
362
D 40.10.3 (Marci. 1 inst.); 49.14.31 (4 inst.)
363 364
D 25.3.6.1 (Mod. 1 manual.); 27.1.6.8 (2 excus.) D 50.6.6.2, 13 (Call 1 cogn.)
365
D 40.5.12.2 (Mod. 1 manual.)
366
Honoré (1994) 47f.; Nörr (1981) 27–9; d’Ors–Martin (1979); W. Williams (1986) 201–4;
Liebs (1997) §411.3
367
368
Pernice (1885) 456 citing D 4.4.9.5 (Ulp. 11 ed.) and 39.4.7.1 (Papir. 2 const.). The last text
concerns a ward (pupillus) not a minor and simply grants an indulgence in the particular case. It
does not lay down a general rule and Ulpian was not bound to cite it: D 1.4.1.2 (Ulp. 1 inst.)
that Ulpian does not expressly mention Papirius. He cites one rescript from
the half-yearly collection (semenstria) published regularly by Marcus and
Commodus,369 a source that Tryphoninus also uses.370 That Ulpian con-
sulted some collection or collections of imperial texts seems likely from
phrases with ‘there exists’ (extat), for example ‘there exists a rescript’ of the
deified Pius,371 Marcus,372 Marcus and Verus,373 the deified brothers,374 or
Severus375 or ‘there exists the senatusconsultum Vitrasianum’.376 The bulk of
the constitutions cited will probably have come from an official archive of
some sort. A secretary for petitions (a libellis) needed to find out what preced-
ents there were on the points raised by the petitioner and on which the
secretary must advise the emperor. Whether, as Pernice asserts,377 Ulpian’s
reading was unsystematic and confined to rescripts bearing on the problem
before him, we cannot know. A secretary for petitions who held office for six
years (203–9) would over time have to deal with the whole range of topics on
which rescripts might be sought.
One of Pernice’s charges is that Ulpian passed off as his own statements of
the law which from other sources are known to have come from an imperial
constitution.378 In the case he refers to Ulpian reproduces379 what we know
from a text of Paul380 to be the words of a law of Marcus and Verus. But for
all we know Ulpian did make this clear and Justinian’s compilers have, in the
interest of brevity, struck out the relevant words. Since he is in general care-
ful to cite original texts when he can, we should not lightly assume an inten-
tion to pass off imperial law as his own invention.
Ulpian aims at a balance between private authors and imperial sources. He
is ready to cite either or both when appropriate. How does he perceive their
relation to one another? Which prevails in case of conflict? At first sight he
seems to put them on a level: ‘Julian wrote and it is provided by rescript
. . .’;381 ‘Papinian replied and it is provided by rescript’;382 ‘hence it has been
stated and provided by rescript’;383 ‘this is provided by rescript and juristic
opinion’;384 ‘as is provided by imperial constitution and juristic reply’;385 ‘for
this is recorded (by a legal author) and by rescript’.386
369 D 29.2.12 (11 ed: est et in semenstribus Vibiis Soteri et Victorino rescriptum)
370 D 2.14.46 (Tryph. 2 disp., citing Marcus); 18.7.10 (note on Scaevola, citing Marcus)
371 D 27.8.6 (1 ed.) cf. 36.3.1.11 (79 ed.); 27.10.1.1 (1 Sab.); 49.1.1.1 (1 appell.)
372 D 27.8.1.2 (36 ed.) 373 D 40.5.30.13 (5 fid.) 374 D 48.18.1.27 (8 off. proc.)
375 376 377
D 26.10.1.7 (35 ed.) D 40.5.30.6 (5 fid.) Pernice (1885) 457
378 379 380
Pernice (1885) 455 D 27.8.1.10 (36 ed.) D 26.5.24 (Paul 9 resp.)
381
D 13.7.13 pr (28 ed: scripsit Iulianus et est rescriptum)
382
D 48.18.4 (3 disp: ut Papinianus respondit et est rescriptum)
383
D 2.15.7.2 (7 disp: ut inde sit et dictum et rescriptum)
384
D 4.4.7.9 (11 ed: et hoc et rescriptum et responsum est)
385
D 3.2.13.7 (6 ed: ut et constitutum est et responsum)
386
D 50.1.2.5 (1 disp: hoc enim et relatum est et rescriptum)
Juristic and imperial law do not come in any particular order, as is shown
in the table compiled by Coriat.387 Juristic law is not confined to replies
(responsa) but extends to what has been written, said, or reported in a treatise.
Ulpian does not specially esteem replies. He cites none of his own. Nor does
he cite those of Marcellus, one of his main sources,388 or of Scaevola.389 Only
Papinian’s are treated with particular respect, but the respect is for the per-
son, not the form of expression. Though juristic opinion is a source of law,
Ulpian does not treat it as binding on himself. He is free to dissent from even
a unanimous opinion of his colleagues. Juristic opinion can, as Gaius says,
bind judges390 but it does not bind lawyers.
Imperial constitutions are different. Ulpian praises391 and occasionally
criticizes392 them, but they are binding and settle the law. If a testator
bequeaths to a slave the slave’s private fund (peculium) by way of legacy the
legacy should include, Ulpian thinks, any debt that the slave’s owner owes
him.393 But, he admits, this is contrary to a rescript of Severus and Caracalla,
of which he gives the text. He goes on to ask: ‘What if it was the testator’s
intention (that the slave should be able to claim what the owner owes)? . . .
Again, if the owner records in his accounts what he owes the slave, does the
debt form part of the legacy?’ There is then a discussion of the opinions of
Pegasus, Nerva, and Atilicinus. The latter held that the debt was not part of
the legacy, which is correct, says Ulpian, because it is consistent with the
rescript (quod verum est, quia consonat rescripto). So the rescript, even if open
to criticism, is decisive, and the principle that underlies it can be applied in
similar cases.
The view underlying this text is perhaps that rescripts on points if law are
declaratory of the true state of the law. Often they confirm Ulpian’s personal
opinion,394 which they can do in advance. It is this way of looking at legal
problems that makes it possible for Ulpian to say of a rescript of Marcus that
it conforms to his own opinion.395 Thus, on a point in the law of return from
captivity (postliminium) ‘there is no doubt after the rescript of the emperor
Antoninus and his deified father’ that a son born in captivity has the rights of
a son on return.396 But at other times Ulpian implies that a rescript has
changed the law. Of a rescript of Marcus that allowed a slave owner to accuse
his slave of adultery, he writes ‘After this rescript the owner has a duty to
387
Coriat (1997) 526–7, citing Collatio 12.7.4–6 (18 ed.); D 27.3.1.15 (36 ed.); 42.8.10.1 (73
ed.); 28.6.2.4 (6 Sab.); 38.17.2.2 (13 Sab.); 40.5.24.9 (5 fid.); J Inst. 2.20.12, where rescript and
constitution agree and D 9.2.29.1 (18 ed.), where they do not
388 Above n.9–10, 18–9 389 Above n.8–10, 109–15 390 Gaius, Inst. 1.7
391 D 17.1.6.7 (29 ed.); 28.6.2.4 6 Sab.); 50.2.3.1 (3 off. proc.); 48.19.8.1 (9 off. proc.); 50.15.3.1
(2 cens.)
392 D 33.8.6.4 (25 Sab.); 42.1.5.9 (3 off. cons.), 393 D 33.8.6.4 (25 Sab.)
394 36.1.19.1 (15 Sab: ut est et rescriptum); 26.8.5.3 (et ita est rescriptum); 49.1.1.2 (1 appell:
huic consequenter videtur rescriptum); 38.17.2.47 (13 Sab: et invenimus rescriptum)

395 D 29.1.3 (2 Sab: nam secundum nostram sententiam etiam divus Marcus rescripsit)
396 D 49.15.9 (4 Iul. Pap.)
accuse his own slave.’397 A ward who has meddled with the affairs of another
can ‘after the rescript of the deified Pius’ be sued to the extent of any profit he
has derived.’398 Whether it declares existing law or makes new law a single
rescript is conclusive. It does not follow that rescripts are immune from crit-
icism. Caracalla ruled that debts could be taken in execution, if necessary.
This applies, on the better view, says Ulpian, only to debts that the debtor
admits are due. Yet one might argue that the judge should decide whether
they are due, as happens with execution against tangible property. ‘But the
contrary has been laid down by rescript’.399
Just as juristic opinion binds judges but not lawyers, so rescripts bind
judges and lawyers but not emperors. An emperor may depart from his own
prior view of the law or that of his predecessors.400 If rescripts are at variance
a lawyer may choose between the differing views.401 A lawyer advising an
emperor as secretary for petitions or as imperial councillor may properly urge
him to take a different view of the law from that presented by a previous
rescript or line of rescripts. The rules about the sources of law establish a hier-
archy. The rulings of emperors if unanimous bind lawyers and judges, the rul-
ings of lawyers of authority if unanimous bind judges. But emperors do not
bind themselves, and lawyers of authority do not bind themselves or one
another. The emperor’s decision has the force of law,402 says Ulpian in a
famous and characteristically forceful phrase. But it ceases to be law if the
emperor or his successor can be induced to take a different view. Moreover
within imperial laws there are the more or less weighty.403 Decisions in judic-
ial proceedings (decreta) are not on a level with general constitutions and the
same is true to a lesser extent of rescripts. So it is possible to say of a point of
law that it has been judicially decided and (separately) laid down as law,404 or
that it has been decided by rescript and (separately) laid down as law.405
Judicial decisions and rescripts make law most clearly when they express a
general principle, and of this an imperial edict or other general constitution is
the best evidence.
397 D 48.2.5 (3 adult.) cf. 31.61.1 (18 Iul. Pap: Iulianus quidem ait . . . sed post rescriptum Severi)
398 D 3.5.3.4 (10 ed.) 399 D 42.1.15.9 (3 off. cons: sed contra rescriptum est)
400 D 37.14.17 pr (11 Iul. Pap.) 401 D 49.14.6 pr (63 ed.)
402 D 1.4.1 pr (1 inst: quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem) 403 Crifò (1983) 420
404 D 4.4.26.1 (5 fid: et est decretum ab imperatore Severo et constitutum); 49.14.25 (19 Sab:
decretum et a divo Severo constitutum est)

405 D 29.7.1 (4 disp: saepissime rescriptum et constitutum est).
7
Dates and Plan I: On the Edict
T H I S and the next two chapters try to fix the dates of Ulpian’s various works,
their order and the rate at which he wrote them. Though a sympathetic critic
has described this aim as ‘not worth the effort’1 the enterprise is instructive
from more than one point of view. It affords a paradigm of the Roman genius
for discipline and method. It shows how it was possible to achieve so much in
so short a period. Its conclusions have been largely accepted in a standard
work of reference.2 Moreover, an improved understanding of the Roman cal-
endar helps to modify the account in the first edition.
I begin with Ulpian’s eighty-one books On the Edict (Ad edictum prae-
toris),3 which for short will be called Edict. Once we assign these books to the
right period and fix the blocks of text in which Ulpian composed them, the
other works can be fitted in. To summarize the argument, Edict books 9–56
were composed in Caracalla’s sole reign, but that reign falls from Ulpian’s
point of view into two parts, one up to about book 19, the other starting
about book 22. Some of the later books (61–73) were written under Macrinus.
As to the rate at which Edict was written, the 76 books from 6 to 81 were
composed in three blocks, two of 251⁄2 and one of 25 books. These blocks rep-
resent annual stints and are independent of the political conditions that pre-
vailed at the time of writing.
To discover the dates of composition of Edict, and the blocks in which it
was written, we have, apart from some special clues, two resources. One
comes from references in Edict to reigning or recently dead emperors. These,
closely studied, are seen to reflect political conditions at the time of writing.
They can be used to date, within limits, the different parts of the commentary.
A second resource comes from the study of Ulpian’s style. Over the period
needed for such a large-scale work as Edict this slowly evolved. Had Ulpian
composed it in a continuous tract, it would still be useful to note how, as time
went by, he discarded certain expressions and adopted others. This would
help to date other works by their relation to the different parts of Edict. But
1 Millar (1986) 273,275 2 Liebs (1997) §424

3 Lenel (1889) 2.421–884; Ind. Flor. 24.1; Collectio 2.160, 3.2998f.; Seckel–Kübler (1908–27)
1.502, 2.171; FIRA 2.62–3.313; Girard–Senn (1967) 455–6, 458–9; Mommsen (1879,1904–13)
2.68–75; Ferrini (1886); Brassloff (1933); Wolff (1949) 64–90; Arangio-Ruiz (1957) 140–58; Wolff
(1959) 1–10; Wieacker (1960) 127,231–70,446f.; Schulz (1961) 244–50; Watson (1962) 209–26;
Arangio-Ruiz (1965) 2.1–25; Liebs (1972) 169f.; Honoré–Rodger (1974) 57–70; Liebs (1984) 447;
Falchi (1985) 189–214; Liebs (1997) §424.1
On the Edict 159
we can go further. Instead of being gradual, changes in the style of Edict are
in places abrupt. They occur between one book and the next, perhaps even in
the middle of a book. Such abrupt changes point to discontinuous composi-
tion. Ulpian has, for a time, put Edict aside in order to write or do something
else. Given the strain, and at times tedium, involved in writing on such a scale
this is hardly surprising. The breaks that can be detected help to fix the blocks
in which Edict was composed. These, in turn, give a clue to Ulpian’s method
of composition, and suggest a method, set out in the next chapter, for dating
his works and fixing the order in which he wrote them.
The Index Florentinus4 ascribes to Ulpian 83 books On the Edict. That is
a mistake. The headings of the Digest texts go up only to 81.5 The two books
on the edict of the market-masters or curule aediles formed a separate com-
mentary.6 Texts from these books are headed Ad edictum aedilium curulium
libro primo or libro secundo. They are not treated as the 82nd and 83rd books
of Edict. It was a mistake on Lenel’s part to treat them as such.7 As will
emerge later,8 these two books were probably composed at a time when
Ulpian had not got beyond Edict book 31. They were not left till the end.
I. REFERENCES TO EMPERORS
As regards references to living and recently dead emperors the 81 books, assum-
ing that they were composed in the numbered order, divide into five groups:
1. Books 1–6
2. Books 9–19
3. Books 22–57
4. Books 61–73
5. Books 74–81
The gaps cover books in which references to emperors are missing or ambigu-
ous. In any case these groups do not represent the blocks of text in which
Ulpian composed the commentary. They reflect rather the political condi-
tions obtaining at the time of composition. In regard to each group I set out
and seek to interpret the references to emperors.
1. Books 1–6
There is a single reference to a living or recently deceased emperor:

6 ed. D 3.2.24 imperator Severus rescripsit
4 5
Ch. 24.1 D 21.2.52; 39.1.21; 39.2.24, 26, 28, 30
6 7
Lenel (1889) 2.884–98; Liebs (1997) § 424.2 Lenel (1889) 2.884–98
8
Ch.9 n.26–34
160 7. Dates and Plan I
These first six books do not settle who the reigning emperor or emperors are.
We cannot conclude from the phrase imperator Severus that Severus was alive
when book 6 was composed. Although Mommsen, on the basis of his epi-
graphic studies, believed that imperator is properly used only of a living
emperor,9 Fitting pointed out that, on Mommsen’s own showing,10 lawyers’
writings often violated this pattern.11 A treatise by a lawyer is not like an
inscription on a column, in which it is important to adhere to the exact title
and to observe the convention that a deified emperor should be called divus.
When a lawyer cites the exact words of the law of a dead emperor, he often
introduces the emperor as imperator, as in this text of Marcianus written after
Caracalla’s death:12
Imperatores Severus et Antoninus in haec verba rescripserunt:
Again, the Questions (Quaestiones) of Papinian, composed under Severus,

regularly flout the suggested convention. They refer to deceased emperors as
imperator so-and-so, as in a reference to the long dead and deified emperor
Titus Antoninus (Pius):13
Imperator Titus Antoninus rescripsit non laedi statum . . .
On the other hand Papinian’s Replies (Responsa), apart from one text,14 call
dead emperors divus.15 What factors influence the choice of divus or impera-
tor in referring to a dead emperor? If the lawyer has consulted the text of the
constitution he cites, he is more likely to favour imperator. If, again, he is writ-
ing in a less formal mode (Quaestiones, debates about points of law, being less
formal than Responsa, written opinions that could be cited in court), or if he
wishes to show special respect for the emperor, he may adopt the imperator
form. But, as Papinian’s examples show, practice was not uniform. To avoid
monotony a writer might vary the form of reference. Perhaps for this reason
lawyers sometimes give the dead emperor’s name without any title: Traianus,
Hadrianus, etc.16 Apart from this, Mommsen listed twenty-one violations of
his convention in the Digest by writers as various as Callistratus, Menander,
9 Mommsen (1904–13) 2.156–7 cf. d’Ors (1942–3) 10 Mommsen (1904–13) 2.157–61
11 Fitting (1908) 5–8. 12 D 28.1.5 (Ulp. 6 Sab.)
13 D 1.5.8 (3 quaest.) cf. 50.1.11 pr (2 quaest.); 3.1.8 (2 quaest.); 31.64 (15 quaest.); 31.67.10
(19 quaest.); 12.6.3; 22.1.3 pr; 36.1.57.1 (20 quaest.); 36.3.5.1, 3 (28 quaest.); 35.2.11.2 (29
quaest.); 1.7.32.1 (31 quaest.); 48.5.39.4–6, 8; (36 quaest.) cf. Frag. Vat. 224 (11 quaest.)
14 D 20.2.1 (10 resp.) 15 e.g. D 29.2.86 pr (6 resp: divus Pius)
16 There are a number of examples from early emperors: Augustus: D 1.17.1 (Ulp. 15 ed.);
D. 23.2.14.4 (Paul 35 ed.); 40.1.14.1 (Paul 16 Plaut.); 49.16.12.1 (Macer 1 re mil.); 50.15.1.1 (Ulp.
1 cens.): Claudius: Gai. Inst. 1.32 c; D 4.4.3.4 (Ulp. 11 ed.); 16.1.2 pr. (Ulp. 29 ed.); Trajan: Gai.
Inst. 1.34; D.26.7.12.1 (Paul 38 ed.); 29.1.1 pr. (Ulp. 45 ed.); 49.14.13.6 (Paul 7 leg. Iul. Pap.);
49.14.16 (Ulp. 18 leg. Iul. Pap.); Hadrian: Gai. Inst. 1.47; Ulp. Tit. 24.28; Collatio 1.6.1 (Ulp. 7
off. proc.); D 11.8.3 (Ulp. 8 off. proc.); 37.1.6.8 (Mod. 2 excus.); 34.1.14.1 (Ulp. 2 fid. twice);
36.1.31.5 (Marci. 8 inst.); 40.12.27. 1 (Ulp. 2 off. cons.); 42.4.7.16 (Ulp. 59 ed.); 47.14.1.3 (Ulp. 8
off. proc.); 49. 14.13. 5 (Paul 7 leg. Iul. Pap.); 49.16.5.6 (Men. 2 re mil.); 49.17.19.3 (Tryph. 18
disp.); 50.8.12.3 (Papir. 2 const.)
On the Edict 161
Ulpian, Paul, Macer, and Modestinus.17 In these texts the author wrote
imperator for divus when speaking of a dead and deified emperor. Fitting
added two more instances from Paul18 and Marcianus,19 and overlooked two
from Macer.20 Given this weight of exceptions, it was bold of Mommsen to
argue that his rule remained intact. Nevertheless he relied on it to support a
mistaken hypothesis about the composition of Ulpian’s Edict.21
The safe course is to assume that, while the use of divus is usually a sign that
the emperor is dead (not infallible since a text can be altered retrospectively),
its absence is no sure sign that the emperor is alive. So the reference to impera-
tor Severus in book 6 of Edict does not tell us whether Severus was then alive
or dead.
2. Books 9–19
9 ed. D 3.3.33.2 quod et ex rescripto imperatoris nostri apparet

10 ed. D 3.6.1.3 sed et constitutio imperatoris nostri prohibuit
11 ed. D 4.2.9.3 sed ex facto scio rescriptum esse ab imperatore nostro
11 ed. D 4.4.3 pr. Denique divus Severus et imperator noster interpretati
sunt
11 ed. D 4.4.7.10 et divus Pius rescripsit et imperator noster
11 ed. D 4.4.11 pr. et hoc rescripto divi Severi continetur
11 ed. D 4.4.11.2 Aetrius Severus quia dubitabat ad imperatorem
Severum rettulit
11 ed. D 4.4.18.1 Glabrionem Acilium divus Severus et imperator
Antoninus non audierunt
11 ed. D 4.4.18.2 Percennio Severo . . . divus Severus et imperator
Antoninus permiserunt in auditorio suo examinari . . .
11 ed. D 4.4.18.3 Idem imperator Licinnio Frontoni rescripsit
11 ed. D 4.4.22 Calpurnio Flacco Severus et Antoninus rescripserunt
15 ed. D 5.3.20.12 sed imperator Severus epistula ad Celerem idem vide-
tur fecisse
16 ed. D 36.1.38.1 divus Severus in persona Arri Honorati pupilli decrevit
16 ed. D 6.2.11 pr imperator Severus rescripsit
17 D 49.16.6.7 (Men. 2 re.mil.); 4.4.45.1 (Call. 1 ed. mon.); 48.15.3 pr. (Marci. 1 iud. pub.);
25.3.6.1; 40.5.12 pr (Mod. 1 man.); 27.1.6.8, 17 (Mod. 2 excus.); 27.1.13.6, 7 (Mod. 4 excus.);
27.1.15 pr; 19.2.49 pr (Mod. 6 excus.); 40.4.56 (Paul 1 fid.); 4.6.8 (Paul 3 brev.); 34.9.5.9 (Paul 1
iur. fisc.); 5.3.43 (Paul 2 Plaut.); 49.14.49 (Paul 1 resp.); 42.8.10.1 (U1p. 73 ed.); 49.14.25 (Ulp. 19
Sab.); 1.5.1.8 (Ulp. 21 Sab.); Frag. Vat. 119 (Ulp. 2 off. proc.); D 23.1.16 (Ulp. 3 leg. Iul. Pap.);
Ulp. Tit. 26–7
18 D 40.9.15 (Paul 1 leg. Iul. Pap.) 19 D 49.14.30 (Marci. 3 inst.)
20 D 48.21.2 pr; 49.14.34 (Macer 2 iud. pub.) 21 Mommsen (1904–13) 2.159
17 ed. D 8.4.2 sed rescripto imperatoris Antonini ad Tullianum adic-

itur
18 ed. Collatio 12.7.6 cuius sententia et rescripto divi Severi comprobata est
18 ed. D 9.2.29.1 ex rescripto imperatoris Severi
19 ed. D 10.2.18.3 secundum rescriptum imperatorum Severi et Antonini
19 ed. D 10.2.20.1 et ita imperator noster rescripsit
22
In book 11 the phrase divus Severus et imperator noster implies that
Caracalla is sole emperor at the time of writing. His father is dead and he is
the ruler. The imperator noster of book 9 23 is surely also Caracalla. There may
indeed have been an interval between writing book 9 and book 11. But
between AD 198 and the end of 211 there was always more than one emperor.
Hence, if the imperator noster of book 9 is not Caracalla, the book must have
been composed thirteen years before book 11. So long a gap is unlikely.
Throughout the period that stretches from book 9 to book 19, then,
Caracalla is sole emperor. But Ulpian still treats Severus as senior to his son.
When father and son are mentioned in the same text, the father comes first.
Ulpian uses various formulae: divus Severus et imperator noster,24 divus
Severus et imperator Antoninus,25 Severus et Antoninus,26 and imperatorum
Severi et Antonini.27 Severus is alternatively divus, imperator, and called by his
name alone, but the order of emperors does not vary. During this period
Severus is six times divus,28 five times imperator,29 and is once mentioned by
his name alone.30 If we approach the matter without preconception, Ulpian
is flexible, almost indifferent, in the way he refers to the dead Severus. The
part of Caracalla’s sole rule during which Ulpian, in joint citations, treats
Severus as senior to his son, will be called Caracalla A.
3. Books 22–57
A reference in book 21 may or may not belong to the Caracalla A period:

From book 22 onwards, however, the texts belong to a new period in which
Caracalla has priority over his father. This period will be called Caracalla B:
22 ed. D 1.5.17 ex constitutione imperatoris Antonini
22 ed. D 12.2.13.6 imperator noster cum patre rescripsit
24 ed. D 11.6.7.3 nam et divus Severus decrevit
22 D 4.4.3 pr 23 D 3.3.33.2 24 D 4.4.3 pr (11 ed.)

25 D 4.4.18.1, 3 (11 ed.) 26 D 4.4.22 (11 ed.) 27 D 10.2.18.3 (19 ed.)
28 D 4.4.3 pr; 4.4.11 pr; 4.4.18.1, 3 (11 ed.); 36.1.38.1 (16 ed.); Collatio 12.7.6 (18 ed.)
29 D 4.4.11.2 (11 ed.); 5.3.20.12 (15 ed.); 6.2.11 pr (16 ed.); 9.2.29.1 (18 ed.); 10.2.18.3 (19 ed.)
30 D 4.4.22 (11 ed.)
On the Edict 163
25 ed. D 11.7.12 pr Imperator Antoninus cum patre rescripsit

25 ed. D 47.12.3.3 ut rescripto imperatoris Antonini cavetur
25 ed. D 47.12.3.4 edicto divi Severi continetur
25 ed. D 47.12.3.7 ut divus Severus rescripsit
25 ed. D 11.7.14.7 et ita imperator noster rescripsit
26 ed. D 12.5.2.231 et non ita pridem imperator noster constituit
26 ed. D 12.6.26 pr divus Severus rescripsit
26 ed.32 Frag. Vat. 266 imperator noster rescripsit in haec verba
28 ed. D 13.7.11.6 quod constitutum est ab imperatore nostro
29 ed. D 16.1.2.3 hoc enim divus Pius et Severus rescripserunt . . . et est
et Graecum Severi tale rescriptum
29 ed. D 16.1.4 et ita divus Pius et imperator noster rescripserunt
31 ed. D 17.1.12.10 et ita imperator Severus Hadriano Demostrati rescrip-
sit
31 ed. D 17.2.52.5 et imperator Severus Flavio Felici in haec verba
rescripsit:
32 ed. D 18.3.4 pr ut rescriptis imperatoris Antonini et divi Severi
declaratur
32 ed. D 19.2.9.1 et ita imperator Antoninus cum divo Severo rescripsit
32 ed. D 19.2.9.4 imperator Antoninus cum patre ita rescripsit
32 ed. D 19.2.15.5 rescripto divi Antonini continetur
32 ed. D 19.2.15.6 rescriptum est ab Antonino Augusto
32 ed. D 19.2.19.9 imperator Antoninus cum divo Severo rescripsit in
haec verba
34 ed. D 23.3.40 divus Severus rescripsit Pontio Lucriano in haec verba
34 ed. D 23.4.11 ita interpretandum divus Severus constituit
34 ed. D 49.14.27 divus Severus rescripsit
34 ed. D 27.2.1.1 imperator Severus rescripsit
35 ed. D 27.2.1.3 et ita divus Severus saepissime statuit
35 ed. D 26.7.3.4 imperator noster cum patre rescripsit
35 ed. D 26.7.7.4 et ita divus Severus decrevit
35 ed. D 27.9.1 pr imperatoris Severi oratione . . . quae oratio in senatu
recitata est33
35 ed. D 27.9.3 pr secundum constitutionem imperatoris nostri et divi
patris eius
31
= CJ 7.49.1, 19 Dec. 212
32 33
The heading is 1 ed. de rebus creditis, which corresponds to 26 ed. 13 June 195
35 ed. D 26.10.1.4 sed imperator Antoninus cum divo Severo rescripsit

35 ed. D 26.10.1.7 et rescriptum exstat divi Severi
35 ed. D 26.10.3 pr et ita divus Severus rescripsit
35 ed. D 26.10.3.13 Severus et Antoninus rescripserunt Epicurio
36 ed. D 27.3.1.3 nam divus Severus decrevit
36 ed. D 26.7.9.6 imperator Antoninus cum patre prohibuit
36 ed. D 27.3.1.13 constitutum est a divo Pio et ab imperatore nostro et
divo patre eius
36 ed. D 27.3.1.15 et ita imperator noster Ulpio Proculo rescripsit
36 ed. D 12.3.4 pr rescriptis imperatoris nostri et divi patris eius contine-
tur
36 ed. D 12.3.4.1 et ita constitutionibus expressum est imperatoris nostri
et divi patris eius
36 ed. D 27.5.1.2 divus Severus rescripsit
38 ed. D 47.4.1.7 est autem saepissime et a divo Marco et ab imperatore
nostro cum patre rescriptum
45 ed. D 29.1.13.4 imperator noster cum divo Severo rescripsit
50 ed. D 48.18.3 constitutione imperatoris nostri et divi Severi placuit
52 ed. D 36.4.5.16 Imperator Antoninus Augustus rescripsit
52 ed. D 36.4.5.25 Constitutio autem divi Antonini pertinet
57 ed. D 47.10.7.6 imperator noster rescripsit
During the Caracalla B period Caracalla is sole emperor and, when he is men-
tioned in conjunction with his father, his father comes second. This contrasts
with the Caracalla A period, when Severus came first. In books 2234 and 50 35 a
constitution of imperator noster and his father Severus is mentioned. Imperator
noster also comes in thirteen texts between these books,36 imperator Antoninus
in eight,37 Antoninus Augustus in a ninth.38 So Caracalla was sole emperor
during the whole period between the composition of books 22 and 50. Doubt
surrounds only the last three texts, two from book 52 and one from book 57.
In the first text from book 5239 imperator Antoninus Augustus is said to have
given a rescript to the effect that a legatee or fideicommissary could in certain
cases get an order putting him in possession of the heir’s property. In the sec-
ond text 40 this same rescript is referred to as a constitutio divi Antonini. Fitting
argued41 that the first sentence was written at the very end of Caracalla’s
34 D 12.1.13.6 (22 ed.) 35 D 48.18.3 (50 ed.)
36 D 11.7.14.7 (25 ed.); 12.5.2.2 (26 ed.); Frag. Vat. 266 (26 ed.); D 13.7.11.6 (28 ed.); 16.1.4
(29 ed.); 26.7.3.4; 27.9.3 pr (35 ed.); 12.3.4 pr, 1; 27.3.1.13; 27.3.1.15 (36 ed.); 47.4.1.7 (38 ed.);
29.1.13.4 (45 ed)
37 D 11.7.12 pr (25 ed.); 47.12.3.3 (25 ed.); 18.3.4 pr; 19.2.9.1, 4; 19.2.19.9 (32 ed.); 26.10.1.4
(35 ed.); 26.7.9.6 (36 ed)

38 D 19.2.15.6 (32 ed.) 39 D 36.4.5.16 (52 ed.) 40 D 36.4.5.25 (52 ed.)
41 Fitting (1908) 107; Karlowa (1885–1901) 1.743
On the Edict 165
reign. The emperor’s death caused Ulpian to put his pen aside. By the time he
resumed book 52 Caracalla was referred to as divus Antoninus. But the two
texts belong to a continuous passage, as printed in the Palingenesia, of fifty
lines.42 The shock of Caracalla’s death would hardly have made Ulpian stop
in the middle of the passage he had started dictating.43 The correct explana-
tion is surely that of Mommsen.44 In the second text divus is a retrospective
insertion. A copyist will be tempted to insert divus if by the time he is copying
it the emperor in question has been deified. He is especially likely to do so if
the original referred to the emperor just by his name. So the likelihood here is
that the original read constitutio autem Antonini. The copyist has inserted divi
before Antonini. It is no surprise to find bare Antoninus in the original at this
point, since Caracalla has just previously been called imperator Antoninus
Augustus,45 which, in a legal text, is a trifle formal. A formal reference can
properly be followed by an informal one.
This presupposes that imperator Antoninus Augustus is indeed Caracalla,
not Elagabal. The constitution mentioned in book 52 is referred to in a
rescript of Alexander of 225,46 and there attributed to divus Antoninus pater
meus. Alexander was referring to Caracalla, from whom he claimed descent,
not to the discredited Elagabal.47 So book 52 of Edict was composed under
Caracalla. In any case Caracalla’s deification came not at once, but after an
interval, at the end of Macrinus’ reign or the beginning of Elagabal’s.48
If, therefore, divus was genuine in the second text, we should still have to sup-
pose the sort of break that Fitting proposed—a year’s interval between the
beginning and the end of a text that reads as continuous.
The third text49 presents more difficulty. Fitting, followed by d’Ors, held
that imperator noster in this text is Alexander.50 Gualandi, however, points
out that their arguments, drawn from the use of divus in book 52, are unreli-
able. One cannot rule out the possibility that the emperor referred to was
Caracalla. In my view imperator noster here is indeed Caracalla. But the argu-
ment for preferring a later emperor can be strengthened. This later emperor
could not be Alexander, because during the short time that he lived under
Alexander, between AD 222 and 223/4, Ulpian, as a prefect, did not have time
to compose twenty-five books of edictal commentary. One could, however,
adapt Fitting’s idea by substituting Elagabal for Alexander. As explained
later in this chapter,51 there appears to be a break in Ulpian’s Edict in the mid-
dle of book 56. This break, if it existed, occurred shortly before the text in
book 57 that we are now considering. There could have been a substantial
42 Lenel (1889) 2.741–2 43 Crifò (1985) 610 suggests this
44 Mommsen (1904–13) 2.169 45 D 36.4.5.16 (52 ed.)
46 CJ 6.54.6 (8 Jan. 225)
47 Herodian 5.3.10; 5.7.3; CJ 12.35.4 (Antoninus pater meus); 6.50.5 (17 Nov. 223: constitutio
divi Severi avi mei)

48 Dio 79.9.2; 79.17.2; 80.2.6; von Rohden (1896) 2437. 49 D 47.10.7.6 (57 ed.)
50 Fitting (1908) 107 cf. d’Ors (1942–3) 68 51 Below n.109–12
interval between the composition of book 52, when there is reason to suppose
that Caracalla was still alive, and book 57. So book 57 might have been com-
posed under Elagabal.
There are, however, two reasons for rejecting this suggestion. There is no
sign that the text refers to Elagabal. Indeed, there is no positive evidence that
Ulpian composed anything under Elagabal. Secondly, there is positive evid-
ence, to be detailed in a moment,52 that some books of Ulpian’s Edict later
than book 57 were composed in the reign of Macrinus. If so, book 57 cannot
have been composed under Elagabal, unless it was written out of order. But
why should it have been? I therefore adopt the suggestion of Gualandi that in
this book 57 text imperator noster is still Caracalla.
But if Caracalla was sole emperor during the period of composition of
books 22 to 57, his relation to Severus had changed from what it was up to
book 19. Ulpian now treats him as senior to Severus, in the sense that he is
consistently mentioned first. Various formulae are used:
imperator noster cum patre53
imperator noster et divus pater eius54
imperator noster cum divo Severo55
imperator noster et divus Severus56
imperator Antoninus cum patre57
imperator Antoninus et divus Severus58
imperator Antoninus cum divo Severo59
In contrast with the Caracalla A period, where we found four texts in all of
which Severus preceded his son, we now find seventeen texts, in sixteen of
which one of the formulae just listed are used.60 The one exception comes in
book 35.61 Here the text runs Severus et Antoninus rescripserunt Epicurio.
Whatever the explanation of this exception, in which Severus comes first, it
cannot obscure the contrast between Caracalla B and Caracalla A. Respect
for or fear of the tyrant now made it standard practice to mention him first.
Other writers, such as Paul62 and Tryphoninus,63 do the same, so that the
works in which they do this should be assigned to the same part of Caracalla’s
reign. It is not easy to say whether this change (which, I shall argue, occur-
red in 213) reflects some striking political event,64 or whether it defers to a
52 53
Below n.88–92 D 12.2.13.6 (22 ed.); 26.7.3.4 (35 ed.); 47.4.1.7 (38 ed.)
54 55
D 27.9.3 pr (35 ed.); 27.3.1.13; 12.3.4 pr, 1 (36 ed.) D 29.1.13.4 (45 ed.)
56 D 48.18.3 (50 ed.) 57 D 11.7.12 pr (25 ed.); 19.2.9.4 (32 ed.); 26.7.9.6 (36 ed.)
58 D 18.3.4 pr (32 ed.) 59 D 19.2.9.1; 19.2.19.9 (32 ed.); 26.10.1.4 (35 ed.)
60 Above n.53–9 61 D 26.10.3.13 (35 ed.)
62 D 27.1.46.2 (cogn.); 40.8.7 (1 lib. dand.); 27.9.13 pr (1 orat. d. Sev.); 47.15.6 (1 pub. iud.)
63 D 27.1.44 pr (2 disp.); 49.15.12.17 (4 disp.)
64 Quite possible. In 213 come the first inscriptions that call Caracalla magnus imperator (CIL
V 28, X 5286). The Fratres Arvales call him Germanice max(ime) as early as 19 May 213: CIL VI
2086(2) line 15
On the Edict 167
growing insistence by Caracalla that the achievements of his father’s reign

were in substance his own. At any rate there is a change in the political cli-
mate. Now, when Severus is mentioned as joint emperor with Caracalla, his
title, if he is given one, is divus, not imperator. He is called divus in ten such
joint texts;65 on the other hand, seven refer to him merely as Severus 66 or
pater.67 When Severus stands on his own as the author of a constitution, he is
imperator on five occasions,68 divus thirteen times69 and is twice mentioned by
name alone.70 In the Caracalla A period there is an even balance between
Severus, standing on his own, as imperator or divus. But in Caracalla B the
divus texts outweigh the imperator texts by thirteen to five.
Mommsen pointed out that the references to Severus as imperator cease
after book 35.71 Since, in his view, imperator is only properly used of a reign-
ing emperor, Ulpian must, he supposed, have drafted his commentary up to
book 35 during the reign of Severus, and then revised it under Caracalla. This
would account for the mixture of references to Severus, some as imperator,
some divus. But, as we saw, lawyers do not consistently confine the title
imperator to reigning emperors.72 If Ulpian really proceeded in the way sup-
posed, why did he not revise the references to imperator Severus when he later
inserted references to divus Severus? If he wanted to be consistent he could
have made them all divus. As Fitting remarked,73 this slapdash method of
revision does not fit the strict constitutional convention that forms the basis
of Mommsen’s argument. Moreover, on the substance of the texts, there is no
evidence that Edict was revised. In this respect it contrasts with Ulpian’s On
Sabinus and The Proconsul, which do present signs of revision, though on a
limited scale.74
In favour of his revision theory, Mommsen cites a text from book 11.75
This text begins Divus Severus et imperator Antoninus permiserunt, but goes
on in the next sentence with Idem imperator rescripsit. Mommsen supposes
that in the first version, composed under Severus, the text ran imperator
Severus permisit.76 The reference to Caracalla has, he thinks, been added in
the revised draft, and imperator Severus has been changed to divus Severus.
But, if Ulpian went to that trouble to revise the text, why did he not change
65 D 18.3.4;, 19.2.9.1; 19.2.19.9 (32 ed.); 27.9.3 pr (35 ed.); 26.10.1.4 (35 ed.); 27.3.1.13; 12.3.4
pr; 12.4.3.1 (36 ed.); 29.1.13.4 (45 ed.); 48.18.3 (50 ed.)
66 D 26.10.3.13 (35 ed.)
67 D 12.2.13.6 (22 ed.); 11.7.2 pr (25 ed.); 12.2.9.4 (32 ed.); 26.7.3.4 (35 ed.); 26.7.9.6 (36 ed.);
47.4.1.7 (38 ed.)

68 D 17.1.12.10 (31 ed.); 17.2.52.5 (31 ed.); 18.2.16 (32 ed.); 27.2.1.1 (34 ed.); 27.9.1 pr (35 ed.)
69 D 11.6.7.3 (24 ed.); 47.12.3.3; 47.12.3.7 (25 ed.); 12.6.26 pr (26 ed.); 23.3.40; 23.4.11;
27.2.1.3; 49.14.27 (34 ed.); 26.7.7.4; 26.10.1.7; 26.10.3 pr (35 ed.); 27.3.1.3; 27.5 1.2 (36 ed.)
70 D 16.1.2.3 (29 ed., twice)
71 Mommsen (1904–13) 2.158–9; Karlowa (1885–1901) 1.743; Pernice (1885) 444; Jörs (1903)
1505
72 Above n.9–21 73 Fitting (1908) 8 74 Ch.8 n.33–7
75 D 4.4.18.2, 3 (11 ed.) 76 Mommsen (1904–13) 2.15923
Idem imperator rescripsit in the second sentence into Idem imperatores

rescripserunt? A simpler explanation lies to hand. A law enacted by joint
emperors is often treated as that of the senior Augustus, who alone normally
has the power to make law. In this text, which comes from the Caracalla A
period, Ulpian rightly treats Severus as the senior Augustus and so the real
author of the law. A formal reference to both emperors is followed by an
informal one which states the gist of the matter. No doubt, had he been writ-
ing this passage during the Caracalla B period, Ulpian would have expressed
himself differently.
Even Fitting, who is sceptical of Mommsen’s views, thinks that the whole
work went through two drafts, one during the reign of Severus and a second
under Caracalla and his successors.77 Kipp would extend the initial draft
beyond book 35 to the end of Edict, the whole of which was worked over
twice.78 Indeed Mommsen’s argument that the initial draft stopped at book 35
is a weak one. It is based on the fact that references to imperator Severus stop
there. But between books 36 and 57 there are only two references to constitu-
tions of Severus on his own. These two texts occur in book 36, and both speak
of divus Severus.79 There are also seven texts between books 36 and 50 that men-
tion Severus jointly with Caracalla.80 All these have divus Severus, divus pater,
or pater, none imperator. But this is hardly surprising, since none of the earlier
joint references in the Caracalla B period call Severus imperator either.81 As for
the two texts in which divus Severus is mentioned on his own, there is no reason
why they should be balanced by a text in which Severus is called imperator, since
the ratio of divus to imperator references to him in this whole period is, as we
have seen, at least two or three to one.82 In the upshot there is no reason to sup-
pose that Ulpian left off a first draft of his Edict at or about book 35.
Another argument of Fitting in favour of the revision theory merits a men-
tion.83 In books 10 and 26 Ulpian cites a constitution of Caracalla of 19
December 212.84 This penalises a litigant who attempts to corrupt the judge
or his opponent.85 In the second of these texts it is said that the constitution
was issued ‘not so long ago’ (non ita pridem). It is impossible, says Fitting, that
in this brief period Ulpian could have composed for the first time the inter-
vening sixteen books—and possibly more, since there is no guarantee that
book 10 was written very soon after 19 December 212. So Ulpian must dur-
ing this brief interval have been revising a first draft, not composing a wholly
new commentary.
77 78
Fitting (1908) 8 Kipp (1919) 13861 79
D 27.5.1.2; 27.3.1.3 (36 ed.)
80
Above n.33–4
81
The only such text in the edictal commentary is D 10.2.18.3 (19 ed.) from the Caracalla A
period
82 83
Above n.68–9 Fitting (1908) 106
84
D 3.6.1.3 (10 ed: constitutio imperatoris nostri, quae scripta est ad Cassium Sabinum);
12.5.2.2 (26 ed: non ita pridem imperator noster constituit)
85
CJ 7.49.1 (Antoninus A. ad Gaudium)
On the Edict 169
But this argument is also weak. The phrase non ita pridem need not rep-
resent a very short period. It could continue to be appropriate for at least a
year or so. The idea that Ulpian could not compose sixteen books in a year is
ludicrous, his normal rate of composition being, we shall see, over forty
books a year. It is like the theories once held about Justinian’s Digest, which,
some scholars thought, could not have been compiled in three years without
earlier drafts or partial codifications to work on.86 That has been shown to be
wrong,87 and it is wrong for Ulpian too. Ulpian’s rate of work is best under-
stood, I suggest, if we suppose that on average he composed about a book a
week, with vacations of sixty days in all, during the period of about five years
when he concentrated on writing. If so, he wrote or dictated each week about
10,000 to 12,000 words or the equivalent of 25 to 30 pages of modern print. A
methodical writer can keep this up week after week if two conditions are pre-
sent. One is that the source material has been collected beforehand and is easy
to refer to. We should picture Ulpian during the reign of Severus not as mak-
ing a first draft of Edict but as collecting and analysing the material he intends
to use later. Secondly, we must suppose that Ulpian dictates to scribes who
have become familiar with legal terms. There is no reason why Ulpian’s work-
ing method should not have been the same as that of Anthony Trollope and,
if it comes to that, myself. We set ourselves to write so many words a day, but
do not pedantically adhere to the routine. Instead, we check our progress to
make sure that over a period we have kept up the pace.88
There is no solid basis, then, for the theory that the whole of Edict, or the
first thirty-five books of it, were first drafted under Severus and later revised
under Caracalla. So far as books 22–57 are concerned, the references to
emperors show rather that they were drafted in that part of Caracalla’s reign
that we have termed Caracalla B. This began ‘not long after’ 19 December
212. What is more, it began after the Constitutio Antoniniana, which is men-
tioned in book 22.
4. Books 61–73
In the next period Caracalla is called plain Antoninus, without a title, and
Severus, in most texts, is also plain Severus.
61 ed. D 26.5.18 et ita Severus rescripsit
64 ed. D 42.6.1.3 et ita Severus et Antoninus rescripserunt
68 ed. D 43.4.3.1 constitutum est ab Antonino
71 ed. D 43.30.1.3 et divus Pius decrevit et a Marco et a Severo rescriptum
est
73 ed. D 42.8.10.1 et ab imperatore Severo et Antonino rescriptum est
86 Peters (1913) and others 87 Diósdi (1971); Honoré–Rodger (1970); Honoré (1978)
88 Mullen (1990) 320–1
It is clear from the mentions of Severus and Antoninus together that

Antoninus still means Caracalla. He is not, however, now called imperator
noster, Augustus, or princeps. There is no sign that he is now reigning. But nei-
ther is he divus.
An isolated text in which Caracalla was plain Antoninus would be consist-
ent with the hypothesis that he was still reigning, or was dead and had been
deified. Three successive texts in which he is called Antoninus without more call
for a different interpretation. They reflect political change. They point to the
reign of Macrinus, during which Caracalla’s status was a source of perplexity
to the equestrian emperor. Dio explains that Macrinus found himself in a
dilemma.89 When writing to the senate, says the historian, himself a senator,
he made no reference to Tarautas [viz. Caracalla] either favourable or unfavourable
but simply called him emperor. He dared neither declare him a god nor call him a pub-
lic enemy. He hesitated to take the first course, I think, because of (Caracalla’s) actions
and the hatred felt towards him by many, the second because of the soldiers. Some
thought he acted in this (hesitant) way because he wished the senate and people to take
the step of dishonouring Tarautas themselves, the emperor being surrounded by
troops.
It is this dilemma of Macrinus, surely, that Ulpian in his own way reflects.
Unsure how to refer to Caracalla, he cannot call him divus, since he has not
been deified and perhaps never will be. He is dead, so he cannot be noster,
Augustus, or princeps. Imperator might do, but in the writings of a lawyer that
title, used of a dead emperor, is perhaps too respectful. So, though Macrinus
chose imperator in his letter to the senate as a non-committal expression,
Ulpian’s solution is to adopt the plain form Antoninus. As to Severus, though
he is not in disgrace, he, too, suffers to some extent from his association with
Caracalla, and, in three texts out of four, becomes plain Severus.90 In the
fourth, on the other hand, he is imperator Severus.91 The text runs ab impera-
tore Severo et Antonino. This may again reflect Caracalla’s dubious status.
Severus can safely be called an imperator, but it is still possible that his son’s
memory will be condemned.
That Caracalla is now dead is clear from the fact that Severus is now men-
tioned before him,92 in contrast with the practice in the period we have called
Caracalla B. Severus resumes his natural seniority. During this period, as
Fitting pointed out,93 fewer laws and lawyers are cited. In contrast with the
first fifty-two books, Ulpian no longer cites writers by work and book as he
does earlier. An example of the earlier practice is:
apud Marcellum libro quarto digestorum relatum est . . .94
89
Dio 79.17.2–3 cf. Honoré (1962a) 209
90 91
D 26.5.18 (61 ed.); 42.56.1.3 (64 ed.); 43.30.1.3 (71 ed.) D 42.8.10.1 (73 ed.)
92 93 94
D 42.6.1.3 (64 ed.) Fitting (1908) 107 D 5.3.13.10 (Ulp. 15 ed.)
On the Edict 171
Such references, with one uncertain exception,95 are missing in the later
books. Jörs thought that the whole commentary was first drafted during
Severus’ lifetime in this skeletal form.96 Then it was revised under Caracalla,
and the work and book citations added. The revision, however, petered out
towards the end. If the revision theory is rejected, two other explanations lie
to hand. Ulpian may have been pressed for space towards the end of his great
enterprise. In Paul’s Edict, which runs to 78 books, citations by work and
book cease at book 41.97 The compilers of Justinian’s Digest may also have
been pressed for space. The middle section of edictal commentary was appar-
ently read by the Sabinian committee, the last by the edictal committee.98
According to Bluhme and Krüger the division falls in the middle of Ulpian
book 52 and Paul book 48. Perhaps the edictal committee decided that the
time had come to reduce the volume of excerpts by omitting these work and
book citations. But two such citations occur in Ulpian, Edict book 5299 in a
passage that Bluhme and Krüger assign to the edictal committee. This is not
a strong objection, since we do not know exactly when one committee took
over from another, and the apparent change of style may be largely due to the
compilers of the Digest. Even if Ulpian did reduce citations in order to finish
in the space available—and there is evidence that the commentary was
planned to finish at book 81100—this would not explain why Caracalla is
called plain Antoninus in books 64–73. The explanation is political, not a mat-
ter of style.
5. Books 74–81
There is no reference to contemporary or recently dead emperors in these

books. Though they cannot be earlier than the reign of Macrinus, the absence
of political content leaves the date uncertain.
In the upshot we can draw the following conclusions from the references to
emperors in Edict:
(i) Books 9 to 19 were composed during the sole rule of Caracalla (19/26
December 211–8 April 217) but at a time when he did not insist that
joint acts of his father and himself should be attributed primarily to
himself.
(ii) Books 22 to 57 were also composed during the sole rule of Caracalla
but at a time when Caracalla insisted on being treated as the principal
author of these joint acts. This period began not long after (within a
year or so of) December 212.
95 D 47.10.5.8 (56 ed: ut Sabinus in adsessorio ait) 96 Jörs (1903) 1439f.
97 D 37.6.2.5 (41 ed.) is the last
98 Bluhme (1820); Corpus Iuris Civilis 2.927–9 (P. Krüger); Honoré (1978) 258–9, 270–2
99 D 39.1.1.10 (Ulp. 52 ed.–Cels. 12(22) dig.); 39.1.5 pr (Ulp. 52 ed.–Iul. 12 dig.)
100 Below n.111–2,123–4
(iii) Books 61 to 73 were composed in the reign of Macrinus (11 April

217–8 June 218).
To take the matter further we must form an idea of Ulpian’s rate of com-
position. How many books of Edict did he compose each year? For this we
need to return to the study of his style, and to mark those points in the work
at which new expressions are introduced or old ones fall out of use.
II. BLOCKS OF COMMENTARY
Close attention to Ulpian’s language enables us to detect three breaks in the

course of composition. From the point of view of blocks of commentary,
Edict falls into groups of books that do not correspond with the groupings set
out above on the basis of references to emperors. The four blocks, arranged
from the point of view of style, are:
1. Books 1–5
2. Book 6 to the middle of book 31
3. From the middle of book 31 to the middle of book 56
4. From middle of book 56 to the end of book 81.
Ease of exposition suggests that we should begin with the break at book 31
and then work forwards and backwards to the other two breaks.
The first part of book 31 is devoted to friendly services (actio mandati vel
contra), the second to partnership (actio pro socio).101 Certain expressions
occur, so far as Edict is concerned, for the first time in the second half of book
31, which may be referred to as book 31/2. Thus verumtamen (or verum
tamen)102 appears in ed. 31/2, 32, 32, 32, 35, 36, 39, 40, 40, 44, 45, 46, 47, 73,
76, 76, 79, 79.There is a bunching of verumtamen texts between books 31/2
and 47, then again between books 73 and 79. A second example is per con-
trarium quoque:103 ed. 31/2, 32, 34.
Other examples of phrases that begin at about the same point are:
et putem104 ed. 33, 34, 35, 35, 37, 53, 55, 64, 64, 64, 68, 73, 75,
76, 76, 79
et magis puto105 ed. 32, 34, 35, 36
in ea condicione esse ut/ne106 ed. 32, 35, 45, 46, 46, 56, 58, 66, 70, 75
107
ostendimus ed. 32, 35, 35, 36, 44, 46
quamvis . . . attamen108 ed. 33, 34, 34, 35, 37, 37, 44, 44, 47, 50, 51
101 102
Lenel (1889) 2.619–29 Ch.2 n.114
103
Ch.2 n.106–7 (three examples, rather than four as stated in the first edition)
104 105 106 107
Ch.2 n.48 Ch.2 n.49 Ch.2 n.511 Ch.2 n.244
108
Ch.2 n.117
On the Edict 173
These examples show that Ulpian introduced a number of expressions of a non-

technical sort into Edict in the books numbered in the early thirties. There is,
we have seen, some evidence that he began to introduce these phrases in the sec-
ond half of book 31. Some find it incredible that Ulpian could have broken off
in the middle of a book and written the rest later on. There is reason to think
that his schedule required him to write 431⁄2 books a year, so that in principle
one book was left half complete and resumed in a later year.109
From book 31/2 to the end of the commentary is 501⁄2 books, and half of
this is 25 or 251⁄2, which takes us to the middle or end of book 56. Here the
evidence is less clear, because by book 56 Ulpian has already used the most
turns of phrase of a non-technical sort that he is going to use. Nevertheless,
there are two expressions that display a bunching from the second half of
book 56:
idem erit probandum110 ed. 31, 44, 44, 56/2, 56/2, 57, 57, 59, 60, 68, 71, 71, 73, 75,
76, 76, 77, 79, 81
consequens erit dicere111 ed. 22, 35, 35, 35, 45, 48, 56/2, 57, 58, 59, 60, 68, 71, 71,
73, 75, 76, 77, 79, 81
It makes little difference whether the break in composition occurred in the

middle or at the end of book 56. Note that the texts from On Sabinus in which
consequens erit dicere is found are also bunched. They come in books 46, 49,
49, and 50. The Sabinian commentary ends at book 51.This suggests that the
end of the Sabinian commentary was written about the same time as the block
of Edict that began in the middle or at the end of book 56.
So far, then, we have a block of commentary of 25 or 251⁄2 books apparently
running from the middle of book 31 to the middle or end of book 56. From
the middle or end of book 56 to the end of book 81 is 251⁄2 or 25 books,
depending on where one starts. This suggests that the standard block adopted
by Ulpian for Edict was between 25 and 26 books. If, then, we go back 251⁄2
books from the middle of book 31 we come to the beginning of book 6.
There is evidence of a break in composition between books 5 and 6. This
break is fairly obvious, even at a first reading, to someone with a trained sense
of style, whereas the later breaks are not. When I first read Ulpian’s Edict sys-
tematically, I marked this break, though I then had no idea that it would fit
in with other breaks that came to light later and were, in themselves, less obvi-
ous. A striking difference between books 1–5 and the books from 6 onwards
is that the writing in the first five books is relatively constrained. But from
book 6 Ulpian sounds a confident, even exuberant note. For instance he
adopts a more flexible word-order. One example of this is his use of non with
a future verb followed by the object, participle, or infinitive, a construction
not found in the first five books. Here are some examples:
109 Below n.123–4; ch.8 n.16–7, 43–59 110 Ch. 2 n.315–6 111 Ch.2 n.296
6 ed. D 48.19.32 non erit notatus

6 ed. D 3.2.2 pr non dubitabis eum esse notatum
7 ed. D 2.10.1.3 non habebit reus actionem
8 ed. D 3.4.2 non erit dicendum sic haberi
9 ed. D 3.3.40.2 nonne ratum non videbitur habere?
9 ed. D 3.3.40.3 non compelletur ad cautionem
10 ed. D 12.2.16 non compelletur iurare
10 ed. D 3.6.3.3 non habebit ipse repetitionem
11 ed. D 4.2.9.6 non sine ratione dicetur finiri actionem
11 ed. D 4.4.3.4 non erit restituendus
Contrast these expressions with those to be found in the first five books:
3 ed. D 5.1.2 pr. non erit eius iurisdictio
3 ed. D 2.2.3.3 mandati actionem non habebis
Here the future verb is followed by a subject noun, or the non follows the
object. Again, the verbs that express the author’s or the legal profession’s atti-
tude to statements of law in the first five books are limited. They comprise
accipere debemus,112 accipimus,113 dicimus,114 putamus,115 solemus dicere,116
dabimus,117 videamus.118 The use of accipere is characteristic of Ulpian,119 but
these verbs do not go beyond the ordinary. More enterprising are those to be
found from book 6 onwards:
6 ed D 3.1.5.5 deliberabimus
6 ed. D 3.1.1.10 exsequemur
9 ed. D 3.3.33 pr subsistimus/admittimus/vetamus
9 ed. D 3.3.33.1 non dubitamus
9 ed. D 3.3.39.4 non exigimus
10 ed D 3.5.9.1 spectamus
11 ed. D 41.3.6 computamus
The turn of phrase ut est (rescriptum etc.) is not found in the first five
books.120 It occurs regularly from book 6 onwards:
6 ed. D 3.2.2.2 ut est saepissime rescriptum
10 ed. D 22.1.37 ut est in bonae fidei iudiciis constitutum
11 ed. D 4.4.3.1 ut est et constitutum
11 ed. D 4.4.20.1 ut est saepissime rescriptum
112 113
D 39.2.4.5 (1 ed.); 2.4.10.5; 2.8.2.3 (5 ed.) D 2.2.1.2 (3 ed.); 2.4.10.2,9 (5 ed.)
114 115
D 39.2.4.8 (1 ed.); 50.1.1.1 (2 ed.) D 2.2.1.2 (3 ed.)
116 117 118
D 2.14.7.5; 2.14.10.2 (4 ed.) D 2.8.2.3 (5 ed.) D 2.8.2.5 (5 ed.)
119 120
Ch.2 n.320–3,420–431 D 2.13.4.5 (4 ed.) is closest
On the Edict 175
11 ed. D 13.7.36 pr ut est saepissime rescriptum

11 ed. D 4.2.16.2 ut est et rescriptum
13 ed. D 4.4.19 ut est edicto expressum
A feature that brings out the relative orthodoxy of Ulpian’s word-order in the
first five books is the number of sentences ending in the present indicative of
esse, whether used as a copulative or as a participle: sum, est, sunt, etc. Here
is an example:
3 ed. D 2.1.7 pr populare est . . . complexus est . . . . . . torquendum est.
Three sentence endings out of four in this sequence are in est, used both as a
connective and as a participle.121 This fondness for est endings is not repeated
in the later books of Edict. The statistics for sentences ending in est etc. in
Edict are as follows:
Books Sentences in est Lines Frequency/1000 lines
1–5 50 1,024 49
6–31/1 308 10,753 29
31/2–56/1 240 8,287 29
56/2–81 269 6,934 39
The tendency to end a sentence in this unemphatic way falls off after book 5
but returns to a lesser extent in the last block of edictal commentary. Another
habit that is found from book 6 onwards is that of the author’s referring back
to what he has written previously with diximus.122
6 ed. D 3.1.1.7 ut initio huius tituli diximus
6 ed. D 3.1.1.11 sub titulo de in ius vocado plane diximus
9 ed. D 3.3.17 quae supra diximus
11 ed. D 4.2.7.1 ea quae diximus
11 ed. D 4.2.14.4 secundum quod supra diximus
11 ed. D 4.2.14.10 quatenus autem diximus
11 ed. D 4.2.16 pr quod diximus
A writer cannot refer back to what he has written until he has written a fair
amount. But it is striking that the use of diximus appears first in book 6 and
then, for a time, becomes frequent.
The existence of a break between books 5 and 6 of Edict has been
doubted123 but is in my view clear. The last seventy-six books (6 to 81) were
121
As Birks points out (1983) 177–8 in reply to Watson (1983) the feature of style to which I
draw attention concerns the lack of emphasis at the end of the sentence, not the syntax
122
One reference back with rettulimus occurs earlier: D 2.14.7.18 (4 ed.). Rettuli/-mus returns
in some later texts D 24.1.7.6 (32/31 Sab.); 24.1.32 pr (32 Sab.); 41.1.23.3 (43 Sab.)
123
Watson (1983) but Birks (1983) 177–8
divided by Ulpian into blocks of 25 to 26 books, either two blocks of 251⁄2 and
one of 25, or a block of 26 and two of 25. Between blocks he broke off to do
or write other things. Then he came back to Edict. The reason why this plan
was adopted may be left for the next chapter. That chapter will examine
whether, armed with what has been learned about the political conditions
when Edict was written and the way in which it was divided into blocks, we
can date this and Ulpian’s other works more precisely. For the moment it is
enough to summarize the results so far reached.
The first block of Edict (books 1–5) cannot be dated exactly, but must be
earlier than 213. It is possible that it goes back to the early weeks of 211,
before the death of Severus at York on 4 February. The second block (books
6–31) belongs, at least from book 9, to Caracalla’s sole reign. Book 10 was
composed after, book 22 not long after 19 December 212. Book 22 was writ-
ten after the Antonine constitution, which was issued not earlier than 212.
This block therefore seems to belong to 213, or perhaps a few months before
and after. It straddles Caracalla A and B. During the course of it Ulpian
moves from treating Severus as the senior to giving Caracalla priority over his
father. The third segment (books 31–56) also belongs to Caracalla’s sole
reign, and must come between 214 and early 217. The fourth segment (books
56–81) begins in the reign of Caracalla (book 57) but books 61–73 were com-
posed under Macrinus. This block therefore belongs to 217 and perhaps also
218.
Useful in themselves, though rough, these results provide the springboard
for a more ambitious hypothesis about Ulpian’s survey of Roman law.
8
Dates and Plan II:

Quinquennium Ulpiani
T O find how Ulpian set about his major survey of Roman law the next step
is to see how his 51-book treatise On Sabinus1 relates to the 81 books On the
Edict. Sabinus, as it may be called for short, deals with the older civil law
whereas Edict deals with praetorian law, but there is some overlap. Some top-
ics could as well be treated in either or both. If we begin as before with the
analysis of references to living or recently dead emperors, it is clear that
Sabinus was largely written in the period that I have called Caracalla B. In this
period, which ran from some time in 213 to the end of Caracalla’s reign in
April 217, Caracalla takes precedence over his father Severus when joint laws
are cited. Here are the relevant references:2
6 Sab. D 28.6.2.4 rescripto imperatoris nostri
6 Sab. D 29.2.6.3 ut divus Pius et imperator noster rescripserunt
6 Sab. D 24.1.23 Papinianus recte putabat orationem divi Severi . . .
12 Sab. D 38.16.1.1 ut est a divis Marco et Vero et imperatore nostro
Antonino Augusto rescriptum
12 Sab. D 38.17.1.2 secundum rescriptum imperatoris nostri et divi patris
eius ad Ovinium Tertullum3 (= CJ 8.50.1, Severus et
Antoninus, undated)
13 Sab. D 38.17.2.2 idque et Iulianus scripsit et constititum est ab impera-
tore nostro
13 Sab. D 38.17.2.47 et invenimus rescriptum ab imperatore nostro
Antonino Augusto et divo patre eius4
19 Sab. D 49.14.25 et est decretum ab imperatore Severo et constitutum
21 Sab. D 30.37 pr quae sententia rescripto imperatoris nostri et divi Severi
iuvatur
21 Sab. D 30.41.3 et ita imperator noster et divus Severus rescripserunt
1 Lenel (1889) 1019–200; Collectio 3.265–82; Seckel–Kübler 2.2.461–484; FIRA 2.637–52;
Schulz (1906); Koschaker (1907); Wolff (1951) 145–71; Wieacker (1953) 241–61; (1960) 283–326,
446f.; Schulz (1961) 264–9; Astolfi (1983) 57–192; Luchetti (1987) 49–87; Liebs (1997) §424.3
2 Fitting (1908) 111–2, omitting three of these texts; P. Krüger (1912) 243
3 CJ 8.50.1 (Impp. Severus et Antoninus, undated)
4 Mammiae Maximinae 12 Apr. 203
178 8. Dates and Plan II
21 Sab. D 30.41.5 Papinianus refert imperatorem nostrum et divum

Severum constituisse
25 Sab. D 33.8.6.4 sed huic sententiae adversatur rescriptum imperatoris
nostri et patris eius
25 Sab. D 33.8.8.7 imperator igitur noster cum patre rescripsit
31 Sab. D 23.2.9.3 ut divus Marcus et imperator noster cum patre
rescripserunt
32 Sab. D 24.1.3 pr oratione imperatoris nostri Antonini Augusti
32 Sab. D 24.1.3.1 divus tamen Severus contra statuit
32 Sab. D 24.1.7 pr idque imperator noster cum patre rescripsit
32 Sab. D 24.1.7.5 remedium monstravit imperator noster cum patre
rescripto
32 Sab. D 24.1.7.6 imperator noster cum patre suo rescripsit
33 Sab. D 24.1.32 pr imperator noster Antoninus Augustus ante excessum
divi Severi patris sui oratione in senatu habita auctor
fuit
33 Sab. D 24.1.32.1 oratio imperatoris nostri
33 Sab. D 24.1.32.19 secundum rescriptum imperatoris nostri cum patre
35 Sab. D 24.3.2.2 et est ab imperatore Antonino rescriptum
37 Sab. D 26.1.3.1 et ita imperator Antoninus Augustus rescripsit
40 Sab. D 26.8.5.3 et ita est rescriptum a divo Severo et Antonino
43 Sab. D 12.6.23.1 hoc enim imperator Antoninus cum patre suo rescripsit
43 Sab. D 46.3.5.2 Imperator Antoninus cum divo patre suo rescripsit
(twice)
The first text, from book 6, refers to an imperator noster not further ident-
ified. But the imperator noster of book 12 must be Caracalla, since his father,
the co-author of the rescript, is divus. The imperator noster of book 6 must
also be Caracalla, since the previous sole emperor, Severus, ceased to be sole
emperor in 197 or 198, fourteen years before. Fourteen years is too long an
interval to postulate between the composition of books 6 and 12. Caracalla is
still emperor in book 43, so that Sabinus books 6 to 43 fall in his reign.
Between books 12 and 43 there are fifteen texts in which Caracalla is men-
tioned before Severus as author of a joint law. There is one exception, in book
40.5 Whatever the explanation of this exception, it is safe to conclude that
Sabinus books 12 to 43 fall into the Caracalla B period, which correspond
to Edict books 22 to 56. The references to Severus do not add anything help-
ful. He is called imperator in book 19,6 divus on eleven occasions,7 and pater
5 6
D 26.8.5.3 D 49.14.25 (19 Sab.)
7
D 24.1.23 (6 Sab.); 38.17.1.3 (12 Sab.); 38.17.2.47 (13 Sab.); 30.37 pr; 30.41.3; 30.41.5 (21
Sab.); 24.1.3.1 (32 Sab.); 24.1.32 pr (33 Sab.); 26.8.5.3 (40 Sab.); 46.3.5.2 (43 Sab., twice)
Quinquennium Ulpiani 179
without divus on eight.8 It is worth noting that Caracalla is called Antoninus

Augustus, an especially respectful style of address, only in the third block of
edictal commentary, between books 31 and 56.9 In Sabinus he is so described
in books 12, 13, 32, 33, and 37.10 So Sabinus books 12–37 seem to correspond
in some degree to Edict books 31–56.
On the face of it Sabinus books one to five may have been written before
Caracalla became sole emperor, effectively at the end of 211, and the last eight
may have been written after his death, say under Macrinus. But there is no
positive evidence to suggest either. One other scrap of evidence should be
noted. In Sabinus book 33 Ulpian deals with a donation made to a fiancée
when the marriage turns out to be invalid, for instance because the woman is
under age. He endorses the opinion of Labeo, himself, and Papinian that the
engagement must be taken to continue despite the invalid marriage:11
sed est verius, quod Labeoni videtur et a nobis et a Papiniano libro decimo quaes-
tionum probatum est . . .
He cites Papinian by work and book, so that Ulpian is probably referring to

his own opinion in a published work. The text that best fits the self-citation
comes from Ulpian’s Edict book 35, in which he says that he has always been
of that opinion.12
et semper Labeoni sententiam probavi existimantis, si quidem praecesserunt spon-
salia, durare ea, quamvis in domo loco nuptae esse coeperit . . . quam sententiam
Papinianus quoque probat.
If there has been an engagement when the woman was under age it continues
to be valid even if she has lived in the man’s house as if married while still
under age. So it is valid when she comes of age. It looks as if in Sabinus book
33 Ulpian could refer to Edict book 35, which comes in the middle block of
edictal text (books 31–56). This part of Sabinus could therefore have been
composed after the break in Edict that occurs at book 56. Sabinus book 33
would be later not merely than Edict book 35 but than Edict book 56.
What about the length of Sabinus? It stops, incomplete, at 51 books, break-
ing off at the point that, according to Lenel, corresponds to Paul Edict book
13 and Pomponius Edict book 29. Paul handled the missing part of the com-
mentary in his Sabinus books 13–16,13 and Pomponius in his books 29–36.14
8 D 33.8.6.4; 33.8.8.7 (25 Sab.); 23.3.9.3 (31 Sab.); 24.1.7 pr, 5, 6 (32 Sab.); 24.1.32.19 (33
Sab.); 12.6.23.1 (43 Sab.)

9 D 19.2.15.6 (32 ed.); 36.4.5.16 (52 ed.)
10 D 38.16.1.1 (12 Sab.); 38.17.2.47 (13 Sab.); 24.1.3 pr (32 Sab.); 24.1.32 pr (33 Sab.); 26.1.3.1
(37 Sab.)
11 D 24.1.32.27 (33 Sab.); P. Krüger (1912) 245
12
D 23.1.9 (35 ed.). Frier (1984) 85811 objects that ‘always’ excludes a reference back to his
own published opinion. But with Ulpian ‘always’ only implies ‘a couple of times previously’:
Kalb (1890) 132
13 14
Lenel (1889) 2.1257–60; Krüger (1912) 244 Lenel (1889) 1.1286–93
These books treat of ownership, possession, servitudes, interdicts, and return

to Roman territory (postliminium). Not all these topics are fully dealt with by
Ulpian elsewhere. Moreover, he is not averse to writing twice on the same
topic. Theft comes in Edict books 37–8 and Sabinus books 40–2. Why should
Ulpian not have planned to cover in Sabinus the same topics as Paul and
Pomponius?
Even if he did, there is a reason for the break in his commentary at book
51. This is because 51 books is twice the length of the blocks of edictal text
(about 251⁄2 books) that we met in the last chapter when considering Edict. So
51 books represent two blocks of text of a major commentary, each block
amounting to 251⁄2 books. Perhaps Ulpian planned a third block of 25 or 26
books on book 3 of Sabinus’ Civil Law to be composed in 218.15 For what-
ever reason, personal or political, the extra books were not written.
If this idea is on the right lines, Sabinus, which has features in common with
the middle block of Edict, was composed partly before and partly after that
block of text. This would explain why we find some changes of style and
expression in the different blocks of edictal commentary. Leaving on one side
the first five books of Edict, there would be five blocks of major commentary:
1. Edict from book 6 to the middle of book 31 (213)
2. Sabinus from book 1 to the middle of book 26 (214)
3. Edict from the middle of book 31 to the middle of book 56 (215)
4. Sabinus from the middle of book 26 to the end of book 51 (216)
5. Edict from the middle of book 56 to the end of book 81 (217)
The reason why a year may end with a book half completed is that the
working year, as we shall see,16 ran to 431⁄2 weeks, so that an author whose
practice is to write a book each working week should write 431⁄2 books each
year.17 Those who think that no writer would in practice leave a book half-
complete18 can adopt a different hypothesis. Though the plan may on paper
have required 251⁄2 books to be finished in a given year, in practice Ulpian
composed his major commentaries in alternate blocks of 25 and 26 books.
The scheme set out can be adapted to cater for this possibility, though I do
not personally endorse it. On either hypothesis, all or nearly all Sabinus
belongs to the Caracalla B period. This period, which began at Edict book
19,19 continued at least to Sabinus book 43. We can see how it was possible
for Sabinus book 33 to refer to Edict book 35. It was written as part of a later
block of text. The edictal and Sabinian commentaries were written in blocks
but not concurrently. At any given period Ulpian confined himself to com-
posing either Edict or Sabinus. So an expression like consequens erit dicere
that comes towards the end of Sabinus (books 46 to 50) understandably recurs
several times in Edict books 56 to 60, which begin the next block of text.
15 16 17
Liebs (1984) 448 Below nn.43–52 Below nn.50–1
18 19
e.g. Watson (1983) Ch.7 nn.30–4
The hypothesis put forward in the first edition and to which I adhere is that
these blocks of text represent four annual stints of 251⁄2 books and one of 25
books of major commentary between the years 213 and 217. Seventy-six books
on the Edict and 51 on Sabinus make 127 in all over the five years 213–7, which
divides into four lots of 251⁄2 books and one of 25. We know that, if the idea of
blocks of text is accepted, most of the first block, the whole of blocks 2 to 4,
and the beginning of block 5 fall in Caracalla’s sole reign. Some of the later
books of block 5 fall under Macrinus.20 If these blocks represent annual stints,
the fifth must belong to 217, because in that year Caracalla was emperor at the
beginning of the year and Macrinus at the end. Working backwards, the first
block should belong to 213. This seems historically plausible. Caracalla’s sta-
tus is enhanced during the course of 213, which is also the year of the first
block of text. Edict book 10 is later than the rescript of 19 December 212.21
Book 2222 is later than the Antonine constitution, which cannot be earlier than
212. So the only set of dates that fits is 213 to 217.
I. THE MEDIUM-SCALE TREATISES
Can the hypothesis of a literary stint, representing a year’s writing, be applied

to those of Ulpian’s works that were composed in ten books or a multiple of
ten? If Ulpian composed his major commentaries over a five-year period, did
he also compose a series of lesser but still substantial treatises in annual stints
of ten books? Do we have works that divide neatly into five groups of ten
books? We do. There are four such works, The Proconsul, Disputations,
Tribunals, and The Julio-Papian Law. The first three are in ten books, the last
in twenty. This makes fifty books in all, or five stints of ten. Will these five
stints fit the years 213–7? Were the major treatises and the medium-scale
works planned to be written in parallel, so that each year’s programme
required Ulpian to compose 251⁄2 or 25 books of the one and ten of the other?
The first work to consider is The Proconsul.23 It contains no fewer than 23
references to Caracalla, his father or to both:
1 off. proc. D 1.16.4 pr ut imperator noster cum patre rescripsit
1 off. proc. D 1.16.4.5 ut imperator noster Antoninus Augustus
rescripsit
1 off. proc. D 1.16.6.3 quam rem divus Severus et imperator Antoninus
elegantissime epistula sunt moderati
20 Ch.7 nn.88–92 21 D 3.6.1.3 (10 ed.) cf. 12.5.2.2 (26 ed.) 22 D 1.5.17 (22 ed.)
23 Lenel (1889) 2.966–91; AE 1966.436 (Ephesus c.300); Lactantius, Inst. 5.11.18f.; Ind. Flor.
24.6; Jörs (1903) 1452; Schulz (1946) 139, 243–6, (1961) 310–3; Wieacker (1960) 391–408, 447f.;
Dell’Oro (1960) 117–211; Schönbauer (1965) 108–15; Marotta (1988) 251–351, 381–92;
Mantovani (1992); Liebs (1997) §424.14
2 off. proc. Frag. Vat. 119 Imperatores Augusti Iulio Iuliano rescripserunt
...
3 off. proc. D 50.2.3.1 Imperator Antoninus edicto proposito statuit24
3 off. proc. D 50.2.3.3 Divi Severus et Antoninus permiserunt
4 off. proc. D 50.4.6.2 ita imperator noster cum divo patre suo rescrip-
sit
4 off. proc. D 27.1.6.6 imperator noster cum patre rescripsit
4 off. proc. D 50.7.7 imperator noster cum patre rescripsit
5 off. proc. D 50.12.6.1 imperator noster Antoninus rescripsit
5 off. proc. D 50.12.6.2 ita rescripto imperatoris nostri et divi patris eius
continetur
5 off. proc. D 50.12.6.3 rescriptis imperatoris nostri et divi patris eius
continetur
8 off. proc. D 48.18.1.10 imperator noster cum divo patre suo rescripsit
8 off. proc. D 48.18.1.15 imperator noster cum divo patre suo rescripsit
8 off. proc. D 48.18.1.16 Severus Spicio Antigono ita rescripsit
8 off. proc. D 48.18.1.17 Divus Severus rescripsit
8 off. proc. D 48.8.1.18 imperator noster cum divo patre suo id non
admiserunt
8 off. proc. D 47.9.12 pr imperator Antoninus cum divo patre suo
rescripsit
9 off. proc. Collatio 14.3.3 imperator Antoninus constituit/constitutione
imperatoris Antonini
9 off. proc. D 48.19.8.5 epistula divi Severi exprimitur
9 off. proc. D 48.19.8.12 imperator Antoninus rectissime rescripsit
9 off. proc. D 48.22.6.1 epistula divi Severi expressum est
10 off. proc. D 48.22.7.10 imperator noster cum divo patre suo huic rei
providerunt
Caracalla is mentioned with his father in the first and last books of this treat-
ise. There are thirteen such allusions in all. In the first three books two texts
out of three place Severus before Antoninus, but in the remaining books
Caracalla always precedes his father. Is the inference that the first three books
belong to the Caracalla A period, and the last seven to Caracalla B? If so, The
Proconsul must belong to the same year as Edict books 6–31, 213. For in that
block of Edict Caracalla A runs up to book 19, and Caracalla B starts from
book 22.
But do the citations in the first three books point to Caracalla A? Of the two
texts in which Severus precedes Antoninus, the first presents no problem. It
24 CJ 10.61.1, 11 July 212

comes from book 1 and runs divus Severus et imperator Antoninus . . . sunt
moderati.25 Severus is dead, Caracalla is sole ruler, but Severus’ seniority has
not yet been displaced. The other text in which Severus is senior, from book
3 does present a problem.26 It runs divi Severus et Antoninus . . . permiserunt.
This implies that Caracalla and Severus are both dead. But in the later books
Caracalla is consistently imperator noster 27 and so living. Mommsen is surely
right to think that divi is here a gloss.28 Originally the text ran Severus et
Antoninus permiserunt or divus Severus et Antoninus permiserunt. Thinking
this too bald, the copyist, at a time when Caracalla was in fact dead and dei-
fied, inserted divi or turned divus into divi. If Severus was not originally
referred to as divus the original might seem a little bleak. But though Ulpian
does not often refer to emperors without some title (imperator, divus, noster)
he occasionally does so.29 At any rate, the order in which the emperors appear
is not in doubt. When book 3 was composed, Ulpian gave Severus preced-
ence. These two texts show Severus as senior, and are evidence that books 1
and 3 fall in Caracalla A. But what of the other text from book 1 (D 1.16.4
pr)? This runs:
Observare autem proconsulem oportet, ne in hospitiis oneret provinciam, ut impera-
tor noster cum patre Aufidio Severo rescripsit.
I am not sure that this can be satisfactorily explained. But when Ulpian ends
a sentence by citing a rescript in the form ut . . . rescripsit, ut rescripsit can per-
haps sometimes be an afterthought, inserted when the text is read over or
revised. A parallel comes in Sabinus book 6, where a sentence ends with the
phrase ut Marciano videtur.30 Sabinus was written under Caracalla 31 but
Marcianus is not known to have published any work until after Caracalla’s
death and deification.32 We know that there was a second edition of
Sabinus,33 and this phrase could have been put in at the time of revision. On
the whole Ulpian prefers the stronger ending et ita rescripsit,34 idque rescrip-
sit,35 or gives the substance of the rescript in the accusative and infinitive after
rescripsit.36 It is possible, then, that the phrase we are considering from The
Proconsul book 1 is, like the Sabinus text, a later insertion. This would be
to postulate a second edition of The Proconsul, for which there is no other
25 D 1.16.6.3 (1 off. proc.) 26 D 50.2.3.3 (3 off. proc.)

27 D 50.4.6.2; 27.1.6.6; 50.7.7 (4 off. proc.); 50.12.6.1, 2, 3 (5 off. proc.); 48.18.1.10, 15, 16, 18
(8 off. proc.); 48.22.7.10 (10 off. proc.)
28 Mommsen (1904–13) 2.169–70
29 D 4.4.3.4 (11 ed.); 1.17.1 (15 ed.); 16.1.2 pr (29 ed.); 42.4.7.16 (59 ed.); Collatio 1.6.1; (7 off.
proc.); 8.3 (8 off. proc.); D 47.14.1.3 (8 off. proc.); 49.14.16 (18 leg. Iul. Pap.); 34.1.14.1 (2 fid.);
40.12.27.1 (2 off. cons.); 50.15.1.1 (1 cens.); Frag. Vat. 235 (1 off. praet. tut.). None of these refers
to Severus or Caracalla.
30 D 28.1.5 (6 Sab.) 31 Above nn.2–12
32 Lenel (1889) 1.6391; Kunkel (1967) 258 33 C Cordi (16 Nov. 534) 3
34 e.g. D 48.18.1.15 (8 off. proc.) 35 e.g. D 47.9.12 pr (8 off. proc.)
36 e.g. D 1.16.4.5 (1 off. proc.)
evidence. It was, however, an important work on the administration of the

empire, and there could plausibly have been a demand for a second edition.
If at the time of the second edition Caracalla was treated as having precedence
over his father, this would explain the citation.
Whatever the explanation, the evidence as a whole suggests a change from
the Caracalla A period to the Caracalla B period between Proconsul books 3
and 4 as it did between Edict books 19 and 22. In that case Proconsul was writ-
ten in the year 213. It was the first medium-scale treatise to be tackled. It was
also the most important from the point of view of the Roman administration,
which depended a great deal on the probity and efficiency of provincial gov-
ernors. It seems, then, that Edict and Proconsul were composed in parallel.
The earlier books of the edictal block 6 to 31 and the first three books on the
proconsul were written before the later books of either. In the first edition I
mentioned but did not sufficiently stress the importance of this point.37 It
means that, though Ulpian did not switch in the course of a given year
between one major or medium-scale work and another, he did switch between
the major commentary and the medium-scale treatise he had fixed on for that
year. He did not force himself to complete the whole block of edictal com-
mentary that he was due to compose during the year before beginning on the
medium-scale work in ten books that also formed part of his stint for the year.
The next work to be considered is Disputations in ten books.38 Here the
evidence drawn from the citation of living or recently dead emperors points
to the Caracalla B period.
3 disp. D 13.7.26 pr imperator noster cum patre saepissime rescripsit
4 disp. D 28.3.12 pr et divus Hadrianus et imperator noster rescripserunt
4 disp. D 30.74 licet imperator noster cum patre rescripserit
6 disp. D 3.5.43 secundum divi Severi constitutionem
6 disp. D 40.5.46.3 a divo Severo rescriptum est
8 disp. D 41.1.5.1 est constitutum ab imperatore nostro et divo patre eius
8 disp. D 48.5.2.6 nam Claudius Gorgus damnatus est a divo Severo
8 disp. D 49.14.29.2 imperator noster cum patre rescripsit
The bulk of this work from books 3 to 8 belongs to the Caracalla B period,
though we have no evidence about the first two and last two books. If it was
written in a single year, it should go in 214, 215, or 216, but the choice between
these years must for the moment be left open.
37 Honoré (1982) 161

38 Lenel (1889) 2.387–421; Ind. Flor. 24.4; Seckel–Kübler (1908–27) 1.496–501; Girard–Senn
(1967) 453–5; Lenel (1903);(1904);(1906); Wieacker (1960) 385–8; Schulz (1961) 305–7; Watson
(1962) 226–42; Solazzi (1957–63) 4.517–21; Liebs (1972) 257–9; (1997) §424.24
Next comes Tribunals, also in ten books.39 Four texts cite Caracalla or his
father or both:
1 omn. trib. D 26.10.7.2 ex epistula imperatoris nostri et divi Severi
8 omn. trib. D 50.13.1.10 ita rescripto imperatoris nostri et patris eius con-
tinetur
8 omn. trib. D 50.13.1.12 ita est rescriptum ab imperatore nostro et divo
patre eius
8 omn. trib. D 50.13.1.13 divus Severus prohibuit
Books 1 to 8 appear to fall in the Caracalla B period. There is no evidence

about the last two books, but if Tribunals was composed in a single year, it
must have been in 214, 215, or 216.
The references from The Julio-Papian Law 40 in twenty books are helpful.
There are five:
3 leg. Iul. et Pap. D 23.2.45 pr ut rescripto imperatoris nostri et divi patris
eius continetur
3 leg. Iul. et Pap. D 24.2.11.2 imperator noster cum divo patre suo rescripsit
4 leg. Iul. et Pap. D 49.15.9 post rescriptum imperatoris Antonini et divi
patris eius
18 leg Iul. et Pap. D 31.61.1 sed post rescriptum Severi
19 leg. Iul et Pap. D 4.4.2 divus Severus ait
If ten books is a year’s stint for medium-scale works these twenty books rep-
resent a two-year stint. The texts from book 3 and 4 point to the Caracalla B
period, and so to the years 214, 215, or 216 but are inconclusive. We have no
mention of Caracalla from the last ten books. In book 18 Severus is cited by
name alone. These last ten books might therefore belong to 217 and have been
composed partly in the reign of Macrinus. If, then, ten books of medium-scale
work were composed each year between 213 and 217, the most plausible
assignment is:
The Proconsul books 1–10
Disputations or Tribunals books 1–10
Tribunals or Disputations books 1–10
The Julio-Papian Law books 1–10
The Julio-Papian Law books 11–20
39 Lenel (1889) 2.992–1001; Jörs (1903) 5.1454; Pernice (1893); Fitting (1908) 119; P. Krüger
(1912) 246185; Wlassak (1919) 62–79; Schulz (1946) 256, (1961) 329; Wieacker (1960) 65; Dell’Oro
(1960) 271f.; Liebs (1966) 26344, showing that de omnibus tribunalibus complements the treatises
on the duties of various officials; Liebs (1997) §424.21
40 Lenel (1889) 2.939–50; FIRA 2.315f.; Ferrini (1901/1929–30); Schulz (1961) 231; Wieacker
(1960) 146; Levy (1963); Astolfi (1986) 366–71; Liebs (1997) §424.7
II. ULPIAN’S PLAN AND THE LESSER WORKS
How do the shorter works that form part of Ulpian’s corpus fit the chron-
ological scheme we have set out? Many of them should do so, because, as the
next chapter shows, they seem from references to ruling or recently dead
emperors to belong, like Taxation, to the Caracalla A period or, like Adultery,
to the Caracalla B period. But did Ulpian have time to compose more than
the 351⁄2 books a year we have so far attributed to him?41
The number of lesser works attributed to Ulpian that are clearly genuine,
or at least not shown to be spurious, comes to 39 or 40. These comprise,
with the number of books recorded for each work: Taxation 6; Trusts 6;
Adultery 5; Appeals 4; The Aelio-Sentian Law 4; The Consul 3; Edict of the
Market-Masters 2; Teaching Manual 2; The Quaestor 1; Consular Judges 1;
The Community Treasurer 1; The Urban Prefect 1; The Prefect of Police 1; The
Praetor for Guardianship 1; Engagements to Marry 1; and possibly The Speech
of Marcus and Commodus 1. We cannot count Excuses 1, which was written
under Severus, or at any rate before Caracalla’s sole rule, and so before the
end of 211.42 The first five books of edictal commentary must also be
excluded. They too were composed earlier, perhaps early in 211.
If 40 books are distributed over 5 years, they come to eight a year. On top
of the 351⁄2 books of major commentary and medium-scale treatise this would
take Ulpian’s annual stint to 431⁄2 books a year.43 The figure seems arbitrary,
but it is not. The Roman calendar provided for two judicial holiday periods
of 30 days each, intended for the grain and wine harvests. The Lex Irnitana
chapter K requires the officials (duumviri) of the municipality to announce in
good time the period, not to exceed twice thirty days, when judicial matters
are to be postponed on account of the grain and wine harvest (messis vin-
demiae causa).44 This municipal provision was based on the practice at
Rome,45 but the local magistrates could adapt the periods to suit local condi-
tions.46 Essentially the same arrangement existed in the fourth century, when
a law of 389, seeking to reduce the number of judicial holidays, makes an
exception for the twin months (gemini menses) that a more indulgent age
adopted to mitigate the heat of summer and the allow time for the harvests.47
41 What follows draws on Honoré (1988) 1433–40
42
Lenel (1889) 2.8991; Mommsen (1904–13) 2.16955; Schulz (1946) 249–50; (1961) 381–20
argues that it is a post-classical compilation. At any rate, it does not count for our purposes.
43
To be precise 431⁄2 books in four years and 43 in the fifth
44
González (1986) 161, 187: De rebus proferendis
45
Lex Irnitana ch. K: perque eos dies . . . ius ne dicunto nisi si (de) is rebus de quibus Romae
mes(sis) vindemiae causa rebus prolatis ius dici solet
46
RE Vindemia 17 (1961) 17–24 (Schuster)
47
CTh 2.8.19 (7 Aug. 389: Illos tantum manere feriarum dies fas erit, quos geminis mensibus ad
requiem laboris indulgentior annus accepit, aestivis fervoribus mitigandis et autumnis fetibus decer-
pendis). The drafter is probably Nicomachus Flavianus, who was an antiquarian
This treats the two thirty-day periods as in some sense providing a genuine
rest from labour and not merely an opportunity to attend to matters con-
cerned with the harvest, such as collecting rents and fixing them for the next
year.48 In Tribunals Ulpian mentions the judicial holiday period for grain and
wine, but without stating the length of the period.49 The senatorial holiday
laid down by Augustus was different: a continuous period of 61 days in
September and October when only those drawn by lot were obliged to attend
meetings.50
Assume that Ulpian stopped writing during the two thirty-day holiday
periods and instead attended to his estates or rested. Subtracting 60 from 365
leaves 305 days, which is 43 weeks and 4 days. That fits a programme of 431⁄2
working weeks a year, with one book to be written each week. The numerical
coincidence is striking. Is it just a coincidence? If it is something more it
implies that Justinian’s commissioners possessed nearly all the works written
by Ulpian in the five-year period 213–7.51 In any event, in order to get his
magisterial survey of Roman law in 217 books completed, largely under
Caracalla, Ulpian must have worked to a schedule close to what is here sug-
gested. He must have disciplined himself more or less as Anthony Trollope
did, though, like the novelist, he might at times fall behind schedule and at
others catch up.52
Is it plausible to suppose that he took the week as his working unit? The tra-
ditional Roman week was the inconvenient eight-day week, nundinae.53 Not
until the fourth century do we find mention in legislation of Sunday (dies
solis) 54 and not until the fifth century the seven-day week (septimana).55 But
the seven-day week is virtually a universal phenomenon. It prevailed among
the Babylonians, Jews, Egyptians, Persians, Indians, and Greeks.56 From the
age of Augustus the Graeco-Roman world increasingly, though unofficially,
resorted to the seven-day week.57 Dio Cassius, contemporary of Ulpian,
attributes the planetary seven-day week to the Egyptians but stresses that ‘it
48 D 7.8.10.4, 12 pr (Ulp. 17 Sab., Gai. 2 rer. cott.). In the first edition I took the holiday to be
a continuous eight-week period. This was four days too short. Moreover the period was not con-
tinuous but should be divided into two separate stretches of thirty days
49 D 2.12.1 pr (Ulp. 4 omn. trib: ne quis messium vindemiarumque tempore adversarium cogat
ad iudicium venire, oratione divi Marci exprimitur . . . 2. sed excipiuntur certae causae, ex quibus
cogi poterimus et per id temporis, cum messes vindemiaeque sunt, ad praetorem venire.
50
Suetonius, Augustus 35.3
51 With the exception of one book: Ad orationem divi Antonini et Commodi: ch. 9 nn.137–140
52 What Trollope says in An Autobiography (1950 ed.) 118–22 is not entirely accurate but, if
he fell behind from time to time, his method served to warn him that he had done so and provide
an incentive to catch up
53 Boll (1912) 7.2549; Kroll (1937)
54 CJ 3.12.2 (3 Mar. 321); CTh 8.8.3 = 2.8.18, 11.7.13 (3 Nov. 386); 15.5.2 (30 May 394, MS
20 May 386)
55 CTh 15.5.5 (1 Feb. 425: Dominico, qui septimanae totius primus est dies)
56 Boll (1912) 2550, 2556–8, 2571
57 Boll (1912) 7.2547, 2558; Sontheimer (1967) 18.2.2463
is now found among all mankind’, including the Romans, among whom it is
already treated as a sort of ancestral tradition.58 There is therefore no reason
why Ulpian should not have adopted the seven-day week as the period within
which he would, when composing his survey, plan to write one book of, say,
on average 10,000 words. In the next chapter I consider how far the 40 books
of lesser works can be fitted into the five-year plan59 that I attribute to him.
In the first edition I supposed that one could assign the major, medium-
scale, and lesser works to different parts of the calendar year. But it is clear
from what has been said about the parallel composition of Edict and The
Proconsul that this is not so. Earlier-numbered books were written before
later-numbered books, and this may give us a rough clue to the time of year
at which a particular book was composed. But in general Ulpian arranged his
work schedule in whatever way suited him best. Did his year begin on 1
January or did he stop writing on 17 December for the Saturnalia and begin
a new year’s stint straight afterwards?60 It is impossible to tell and makes lit-
tle difference.
58 Dio 37.18 59 Liebs (1984) 441: perhaps originally a six-year plan

60 Liebs (1984) 449
9
Dates and Plan III: Lesser Works

T H E lesser works, which come to thirty-nine or forty books, can be fitted into
the scheme set out in the last two chapters. They fit in if Ulpian composed
eight books in each year, or eight in four years and seven in the fifth. Some of
the lesser works are clearly early and others late, but it is often a guess to
which precise year they should be assigned. I deal in turn with the works of
the early, middle, and late period, those that seem to belong to 213–4, 215,
and 216–7 respectively.1
I . T H E E A R L Y P E R I O D : A D 2 13 A N D 2 1 4
For the early period the background assumption is that On the Edict books 6
to the middle of book 31 together with Proconsul books 1 to 10 were com-
posed in 213. On Sabinus books 1 to the beginning or middle of 26 and ten
books of Disputations or Tribunals were written in 214.
It may be as well to begin by strengthening the assumption that the first big
block of commentary On the Edict and Proconsul belong to the same year,
213. A number of expressions occur only between Edict books 6 and 31 and
in Proconsul. Thus Ulpian has four texts with destricte (‘indiscriminately’).2
Discutere, in the sense ‘investigate or decide as a judge’, is found in three
texts.3 Commendatio, ‘recommendation’, comes twice.4 The same is true of
improbitas, ‘want of scruple’.5 Periculosus, ‘dangerous’ in a legal rather than
a physical sense, is found in a quartet of texts.6 All of these come, apart from
a single text from Edict book 1, from Edict books 6 to 31 and Proconsul.
These parallels, though not individually of much weight, together tend to
confirm that, if Edict books 6 to 31 were composed in 213, so was Proconsul.
What other works belong to this year? One sign will be that the work
was wholly or partly composed in the Caracalla A period, before about the
middle of 213. If, in a joint citation, Severus precedes Antoninus, this is some
1
I draw on Honoré (1988) but note that at p.1440 of that study 217 should be 216 and 218
should be 217.
2
D 3.3.13 (8 ed.); 4.4.7.8 (11 ed.); 4.8.15 (13 ed.); 48.18.1.26 (8 off. proc.)
3
D 4.8.13.2; 4.8.25.1 (13 ed.); 48.2.6 (2 off. proc.)
4
D 4.1.1 (1 ed.); 1.16.4.3 (1 off. proc.)
5
D 4.9.3.1 (14 ed.); 1.16.9.4 (2 off. proc.)
6
D 39.2.1 (1 ed.); 3.1.1.3 (6 ed.); 5.1.61 pr (26 ed.); 48.18.1.23 (8 off. proc.)
190 9. Dates and Plan III
evidence that the work from which it comes belongs to that period.7 If, later
in the same work, Caracalla precedes Severus, the evidence is strengthened.
On the other hand, a text in which Severus precedes Caracalla, and Caracalla
is given no title, may be from 217.8 Again, such a text might be one of the half
dozen exceptions to the general practice in the Caracalla B period.9
Additional clues are needed. These will often consist in parallels, such as those
set out above,10 between two or more works to which certain expressions are
confined or virtually confined.
1. Taxation (6 books)
The first lesser work to be examined is Taxation, from which Lenel prints
ninety-six lines.11 This contains a number of references to contemporary or
recently dead emperors:
1 cens. D 50.15.1 pr huic enim divus Severus et imperator noster ius Italicum
dedit
1 cens. D 50.15.1.2 quae a divo Severo Italicae coloniae rem publicam accepit
1 cens. D 50.15.1.3 cui divus Severus ius Italicum concessit
1 cens. D 50.15.1.4 imperator noster ius coloniae dedit
1 cens. D 50.15.1.7 divus quoque Severus coloniam deduxit
1 cens. D 50.15.1.9 a divo Severo ius coloniae impetravit
2 cens. D 1.9.12 pr ut scio Antoninum Augustum Iuliae Mammaeae con-
sobrinae suae indulsisse
2 cens. D 50.15.3 rescripto imperatoris nostri ad Peligianum recte expres-
sum est
The first text shows that Severus is dead and Caracalla sole ruler. The order
of mention of the emperors points to the Caracalla A period, and so to the
year 213. The text about the indulgence shown to Julia Mammaea is of inter-
est from the point of view of Ulpian’s political career, which Julia Mammaea
later on supported.
In a few texts Ulpian condescendingly remarks of a rescript, as he does in
the above text from Taxation book 2, that it is ‘correct’ or ‘quite right’: imper-
ator recte/rectissime rescripsit:
7 Ch. 7 n.24–70 8 Ch. 7 n.89–92

9 D 26.10.3.13 (35 ed.); 26.8.5.3 (40 Sab.); 27.3.17 (3 off. cons.); 32.1.4 (1 fid.); 1.15.4 (1 off.
pr. urb.); 27.1.9 (1 off. pr. tut.). There are seventy-one texts that follow the normal pattern for
this period.
10 Above n.2–6
11 Lenel (1889) 2.384–5; Ind. Flor. xxiv 16; Schulz (1946) 1396, (1961) 330; Jörs (1903) 1452;
Fitting (1908) 118; Liebs (1997) §424.13

Lesser Works 191
29 ed. D 17.1.6.7 sed rectissime divi fratres rescripserunt

9 off. proc. D 48.19.8.12 imperator Antoninus rectissime rescripsit
2 cens. D 50.15.3.1 rescripto imperatoris nostri recte expressum est
Ulpian’s condescending attitude towards Caracalla in these passages
strengthens the case for allotting Taxation to 213. Some other passages dis-
play a superior attitude towards emperors, including Caracalla:
2 Sab. D 29.1.3 nam secundum nostram sententiam etiam divus
Marcus rescripsit
3 off. proc. D 50.2.3.1 Imperator Antoninus edicto proposito statuit . . . et
hoc recte
6 Sab. D 28.6.2.4 quae sententia rescripto imperatoris nostri com-
probata est, et merito
The two texts from On Sabinus belong, on the view we have taken, to the ear-
lier part of 214. The condescending texts therefore fit 213 or fairly early 214.
Also of interest is the use in Taxation of scio ‘I know’.12 This word (like inve-
nio, ‘I find’) is found in Excuses (De excusationibus), composed before
Caracalla’s sole rule began at the end of 211.13 These and other first-person
words indicating knowledge are mainly early.14 Virtually absent from the
texts of 215 and 216, they reappear a few times in 217.
The texts with scio come mostly from Edict up to book 2815 (213 or before)
or from book 68 onwards16 (217); from the Sabinian commentary up to book
2117 (214); and from The Proconsul (probably 213).18 This supports the view
that the other works with scio, Taxation,19 Disputations,20 The Praetor for
Guardianship,21 and Appeals,22 should go in one of these years and not in 215
or 216. Nescio is found only once, in Edict book 8 (213).23 In Edict book 6
there is a list of types of discharge from the army. It is introduced by sentences
beginning with est: est honesta . . . est causaria . . . est ignominiosa . . . est et
quartum genus missionis.24 The only real parallel comes in the first book on
Taxation: Est et Heliupolitana . . . Est et Laodicena . . . Est et Palmyrena civi-
tas. Est et in Bithynia Apamena . . . Est et in Cilicia Selenus.25
Taxation is clearly early, and fits 213 better than 214.
12 13
D 1.9.1 pr (2 cens.) Lenel (1889) 2.8991; Jörs (1903) 145 14
Below n.51–4
15
D 2.14.7.5 (4 ed.); 4.2.9.3; 4.3.2 (11 ed.); 14.1.1.12 (28 ed.)
16
D 43.13.1.7; 43.8.2.33 (68 ed.)
17
D 48.19.3 (14 Sab.); 34.2.19.8 (20 Sab.); 30.39.6 (21 Sab.)
18 19
D 48.13.7 (7 off. proc.); 48.22.7.9 (10 off. proc.) D 1.9.1 pr (1 cens.)
20 21
D 28.5.35.1 (4 disp.) D 27.1.15.16; Frag. Vat. 242 (1 off. pr. tut.)
22 23
D 49.2.1.4; 49.1.3 pr (1 appell.) Frag. Vat. 321 (8 ed.)
24 25
D 3.2.2.2 (6 ed.) D 50.15.1.2, 3,5, 10, 11 (1 cens.)
2. The Market-Masters’ Edict (2 books)
The surviving fragments of this commentary26 on the market-masters’ edict

contain no reference to contemporary emperors. But parallels with the major
and medium-range treatises of Caracalla’s reign suggest that it, too, belongs
to that reign. Thus Ulpian has four texts with accipias, ‘take it that . . .’.27
There is also one text with accipies, ‘you will take it that . . .’. 28 These texts
point to 213 or 214. Mediocris ‘unimportant’, with three texts, fits the same
years.29 Other parallels point more to 213. Four sentences begin Illud plane,
‘The following, of course . . .’.30 There are three texts with erit notandum, ‘it
will have to be noted that . . .’31 Four passages have . . . in causae cognitione
versabitur ‘so-and-so will be in issue at the trial’.32
The Market-Masters’ Edict is probably from 213 or 214, and perhaps goes
better in 213. It is a mistake to think of it an appendix to the commentary on
the praetor’s edict, in which case it would belong to 217 or even later. If The
Market-Masters’ Edict goes in 213, Ulpian’s Teaching Manual should go in
214. The former fits the segment of Edict composed in 213 well, while
Teaching Manual, a work largely about civil as opposed to praetorian law,
better fits the commentary on Sabinus of 214, itself concerned with civil law.
3. Disputations (10 books) and Trusts (6 books)
In the last chapter Disputations, on discussions in public of moot points of

law, was assigned to 214 or 215.33 There are affinities between this work and
Trusts.34 It seems best, therefore, to discuss the date of these works together.
They both display vivacity and self-confidence. Disputations belongs at least
from book 3 to the Caracalla B period. To place these works more precisely,
we must look for parallels with the major commentaries. One is the use of
probamus, ‘we approve’, a first person plural expressing the author’s author-
ity. This occurs in Sabinus books 5 and 20,35 Edict books 32 and 33,36 and
Disputations book 8.37 The Sabinus texts belong, we have suggested, to 214,
the Edict texts to 215. But the Edict texts must come fairly early in 215, since
26 Lenel (1889) 2.884–98; Ind. Flor. xxiv 1; Schulz (1946) 198; (1961) 244; Jörs (1903) 1439 (all
mistakenly treating this work as an appendix to Ad edictum praetoris); Liebs (1997) §424.2
27 D 21.1.19.4 (1 ed. cur.); 15.1.3.7 (29 ed.); 28.1.20.3 (1 Sab.); 29.2.30.1 (8 Sab.)
28 D 5.3.25.8 (15 ed.) 29 D 21.1.4.6 (1 ed. cur.); 7.8.4 pr (17 Sab.); 1.16.9.4 (1 off. proc.)
30
D 21.1.31.18 (1 ed. cur.); 3.2.6.6 (6 ed.); 5.3.31.4 (15 ed.); 15.3.7.3 (29 ed.)
31
D 21.1.4.5 (1 ed. cur.); 3.6.3.3 (10 ed.); 4.6.21.1 (12 ed.)
32
D 21.1.31.23 (1 ed. cur.); 3.3.27 pr (9 ed.); 4.4.13 pr, 16 pr (11 ed.)
33
Ch. 8 n.38–9; Schulz (1961) 305–7; Wieacker (1960) 385–8; Liebs (1997) §424.24
34
Lenel (1889) 2.903–26; Ind. Flor. xxiv 9; Schulz (1946) 255; (1961) 328; Jörs (1887) 5.1451;
Fitting (1908) 117; Liebs (1997) §424.19
35 36
D 28.5.9.5 (5 Sab.); 36.2.5.1 (20 Sab.) D 19.1.11.3 (32 ed.); 24.3.22.6 (33 ed.)
37
D 35.2.82 (8 disp.)
Lesser Works 193
the middle block of Edict begins at book 31/2 or 32. From the parallels in
these texts, the Disputations passage would fit the later months of 214.
A similar picture emerges from texts with dicet quis ‘someone will argue’.
These come in Sabinus books 13 and 25,38 Edict book 5,39 and Disputations
book 4.40 There are two texts with intellegendum erit ‘it will have to be under-
stood’, one from Sabinus book 21 and one from Disputations book 4.41 Then
we come to seven texts with pari ratione ‘for the same reason’. These run from
Edict book 29,42 presumably latish 213, to Sabinus books 17 and 26,43 in 214,
two texts from Disputations,44 and one from Trusts.45 Here the Edict text
should belong to the later part of 213 and the Sabinus text to the later part of
214, so that Disputations again fits 214 best. Is the same true of Trusts?
One parallel between Disputations and Trusts consists in the fact that
Ulpian uses dicebam only in these works. The use of the imperfect points to
oral argument.46 Of twelve texts with dicebam eleven come from Disputations
and one from Trusts.47 The expression is to be expected in Disputations, which
record oral argument, but not in a work on Roman trust law. The most plau-
sible explanation is that Ulpian was working more or less concurrently on
these two works and recorded an oral discussion, present to his mind at the
time of writing, in the treatise on trusts. The same correlation is found with
three uses of referebam ‘I argued that. . .’. Two come from Disputations 48 and
one from Trusts.49 Another expression that points to a link between
Disputations and Trusts is benignum est, ‘it is fair . . .’, which occurs once in
each work.50
So far, then, the evidence rather favours the idea that Trusts and
Disputations were both composed in 214. What of the evidence to be drawn
from references to emperors?
1 fid. D 32.1.4 epistula divi Severi et imperatoris nostri
1 fid. D 32.1.9 et ita imperator noster rescripsit
2 fid. D 32.11.19 imperator noster rescripsit
2 fid. D 35.1.14 imperator noster rescripsit
3 fid. D 36.1.1.13 et est decretum a divo Severo
3 fid. D 36.1.3.4 imperator noster rescripsit
4 fid. D36.1.15.4 et ita invenio ab imperatore nostro et divo patre eius
rescriptum
38 D 38.17.2.41 (13 Sab.); 32.55.7 = 50.16.167 (25 Sab.) 39 D 27.9.7 pr (35 ed.)
40 41
D 41.1.33.1 (4 disp.) D 30.39.1 (21 Sab.); 28.5.35.3 (4 disp.)
42 43
D 15.1.11.9 (29 ed.) D 7.1.12.3 (17 Sab.); 23.2.12.4 (26/1 Sab.)
44 45
D 17.1.29 pr (7 disp.); 28.7.10 pr (8 disp.) D 36.1.17.6 (4 fid.)
46
Ch. 1 n.144–5
47
D 27.8.2; 44.3.5.1 (3 disp.); 28.5.35 pr; 28.4.2; 29.1.19; 49.17.9 (4 disp); 36.1.23 pr; 33.4.2.1
(5 disp.); 46.7.13 (7 disp.); 35.2.82 (8 disp.); 34.1.14.3 (2 fid.)
48 49
D 29.1.19 pr; 49.17.9 (4 disp.) D 35.1.92 (5 fid.)
50
D 21.1.49 (8 disp.); 32.5.1 (1 fid.)
5 fid. D 40.5.24.5 et est rescriptum ab imperatore nostro

5 fid. D 40.5.24.9 et imperator noster cum patre rescripsit
5 fid. D 40.5.26.1 decretum et a divo Severo constitutum est
5 fid. D 40.5.26.2 imperator noster cum patre rescripsit
5 fid. D 40.5.26.3 Idem imperator noster cum patre suo rescripsit
5 fid. D 40.5.26.8 et ita imperator noster cum patre suo rescripsit
5 fid. D 40.5.30 pr imperator noster rescripsit
5 fid. D 40.5.30.15 Imperator noster Antoninus rescripsit
5 fid. D 40.5.30.17 rescriptum imperatoris nostri et divi patris eius declarat
5 fid. D 35.1.92 quod divus Severus rescripsit . . . ex auctoritate divi Severi
6 fid. D 49.14.43 Imperator noster rescripsit
The imperator noster who is mentioned jointly with the dead Severus in the
first text must be Caracalla, and he is still sole emperor in book 6. Of the seven
mentions of joint constitutions, six, in books four and five, put Caracalla first.
The other, from book 1, makes Severus senior. So the early books of Trusts
might belong to the Caracalla A period and the later ones to Caracalla B. Its
date might be 213 rather than 214. But D 32.1.4 comes from a letter rather
than a private rescript and citations from letters sometimes keep closer to the
original. To decide between these possibilities, let us examine the parallels
between Trusts and the major commentaries. Several words expressing what
the author knows or remembers occur in Trusts and some have parallels in
other works: memini,51 invenio and variants,52 retineo,53 nec ignoro.54 The
parallels are inconclusive, though perhaps pointing more to 214. Texts with
tractatum or tractatum est point towards 214, since many of the parallels
come from or straddle the first half of On Sabinus.55 Other parallels point
towards 213. There are just two Ulpianic texts with inefficax.56 There are also
two passages in which Ulpian rejects in advance the imputation to himself of
certain views on the law: ‘let nobody suppose that I think so-and-so’.
1 fid. D 32.1.1 haec utique nemo credet in testamentis nos probaturos
16 ed. D 6.2.7.17 nec quisquam putet nos existimare sufficere initio trad-
itionis ignorasse alienam
On balance Trusts, like Disputations, is likely to have been composed in 214.
Another possibility is that the two six-book works, Taxation and Trusts, were
51
D 36.1.18.5 (4 fid.); 7.8.2.1 (17 Sab.); Frag. Vat. 220 (1 off. pr. tut.)
52
D 36.1.15.4 (4 fid.); Frag. Vat 177 (1 off. pr. tut.); 38.17.2.47 (13 Sab.); Spicil. Solesm. ed
Pitra 1.28214 (6 ed.); 39.3.1.20 (53 ed.)
53 54
D 35.1.92 (5 fid.) D 36.1.17 pr (4 fid.)
55
D 36.1.18 pr, 5 (2 fid.); 36.1.6.1 (4 fid.); 43.8.2.33 (6 ed.); 17.1.58 pr (31/2 ed.); 5.1.50.1 (6
Sab.); 38.16.3.10 (14 Sab.); 7.4.3 pr; 7.8.2.1 (17 Sab.); 30.39.6 (21 Sab.); 34.3.7 pr (23 Sab.);
40.7.9.2 (28 Sab.); 15.1.3.5 (29 ed.)
56
D 40.5.24.2 (5 fid.); 4.8.11.5 (13 ed.)
Lesser Works 195
spread over 213 and 214, with three of each in the first year and another three
of each in the second.
4. Teaching Manual (2 books)
The two books of elementary teaching, Institutiones, run to 120 lines in the
Palingenesia.57 One text refers to a reigning emperor:
2 inst. Collatio 16.9 Sed imperator noster eas solas personas voluit admitti,
quibus decimae immunitatem ipse tribuit
The emperor is Caracalla and the text is concerned, it seems, with legislation
on his part restricting to a narrow circle of close relatives the right of intestate
succession to freedmen. Arguments from affinity of style suggest that
Teaching Manual is an early work. Ulpian has two texts in it with aequissimum
putavit, ‘he thought it the fairest solution’.58 There are also two with aequitate
motus, ‘moved by reasons of fairness’.59 Both these point, in view of the Edict
texts, to 213. There are three texts with ut, cum, or si libuerit, ‘as’ or ‘if he
pleases’.60 These rather suggest 214. So do the texts with utpote ‘namely’.61 It
is hard to decide between 213 and 214.
Taken as a whole, the writings of these first two years are self-confident, even
exuberant. Ulpian is relaxed, talks informally to the reader,62 draws on per-
sonal experience,63 and feels free to compliment Caracalla on his rescripts64
and Marcus on agreeing with the author’s own opinion in advance.65
Ulpian’s ambitious undertaking gets off to a powerful start. The detailed pro-
gramme of 431⁄2 books a year for 213 and 214 may have been something like
this:
213
Major commentary On the Edict book 6 to middle of book 31
Medium-scale treatise Proconsul 10 books
Lesser works Taxation 6 books
Market-Masters’ Edict 2 books
Total: 431⁄2 books
57 Lenel (1889) 2. 926–30; Ind. Flor. 24.4; Bremer (1863); Mommsen (1904–13) 2.56–63;
Collectio 2.157–9; Seckel–Kübler 1.492–4; FIRA 2.305f.; Girard–Senn (1967) 540–2; Wieacker
(1960) 206–16; Schulz (1946) 171–2; (1961) 207; Liebs (1997) §424.23
58 Collatio 16.7 (2 inst.); D 2.10.1 pr (7 ed.)
59 Collatio 16.9.2 (2 inst.); D 12.4.3.7 (26 ed.)
60 D 43.26.1.2 (1 inst.); 40.5.46.3 (6 disp.); 50.16.164.1 (15 Sab.)
61 D 1.1.4; 1.4.1 pr (1 inst.); 28.5.17.5 (7 Sab.); 34.4.3.2 (24 Sab.); 46.1.8.8 (47 Sab.)
62 Accipias, accipies: above n.27–8; dicet quis, above n.38
63 Scio, invenio, memini, dicebam, non ignoro: above n.12, 15–8, 45–6, 51–2, 54
64 D 48.19.8.12 (9 off. proc.) 65 D 29.1.3 (2 Sab.)
214
Major commentary On Sabinus book 1 to middle of book 26
Medium-scale treatise Disputations 10 books
Lesser works Trusts 6 books
Teaching Manual 2 books
Total 431⁄2 books
There are uncertainties but, whatever the exact plan, the general picture pre-
sented here cannot be far from the mark.
II. THE MIDDLE PERIOD: AD 215
The middle year of Ulpian’s five-year plan came in 215. We assumed that he was
then writing the middle segment of Edict, from the middle of book 31 to the mid-
dle of book 56. The medium-range work for the year was thought to be either
Disputations or Tribunals. If the arguments for holding Disputations to have
been written in 214 are accepted, it follows that Tribunals was composed in 215.
There are positive parallels between Tribunals and the thirties and forties
of On the Edict. Ulpian often uses non tantum . . . verum etiam, ‘not only but
also’. One variant of this, nec tantum verum etiam, ‘nor only but also’ occurs
in five texts, all from the middle segment of Edict.66 Another variant, this time
a pleonastic one, is non tantum, verum etiam quoque, ‘not only, but, in addi-
tion, also’, which is found in four texts.67 Ulpian soon eliminated this super-
fluous phrase. But the distribution of these four texts suggests that the early
part of the middle section of Edict and the early books of Tribunals were being
composed at much the same time. If the evidence of these texts can be trusted,
one minor work that occupied his attention at this time was the three-book
work on The Consul.
This picture is strengthened by his use of the diminutive of minutus, viz.
minutulus,68 ‘tiny’, and of minutatim, ‘piecemeal’.69 These rather precious
expressions seem to have enjoyed Ulpian’s favour briefly, presumably in late
214 and 215. This suggests that Tribunals and The Consul should go in 215.
Ulpian’s use of certain polysyllabic, impressive-sounding words falls in the
same period and suggests that other treatises on public officials, besides the
consul, were composed at much the same time. One type of word of this sort
are adverbs in four or more syllables beginning with the prefix in- and ending
in –ter: inconsideranter,70 indubitanter,71 incunctanter,72 indifferenter.73 Not
66 D 9.4.42.2 (37 ed.); 38.2.16.5 (44 ed.); 38.7.2.1; 38.7.2.2 (46 ed.); 38.15.2.4 (49 ed.)
67 D 26.5.7 (1 omn. trib.); 27.4.1.5 (36 ed.); 37.4.3 pr (39 ed.); 25.3.5.12 (2 off. cons.)
68 D 50.16.192 (37 ed.)
69 D 32.55.2 (25 Sab.); 2.15.8.9 (5 omn. trib.); 34.1.3 (2 off. cons.)
70 D 26.10.3.17 (35 ed.) 71 D 37.11.2.7 (41 ed.) 72 D 40.2.20 pr (2 off. cons.)
73 D 1.13.1.3 (1 off. quaest.) 74 D 26.10.3.16 (35 ed.)
Lesser Works 197
far removed is pervicaciter.74 The distribution of these words suggests that the
monographs on the office of consul and quaestor belong together. The next
group of words brings in two more books on offices, those of the urban pre-
fect and the community treasurer (curator reipublicae), an imperial commis-
sioner appointed to a municipality. This group of assonant words consists of
five-syllable words in -osus or -ose, apart from iniuriosus and iniuriose, which
are omitted because of their technical connection with the delict of iniuria.
They include perniciosus,75 perniciose,76 facinorosus,77 contumeliosus,78
incuriosus,79 and ambitiosus.80 These pretentious expressions suggest that
Ulpian, for whatever reason, indulged at this period in unusual rhetorical
excess. Here are other examples from works that appear to belong to 215:
D 26.7.7.1 (35 ed.) non quidem praecipiti festinatione, sed nec morato-
ria cunctatione
D 22.1.33 pr (1 off. cur. reip.) non acerbum se exactorem nec contumeliosam
praebeat sed moderatum et cum efficacia benignum
et cum instantia humanum
D 1.12.1.8 (1 off. pr. urb.) si verecunde expostulent, si saevitiam, si duritiam,
si famem, qua eos premant, si obscaenitatem, in
qua eos compulerint vel compellant, apud praefec-
tum urbi exponant
There are further links between the middle section of Edict, the treatise on
Tribunals, and the monographs on public offices. Raro or perraro faciendum
est ‘it should be done only rarely’ comes only in Tribunals 81 and The Consul.82
Liberalis, in the context of liberal arts or studies, comes in Tribunals 83 and
The Community Treasurer.84 Licentiam habet ‘he is allowed’ comes in this
block of Edict 85 and The Urban Prefect.86 Licentia erit ‘it will be permissible’
is similar and comes only in this block of Edict.87 Accipere nos oportet ‘we
must take it that . . .’ occurs mainly in this edictal block88 and in The Consul.89
There is perhaps a link between acerbum ‘harsh’ and acriter ‘harshly’, the first
in Tribunals 90 and the second in The Community Treasurer.91
Three works on the duties of public officials,92 the consul, the urban
prefect, and the community treasurer therefore seem to have links with the
middle block of Edict, and with Tribunals. Did the whole programme of
75 D 14.6.3.3 (29 ed.); 24.3.22.7 (33 ed.); 47.2.50.4 (37 ed.) 76 D 26.10.3.5 (35 ed.)
77 D 2.1.3 (1 off. quaest.) 78 D 1.12.1.10 (1 off. pr. urb)
79 D 22.1.33 pr (1 off. cur. reip.) 80 D 22.1.33 pr; 50.9.4 pr (1 off. cur. reip.)
81 D 26.10.7.3 (1 omn. trib.) 82 D 5.1.82 (1 off. cons.)
83 D 50.13.1 pr (8 omn. trib.) 84D 50.9.4.2 (1 off. cur. reip.)
85 D 24.3.22.8 (33 ed.) 86 D 1.12.1.3 (1 off. pr. urb.)
87 D 24.3.22.7 (33 ed.), 26.7.1.3 (35 ed.)
88 D 9.2.5.1 (18 ed.); 26.2.3.1 (35 ed.); 38.5.1.4 (44 ed.); 38.8.1.6 (46 ed.)
89 D 50.16.99.1 (1 off. cons.) 90 D 47.10.35 (3 omn. trib.)
91 D 22.1.33 pr (1 off. cur. reip.)
92 On which see Jörs (1903) 1452; Solazzi (1920–2) = (1957–63) 2.521–6; Dell’Oro (1960)
98–105; Fitting (1908) 119; Liebs (1997) §424.16

minor works for 215 consist of monographs on the duties of public officials?
If we assume a total of eight books of minor works, these three monographs
together come to five books. We can possibly add three out of The Quaestor
(probably one book), The Prefect of Police (one book), The Praetor for
Guardianship (one book), and Consular Judges (one book).
This gives eight books. On the duties of consular judges (circuit judges in
Italy) we have only three lines, on the duties the prefect of the watch only one.
It is impossible to link them linguistically with the other monographs. But it
seems reasonable to suppose that the works on public offices were mostly
composed in the same year and were regarded by Ulpian as forming a group.
Notes on individual works follow.
5. The Consul (3 books)93

Five passages refer to contemporary emperors:
3 off. cons. D 27.3.17 Imperatores Severus et Antoninus rescripserunt in
haec verba
3 off. cons. D 42.1.15.1 imperator noster cum patre rescripsit
3 off. cons. D 42.1.15.3 rescriptum est ab imperatore nostro et divo patre eius
3 off. cons. D 42.1.15.4 constitutum est ab imperatore nostro
3 off. cons. D 42.1.15.8 imperator noster rescripsit
The reigning emperor is Caracalla, in view of the references to joint constitu-
tions of himself and his father. In two of these he precedes Severus, in the
third Severus comes first. It is not therefore clear at first sight whether the
work belongs to the Caracalla A or B period. It is more probable, however,
that texts in which Severus precedes Caracalla will be found in period B than
the other way around. This is especially true if the exact words of the consti-
tutions are given, as in the first text listed here.94 Probably, therefore, Office
of Consul was composed in 215, which falls in Caracalla B.
6. The Urban Prefect (1 book)95

There are four references to present or recent emperors in this work:
1 off. pr. urb. D 1.12.1 pr epistula divi Severi ad Fabium Cilonem missa
1 off. pr. urb. D 1.12.1.8 officium praefecto urbi a divo Severo datum est
1 off. pr. urb. D 1.12.1.14 Divus Severus rescripsit
93 Lenel (1889) 2.951–8; Ind. Flor. 24.13; Jörs (1903) 1452; Fitting (1908) 119; Schulz (1946)
243; (1961) 314; Solazzi (1957–63) 2.521–6; Dell’Oro (1960) 31–85; Liebs (1997) §424.16
94 D 27.3.17 (3 off. cons.)
95 Lenel (1889) Pal. 2. 959–60; Ind. Flor. xxiv 19; Schulz (1946) 246; (1961) 313; Jörs (1903)
1454; Fitting (1908) 120; Dell’Oro (1960) 239–49; Mantovani (1988) 171–223; Liebs (1997)
§424.17
Lesser Works 199
1 off. pr. urb. D 1.15.4 Imperatores Severus et Antoninus Iunio Rufino ita
rescripserunt
Severus, divus in three references, is dead. We are not told who is currently
emperor, but Caracalla is not ruled out. In the last text, however, Severus is
mentioned before Caracalla, which points to the Caracalla A period. The
rescript mentioned is however a letter (epistula) of which the exact words are
cited.96 In this type of case there is sometimes an exception to the order of
emperors even in the Caracalla B period.97 In all there are five or six excep-
tions of this sort to set against seventy-one texts that follow the standard pat-
tern.98 The work may therefore have been composed in 215 along with other
monograph on public offices.
7. The Community Treasurer (1 book)99
There are three references to contemporary emperors:

1 off. cur. reip. D 50.12.1 pr ut imperator noster cum divo patre suo rescripsit
1 off. cur. reip. D 50.12.1.5 imperator noster cum divo patre suo ita rescripsit
1 off. cur. reip. D 50.12.1.6 imperator noster rescripsit
From the mention of joint constitutions with his dead father, Caracalla must
have been sole emperor at the time of composition. This monograph falls in
the Caracalla B period and could have been composed in 215.100
8. The Quaestor (1 book)101
The twenty-nine lines from this work contain no reference to a contemporary

emperor, but, as noted above, from parallels of style could belong to 215.102
Scholarly opinion, going back to Cuiacius, tends to reject the heading to D
2.1.3 (ULPIANUS libro secundo de officio quaestoris), preferring singulari for
secundo or proconsulis for quaestoris.103
96 cf. D 27.3.17 (3 off. cons.) 97 Above n.50–1 98 Above n.9

99 Lenel (1889) 2.958–9; Ind. Flor. 24.21; Jörs (1903) 1454; Fitting (1908) 119; Kübler (1925)
221; Schulz (1946) 246; Cassarino (1947–8); Dell’Oro (1960) 220–9; Eck (1974) 224; Liebs (1970)
148–150; (1997) §424.20
100
Above n.7–9
101
Lenel (1889) 2.992; Lydus, De Mag. 1.24.28; Ind. Flor. 24.23; Jörs (1903) 1454; Schulz
(1946) 246; (1961) 314; Wieacker (1960) 408–10; Dell’Oro (1960) 98–105; Wesener (1963)
RE 24.826; Liebs (1970) 148–50; (1997) §424.15
102
D 1.13.1.3; 2.1.3 (1 off. quaest.)
103
Karlowa (1885–1901) 2.7422 who thinks that D 2.1.3 is likely to come from The Proconsul
(off. proc.); Liebs (1970) 149f. There is no reason to think it post-classical (Schulz, 1946, 246).
9. The Praetor for Guardianship (1 book)
This work,104 on the office of the praetor for guardianship, appears to be

early, but is in some ways puzzling. Some texts in it are identical with texts
from Excuses,105 which was composed before the sole rule of Caracalla, pos-
sibly during the reign of Severus, since texts from it contains three references
to imperatores nostri ‘our emperors’.106 Office of the Praetor for Guardianship
is therefore thought, following Mommsen, to be a second edition or rework-
ing of Excuses. It certainly belongs to the reign of Caracalla, as the sixteen
texts referring to emperors show:
1 off. pr. tut. D 27.1.9 beneficio divi Severi et imperatoris nostri
1 off. pr. tut. Frag. Vat. 176 et ita imperator noster . . .
1 off. pr. tut. Frag. Vat. 177a [imperatores] . . . riae Sabinae rescripser[unt]
1 off. pr. tut. Frag. Vat. 191 imperator noster et divus Severus rescrip-
serunt
1 off. pr. tut. Frag. Vat. 200 imperator noster cum patre rescripsit
1 off. pr. tut. Frag. Vat. 201 divus Severus Flavio Severiano rescripsit
1 off. pr. tut. Frag. Vat. 204 imperator Antoninus Augustus Cereali
[rescripsit]
1 off. pr. tut. Frag. Vat. 210 idque imp[erator noster rescripsit]
1 off. pr. tut. Frag. Vat. 211 [ut imperator noster Dio]doto praetori rescrip-
sit
1 off. pr. tut. Frag. Vat. 212 ut divus Severus constituit
1 off. pr. tut. Frag. Vat. 232 ut imperator noster rescripsit
1 off. pr. tut. Frag. Vat. 234 ut Phi[lu]meniano imperator noster cum patre
rescripsit
1 off. pr. tut. Frag. Vat. 235 quam epistulam quodam rescripto imperator
noster cum patre interpretatus est. plus etiam
imperator noster indulsit
1 off. pr. tut. Frag. Vat. 236 ut imperator noster et divus Severus rescrip-
serunt
1 off. pr. tut. D 27.1.10.8 ut imperator noster cum patre rescripsit
1 off. pr. tut. Frag. Vat. 238–9 Faustino rescripsit imperator noster cum
patre. Item Furio Epaphrae rescripsit
104 Lenel (1889) 2.960–6; Ind. Flor. 24.22; Jörs (1903) 1452; Fitting (1908) 118–9; Schulz
(1946) 249, (1961) 318–20; Wieacker (1960) 412–6; Dell’Oro (1960) 88–98; De Filippi (1984);
Liebs (1987b) 151; (1997) §424.10–11
105 D 27.1.7 (1 excus.) = Frag. Vat. 240 (1 off. pr. tut.); Frag. Vat 145 (1 excus.) = Frag. Vat
222 (1 off. pr. tut.); D 27.1.15.16 (Mod. 6 excus.–Ulp. 1 excus.) = Frag. Vat. 189 (off. pr. tut.)
106 Frag Vat. 125, 147, 159 (all 1 excus.); Fitting (1908) 115 but Ebrard (1917) 144; H. Krüger
(1930) 303.
Lesser Works 201
Of the eight texts in which Severus and Antoninus appear jointly, Caracalla
precedes his father in seven. In one Digest text,107 however, Severus has pri-
ority. The Praetor for Guardianship looks early and we have already come
across two texts in it with scio,108 and one each with invenio,109 inveni,110 and
memini.111 It is strong on first-person words referring to mental activity.
There is a case for allotting it to 213 or 214, but, along with other works on
public offices, it is perhaps better placed in 215.
10. Consular Judges (1 book)112
The only sentence that survives from this work comes from a constitution of
Marcus. It contains nothing to indicate the period in which the work was
composed.
11. The Prefect of Police (1 book)113
There are only five words from this work, which give no clue as to its date.
Certainty is not possible, but it seems likely that the 43 books composed in
215 consisted of:
Major commentary On the Edict from middle of 31 to
middle of 56
Medium-scale work Tribunals 10 books
Lesser works The Consul 3 books
The Urban Prefect 1 book
The Community Treasurer 1 book
The Quaestor 1 book
The Praetor for Guardianship 1 book
either The Prefect of Police 1 book, or Consular Judges
1 book
Total: 43 books
III. THE LATER PERIOD: AD 216 AND 217
In fixing the detailed programme for 216 and 217 we can begin by eliminating
the minor works already assigned to the first three years of the quinquennium.
107 108
D 27.1.9 (1 off. pr. tut.) Frag. Vat 189, 242
109 110
Frag. Vat. 189 cf. D 27.1.15.16 (1 excus.) Frag. Vat. 177
111
Frag. Vat. 220
112
Lenel (1889) 2.950; Jörs (1903) 1452; Schulz (1946) 247, (1961) 315; Dell’Oro (1960) 260–3,
299; Liebs (1997) §424.12. Not in Ind. Flor.
113
Lenel (1889) 2.960; Ind. Flor. 24.20; Jörs (1903) 1454; Schulz (1946) 246; (1961) 314;
Dell’Oro (1960) 250, 254f.; Vriesendorp (1984); Liebs (1997) §424.18
This leaves:
Adultery 5 books
The Aelio-Sentian Law 4 books
Appeals 4 books
Engagement to Marry 1 book
The Speech of Marcus and Commodus 1 book
Consular Judges/Prefect of Police 1 book
This makes sixteen books, eight each year, which is the number required to
bring Ulpian’s total up to 431⁄2 books for each of these years. In 216 the block
of major commentary is thought to have been 251⁄2 books On Sabinus, from
the middle of book 26 to the end of book 51 and the middle range treatise for
that year is thought to have been the first ten books on the Julio-Papian Law.
In 217 the block of major commentary is thought to have run from the mid-
dle of Edict book 56 to the end of book 81, which again comes to 251⁄2 books.
The middle-range treatise for that year is thought to have been the last ten
books of The Julio-Papian Law. If eight books of lesser works are added each
year we arrive at the required total.
If this outline is correct, a pattern emerges. Ulpian’s commentaries on
statutes (leges) belong to the last two years of the quinquennium. No work of
this sort seems to come in the first three years. Counting twenty books on the
Julio-Papian Law, five for the Julian Law on Adultery, and four for the Aelio-
Sentian Law, we have twenty-nine books on statutes in the last two years.
Somewhat as in the Digests (Digesta) of Celsus, Julian, and Marcellus,114 the
analysis of statutes formed an appendix to the discussion of other branches of
the law.
The various lesser works are now dealt with in turn.
12. Appeals (4 books)115
Ulpian often uses et magis est, ‘and the better view is’.116 One variant of this,
magisque est, occurs only in thirteen texts, concentrated in later 216 and early
217.117 This distribution of texts tends to confirm the view that the last books
of Sabinus, ending at book 51, and the first books from the final block of Edict
texts, beginning from the middle of book 56, belong to the same period,
114
Lenel (1889) 163–9 (Cels. 28–9 dig.), 1.464–84 (Iul. 59–90 dig.), 1.627–32 (Marc. 21–31
dig.)
115
Lenel (1889) 2.379–84; Ind. Flor. 24.12; Jörs (1903) 1452; Schulz (1946) 256; (1961) 329;
Fitting (1908) 120; De Giovanni (1989) 95–101; Liebs (1997) §424.22
116
Eighty-eight texts: Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 56 ET MAGIS EST
117
D 49.4.1.9 (1 appell.); D 37.14.16.1 (10 leg. Iul. Pap.); D 45.3.7 pr (48 Sab.); D 42.4.3.3 (59
ed.); D 40.5.4.15, 16, 22 (60 ed.); 28.8.8 (61 ed.); 29.2.71.1, 9 (61 ed.); 44.2.7.3 (75 ed.); 46.7.3.3, 8
(77 ed.)
Lesser Works 203
late 216 and early 217.118 The tenth book of The Julio-Papian Law fits this
pattern, since it should belong to late 216. Appeals could, consistently with
this bunching, belong to either year, but perhaps fits 217 rather better.
Some evidence can be drawn from a study of another construction, palam
est (‘it is clear’). In earlier years Ulpian uses this at the end of a clause. Palam
est follows the object or accusative and infinitive that it governs, as in ex con-
ducto actionem transire palam est.119 In a later group of texts, however, it is
the other way round: palam est precedes the object or accusative and infinitive
which it governs.120 Appeals is again associated with texts that belong to late
216 or 217. One text from Appeals refers to a reigning emperor:
4 appell. D 49.5.5.3 idque rescriptis imperatoris nostri Antonini declaratur
Antoninus might be Caracalla or Elagabal.121 But if the work was composed

in 216 or 217, as seems likely, the reference must be to Caracalla, and must
relate to a time before the news of Caracalla’s death on 8 April 217 reached
Ulpian.
13. Adultery (5 books)122
A number of phrases from this work on adultery suggest that it should be

placed in 217. Another variant of magis est is magis putamus, ‘we rather
think’, which comes twice, once in the last books On Sabinus and once in
Adultery.123 Praeripere ‘snatch away’ comes in the last Edict block and in
Adultery.124 A similar pattern comes in three texts with nec/non ab re est, ‘it is
not out of place’,125 with nec/non mediocriter ‘to no small extent’,126 and with
per(quam) iniquum esse ‘to be very unjust’.127 In the first text Ulpian cites
Marcellus, and plausibly so, since Marcellus uses periniquum in another
text.128 The argument from affinity here takes the form that it was this cita-
tion from Marcellus that suggested to Ulpian that he should use a word which
was not normally part of his vocabulary. There is also a plausible link
between perquam durus129 and durissimus.130
118
Further evidence of this linkage is provided by texts with the phrase praeterea sciendum est:
D 46.1.8.1 (47 Sab.); 42.6.1.12 (64 ed.); 42.8.6.9 (66 ed.); 43.19.1.10; 43.20.1.23 (70 ed.); 42.8.10.6
(73 ed.); 44.4.4.10 (76 ed.)
119 D 19.2.19.8 (32 ed.)
120 D 49.4.1.11 (1 appell.); 19.1.10 (46 Sab.); 18.4.2.3; 45.1.38.3 (49 Sab.); 42.8.3 pr (66 ed.);
43.16.1.24 (69 ed.); 43.21.1.7 (70 ed.); 44.4.2 pr (76 ed.); 46.7.5.3 (77 ed.)
121 Lenel (1889) 2.3791
122 Lenel (1889) 2.931–9; Ind. Flor. 24.11; Jörs (1903) 1446; Schulz (1946) 188, (1961) 232;
Fitting (1908) 120; Liebs (1997) §424.8

123 D 48.5.18.2 (2 adult.); 46.1.8.5 (47 Sab.) 124 D 48.5.16 pr (2 adult.); 42.8.6.7 (66 ed.)
125 D 48.5.18.6 (2 adult.); 40.5.4.5 (60 ed.); 42.1.26 (77 ed.)
126 D 48.5.30.3 (4 adult.), 47.10.7.2 (57 ed.)
127 D 48.5.14.5 (2 adult.), 42.4.3 pr (59 ed.); 36.3.14.1 (79 ed)
128 D 26.7.29 (Marc. 8 dig.) 129 D 40.9.12.1 (4 adult.) 130 D 5.1.19.2 (60 ed.)
These links suggest that Adultery was composed in 217. What of the evid-
ence from references to emperors? There are two:
2 adult. D 48.5.14.3 Divi Severus et Antoninus rescripserunt
2 adult. D 48.5.14.8 poterit accusari ex rescripto divi Severi, quod supra rela-
tum est
Severus is clearly dead. What of Caracalla? One could with Lenel and Fitting
take the first text as showing that Adultery was composed after Caracalla’s
death and deification. But the second reference is to the same rescript as the
first. It implies that, though technically a joint rescript, it was in substance the
ruling of Severus. This suggests that Ulpian is writing after Caracalla’s death
when it was no longer necessary to treat him as the real author of constitu-
tions issued by Caracalla jointly with his father. Besides it is easier to insert
divus or divi into a text retrospectively than to eliminate it.131 The first refer-
ence could originally have read Severus et Antoninus rescripserunt. In that
case the mode of citation is appropriate to the reign of Macrinus132 and can
properly be placed in the year 217. This seems to me the correct interpreta-
tion. Adultery should be assigned to 217.
14. The Aelio-Sentian Law (4 books)133
This work on the Aelio-Sentian law concerns a statute of AD 4 about the man-
umission of slaves. Thirty-seven lines have been preserved but they do not
refer to a reigning or recently dead emperor. A possible date is 216, and there
is a slender piece of evidence in its favour. Verum est followed by the
accusative and infinitive comes only in The Aelio-Sentian Law134 and in a late
book On Sabinus.135
15. Engagement to Marry (1 book)136
The two excerpts from this contain only seven lines as printed in the
Palingenesia. They do not point to any particular year.
131 Mommsen (1904–13) 2.169 132 Above ch. 7 n.88–92

133 Lenel (1889) 2.930–1; Jörs (1903) 1446; Schulz (1946) 189, (1961) 232; Liebs (1997) §424.6.
Not in Ind. Flor.
134 D 50.16.216 (1 Ael. Sent.) 135 D 50.17.31 (42 Sab.)
136 Lenel (1889) 2.1198; Ind. Flor. 24.18: Jörs (1903) 1451; Schulz (1946) 253; (1961) 325; Liebs
(1997) §424.9
Lesser Works 205
16. The Speech of Marcus and Commodus (1 book)137
Though this work is not in the Florentine Index and is not confirmed by any
text heading, it must have existed.138 The quotation from it in Paul’s mono-
graph contains the phrase ‘the point at issue is’ (quaestio in eo est).139 This is
found otherwise only in four texts of Ulpian.140 These point to 216 or 217, the
years of the later books On the Edict and On Sabinus.
This brings to an end the discussion of the dates of Ulpian’s lesser works.
Which of them are to be attributed to 216 and which to 217 is doubtful. The
following is a possible scheme:
216
Major commentary On Sabinus middle of 26 to
end of 51
Medium scale treatise The Julio-Papian Law books 1–10
Lesser works The Aelio-Sentian Law 4 books
Engagement to Marry 1 book
Consular Judges/Prefect of Police 1 book
Appeals books 1–2
217
Major commentary On the Edict middle of 56 to
end of 81
Medium-scale treatise The Julio-Papian Law books 11–20
Lesser works Adultery 5 books
Appeals books 3–4
Speech of Marcus and Commodus 1 book
The overall picture is that of 217 books composed in the five years 213–7.
According to the scheme set out, 431⁄2 books were written in four of these
years and 43 in the fifth (assumed to be 215). Given the sustained quality of
the text this constitutes a monumental achievement.
137 Not in Digest or Ind. Flor. but cf. Paul, Ad orat. d. Ant et Comm: Lenel (1889) 1.1145–6;
Ind. Flor. 25.50; Liebs (1997) §423.17

138 Ch.5 n.35–40 139 D 23.2.60.4 (Paul 1 or. d. Ant. et Comm.)
140 D 47.2.43.11 (41 Sab.); 41.1.23.1 (43 Sab.); 37.6.1.21; 43.26.6.4 (71 ed.)
10
Spurious Works
T H E argument presented in this chapter is that five works attributed to

Domitius Ulpianus in Justinian’s Digest were not written by him. Nor are
they, with minor exceptions, excerpts from his work collected by someone
else. They are spurious, though one or two may have been composed, it has
been suggested,1 by some other Syrian lawyer called Ulpianus. The argument
for their spuriousness is largely, though not entirely, negative. They lack the
turns of phrase that were shown in chapter 2 to be typical of Ulpian. Since his
style is consistent, and reflects speech, it is not plausible to attribute to him
works composed in a very different way. It is true, of course, that how they
came to be attributed to Ulpian needs to be explained.
The five works in question are Rules in one book, Encyclopaedia in ten
books, Rules in seven books, Opinions in six books, and Replies in two books.
The five spurious works are attributed to Ulpian in the Florentine Index to
the Digest,2 but whereas the Index3 speaks of 10 books of Encyclopaedia
(πανδκτου βιβλ α δκα) the two excerpts in the Digest have the heading liber
singularis pandectarum and so make this a one-book work.4 Justinian’s com-
pilers evidently possessed only a one-book summary of the original ten-book
work.
If this is correct, 26 of the total of 244 books attributed to our author in the
Index were not his. That is a significant, but not overwhelming, proportion.
Fame attracts false attribution, sometimes deliberate, sometimes mistaken.
When these books were written and how they came to be attributed to Ulpian
does not admit of a simple answer. Two of them appear to be by contempor-
ary or near-contemporary classical authors. These works may have been mis-
takenly included in Ulpian’s papers when he died or may be the work of an
Ulpian other than the famous Domitius Ulpianus. Two others can plausibly
be dated to the late third or early fourth century. These last were passed off
as Ulpian’s because at that period there was a demand for relatively short
works in five to seven books. To satisfy the demand works were composed
such as Hermogenianus’ Summaries of the Law (Iuris Epitomae) in six books,
which was authentic, and Paul’s Views (Sententiae) in five books, which was
not. A new work was more likely to succeed if it claimed to be a selection from
the works of a writer of authority such as Paul and Ulpian. To prove the claim
1 Liebs (1997) §428.6 2 Index Flor. 24.7, 8, 10, 15, 17 3 Index Flor. 24.7
4 D 12.1.24; 40.12.34
false was virtually impossible, since hardly anyone had time to read through
their voluminous works.
We have very few texts from these five works outside the Digest. Three
replies (responsa) of Ulpian are cited in other sources, but they are not attrib-
uted to any published work of his.5 In fact none of these works is mentioned
outside the Digest with the exception of Rules in one book, which will for con-
venience be given its Latin abbreviation, LSR for Liber singularis regularum.
Three texts from LSR6 appear in the Collatio (Romanorum et Mosaicarum
legum Collatio, or Lex dei quam deus praecepit ad Moysen). This compilation
of biblical and legal sources, which was intended to show that the law of
Moses said the same thing as Roman law but at an earlier date, was composed
between 390 and 410.7 Hence LSR was known in the late fourth or early fifth
century.
1. Rules in one book8
It is convenient to discuss the authenticity of LSR first. The title is mislead-

ing, because its length is more than that of an ordinary book such as a book
of Gaius’ Teaching Manual (Institutiones).9 On the other hand its character is
more that of a teaching manual than of a collection of Rules (Regulae),10 such
as the Rules of Modestinus11 or Licinius Rufinus.12
The question of its provenance is involved. Du Tillet in 1549 published a
tenth-century manuscript13 of which the introductory words are ‘here begin
titles from the body of Ulpian’s work’ (incipiunt tituli ex corpore Ulpiani). The
manuscript comprises twenty-nine titles or short chapters. It may for con-
venience be called Tituli (abbreviated Tit.), though that was not its original
name. A simple manual oriented towards practice, it gives information about
Roman family and inheritance law that is not available elsewhere. Two of the
three Collatio texts mentioned14 and one Digest text,15 all of them headed
Ulpianus liber singularis regularum, are verbally almost identical with texts in
Tituli. This points to the conclusion that Tituli comes from a version of LSR,
5 D 19.1.43 (Paul 5 quaest.); 50.5.5 (Macer 2 off. praes.); CJ 8.37.4 (Alexander 31 March 222)
6 Collatio 2.2.1; 6.2.1–4; 16.4.1–2 7 Liebs (1987b) 162–74
8 Lenel (1889) 2.1016; Krueger, Collectio 2.1–38; Seckel–Kübler 1.436–491; FIRA
2.259–301; Lachmann (1838) 174–212; Mommsen (1855/1904–13); Arangio-Ruiz (1921/1974);

Rotondi (1922) 1.453–85; Albertario (1922/1937); Buckland (1922); (1924); Schulz (1926);
Arangio-Ruiz (1927) 191–203; Schönbauer (1956); Wieacker (1960) 58f., 68f., 89; Schulz (1961)
221–3; Schönbauer (1961) 145–58; Müller (1970); Cancelli (1973); Nelson (1975) 138–44;
Gaudemet (1979) 98f.; Nelson (1981) 80–96; 338–60; Liebs (1982) 282–7,292; (1987b) 162–74;
Mercogliano (1990),(1997),(1998); Nelson (1993); Liebs (1997) §428.5; Honoré (2000) 525–8
9 Nelson (1981) 82§ 10 On Regulae see P. Stein (1966), Schmidlin (1970)
11 Lenel (1889) 1.732–740 12 Lenel (1899) 1.559
13 Codex Vaticanus Reginensis latinus 1128; Du Tillet (1549).
14 Collatio 6.2.1–4 = Tit. 5.6–7; 16.4.1–2 = Tit.26.1
15 D 22.5.17 = Tit. 20.6 cf. D 44.7.25, headed Ulpianus LSR but from a missing part of Tit.
208 10. Spurious Works
a version that breaks off about two-thirds of the way through. The revised
version probably belongs to the fourth century, since Tituli omits references
to the penalties imposed on unmarried and childless people by Augustus’
laws. The omission probably reflects Constantine’s law of AD 320, which
removed the penalties.16 The fourth-century version of LSR should therefore
be later than 320 but perhaps earlier than 342, when Constantius II repealed
the law, designed to accommodate the emperor Claudius, that allowed a man
to marry his brother’s daughter.17 Tituli does not take account of this last
repeal. Indeed it contemplates gifts by will to certain pagan tutelary gods.18
Schulz went further. He argued in the introduction to his edition of Tituli,
which he called Epitome Ulpiani,19 that LSR was a post-classical work
derived mainly from Ulpian but also from other classical authors, such as
Modestinus. But Tituli appears, apart from the disabilities of the unmarried
and childless, to state classical law, though with some omissions. Indeed in its
original form it antedates the Antonine constitution of AD 212, since it refers
repeatedly to foreigners (peregrini) and those of Latin status (Latini) in a way
that implies that their status is still of daily concern.20 In short Tituli seems to
come from a fourth century edition of a classical but pre-212 LSR, marked by
some omissions but few if any additions.
What was the nature of the original LSR? On one view it was a reworking
of Gaius’ Institutes. There are some passages that look rather similar,21 and
one unusual common phrase.22 The strongest verbal parallel concerns a reso-
lution of the senate on the appointment of guardians.23 But this perhaps
merely shows that both authors followed the wording of the resolution.
Though the order in which topics are treated is on the whole similar to that of
Gaius, sometimes there are omissions, alternative ways of expressing things,
or a different order of exposition. The author of LSR is an independent
teacher and author.24 In my view his work can be taken as a ‘nutshell’ type
handbook that follows in the footsteps of Gaius but tries to improve on
him.25 In particular LSR outdoes Gaius by dividing more subjects up by
numbers (e.g. ‘three types’,26 ‘four ways’27) and providing more lists.28 This
technique, designed to make the law easy to remember, succeeds in providing
a clear guide to the main rules of Roman civil law, a guide that earned
16 CTh 8.16.1 (31 Jan 320) 17 CTh 3.12.1 (31 March 342) 18 Tit.22.6
19 Schulz (1926) 8–9
20 Tit. 1.5, 12, 16; 3.1–6; 5.4,8–9; 7.4; 10.3; 11.16, 19; 17.1; 19.4; 20.8, 14; 22.3,8; 25.7;
Schönbauer (1956, 1961)

21
Gaius, Inst. 1.102; 2.119, 124, 147, 232; 3.43 cf. Tit. 8.5; 22.17; 23.6; 24.16; 28.6; 29.2
22
Paenitentia actus: Tit. 22.30; Gaius, Inst. 2.168
23
Gaius, Inst. 1.182; Tit. 11.23
24
Nelson (1981) 92–6 against an overestimate of Gaius’ influence by Grupe (1899) 90;
Mommsen (1904–13) 2.48; Fitting (1908) 52; Schulz (1926) 13–4; Buckland (1922, 1926, 1937)
25 26
Mommsen (1904–13) 2.47–8; Schulz (1961) 221 Genera tria: Tit. 20.2
27
Quattuor modis: Tit.24.2
28
e.g. Tit. 3.1; 6.1,9, 14; 8.3; 11.2, 27; 19.2; 20.7, 13; 23.1; 28.7
Mommsen’s admiration.29 At the same time LSR covers topics of practical

importance that Gaius omits, such as dowry and the Augustan marriage leg-
islation. LSR was almost certainly composed in Rome.30
If LSR is not a reworking of Gaius is it a genuine work of Ulpian? No par-
allel of style is particularly close. On the contrary LSR’s clipped pragmatism
is alien to Ulpian’s normal manner. Some authors, however, have argued that
Ulpian adapted his writing to this different literary genre.31 One problem with
this theory concerns the date of composition of LSR. Marcus is imperator
Antoninus in one text32 and divus Marcus in another.33 The author has copied
his sources rather than adopting a uniform way of referring to present or past
emperors. But, given that Marcus has been deified the work must be later
than 180. It must in my view be not later than 212, given the mentions of for-
eigners and Latins, though Nelson, who overlooks that in LSR the old form
of criminal procedure (iudicia publica) is still in operation,34 is prepared to put
it as late as 262. This was when the Goths destroyed Ilium and Ephesus and
so rendered mention of their tutelary gods inappropriate.35 Arguments based
on failure to mention recent changes in the law can be unreliable, but failure
to take account of the extension of citizenship in 212 to all free people in the
empire is inexplicable, especially in an author who sets out the law histor-
ically. This the author of LSR does, often with expressions such as ‘in former
times’ (olim), ‘previously’ (antea), ‘afterwards’ (postea/sed post), ‘today’
(hodie), ‘but now’ (nunc autem), and ‘the old law’ (ius antiquum).36 He is alert
to the contrast between the older civil law and praetorian and imperial inno-
vations. The possible dates of composition of LSR perhaps run from the sole
rule of Commodus to early Caracalla, 180 to 212. This agrees with
Schönbauer’s estimate of the period of popularity of the pagan gods to whom
according to LSR legacies may be given.37
The statement in LSR that ‘today by the law of the emperor Antoninus all
escheatable property falls to the fisc but without prejudice to the old law
regarding children and parents’38 is generally taken to refer to Caracalla. This
seems to be supported by Dio, who attributes to Caracalla objectionable
changes in the law of succession.39 But in another LSR text imperator
Antoninus is Marcus,40 so that he rather than Caracalla might be the author
of the law in question. With this exception, nothing in LSR requires a date
later than Commodus or early Severus. The most recent author cited is Iunius
29
Mommsen (1904–13) 2.48
30
Tit. 1.13a; 3.3; 8.2f.; 11.18, 20; 11.14, 27; 12.1, 3; 25.26; Liebs (1982) 284
31 32 33
Most recently Mercogliano (1997, 1998) Tit. 26.7 Tit. 22.34
34 35
Tit.13.2; Liebs (1982) 284. Nelson (1981) 91
36
Tit. 1.8, 10, 21; 5.6; 8.5; 11.8, 20, 17.2; 18.1; 20.2; 22.34; 24.12, 13, 31; 26.7; 29.3,6
37
Schönbauer (1956) 308f.
38
Tit. 17.2: hodie ex constitutione imperatoris Antonini omnia caduca fisco vindicantur, sed ser-
vato iure antiquo liberis et parentibus
39 40
Dio 78.9 Tit. 26.7
Mauricianus,41 who wrote under Pius.42 The case for an early date is made by
Avenarius in a forthcoming study based on an analysis of individual texts in
LSR.43
Various aspects of LSR set it apart from Ulpian’s work. The author calls
the Sabinians Cassiani.44 He refers to Neratius as Priscus,45 which is contrary
to Ulpian’s uniform practice in 76 texts where he calls the author Neratius.46
In his Teaching Manual (Institutiones) Ulpian refrains from vague appeals to
authority of the sort found in LSR such as ‘most lawyers think’ (plerisque
placet),47 ‘it is held’ (placuit),48 ‘it is agreed’ (constat),49 ‘some say’ (sunt tamen
qui dicunt),50 and ‘that is the general practice’ (et id observatur magis).51 Apart
from one mention of Celsus52 and one of imperator noster (Caracalla)53 he
does not cite authority at all in this elementary work.
Whether in general the style of LSR is consistent with Ulpian’s authorship
has led to a conflict of opinion. To a number of authors including myself LSR
is plainly not his work.54 Its unadorned definitions and dry numbered lists do
not fit any of Ulpian’s admittedly genuine writings. Even a juvenile Ulpian
would have explained himself more fully. There are virtually no linguistic par-
allels with genuine works, apart from the phrase ut puta (‘for example’), which
occurs four times in LSR.55 In the Digest it comes from texts of Ulpian 229
times out of 244, so that it is clearly a mark of his style, though it is also found
occasionally in Callistratus,56 Papinian,57 and Paul.58 But a single trait of this
sort is not enough to stamp LSR as Ulpian’s, though as all four authors are
Severan lawyers it perhaps fits that period. Statements of the law by Ulpian
and LSR sometimes diverge. According to LSR a trust in contrast with a
legacy can be in Latin or Greek,59 whereas according to Ulpian it can be in
any language.60
Other authors, however, take the view that LSR could be a work of Ulpian,
or at least a work put together from his writings by a pupil or associate.61 To
leave out connective tissue was correct, says Mommsen, in a work aimed
at practice.62 Nelson argues that rules (regulae), nominally the genre of
LSR, can be composed in a different style from more extensive works. But his
41 42 43
Tit. 13.2 Liebs (1997) §421.3 In preparation
44 45 46
Below n.73 Tit. 11.28 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 64
47 48 49 50 51
Tit. 1.18 Tit. 1.21 Tit. 1.21 Tit. 1.21 Tit. 22.22
52 53
D 1.1.1 pr (1 inst.) Collatio 16.9.3 (Ulp. inst.)
54
Schulz (1926, 1961); Arangio-Ruiz (1921, 1927); Liebs (1982, 1987b); (1997) §428.5; Honoré
(1982, 2000); Marotta (2000) 2556
55 Tit. 2.7; 24.17, 25, 27 cf. 19.18; 25.14; 29.1 (puta) 56 D 14.2.4.2 (Call. 2 quaest.)
57 D 11.7.43 (Pap. 8 quaest); 22.1.3.2 (20 quaest.); 45.2.9 pr (27 quaest.); 48.5.39 pr (36
quaest.); 5.1.45 (3 resp. but this is an editorial insertion)

58
D 2.7.4 pr (Paul 4 ed.); 4.8.19.2, 4.8.28 (13 ed.); 10.1.4.8 (23 ed.); 2.14.9 pr (62 ed.); 19.1.4.1
(5 Sab.); 12.6.15 pr (10 Sab.); 28.6.38.1 (1 sec. tab.)
59 60
Tit. 25.9 D 32.11 pr (Ulp 2 fid.)
61
Mommsen (1855/1905); Schönbauer (1956); Müller (1970); Nelson (1975, 1981, 1993);
Mercogliano (1990, 1997)
62
Mommsen (1904–13) 2.49
argument is not convincing, least of all for Ulpian, the style of whose
Teaching Manual (Institutiones) resembles his large-scale works like the edic-
tal commentary and his monographs on special subjects like trusts.63
The author of LSR has his own turns of phrase, such as praetor urbis 64 for
the urban praetor where other lawyers use praetor urbanus. A person can give
a gift by will ‘imperatively’ (imperative)65 or ‘by request’ (precative).66 Neither
word is found in the Digest. He is fond of the preposition per: per eminen-
tiam,67 per consequentiam,68 per similitudinem,69 per formulam.70 There are
some parallels with Paul’s vocabulary. Paul and the author of LSR, along
with Pomponius71 and Pliny the Younger,72 call the well-known school deriv-
ing from Cassius Longinus and Masurius Sabinus Cassiani.73 Ulpian74 and
Marcianus75 call them Sabiniani. Abalienare for ‘to alienate’ is found, apart
from LSR, only in Paul and his teacher Scaevola.76 Infinite (‘without limit’) is
found in LSR and otherwise only in a Paul comment on Labeo.77 ‘But it is
safer’ (sed tutius est), a sign of interpolation according to an earlier genera-
tion,78 also has a Paul parallel.79
The LSR does not much resemble other collections of rules, but is more of
a teaching manual. In any case rules are not all composed in a special style.
Licinius Rufinus, a pupil of Paul and a Severan lawyer, composed twelve
books of Rules with pithy sentences such as ‘a ward who takes a loan is not
bound even by natural law’.80 A Thyatira inscription81 records Licinius as π
τν ποκριµτων, which in my view means secretary for petitions (a libellis),
in the 220s.82 The most likely period is October 222 to October 223, roughly
when Ulpian was sole praetorian prefect.83 The rescripts of this period display
the same well-turned, pithy phrases that are found in Licinius’ Rules. Thus,
‘no law forbids a woman from giving her whole estate to her
husband as a dowry’.84 To a limited extent authors certainly adapt their writ-
ing to the particular genre. But though rules and rescripts belong to quite dif-
ferent genres, Licinius’ Rules and the rescripts composed for Alexander
63 Honoré (1982) 100 64 Tit. 11.20, 24 65 Tit. 24.1

66 Tit. 25.1 cf. 24.1: precativo modo 67 Tit. 11.3 68 Tit.11.3 69 Tit. 11.5
70 Tit. 19.16 71 D 1.2.2.52 (Pomp. 1 enchir.) 72 Letters (Epist.) 7.24.8
73 Tit. 11.28; D 47.2.18 (Paul 9 Sab.); 39.6.35.3 (6 leg. Iul. Pap.)
74 Frag. Vat. 266 (Ulp. 26 ed.); D. 24.1.11.3 (32 Sab., citing Marcellus)
75 D 41.1.11 (Marci. 3 inst.)
76 Tit. 2.4; D 32.38.7 (Scae. 19 dig.); 10.3.14.1 (Paul 3 Plaut.); 41.1.48 pr (17 Plaut.); 4.7.8.5
(12 ed.)
77
Tit. 5.6; D 22.3.28 (Lab. 7 pith. Paul epit.)
78
Gradenwitz (1887) 133; Beseler (1910–20) 2.164, 4.159; Schulz (1926) ad Tit. 22.22
79
Tit. 22.22; Paul 19.5.5.4 (Paul 5 quaest.)
80
D 44.7.58: pupillus mutuam pecuniam accipiendo ne quidem iure naturali obligatur
81 82
Herrmann (1997) 111f. Millar (1999) 90–108
83
Honoré (1994) 98–101 (secretary no.7)
84
CJ 5.12.4: nulla lege prohibitum est universa bona in dotem marito feminam dare cf. Honoré
(1994) 98
Severus in 222–3 have this common feature, which supports the notion that
he composed the rescripts.
Can LSR, if not a work of Ulpian himself, be a selection from his works put
together by a pupil or associate?85 One difficulty with this fence-sitting com-
promise is that up to 212 there would not be much material of Ulpian from
which to choose.86 An alternative that keeps a link with Ulpian is that early
in his career the great lawyer encouraged a pupil or associate to produce this
manual as a guide to study and practice.87 The work was written but not
re-edited after 212, perhaps because Ulpian’s own elementary Teaching
Manual (Institutiones) in two books supervened in about 214.88 But in that
case how did LSR come to be attributed to Ulpian? Perhaps through
Modestinus, Ulpian’s pupil89 and the most likely recipient of his papers when
he was murdered. As the probable secretary for petitions from October 223 to
October 225,90 Modestinus must have been in Rome at the time of Ulpian’s
death or shortly afterwards. There are close parallels between the definitions
of acquisitive prescription (usucapio) in LSR and Modestinus.91 The same is
true of the passages on the enactment, amendment and repeal of laws.92
Schulz thought that the supposedly post-classical author of LSR borrowed
from Modestinus. But it could be the other way round. Perhaps Modestinus
borrowed from the author of LSR when compiling his Encyclopaedia
(Pandectae) and Rules (Regulae). LSR, a product of Ulpian’s circle of pupils
or associates, came to be treated as a genuine work of his.
This is speculation. Given the dates, and despite the traditional name, a pupil
or associate of Paul is not ruled out as the author of LSR. Or the work may
have been anonymous until it was attributed to Ulpian in the fourth century.93
Much depends on when the canonical list of works of the leading lawyers was
settled. Perhaps under Constantine. If one useful elementary work, Pseudo-
Paul’s Sentences (Pauli sententiae) could then be falsely assigned to Paul in
order that it might be used in court,94 why not another to Ulpian?
2. Encyclopaedia (10 books)
The Digest has two fragments95 ascribed to Ulpian liber singularis pan-
dectarum.96 The Florentine Index, however, mentions ten books, of which
85 NNDI (1973) 392 (Cancelli); Mercogliano (1990) 195 86 Ch.1 n.246–9

87 ‘Pseudo-Ulpianus’: Liebs (1997) §428.5 88 Ch.9 n.57–65
89
D 47.2.50.20 (Ulp. 48 ed.) 90 Honoré (1994) 101–7; Liebs (1997) §427 p.195–6
91 92
Tit. 19.8; D 41.3.3 (Mod. 5 pand.) Tit.1.3; D 50.16.10 (Mod. 7
reg.)
93
Liebs (1983b) 121
94
CTh 1.4.2 (27 Sept 327, citing recepta auctoritas). For the reality see Liebs (1989) §507.1,
(1993)
95
D 12.1.24; 40.1.34 (1 pand.)
96
Lenel (1889) 2.1013; Jörs (1903) 1447; Fitting (1908) 120; Schulz (1946) 222, (1961) 280–1;
Liebs (1971) 51f.; Honoré (1982) 117–20; (1994) 95–8; Liebs (1997) §428.6 Ulpianus II
presumably only one survived for Justinian’s compilers to excerpt.97 The

author is not the famous Domitius Ulpianus and in this instance we can, on
the basis of these two fragments, form an idea of who was.
The first text is about the accounts of a freeman who has been treated as a
slave. The emperor Antoninus decided that proceedings to establish his free-
dom should not be allowed until he had submitted accounts of his affairs
while he was treated as a slave.
Imperator Antoninus constituit non alias ad libertatem proclamationem permit-
tendam, nisi prius administrationum rationes reddiderit, quas, cum in servitute esset,
gessisset
The compilers have substituted, for proceedings to establish freedom, procla-

matio in libertatem for the classical libertatis adsertio.98 But this cannot dis-
guise the fact that the text is not Ulpian’s. Ulpian avoids the juxtaposition of
verbs at the end of a sentence, as in esset gessisset, and also avoids the asso-
nance of ‘s’ sounds. Nor is the pleonastic non alias nisi prius (‘not otherwise
unless before’) found in his genuine works. The sequence of long words
administrationum rationes reddiderit is also alien to Ulpian.
The other Digest text99 is no better. If a person stipulates formally for
something certain, he cannot sue on the action for stipulation but should
bring the action on condictio by which a certain thing is sued for.
Si quis certum stipulatus fuerit, ex stipulatu actionem non habet sed illa condicticia
actione id persequi debet, per quam certum petitur.
The word condicticia is suspect, for it has in several texts been interpolated by
the Digest compilers.100 But not all mentions of the word are spurious. Ulpian
cites Julian in a text that draws a valid distinction between the penal action
for theft (actio furti) and the personal action (actio condicticia) to recover the
value of the stolen property.101 In the text set out, condicticia may be authen-
tic, but it is another matter to defend it as genuine Ulpian. The sentence states
the obvious. If the stipulation was for a certain thing, then the action must of
course be for a certain thing. The phrase actione per quam certum petitur is
also pleonastic. You do not sue by bringing an action. To bring an action,
agere, is to sue for something, petere.
These two texts do, however, have affinities of style with the rescripts of
March to October 222, when Ulpian was prefect of supply and later praetor-
ian prefect to Alexander. The composer of these rescripts, my secretary
no.6,102 favours assonances with sibilant sounds, like the esset, gessisset of D
40.1.34.1. Rescripts of this period have the sequences fuistis . . . adquisistis,103
97 Lenel (1889) 2.10135: Liebs (1997) §428.6 p.209 98 Lenel (1889) 2.1013
99 D 12.1.24
100 Ind. Interp. ad loc. (Seckel, Triantaphyllopoulos, Naber, Pernice, Lenel, Beseler)
101 D 12.2.13.2 (Ulp 22 ed.) 102 Honoré (1994) 95–8 103 CJ 4.50.2 (20 March 222)
dicitis . . . contenditis,104 mandasti . . . habuisti,105 fuisti . . . potuisti,106 consen-

sisti . . . amisisti,107 and, from the overlap period between no.6 and his suc-
cessor no.7,108 curastis, gessistis . . . potestis.109 A variant of ‘not otherwise
unless before’ (non aliter nisi prius) comes in a rescript of this period110 and in
pseudo-Ulpian’s Opinions,111 but not in genuine Ulpian.112 Another rescript
has a parallel to the clumsy notion of ‘bringing an action by a suit’. ‘You have
a suit against him by an action on the facts’ (adversus eum petitionem per in
factum actionem habes),113 instead of ‘you have an action against him on the
facts’ (adversus eum in factum actionem habes). The use of per and the
accusative instead of the instrumental ablative, as in actione per quam certum
petitur114 instead of qua certum petitur, is found in several rescripts of this
period: per vim coactus115 instead of vi coactus, damnum per iniuriam datum116
instead of damnum iniuria datum, per iudicem compellitur117 instead of a iudice
compellitur.
There is a case for identifying the author of the ten books of Encyclopaedia
attributed to Ulpian with secretary of petitions no.6 of March to October 222.
This secretary seems to have been a person of some substance. A text of
December 218 from early in the reign of Elagabal has assonances similar to
the one already noticed: fuisti . . . crevisti . . . quaesisti.118 Since Elagabal’s
memory was condemned his rescripts have mostly vanished, but it is not
impossible that no.6 held the office of petitions for much or all of Elagabal’s
reign from 218 to 222 and continued as secretary during the first months of
Alexander. Liebs, who points to other Ulpiani of the period, and has sug-
gested that his name was Ulpianus, calls him Ulpianus II.119 The name was
certainly common in Syria and, if an Ulpian held this office under Alexander,
that might explain the assertions by Eutropius,120 Festus,121 and the Historia
Augusta122 that Alexander had a secretary (magister scrinii) called Ulpianus.
That is speculation. What is not a matter of doubt is that the author, though
a contemporary, is not our Ulpian.
How did the ten books of Encyclopaedia come to be accepted as genuine
Ulpian? Whoever the author was, he must have had some connection with
our Ulpian, who was a prominent figure during at least part of his tenure of
the secretaryship for petitions. Perhaps his writings were found in Ulpian’s
papers on his death and came to be treated as his, the more readily if Liebs is
104 105
CJ 7.64.1 (25 March 222) CJ 7.56.1 (7 May 222)
106 107
CJ 7.8.4 (10 May 222) CJ 3.32.3 (30 Oct 222)
108 109
Honoré (1994) 97 CJ 2.18.10 (20 Nov 222)
110 111
CJ 9.1.3 (3 Feb 222) D 8.4.13.1 (6 opin.)
112
It is found in a Marcellus text: D 33.2.15.1 (Marc. 13 dig.)
113 114 115
CJ 4.14.3 (13 Sept 222) D 12.1.24 (1 pand.) CJ 4.44.1 (1 March 222)
116 117
CJ 3.35.1 (7 Nov 222) CJ 2.3.9 (28 Sept 222)
118
Cod. Greg. Visi. 13.14.1 (30 Dec 218)
119 120
Liebs (1971) 51f.; (1984) 446; Liebs (1997) §428.6 Eutropius 8.23
121 122
Festus 22.3 HA Severus Alexander 26.6
right about his being a namesake. Modestinus, the probable recipient of

Ulpian’s papers, composed twelve books of Encyclopaedia (Pandectae), the
second author to use this title. It is, as the name suggests, an eastern genre.
3. Rules in seven books123
In Lenel’s reconstruction there are 107 lines attributed to this work. The frag-
ments deal predominantly with private law. The order of treatment is obscure
and there are no references to legal authors or emperors. The work includes
some famous maxims, such as that justice is the constant and perpetual will
of giving each his own;124 that the precepts of law are to live honestly, not to
harm others, and to give each his own;125 that jurisprudence is the knowledge
of things divine and human, of the just and unjust;126 and that gross negli-
gence consists in not understanding what everyone understands.127 The
author clearly had philosophical leanings.
The work’s authenticity has long been assumed. But, as I pointed out in the
first edition,128 there are no grounds for attributing it to Ulpian, painful as it
may be to jettison him as author of these famous maxims.129 Rules contains
none of his favourite phrases. It has expressions and constructions foreign to
his style. For example the author uses voluptuosus,130 as does the author of
LSR, whereas Ulpian consistently uses voluptarius for ‘luxury’ expenses
etc.131 Another spurious expression is ‘on a favourable interpretation’
(benigna interpretatione), as in ‘on a favourable intepretation it is replied
rather by most lawyers that no one is disinherited’.132 Apart possibly from
one text with ‘on a humane interpretation’ (humana interpretatione),133 which
has plainly been altered by the compilers,134 Ulpian does not use this type of
expression at all, though it occurs in Scaevola.135 In any case the pleonastic
‘rather by most lawyers’ is impossible in such a forthright author as Ulpian.
And ‘it is replied’ (respondetur) is a vague expression not found in Ulpian
apart from this text.136 ‘According to the opinion of all’ (secundum omnium
sententiam) is, again, a stereotyped appeal to authority of the sort that points
to a provincial lawyer with limited access to original texts. Another text
123 Lenel (1889) 1.1013–1015; Honoré (1982) 111f.; Frezza (1983) 416; Liebs (1982) 282–92;
(1984) 446; Huchthausen (1985) 719f.; Mayer-Maly (1961) 569; Liebs (1989) §507.3
124 D 1.1.10 pr (1 reg.) 125 D 1.1.10.1 (1 reg.) 126 D 1.1.10.2 (1 reg.)
127 D 50.16.213.2 (1 reg.) 128 First in a lecture on 27 February 1981: Liebs (1982) 282
129 How could giving each his own be both the criterion of justice and one of three precepts of
law?
130 D 25.1.14.2 (5 reg.)
131 Tit. 6.14, 17 (voluptuosus) as against D 25.1.1,7,9, 11 pr (36 Sab.); 7.1.13.4 (17 Sab.), all
voluptarius
132 D 28.2.2 (6 reg.) cf. 39.5.16 (2 resp., also spurious)
133 D 38.17.1.6 (Ulp. 12 Sab.); Crifò (1985) 608–9 134 Index interp. 3.72
135 D 34.1.20.1 (Scae. 3 resp.)
136 It occurs in Tryphoninus: D 37.4.20.1 (Tryph. 19 disp.) and Paul: D 19.4.1.1 (33 ed.)
speaks of a husband being able to choose which remedy to use against his
wife: ‘and it is in [the husband’s] power which action he chooses to use’ (et in
potestate est, qua velit actione uti).137 In all other passages of Ulpian ‘in potes-
tate est’ means that someone, such as a son, is in the legal power of another,
such as his father. The phrase is ungrammatical. It should run ‘and it is in his
(or the husband’s) power’ (et in eius/viri potestate est).
There are also sentences that run two points together in a confusing way
that Ulpian avoids. ‘If someone knowingly buys a free man a capital crime
arises’138 runs together two rules. The knowing purchase amounts to kidnap-
ping and kidnapping is a capital crime. It was not, however, a capital crime in
Ulpian’s day.139 ‘When the instititution of an heir is made subject to a impos-
sible condition consisting in an abstention’ is expressed as Si in non faciendo
impossibilis condicio institutione heredis sit expressa.140 It ought, in the inter-
ests of clarity to run Si institutione heredis impossibilis condicio, quae in non
faciendo consistit, sit expressa. Even so, ‘when an heir is instituted’ (cum heres
instituitur) would be more like genuine Ulpian than institutione heredis. The
author has again run together ideas that Ulpian would have expressed in sep-
arate clauses, and moreover has put them in the wrong order. ‘Apart from the
fact that’ (praeterquam quod),141 an ugly expression, is not otherwise found in
Ulpian except in a quotation from the praetor’s edict.142
The author is fond of asyndeton: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum
cuique tribuere;143 aggeres facere, flumina avertere, aedificia vetera fulcire
itemque reficere, arbores in locum mortuorum reponere;144 et bonorum posses-
sionem dare potest et in possessionem mittere, pupillis non habentibus tutores
constituere, iudices litigantibus dare.145 He likes to invert the conditional:
Communis servus etiamsi . . .;146 procurator si quidem . . .;147 servus communis
ab extero heres institutus si . . .;148 servum meum heredem institutum cum liber-
tate si vivus vendidero . . . 149 Another inversion is: statulibera quidquid peperit
. . .150 None of these traits is a feature of Ulpian’s writing.
Can we fix the date and place of composition of Rules in seven books?
What type of author is likely to be responsible for the work? Frezza showed
that the author had links with Origen’s circle.151 Liebs suggests that the
author was a late-third-century provincial lawyer with philosophical inter-
ests, perhaps a Beirut teacher in touch with that circle.152 That the magistrate
having jurisdiction can appoint guardians to those under age points away
137 D 25.2.24 (5 reg.)

138 D 48.15.1 (1 reg: Si liberum hominem emptor sciens emerit, capitale crimen nascitur)
139 Collatio 14.3.3–5 (Ulp. 9 off. proc.) cf. CJ 9.20.16 140 D 28.5.51.1 (6 reg.)
141 D 46.3.43 (2 reg.) 142 D 43.8.2 pr (68 ed.) 143 D 1.1.10.1 (1 reg.)
144 D 25.1.14 pr (5 reg.) 145 D 2.1.1 (1 reg.) 146 D 41.2.42 pr (4 reg.)
147 D 41.2.42.1 (4 reg.) 148 D 29.2.67 (1 reg.) 149 D 28.5.51 pr (6 reg.)
150 D 40.7.16 (4 reg.)
151 Frezza (1983) 416, but arguing that Ulpian might himself be the author
152 Liebs (1982) 282–92; Huchthausen (1985) 719f.; Liebs (1997) §507.3
from Rome, where the praetor for guardianship (praetor tutelaris) had this
special jurisdiction. The author may have been an Ulpianus, that name being
common in Syria, or the name may have been falsely attached to the work in
order to boost circulation, something that, to judge from Pseudo-Paul’s
Sententiae, was a popular technique around AD 300 and a little later. The
book was the right length and the author or his agent could safely pretend
that it consisted of a collection of texts from the voluminous writings of
Ulpian, whose work may indeed have been one of the sources used.
4. Opinions (6 books)153
As printed in Lenel’s Palingenesia, we have 645 lines from six books of texts
attributed to the Opinions of Ulpian. The title (Opiniones) is unique in juristic
literature and seems to echo the statement of Gaius that the opinions and
views of lawyers of authority have the force of law, rather as does the title of
Pseudo-Paul’s Sententiae.154 The authenticity of the work has been in doubt
since Gothofredus first questioned it.155 Lenel and others held it to be a post-
classical compilation from genuine writings of Ulpian.156 Rotondi argued
that it was an anthology composed in the fourth century on the basis of frag-
ments of Ulpian.157 Wieacker pointed to the absence of Ulpian’s syntax and
vocabulary, to borrowing from the chancery style of the fourth century, to
contents that can be explained only on the basis of post-Diocletianic imperial
law, and to an arrangement that conforms more to collections of imperial
constitutions than to the order of the edict.158
Santalucia, however, in an extensive study, argued that the Opiniones are,
despite differences of style, a genuine work of Ulpian.159 In the first edition I
rejected his view but argued that the work, though not Ulpian’s, might belong
to the third century, even to the reign of Alexander Severus. The author could
perhaps be identified with secretary for petitions no.7, who held office from
October 222 to October 223. Liebs rightly rejected this identification on the
ground that, though the author may well have included material from the
rescripts of this period, none of the parallels I pointed to was compelling.160
It has since become clear that there is a better candidate for secretary no.7 in
153 Lenel (1889) 2.1001–13; Jörs (1903) 1450; Schulz (1946) 182; (1961) 22; Rotondi (1922)
1.453–85; Santalucia (1971); Volterra (1972); Wieacker (1973) 196–207; Liebs (1973); (1976) 321,
332–8; (1981); Honoré (1981) 120–8; Liebs (1983a) 499–501; (1984) 446; Honoré (1994) 101;
Liebs (1989) §507.4
154
Gaius, Inst. 1.7: Responsa prudentium sunt sententiae et opiniones eorum quibus permissum
est iura condere
155
Gothofredus (1653) 259 ad D 50.17.61; Rotondi (1922) 1.453f.; Arangio-Ruiz (1946) 169f;
Schulz (1961) 223
156 157 158
Lenel (1889) 2.1001–13 Rotondi (1922) 1.453 Wieacker (1960) 68f
159
Santalucia (1971) criticized by Liebs (1973) 279–310; (1976) 332–8; (1983) 499–501 but
contra Wacke (2000) 513–8.
160
Liebs (1983) 499–501
the person of Licinius Rufinus.161 Liebs argued that Opinions is a fourth-

century compilation intended for provincial governors. In the age of
Constantine it was successfully passed off as the work of the famous classical
lawyer.
We must consider the style, nature, date, sources, and arrangement of the
work.
The main ground on which doubts have been expressed about the work has
been its style. This, both on a casual reading and after long scrutiny, differs
from that of the classical lawyers, and in particular, Ulpian, in their authen-
tic writings. For example we know that Ulpian normally avoids juxtaposing
verbs, especially those drawn from different clauses. It is therefore striking
that the author of Opinions adopts a word-order so orthodox that it often
results in three, four, or even five verbs coming together at the end of a clause
or sentence. One example comes in a text that deals with the position when a
debtor has made an agreement with the purchaser of the land mortgaged by
him to the creditor to get back the land in certain events:
Si inter debitorem et eum, qui fundum pigneratum a creditore quasi debitoris
negotium gereret, emerit, placuit ut . . .162
The juxtaposition gereret, emerit, placuit is quite alien to Ulpian’s writing.

There are many other examples.163 The stringing together of a series of long
words is also not Ulpianic. One Opinions text provides that the provincial
governor is to repress illicit services that consist in extorting money on the
pretext of helping soldiers:
Illicita ministeria sub praetextu adiuvantium militares viros ad concutiendos homines
procedentia prohibere . . . curet164
There are eight words between ministeria and procedentia in this portmanteau
explanatory phrase. Others texts in Opinions have nominal phrases that come
close to it in length.165 Opinions also has alliterative assonances that are foreign
161 Above n.80–4 162 D 2.14.52.1 (1 opin.)

163 D 2.14.52.1 ( fecit, fidem praestare debet); 46.8.21 (1 opin: professus est, prodest); 49.1.2
(facere non debuit, consensisse); 50.4.3.13 (contingit, suscipi oportet); 50.5.2.2 (excusari desiderant,
probare debent); 50.7.2.2 (2 opin: ut oportet obiit, non nocet); 2.14.53 (datum erit, non licet); 50.6.1
(3 opin: nati sunt, non pertinent); 3.6.8: (facerent aut non facerent, accepisse diceretur, restitui
iubeat); 4.2.23.3 (profecerunt, revocare incivile est); 4.3.33 (4 opin: venumdari potuit, peremit, des-
titit); 4.4.44 (habuerunt amiserint . . . potuerunt omiserint . . . non suscipere licuit, obligaverunt);
4.6.40.1 (erat adempta, probatum fuerit); 12.1.26 (fuerit, placuit); 48.23.2 (subiectus fuerat, non
poterit); 49.15.21 pr (5 opin: visus est, officere debet); 1.7.7.27 (susceperat tenet, exhibere iubendus
est); 5.2.29.3 (existimabat, agere potest); 8.5.15 (erat, officiatur, efficit . . . factum est, tollatur);
13.7.27 (6 opin: is qui susceperat tenet, exhibere iubendus est)
164
D 1.18.6.3 (1 opin.)
165
D 1.18.6.6 (a quibusdam propria sibi commoda inique vindicantibus); 1.18.6.7 (1 opin: prae-
textu humanae fragilitatis delictum decipientis in periculo homines innoxium esse non debet);
50.10.1 pr (2 opin: curator operum creatus praescriptione motus ab excusatione perferenda); 40.8.2
(de exemplo posterioris locationis praeteritarum conductionum); 50.8.3.2 (si in locatione fundorum
to Ulpian, such as calumniosos criminibus insectentur innocentes.166 It admits

complex ablative absolutes at the end of a sentence. There is a text about an
adult who as a minor transferred his father’s land to settle the father’s liability
as a guardian. If the adult obtains restitution the fruits of the land are set off
against interest on the debt. This point is made in a final ablative absolute
clause:
usuris pecuniae, quam constiterit ex tutela deberi, reputatis et cum quantitate fruc-
tuum perceptorum compensatis.167
There are grammatical ineptitudes. ‘As regards civil disturbances, though the
local authority often suffers harm from them, yet . . . ’ (In civilibus dissension-
ibus quamvis saepe per eas res publica laedatur, non tamen . . .)168 should run
‘Though the local authority often suffers harm from civil disturbances.’
‘Ignorant of everything that was in truth’ instead of ‘everything that was true’
or just ‘ignorant of the truth’ (ignorans universa, quae in vero erant)169 is inept.
The author of Opinions has his own slightly offbeat way of expressing ideas.
Documents and proceedings can be inanes (legally worthless).170 Conduct can
be incivile (wrongful)171 and people can act civiliter (rightfully)172 or inciviliter
(wrongfully).173 He is guilty of clumsy and technically inept Latin phrases:
ipsa non habendi necessitate;174 munera quae in homines obiri possunt;175 equi
alieni a sciente possessi;176 curator iuvenis;177 numerus liberorum aut septuag-
inta annorum;178 quae solutioni debitarum ab eo quantitatium profecerunt.179
The author’s heart is in the right place, as is shown by frequent appeals to
equity180 and nature or natural law.181 But Ulpian could not have composed
this work.
The nature of Opiniones shows it to have been composed in a province.
Its content is largely provincial and especially municipal law. The provincial
pro sterilitate temporis boni viri arbitratu in solvenda pensione cuiusque anni pacto comprehensum
est); 50.9.1 (3 opin: medicorum intra numerum praefinitum constituendorum); 50.10.2 (similes
civium in patrias liberalitates); 3.5.33 pr (4 opin: sumptus honeste ad honores per gradus pertinentes
factus)
166
D 1.18.6.2 (1 opin.) cf. 2.14.52.3 (1 opin: produci ad perpetuam praestationem id pactum
postulabatur); 49.18.2.1 (3 opin: onera sollemnia omnes sustinere oportet); 27.9.9 (5 opin: tam cal-
lidum commentum); 8.4.13.1 (6 opin: solitum solacium)
167
D 4.4.40.1 (5 opin.) cf. 1.18.6.9 (1 opin: reprehensa exactorum illicita avaritia); 10.1.8.1
(oculisque suis subiectis locis); 27.9.10 (6 opin: illicite post senatus consultum pupilli vel adulescen-
tis praedio venumdato)
168
D 49.15.21.1 (5 opin.) cf. 1.18.7 (3 op: inspectis aedificiis . . . ea instead of inspecta aedificia)
169 170
D 2.15.9.2 (1 opin.) D 50.8.2.2 (4 opin.); 4.3.38 (5 opin.); 10.4.18 (6 opin.)
171 172
D 4.2.23.3; 50.13.3 (5 opin.) D 4.2.23.3 (5 opin.)
173 174
D 50.13.2 (1 opin.); 4.2.23.2, 3 (5 opin.) D 50.4.4.2 (3 opin.)
175 176 177
D 50.5.2.7a (3 opin.) D 50.13.2 (1 opin.) D 12.1.26 (5 opin.)
178 179
D 50.5.2.1 (3 opin.) D 4.2.23.3 (5 opin.)
180
D 2.14.52.2; 2.15.9.3; 50.13.2; (1 opin.); 50.5.1 pr (2 opin.); 50.8.2.9 (3 opin.); 3.5.44.2 (4
opin.); 10.1.8.1; 10.2.50; 27.9.10 (6 opin.)
181
D 37.15.1.1 (1 opin.); 9.2.50 (6 opin.)
governor (praeses provinciae) is mentioned twenty-nine times,182 the muni-

cipal agent (civitatis actor),183 municipal treasurer (curator rei publicae),184
and proconsul185 once each. The urban prefect (called praefectus urbis instead
of praefectus urbi)186 and the praetor187 are mentioned once each, but their
mention probably stems from imperial constitutions that applied not only to
the provinces but to Rome itself. Many texts are addressed to the governor in
the jussive subjunctive. Civilians must obey the law of their home town and
of the province.188 Some of the law stated is specifically provincial. Thus
servitudes can be created by a clause in a contract of sale.189 None of the law
set out is exclusively metropolitan. Since Ulpian composed a ten-book work
on the office of proconsul,190 it is not obvious why he should have duplicated
it with another work largely concerned with the duties of provincial gover-
nors. But it is not possible without a detailed study of each text to say from
which province or area the work springs.
Santalucia put the date of composition before the end of Alexander’s reign.
He argued that an undated rescript of that reign changed the law to the dis-
advantage of discharged soldiers. If they waived their privilege to refuse to
become municipal councillors (decurions) in their home town the waiver was
henceforth irrevocable unless they made a special agreement to preserve it.191
A text of Opinions on the other hand treats the waiver of liability to public
duties (honores, munera) as revocable.192 But the Opinions text may represent
a later rather than an earlier state of the law. Other texts show that the privi-
leges of discharged soldiers were progressively extended.193 In general only a
person who freely accepted the office of town councillor lost his immunity
irrevocably.194 So there is no necessary contradiction between Alexander’s
rescript and the Opinions text.195 Moreover, Opinions texts are often loosely
expressed, and it is not clear whether the author of this text means the right
of revocation to extend to the office of town councillor. If it does, then it may
reflect the very wide exemption that Constantine granted to his veterans at the
end of the civil war against Licinius in 325.196
182 D 1.18.6 (1 opin., ten times); 47.9.10; 50.13.2 (1 opin.); 50.2.1; 50.4.3.15 (2 opin.); 1.18.7;
50.5.2.7,8; 50.8.2.3, 10; 50.9.1; 50.10.2.1, 2 (3 opin.); 4.2.23.1, 3; 47.13.1 (twice); 27.9.9; 50.13.3 (5
opin.); 10.1.8 pr (6 opin.)
183 D 3.3.74 (2 opin.) 184 D 50.8.2.4,6 (3 opin.) 185 D 49.1.12 (2 opin.)
186 D 37.15.1.2 (1 opin.) cf. above n.63 (praetor urbis) 187 D 2.1.17 (1 opin.)
188 D 50.4.3.1 (2 opin.) 189 D 8.4.13 pr (6 opin.) cf. Gaius, Inst. 2.31
190 Ch.8 n.23–37
191 CJ 10.44.1 (Alex: Veterani, qui, cum possent se tueri immunitate his concessa, decuriones se
fieri in patria sua maluerunt, redire ad excusationem quam reliquerunt non possunt, nisi certa lege
et pacto servandae immunitatis vel partem eius oneris agnoverunt)
192 D 49.18.2 pr (3 opin: Honeste sacramento solutis data immunitas etiam in eis civitatibus apud
quas incolae sunt valet: nec labefactatur si quis eorum voluntate sua honorem aut munus susceperit)
193 D 49.18.5 (Paul 1 cogn.); 50.6.2 (Ulp. 4 off. proc.); CJ 10.44.2 (Dio et Max.); D 50.4.17.1
(Herm. 1 iur. ep.); 50.6.6.13 (Call. 1 cogn); 50.4.4 pr (3 opin.); 50.2.2.8 (Ulp 1 disp.)
194 CJ 10.44.2 (Dio. et Max.) 195 Liebs (1973) 280–5 196 CTh 7.20.2 (Apr 325?)
Another Opinions text says categorically that their sex relieves women of
physical public duties (onera corporalia).197 If this was taken to mean that
they are relieved of all personal duties (onera personalia) one would have to
suppose that the text belonged to the period before Philip198 and indeed to
that before Marcus and Verus, who rule that women are liable to personal
duties.199 But while in some contexts personal and physical duties, as opposed
to pecuniary or patrimonial ones, are treated as one and the same,200 in other
contexts such as ill health a physical duty is with good reason treated as some-
thing narrower than a personal duty.201 So understood, the statement that
women are free from physical public duties can be taken to state a permanent
principle, not something progressively eroded. The statement in Opinions202
that the office of ten leading councillors (decemprimatus) in a municipality is
a purely pecuniary and not a mixed personal and pecuniary one reflects a clas-
sification settled at the time of Diocletian’s tetrarchy,203 though earlier in
Diocletian’s reign the office is said to be mixed.204 A law of Constantine of
324 laid down that when a father is excused from a personal burden on the
grounds of having five legitimate children, but one son is of full age, that son
is subject to the personal burden.205 This law is reflected in an Opinions text,
which adds that the reason for the father’s exemption is that his sons will in
due course fulfil the personal burden.206 The fact that the reason is given,
which is unusual, suggests that the law was fresh in the mind of the author of
Opinions. In that case he was writing not long after 324.
The last plausible date for Opinions is 4 August 331, when a law of
Constantine reduced the minimum age for the office of decurion from 25 to
17 years.207 An author so concerned with municipal law as ours would not
overlook this important change. Opinions should therefore be dated to the
period between AD 324 and 331.
The sources used by the author of Opinions have to be gathered from indi-
vidual texts. Most of them form a loose chain of elementary or problemati-
cal rulings on particular facts such as we find in collections of imperial
rescripts. Santalucia rightly points to analogies with the style of rescripts.
197 D 50.4.3.3 (2 opin.) 198 CJ 10.64.1 (Phil.); 10.52.5 (Dio. et Max AA et CC)
199 D 50.1.38.3 (Pap. Iust. 2 const.); 50.1.37.2 (Call. 1 cogn.)
200 D 50.4.1.3 (Herm. 1 iur. epit.); 50.4.18.1 (Arcad. Char. 1 mun. civ.)
201 CJ 10.51.3 (Dio. et Max. AA et CC); CTh 6.35.3.2 (Constantine 27 Apr 319); D 50.5.2.7a
(3 opin.)
202 D 50.4.3.10 (2 opin.)
203 D 50.4.1.1 (Herm. 1 iur. epit: pecuniary); CJ 10.42.8 (Dio et .Max AA et CC: pecuniary)
204 D 50.4.18.26 (Arcad. Char. 1 mun. civ: mixed), Arcadius Charisius being slightly senior to
Hermogenianus: Honoré (1994) 191

205 CTh 12.17.1 pr (19 Jan 324)
206 D 50.4.3.6 (2 opin: ideo enim proprium praemium immunitatis propter filios patribus datum
est, quod illi subibunt)

207 CTh 12.1.19 (4 Aug 331). The old law is alive in CTh 7.22.2 (318); 12.1.18 (326); 12.1.7
(329) and D 50.5.2 pr (3 opin.)

Opinions contains little in the way of general principle. Very occasionally the
author expressly mentions a rescript (rescriptum est)208 or an imperial con-
stitution (constitutum est) 209 but the second of these seems to be a rework-
ing of a text of Ulpian On the Edict.210 Another Opinions text seems to
derive from a rescript of Marcus and Verus as reported by Scaevola,211 a
third from a rescript of Diocletian.212 Then there is the one, already men-
tioned, that reflects a law of Constantine.213 Many of the others may be
taken from rescripts of the Constantinian period, which continued to be
issued though not on the previous scale.214 No lawyer is expressly cited, but
there is the general statement ‘learned lawyers have taken the view that . . .’
(viris prudentibus placuit).215 There are some parallels to Ulpian texts, but
many more to imperial constitutions, to Pseudo-Paul’s Sentences and to
Hermogenianus’ Summaries of the Law.216
Santalucia is entitled to credit for showing that, contrary to Lenel’s view,217
Opinions does not conform to the edictal or Digest pattern. His positive sug-
gestions about the order that the author followed have been cricitized by
Liebs as arbitrary, and Liebs has put forward an alternative scheme.218 On
any view the work starts with criminal law and the court system, and books
two and three are occupied by municipal law. The central topics of private
law, property and succession, come only in book 6. The law of succession,
which has for centuries occupied centre stage, is now dethroned.
Opinions is a useful but poorly written fourth-century work, one of the last
items of private legal writing to scrape into the canon by dint of being attrib-
uted to a famous author.
5. Replies (2 books)219
The two books of Replies (Responsa) attributed to Ulpian have been gener-
ally regarded as consisting of excerpts from genuine replies by the jurist. Jörs
says they are taken from Ulpian’s private archive.220 Schulz argues that the
collection is post-classical, but remarks that the editor does not seem to have
altered the substance of the law as stated by Ulpian.221 A text in the Vatican
Fragments corresponds closely to a surviving excerpt from Replies in the
208 209
D 2.14.52.3 (1 opin.) D 5.2.29 pr (6 opin.)
210
D 49.1.14 pr (Ulp 14 ed.); Liebs (1973) 298
211
D 5.2.29.2 (6 opin.) cf. 2.15.3 pr (Scae. 1 dig.)
212
D 50.4.3.5 (opin.1) cf. CJ 10.32.5 (Dio. et Max. 286)
213
D 50.4.3.6 (2 opin.) cf. CTh 12.17.1 (19 Jan 324)
214 215
Frag. Vat. 32–4, 36; P. Krüger (1912) 324f. D 50.1.6.2 (2 opin.)
216
Liebs (1973) 30090 217
Lenel (1889) 2.10012 218
Liebs (1973) 301–8
219
Lenel (1889) 2.1016–19; Ind. Flor. 24.17; Jörs (1903) 1438, 1446; Fitting (1908) 116;
Wieacker (1960) 384f.; Schulz (1946) 241; (1961) 307; Honoré (1982) 113–17, 128: Liebs (1997)
§424.26
220 221
Jörs (1903) 5.1446 Schulz (1946) 241; (1961) 307
Digest.222 The Vatican Fragment collection was first put together about AD
320.223 Hence the two books of Replies attributed to Ulpian must have existed
by the first half of the fourth century.
There is no doubt that Ulpian gave formal replies, three of which are
attested.224 In discussing a case about trusts Paul says that a ‘reply of
Domitius Ulpianus was read out’.225 Aemilius Macer mentions another.226 A
rescript of Alexander refers to a third.227 There are, however, serious obsta-
cles in the way of accepting that the thirty-two short fragments attributed to
this work in the Digest are Ulpian’s. The fragments do not contain any phrase
typical of his style. They are arranged according to no known system. They
often mention the name of the person who consulted him in the form ‘He
replied to Aurelius Felix etc.’, giving the name of the consultant followed by
the substance of the reply in the accusative and infinitive.228 This feature is
not found in any other collection of Replies of the imperial age. In a substan-
tial number of texts, however, the editor or Justinian’s compilers have left out
the name of the consultant and kept just the accusative and infinitive.229
There are three texts in which Ulpian is reported as writing ‘I replied that he
could have an action’ (habere posse respondi) or something similar.230 Then
there a few statements of the law that are not in the form of a reply at all.231
Mention of the person consulting the lawyer makes these Replies unlike
any other surviving collection. The normal way of recording an author’s
replies is Modestinus respondit, Paulus respondit, or just respondit, without
any mention of the person to whom the reply is addressed. The editor seems
to be treating these replies as if they were like rescripts of the emperor, which
incorporate the name of the petitioner. Could they, all the same, have been
edited from genuine replies found in Ulpian’s papers? 232
Even this suggestion is not easy to accept. An editor can abbreviate the text
he is editing, but can hardly introduce expressions not in the original. A text
from the first book of Replies refers to societas universarum fortunarum, a uni-
versal partnership.233 This is what Ulpian in On the Edict calls a societas
omnium bonorum,234 the partner being a socius omnium bonorum.235 Societas
222 Frag. Vat. 44 (Ulp. 2 resp.)
223 Mommsen, Collectio 3.1–106; Seckel–Kübler (1908–27) 2.2.191–324; Wenger (1953)
543–5; Raber (1965); Gaudemet (1979) 75f.; Liebs (1987b) 150–62; (1989) §506
224 Above n.5 225 D 19.1.43 (Paul 5 quaest: lectum est responsum Domitii Ulpiani)
226 D 50.5.5 (Macer 2 off. praes.) 227 CJ 8.37.4 (31 March 222)
228 D 30.120 = Frag. Vat. 44 (2 resp: respondit Aurelio Felici . . .) cf. 17.2.73; 22.3.30; 32.68 pr;
46.3.45 pr, 1; 46.5.10; 50.12.5 (1 resp.); 22.3.31 (2 resp.)

229 D 20.4.10; 22.1.31; 22.3.22; 23.4.25; 26.7.19; 27.3.19; 27.6.12; 32.68.1; 40.5.52; 40.12.31;
45.2.8; 49.14.33 (1 resp.); 10.2.53; 11.8.4; 15.4.3; 23.3.51; 24.3.37; 30.120 pr, 1; 39.5.16; 40.11.1;
43.26.20; 49.1.13 pr, 1 (2 resp.)
230 D 27.4.5 (1 resp.); 27.1.23 pr, 1 (2 resp.)
231 D 2.15.10; 32.68.3 (1 resp.), 24.1.40 (2 resp.) 232 Liebs (1997) §424 p.185–6
233 D 17.2.73 (1 resp.)
234 D 17.2.5 pr (3 ed.); 17.2.52.16, 17, 18 (31 ed.); 47.2.52.18 (38 ed.); 42.1.16 (63 ed.)
235 D 17.2.52.16, 17, 18 (31 ed.); 47.2.52.18 (38 ed.); 42.1.16 (63 ed.)
universarum fortunarum, on the other hand, is not found in any other legal
writer or imperial constitution. Indeed Ulpian nowhere uses the plural for-
tunae, though Scaevola does.236
In the second book of Replies the word persolvere is twice used for solvere,
‘to pay’.237 Apart from these texts, Ulpian uses persolvere only twice. In one
text persolvere means not ‘to pay’ but ‘to pay back’. A seller may have a choice
to forgo the price or to take back the thing sold and pay back the price.238 The
other text has plainly been altered by the compilers. Two people go surety for
ten. The debtor pays three, and then the sureties pay five each. The surety who
pays last can recover three, because if the debtor pays three only seven remain
due. If these are paid three have been paid that were not owing.239 As the text
stands ‘if these are paid’ (quibus persolutis) refers to the remaining seven being
paid, whereas the sense of the text requires that ten should be paid in addition
to the three paid by the debtor. So we cannot attribute to Ulpian the use of
persolvere for ‘to pay’. On the contrary, he prefers shorter words. Solvere,
which he uses in 504 texts,240 is shorter than persolvere. And why, if Ulpian
used solvere, should an editor change it to persolvere?
The Replies have a sentence beginning 241 and two ending 242 with ablative
absolutes, a construction that Ulpian avoids at the beginning and end of sen-
tences, though it would be going too far to say that he never resorts to it. But
he certainly never uses the ablative absolute termination with salvo or salva to
express a proviso, as in two texts from Replies.243 On the other hand Scaevola
ends a reply with a proviso of this sort.244 A text in Opinions book 2 has ‘there
is no reason why’ (nihil proponi cur), an expression otherwise absent from
Ulpian but found 38 times in Scaevola245 and 9 in Modestinus.246
Though Ulpian undoubtedly gave written replies to those who consulted
him, he does not seem to have regarded this as an important part of his work
as a lawyer. Apart from the three texts from Replies already mentioned,247 he
does not use ‘I replied’ of himself, whereas other writers do so, such as
Scaevola, who has 112 texts with respondi,248 Paul, who has 53 texts with
respondi,249 and Modestinus, who has five.250 They do this mainly in works
other than their Replies, which, in the published form, are normally couched
in the third person (respondit). Ulpian once uses ‘I wrote back’ (rescripsi) of
236 D 32.34.1 (16 dig: pater exiguarum fortunarum) 237 D 43.26.20 (2 resp.)
238 D 38.5.1.13 (44 ed: utrum malit de pretio remittere an potius rem quam vendidit recipere per-
soluto pretio)
239 D 12.6.25 (47 Sab: quia tribus a reo solutis septem sola debita supererant, quibus persolutis
tria indebita sunt)

240 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 73 241 D 30.120.1 (2 resp.)
242 D 32.68 pr (1 resp.), 30.120 pr. (2 resp.)
243 D 32.68 pr (1 resp.: salvo scilicet iure debitoris); 30.120 pr (2 resp: salva tamen causa legati)
244 D 20.6.15 (Scae. 6 dig: salvo iure pignoris prioris contractus)
245 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 45 246 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 22
247 Above n.230 248 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 46
249 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 37 250 Honoré–Menner (1980) fiche 22
an answer to an inquiry by his pupil Modestinus.251 He gave advice to

Papinian and to various praetors252 but, despite Jörs,253 the texts refer to oral
advice, not written replies (responsa). He took part in disputations and in his
Disputations and Trusts a number of views that he expressed orally are
recorded in the imperfect, with dicebam,254 dicebamus,255 or referebam,256 or
in the perfect with dixi.257 It seems that his private practice was on a modest
scale and that he did not attach great importance to it.
The law recorded in Replies is orthodox. The text shares with the author of
Rules in seven books the expression ‘on a favourable interpretation’ (benigna
interpretatione).258 The expression is alien to Ulpian259 but is found in a gen-
uine text of Scaevola.260 The style of these brief, pithy replies is in many ways
reminiscent of Scaevola. The conclusion I reach is that this collection is drawn
from various classical lawyers, perhaps especially Scaevola, but that few if
any stem from Ulpian. The editor has not totally disguised the style of the
originals, and nothing in his collection of Replies suggests Ulpian. The attri-
bution to Ulpian probably dates from the early fourth century.
In this chapter I have used criteria of style to draw more radical conclusions
about the authenticity of disputed works than most other scholars. I think
that Ulpian’s name was falsely attached to a number of apocryphal works in
which he had no part, mainly no doubt in order to make them acceptable for
citation in court. There is nothing extraordinary about this. A great many
Latin authors’ names were used by the unscrupulous to circulate their own
works: Caesar, Virgil, Sallust, Pliny, Quintilian, Cyprian, Galen, Lactantius,
Aurelius Victor.261 The spurious works attributed to Ulpian were not all by
the same hand. The style of LSR is simple and dates from not later than 212.
The author of Encyclopaedia (Pandectae), which is also classical, was proba-
bly secretary for petitions (a libellis) from March to October 222, hence a
member of Ulpian’s circle. Replies (Responsa) is drawn from classical authors
but hardly or not at all from Ulpian. The style of Opinions (Opiniones) is cum-
bersome and marked by verbal clustering. It belongs to the reign of
Constantine and is adapted to the problems of provincial administration at
that time. LSR was re-edited at or shortly after that period. Rules in seven
books may be a little but not much earlier. I suspect that the one-book ver-
sion of Encyclopaedia also belongs to the age of Constantine.
251 252 253

D 47.2.52.20 (37 ed.) Ch.1 n.129–45 Jörs (1903) 1438
254
D 27.8.2; 44.3.5.1 (3 disp.); 28.4.2; 28.5.35 pr; 29.1.19 pr; 49.17.9
twice (4 disp.); 33.4.2.1; 36.1.23 pr (5 disp.); 46.7.13 pr (7 disp.); 35.2.82 (8 disp.); 34.1.14.3 (2 fid.)
255
D 29.2.42.3 (4 disp.)
256
D 49.17.9; 29.1.19 pr (4 disp.); 35.1.92 (5 fid.)
257
D 26.1.7 (2 disp.); 28.5.35.5 (4 disp.); 36.1.23.4 (5 disp.); 2.1.19 pr (6 fid.); 47.2.39 (41 Sab.)
cf. probavi (D 28.5.35.1 (4 disp.)
258 259
D 39.5.16 (2 resp.) cf. 28.2.2 (6 reg.) Above n.131–5
260 261
D 34.1.20.1 (Scae. 3 resp.) Marquardt (1886) 832; Sint (1960); Liebs (1973) 295
Legal authors could then no longer write in their own name. They needed
a borrowed identity. Legal literature fades out with these summaries and epit-
omes, of variable quality but all misattributed to classical writers so as to
attract a wider sale or greater authority in court. In an age when the canon of
legal works was being settled Ulpian’s name carried weight.
11
Epilogue
A L E A D I N G writer and lawyer in government, Ulpian was famous in his own
age. His pupil Modestinus calls Cervidius Scaevola, Paul, and Ulpian the
leaders among lawyers,1 but gives Ulpian a special pre-eminence. A ruling of
Severus and Caracalla, he says, laid down that to be the curator of an insane
person counted towards being excused from further such offices and ‘the
excellent Ulpian said the same about three guardianships’.2 Modestinus uses
the phrase ‘the excellent Ulpian’ ( κρτιστος Ολπιανς) in two other texts.3
It is not used of any other lawyer. It is the tribute of a loyal pupil. A rescript
composed by Arcadius Charisius in the time of Diocletian is to much the same
effect.4 Town councillors and their children should be free from torture, as
‘the most learned Domitius Ulpianus in his book on public disputations
relates as a permanent item of learning’.5 Arcadius also cites ‘what Herennius
Modestinus with very good reason laid down in his notes and in public dis-
putation’, viz. that the public obligation of the ten or twenty leading members
of a municipal council to collect taxes is a mixed personal and patrimonial
obligation.6 These are the two predecessors whom Arcadius in the tetrarchy
cites in flattering terms.
In the late third century Ulpian was seen, then, as the source of a line of
authority, especially on public law, carried forward by Modestinus and
Arcadius. Both of them probably and Arcadius certainly held the office of
secretary for petitions7, as Ulpian had done. The three share a balanced, prag-
matic approach to the solution of legal and administrative problems. Further
evidence of Ulpian’s standing, probably from the tetrarchic period,8 comes
from an inscription in Ephesus. In it a proconsul urges the city to collect
together ‘things said on the basis of ancient laws in Ulpian’s De officio’,9 in
imperial constitutions, and in resolutions of the senate.10
1 D 27.1.13.2 (4 excus: ο κορυαοι τν νοµικν)
2 D 27.1.2.9 (2 excus: κρτιστος Ολπιανς)
3 D 26.6.2.5 (1 excus.); 27.1.4.1 (2 excus.)
4 Honoré (1994) 160–2 esp. 161300; Liebs (1989) §508.1
5 CJ 9.41.11.1 (27 Nov 290: vir prudentissimus Domitius Ulpianus in publicarum disputationum
libris ad perennem scientiae memoriam refert cf. D 50.2.2.2, Ulp. 1 disp.)

6 D 50.4.18.26 (1 mun. civ: ut Herennius Modestinus et notando et disputando bene et optima
ratione decrevit)
7 Honoré (1994) 104–7, 190–1 8 Robert (1967) 46
9 τ τε κ τν παλαιν νµων ν τος ∆ ι[κω παρ’ ] Ολπιαν ερηµ!να
10 JÖAI 45 (1960) Beibl. 82 no.8; AE 1966.436; IK Ephesos 2 (1979) no.217; Millar (1986) 279
228 11. Epilogue
The reference is to Ulpian’s The Proconsul (De officio proconsulis), where

he advises a proconsul ‘to arrive first wherever in the province it is customary
to arrive and to adhere to what the Greeks call the point of arrival or disem-
barcation. For provincials will attach great importance to respect for these
customs and prerogatives.’11 In the case of Asia, he notes, Caracalla provided
that the proconsul was bound to reach Asia by sea and, of the metropolitan
cities, to arrive first in Ephesus. Clearly Ulpian was regarded as the leading
authority on public law and his views were treated as almost on a level with
imperial and senatorial rulings. A conscientious provincial governor would
have a copy of The Proconsul to hand to consult as occasion required.
Ulpian’s importance to practitioners is shown by the fact that his work was a
main source of pseudo-Paul’s Sentences, Hermogenianus’ Summaries of the
Law (Iuris Epitomae) and the Vatican Fragments,12 all late third- or early
fourth-century works. One result of Ulpian’s prominence is that, as
Lactantius mentions,13 he was known to Christians as the author who in that
work listed imperial rescripts hostile to their faith. He was of course bound to
do so in order to guide provincial governors who had to deal with or try
Christians. But there may in Constantine’s reign have been some transient
Christian prejudice against Ulpian’s works on this account. Constantine
ruled that the notes of Ulpian and Paul on Papinian were to be ‘abolished’
and no longer cited in court.14 This was done with a view to simplifying the
law and eliminating some of the ‘endless controversies’ between lawyers.
Given this aim, Papinian’s text was perhaps sacrosanct merely because he was
regarded as a better lawyer than Ulpian and Paul. But it may be noted that,
though Paul was senior to Ulpian, Ulpian is mentioned first as a lawyer who
chose to distort Papinian’s views while purporting to admire him.
In the Law of Citations of 426 Ulpian comes fourth of the five canonical
writers of authority: Papinian, Paul, Gaius, Ulpian, and Modestinus.15 The
notes of Paul and Ulpian on Papinian are again rejected as invalid.
Consistently with this assessment, Papinian comes first on the list. The others
come in chronological order, apart from Gaius, who is evidently a newcomer
to the canon. But in Justinian’s Digest Tribonian abandons this hierarchical
scheme. He eschews any attempt to rank lawyers of authority in a particular
order. No single author is best overall. Which of them gives the best account
or advocates the correct view is to be decided case by case. It cannot be
11 D 1.16.4.5 (1 off. cons: ingress<ur>um etiam hoc observare oportet, ut per eam partem
provinciam ingrediatur, per quam ingredi moris est, et quas Graeci πιδηµας appellant sive
κατπλουν observare, in quam primum civitatem veniat vel applicet: magni enim facient provinciales
servari sibi consuetudinem istam et huiusmodi praerogativas)
12 Liebs (1997) 179 13 Church Teaching (Div. inst.) 5.11.19
14 CTh 1.4.1 (28 Sept 321/4: Perpetuas prudentium contentiones eruere cupientes Ulpiani ac
Pauli in Papinianum notas, qui, dum ingenii laudem sectantur, non tam corrigere eum, quam
depravare maluerunt, aboleri praecipimus)
15 CTh 1.4.3 (7 Nov 426)
11. Epilogue 229
decided by counting opinions. A lesser lawyer is sometimes the only one to get
the law right.16
When Tribonian applies these principles to the Digest material Ulpian
emerges as the author whose account is most often chosen as the best.
Excerpts from his work account for just over 40 per cent of the Digest, more
than those of any other author. But this figure gives too modest an idea of
Ulpian’s impact on the law. In each sub-chapter (title) the Digest compilers
normally put Ulpian’s exposition of the law first. Sixty per cent of the Digest
titles17 begin with an Ulpian text. From this point of view he dominates all the
other thirty-eight authors combined from the beginning to the end of the
great compilation. The result is that law students, whether in the late Roman
or Byzantine empire or the European middle ages and Renaissance began
their study of almost any legal topic with Ulpian. Nor was his role in legal
education merely the result of Justinian’s Digest. The Sinai Fragments
(Scholia Sinaitica),18 which seem to belong to the fifth or early sixth century,
consist of Greek comments, presumably deriving from an eastern law school,
on books 36–9 of Ulpian’s On Sabinus, part of the second-year law syllabus.
By a process of osmosis Europe’s view of the law has been formed more by
Ulpian than by any other lawyer. This is true as regards substance, style,
method of reasoning, and background philosophy. Papinian and Julian dis-
play greater subtlety, Labeo and Celsus are more inventive, but it was Ulpian
who expounded Roman law as a universal system capable, as it turned out, of
being adapted to the needs of the radically different societies that emerged
from the breakdown of empire.
16
C Deo auctore 6 (15 Dec 530: sed neque ex multitudine auctorum quod melius et aequius est
iudicatote, cum possit unius forsitan et deterioris sententia et multos et maiores in aliqua parte
superare)
17
Out of 432 titles 260 begin in this way
18
Girard–Senn (1967) 591–604; FIRA 2.637–52
TABLE I
List of Latin Words and Phrases Referred to in the Text
and Footnotes
References in the form 2107 are to chapters and footnotes. When the word or phrase is
not the subject of a footnote, the reference takes the form of citing the chapter and the
footnotes preceding and following the word or phrase, for example 745–6.
abalienare 1076 adparitio 2530

ab re est 9125 adpendix 2531
abusive 2730 adpulsus 2532
abusus 2526,731 adscribere 416–7
accedendum erit 2332 adsessorium 2533
accipe 2225,422 adsidente 1130–1
accipere 2420–431 adsidere 1132–3
— debemus 2426 adsuetus 2623
— debes 2425 adsumemus 2280
— nos debere 2428 aeque 2152 457
— nos oportet 2429 988–9 aequissimum erit 2336,719
accipias 240–1,423 — est 2335–6,720
927,62 — putavit 958
accipiemus 2322,421 395 aequissimus 214–5,20–1,702,
accipiendum erit 2320 719–721
— est 2431 aequitas 428,30,36

accipies 2226,424 aequitate motus 959
928,62 aequum 1199,221 37
accipietur 2323,421 443
accipimus 2430 7113 aestimabimus 2281
accomodabimus 2279 aestimamus 2253
accusatorius 2621 age 1213
acerbe 2732 ait 214–5,100–2
acerbus 2622,733 536
450,733 alicula 2516
980–1,90 alioquin . . . inquit 2156
acriter 991 alternatio 2534
adaequare 2439 ambitiosus 2624 980
addere 2440 amicalis 2625
addimus 2250 amicus meus 1307
adfirmator 2527 an ergo 2138
adgressus 2528 — vero et 2139
adite 1197,209 angustissimus 2703
adiutorium 2529 animadvertimus 2254 1204
adhibemus 2251 ante oculos habere 2473
adimere 4166 antea 1036
adlega 1218 antiquissimus 2704
admittimus 2252 7119–20 antistes 362
232 Table I
apertura 2535 clivosus 2631

apex 2536 cogemus 2282
applicamus 2255 colloquium 2540
apud 662,208,215, collusorie 2774
228–9,263,
commendatio 2541 94
270–1,274,310
comminatio 2542
armipotens 2626 commonere 2444
ars 37 commovere 2445
artare 2441 commundare 2446
assessor 1126–9,141,144, comparamus 2256
176–7
computamus 2257 7119–20
atrocissime 2815 concubitus 2543
attamen 111 2116–9 concumbere 2447
audacia 2537 condicticius 1099–101
audacior 2696 confringere 2448
audacissimus 2705 congruenter 2775
ausim dicere 2219 conivere 2449
authenticus 2627 conqueri 2450
avare 2772 consciscere 2451
avarissimus 448 consequens erit dicere 2327 7111
benigna interpretatione 10132,258 819–20
benigne 2734 consequenter dicemus 2326
benignus 450 consimilis 2632
benignum est 2192,191 950 constat 1049
bona 66 — enim 2123
boni consulere 2452 constitutum est 10209
calcitrosus 2628 consuetus 2633
calculator 2538 consulebar 1134–5
callide 2620,736 consulere 2452
calliditas 2539,618–9,737 consultissime 2816
capessere 2442 contaminatio 2544
captus 2629 contemptibilis 2634
Cassiani 1073 contestatorius 2635
causari 2443 contrarium 2106–7,836–7
cautior 2697,746 contribuemus 2282
cavus 2630 contumeliose 2738
certissimus 2706 contumeliosior 2698
cessabit 2315–8 contumeliosus 2636,739 450
cessabunt 2319 978,80–1
cessat 2315–7 convertemus 2284
ceteroquin 226–9,121 corruptela 2545
chartae 1116 corruptor 2546
circumspecte 2773 cottidie 2770
circumspectius 2807 crassus 2637 449
civiliter 10172 credere 66
civilius 2808 credimus 2258
civitas Romana 391 creditor 66
List of Latin Words and Phrases 233
credo 240–1,187 439 distinguendum erit 2333

criminaliter 2776 distinguimus 2264
cultior 2699 diverse 2778
culpa dolo proxima 447 dixi 10257
cum efficacia benignus 980–1 diximus 7122–3
— instantia humanus 980–1 docete 1210
— libuerit 960 docilis 2639
curate 1211 dolose 2620,740
cunctatio 451 dolosus 2620,640,741
curiositas 2547 449 domuncula 2517
dabimus 7117 dubio procul 2168
damus 2259 dubitanter 2742
debemus 7112 dubium non erit 2342
decus 2548 ducimus 2265
dedecus 2549 duci 2463
defendimus 2260 dulcitudo 2551
definiemus 2328 dummodo meminerimus 2164
dehonestare 2453 — non 2112
delatorius 2638 449 — sciamus 2113
deliberabimus 2285 7119–20 — sciat 2113
delitescere 2454 durior 2700
demerere 2455 durissimus 2707 9130
demonstramus 2261 duritia 395 980–1
demorari 2456 eapropter 2109
desideramus 2262 effervescere 2464
desiderare 2457 efficacia 2552 450
destricte 152 2777 92 efficimus 2266
detrahimus 2263 ego 2202–215
devocare 2458 — adquiesco 2208
dicas 240–1,227 — adsentio 2209
dicebam 1134–5 947,63 — arbitror 2210
10254 — credo 2211
dicebamus 10255 — moveor 2212
dicendum erit 2303–313 — opinor 2213
dicet quis 2329 962 — puto 239–40,206–7
dici oportere 2178 — quaero 2214
dicimus 7114 — scio 2215
dies solis 854 elatio 2553
difficile erit 2341 eleganter 2771
diffindere 2459 elegantissime 2771
dignitas 385–6 elocutio 2554
dilapidare 2460 eloqui 2465
diligentissime 2817 eo loci 272
dilucidius 2809 erit accipiendum 2321,352,421
discutere 2461 93 — admittendum 2324,348–9,353
disicere 2462 — agendum 2358 433
distinctio 2550 — audiendum 2359
234 Table I
erit cavendum 2360 — statuendum 2401

— cogendum 2361 — subveniendum 2402
— concedendum 2362 — transeundum 2403
— consequens 2340 — transferendum 2404
— conveniendum 2363 — tribuendum 2405
— dandum 2364 434 — utendum 2406
— decurrendum 2365 est (initial) 2409–417
— defendendum 2366 — (final) 7120–2
— descendendum 2367 — aequissimum 2720
— detrahendum 2368 — agitatum 2409
— dicendum 214–5,305,354 — constitutum 2410 838–9
— excipiendum 2369 — decretum 2348–9,411
— exigendum 2370 84–5
— faciendum 2371 — et . . . 6394
— ignoscendum 2372 — expressum 2412
— innovandum 2373 — hoc . . . 2418
— inspiciendum 2374 — iniquum 517
— interponendum 2375 — quaesitum 2413
— interpretandum 2376 — relatum 6263
— intuendum 2377 — rescriptum 2414 6394
— invidendum 2378 82–5,39–40
— liberandum 2379 — tamen tutius 2195
— locus 2339 — tamen verius 2185
— movendum 2380 — tractatum 2415
— notandum 2325,355 931 et 247–102,828–9
— obiciendum 2381 — ait 214–5,100–2
— observandum 2382 536
— permittendum 2383 — arbitror 260
— plectendum 2384 — constat 261
— praestandum 2385 — credo 262
— probandum 2356 — dicendum erit 263,306
— procedendum 2357 — dico 264
— prospiciendum 2386 — ego puto 251,432
— provocandum 2387 — erit procedendum 271,347
— quaerendum 2388 — est . . . 924–5
— ratum habendum 2389 — — constitutum 552
— redhibendum 2390 — — decretum 277 6404
— reducendum 2391 950–1
— referendum 2392 — — dubitatum 278
— repellendum 2393 — — expeditius 285
— requirendum 2394 — — frequentissima 286
— restituendum 2395 — — optimum 287
— revocandum 2396 — — quaestio tractata 281
— satisdandum 2397 — — relatum 279
— sequendum 2398 — — rescriptum 280 6381–2
— servandum 2399,825–6 950–1
— spectandum 2400 — — simile 288
— — utile 289 exiguitas 2557

— eveniet 266,345 eximemus 2288
— exstat/extat 267 6264–270 exorcizare 320
— facilius 293 exoriri 2468
— finge 268 exornare 2469
— fortassis 294 experimentum 2558
— fortius 295 exploratissimus 2708
— generaliter 296,308–9 428 exprimere 2470
— hoc iure utimur 2200 exsequemur 2289 7119–20
— ideo dicendum erit 2310 exsolve 1217
— intererit 269,346 exstat/extat 6228–9,371–6
— ita erit dicendum 2307 — sententia 2160
— ita utimur 2199 facessere 2471
— magis est 238–9,70 46–7 facillimus 2709
9116 facinorosus 2643 977
— — puto 249,432 46–7 fames 395
7105 fanaticus 2644
— mihi videtur 275 feriaticus 2645
— non dubito 265 fervor 2559
— non puto 250,432 fessus 2646
— per contrarium 292 festinatio 451
— putamus 257 finge 240–1
— putat 2438 — autem 2150,224
— putem 247–8,432 flagitare 2472
46–7,66 7104 fluviatilis 2648
— puto 253–5,432,828 fons 2560
— recte 298 formalis 2647
— refert 272 fortasse/fortassis 2343
— regulariter 297 forte . . . inquit 2158
— retineo 273,298 fortitudo 2561
— scio 274 frequentissimus 2710
— sunt qui putent 256 frivolum 2562
— versa vice 299 frivusculum 2518
— verius puto 252,432 frugaliter 2779
— verum puto 252,432 frustra timere 1202
— visum est 276 fuit quaestionis 2154
etiamsi . . . attamen 2118 fulcimentum 2563
evoca 1211 gemini menses 847
evocare 2466 genera tria 1026
ex diverso 683–6 generaliter 2780
exaggerare 2467 — dicendum est 2167
excessus 2555 gestus 2564
exclusorius 2641 gravabitur 2344
excusabimus 2286 grave est 2197
exemptilis 2642 — exemplo 1200
exhortatio 2556 gulosus 2649
exigemus 2287 gutturosus 2650
236 Table I
habent excusationem 518 impetiginosus 2652

habent immunitatem 519 impetrabilis 2653
habent vacationem 520 impostor 2567 320
habet aequitatem 2192,349,419– impostura 2568
420
impotenter 2786
— rationem 2193,350,419– imprecari 2477
420
improbissimus 2711
hoc animo . . . 2781–3 improbitas 95
hodie 1036 improbum est 2198
humana interpretatione 10133–4 in ea causa est/sunt 2513–4
humanum 344 442,50 in ea condicione est/sunt 2511–2 7106
id observatur 1051 in ea erit causa 2335
idcircoque 2108 in necem 232–3
idem erit dicendum 2311 in potestate est 10137
— erit probandum 7110 inaequus 2654
— esse ac si 2120 inargutus 2655
illicere 2474 inaugere 2478
illud plane 930 incantare 320
— sciendum est 2183 incaute 2745
immergere 2475 incautus 2656
imminutio 2565 inceptum 2569
immoderate 2784 incivile 10171
immorari 2476 incivilis 1201
immunditiae 2566 inciviliter 10173
immutabilis 2651 incogitabilis 2657
imperative 1065 incolorate 2787
imperator 717–22,68,71–2 incolumitas 2570
86 inconsideranter 2788 970
— Antoninus 713,21–2,30–4, incredibilitas 2571
37,57–9,75
increscere 2479
82–5,23–5,40–1 incultus 2658
911–2,50–1, incunctanter 2789 972
106–7,120–1
incuriosus 2659 979
— noster 721–2,30–6, inde 2110
49–50,53–6,84–5
indemnatus 2660
82–5,23–5,27, indevotio 2572
29–30,38–41
indicatio 2573
911–2,50–1,57–8, indifferenter 2790 973
93–4,99–100,
indignissimus 2712
106–7,120–1
indoctus 2661
— Severus 78–9,21–2,30–4, indubitanter 2743 971
73,76,78–9,88–9,
indubitatior 2701
91
inefficax 956
imperatores Augusti 823–4 inexcusabilis 2662
— nostri 9106 infaustus 2663
— Severus et Antoninus 712 993–6 infinite 1077
imperite 2785 inhumanus 448
iniquum 37 κρτιστος 112–3

iniuria 385,98 lata neglegentia 447
iniuriosus/e 974–5 lego 6309
inquit 2156–9 liberalis 983–4
659–62,111,118, libri 1116
125,134,141,146,
libuerit 960
153,157,163,170,
licentia erit 987
173,210,213,217,
licentiam habet/habeat 985–6
222
licet . . . attamen 111,220
inquiunt 6182 loci 272
inrepere 2480 loculus 2519
inscius . . . invitus 2664 locus 2723–9
insinuare 2481 — erit 2339
insolentia 2574 magis est 238–92
insolitum 1200 — putamus 9123
insta 1214 magisque est/erit 2180 9117
instantia 450 me adsidente 1130–1
instigatus 2575 — suadente 1136
instinctus 2576 mea fert opinio 2216
intellegentia 2577 mediocris 929
interdum autem 2147 melius dicetur 2179,330
— tamen 2147 memini 1136 2218 662
— licet 2148 951,63,111
interfrigescere 2482 meminisse autem debemus 2163
intermiscere 2483 — oportebit 2162,338
interrogator 2578 — oportet 2161,337–8
interventio 2579 mens 413–5
interventor 2580 merito 911–2
intimus 2665 messis vindemiae causa 844–5,49
intribuere 2484 meus 183, 160
inutilis 2666 426–7 minus dubitanter 2742
inutilitas 426–7 minutatim 969
invalescere 2485 minutulus 968
inveni 9110 moderatus 450
invenimus 2241 6394 moderatio 453
83–4 moratoria cunctatio 451 980–1
invenio 2217 524 662 movemur 2267
912–3,50–2,63, natura actionis 428
109
naturalis ratio 332
invitus 2664 naturaliter 3100,111
ius antiquum 1036 nec ab re est 9125
— gentium 332 — ferendus est 2196
— humanum 3103 — ignoro 954
— Italicum 194–6,154 — mediocriter 9126
911–2 — non 2103
— naturale 357,104,110,111 — et 2104
iustitia 34,7,27,62,76 — nos dubitamus 2236
238 Table I
nec quisquam putet 2297 956–7 — mediocriter 2756 9126

— tantum . . . verum etiam 965–6 — passim 2757
necessitas 1223 — plene 2758
nec quisquam putet 2297 — principaliter 2759
neglegentia 447,49 — recte 1207
nemini dubium est 2169 — secure 2760
nemo credet 2296 956–7 — sine ratione 7111–2
nequaquam ambigendum 2174 — solum verum etiam
nequaquam — dubium est 2170 quoque 2134
nervus 2581 — — — — si 2133
nescio 923 — — — omnino 2136
nihil proponi cur 10245–6 — — — quoque 2135
nimia securitas 449 — solummodo sed et 2137
nimis propere 1208 — specialiter 2761
nisi forte 220–4,153, — tantum autem 2130
201–2 5,56
4 — — verum 2132
non ab re est 9125 — — — etiam 2131 965–6
— alias . . . nisi prius 1097–9,110–2 — — — — quoque 967
— aliter . . . nisi prius 10110–2 — turpiter 2762
— animadvertimus 1204 — videbitur 7111–2
— compelletur 7111–2 nonnumquam enim 2124
— computabitur 522 nos 2228–239
— difficile 2753 — consentimus 2235
— dubitabimus 545 6338 — opinamur 2237
— dubitabis 7111–2 — probamus 2238 6300
— dubitamus 2171,240 — putamus 2239
7119–20 — sacerdotes appellet 2228
— erit dicendum 7111–2 nostra sententia 6395
— erit notatus 7111–2 notabilis 2667,748
— erit restituendus 7111–2 notabiliter 2747
— est ambiguum 2175 notandum quod 2165
— — incivile 2177 notavi me putare 2301
— — incognitum 2176 nova res 1206
— — sine ratione 2194 novimus 2242
— exigimus 7119–20 nugatorius 2668
— gravate 2754 nulla dubitatio est 2172
— habebit 7111–2 nullius erit momenti 2337
— idonee 2755 num forte 2140
— ignoro 963 numerabimus 2290
— improprie 2763 nunc autem 1036
— inconsulte 2764 nundinae 853
— indigne 2765 obdurare 2486
— infavorabiliter 2766 obscaenitas 2582 395
— inhoneste 2767 980–1
— insuptiliter 2768 obsequens 2669
— inutiliter 1196 observabimus 2291
— ita pridem 785–6 observamus 2268
obventio 2583 permodicus 2693

obviam ire 2487 permultus 1184
occultatio 2584 pernecessarius 2694
occultus 2670 perniciosus/e 975–6
occursus 2585 perpaucus 2695
offerte 1216 perquam 2792 9127–9
officium erit 2331 perraro 2793 981–2
olim 1036 persolvere 10237–240
olitorius 2671 persona servi 399
onera corporalia 10197 pervicaciter 2794 974
— personalia 10198 philosophia 37,27
opacus 2672 placet sententia 2188
operiri 2488 placuit 1048
operula 2520 plane . . . inquit 2159
opinamur 2243 plerisque placet 1047
origo 178–80 pone 240–1
ostendimus 2244 7107 popularis meus 622
ostentatio 2586 postea 1036
paenitentia actus 1022 praeceps festinatio 451 980–1
palam est 2186 398 praefectus urbis 10186
9119–20 praeripere 9124
par 2673 praeterea sciendum est 9118
paratio 2587 praeterquam quod 10141–2
parens meus 1310–1 praetor urbis 1064
pari ratione 941–5 precative 1066
parvi refert 214–9,72,201, precativo modo 1066
826–7 3,63–4
4 probamus 2238 6300
passus sum 1138 probandum erit 2314–6
pater meus 747 probavi 812–3
patria 181–2 probavimus 2245
pavidus 2674 proinde 229–31,33–4,
peculium 1151 38–9,42–7
pecuniarie 2791 — ac 242

pedester 2588 — et si 238–9,42–3
penuarius 2589 — si 238–9,43–4
per 10113–7 prostituere 395
— consequentiam 1068 protervitas 2590
— contrarium 2106–7,836–7 punimus 2269
— — quoque 7103 putabat 1145
— eminentiam 1067 putamus 7115
— formulam 1070 putavimus 2246,437
— similitudinem 1069 putem 240–1
perexiguus 2690 puto 2431–8 428
periculosus 96 — autem 2435
periniquus 441 9127 — tamen 2436
perlucidus 2691 quaerimus 2270
perlusorius 2692 quaeritur 1134–5
240 Table I
quaero 2221 rescripsi 10251

quaestio in eo est 2155 536 rescriptum est 10208
9139–40 resilire 2496
quaestionis est 2154,832–3 resolutio 2599
qualiterqualiter 2119,795 respondetur 10136
quamvis . . . attamen 2117 7108 respondi 10230,247–50
quantuluscumque 2675 restituemus 2292
quattuor modis 1027 retineo 1135 2220 953
quia autem 2145 retorquere 2497
quid enim dicemus 545 6338 rettuli 7122
— tamen si 238–9,151 44 rettulimus 7122
quin immo etiam 2122 revereri 2498
quis dubitat 2173 revocamus 2273
raro 981–2 revocatio 2600
ratio 1222 rodere 2499
— iuris 1203,222 Sabiniani 1074–5
— permittit 1222 sacerdos 37
— suadet 1222,225 sacramentum 38,74
ratiocinatio 2591 saepissime 111 2768–9
ratione duci 2463 634 838–9
rationem habere 1222 saevissimus 2713
recedendum erit 2334 saevitia 395 980–1
recisio 2592 salva 10242–3
recolere 2489 salvo 10242–3
reconducere 2490 sane enim 2126
recorrigere 2491 sapere 2500
recte 2470 911–2 sarcinula 2521
rectissime 2818–821 satis desiderare 2457
911–2 sciendum 2182
redditio 2593 scio 2299 524 695
redemptura 2594 911–8,63,108
referebam 629 948–9 scire debes 1205
10256 secundum quod dictum est 2166
referimus 2271 — nostram sententiam 2300
regulariter 2796 secure 2797
relaxare 2492 securitas 449
relevare 2493 sed enim 2126
religio 366 — est verius 2184
remeare 2494 — et si . . . aeque 2152 457
remorari 2495 — post 1036
remotio 2595 — tutius est 1078–9
repertorium 2596 seducere 2501
repositorium 2597 sensus 417
reprobus 2676 sententia 413–4,19
repudiatio 2598 — mihi vera videtur 2190
requirimus 2272 — verior videtur 2190
res sanctissima 38 sententiam puto veram 2189
— — veriorem 2189 subsidiarius 2679

sepositio 2601 subsimilis 2680
septimana 855 subsistimus 2248 7119–20
sequemur 2293 subterfugere 2505
sequimur 2274 subtilius 2811
series 2602 subveniemus 2295
servabimus 2294 succedaneus 2681
servari oportet 2181 sufficienter 2799
servi persona 399 sumptuose 2751
— qualitas 399 sumptuosus 2682,752
severissimus 2714 sunt qui dicunt 1050
si libuerit 960 superstitiosus 2683
— mihi proponas 235–6,223 supervacaneus 2684
— quidem . . . si autem 2149 suppellecticarius 2685
sic accipiendum est 2431 suspendiosus 2686
— deinde 2111 sustentatio 2610
signaculum 2525 tabernula 2522
simulatio 329 taciturnitas 2611
simulatus 37 tamdiu 2800–2
sive autem 2143 tamenetsi . . . tamen 2115
sobrie 2749 tardissime 2822
sobrietas 2603,750 tarditas 2612
societas omnium bonorum 10234 temperare 452
— universarum fortunarum 10233 tempestivus 2687
socius omnium bonorum 10235 tenacissimus 2716
socordia 2604 territio 2613
solemus dicere 2275 7116 timidius 2812
solet autem 2144 tolerabilius 2813
solitudo 2605 tollimus 2276
solutius 2810 tractare 2506
somnus 2606 tractatum 955
sopire 2502 trahimus 2277
sordide 2798 transformare 2507
sortiri 2503 transvolare 2508
spatiosus 2677 tumor 2614
spectamus 2247 7119–20 ubi enim 2127
splendidissimus 2715 unde enim 2128
squalidus 2678 usitatus 1199,221
studere 2504 usitatissimus 2717
studiosus meus 1160 usquam 2803
stupratio 2607 ut est . . . 7120–121
suadere 1223 231–2 — libuerit 960
suasi 1139 — puta 2433–4 42
suasio 1198 1055
suasor 224–5,31,33–4, — rescripsit 829–36
608
— videtur 696–8
suasus 225–6,33–4,609 utaris 1215
242 Table I
utilis 426–7 verumtamen 2114 7102

utilissimus 2722 vetamus 2249 7119–20
utilitas 3158 426–7 viaticulum 2523
utique etiam 2129 videamus 7118
utpote 961 videmus 2278
utrum an vero 2142 vigere 2509
— autem 2141 vigilanter 2806
variatio 2615 vilissimus 448
vaticinatio 2616 vindemiatorius 2689
venatorius 2688 violentius 2814
verba 413–5,17,19,23 vir prudentissimus 115
verecunde 2804 980–1 viris prudentibus placuit 10215
verissimus 2718 vituperare 2510
versa vice 2805 vituperatio 2617
versabitur 932 volo tractare 2222
verum est 9134–5 voluptuosus 10130
— tamen 2114 7102 vulnusculum 2524
TABLE II
References to Legal Texts
References in the form 2370 (Chapter 2 footnote 370) are to texts cited in footnotes. If
the text is cited in the main narrative rather than a footnote, the chapter and footnotes
immediately before and after the text are referred to, for example 7111–2 (chapter 7
between footnotes 111 and 112).
1. Gaius’ Teaching Manual (Gai Institutiones, G. Inst.)
1.1 332 2.193 2152

1.7 10154 2.18 2110
1.32c 716 2.232 1021
1.34 716 2.245 683
1.39 683 3.14 245
1.47 716 3.43 1021
1.78 683 3.84 683
1.102 1021 3.126 683
1.133 683 3.176 2148
1.141 2738 3.189 2141
1.182 1023 3.199 2146
1.188 2232 3.201 683
2.31 10189 4.3 683
2.64 683 4.60 2232
2.79 244 4.71 2721
2.119 1021 4.77 683
2.124 1021 4.109 683
2.137 683 4.127 2146
2.147 1021 4.155 2147
2.168 1022
2. Paul’s Views (Pauli Sententiae, Paul. Sent.)
5.12.11 2627
3. Vatican Fragments (Fragmenta Vaticana, Frag. Vat.)
32–4 10214 87 2156

36 10214 88 6258
44 10222,228 90 2110
66 549 119 717
71 2436 123 2570
75.5 2657 124 518
77 6303,313 125 1246 9106
80 2159 134 519
244 Table II
137 520 200 9106–7

138 519 201 9106–7
142 518 204 9106–7
145 527 9105 207 2196
147 1246 9106 210 2167 9106–7
148 2616 211 9106–7
149 1246 212 9106–7
153 517 220 1136 951,111
155 2442,482 222 527 9105
156 2254,635 224 713
159 9106 232 9106–7
161 522 234 9106–7
176 9106–7 235 829 9106–7
177 2433 952,110 236 9106–7
177a 9106–7 238 9106–7
185 527 239 9106–7
186 2431 240 527 9105
188 2322 242 1137 921,108
189 527 9105,108–9 266 732,36 1074
191 9106–7 269 2327,664
198 2436 321 2422 923
4. Ulpian’s Rules in one Book (‘Ulpiani’ liber singularis regularum, Tit.)
1.3 1092 8.5 1021,36

1.5 1020 10.3 1020
1.8 1036 11.2 1028
1.10 1036 11.3 1067–8
1.12 1020 11.5 1069
1.13a 1030 11.8 1036
1.18 1047 11.14 1030
1.21 1036,48–50 11.16 1020
2.4 1076 11.18 1030
2.7 1055 11.19 1020
3.1. 1020,28 11.20 1030,36,64
3.2–6 1020 11.23 1023
3.3 1030 11.24 1064
5.4 1020 11.27 1028,30
5.6 1036,77 11.28 1045,73
5.8–9 1020 12.1 1030
6.1. 1028 12.3 1030
6.9 1028 13.2 1034,41
6.14 1028,131 17.1 1020
6.17 10131 17.2 1036,38
7.4 1020 18.1 1036
8.2 1030 19.2 1028
8.3 1028 19.4 1020
References to Legal Texts 245
19.8 1091 24.13 1036

19.16 1070 24.16 1021
19.18 1055 24.17 1055
20.2 1026,36 24.25 1055
20.6 1015 24.27 1055
20.7 1028 24.28 716
20.8 1020 24.31 1031
20.13 1028 25.1 1066
22.3 1020 25.7 1020
22.6 1018 25.9 1059
22.8 1020 25.14 1055
22.17 1021 25.26 1030
22.22 1051,78–9 26.1 1014
22.30 1022 26.7 1032,36,40 717
22.34 1033,36 28.6 1021
23.1 1028 28.7 1028
23.6 1021 29.1 1055
24.1 1065–6 29.2 1021
24.2 1027 29.3 1036
24.12 1036 29.6 1036
5. Collation of Mosaic and Roman Laws

(Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum, Collatio)
1.6.1 716 829 12.7.6 6387 721–2,28

2.2.1 106 12.7.8 2125
2.4.1 2322 12.7.9 6207
3.3.2 394 14.3.2 116 2126
3.3.3 394 14.3.3–5 10139
6.2.1–4 106,14 15.2.1 2568–9
7.4.1 2113 15.2.2 2480
8.3 829 15.2.5 2576
11.7.5 2817 16.4.1–2 106,14
12.5.2 2480,656 16.7 958
12.7.4 6387 16.9.2 959
12.7.5 6387 16.9.3 1053
6. Theodosian Code (Codex Theodosianus, CTh.)
1.4.1 550 6.4.9 1349

1.4.2 1094 7.20.2 10196
1.4.3 1115 7.22.2 10207
2.8.18 854 8.8.3 854
2.8.19 847 8.16.1 1016
3.12.1 1017 11.7.5 2817
246 Table II
11.7.13 854 12.17.1 pr 10205

12.1.7 10207 15.2.5 2576
12.1.18 10207 15.5.2 854
12.1.19 10207 15.5.5 855
12.17.1 10213
7. Visigothic Epitome of the Codes of Gregorius and Hermogenianus

(Epit. Cod. Greg. Herm. Visi.)
13.14.1 10118 14.1 1299
8. Justinian’s Digest (Iustiniani Digesta, D.)
C Deo auctore 4 54 1.5.4.1 3107

C Deo auctore 6 551 1116 1.5.8 713
C Deo auctore 8 54 1.5.10 249,256
C Deo auctore 9 54 1.5.17 1259 730–1 822
C Tanta 1 53 1.5.24 330
C Tanta 10 54,5 1.6.2 2815 394 6352
C Tanta 15 54 1.6.6 2188,447
1.1.1 pr 1362 2771 37 995–6 1052 1.7.7.27 10163
1.1.1.1 2134, 228,556 37 1.7.15.2 2140,504 2504
1.1.1.2 370 426 1.7.17.4 2603
1.1.1.3 2278 357 1.7.32.1 713
1.1.4 2416 333,104 961 1.7.39 6353
1.1.6 pr 2263,266 2263 1.9.1 pr 1252 386 912,19
1.1.10 pr 34 10124 1.9.1.1 2803
1.1.10.1 34 10125,143 1.9.8 2503
1.1.10.2 10126 1.9.10 2132
1.1.11 310 1.9.12 pr 2793 911–2
1.2.1 2232 373 1.10.1.2 2172
1.2.2 pr 2231 1.12.1 pr 995–6
1.2.2.44 2792 1.12.1.3 986
1.2.2.52 1071 1.12.1.4 6355
1.3.2 341,63,126 680 1.12.1.5 2359
1.3.3 3125 1.12.1.8 2322,582,804 980–1,95–6
1.3.5 2793 1.12.1.10 2636 978
1.3.13 420 1.12.1.14 995–6
1.3.30 3135 680 1.13.1 pr 2704 532
1.4.1 pr 961 1.13.1.3 2790 530 973,102
1.4.1.2 6368 1.14.3 252 3150
1.4.2 3158 1.15.2 2468
1.5.1 pr 3166 6368 1.15.4 99,95–6
1.5.1.8 717 1.16.4 pr 623–4,29–30
1.16.4.2 2113 2.7.3 pr 2358

1.16.4.3 2541 94 2.7.4 pr 2433 1058
1.16.4.5 1164 836 1111 2.8.2.3 2322 7112,117
1.16.4.6 2792 2.8.2.5 2142 7117
1.16.6.3 2772 447 6352 825 2.8.15.5 2304
1.16.7 pr 2754 2.9.2.1 6314
1.16.9.2 2634 2.10.1 pr 958
1.16.9.3 2669 2.10.1.3 7111–2
1.16.9.4 95,29 2.11.2.1 2720
1.16.9.5 2786 3116 2.11.2.2 2402
1.16.10 pr 2162 2.11.2.3 2459
1.17.1 716 829 2.11.2.8 2401,441,443
1.18.6 pr 10182 2.11.4.1 2183,335,514
1.18.6.1 10182 2.12.1 pr 849
1.18.6.2 10166,182 2.12.1.1 2327,604
1.18.6.3 10164,182 2.12.2 2645
1.18.6.4 10182 2.13.1 pr 3159
1.18.6.5 10182 2.13.4.1 3159
1.18.6.6 10165,182 2.13.4.5 2410 7120
1.18.6.7 10165 2.13.6.9 290
1.18.6.9 10167,182 2.13.8 pr 446
1.18.7 10168,182 2.14.1 pr 3160,166
1.18.13 pr 2753 2.14.1.2 284
1.18.13.1 2487 2.14.1.3 2771
1.19.1.2 2418 2.14.7.2 27713135
1.22.1 1127 2.14.7.5 2275,303,431 695 7116 915
1.22.6 1133 2.14.7.6 2768
2.1.1 10145 2.14.7.8 2141 415 7122
2.1.3 2643 533 977,102–3 2.14.7.9 2618
2.1.7 pr 7120–1 2.14.7.10 2771
2.1.7.2 2319 2.14.7.14 2550
2.1.15 2196 2.14.7.18 7122
2.1.17 10187 2.14.9 pr 2104,433 1058
2.1.19 pr 10257 2.14.10 pr 2771
2.2.1 pr 2192 3159 2.14.10.2 2275 7116
2.2.1.2 7113,115 2.14.12 2533 6186
2.2.3.1 2438 2.14.27 pr 6253
2.2.3.3 7111–2 2.14.27.2 6115
2.2.3.4 250 2.14.30.2 270
2.2.4 2771 2.14.46 6370
2.4.4.2 2422 2.14.49 2198
2.4.8.1 2106 2.14.52.1 10162–3
2.4.10.2 7113 2.14.52.2 10180
2.4.10.5 7112 2.14.52.3 10166,208
2.4.10.9 7113 2.14.53 10163
2.7.1 pr 3164 2.15.3 10211
2.7.1.2 2190 2.15.7.2 6383
248 Table II
2.15.8.9 2394 969 3.3.35.3 2457

2.15.8.17 2337 3.3.37.1 2413
2.15.8.20 2150 3.3.39 pr 2135
2.15.8.22 2336 3.3.39.1 2148,351
2.15.8.24 2351 3.3.39.4 7119–20
2.15.8.25 2106 3.3.39.6 2417
2.15.9.2 10169 3.3.40.2 7111–2
2.15.9.3 10180 3.3.40.3 7111–2
2.15.10 10231 3.3.61 2408
2.15.12 2443 3.3.74 10183
3.1.1 pr 2548 3156 3.3.78 pr 2689
3.1.1.1 2109 3.4 2823
3.1.1.3 96 3.4.2 2303 7111–2
3.1.1.5 210,285,667,711,714 3.4.5 2165,824
3.1.1.6 2720 3.4.6 pr 2408,825
3.1.1.7 7122–3 3.4.6.1 2201
3.1.1.9 2422 3.4.6.2 254–5
3.1.1.10 275,289,438 7119–20 3.4.7 pr 3161
3.1.1.11 7122–3 3.5.1 3148
3.1.5.5 7119–20 3.5.3.1 2431
3.1.6 2435 3.5.3.2 2422
3.1.8 713 3.5.3.4 6398
3.1.15 2498 3.5.3.9 2192,349
3.2.2 pr 7111–2 3.5.3.11 251
3.2.2.1 2322 3.5.5.3 2151
3.2.2.2 2414,417,769 7120–1 924 3.5.5.5 2504
3.2.2.5 6324 3.5.5.8 275
3.2.4.2 1166 3.5.5.11 6145–6
3.2.6 pr 2422 3.5.5.13 2564 6146
3.2.6.6 2440 930 3.5.5.14 2158
3.2.11.3 2686 3.5.9.1 2214,247 6321 7119–20
3.2.13.6 2465 3.5.11.1 2364
3.2.13.7 2108,700 6385 3.5.13 2335
3.2.19 2399 3.5.18.4 2131
3.2.23 2104 3.5.27 2410
3.2.24 78–9 3.5.28 2408
3.3.1.2 2792 3.5.30.2 549
3.3.13 2777 451 92 3.5.33 pr 10165
3.3.17 7122–3 3.5.43 838–9
3.3.25 2196,359,404 3.5.44.2 10180
3.3.27 pr 932 3.6.1.3 721–2,84 821
3.3.27.1 2364 3.6.3.3 2165,325 7111–2 931
3.3.28 2106 3.6.5 pr 2410
3.3.33 pr 2248–9,252 7119–20 3.6.5.1 2259
3.3.33.1 2171 7119–20 3.6.8 10163
3.3.33.2 721–3 4.1.1 2541,618 3148,163 94
3.3.33.5 2303 4.1.6 2135,410,629,769
4.2.3.1 2157 4.4.3.6 2150

4.2.4 2207 4.4.3.7 2629
4.2.7 pr 6145 4.4.3.10 2629
4.2.7.1 7122–3 4.4.4 pr 3160,167
4.2.9 pr 270 4.4.5 2629
4.2.9.1 2339,771 4.4.7 pr 2795
4.2.9.3 1129 721–2 915 4.4.7.1 2629
4.2.9.6 7111–2 4.4.7.2 2187
4.2.9.8 2184 4.4.7.3 2579
4.2.14.4 7122–3 4.4.7.4 2629
4.2.14.5 2821 6145 4.4.7.5 2629
4.2.14.10 7122–3 4.4.7.7 2629
4.2.14.11 2492 4.4.7.8 2371,770,773,777 92
4.2.16 pr 7122–3 4.4.7.9 6384
4.2.16.1 2166 4.4.7.10 721–2
4.2.16.2 2414 7120–1 4.4.7.11 2150
4.2.17 2304 4.4.9.2 2629
4.2.21.4 270 4.4.9.4 2351
4.2.23.1 10182 4.4.9.5 2321 6368
4.2.23.2 10173 4.4.11 pr 721–2,28
4.2.23.3 10163,171–3,179,182 4.4.11.1 2303 6110
4.3.1 pr 2618,640 3163 4.4.11.2 1237,253 2629 721–2,29
4.3.1.2 2618–9 4.4.11.3 2629,757
4.3.1.4 6145 4.4.11.4 2629,694,749,764
4.3.1.8 2133 4.4.11.5 2629
4.3.2 1137 915 4.4.11.6 2460,629
4.3.3 2133 4.4.13 pr 225,32,527,608,629 932
4.3.7 pr 2771 4.4.13.1 2146,148
4.3.7.3 2184 4.4.16 pr 2140 932
4.3.7.8 2212 4.4.18.1 2629,787,793 721–2,25,28
4.3.7.9 2364 4.4.18.2 721–2,75
4.3.7.10 2618 4.4.18.3 721–2,25,28,75
4.3.9.1 2736 95 4.4.18.5 2135
4.3.9.3 2550 649,238 4.4.19 2147,410 7120–1
4.3.9.4a 648 4.4.20.1 2414,769 7120–1
4.3.13 pr 2364 4.4.22 2106 721–2,26,30
4.3.13.1 2210 4.4.25 2351
4.3.33 10163 4.4.29 pr 2629
4.3.38 10170 4.4.40.1 10167
4.4.1 pr 331 4.4.44 10163
4.4.2 840–1 4.4.45.1 717
4.4.3 pr 2267,624,793 721–2,24,28 4.6.1 pr 2104
4.4.3.1 2247,410,618,740 644 7120–1 4.6.8 717
4.4.3.2 2246,437 4.6.10 2549
4.4.3.3 2307,629 4.6.13.1 2436
4.4.3.4 250,210,395,629 716,111–2 829 4.6.15.3 2521
4.4.3.5 2629 4.6.21.1 2165,325 931
250 Table II
4.6.21.3 2323 5.1.2.5 2154,771

4.6.23.4 2150 5.1.5 2514 6314
4.6.26.4 2103 5.1.18.1 268,523
4.6.26.5 2321 5.1.19.1 2728
4.6.26.9 2167,178,367,414,720 5.1.19.2 2193,513,522,707,723,728 3135
4.6.28 pr 2104 9130
4.6.28.1 2629 5.1.19.4 2183
4.6.28.3 2142,259 5.1.36.1 688
4.6.38 pr 2326 5.1.37 3119
4.6.38.1 2171 5.1.45 pr 2433
4.6.40.1 10163 5.1.50 pr 467
4.7.4.1 2510 5.1.50.1 2151,662 467 955
4.7.4.2 2135,156 6145–6 5.1.52.2 2178
4.7.4.3 2514 5.1.52.3 2723
4.7.8.5 1076 5.1.52.4 250,723
4.8.3.1 2150,665 5.1.61 pr 2275 96
4.8.7 pr 218 647,145 5.1.82 982
4.8.7.1 2151 5.2.8.2 2769
4.8.11.2 2428 5.2.8.6 2797
4.8.11.5 956 5.2.8.9 2323
4.8.13.2 2461 6145–6 93 5.2.8.11 2176
4.8.13.4 2336 5.2.8.14 2162
4.8.15 2148,777 92 5.2.23 pr 2142
4.8.17.4 2239,361 5.2.29 pr 10209
4.8.19.2 2433 1058 5.2.29.2 10211
4.8.21 pr 2151 5.2.29.3 10163
4.8.21.1 6229 5.3.3.6 2247
4.8.21.3 2422 5.3.9 2796
4.8.21.4 2193 5.3.11 pr 2126 6187,194
4.8.21.9 6242 5.3.13.1 2188
4.8.21.10 2151,179,723–724 5.3.13.3 6133,135
4.8.21.11 298,438,771 5.3.13.4 2438
4.8.25.1 2461 93 5.3.13.5 2690
4.8.28 2433 1058 5.3.13.8 2189
4.8.29 3135 5.3.13.9 2336
4.8.31 2351,736,740 5.3.13.10 794
4.8.32.16 254 5.3.16 pr 6215
4.9.1.1 3148,152 5.3.18 pr 2188
4.9.1.3 3135 5.3.20.12 721–2,29
4.9.1.5 2322 5.3.20.15 2322
4.9.1.7 218 5.3.23 pr 2142
4.9.3.1 2158 5.3.25.5 2201,436,740
4.9.3.3 2363 5.3.25.6 250
4.9.7.3 2336 5.3.25.8 2226,424 928
5.1.2 pr 7111–2 5.3.25.9 263,306
5.1.2.3 2600 5.3.25.11 2460
5.1.2.4 2456 5.3.25.15 2436
5.3.25.17 2151 7.1.22 2264

5.3.31 pr 2150 7.1.23.1 6156
5.3.31.1 2151 7.1.25.1 2147,151,244
5.3.31.2 2168 7.1.25.3 2154
5.3.31.4 930 7.1.25.5 297,158,796
5.3.37 2336 7.1.25.6 2244 6110
5.3.43 717 7.1.25.7 6328
5.4.1.4 2324 7.1.27.1 2738
5.4.1.5 410 7.1.43 2761
5.4.3 3125 7.1.60 pr 2152
6.1.1.2 221,158 7.1.68 pr 2151
6.1.1.3 2126 7.1.70 pr 6156,158
6.1.5.1 2303 7.1.70.2 6156
6.1.6 270,726 7.1.70.4 2435
6.1.9 2127,331 7.1.72 6124,128–9
6.1.13 2150 7.2.1.1 2438
6.1.15.1 2343 7.2.1.3 2147,771 6309
6.1.15.3 2184 7.2.3 pr 6133,136
6.1.35 pr 684 7.2.3.2 6295
6.1.35.1 6317 7.2.4 2143
6.1.37 2435 7.2.8 2106
6.1.78 2426 7.4.1 pr 272,201
6.2.7.13 2126,400 7.4.1.2 2734
6.2.7.17 2297 7.4.3 pr 6128 955
6.2.9.1 2321 7.4.3.2 2193
6.2.11 pr 721–2,29 7.4.5 pr 2112
6.2.11.3 2147–8 7.4.5.2 2706
7.1.3.1 2131 7.4.10 pr 2151
7.1.7.1 2189,583 7.4.10.1 2131,303
7.1.7.3 6133,135,156,259 7.4.10.5 6208
7.1.9.2 2189 7.4.10.7 2149,189
7.1.9.4 2194 7.4.10.11 2229
7.1.9.5 6156 7.4.29.2 2184
7.1.12 pr 2189 661 7.5.3 2184
7.1.12.2 2151 6327,333 7.5.5.1 2526,655
7.1.12.3 413 943 7.5.5.2 2526
7.1.12.4 218,193 7.5.10.1 2375
7.1.12.5 2438 7.5.11 2367
7.1.13.2 2103 7.6.1.1 2351
7.1.13.3 251,189 7.6.1.3 298,139,141,438
7.1.13.4 2671 10131 7.6.5.1 2141
7.1.13.5 251,413 7.6.5.6 2331
7.1.13.7 2507 7.8.1.4 6322
7.1.13.8 2422,665 7.8.2.1 2135,154,218 649,62,238,292
7.1.15.2 2799 951,55
7.1.17 pr 2150 7.8.4 pr 2378,677 929
7.1.17.1 6259 7.8.4.1 2106 625
252 Table II
7.8.6 271 6258 9.2.9.1 226,609

7.8.10 pr 2103 9.2.10 234
7.8.10.1 3135 9.2.11.8 2364
7.8.10.2 2139,142 9.2.11.10 251
7.8.10.3 2141 9.2.16 234
7.8.10.4 848 9.2.20 234
7.8.12 pr 848 9.2.21.1 2290
7.8.12.1 2190,526 9.2.21.2 2253
7.9.1.2 2183 9.2.22 pr 244,46
7.9.1.7 2146 9.2.23.4 2820
7.9.3.1 2321 9.2.25.2 2165
7.9.3.4 295 9.2.27.1 6209
7.9.7 pr 2193 9.2.27.3 2718
7.9.9 pr 285 9.2.27.9 2297
7.9.9.1 2183 9.2.27.11 2193
8.1.20 2207 9.2.27.17 2322,358,614
8.2.3 2417 9.2.27.25 6213
8.2.17 pr 2723 9.2.27.28 2358
8.2.17.1 2106 9.2.27.29 2351
8.2.17.2 3135 9.2.27.30 2664
8.3.1.1 2532 9.2.27.31 2448
8.3.3 pr 6133,135 9.2.29 pr 2723
8.3.3.2 6133,135 9.2.29.1 721–2,29
8.3.3.3 6133,135 9.2.29.2 2201
8.3.16 3119 9.2.29.7 2814
8.3.5.1 2532 6133,138,242 9.2.35 234
8.3.35 2101 9.2.41 pr 2114 543
8.4.2 721–2 9.2.41.1 271
8.4.6 pr 2201 9.2.45 pr 2430
8.4.6.2 2120 9.2.49.1 2321
8.4.13 pr 10189 9.2.50 10181
8.4.13.1 10111,166 9.2.51.2 2233
8.4.18 684 9.3.1.1 3148
8.5.8.5 210,106 9.3.1.2 2504
8.5.10.1 2131 9.3.5.2 2147–8
8.5.15 10163 9.3.5.5 2113
9.1.1.4 2445,628 9.3.5.11 2247
9.1.1.6 2575 9.4.2.1 2193,286
9.1.1.7 210,339 358 9.4.2.8 296
9.1.1.15 2146 9.4.3 2431
9.2.5.1 2322 988 9.4.5.1 2135
9.2.5.2 2270,718 9.4.8 2196
9.2.6 234 9.4.31 2433
9.2.7.1 2795 9.4.35 2122
9.2.7.3 2364 433 9.4.38 pr 2201
9.2.7.4 2339 9.4.38.3 2152
9.2.7.8 2785 9.4.42.2 966
10.1.4.1 2408 11.1.11.7 2578

10.1.4.8 2433 1058 11.1.11.8 2171,670,720
10.1.8 pr 10182 11.1.11.11 446
10.1.8.1 10167,180 11.1.11.12 2718
10.2.4.3 2627 11.1.16 pr 2117
10.2.8 pr 2627 11.1.16.1 2117
10.2.18.1 298,818 11.3.1.1 2243
10.2.18.3 721–2,27,29,81 11.3.3 pr 2618
10.2.18.4 2771 11.3.5 pr 2463
10.2.20.1 721–2 11.3.9 pr 2534
10.2.20.3 2159 11.3.9.1 2545
10.2.20.7 3135 11.3.9.3 2154,546
10.2.29 2408 11.3.11 pr 2189
10.2.41 684 11.3.11.1 2546
10.2.49 275,132,326,339,512 429 11.3.14.2 270
10.2.50 10180 11.3.14.9 2147
10.2.53 10229 11.4.1.2 2454
10.2.54 2141 11.4.1.5 2422 647
10.3.4.4 2109 11.5.1.2 2165,428
10.3.6.4 6244 11.5.1.3 279
10.3.6.6 6237 11.6.1 pr 3165
10.3.6.9 2331 11.6.1.1 2152,785
10.3.7.8 2193 11.6.3 pr 2740
10.3.7.13 2122,140,152,771 11.6.5 pr 2365
10.3.12 2358 11.6.7.2 2103
10.3.14.1 1076 11.6.7.3 730–1,69
10.3.21 2722 11.7.2.1 2185
10.3.23 2142 11.7.2.8 2193
10.4.1 2792 3149 11.7.4 2150,297
10.4.3.2 2165 11.7.4.3 2433
10.4.3.9 2135 11.7.6 pr 2445,769
10.4.3.11 2771 11.7.8 pr 2154
10.4.3.14 2506 11.7.8.2 2384
10.4.7.4 2178 11.7.12 pr 730–1,37,57,67
10.4.9 pr 2448 11.7.12.3 3155
10.4.9.2 2740 11.7.14.2 2187
10.4.9.8 6134 11.7.14.3 2553
10.4.11 pr 2720 11.7.14.7 2781 730–1,36
10.4.11.1 2147,210,618,720,723 11.7.14.11 2436
10.4.18 10170 11.7.14.13 424,28
10.4.19.1 2188 11.7.14.14 2810
11.1.2 3154 11.7.20 pr 2151
11.1.4.1 2431 11.7.20.1 2693
11.1.9.4 2135,327,758 11.7.31 pr 2111
11.1.11.3 2147 11.7.43 1057
11.1.11.4 2513 11.8.1.3 2315
11.1.11.5 3135 11.8.1.6 2469
254 Table II
11.8.1.8 2135,723 12.5.4.3 2762 6291

11.8.3 716 12.6.3 713
11.8.4 10229 12.6.9 2513
12.1.1 pr 66 12.6.15 pr 2433 1058
12.1.1.1 645 12.6.21 2433
12.1.6 6149 12.6.23 pr 2771
12.1.7 6113 12.6.23.1 84–5,8
12.1.8 245 12.6.25 10239
12.1.9.3 2351 12.6.26 pr 731–2,69
12.1.9.8 2770 12.6.26.12 2148
12.1.10.4 3130 12.6.26.13 2438
12.1.11 pr 2154,550 12.6.64 3111
12.1 12 pr 2152 12.7.1 pr 2417
12.1.18 pr 434 13.1.10.2 2339,800
12.1.24 104,95,99,114 13.1.12 pr 2771
12.1.26 10163,177 13.1.12.1 2771
12.1.40 1142 6102 13.1.12.2 6133,135
12.2.3 pr 2709 13.1.17 2201
12.2.5 pr 2389 13.3.1 pr 2167
12.2.5.1 366 13.3.3 2391,400 3134–5
12.2.5.3 366 13.4.1.19 430
12.2.7 2321 13.4.2.3 2259,534 6110–1
12.2.9.4 2629 13.4.2.8 2723 6289
12.2.9.6 2193 13.4.4.1 2473 424,29
12.2.11.1 2326 13.5.1 pr 2197 331,160
12.2.11.2 2526 13.5.1.1 2431
12.2.11.3 2342 13.5.14.1 2480
12.2.13.2 3135 10101 13.5.14.2 2151
12.2.13.6 730–1,34,53,67 13.5.16.1 2723
12.2.16 7111–2 13.5.16.4 2277
12.2.30.2 2408 13.5.27 2201
12.2.34 pr 2151 13.6.1.1 2165 6305
12.2.34.7 2196 13.6.3.4 2358
12.3.1 2243 13.6.3.6 2586
12.3.4 pr 2197,769 733–4,36,54,65 13.6.5.2 2410
12.3.4.1 733–4,36,54,65 13.6.5.8 2135
12.3.4.2 2221 13.6.5.11 278
12.3.10 6360 13.6.5.13 6307
12.4.3.1 733–4 13.6.7.1 2720
12.4.3.5 6133,135 13.6.7.8 2193
12.4.3.7 272 331 6335 959 13.6.12.1 2444
12.4.3.8 2783,811 13.6.13.2 2305
12.4.5.4 2178 13.6.18 pr 2322
12.4.7 pr 6248,299 13.6.18.1 2143
12.4.13 674 13.7.4 2132
12.5.2.2 731,36,84 821 13.7.8 pr 2150
12.5.4 pr 6331 13.7.9.1 2130
13.7.9.3 2167,308 14.4.5.16 2591

13.7.11.4 2194 14.4.7 pr 2150,670
13.7.11.5 2562 14.4.7.1 2192,349
13.7.11.6 732–3,36 14.4.9.2 2194,259,484
13.7.13 pr 2414 6381 14.5.2.1 2720
13.7.16.1 244,47 14.5.4.1 2146
13.7.24 pr 2771 14.5.4.4 275
13.7.24.1 261,676 14.5.4.5 2193,514
13.7.24.2 260 14.6.3.3 975
13.7.26 pr 2769 838–9 14.6.7 pr 6133,136
13.7.27 10163 14.6.7.3 2427
13.7.36 pr 2414,769,820 7120–1 14.6.7.11 2115
13.7.36.1 2629 14.6.7.12 2339
14.1.1 pr 3148 14.6.9.3 2135
14.1.1.5 293,150–1,252 14.6.14 2515
14.1.1.6 2201,287,648 14.4.7.1 2151
14.1.1.8 2189 15.1.1 pr 2111
14.1.1.12 3135 915 15.1.1.6 2135
14.1.1.15 2583 463 15.1.3.2 2201
14.1.1.16 463 15.1.3.5 955
14.1.1.20 2259 420 15.1.3.6 2135,154
14.1.1.21 2322 15.1.3.7 2423 927
14.2.2 pr 2721 15.1.3.9 2580
14.2.4.2 2433 689 1056 15.1.5 pr 2629
14.2.10.1 2723 15.1.5.4 6282
14.3.1 2149 3159,162 15.1.7.3 6145–6
14.3.5.1 6189 15.1.7.7 330
14.3.5.2 2594 15.1.9.1 6133,136
14.3.5.17 2103 15.1.9.4 2771
14.3.7.1 2201 15.1.9.5 2742
14.3.11 pr 2336 15.1.9.6 2152,154
14.3.11.3 2443 3114 15.1.9.7 3100
14.3.11.5 2336,615 15.1.11.2 2189,247 331
14.3.13.1 2162 15.1.11.3 2154
14.3.13.2 2245 15.1.11.7 2315
14.3.15 2183 15.1.11.9 2133 942
14.4.1 pr 3148 15.1.17 6242
14.4.1.1 6145 15.1.19.1 2809
14.4.1.3 2351 15.1.21 pr 232
14.4.1.5 2135 15.1.26 2408
14.4.3.2 2244 15.1.30 pr 6332
14.4.5 pr 2171,236 15.1.30.2 2152
14.4.5.3 2201 15.1.30.6 2343
14.4.5.7 218,413 15.1.32 pr 435
14.4.5.8 2151 15.1.36 2210,409
14.4.5.9 2405 15.1.40 pr 2771
14.4.5.13 2720 15.1.41 2271,261
256 Table II
15.1.47.4 2130 16.3.5.1 2726

15.1.49 2135 16.3.7 pr 446
15.2.1.7 275,138,154,363 16.3.7.2 2112
15.2.1.8 2506 16.3.7.3 261
15.2.1.10 210 16.3.11 2130,440
15.3.1.2 272,97 16.3.14.1 2143
15.3.3.1 2152 16.3.24 2410 552
15.3.3.2 2796 17.1.6.1 2363
15.3.3.4 2469 17.1.6.7 2618–9,819 911–2
15.3.3.6 2103 17.1.8.4 2139
15.3.3.9 2151,618 17.1.8.6 2315
15.3.3.10 2149,435 17.1.8.8 2151
15.3.7.3 930 17.1.10.3 2326
15.3.7.5 2190 17.1.10.7 2625
15.3.10.2 2506 17.1.10.8 661
15.3.10.6 232 17.1.12.2 2159
15.3.10.8 2263,276 17.1.12.5 2193
15.3.13 2189 17.1.12.9 2132,336,410,493
15.4.1.2 2214 17.1.12.10 732–3,68
15.4.3 10229 17.1.12.14 2818
16.1.2 pr 716 829 17.1.14 pr 2108
16.1.2.3 2455,618,736 732–3,70 17.1.19 2771
16.1.4 732–3,36 17.1.22.4 2721
16.1.6 2159 17.1.29 pr 2178 944
16.1.8 pr 2593 17.1.29.3 262,111,187
16.1.8.10 2493 17.1.29.4 2536
16.1.8.13 2223 17.1.29.5 2618
16.1.13.2 2515 17.1.29.6 2720
16.1.32.2 254 17.1.49 254
16.2.5 2721 17.1.58 2207
16.2.9.1 270 17.1.60.2 2112
16.2.10.2 2791 17.2.5 pr 10234
16.2.13 2194 17.2.14 2151,771
16.3.1.1 2293 17.2.29.2 2235
16.3.1.2 3149 17.2.33 2116
16.3.1.4 3149 17.2.52.5 732–3,68
16.3.1.10 2113 17.2.52.10 2150
16.3.1.11 2438 17.2.52.16 10234–5
16.3.1.12 2436 17.2.52.17 10234–5
16.3.1.18 2275 17.2.52.18 2106 6245,251 10234–5
16.3.1.27 2336 17.2.55 2223 442
16.3.1.33 2190,771 17.2.58 pr 2506 955
16.3.1.36 2525 17.2.62 6255
16.3.1.38 2210 17.2.63 pr 2118
16.3.1.42 2629 17.2.63.3 221,158
16.3.1.47 2145 17.2.63.5 2192,349
16.3.3 2443 17.2.63.6 2247
17.2.63.8 2114,268 19.1.11.12 6133,136

17.2.65.3 2408 19.1.11.16 2244
17.2.65.8 6343 19.1.11.18 221,60,114,158
17.2.73 10228,233 19.1.13 pr 2385
18.1.1.1 3121 19.1.13.3 248,106,573 465
18.1.9.2 3135 19.1.13.5 2106
18.1.15.2 2304 19.1.13.7 2170
18.1.18.1 6342 19.1.13.9 249
18.1.24 2761 19.1.13.14 2188
18.1.28 2172 19.1.13.20 2720
18.1.35.2 2190 19.1.13.22 6230
18.1.45 678 19.1.13.25 2106,836
18.1.57.2 2506 684 19.1.13.31 2275
18.1.58 2143 19.1.17.6 2761 6274
18.1.79 6235 19.1.17.7 2114
18.2.2 pr 2154 19.1.24.1 6299
18.2.4.5 2152,771 19.1.32 2193
18.2.4.6 2315 19.1.43 168 6100 105,225
18.2.9 2151,496 19.2.9.1 2151,720 732–3,37,59,65
18.2.11 pr 2760 6163–4 19.2.9.4 732–3,37,57,67
18.2.16 2187 732–3,68 19.2.11 pr 2142
18.3.4 pr 732–3,37,58,65 19.2.13.3 2151
18.3.4.1 2193 19.2.13.5 2440
18.3.4.2 2771 19.2.13.6 2499
18.3.4.4 260 19.2.13.8 6275
18.4.2.3 251,186 9120 19.2.13.11 2490,611
18.4.2.4 2130 19.2.15.2 2559,623
18.4.2.6 276 19.2.15.4 2151
18.4.2.7 281,188 19.2.15.5 1206 2557 732–3
18.4.2.10 248 19.2.15.6 732–3,38 89
18.4.2.11 2327,339 19.2.19 pr 2440
18.4.2.16 2327 19.2.19.2 283.431
18.4.2.17 2210 661,239 19.2.19.6 2820
18.5.3 254 19.2.19.8 9119
18.6.1 pr 2326 19.2.19.9 732–3,37,59,65
18.6.2.1 253–4,142 19.2.25.2 2598
18.6.4 pr 269,210,670 19.2.25.6 3127
18.6.4.2 2244,321 19.2.49 pr 717
18.6.18 2183 19.4.1.1 10136
18.7.1 2511,725 19.5.4 330
18.7.10 6370 19.5.5.2 2433
19.1.4.1 2433 1058 19.5.5.4 1079
19.1.7 2515 19.5.14.3 2358 432
19.1.10 2186 9120 19.5.20 pr 2558
19.1.11.3 2238 6300 936 19.5.20.1 2435,558
19.1.11.5 2114 19.5.21 429
19.1.11.6 2214,718 20.1.6 2792
258 Table II
20.1.11.1 3136 21.1.14.8 2614 3135

20.1.11.2 673 21.1.14.10 6154
20.1.13.2 675 21.1.17.1 6153
20.1.15.1 2770 21.1.17.3 2784
20.1.16.6 2110 21.1.17.4 2451,464 6141
20.1.16.8 270,305 21.1.17.14 2668 686
20.1.21.1 2193 21.1.17.16 6153
20.1.27 544,48 21.1.17.19 2336
20.2.1 514 21.1.19.4 2183,423,661 927
20.2.2 675 21.1.21 pr 2593
20.2.3 6140 21.1.23.2 2321
20.2.5 675 21.1.23.3 2451
20.3.1.2 679 21.1.23.9 292,106 6146
20.4.9 pr 2515 21.1.25.2 2422
20.4.10 10229 21.1.25.3 640
20.4.12.5 673 21.1.25.7 2165
20.4.12.6 673 21.1.25.10 2111
20.4.12.9 673 21.1.27 2322
20.5.7 676 21.1.29 pr 2183
20.5.12 pr 690 21.1.31.12 2322,518
20.5.12.1 691 21.1.31.18 930
20.6.4.1 2315 21.1.31.23 932
20.6.8.7 2114 21.1.33 pr 2189
20.6.8.11 2426 21.1.35 3101
20.6.8.14 2408 21.1.37 2127,639
20.6.15 10244 21.1.38.3 2404
21.1.1.2 2113,618 3163 21.1.38.4 291
21.1.1.3 2183 21.1.38.7 2126,561
21.1.1.5 2339 21.1.38.10 2130–1
21.1.1.7 3135 21.1.38.11 6153
21.1.1.8 2164,524 21.1.41 296
21.1.1.9 2147,156,644 3135 6141 21.1.49 2191 950
21.1.1.10 2116 21.1.59 pr 2513
21.1.4.2 2567,649 21.1.59.1 2381
21.1.4.3 2628,674 21.2.4 pr 279
21.1.4.4 2149 21.2.16 pr 2408
21.1.4.5 931 21.2.17 2169
21.1.4.6 929 21.2.21.1 2771
21.1.4.9 2683 21.2.21.3 2159
21.1.6.1 2190,652 21.2.24 296
21.1.8 267 21.2.37.1 2321,634
21.1.9 3135 21.2.50 2530
21.1.10.1 6280 21.2.52 75
21.1.10.4 3135 22.1.3 pr 713
21.1.12.1 2390 22.1.3.2 2433 1057
21.1.12.2 2650 22.1.3.3 1139
21.1.14.4 2606 22.1.3.4 2583
22.1.19 2771 23.3.5.11 2169

22.1.31 10229 23.3.9.3 1270 248,50,278 3130 84–5,8
22.1.32 pr 675 23.3.12.1 2452
22.1.33 pr 2112,552,574,622,624, 636,659 23.3.16 2192
449 979–81,91 23.3.23 2265
22.1.37 2410 7120–1 23.3.33 2196,321
22.1.38.14 254 23.3.34 2664
22.2.1 2727 23.3.38 1077
22.3.9 2117 23.3.39.1 2227
22.3.18.2 2303 23.3.40 732–3,69
22.3.22 10229 23.3.43 pr 6113
22.3.26 685,361 23.3.51 10229
22.3.28 3132 23.3.56.3 270 6115
22.3.30 10228 23.4.4 2210,227,452
22.3.31 10228 23.4.6 2106
22.5.12 2465,554 23.4.11 2712 732–3,69
22.5.13 2114 23.4.17 6250
22.5.17 1015 23.4.25 10229
22.6.6 2196,547,637–8 448 23.5.13.4 6114
23.1.4.1 2770 24.1.3 pr 84–5,10
23.1.9 812 24.1.3.1 84–5,7
23.1.10 460 24.1.3.3 2277
23.1.16 717 24.1.3.9 2130
23.1.18 2201 24.1.5.1 2223
23.2.9 pr 2500 24.1.5.13 2598
23.2.12.2 2106 24.1.5.15 2172,193,258
23.2.12.4 943 24.1.7 pr 84–5,8
23.2.14.4 716 943 24.1.7.3 2326,395
23.2.20 2831 535 24.1.7.4 2771
23.2.27 2117,511 24.1.7.5 84–5,8
23.2.29 250 24.1.7.6 7122 84–5,8
23.2.43 pr 2131 24.1.7.9 2183
23.2.43.1 2607 24.1.11.3 1074
23.2.43.3 2818 24.1.11.5 2106
23.2.43.4 2135 24.1.14 pr 10144
23.2.43.8 2322 24.1.21 pr 249
23.2.45 pr 840–1 24.1.21.1 2151
23.2.45.3 2171 24.1.22 2782
23.2.48 pr 2304 24.1.23 1145 619 82–3,7
23.2.57 2108 24.1.31.3 2179
23.2.60 2831 24.1.31.4 2142
23.2.60 pr 535 24.1.32 pr 2555 7122 84–5,7,10
23.2.60.4 2101–2,155,832 536,104 671 24.1.32.1 84–5
9139 24.1.32.5 2151,781,783
23.3.5.1 2142 24.1.32.12 2518
23.3.5.2 2142 24.1.32.14 249,216,222,247,260
23.3.5.9 2199,818 24.1.32.18 2252
260 Table II
24.1.32.19 84–5,8 25.3.1.10 2771

24.1.32.27 2184,230 811 25.3.1.11 2106
24.1.32.28 248 25.3.1.13 2106
24.1.33.1 2187,805 25.3.5.1 249
24.1.34 2734 25.3.5.2 2141
24.1.40 10231 25.3.5.4 2103,282
24.2.2.3 2143 25.3.5.7 6353
24.2.4 2190 25.3.5.8 2108
24.2.6 296 25.3.5.9 2161
24.2.9 2322 25.3.5.12 2131 967
24.2.11.2 2315 840–1 25.3.5.14 6353
24.3.2.2 2127,500 84–5 25.3.5.19 2319
24.3.7.8 2257 25.3.5.20 2141
24.3.7.12 2178 522,23 25.3.6.1 6363 717
24.3.14 pr 2799 25.4.1 pr 2149
24.3.14.1 2771 25.4.1.2 2466
24.3.17 684 25.4.1.3 2251
24.3.21.6 2804 25.4.1.5 2165
24.3.22.6 2103 936 25.4.1.8 249,336,474
24.3.22.7 2168 344 441 975,87 25.4.1.9 248,161,466
24.3.22.8 2610,618,713 985 25.4.1.11 2117
24.3.24 pr 261 25.4.1.13 2189
24.3.24.2 2196 25.5.1.1 2135
24.3.24.5 2117 25.5.1.2 2808
24.3.37 10229 25.6.1.10 275
24.3.40 2408 25.6.1.11 2129,187
24.3.44 pr 6263 25.7.3.1 674
24.3.64.4 2152 26.1.3 pr 2514
24.3.64.9 2364 26.1.3.1 2145,252,328 84–5,10
24.3.66.1 6235 26.1.3.2 2139 6156
24.3.66.2 6235 26.1.6.4 250
25.1.1 pr 10131 26.1.7 10257
25.1.1.1 2135,351 26.1.14.5 2152
25.1.1.2 2351 26.2.1.1 2515
25.1.1.3 6222 26.2.3.1 2429 988
25.1.3.1 2328 26.2.10.1 2274
25.1.5 pr 2321 26.2.10.2 295,351
25.1.5.1 265 26.2.10.3 2184,500
25.1.7 2114,469 10131 26.2.15 1158
25.1.9 10131 26.2.16 pr 2511
25.1.11 pr 10131 26.2.17.2 2140
25.1.14 pr 10144 26.4.1 pr 2460
25.1.14.2 10130 26.4.1.3 2146
25.2.3.4 6276,279 26.4.2 2172
25.2.17 pr 2326 26.4.3.9 2130–1
25.2.24 10137 26.4.5.3 2124,138
25.3.1.5 2165 26.4.5.4 2138
26.5.6 2103 26.8.5.3 2414,513 84–5,7 99

26.5.7 2131 967 26.8.5.4 2120,736
26.5.8.1 2117,337 26.8.5.5 2152
26.5.12 pr 2514 26.8.5.6 2120
26.5.12.1 2117,749 26.10.1 pr 2694,770 3149
26.5.12.2 6352 26.10.1.3 2259
26.5.18 788–90 26.10.1.4 2327 737,59,65
26.5.24 6380 26.10.1.5 2244
26.6.2.5 166 113 26.10.1.7 6375 733–4,69
26.7.1.3 987 26.10.3 pr 733–4,69
26.7.3.2 2123,244,297 26.10.3.2 2130,564
26.7.3.3 2117 26.10.3.5 2798 976
26.7.3.4 732–3,36,53,67 26.10.3.6 2327
26.7.3.5 2382 26.10.3.7 2336,388
26.7.3.6 2125 26.10.3.9 2564
26.7.3.8 2681 26.10.3.13 733–4,61,66 99
26.7.5.2 2564 26.10.3.16 2794 974
26.7.5.3 2339 26.10.3.17 2788 970
26.7.5.5 249 26.10.3.18 2514
26.7.5.8 2331 26.10.4.2 2595
26.7.5.10 2795 26.10.5 2196
26.7.7 pr 2596 26.10.7.2 839–40
26.7.7.1 2201 450 980–1 26.10.7.3 2793 981
26.7.7.2 2798 446 27.1.2.9 166 112
26.7.7.3 2612 27.1.3 2431
26.7.7.4 732–3,69 27.1.4.1 166 113
26.7.7.7 2511,542 27.1.6.6 827
26.7.7.12 2125 27.1.6.8 6363 717
26.7.9 pr 2769 27.1.6.11 182
26.7.9.1 2297 27.1.6.17 717
26.7.9.6 2108,684 733–4,37,57,67 27.1.7 2351 527 9105
26.7.9.7 2130–1 27.1.8.9 166 518
26.7.9.9 2106 27.1.9 99,106–7
26.7.12.1 716 27.1.10.8 166 9106–7
26.7.19 10229 27.1.13.2 166,70 111
26.7.23 2151,564 27.1.13.6 717
26.7.25 2151 27.1.13.7 717
26.7.28.1 544 27.1.15 pr 717
26.7.29 9128 27.1.15.16 2217 524,27 921,105,109
26.7.37.2 2110 27.1.19 2717
26.7.53 684 27.1.23 pr 10230
26.7.54 272 27.1.31.4 684
26.7.57.1 2515 27.1.44 pr 763
26.7.61 2771 27.1.45.3 2426
26.8.1.1 2606 27.1.45.4 2408
26.8.5 pr 2132 27.1.46.2 762
26.8.5.2 2126,337 27.2.1.1 732–3,68
262 Table II
27.2.1.2 2117,154 27.9.5.12 248

27.2.1.3 2769 732–3,69 27.9.5.14 2326,757
27.2.2.2 2114 27.9.7 pr 2329 939
27.2.3.2 2473 27.9.7.3 2216
27.2.3.3 2779 27.9.7.4 2113
27.3.1.2 2106 27.9.8 pr 2172
27.3.1.3 733–4,69,79 27.9.9 10166,182
27.3.1.4 2184,792 27.9.10 10167,180
27.3.1.11 2336 27.9.11 2181
27.3.1.13 2564 733–4,36,54,65 27.9.13 pr 6105 762
27.3.1.15 2321,769 6387 733– 4,36 27.9.13.1 671,104
27.3.1.19 2351 27.10.1.1 6371
27.3.1.20 260 27.10.5 2515
27.3.5 2193 28.1.5 2141 696 712 830
27.3.17 2193 6353 99,93–4,96 28.1.9 2660
27.3.19 10229 28.1.20.2 2106
27.4.1 pr 3155 28.1.20.3 2423 927
27.4.1.3 2339 28.1.20.7 3102,110
27.4.1.5 249,131 967 28.1.20.9 2577
27.4.1.6 2151 28.1.21.2 2431
27.4.1.7 2213 28.1.21.3 2483
27.4.3 pr 2431 28.1.22.4 2114
27.4.5 10230 28.1.22.5 2251 3135
27.5.1.2 733–4,69,75,79 28.1.22.6 2172
27.5.1.3 2171 28.2.1 261
27.5.1.5 2152,564 28.2.2 10132,258
27.6.1 pr 3159 28.2.3.4 2189
27.6.5 2147 28.2.6 pr 2413 6301,336
27.6.12 10229 28.2.12 pr 2422
27.7.4 pr 267,160,244 6265 28.2.12.1 2151
27.7.4.3 2527 28.2.28.3 296
27.8.1pr 2201,679 28.2.29.5 2244
27.8.1.2 267 547 6372 947 28.3.3.6 2148
27.8.1.4 2679 28.3.6.6 262,187
27.8.1.10 6379 28.3.6.7 2514
27.8.1.17 2755 28.3.6.8 2410,769
27.8.2 10254 28.3.6.9 2151,410,495
27.8.4 2681 446 28.3.6.10 250,410
27.8.6 6371 28.3.12 pr 2108 838–9
27.9.1 pr 733,68 28.4.1.1 2745
27.9.3 pr 733–4,36,54,65 28.4.2 947 10254
27.9.3.4 3135 28.5.1.5 2258,768
27.9.3.5 2103,138 28.5.2.1 2227
27.9.5.3 2327 28.5.3.2 6191
27.9.5.4 248 28.5.3.4 2275,535
27.9.5.9 2583,757 28.5.4.2 2243–4
27.9.5.10 2103,806 28.5.6.2 2275
28.5.6.4 2193 29.1.9.1 2414

28.5.9.2 645 29.1.11 pr 2327
28.5.9.4 2194 29.1.13.2 2167
28.5.9.5 2238 935 29.1.13.3 2511
28.5.9.14 2190 6295–7 29.1.13.4 733–4,36,55,65
28.5.9.20 2152 29.1.15.1 2337
28.5.13.5 649,238 29.1.19 pr 947–8 10254,256
28.5.13.6 649,238 29.1.19.1 2141
28.5.17.1 2189 29.1.19.2 260
28.5.17.4 2438 29.1.28 2114
28.5.17.5 961,238,257 29.1.41.5 2327
28.5.19 6194 29.2.5 pr 2103
28.5.30 730–1 29.2.6.2 2315
28.5.35 pr 2114,323 947 10254 29.2.6.3 82–3
28.5.35.1 272,326,592 525 920 10257 29.2.12 6369
28.5.35.2 2244,565 29.2.13 pr 2598
28.5.35.3 1148 2114,121,512 941 29.2.13.2 2598
28.5.35.5 10257 29.2.17.1 2598
28.5.48 pr 2305–6 29.2.20.1 2513,781,783
28.5.51 pr 10149 29.2.20.2 2475
28.5.51.1 10140 29.2.20.3 626
28.5.52.1 677 29.2.20.4 626
28.5.85.1 2315 29.2.21.1 2146
28.6.2 pr 2321 29.2.21.3 2151,598
28.6.2.4 2123 6387 82–3 911–2 29.2.24 2154
28.6.10.5 2223 29.2.25.2 2414
28.6.10.6 2193,264 6110 29.2.25.4 6156
28.6.16 pr 2408 29.2.30.1 2135,422–3 927
28.6.23 2127 29.3.30.3 2431,463
28.6.38.1 2433 1058 29.2.30.5 2106
28.6.39 pr 6235 29.2.30.6 6185,191
28.6.39.2 6235 29.2.35 pr 2531
28.7.8 pr 2792,816 29.2.40 2771
28.7.8.2 2109 29.2.42 pr 256,187,812
28.7.8.5 2184 29.2.42.3 10255
28.7.8.6 2198 29.2.62 2207
28.7.10 pr 944 29.2.67 10148
28.7.20 pr 3137 29.2.71.1 2180 9117
28.8.3 2103,183 29.2.71.9 2180 9117
28.8.5.1 2682 29.2.86 pr 715
28.8.7.1 3155 29.2.97 6103
28.8.7.2 2131 29.3.2.1 2730
28.8.7.3 2658 29.3.2.7 2141
28.8.8 2180 9117 29.3.8 2118
29.1.1.pr 6358 716 29.3.10.2 2670
29.1.3 2300 911–2,65 29.3.12 2627
29.1.6 2187 29.4.1 pr 2618 3163
264 Table II
29.4.1.1 272,201,513 30.41.4 2179

29.4.1.5 250 30.41.5 627 84–5,7
29.4.1.10 2351 30.41.7 2414
29.4.1.12 2154 30.41.13 2439
29.4.2.1 2284 30.43.1 2178
29.4.3 254 30.44.2 2189
29.4.4 pr 232 30.45 pr 6255
29.4.4.1 298 30.47.1 2385
29.4.6 pr 2112 30.47.5 446
29.4.6.1 2398 30.49.1 2326
29.4.6.2 2283 30.49.8 2161
29.4.10 pr 2818 30.50.1 2443
29.4.10.2 2142,149,154,179,363 30.50.2 2151,774
29.5.1.3 2450 30.53.2 2120
29.5.1.7 2135 30.53.5 3135
29.5.1.12 2771 30.53.8 2336
29.5.1.13 2117 30.71.1 297
29.5.1.24 2183 30.71.3 443
29.5.1.27 2723 30.71.4 2245 443
29.5.1.28 6359 30.71.5 2117
29.5.3.11 2170 30.74 2321 838–9
29.5.3.12 2514 30.104.1 3139
29.5.3.14 2141 30.113.5 673
29.5.3.17 2720 30.114.3 2101
29.5.3.24 2201 30.115 2187
29.5.3.30 2771 30.120 pr 10229,242–3
29.5.5.1 251 30.120.1 10229,241
29.5.15 pr 2101 30.120.2 10228
29.6.1.1 2327 31.8.3 2433
29.7.1 2769 6405 31.28 270
29.7.9 544 31.29 pr 1128
29.7.14 pr 6142 31.43.1 2408
29.7.19 545 31.49.2 6224,279
30.4.1 1150,157 31.61.1 840–1
30.7.1.1 2796 31.64 713
30.12.3 2147 31.67.10 713
30.20 10228 31.69.4 254
30.24.3 270 31.76 pr 2408
30.30.7 6233 31.77.16 2408
30.34.4 2187,321 31.82 pr 2304
30.37 pr 84–5,7 31.87.3 1303 540
30.37.1 2152 32.1.1 2296 6127
30.39 pr 2210 6117,120 32.1.2 3135
30.39.1 2398 941 32.1.4 99,50–1
30.39.6 2506 917,55 32.1.9 950–1
30.39.7 2587 32.5.1 2191 950
30.41.3 84–5,7 32.11 pr 127,147,155 3115 1060
32.11.1 6127 33.1.7 270

32.11.2 2481 33.1.19.1 2114
32.11.6 2169 33.1.21.4 245
32.11.8 2443 33.2.15.1 10112
32.11.12 459 33.2.27 6172
32.11.13 459 33.3.1.10 2106
32.11.15 6127 33.4.1.4 2392
32.11.19 950–1 33.4.1.10 2114
32.11.20 2718 33.4.1.12 2214
32.11.21 262,187 33.4.2 pr 2178,781,783
32.13 2408 33.4.2.1 2512 947 10254
32.29 pr 6235 33.4.6.1 6235,344
32.29.1 6235 33.5.20 6344
32.29.2 6341 33.6.7 pr 6235
32.34.1 10236 33.6.9.3 2778
32.38.7 1076 33.6.11 2323
32.45 6162 33.6.13 2188
32.49 pr 2469 33.7.4 6235
32.49.4 2125,201 387 33.7.8 pr 6162
32.50.4 2351 33.7.8.1 2699
32.52.1 2257 33.7.12.2 2123
32.52.4 1116 33.7.12.3 6330
32.52.5 150,163 33.7.12.7 444
32.52.7 294,329,771 33.7.12.14 260,210
32.52.7a 2223 33.7.12.19 2563
32.52.9 2519 33.7.12.20 6288
32.55 pr 6172 33.7.12.27 2278,479,485 6157,159,162
32.55.1 6169 33.7.12.31 2685
32.55.2 2210 6169 969 33.7.12.33 3101
32.55.4 6169 33.7.12.35 6133,137
32.55.5 1163 3135 33.7.12.43 6133–4,137
32.55.6 1166 33.7.25.1 6235
32.55.7 2343 6169 938 33.7.26.1 6235
32.64 249 33.8.6.1 2351
32.68 pr 10228,242–3 33.8.6.2 257
32.68.1 10229 33.8.6.4 2106,151 421 84–5,8
32.68.3 10231 33.8.8.7 84–5,8
32.70 pr 3135 33.8.8.8 2141,255,263
32.70.9 2187 33.9.1 2436,572
32.70.11 2187 33.9.3 pr 6162–3,172
32.70.12 260,210 33.9.3.1 6258
32.89 270,154 33.9.3.2 2159 617,49,210,238
32.97 684 33.9.3.5 6169
32.100.1 6235 33.9.3.6 2320
32.100.4 6235 33.9.3.8 6169
33.1.3.2 2654 33.9.3.9 6170,173,182,234
33.1.3.3 2293 33.9.3.10 6274
266 Table II
33.9.3.11 2589 34.9.22 2178

33.9.4.5 2305–6 35.1.7 pr 6298
33.10.7.2 3138 35.1.9 2275
33.10.10 6235 35.1.10 pr 252,126,734
33.10.11 6235 35.1.14 950–1
34.1.3 6353 969 35.1.15 2543
34.1.6 3120 35.1.23.3 446
34.1.14 pr 2800 35.1.40.3 2207 6344
34.1.14.1 2177 716 829 35.1.40.4 6235
34.1.14.2 2303 35.1.50 2131 6353
34.1.14.3 1134,165 2532 947 10254 35.1.52 2110
34.1.20.1 10135,260 35.1.62.1 2820
34.2.9 2769 35.1.68 2408
34.2.19.2 2413 35.1.71 pr 687
34.2.19.3 2193 645 35.1.82 2142
34.2.19.7 6188,197 35.1.92 1135 273,111,220,298 437 629
34.2.19.8 2299 917 949–51,53 10256
34.2.19.10 2597 35.2.11.2 713
34.2.19.13 2247,470 35.2.11.6 2151
34.2.19.17 2691 6162 35.2.35 6113
34.2.19.20 2247 35.2.47 pr 2126
34.2.23.2 2516,617,632 35.2.49 pr 6246,252
34.2.25.10 2446,606 35.2.56.1 2214
34.2.25.11 2642 35.2.62.1 2647
34.2.27.1 251 35.2.74 2426
34.2.34.2 2408,820 35.2.82 2238,771 937,47 10254
34.2.39 pr 6235–6 35.3.1.4 2149
34.3.3.4 2135 35.3.1.5 2680
34.3.5 pr 2151,275 35.3.1.6 2193
34.3.5.2 219,72,184,201 35.3.1.11 2131
34.3.5.4 2379 35.3.1.12 2114
34.3.7 pr 2415,506 955 35.3.3.1 2351
34.3.9 2414 35.3.3.3 2186
34.3.16 6243 35.3.3.8 2167
34.3.20.1 2126 35.3.6 6360
34.4.3.2 961 36.1.1.2 2721
34.4.3.9 417 36.1.1.8 6127
34.4.7 2758 36.1.1.11 2152
34.5.13.4 244 36.1.1.12 2339
34.5.13.6 2146 36.1.1.13 277 950–1
34.5.15 2305 36.1.1.17 275
34.9.2.2 2106 36.1.3.2 272
34.9.3 674 36.1.3.4 950–1
34.9.5.5 254 36.1.3.5 2152
34.9.5.9 717 36.1.6.1 2162,184 955
34.9.9.1 2663 36.1.6.2 2111
34.9.18 628 36.1.6.3 2336
36.1.9 pr 2152 36.3.5.1 713

36.1.11.2 2141 36.3.5.3 2408 713
36.1.13 pr 2443 36.3.14.1 2792 9127
36.1.13.1 2244 36.4.1 pr 2734
36.1.13.2 2359 36.4.1.1 2457
36.1.13.3 2150,187 36.4.3.1 2103
36.1.13.4 2687 36.4.3.2 2370,397,457
36.1.15.3 2718 36.4.5.3 2268
36.1.15.4 2217 525 950–2 36.4.5.6 66
36.1.15.5 2598 36.4.5.12 2135
36.1.17 pr 3135 6127 954 36.4.5.14 2152
36.1.17.2 2167 36.4.5.15 232
36.1.17.3 256 6127 36.4.5.16 733–4,39,45 89
36.1.17.6 2771 6124–5,127 945 36.4.5.21 2274
36.1.17.8 6127 36.4.5.22 2331
36.1.17.9 2327,339 6127 36.4.5.25 733–4,40
36.1.17.13 6124,127 36.4.5.28 2131
36.1.18 pr 1137 955 36.4.5.30 2336
36.1.18.2 2130–1 36.4.15 2148
36.1.18.3 2321 37.1.3 pr 2275 66
36.1.18.4 2320 37.1.3.2 2328
36.1.18.5 1137 2218,506 951,55 37.1.3.6 2172
36.1.18.7 260,528 37.1.6.1 2103
36.1.19.1 2414 37.1.6.2 6149
36.1.23 pr 6113 947 10254 37.1.6.8 716
36.1.23.3 2126,336,633 446 6133,136 37.4.1.5 2513
36.1.23.4 10257 37.4.1.7 275
36.1.23.5 2168 37.4.3 pr 2131 967
36.1.31.5 716 37.4.3.4 2108,336,720
36.1.34 2106 677 37.4.3.5 2503,549
36.1.38.1 721–2,28 37.4.3.9 260
36.1.46.1 2413 37.4.4 pr 2165
36.1.57.1 713 37.4.8.11 2514
36.1.67.1 2304 37.4.10.3 2165
36.1.67.2 2624 36.4.15 2148
36.1.67.3 2149 37.4.17 2127,194
36.1.72.1 2408 37.4.20.1 10136
36.1.83 3141 37.5.1 pr 331,160
36.2.5.1 935 37.5.1.2 2252
36.2.12.1 2154 6284 37.5.3 pr 2187
36.2.14.2 2150,393 37.5.3.5 2326
36.2.20 676 37.5.3.6 2336
36.3.1.8 2103 37.5.5 pr 2131
36.3.1.11 248,805 6371 37.5.5.6 2769
36.3.1.13 298 37.5.5.8 2171
36.3.1.19 2114,126,720 37.5.6.4 2133
36.3.1.20 2114 37.5.8 pr 2431
268 Table II
37.5.8.1 2139 37.1.1.8 2351

37.5.8.2 2114 37.11.1.9 2167
37.5.8.4 2172 37.11.1.11 2499
37.5.8.6 2133 37.11.2 pr 3159
37.5.10.1 2287 37.11.2.4 2135,252,602
37.5.10.2 2114 37.11.2.7 2743 971
37.6.1 pr 2192 3159 37.11.5.1 2385
37.6.1.2 2129 37.11.6 2666
37.6.1.11 2152,375,670 37.12.1 pr 2513 3159
37.6.1.13 2142 37.12.1.4 2417
37.6.1.17 2152,371 37.12.3 pr 6306
37.6.1.19 266 37.13.1.1 2172
37.6.1.21 2155 9140 37.14.1 2542
37.6.1.23 2431 37.14.16 pr 2114,769
37.6.2.5 797 37.14.16.1 2180,273,339 9117
37.6.5 pr 2303,326 37.14.17 pr 1307 2506
37.6.9 549 37.15.1.1 10181
37.7.9 2154 37.15.1.2 10186
37.8.1 pr 220 37.15.5.1 2351
37.8.1.1 2720 3159 37.15.7.4 2104
37.8.1.10 2792 37.15.7.5 2580
37.8.1.16 2771 38.1.2 pr 3164
37.8.7 254,138,150 38.1.4 2189
37.9.1.5 2252 38.1.7.1 218,208
37.9.1.7 2106 38.1.7.5 2538
37.9.1.11 298,820 38.1.7.7 2201
37.9.1.14 2133 38.1.9.1 2125
37.9.1.15 2131,171 38.2.1 pr 2707 391,164
37.9.1.18 2807 38.2.3.20 2247,259
37.9.7.1 2126,392,757 38.2.6 pr 2675
37.9.7.2 2117 38.2.8 pr 2720
37.10.1.3 2167 38.2.8.1 2402
37.10.1.4 2201 38.2.10.1 2134
37.10.1.5 2131,705 38.2.12.4 260
37.10.1.8 221,158 38.2.12.5 2509
37.10.1.11 2458 38.2.14.2 2734
37.10.3.5 2481,817 6359 38.2.14.4 2114
37.10.3.7 2108 38.2.14.6 2497
37.10.3.8 462 38.2.14.8 2734
37.10.3.9 2201 462 38.2.14.11 2393
37.10.3.12 2386 38.2.16.5 966
37.10.3.13 2192–3,349,820 331 38.2.16.8 2131
37.10.5.1 2108 38.2.22 675
37.10.5.3 2343 38.2.25 255
37.10.5.5 2151 38.2.28 3106
37.11.1.4 2287 38.2.42.2 2305
37.11.1.6 2322 38.4.1.6 2781,783
38.4.1.8 2142 38.16.2.7 2598

38.4.3.2 2252 38.16.3.9 2495
38.4.3.5 248 38.16.3.10 955
38.4.5.1 2438 38.16.8 pr 3139
38.4.9 270 38.17.1.3 83,7
38.5.1.1 2270,272 38.17.1.6 10133
38.5.1.4 2429 988 38.17.1.10 264
38.5.1.6 232,117,141,315 38.17.1.11 2141
38.5.1.13 2291 10238 38.17.1.12 2427,502
38.5.1.14 2142 637 38.17.2.2 6387 83–4
38.5.1.15 2114,359 38.17.2.8 6304
38.5.1.17 2339 38.17.2.9 2310
38.5.1.19 232 38.17.2.17 2252
38.5.1.20 2315 38.17.2.29 418
38.5.1.21 2117 38.17.2.30 418
38.5.1.22 275 38.17.2.31 418
38.5.1.27 637 38.17.2.34 2151,269,351
38.5.3 pr 2108 38.17.2.37 2435
38.5.6 2408 38.17.2.40 419
38.5.12 546 6338 38.17.2.41 2329 938
38.6.1.3 2114,598 38.17.2.43 2321
38.6.1.4 2244 38.17.2.44 2373,438 6191
38.6.1.5 3155 38.17.2.47 2241 525 84,7,10 952
38.6.1.6 2252 38.17.5 pr 2721
38.6.5 pr 220 39.1.1.1 2403
38.7.1 3139 39.1.1.10 651 799
38.7.2.1 2131 966 39.1.3.2 2438
38.7.2.2 966 39.1.5 pr 651 799
38.8.1.4 2322 39.1.5.2 2162,723
38.8.1.5 2323 39.1.5.3 2723
38.8.1.6 2429 988 39.1.5.4 2708
38.8.1.8 2321,511 39.1.5.10 2162,336
38.8.1.9 2511 39.1.5.12 2173
38.9.1.6 2127 39.1.5.16 651
38.9.1.7 2598 39.1.12 pr 661
38.9.1.11 2598 39.1.20.2 2339
38.9.1.12 2441 39.1.20.5 2513
38.11.1.1 2114 39.1.20.7 2339
38.15.2.4 966 39.1.20.10 2548
38.16.1 pr 2763 39.1.20.13 2339
38.16.1.1 2219,414 82–3,10 39.1.21 75
38.16.1.4 331 39.1.21.6 2360
38.16.1.7 2148 39.1.21.7 656
38.16.1.11 2134 39.2.1 96
38.16.2 pr 2321 39.2.4 pr 2331
38.16.2.3 2201 39.2.4.1 2422
38.16.2.5 2252 39.2.4.5 2804 7112
270 Table II
39.2.4.6 2195 39.4.12.2 2152

39.2.4.8 7114 39.4.13.2 2143
39.2.11.6 239 39.4.13.3 2151
39.2.13 pr 2193 39.4.14 2109
39.2.13.2 2142 39.4.16.4 2769
39.2.13.21 2476 39.5.7.2 265
39.2.15 pr 2360 39.5.7.3 2227
39.2.15.3 2165 39.5.7.4 2117
39.2.15.5 2422 39.5.7.5 2126,162
39.2.15.10 2820 39.5.7.6 2512
39.2.15.12 267,156,160 6266 39.5.12 2126,368
39.2.15.13 2179,677 39.5.16 10132,229,258
39.2.15.28 2771 39.5.19.3 2327,340
39.2.15.31 2360 39.6.2 2445
39.2.15.33 2339 661 39.6.5 2646
39.2.15.34 2189,315 39.6.31.3 2101
39.2.15.35 2320 39.6.35.3 1073
39.2.24 75 39.6.37 pr 2162,321
39.2.24 pr 2173,431 40.1.4.1 2449
39.2.24.9 2448 40.1.4.12 2511
39.2.26 75 40.1.14.1 716
39.2.28 6259 75 40.1.34 1095
39.2.29 2305–6 40.2.5 1139
39.2.30 75 40.2.8 1138
39.2.30.1 2141,327 40.2.16 2161
39.2.37 2751 40.2.20 pr 972
39.2.40.1 2820 40.2.20.1 2765
39.3.1.9 3135 40.2.20.2 2362,503
39.3.1.16 2479 40.4.12 2339
39.3.1.17 6231 40.4.13.2 298,818
39.3.1.20 2217 525 662 952 40.4.13.3 2223,321
39.3.1.21 2106 40.4.46 6256
39.3.1.23 2125,274,282,351 40.4.50 549
39.3.2.5 6343 40.4.55 pr 2187
39.3.2.6 6344 40.4.56 717
39.3.4 pr 2118 661 40.4.60 3120
39.3.4.2 2108 40.5.4.1 2185
39.3.6.2 248 40.5.4.2 2303
39.3.6.3 2805 40.5.4.3 2129,142
39.3.6.6 2331 40.5.4.5 2127,315, 327 9125
39.3.8 2131 40.5.4.11 2322
39.3.11.2 6209 40.5.4.14 2129
39.3.22 pr 270 40.5.4.15 2180 9117
39.4.3.1 2431 40.5.4.16 2180 9117
39.4.5.1 2232 40.5.4.17 2315
39.4.7.1 6368 40.5.4.22 2180 9117
39.4.12 pr 2537 3164 40.5.12 pr 717
40.5.12.2 6365 40.7.9.1 2651

40.5.24 pr 2167 40.7.9.2 2190 955
40.5.24.2 294 956 40.7.16 10146,150
40.5.24.5 280,414 950–1 40.7.34.1 2443
40.5.24.8 416 40.7.39 pr 6235
40.5.24.9 2706 6387 950–1 40.7.39.1 6235
40.5.24.10 388–9 40.7.39.2 2207
40.5.24.12 2361 40.7.39.4 6235
40.5.24.14 2336,443 40.8.2 10165
40.5.24.16 248 40.8.7 762
40.5.24.17 248,94 40.9.12.pr 2108
40.5.24.18 2245 40.9.12.1 2792 422 9129
40.5.24.19 256 40.9.12.2 2152
40.5.24.21 2410,769 40.9.12.6 2703 6118
40.5.26.1 2260 950–1 40.9.14 pr 250
40.5.26.2 950–1 40.9.15 718
40.5.26.3 950–1 40.9.30.2 2168
40.5.26.6 248,154 40.9.30.4 2142
40.5.26.7 2120 40.10.3 6362
40.5.26.8 950–1 40.11.1 10229
40.5.26.10 2514 40.11.2 3109
40.5.29 2515 40.12.1.1 2805
40.5.30 pr 950–1 40.12.7.2 2126
40.5.30.4 2279 40.12.7.3 2126
40.5.30.6 267 6376 40.12.8.2 272,201
40.5.30.13 6373 40.12.10 2431
40.5.30.14 2771 40.12.12.3 2167,463,514,618
40.5.30.15 950–1 40.12.14 pr 2618 3163
40.5.30.17 950–1 40.12.18 248
40.5.32 pr 2408 40.12.22.1 2322
40.5.37 2364 40.12.27 pr 6353
40.5.45.1 388 40.12.27.1 716 829
40.5.45.2 2511 40.12.27.2 2478
40.5.46.3 3120 838–9 960 40.12.30 6299
40.5.49 2152 40.12.31 10229
40.5.52 10229 40.12.34 104
40.5.55.1 674 40.15.1.4 674
40.7.2 pr 2511 40.16.2.1 2322
40.7.3.1 272,201 41.1.5.1 838–9
40.7.3.2 2189 41.1.11 1075
40.7.3.3 2133 464 41.1.20.1 2114
40.7.3.4 2152 464 41.1.23.1 2155 9140
40.7.3.11 6237 41.1.23.2 2167
40.7.3.17 2187 41.1.23.3 2142 6110 7122
40.7.5 pr 6255 41.1.33 pr 252
40.7.6.1 2151 41.1.33.1 2329 940
40.7.9 pr 2109 41.1.41 6329
272 Table II
41.1.44 2210,508 42.4.3.1 293

41.1.48 pr 1076 42.4.3.3 2180 9117
41.1.63.3 2210 42.4.5.1 2801
41.1.65.3 2408 42.4.5.3 2142
41.2.4 2315 42.4.7.2 286,710
41.2.6 pr 2513 656 42.4.7.3 2327
41.2.13.1 2250,440 42.4.7.4 1267 2584 339
41.2.13.2 256,599 42.4.7.5 2335,514
41.2.27 623 42.4.7.7 298,820
41.2.42 pr 10146 42.4.7.11 2194
41.2.42.1 10147 42.4.7.13 2183,200,585,727
41.2.43.1 675 42.4.7.15 2247
41.2.44.2 624 42.4.7.16 2160 6140,270 716 829
41.2.46 624 42.5.9.4 2167
41.2.51 2408 42.2.9.5 2413
41.3.3 1091 42.5.15 pr 2383 3135
41.3.6 2257 7119–20 42.5.15.1 661
41.3.10.2 6110–1 42.5.24.1 534
41.3.44.4 2304 42.5.24.2 2126
41.4.7.4 2515 42.5.24.3 2734
41.9.1.2 2142,413 42.5.31.2 2740
41.9.1.4 2193 42.5.36 2505
41.10.1.1 6281,316 42.6.1.1 250,144,793 411
42.1.2 2441,793 42.6.1.3 2118 788–90,92
42.1.4.1 2108,512 42.6.1.5 2618
42.1.4.3 2332 42.6.1.6 2295
42.1.4.4 2327 42.6.1.8 248
42.1.4.5 2257 42.6.1.10 2183,315,781,783
42.1.5.1 254,315,431 42.6.1.12 2196,443 9118
42.1.15.1 993–4 42.6.1.13 2321
42.1.15.3 993–4 42.6.1.15 2196 795
42.1.15.4 993–4 42.6.1.16 248
42.1.15.6 2319 42.7.2.5 2199,189
42.1.15.7 250 42.8.1.1 3149
42.1.15.8 993–4 42.8.2 2315
42.1.15.9 2336 461 42.8.3 pr 2186 9120
42.1.15.11 2152 42.8.3.1 2133
42.1.16 10234–5 42.8.6.1 2512
42.1.26 9125 42.8.6.2 2514
42.1.51.1 254 42.8.6.7 2182 9124
42.1.57 2720 42.8.6.9 2183 9118
42.1.59.1 2414 42.8.6.11 2364
42.2.6.4 250 42.8.6.14 2257
42.2.6.6 2292 42.8.10.1 2149,503 6387 717,88–9.91
42.3.6 248,113,281 42.8.10.3 2114
42.4.2.4 3135 42.8.10.5 248
42.4.3 pr 2193,792 9127 42.8.10.6 9118
42.8.10.10 2551 43.16.1.15 2344

42.8.10.11 2396 43.16.1.22 2169
42.8.10.13 2410,769 43.16.1.24 2108,186 9120
42.8.10.14 2769 43.16.1.25 623
42.9.10.16 2188 43.16.1.27 330
42.8.10.20 2131,315 43.16.1.33 2133
43.3.1.1 3159 43.16.1.35 2127 656
43.3.1.2 3159 43.16.1.38 2179
43.3.1.3 2103 43.16.1.47 6141
43.3.1.4 2145 6194 43.16.3.6 2781,783
43.3.1.8 2413 43.16.3.9 2113
43.3.1.9 2303 43.16.3.15 2326
43.3.1.11 2376 43.16.3.17 2795
43.3.1.12 2315 43.16.8 6224
43.3.2.1 2430 43.17.3.4 656
43.4.1.1 3157 43.17.3.7 3135
43.4.3 pr 2327 43.17.4 2315,364
43.4.3.1 788–9 43.18.1.1 3148
43.5.1.2 2132 43.18.1.2 2140
43.5.3.5 2358 43.18.1.4 2259
43.5.3.10 2144 43.18.1.5 2336
43.5.3.15 248 43.18.1.6 2145
43.8.2 pr 10142 43.19.1.2 2511
43.8.2.1 3150 43.19.1.10 9118
43.8.2.10 3155 43.19.1.11 2187 656
43.8.2.22 3130,143 43.19.3.4 2126
43.8.2.28 2149 43.19.3.7 2720
43.8.2.32 2431 43.19.3.10 2167
43.8.2.33 525 916,55 43.19.3.12 3148,153
43.8.2.37 289 43.19.3.15 2467
43.8.2.40 656,61 43.19.3.16 251,189
43.8.2.42 2190,673 43.19.5.2 2135
43.8.5.32 2631 43.20.1.13 2123–4
43.9.1.1 3150 43.20.1.14 2339
43.12.1.2 3135 43.20.1.17 2160,209,723 6264
43.12.1.5 2168 43.20.1.18 2532
43.12.1.14 2275,588 43.20.1.21 272
43.12.1.15 2339 43.20.1.23 2183 9118
43.13.1.3 2167 43.20.1.25 2108
43.13.1.7 916 43.20.1.27 267
43.13.1.8 2374,377,701 43.20.1.31 2145
43.13.1.12 2406 43.20.1.37 2134
43.14.1.7 2336 43.20.1.39 2422 3149
43.15.1.1 2722 3148 43.20.1.43 2653 3118
43.15.1.6 2165,382 43.20.1.44 2163
43.16.1.1 3159 43.21.1.1 2722 3148
43.16.1.2 2104 412 43.21.1.7 2186 9120
274 Table II
43.21.3.2 2237,243 43.26.6.4 289,155,722,770 9140

43.21.3.6 2306 43.26.8.1 6290
43.22.1.1 2131 43.26.8.3 446
43.22.1.5 2339 43.26.8.5 2210
43.22.1.7 3148 43.26.8.6 2167,309
43.22.1.8 2112 43.26.15 pr 2192
43.22.1.9 2112 43.26.20 10229,237
43.23.1.2 2566 43.29.3 pr 299,805
43.23.1.4 2630 43.29.3.1 2247
43.23.1.7 2145 6232 43.29.3.3 2513
43.23.1.8 2157,425 656,61 43.29.3.5 2501,618
43.24.1.1 2618 3163 43.29.3.7 2333
43.24.1.2 272,201 43.29.3.9 388,90 439
43.24.1.3 2413 43.29.3.12 287
43.24.1.5 275 43.29.3.13 2186 380 517
43.24.1.7 6232 43.30.1.3 788–90
43.24.3.1 2183 43.30.1.5 2732
43.24.3.3 2130 43.30.3.4 671
43.24.3.4 2315 656,218 43.30.3.6 2422
43.24.5 pr 6257 43.32.1.4 2327
43.24.5.1 2441 43.33.2 2367
43.24.5.12 661 44.1.2.2 2641
43.24.6 270 44.1.2.4 2275
43.24.7.1 6140 44.2.7 pr 2315
43.24.7.3 661 44.2.7.1 2154
43.24.7.4 2417 44.2.7.2 2511
43.24.7.6 2462 44.2.7.3 2180,327 9117
43.24.9 pr 2252 44.2.7.5 2315
43.24.9.3 2339 44.2.9 pr 248
43.24.11.1 267,160 6267 44.2.9.1 6140
43.24.11.8 267,160,315 44.2.9.11 6140
43.24.11.11 6210 44.2.11 pr 436
43.24.11.12 2795 44.2.11.10 2334
43.24.11.13 2252,315 44.3.5.1 2111 947 10254
43.24.13.4 2324 44.4.2 pr 2186 9120
43.24.13.5 279,98,443,769 44.4.2.5 2740
43.24.13.7 2149 44.4.4.1 272 6289
43.24.15 pr 2108,664 44.4.4.6 2189
43.24.15.4 2822 44.4.4.8 2160,184 6243,268–9
43.24.15.8 2131 44.4.4.10 2351 9118
43.24.15.11 2315 44.4.4.15 661
43.24.15.12 2145,327 44.4.4.16 2368–9
43.24.21.1 250 44.4.4.17 2149
43.26.1.2 960 44.4.4.18 6140
43.26.1.3 288 44.4.4.21 2315
43.26.2.2 2192 331,160 44.4.4.22 2435
43.26.4.1 2161 44.4.4.23 251,128,223
44.4.4.24 248 45.3.12 2241

44.4.4.26 2174,769 45.3.13 3135
44.4.4.29 251 46.1.6.1 272,201
44.4.4.31 2294 46.1.8 pr 3130
44.4.4.33 2114,132 46.1.8.1 9118
44.4.4.34 2183 46.1.8.3 2138
44.4.7.1 2351 46.1.8.5 9123
44.5.1.6 2315,351 46.1.8.6 2169
44.5.1.8 2201 46.1.8.7 2323
44.5.1.10 2114 6208 46.1.8.8 961
44.5.1.12 299,805 46.1.8.12 2170
44.6.1.1 232,48,327 46.1.33 2149
44.7.1.15 2232 46.1.51.2 2408
44.7.25 1015 46.1.56.1 684
44.7.44.6 2142 46.1.71 pr 254
44.7.47 684 46.2.2 2113
44.7.58 1080 46.3.5.2 84–5,7
45.1.1.2 2130,513 46.3.7 2351
45.1.1.3 299,805 46.3.12.1 2147
45.1.1.5 2666 46.3.12.3 2223
45.1.1.6 127–8,156 2106,775 3115 46.3.14.1 2564
45.1.3.1 2193 46.3.24 2374,493
45.1.26 2242 46.3.27 611
45.1.29.1 261 46.3.43 10141
45.1.38 pr 2199 46.3.45 pr 10228
45.1.38.3 2186 9120 46.3.45.1 10228
45.1.38.9 2275 46.3.72.4 270
45.1.38.12 248 46.3.73 2207
45.1.38.22 2335,513–514 46.3.78 2664
45.1.41 pr 2152,274,280,293 46.3.98.3 2426
45.1.58 2103 46.3.103 2771
45.1.63 2126 46.4.5.5 2695
45.1.70 183,125 622 46.4.6 2113
45.1.72.2 2111 46.4.8 pr 2173,666
45.1.91.1 2433 46.4.8.2 650
45.1.91.6 2207 46.4.8.4 3128
45.1.99 pr 2196 46.4.13.1 2327,337
45.1.131.1 611 46.5.1.4 2697
45.1.137.2 270 46.5.1.5 2695
45.2.3 pr 272,201 46.5.5 2515
45.2.3.1 2170 46.5.10 10228
45.2.8 10229 46.6.4.2 2183
45.2.9 pr 2433 1057 46.6.4.3 2126
45.2.12.1 2120 46.6.4.7 2327
45.2.17 6245,251 46.7.3.3 2180,360 9117
45.3.7 pr 2180 9117 46.7.3.6 2321
45.3.11 2138,241,315 46.7.3.7 2327
276 Table II
46.7.3.8 2180 9117 47.2.52.6 248

46.7.5.3 2186,327 9120 47.2.52.18 10234–5
46.7.5.4 2120 47.2.52.20 1160 1089,251
46.7.5.6 2149,151 47.2.71 2108,771
46.7.5.7 2142 47.2.93 2162,776
46.7.5.8 2183 47.3.2 265
46.7.13 pr 947 10254 47.4.1.1 2192,590,618,696 331,160,168
46.8.12.2 2465,554 3133,135 47.4.1.2 2795 446
46.8.12.3 2795 47.4.1.3 2151
46.8.15 2207 47.4.1.6 2167
46.8.20 2135 47.4.1.7 2769 733–4,36,53,67
46.8.21 10163 47.4.1.11 2339
47.1.1 pr 2117,126 47.4.1.14 2130
47.1.2.5 2472 47.5.1.2 282
47.2.1.1 2110 47.6.1 pr 2722 3148
47.2.3.1 272,201 47.6.1.1 2351
47.2.3.2 2723 47.6.1.2 2720
47.2.3 pr 3130 47.8.2.1 3151
47.2.4 2431 47.8.2.8 2736
47.2.7.1 2118 47.8.2.10 2129
47.2.7.3 218 47.8.2.11 2322
47.2.12.2 2103,259,438,769 47.8.2.22 2247
47.2.14.17 2259 47.8.2.23 2167,440
47.2.17.1 2413 47.8.2.27 251
47.2.17.2 2117,514 47.8.4.3 298,252,322,818
47.2.17.3 2351 47.9.1.1 3149
47.2.18 1073 47.9.1.2 2275,323
47.2.21 pr 2132 47.9.3 pr 2511
47.2.21.5 270 47.9.3.3 2126,130
47.2.21.8 244 47.9.3.6 3130
47.2.21.10 2117 47.9.3.7 250
47.2.22.1 2433 47.9.10 10182
47.2.25.2 2172 47.9.11 3148 446
47.2.27 pr 2132,167 47.9.12 pr 835
47.2.39 250 10257 47.10.1 pr 2275
47.2.41.3 2199 47.10.1.2 385
47.2.42.20 3135 47.10.1.8 6140
47.2.43.5 2188 47.10.1.9 6140
47.2.43.8 250 47.10.3.1 2327
47.2.43.9 3135 47.10.3.4 2514
47.2.43.11 2155 9140 47.10.5.3 2315
47.2.46 pr 2118–9,509,795 47.10.5.8 2533 795
47.2.46.5 2178 47.10.5.10 3135
47.2.46.8 2106,114 47.10.6 684
47.2.48.7 2169 47.10.7.1 2275,351,418,759
47.2.50.3 2529 47.10.7.2 2162,336,450,756 9126
47.2.50.4 975 47.10.7.4 2534
47.10.7.5 6140 47.14.1.1 2605

47.10.7.6 733–4,49 47.14.1.3 716 829
47.10.7.7 2636,698 47.14.1.4 2463
47.10.7.8 2605 47.15.2 2182
47.10.9 pr 2154 47.15.6 762
47.10.9.2 2201 47.17.1 2113
47.10.9.4 396 47.18.1.2 2126
47.10.11 pr 2135 47.20.3.1 232,152,477,568,618
47.10.11.1 2489 47.20.3.2 2112,144
47.10.11.7 2301 543 47.22.1.2 2410
47.10.11.9 2172 47.22.4 3123
47.10.13.2 2514 48.1.5.1 2410
47.10.13.4 49 656,61 48.2.4 2471
47.10.13.5 2315 48.2.5 2172
47.10.13.7 280,414,769 3117 48.2.6 2461 93
47.10.15.19 2131 48.2.7.2 248
47.10.15.23 2162 48.2.19 pr 2175
47.10.15.26 2747 48.3.4 2436
47.10.15.27 2678 48.3.6.1 3136
47.10.15.29 2358 48.5.2.3 2544
47.10.15.34 397 48.5.2.5 248
47.10.15.35 398 48.5.2.6 838–9
47.10.15.40 2730 48.5.4.2 260
47.10.15.41 2613 48.5.6 pr 2408
47.10.15.43 398 48.5.6.1 3140
47.10.15.44 397,99 48.5.10.2 2114,540,723
47.10.15.48 397 48.5.14.1 6118
47.10.17.1 2327 48.5.14.3 9130–1
47.10.17.7 2288 48.5.14.5 2473 440 9127
47.10.17.9 2109 48.5.14.7 2514
47.10.17.13 2147 48.5.14.8 9130–1
47.10.17.19 2109,132,156 48.5.14.10 2351
47.10.30 pr 2173 48.5.16 pr 9124
47.10.35 990 48.5.16.1 2488,672
47.11.5 2576 48.5.16.4 2167
47.11.6 pr 2487 48.5.16.6 2559
47.11.7 2108 48.5.18 pr 2187,211
47.11.9 1162 3135 48 57 48.5.18.1 2621
47.11.10 1163 48.5.18.2 9123
47.12.3.3 730–1,37,69 48.5.18.3 2151
47.12.3.4 730–1 48.5.18.6 2503 9125
47.12.3.5 2151 48.5.24.1 2150
47.12.3.7 730–1,69 48.5.24.4 2321
47.12.3.9 2259 48.5.26.1 2210
47.12.3.11 2364,517 48.5.26.4 248
47.13.1 10182 48.5.28.2 2252
47.14.1 pr 6352 48.5.28.11 2486
278 Table II
48.5.28.16 2165 48.19.8.11 2688

48.5.30 pr 2571 48.19.8.12 2172,688 911–2,64
48.5.30.2 2384 48.19.9.1 2103
48.5.30.3 9126 48.19.9.3 2187
48.5.30.5 2502 48.19.9.4 2144
48.5.30.8 2621 48.19.9.6 2723
48.5.30.9 2172 48.19.9.8 3135
48.5.39 pr 2433 1057 48.19.9.10 2506
48.5.39.4 713 48.19.9.11 2126
48.5.39.5 713 48.19.9.13 2132
48.5.39.6 713 48.19.9.14 249,142
48.5.39.8 713 48.19.9.15 2384
48.6.6 6352 48.19.10.2 2304
48.8.4.2 6352 48.19.16.6 3124
48.9.6 6130 48.19.17.1 3136
48.10.6 pr 2114 48.19.28.6 245
48.13.7 274 918 48.19.32 2398 7111–2
48.15.1 10138 48.20.6 2792 6352
48.15.3 pr 2769 717 48.20.7 pr 2721
48.16.13 pr 2322 48.20.7.1 2408, 3106
48.16.14.5 699 48.21.1 2795
48.16.14.10 699 48.21.2 pr 720
48.16.14.13 699 48.21.3 673
48.17.1.4 673 48.22.6.1 2111
48.18.1.1 6352 48.22.7.9 918
48.18.1.7 2769 48.22.7.10 827
48.18.1.10 827 48.22.7.11 2315
48.18.1.13 2112 48.22.7.12 2106
48.18.1.15 827,34 48.22.7.13 2326
48.18.1.16 6352 827 48.22.7.15 181
48.18.1.17 824–5 48.22.7.22 2792
48.18.1.18 827 48.22.18 pr 182
48.18.1.20 2169,581 48.23.2 10163
48.18.1.22 6352 48.24.2 2769
48.18.1.23 2131 96 49.1.1. pr 2491
48.18.1.26 2777 92 49.1.1.1 6357,371
48.18.1.27 267,124 6352,374 49.1.1.3 1307 2513
48.18.3 733–5,56,65 49.1.2 10163
48.18.4 2414 6382 49.1.3 pr 2431 525 922
48.18.10.2 254 49.1.3.3 2436
48.19.1.2 2106 49.1.4.5 2161
48.19.2.1 2172 49.1.5.1 216
48.19.2.2 2322 49.1.6 2132 438,52
48.19.3 2215 917 49.1.8 2183
48.19.6 pr 2173,216,802 49.1.10.4 2414
48.19.8.5 824–5 49.1.12 10185
48.19.8.7 2142,167,441 49.1.13 pr 10229
49.1.13.1 10229 49.16.12.1 716

49.1.14 pr 216,32,200,692 10210 49.17.2 2149
49.1.16 2103 49.17.6 2223
49.1.25 540 49.17.8 250,247
49.2.1.4 2769 922 49.17.9 2598 947–8 10254,256
49.3.1 pr 2387 49.17.19 pr 691 716
49.3.1.1 2387 49.17.19.3 716
49.4.1 pr 248,618 49.18.2 pr 10192
49.4.1.4 2387 49.18.2.1 10166
49.4.1.5 289,257 49.18.5 10193
49.4.1.9 2179–180 9117 50.1.1.1 pr 179 713
49.4.1.11 2186 9120 50.1.1.1 2730 7114
49.4.1.14 655 50.1.2.5 6386
49.5.5.3 9120–1 50.1.6.2 10215
49.7.1.1 2372 50.1.8 2137
49.9.1 2315 6357 50.1.11 pr 713
49.12.1 2200 50.1.25 2112
49.14.3 pr 688 50.1.27.2 2435
49.14.6 pr 2436 50.1.27.3 2723
49.14.13.5 716 50.1.33 182
49.14.13.6 716 50.1.37.2 10199
49.14.14 2193 50.1.38.3 10199
49.14.16 2103 716 829 50.2.1 10182
49.14.18.10 673–4 50.2.2.2 115
49.14.20 pr 2546 50.2.2.3 2734
49.14.25 2417 717 84–6 50.2.2.5 2324
49.14.27 732–3,69 50.2.2.6 2766
49.14.29 pr 2121,126,545 50.2.2.8 10193
49.14.29.2 838–9 50.2.3 pr 2366,452
49.14.30 719 50.2.3.1 2467,514 911–2
49.14.31 6362 50.2.3.2 2172
49.14.33 10229 50.2.3.3 367 826
49.14.34 720 50.3.1 pr 2704
49.14.42.1 2145 50.4.1.1 10203
49.14.43 950–1 50.4.1.3 10200
49.14.49 717 50.4.3.1 10188
49.14.50 6103 50.4.3.3 10197
49.15.9 2172 839–40 50.4.3.5 10212
49.15.12.17 763 50.4.3.6 10206,213
49.15.15 2811 50.4.3.10 10202
49.15.21 pr 10163 50.4.3.13 10163
49.15.21.1 10168 50.4.3.15 10182
49.15.27 6235 50.4.4 pr 10193
49.16.3.7 2140 50.4.4.2 10174
49.16.3.17 2104 50.4.6 pr 6352
49.16.5.6 716 50.4.6.1 2512
49.16.6.7 717 50.4.6.2 827
280 Table II
50.4.6.5 2126 50.12.6.3 827

50.4.17.1 10193 50.12.8 6353
50.4.18.1 10200 50.13.1 pr 983
50.4.18.26 10204 116 50.13.1.3 2343,567 320
50.4.18.29 2143 50.13.1.4 248 326
50.5.1 pr 10180 50.13.1.5 2453 38,22,74
50.5.2 pr 10207 50.13.1.6 2538
50.5.2.1 10178 50.13.1.10 2112 6356 839–40
50.5.2.2 10163 50.13.1.11 2488,672
50.5.2.7 10182 50.13.1.12 2414 6356 839–40
50.5.2.7a 10175,201 50.13.1.13 839–40
50.5.2.8 10182 50.13.1.15 248 317
50.5.5 105,225 50.13.2 10173,176,180,182
50.5.8.4 326 50.13.3 10171,182
50.5.13.2 521 50.14.2 250,618
50.5.13.3 2813 50.14.3 2520 3130
50.6.1 1016 50.15.1 1154
50.6.2 10193 50.15.1 pr 177,93 2602,626, 704,715–6
50.6.6.2 6364 512,14 911–2
50.6.6.13 6364 10193 50.15.1.1 2417 716 829
50.7.2.2 10163 50.15.1.2 2417 511 911–2,25
50.7.7 6352 827 50.15.1.3 2417 511 911–225
50.8.2.2 10170 50.15.1.4 1272 911–2
50.8.2.3 10182 50.15.1.5 2417 511 925
50.8.2.4 10184 50.15.1.7 911–2
50.8.2.6 10184 50.15.1.9 911–2
50.8.2.9 10180 50.15.1.10 2417 511 925
50.8.2.10 10182 50.15.1.11 2417 511 925
50.8.3.2 10165 50.15.3.1 2470 911–2
50.8.4 549 50.15.4.10 2769
50.8.12.3 716 50.15.8 1153
50.9.1 10165,182 50.15.8.6 1273
50.9.4 pr 2624 980 50.16.3 pr 2431
50.9.4.2 2337 984 50.16.6.1 2431 414
50.10.1 pr 10165 50.16.10 2595 1092
50.10.2.1 10182 50.16.12 66
50.10.2.2 10165,182 50.16.15 2730
50.10.5 pr 6354 50.16.19 647
50.11.2 3122 50.16.26 6110
50.12.1 pr 999–100 50.16.42 330
50.12.1.5 6354 999–100 50.16.45 2322
50.12.1.6 999–100 50.16.46 pr 2275
50.12.2.2 2601 50.16.46.1 2767
50.12.3 pr 2410 50.16.49 66
50.12.5 10228 50.16.60 pr 1116
50.12.6.1 827 50.16.60.1 2135
50.12.6.2 827 50.16.63 2795
50.16.77 6343 50.16.213.2 10127

50.16.99.1 1149 2429 989 50.16.216 9134
50.16.99.2 2341,792 50.16.220.1 689
50.16.111 2275 50.16.233.2 3129
50.16.130 2763 50.16.239.6 6342
50.16.131.1 2132 50.16.244 2410
50.16.141 2103,494 50.17.9 2274
50.16.164 pr 2154 50.17.23 2199
50.16.164.1 960 50.17.31 9135
50.16.167 294,329,343 938 50.17.32 330,43,110
50.16.177 220 3130 50.17.34 2274,340
50.16.178 pr 2136 50.17.44 2259
50.16.178.2 2275 50.17.47 pr 2618
50.16.185 2322 50.17.65 220
50.16.192 968 50.17.122 388
50.16.195.2 2261 50.17.150 2673
50.16.195.3 2244 50.17.156.1 2259
50.16.195.4 2560 50.17.157.2 2131
50.16.199 pr 2262,723 50.17.209 2256
50.16.207 6277
9. Justinian’s Code (Codex Iustinianus, CJ)
C Cordi 3 833 4.44.1 1297 10115

2.1.3 1178, 184 4.50.2 10103
2.3.2 1179,196 4.61.1 1220
2.3.3 1180 4.61.3 1216
2.3.4 1221 4.65.4.1 151,67,301,309
2.3.9 10117 5.12.4 1084
2.11.8 2351 5.15.1 1223
2.12.3 pr 1210 5.18.2 111,203,219,221
2.12.4 1220 5.37.1 1202,212–3 2351
2.18.10 10109 5.62.1 1198 226
2.31.1 1214 5.62.3 1223
3.8.1 1197,208–9 5.66.1 1181
3.9.1 1178,184 5.69.1.2 1223
3.12.2 854 5.75.1 1236
3.26.2 1204 6.2.2 1201,211
3.28.4 1220 6.3.1 1222–3
3.32.3 10107 6.26.2 1221,224
3.35.1 10116 6.35.3.2 10201
4.1.2 1353 6.44.1 1235
4.2.1 1199,220,223 6.46.2 pr 1220
4.14.3 10113 6.50.5 747
4.32.4 1214 6.54.6 746
282 Table II
7.2.15.1a 388 9.1.3 1296 10110

7.8.3 1228 9.8.1 1353
7.8.4 10106 9.9.9 1355
7.45.1 1221 9.20.16 10139
7.49.1 731,85 9.41.2 1200
7.53.1 12077.56.1 10105 9.41.11.1 115
7.62.1 1226 10.32.5 10212
7.64.1 10104 10.40.7 pr 180
7.66.2 1310 10.42.8 10203
7.74.1 1205,223,226 10.44.1 10191
8.2.1 1217 10.44.2 10193–4
8.13.4 1221 10.51.3 10201
8.15.2 1223 10.52.5 10198
8.18.1 1227 10.61.1 824
8.37.4 151,67,173,286,306 105,225 10.64.1 10198
8.40.3 pr 1206 12.33.1 1215
8.40.3.1 1223 12.35.4 747
10. Justinian’s Teaching Manual (Iustiniani Institutiones, J.Inst.)
2.17.8 111,218 2.20.12 6387
11. Inscriptions and Papyri
AE 1962.228 1263 CIL XV 7773 172

AE 1966.436 1110 IKEphesos 2 (1979)
AE 1971.534 120 no.217 1110
AE 1988.1051 152,71,86,312 ILS 477 1302
515 JÖAI 45 (1960)
CIG V 853 185 Beibl. 82 no.8 1110
CIL III 14203.8 1223 P. Krüger (1881) 86 549
CIL V 28, X 5286 764 P. Krüger (1881) 88 549
CIL VI 2086(2) 764 P. Krüger (1881) 89 549
CIL VI 2126 1105 P. Krüger (1884) 171 549
CIL VI 4.1.27118 120 P. Krüger (1884) 173 549
CIL IX 338 1330 P. Krüger (1884) 176 549
CIL X 1601 185 P. Krüger (1884) 177 549 630
CIL XI 3587 172 P. Krüger (1884) 179 549 630
CIL XI 6337 1143 P.Oxy. 2565 153
CIL XIII 7338 1263 Spicil. Solesm. ed. Pitra 2241 952
CIL XIV 5347 1175 1.282
Bibliography
ADAMS, J. N. (forthcoming). Bilingualism and the Latin Language.
ALBERTARIO, E. (1922, 1937). ‘Tituli ex Corpore Ulpiani’: BIDR 32: 73–130 = Studi di
diritto romano 5: 491–550.
ALFÖLDY, G. (1968). ‘Septimius Severus und der Senat’: Bonner Jb. 168: 112–60.
—— (1972). ‘Der Sturz des Kaisers Geta und die antike Geschichtsschreibung’:
Bonner HAC 1970: Antiq.4 10: 19–22.
ANRW (ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase 1972– ). Aufstieg und Niedergang der römis-
chen Welt.
ARANGIO-RUIZ, V. (1921, 1974).’Sul liber singularis regularum. Appunti Gaiani’:
BIDR 30.178–219 = (1974) 2: 89–132.
—— (1927). Review of Schulz, Die Epitome Ulpiani: BIDR 35: 191–203.
—— (1946, repr. 1970). Rariora.
—— (1957). ‘Frammenti di Ulpiano libro 32 in una pergamena egiziana’: Arch. giur.
153: 140–58.
—— (1960). ‘Di nuovo sul frammento di Ulpiano in PSI 1449’: BIDR 63: 281–93.
—— (1965). ‘I passi di Ulpiano 18 ad edictum comuni alla Collatio e al Digesto’:
St. Biondi 1–25.
—— (1974). Scritti di diritto romano (2 vols).
ARNIM, H. VON (1903–24). Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta.
ASTOLFI, R. (1983). I libri tres iuris civilis di Sabino.
—— (1986). La lex Iulia et Papia2.
BAILLIE REYNOLDS, P. K. (1926). The Vigiles of Imperial Rome.
BALOG, E. (1913). ‘Die Gleichzeitigkeit der Gardepräfektur des Iulius Paulus und
Domitius Ulpianus’: Ét. P.F. Girard 2: 339–531.
BARNES, T. D. (1967). ‘The Family and Career of Septimius Severus’: Historia 16:
87–107.
—— (1968). ‘Legislation against Christians’: JRS 58: 32–50.
—— (1972). ‘Ultimus Antoninorum’. Bonner HAC 1970: Antiq.4 10: 53–74.
—— (1985). Tertullian2.
BARNS, J. W. B., PARSONS, P., REA, J., and TURNER, E. G. (1966). Oxyrhynchus Papyri
XXXI.
BAUMAN, R. A. (1995). ‘The Death of Ulpian, the Irresistible Force and the
Immovable Object’: SZ 112: 385–99.
BEHRENDS, O. (1969). ‘Der Assessor zur Zeit der klassichen Rechtswissenschaft’: SZ
86: 192–226.
BELL, H. I. (1947). ‘The Constitutio Antoniniana and the Egyptian Poll-Tax’: JRS 37:
17–23.
BENARIO, H. W. (1958). ‘Julia Domna mater senatus et patriae’: Phoenix 12: 67–70.
BERGER, A. (1953). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law.
BESELER, G. VON (4 vols. 1910–20). Beiträge zur Kritik der römischen Rechtsquellen.
—— (1925). ‘Miscellanea’: SZ 45: 188–265.
284 Bibliography
BESELER, G. VON (1930). ‘Romanistische Studien’: SZ 50: 18–77.

—— (1936). ‘Römische Disziplin’: St. Riccobono 1: 287–314.
BEUTLER, R. (1953). ‘Porphyrios (21)’: RE 22.1: 275–313.
BIRKS, P. (1983). ‘Honoré’s Ulpian’: The Irish Jurist 18: 151–81.
BIRLEY, A. R. (1 ed. 1971). Septimius Severus, the African Emperor.
—— (2 ed. 1988). The African Emperor, Septimius Severus.
BLUHME, F. (1820, repr. 1960). ‘Die Ordnung der Fragmente in den Pandektentiteln’:
ZGR 4.257 = Labeo 6: 50–96.
BOLL, F. (1912). ‘Hebdomas’: RE 7: 2547–618.
BONINI, R. (1962). ‘D 48,19,16 (Claudius Saturninus De poenis paganorum)’: Riv. ital.
scr. giur. 10: 119–79.
BONNEAU, D. (1969). ‘Ulpien et l’irrigation en Égypte’: RHD 47: 5–28.
BOWERSOCK, G. W. (1969). Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire.
BOWMAN, A. K., and THOMAS, J. D. (ed. 1994). The Vindolanda Writing Tablets,
Tabulae Vindolandenses II.
BRASSLOFF, S. (1912). ‘Herennius (31)’: RE 8.1: 667–75.
—— (1933). ‘Ulpianus de edendo’: Phil. Wochenschr. 53: 591–2.
BREMER, F. P. (1863). Domitii Ulpiani institutionum reliquiae.
—— (1868 repr. 1968). Die Rechtslehrer und Rechtsschulen im römischen Kaiserreich.
—— (1883). ‘Ulpians Verhältnis zu Gallien’: SZ 4: 84–91.
BRETONE, M. (1969). ‘Il giureconsulto interprete della legge’: Labeo 15: 298–310.
— (2 ed. 1982). Tecniche e ideologie dei giuristi romani.
BUCKLAND, W. W. (1922). ‘Did Ulpian Use Gaius?’: LQR 38: 38–47.
—— (1924). ‘Gaius and Liber Singularis Regularum’: LQR 40: 185–201.
—— (1937). ‘Gaius and the Liber Singularis Again’: LQR 53: 508–18.
BURASELIS, K. (1989). Θεα δωρε· µελ
τες πνω στν πολιτικ τς δυναστεας
τν Σεβρων κα τν Constitutio Antoniniana.
CALDER, W. M. (1923). ‘Ulpian and a Galatian Inscription’: Class.Rev. 37: 8–10.
CANCELLI, F. (1973). ‘Tituli ex corpore Ulpiani’: NDI 19: 392–400.
CARCATERRA, A. (1972). ‘Dialettica e giurisprudenza’: SDHI 38: 312–14.
CASSARINO, S. (1947–8). ‘Note critiche sul liber singularis de officio curatoris reipubli-
cae di Ulpiano’: Ann. sem. giur. Catania2 1: 299–310; 2: 338–60.
CHAMPLIN, E. (1978). ‘The Life and Times of Calpurnius Siculus’: JRS 68: 95–110.
CITATI, A. G. (1927). Indice delle parole, frasi e costrutti ritenuti indizio di inter-
polazione nei testi giuridici romani.
CLEVE, R. L. (1988). ‘Cassius Dio and Ulpian’: The Ancient History Bulletin 2.5:
118–24.
Collectio = Collectio librorum iuris anteiustiniani (3 vols. ed. P. Krüger, Th. Mommsen,
and G. Studemund 1878–1923)
CORIAT, J. P. (1997). Le Prince législateur. La technique législative des Sévères et les
méthodes de création du droit impérial à la fin du principat.
CRIF, G. (1976). ‘Ulpiano. Esperienze e responsabilità del giurista’: ANRW 2.15:
708–89.
—— (1985). Review of Honoré (1982): SZ 102: 601–12.
CROOK, J. A. (1955, repr. 1975). Consilium principis.
—— (1967). Law and Life of Rome.
CROUZEL, H. (1969). Grégoire le Thaumaturge. Remerciment à Origène.
Bibliography 285
DAUBE, D. (1973). ‘The Compilers’ Use of a Revised Paul and Ulpian’: SZ 90: 359–60.
DE FILIPPI, M. (1984). ‘Il titolo “de excusationibus” dei “Vaticana Fragmenta” ’, in
Sodalitas. Scritti A. Guarino 3: 1159–79.
DE GIOVANNI, L. (1989). Giuristi severiani. Elio Marciano.
DE MARINI AVONZO, F. (1982). Review of Honoré (1982): Iura 33: 194–201.
DE VISSCHER, F. (1961). ‘La constitutio Antoniniana et la dynastie africaine des
Sévères’: RIDA 8: 229–42.
DELL’ORO, A. (1960). I libri de officio nella giurisprudenza romana.
DIERAUER, U. (1977). Tier und Mensch im Denken der Antike.
DISDI, G. (1971). ‘Das Gespenst der Praedigesten’: Labeo 17: 187–192.
DITTENBERGER, W. (1903). ‘Athenaeus und sein Werk. Apophoreton’: Vers. deut. Phil.
und Schul. 47: 21.
DOWNEY, G. (1961). A History of Antioch in Syria.
DU TILLET, J. (Paris, 1549). Tituli XXVIIII ex corpore Ulpiani.
DURRY, M. (1938). Les Cohortes prétoriennes.
DUšANIć, S. (1964). ‘Severus Alexander as Elagabal’s Associate’: Hist. 13: 487–98.
EBRARD, F. (1917). Die Digestenfragmente ad formulam hypothecariam und die
Hypothecarrezeption.
ECK, W. (1974). ‘Beförderungskriterien innerhalb der senatorischen Laufbahn,
dargestellt an der Zeit von 69 bis 138 n. Chr.’: ANRW 2.1: 158–228.
ECKARDT, B. (1978). Iavoleni epistulae.
EDELSTEIN, L. (1966). The Meaning of Stoicism.
EISSFELDT, O. (1939). ‘Tyros (2)’: RE 2.7: 1876–1908.
ELLEGÅRD, A. (1962). A Statistical Method for Determining Authorship.
ENSSLIN, W. (1954). ‘Praefectus praetorio’: RE 22.2: 2391–502.
FALCHI, G. L. (1985). ‘Sui “fragmenta Berolinensia incerti auctoris de iudiciis” ’:
SDHI 51: 189–214.
FALCONE, G. (1997). ‘D 1.3.13: Pedio, Ulpiano e la lex contractus’: Labeo 43: 240–58.
FERRINI, C. (1886). ‘Postille esegetiche ai frammenti del commentario di Ulpiano alle
formule edittale ad legem Aquiliam’: Rend. Ist. Lomb.2 19: 245–60 = (1929–30) 2:
95–111.
—— (1901). ‘I commentari di Ulpiano e di Paolo ad legem Iuliam et Papiam’: Rend.
Ist. Lomb.2 34: 394–405 = (1929–30) 2: 237–49.
—— (1929–30). Opere, 5 vols.
FIRA (1940–3, 1972). = Fontes Iuris Romani Anteiustiniani (3 vols. ed. S. Riccobono,
G. Baviera, and V. Arangio Ruiz).
FITTING, H. (2 ed. 1908). Alter und Folge der Schriften römischer Juristen von Hadrian
bis Alexander.
FLEMING, W. B. (1915). The History of Tyre.
FLUSS, M. (1923). ‘Septimius (32)’: RE 2: 2434–53.
FREZZA, P. (1968). ‘La cultura di Ulpiano’: SDHI 34: 363–75.
—— (1983). ‘La persona di Ulpiano’: SDHI 49: 412–22.
FRIER, B. W. (1984). ‘Law on the Installment Plan’: Michigan Law Review 82: 856–68.
GARNSEY, P. (1967). ‘Adultery Trials and the Survival of the Quaestiones in the
Severan Age’: JRS 57: 56–60.
—— (1970). Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire.
GAUDEMET, J. (1967). Institutions de 1’Antiquité.
286 Bibliography
GAUDEMET, J. (2 ed. 1979). La Formation du droit séculier et du droit de l’Église aux IVe
et Ve siècles.
—— (1987). ‘Les droits de l’homme ont-ils été reconnus dans l’empire romain?’:
Labeo 33: 7–23.
—— (1998). ‘Le monde antique et les droits de l’Homme. Quelques observations’, in
H. Jones (1998) 175–83.
GEFFCKEN, J. (1931). ‘Meleagros (7)’: RE 15.1: 478–88.
GIANELLI, C., and MAZZARINO, S. (1956). Trattato di storia romana.
GILLIAM, F. (1965). ‘Dura Rosters and the Constitutio Antoniniana’: Hist. 14: 74–92.
GILLIAM, J. P., and MANN. J. C. (1976). ‘The Northern British Frontier from
Antoninus Pius to Caracalla’: Arch. Aeliana4 48: 1–44.
GIRARD, P. F., and SENN, F. (7 ed. by F. Dumont 1967). Textes de droit romain.
GIUFFRE, V. (1974a). ‘Arrio Menandro e la letteratura de re militari’: Labeo 20: 27–63.
—— (1974b). La letteratura de re militari.
GONZALEZ, J. (1986). ‘The Lex Irnitana: A New Flavian Municipal Law’: JRS 76:
148–243.
GORDON, W. M. (1984). Review of Honoré (1982): Class. Rev. 98 = 342: 232–4.
GOTHOFREDUS, J. (1653). Novus in titulum Pandectarum De diversis regulis iuris antiqui
commentarius.
GRADENWITZ, O. (1887). Interpolationen in den Pandekten.
GROSSO, F. (1968a). ‘Ricerche su Plauziano e gli avvenimenti del suo tempo’: Att.
Acad. Lincei. Rend.8 23: 7.
—— (1968b). ‘Il papiro Oxy. 2565 e gli avvenimenti del 222–224’: Att. Acad. Lincei
Rend.8 23: 205–20.
GRUPE, E. (1899). ‘Gaius und Ulpian’: SZ 20: 90–8.
GUALANDI, G. (2 vols. 1963). Legislazione imperiale e giurisprudenza.
GULICK, C. B. (7 vols. 1927–41). Athenaeus. The Deipnosophists.
GUNDEL, H. G. (1966). ‘Papyrologisches zur constitutio Antoniniana’: Kurzberichte
aus den Papyrussammlung 22: 8–14.
HAGENDAHL, H. (1971). ‘Die Bedeutung der Stenographie für die spätlateinische
christliche Literatur’: Jb. Ant. Christ. 14: 24–38.
HAMMOND, M. (1940). ‘Septimius Severus, Roman Bureaucrat’: Harv. Stud. Class.
Phil. 51: 137–73.
HANNESTAD, K. (1944). ‘Septimius Severus in Egypt. A Contribution to the
Chronology of the Years 198–202’: Class. et mediaev. 6: 194.
HANSLIK, R. (1939). ‘Valerius (134)’: RE 7A 2411–2.
—— (1959). ‘Publicius 43’: RE 23.2: 1905.
HARTKE, W. (1951). Römische Kinderkaiser. Eine Strukturanalyse römischen Denkens
und Daseins.
HASEBROEK, J. (1921). Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Septimius Severus.
HAY, J. S. (1911). The Amazing Emperor Heliogabalus.
HEBERDEY, R. (1912). ‘Inschriften’: Forschungen in Ephesos 2: 95–203.
HEINECCIUS, J. G. (1765–71). Opera, ed. J. C. Heineccius, 9 vols.
HERRMANN, P. (1972). ‘Überlegungen zur Datierung der constitutio Antoniniana’:
Chiron 2: 519–530.
—— (1997). ‘Die Karriere eines prominenten Juristen aus Thyateira’: Tyche 12:
111–23.
Bibliography 287
HERZIG, H. E. (1972). ‘Die Laufbahn des L. Septimius Severus’: Chiron 2: 393–404.

HITZIG, H. F. (1893). Die Assessoren der römischen Magistrate und Richter.
HLL (vol. 5, 1989). Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike (ed. R. Herzog and
P. L. Schmidt): Restauration und Erneuerung.
HLL (vol. 4, 1997). Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike (ed. R. Herzog and
P. L. Schmidt): Die Literatur des Umbruchs.
HOHL, E. (1956). ‘Herodian und der Sturz Plautians’: Akad. Wiss. Berlin Kl. Phil. 2: 3.
HONORÉ, T. (= A. M.) (1962a). ‘The Severan Lawyers. A Preliminary Survey’: SDHI
28: 162–232.
—— (1962b). Gaius. A Biography.
—— (1963). ‘Textual Chains in the Digest’: SZ 80: 362–78.
—— (1972). ‘Word Frequencies and the Study of Roman Law’: Cambridge Law
Journal 30: 280–93
—— (1978). Tribonian.
—— (1981). Emperors and Lawyers1.
—— (1982). Ulpian1.
—— (1987). ‘Scriptor Historiae Augustae’: JRS 77: 156–76.
—— (1988). ‘Ulpian’s Method and the lex Irnitana’, in Roset (1988) 3: 1433–40.
—— (1990). ‘From Constitutio Antoniniana to Constitutional Court’: UCT News
Magazine 17: 5–7.
—— (1991). ‘Lawyers and Government in the Historia Augusta’: Iura 42: 13–41.
—— (2 ed. 1994). Emperors and Lawyers with a Palingenesia of Third-Century Imperial
Rescripts 193–305 AD.
—— (1996). ‘Ulpian’: Oxford Classical Dictionary3, ed. S. Hornblower and
A. Spawforth
—— (1998a). Law in the Crisis of Empire 379–455 AD. The Theodosian Dynasty and its
Quaestors. With a Palingenesia of Laws of the Dynasty.
—— (1998b). ‘Les droits de l’homme chez Ulpien’, in H. Jones (1998) 191–212.
—— (2000). Review of Mercogliano (1997): SZ 117: 525–8.
—— (2001). Review of Marotta (2000): SZ 118: 000–000.
—— and MENNER, J. (1980). Concordance to the Digest Jurists.
—— and RODGER, A. F. (1970). ‘How the Digest Commissioners Worked’: SZ 87:
246–314.
—— —— (1974). ‘Citations in the Edictal Commentaries’: TRG 42: 57–70.
HORAK, F. (1976). ‘Die römische Juristen und der “Glanz der Logik” ’, in Festschrift
M. Kaser (ed. D. Medicus and H. H. Seiler) 29–55.
HOWE, L. L. (1942). The Praetorian Prefect from Commodus to Diocletian AD 180–305.
HUCHTHAUSEN, L. (1985). Review of Romanitas — Christianitas (ed. K.-H. Schwarte-
Heinrichs): SZ 102: 719–29.
IMPALLOMENI, D. (1957). ‘Adsessores’: NNDI 1.1: 305.
Ind. Interp. (1929–35) = Index interpolationum quae in Digestis inesse dicuntur (ed.
L. Mitteis, E. Levy, E. Rabel), 3 vols and supplement.
JARDÉ, A. (1925). Études critiques sur la vie et le règne de Sévère Alexandre.
JONES, A. H. M. (1968). ‘The Dediticii and the Constitutio Antoniniana’, in Studies in
Roman Government and Law 129–40.
JONES, H. (ed. 1998). Le Monde antique et les droits de l’Homme.
JÖRS, P. (1894). ‘Aemilius (105)’: RE 1.1: 572–5.
288 Bibliography
JÖRS, P. (1895). ‘Arrius (24)’: RE 2.1: 1257.

—— (1903). ‘Domitius (88)’: RE 5.1: 1435–509.
KAIBEL, G. (3 vols. 1887). Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistorum libri XV.
KALB, W. (1888, repr. 1975). Das Juristenlatein.
—— (1890). Roms Juristen nach ihrer Sprache dargestellt (Leipzig).
KARLOWA, O. (1885–1901). Römische Rechtsgeschichte (2 vols.).
KASER, M. (1966). Das römische Zivilprozeßrecht.
—— (2 ed. 1971). Das römische Privatrecht 1.
KASTER, R. A. (1988). Guardians of Language.
KEIL, H. (1855–80). Grammatici Latini.
KIENAST, D. (2 ed. 1995). Römische Kaisertabelle. Grundzüge einer römischen
Kaiserchronologie.
KIPP, T. (4 ed. 1919). Geschichte der Quellen des römischen Rechts.
KLAMI, H. T. (1978). Sacerdotes iustitiae. Rechtstheoretische und historisch-
methodologische Bemerkungen über die Entstehung des römischen ‘Rechtspositiv-
ismus’.
KOSCHAKER, P. (1907). Review of Schulz (1906): ZS 28: 454–5.
KRALL, J. (1888). Studien zur Geschichte des alten Aegypten III: Tyros und Sidon.
KROLL, W. (1937). ‘Nundinae’: RE 17: 1467–72.
KRÜGER, H. (1930). ‘Römische Juristen und ihre Werke’, in Studi Bonfante 2: 301–37.
KRÜGER, P. (1881). ‘Die Berliner Fragmenta von Papinian’s Responsa’: SZ 2: 83–90.
—— (1884). ‘Die Pariser Fragmenta aus Papinian’s Responsa’: SZ 5: 166–80.
—— (2 ed. 1912). Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des römischen Rechts.
KÜBLER, B. (1925). Geschichte des römischen Rechts.
KUNKEL, W. (1953). ‘Der Prozeß der Gohariener vor Caracalla’: Festschrift H. Lewald
81–91 = Kleine Schriften (1974) 255–66.
—— (2 ed. 1967, repr. 2001 with preface by D. Liebs). Herkunft und soziale Stellung
der römischen Juristen.
LACHMANN, K. (1838). ‘Kritischer Beitrag zu Ulpians Fragmenten’: ZGR 9: 174.
LANNATA, G. (1984). Legislazione e natura nelle Novelle giustinianee.
LECLERCQ, H. (1952). ‘Ulpien’: Dict. arch. chrét. (ed. F. Cabrol and H. Leclercq) 15.2:
2867–9.
LEHMANN, B. (1982). ‘Das Eigenvermögen der römischen Soldaten unter väterlicher
Gewalt’: ANRW 2.14: 183–284.
LENEL, O. (2 vols. 1889, repr. 1960 with supplement by L. E. Sierl). Palingenesia Iuris
Civilis.
—— (1903). ‘Neue Bruchstücke aus Ulpians Disputationen’: SZ 24: 416–19.
—— (1904). ‘Weitere Bruchstücke aus Ulpians Disputationen’: SZ 25: 368–74.
—— (1906). ‘Ein Detail aus Ulpians Disputationen’: SZ 27: 71–82.
LEUNISSEN, P. M. M. (1989). Konsuln und Konsularen in der Zeit von Commodus bis
Severus Alexander (180–235 n. Chr.).
LEVY, E. (1963). ‘Neue Juristenfragmente aus Oxyrynchos’, in Gesammelte Schriften
1: 44–8.
LIEBENAM, W. (1900). Die Städteverwaltung im römischen Kaiserreich.
LIEBS, D. (1966). Review of Bonini, I libri de cognitionibus di Callistrato (1964): TR 34:
254–66.
—— (1970). ‘Gemischte Begriffe im römischen Recht’: Index 1: 143–77.
Bibliography 289
—— (1971). ‘Variae lectiones’: Studi Volterra 5: 51–88.

—— (1972). Die Klagenkonkurrenz im römischen Recht.
—— (1973). ‘Ulpiani opinionum libri VI’: TR 41: 279–310.
—— (1976). ‘Römische Provinzialjurisprudenz’: ANRW 2.15: 288–362.
—— (1981). ‘Das ius gladii der römischen Provinzgouverneure in der Kaiserzeit’:
ZPE 43: 217–23.
—— (1982). ‘Ulpiani Regulae – Zwei Pseudepigrapha’, in Romanitas Christianitas.
Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Literatur der römischen Kaiserzeit J. Straub zum
70. Geburtstag gewidmet 282–92.
—— (1983a). ‘Juristen als Sekretäre des römischen Kaisers’: SZ 100: 485–509.
—— (1983b). Review of Nelson (1981): Gnomon 55: 113–24.
—— (1984). Review of Honoré (1982): Gnomon 56: 441–50.
—— (1987a). ‘Zur Laufbahn Ulpians’: Bonner HAC 1984/5: Antiq.4 19: 175–83.
—— (1987b). Die Jurisprudenz im spätantiken Italien (260–640 n. Chr.).
—— (1989). ‘Recht und Rechtsliteratur’, in HLL 5 §§502–10.
—— (1993). Römische Jurisprudenz in Africa. Mit Studien zu den pseudopaulinischen
Sentenzen.
—— (1997). ‘Jurisprudenz’, in HLL 4 §§410–31.
—— (2000). Review of Honoré (1998a): SZ 117: 529–34.
—— (2001). Preface to reprint of Kunkel (1967).
LONGO, P. (1972). Labeo 18: 7–71.
LUCHETTI, G. (1987). ‘I “libri iuris civilis” di Sabino’: AG 207: 49–87.
LUZZATTO, G. I. (1951). ‘Appunti sul ius Italicum’: RIDA 5: 79–110.
MACMULLEN, R. (1967). Enemies of the Roman Order.
MANDELA, N. (1993). Opening Address to the Law Society of the Transvaal, 29
October 1993: <http//www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/mandela/1993>.
MANTELLO, A. (1984). ‘Un illustre sconosciuto tra filosofia e prassi giuridica’:
Sodalitas. Scritti A. Guarino 2: 963–95.
—— (1995). ‘Le “classi nominali” per i giuristi romani. Il caso d’Ulpiano’: SDHI
61.217–70.
MANTHE, U. (1999). ‘Ulpianus und Aramäisch’: Mélanges Fritz Sturm 357–64.
MANTOVANI, D. (1988). ‘De officio praefecti urbis’, in Idee vecchie e nuove sul diritto
criminale romano (ed. A. Burdese) 171–223.
—— (1992, 1998). Il bonus praeses secondo Ulpiano = ‘Studi sul contenuto e formi dei
Libri de officio proconsulis’: BIDR 96–7: 203–67.
MAROTTA, V. (1988). Multa de iure sanxit. Aspetti della politica del diritto di Antonino
Pio.
—— (2000). Ulpiano e l’Impero 1.
MARQUARDT, J. (1886). Das Privatleben der Römer.
MARTINI, R. (1975). ‘Tertulliano giurista e Tertulliano padre della chiesa’: SDHI 41:
79–124.
MATTINGLY, H. (2 ed. 1975 by R. A. G. Carson and P. V. Hill). Coins of the Roman
Empire in the British Museum.
MAYER-MALY, T. (1961). ‘Ulpianus (2)’: RE 9.A.1: 567–9.
MENGIS, K. (1920). Die schriftstellerische Technik im Sophistenmahl des Athenaios.
MERCOGLIANO, F. (1990). ‘Un’ipotesi sulla formazione dei “Tituli ex corpore
Ulpiano”’: Index 18: 185–207.
290 Bibliography
MERCOGLIANO, F. (1993). ‘A proposito della fine di Ulpiano’: Labeo 39: 400–7.

—— (1997). ‘Tituli ex corpore Ulpiani’. Storia di un testo.
—— (1998). ‘Le regulae iuris del liber singularis ulpianeo’: Index 26: 353–9.
MEWALDT, J. (1912). ‘Galenos (2)’: RE 7.1: 578–91.
MILLAR, F. (1962). ‘The Date of the Constitutio Antoniniana’: J. Egypt. Arch. 48: 124–31.
—— (1968). ‘Local cultures in the Roman Empire: Libyan, Punic and Latin in North
Africa’: JRS 58: 126–34.
—— (1978). ‘Culture grecque et culture latine dans le Haut-Empire: la loi et la foi’, in
Les Martyrs de Lyon (1978) 187.
—— (1986). ‘A New Approach to the Roman Jurists’: JRS 76: 272–80.
—— (2 ed. 1992). The Emperor in the Roman World.
—— (1993). The Roman Near East 31 BC–AD 337.
—— (1999). ‘The Greek East and Roman Law: The Dossier of M. Cn. Licinius
Rufinus’: JRS 89: 90–108.
MIQUEL, J. (1970). ‘Stoische Logik und römische Jurisprudenz’: SZ 87: 85–122.
MODRZEJEWSKI, J. (1968). ‘Les préfets d’Égypte au début du règne d’Alexandre
Sévere’: Pap. Lugduno-Bat. 17: 59.
—— (1976). ‘Ulpien et la nature des animaux’, in La filosofia greca e il diritto romano,
177f.
—— and ZAWADSKI, T. (1967). ‘La date de la mort d’Ulpien et la préfecture du pré-
toire au début du règne d’Alexandre Sévère’: RHD 45: 565–611.
MOMMSEN, TH. (1855/1905). ‘De Ulpiani regularum libro singulari’ = (1904–13) 2:
47–55.
—— (1870/1905). ‘Die Kaiserbezeichnung bei den römischen Juristen’: ZRG 9.97–116
= (1904–13) 2: 155–71.
—— (1879). ‘Über zwei vom K. Museum erworbene Pergamentblätter aus Aegypten
de iudiciis’: Bericht der Berliner Akad. d. Wissensch. 501–9 = (1904–13) 2: 68–75.
—— (1887–8). Römisches Staatsrecht (3 vols.).
—— (1904–13, repr. 1965). Gesammelte Schriften (8 vols.).
MULLEN, R. (1990). Anthony Trollope. A Victorian in his World.
MULLER, L. (1970). ‘Un’applicazione della tecnica elettronica alla critica delle fonti
romanistiche’: RELO 4: 66–9.
MUNDLE, I. (1961). ‘Dea caelestis in der Religionspolitik des Septimius Severus und
der Julia Domna’: Hist. 10: 228–37.
MURPHY, G. J. (1945). The Reign of the Emperor L. Septimius Severus from the
Evidence of Inscriptions.
MYERS-SCOTTON, C. (1993). Duelling Languages: Grammatical Structure in Codes-
witching.
—— (1998). Codes and Consequences. Choosing Linguistic Associates.
NELSON, H. L. W. (1975). ‘Die Fachsprache der römischen Juristen. Eine stilistische
Würdigung der Fachschriftstellerei der römischen Rechtsgelehrten’, in Actes de la
XIIe Conférence ‘Eirene’ Bucharest 1972 121–44.
—— (1981). Überlieferung, Aufbau und Stil von Gai Institutiones.
—— (1993). ‘Der Stil eines Kurzlehrbuches. Ulpiani liber singularis regularum’, in
Der Stilbegriff in der Altertumswissenschaften 81–7.
NNDI (3 ed. 1957–87 by A. Azara and E. Eula). Novissimo Digesto Italiano (20 vols.
and Appendices).
Bibliography 291
NÖRR, D. (1963). ‘Origo’: TR 31.525–600 = RE Supp. 10 (1965) 433–73.

—— (1969). ‘Imperium und Polis in der hohen Prinzipatzeit’: Munch. Beitr. Pap. u.
ant. Rechtsgesch. 50.
—— (1972a). Divisio und Partitio.
—— (1972b). ‘Ethik von Jurisprudenz in Sachen Schatzfund’: BIDR 75: 11–40.
—— (1973). ‘Iurisperitus sacerdos’: Festschrift P. Zepos 1: 555–72.
—— (1974). Rechtskritik in der römischen Antike.
—— (1976). ‘Der Jurist im Kreis der Intellektuellen’: Festschrift M. Kaser 57–90.
—— (1978). ‘Cicerozitate bei den klassischen Juristen’: Atti 3o Coll. Tull. Rom.
115–36.
—— (1981). ‘Zur Reskriptenpraxis in der hohen Prinzipatzeit’: SZ 98: 1–46.
NUTTON, V. (1995). ‘Galen ad multos annos’: Dynamis. Acta Hisp. Med. Sci. Hist.
Illus. 15: 25–39
OEHLER, J. (1894). ‘Amicus (2)’: RE 1: 1831–2.
ORESTANO, R. (1973a). ‘Ulpiano’: NNDI 19: 1106–8.
—— (1973b). ‘Tertulliano’: NNDI 19: 226–7.
ORS, A. D’ (1942–3). ‘Divus-Imperator. Problemas de cronología y transmisión de las
obras de los jurisconsultos romanos’: ADHE 14: 33.
—— (1966). ‘Una nueva hipótesis sobre P.Giess. 40’: Kurzberichte aus den
Papyrusammlungen 22: 3.
—— and MARTIN, F. (1979). ‘Propositio libellorum’: AJPhil 100: 111–24.
PALANQUE, J. R. (1933). Essai sur la préfecture du prétoire du Bas-Empire.
PASSERINI, A. (1939). Le coorti pretorie.
PAVIS D’ESCURAC, H. (1976). La Préfecture de l’annone: service administatif impérial
d’Auguste à Constantin.
PERNICE, A. (1885, repr. 1962). ‘Ulpian als Schriftsteller’: Sitzb. Berlin Akad. Wiss.
phil-hist. Kl. 443–84 = Labeo 8: 351–89.
—— (1893). ‘Parerga: Das Tribunal und Ulpians Bücher de omnibus tribunalibus’:
SZ 14: 135–82.
PETERS, H (1913, repr. 1970). Die oströmischen Digestenkommentare und die
Entstehung der Digesten: Sitz. d. sächs. Akad. d. Wiss., Phil-hist. Kl. 65.1 = Labeo
16: 335–78.
PFLAUM, H.-G. (1948). Le Marbre de Thorigny.
—— (4 vols. 1960–1 Suppl. 1982). Les Carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le
Haut-Empire romain.
—— (1978). ‘Les amours des empereurs dans l’Histoire Auguste’: Bonner HAC
1975/6: Antiq.4 13: 157–66.
PIR (1897–81 1933– 2). Prosopographia Imperii Romani saec.I, II, III (ed.1 E. Klebs
and H. Dessau, ed.2 E. Groag and A. Stein).
PLATNAUER, M. (1918, repr. 1965). The Life and Reign of the Emperor L. Septimius
Severus.
POHLENZ, M. (2 vols. 4 ed. 1970). Die Stoa. Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung.
POLAčEK, A. (1988). ‘Human Rights. The Secret Legacy of Antiquity’, in Roset (1988)
2: 1009–19.
PREMERSTEIN, A. VON (1917). ‘Ius Italicum’: RE 10: 1238–53.
QUERZOLI, S. (1996). Il sapere di Fiorentino. Etica, natura e logica nelle Institutiones.
RABER, F. (1965). ‘Fragmenta iuris Vaticana’: RE Supp. 10: 231–41.
292 Bibliography
RADINGER, C. (1895). Meleagros von Gadara.

RE. Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft1 (1893–1972,
Suppl. 1903–78).
REGGI, R. (1951). ‘Note anonime ai digesta di Marcello’: Studi Parmensi 4: 21–86.
REINMUTH, O.W. (1967). ‘A Working List of the Prefects of Egypt 30 BC to 299 AD’:
Bull. Am. Soc. Pap. 4: 75–128.
REY-COQUAIS, J. P. (1978). ‘Syrie romaine de Pompée à Dioclétien’: JRS 68: 44–73.
ROBERT, L. (1967). ‘Sur les inscriptions d’Ephèse’: Rev. Phil. 41: 1–84.
ROBERTSON, A. S. (vol. 3 1977). Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet.
RODGER, A. R. (1983). ‘Behind the Scenes in Roman Law’: Oxford Journal of Legal
Studies 3: 382–404.
ROHDEN, P. VON (1886). ‘Aurelius (46)’: RE 2: 2434–53.
ROMAINE, S. (2 ed. 1995). Bilingualism.
ROSET, J. (1988). Estudios J. Iglesias.
ROTONDI, G. (1922). ‘I libri opinionum di Ulpiano e le sententiae di Paolo’: Scr. giur.
1: 453–85.
SALWAY, B. (2000). ‘Prefects, Patroni and Decurions: A New Perspective on the Album
of Canusium’, in The Epigraphic Landscape of Roman Italy (ed. A. E. Cooley) 115–71.
SANDBACH, F. H. (1975). The Stoics.
SANTALUCIA, B. (1965). ‘Le note pauline ed ulpianee alle quaestiones ed ai responsa di
Papiniano’: BIDR 68: 49–146.
—— (1971). I libri opinionum di Ulpiano (2 vols.).
SASSE, C. (1958). Die constitutio Antoniniana, eine Untersuchung über den Umfang der
Bürgerrechtsverleihung auf Grund des Papyrus Giss. 40.1.
—— (1965). ‘Literaturübersicht zur constitutio Antoniniana’: JJPap. 15: 329–66.
SAUMAGNE, C. (1966). ‘Quelques observations sur la constitutio Antoniniana’: Mél.
Carcopino 849–61.
SAVIGNY, F. C. VON (1814). Vom Beruf unserer Zeit zur Gesetzgebung und
Rechtswissenschaft.
SCHERMAIER, M. J. (1993). ‘Ulpian als “wahrer Philosoph”. Notizien zum
Selbstverständnis eines römischen Juristen’, in Ars boni et aequi. Festschrift
W. Waldstein 303–22.
SCHILLER, A. A. (1953). ‘The Jurists and the Prefects of Rome’: BIDR 57: 60–97.
SCHLEIERMACHER, W. (1961). ‘Eine neue Benefiziarinschrift aus Großkrotzenborg’:
Germania 39: 166–8.
SCHLUMBERGER J. (1976). ‘Non scribo sed dicto’: Bonner HAC 1972/4: Antiq.4 12:
221–38.
SCHMERKEL, A. (1982). Die Philosophie der mittleren Stoa.
SCHMIDLIN, B. (1970). Die römischen Rechtsregeln.
SCHÖNBAUER, E. (1956). ‘Tituli ex corpore Ulpiani in neuer Analyse’: St. De Francisci
3: 303–34.
—— (1961). ‘Die Ergebnisse der Textstufenforschung und ihre Methode’: Iura 12:
117–61.
—— (1965). ‘Drei interessante Inschriften aus Ephesus’: Iura 16: 105–15.
SCHULZ, F. (1906, repr. 1964). Sabinus-Fragmente in Ulpians Sabinus-Commentar =
Labeo 10: 50–82, 234–72.
—— (1926). Die Epitome Ulpiani des Codex Vaticanus Reginae 1128.
Bibliography 293
—— (1946, repr. 1953). History of Roman Legal Science.

—— (1951). ‘Die Ulpianfragmente des P.Ryl. 474 und die Interpolationenforschung’:
SZ 68: 1–29.
—— (1961, repr. 1975). Geschichte der römischen Rechtswissenschaft.
SCHULZE, E. TH. (1891). ‘Zum Sprachgebrauche der römischen Juristen’: SZ 12:
100–34.
SECKEL, E., and KÜBLER, B. (6 ed. 1908–27). Iurisprudentiae anteiustinianae reliquiae.
SEECK, O. (1894). ‘Adsessor’: RE 1: 423–6.
SEGR, A. (1966). ‘La constitutio Antoniniana e il diritto dei novi cives’: Iura 17: 1–26.
SESTON, W. (1966). ‘Marius Maximus et la date de la constitutio Antoniniana’: Mél.
d’arch. et d’hist. Carcopino 877–88.
—— and EUZENNAT, M. (1971). ‘Un dossier de la chancellerie romaine: la tabula
Banasitana’: Comp. Rend. Acad. Inscr. 468–90.
SHERWIN-WHITE, A. N. (1972). ‘The Roman Citizenship: A Survey of its Development
into a World Franchise’: ANRW 1.2: 23–58.
—— (1973). The Roman Citizenship2.
SIERL, L.E. (1960). Supplement to Lenel (1889).
SINT, J. A. (1960). Pseudonymität im Altertum: ihre Formen und ihre Gründe.
SOKOLOWSKI, P. E. E. (1902). Die Philosophie im Privatrecht.
SOLAZZI, S. (1920–2). ‘Leggendo i libri de officio consulis’: Rend. Ist. Lomb.2 5.3: 121–5.
—— (4 vols. 1957–63). Scritti di diritto romano.
SONTHEIMER, W. (1967). ‘Zeitrechnung’: RE 9A.2: 2338–472.
SPAGNUOLO VIGORITA, T. (1990). ‘Imperium mixtum. Ulpiano, Alessandro e la giuris-
dizione procuratoria’: Index 18: 119–66.
—— (1996). Città e Impero. Un seminario sul pluralismo cittadino nell’Impero romano.
STEIN, A. (1903). ‘Domitius (31)’: RE 5: 1346.
—— (1912). ‘Fulvius (101)’: RE 7.1: 270–8.
—— (1927). Der römische Ritterstand.
—— (1943). PIR2 3.54f., D 169.
STEIN, P. (1966). Regulae iuris: From Juristic Rules to Legal Maxims.
STEINWENTER, A. (1934). ‘Tertullianus (2)’: RE 5 A 1: 844–5.
—— (1939). ‘Utilitas publica—utilitas singulorum’, in Festschrift P. Koschaker
84–102.
STRACHAN-DAVIDSON, J. L. (1912). Problems of the Roman Criminal Law (2 vols.).
STRAUB, J. (1972). ‘Cassius Dio und die Historia Augusta’: Bonner HAC 1970: Antiq.4
10: 271–85.
—— (1978). ‘Juristische Notizien in der Historia Augusta’: Bonner HAC 1975/6:
Antiq.4 13: 195–216.
STROUX, J. (1950). ‘Die neuen Ulpianfragmente und ihre Bedeutung für die
Interpolationenforschung’: Misc. Ac. Berol. 1.2.1.
SWAIN, S. (1996). Hellenism and Empire. Language, Classicism and Power in the Greek
World AD 50–250.
—— (1999). ‘Defending Hellenism: Philostratus, In Honour of Apollonius’, in
Apologetics in the Roman Empire. Pagans, Jews and Christians (ed. M. Edwards,
M. Goodman, S. Price) 157–95.
SYME, R. (1970). ‘Three Jurists’: Bonner HAC 1968/9: Antiq.4 7.309–23 = (1979)
790–804.
294 Bibliography
SYME, R. (1971). Emperors and Biography.

—— (1972). ‘Lawyers in Government: The Case of Ulpian’: Proc. Am. Phil. Soc.
116.406–9 = (1984) 863–8.
—— (ed. E. Badian 1979). Roman Papers 2.
—— (1980). ‘Fiction About Roman Jurists’: SZ 97.78–104 = (1984) 1393–1414.
—— (ed. A. R. Birley 1984). Roman Papers 3.
TALAMANCA, M. (1971). ‘Su alcuni passi di Menandro di Laodicea relativi agli effetti
della constitutio Antoniniana’: Studi Volterra 5: 433–560.
TONDO, S. (1998). ‘Note ulpianee alla rubrica edittale per i “pacta conventa” ’: SDHI
64: 441–64.
VÉZIN, A. (1991). ‘L’inscription d’Ulpien de Tyr’: BSAF 238–50.
VIR (5 vols 1903–87 ed. O.Gradenwitz, B. Kübler, E. T. Schulze, R. Helm, and
M. Meinhart) = Vocabularium Iurisprudentiae Romanae.
VITTINGHOFF, F. (1951). ‘Römische Stadtrechtsreform der Kaiserzeit’: SZ 68: 435–85.
VOGGENSPERGER, R. (1952). Der Begriff des ius naturale im römischen Recht.
VOLTERRA, E. (1937). ‘Antiche ricerche sul latino di Ulpiano’: SDHI 3: 158–63.
—— (1972). Review of Santalucia (1971): BIDR 75: 354–63.
VRIESENDORP, R. D. (1984). ‘A note on Bas. 20.1.55: Mommsen Deceived?: Subseciva
Groningiana 129–31.
WACKE, A. (2000). Review of Liebs (1997): SZ 117: 513–18.
WALDSTEIN, W. (1976). ‘Entscheidungsgrundlagen der klassischen römischen
Juristen’: ANRW 2.15: 3–100.
—— (1985). Review of Honoré (1982): TRG 53: 151–5.
—— (1994). ‘Römische Rechtswissenschaft und wahre Philosophie’: Index 22: 31–45.
—— (1995a). ‘Zum Problem der vera philosphia bei Ulpian’: Collatio iuris Romani:
Études dédiées à Hans Ankum (ed. R. Feenstra et al.) 607–17.
—— (1995b). ‘Ist das “suum cuique” eine Leerformel?’: SDHI 61: 179–215.
—— (1996). ‘Zur juristischen Relevanz der Gerechtigkeit bei Aristoteles, Cicero und
Ulpian’: Gerechtigkeitsanspruch des Rechts. Festschrift T. Mayer-Maly (ed.
M. Back-Managetta, H. Böhm, and G. Graf).
WATSON, A. (1962). ‘Two Studies in Textual History’: TR 30: 209–42.
—— (1983). Review of Honoré (1982): Times Literary Supplement 16 Feb. 1983.
WENGER, L. (1953). Die Quellen des römischen Rechts.
WESENER, G. (1963). ‘Quaestor’: RE 24: 801–27.
WHITTAKER, C. R. (1969–70). Herodian (2 vols.)
WIEACKER, F. (1953). ‘FV 75 und 76. Über Ulpians Sabinuskommentar in der nach-
klassischen Zeit’: St. Arangio-Ruiz 4: 241–61.
—— (1960). Textstufen klassicher Juristen.
—— (1973). ‘I libri opinionum (di Ulpiano?)’: Labeo 19: 196–207.
—— (1977). ‘Offene Wertungen bei den römischen Juristen’: SZ 94: 1–42.
WIELING, H. J. (1974). ‘Eine neuendeckte Inschrift Gordians III. und ihre Bedeutung
für das Verständnis der constitutio Antoniniana’: SZ 91: 364–74.
WIFSTRAND, A. (1926). Studien zur griechischen Anthologie.
WILLIAMS, M. GILMORE (1902). ‘Studies in the Lives of the Roman Emperors: Julia
Domna’: Am. J. Arch. 6: 259–305.
WILLIAMS, W. (1986). ‘Epigraphic Texts of Imperial Subscripts: A Survey’: ZPE 66:
181–207.
Bibliography 295
WINKEL, L. C. (1993) ‘Einige Bemerkungen über ius naturale und ius gentium’, in Ars
boni et aequi. Festschrift W. Waldstein 443–50.
WLASSAK, M. (1919). Zum römischen Provinzialprozeß.
WOLF, J. G. (1959). ‘D 20.1.27 Marc. 5 dig.’: SZ 76: 520–34.
WOLFF, H. J. (1949). ‘Ulpian 18 ad edictum in Collatio and Digest and the Problem of
the Post-Classical Editions of Classical Works’: Scr. Ferrini 4: 64–90.
—— (1951), ‘Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Ulpian libri ad edictum’, in Festschrift
F. Schulz 2: 145–71.
—— (1959). ‘Zur Palingenesie und Textgeschichte von Ulpians libri ad edictum’: Iura
10. 1–12.
—— (1976). Die constitutio Antioniniana und Pap. Giessensis 40.
YARON, R. (1987). ‘Semitismus in Ulpian’: TRG 55: 3–17.
ZECCHINI, G. (1995). ‘La Constitutio Antoniniana e l’universalismo di Roma’, in
L’ecumenismo politico nella coscienza dell’Occidente.
ZIEGLER, R. (1978). ‘Antiocheia, Laodicea und Sidon in der Politik der Severer’:
Chiron 8: 493–514.
Index
Aedinius Julianus 32 ‘Caecilius’ 141

Aelius Coeranus 20 Caelius Sabinus 134, 141
Aemilius Macer, see Macer Caesar, see Julius Caesar
Aemilius Papinianus, see Papinian Callistratus 129, 135–7, 152–4, 160, 210
Africa 5–6, 15, 18, 32, 85, 89 Callistus 7
Africanus 129–30, 134, 136–7, 139, 147, Calvinus 13
153 Canusium 32
Ahenobarbus 13 Cappadocia 10
Albinus 5–6, 11 Caracalla (emperor) viii, 2–3, 5–7, 9, 11,
Alexandria 99 14–15, 17, 19–27, 35, 39, 84–5, 89, 97,
Alexander Severus 7–8, 10–1, 14, 18, 101, 137–8, 152, 154, 156–8, 161–71,
27–36, 83, 165, 211, 215, 217, 220, 176–87, 189–91, 193–5, 198–200,
223 203–4, 207, 209–10, 228
Alexander the Great 10 Antonine constitution viii, 5, 24–6, 35, 80,
Alexianus, see Alexander Severus 84–6, 90, 135, 152, 169, 208
Alfenus Varus 151 Carnuntum 10
Annia Faustina 27 Carthage 11
Annius 9, 14, 35 Cartilius 150
Annius Vinicianus 14 Cascellius 145
Antioch 10–11 Cassiani 210
Antoninus 2, 7, 25–6, 156, 169–71, 203, 209, Cassius Longinus 130, 134, 141, 143, 146–9,
213 and see Marcus Aurelius, 151, 211
Caracalla, Elagabal Cassius Dio, see Dio
Apollonius 81–2 Cato 148
Aquilius Gallus, see Gallus Celsus senior 151
Arabia 10, 18, 95 Celsus junior 10, 45, 55, 77, 91, 128–32, 134,
Arcadius Charisius 227 137, 141–2, 147–51, 202, 210, 229
Aristo 99, 134, 143–4, 146–7, 149–50 Centumcellae 9, 13
Arrianus 130, 142–3 Cervidius Scaevola, see Scaevola
Arrius Menander, see Menander Chrestus 30–2, 36
Asia 18, 228 Chrysippus 80–2, 90, 137
Athenaeus 11–13 Cicero 14, 26, 37, 77–80, 84, 92
Athens 22 Cius 10
Atilicinus 144–7, 156 Civitavecchia, see Centumcellae
Atticus 78 Claudius 154
Aufidius Chius 149–50 Claudius Pompeianus, see Pompeianus
Aufidius Namusa 151 Claudius Saturninus 143
Augustan History 6, 18, 27–9, 31, 33–5, 83, Clodius Albinus, see Albinus
215 Cocceius Nerva, see Nerva
Augustine 101 Comazon 28, 30
Augustus (emperor) 145, 154 Commodus (emperor) 1–2, 4, 12, 30, 154–5,
Aulus Gellius, see Gellius 209
Aurelius 25 Constantine I (emperor) 124, 212, 220–2, 225,
Aurelius Victor, see Victor 228
Corbulo 13–14
Bassianus, see Caracalla Cyprian 225
Berytus 10 Cyzicus 10
Bithynia 10
Blackstone vii Dalmatia 32
Britain 2–3, 21 Demosthenes 83, 90
298 Index
Didius Julianus (emperor) 3, 6 Julia Domna 5–7, 17, 21–2, 24, 81–2
Didius Marinus 32 Julia Maesa 5, 27, 30–1
Dio 3, 8, 25, 30–3, 84, 170, 187, 209 Julia Mammaea, see Mammaea
Diocletian (emperor) 9, 221–2 Julia Paula 29
Domitian (emperor) 81, 154 Julia Soaemias, see Soaemias
Domitius 13, 35 Julian (emperor), see Didius
Domitius Honoratus 32 Julian (lawyer) 16, 91, 98, 100, 102, 128–34,
Domitius Ulpianus, see Ulpian 136–7, 139, 141–3, 146–50, 153, 155,
Du Tillet 207 177, 202, 229
Julius Caesar 154, 225
Egypt 10, 15, 18, 30–2 Julius Flavianus, see Flavianus
Elagabal (emperor) 6–8, 11, 26–30, 33, 35–6, Julius Paulus, see Paul
165–6, 203 Juventius Celsus, see Celsus
Emesa 7, 11, 27 Justinian’s compilers viii, 19–21, 23, 27,
Epagathus 32, 36 40, 43–4, 105–6, 124, 131, 134–5,
Ephesus 98, 209, 227 140–1, 144, 150–1, 155, 171, 213,
Euphrates 79 223, 229
Eutropius 8, 18, 215
Labeo 85, 91, 128–30, 132–5, 137, 142–3,
Festus 8, 18, 215 145–53, 179, 211, 229
Flavianus 30–2, 35–6 Lactantius 8, 225
Florentinus 88 Laetus 6
Fulcinius Priscus 134, 144, 147–9 Laodicea 10
Larensis 12
Licinius (emperor) 220
Gadara 9
Licinius Rufinus 33, 207, 211, 218
Gaius 40, 44, 72, 79, 84, 134–7, 153, 156,
Lorenius Celsus 32
207–9, 217, 228
Lydia 25
Galatia 10, 17
Galba (emperor) 31
Macer 161, 223
Galen 1, 12, 77, 89, 225
Macrinus (emperor) 4, 11, 14, 22, 26–7, 31,
Gallus Aquilius 145, 147
35, 158, 165–6, 170–2, 179, 181, 185
Gaul 14, 17
Maecenas 84
Gellius 83
Maecianus 130, 134, 139–40
Geminius Chrestus, see Chrestus
Mammaea 5, 7, 24, 27, 30–1, 34, 36, 83, 190
Gessius Marcianus 24
Marcellus 23, 41, 55, 59, 124, 128–32, 134,
Geta (emperor) 2–3, 6, 21–3, 25, 35
136–7, 147–8, 156, 170, 202–3
Gordian III (emperor) 154
Marcianus 17, 49, 72, 75, 80, 83, 88, 91, 124,
Greece 85
129, 134, 136–8, 152–4, 161, 183,
Gregorius viii
211
Gregory (wonder-worker) 83
Marcus Aurelius (emperor) 1–2, 6, 21, 23, 27,
Grotius vii, 35
59, 80, 89, 139, 154–6, 164, 169, 177–8,
191, 195, 209, 221–2
Hadrian (emperor) 10, 45, 86, 91, 149, 154, Marius Maximus 8
160, 184 Masurius Sabinus 130, 134, 141, 143, 145–50,
Herennius Modestinus, see Modestinus 211
Hermogenianus vii, 28, 206, 222 Mauricianus 148, 150, 210
Herodian 3, 8, 10, 23, 34 Maximian (emperor) 9
Hippolytus 7 Mela 147–9
Homer 90 Meleager 9
Honorius (emperor) 33 Menander 22–4, 152, 160
Messius 4
Iavolenus Priscus 10, 45, 55, 124, 129, 145–6, Minicius 131, 147
150–1, 153 Modestinus 4, 8, 17, 30, 33, 35, 136, 153–4,
Ilium 209 161, 207–8, 212, 215, 224–5, 227–8
Irnerius vii, 35 Moses 207
Italy 4, 6, 17 Mucius 130, 134, 142, 145, 147
Index 299
Neratius 100, 130, 140, 143, 146–7, 149–50 Raphanae 11

Nero (emperor) 150, 154 Rome 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15–16, 19, 22, 26, 30,
Nerva senior 134, 144–7, 150, 156 32–3, 35, 77, 104, 186, 222
Nerva junior 150
Nerva (emperor) 154 Sabinians 210–11
Nicaea 10 Sabinus, see Masurius, Caelius
Niger 2, 8, 10, 18 Saittai 25
Sallust 225
Octavenus 134, 144 Salvius Julianus, see Julian
Ofilius 130, 134, 142, 145, 147 Santa Marinella 9
Origen 7, 78, 82–3, 216 Savigny vii, 35
‘Oulpianos’ 11–13 Scaevola 98, 128–30, 134, 136–7, 139, 147,
152–3, 156, 211, 215, 222, 224–5, 227
Paconius 149 Scotland 3, 16
Palmyra 11 Seneca 84
Pannonia 3, 32–3 Septimius Severus (emperor) 1–3, 5–6, 10–11,
Papinian 4, 6, 14–22, 30–1, 35, 37, 55–6, 63, 14, 16–23, 26–7, 35, 38–9, 85, 89, 97,
75, 89, 91, 96, 98, 124–5, 128–32, 125, 131, 133, 137–8, 152–6, 159–64,
134–8, 152–3, 155–6, 160, 177–9, 210, 166–70, 177–9, 181–6, 189–90, 193–4,
225, 228–9 198–200, 204, 207
Papirius Dionysius 30 Servius Sulpicius 130, 142–3, 145, 147, 151
Papirius Fronto 137 pupils attending 147
Papirius Iustus 154–5 Servius Tullius (king) 86
Paul (lawyer) 3–4, 8, 16–7, 19, 25–9, 33, 37, Severus, see Septimius Severus, Alexander
40–1, 55, 63, 74, 77, 88, 91, 98, 124, Severus
128–9, 132, 134–9, 141, 143–4, 146–8, Sextus Caecilius, see Africanus
150–5, 161, 166, 171, 179, 204, 206, Sidon 11
210–2, 223, 227–8 Sinai 229
‘Paul’ (author of Sentences) 206, 212, 217, Soaemias 5–6, 27
222, 228 Syncellus 8
Paul of Tyre 10 Syria 5, 10, 18, 85, 216
Pedius 130, 134, 140, 147 Coele 1
Pegasus 150–1, 156 Phoenice 9, 11
Pergamum 12
Pertinax (emperor) 3, 10, 154 Tarautas, see Caracalla
Pescennius Niger, see Niger Tarrutienus Paternus 4
Phliscus 81 Tertullian 83, 130, 142–3, 147
Philip (emperor) 221 Theodosius II viii
Philostratus 81 Theophrastus 90
Pius (emperor) 86, 150, 154–5, 157, 160–1, Thyatira 211
164, 169, 177, 210 Tiberius (emperor) 144
Plato 78, 90 Titius Aristo, see Aristo
Plautius 147–8, 150 Titus (emperor) 154
Plautianus 6, 19–20, 30 Titus Antoninus, see Pius
Pliny junior 79, 211, 225 Trajan (emperor) 45, 55, 140, 154, 160
Pompeianus 25 Trebatius 145, 147, 150
Pomponius 40, 63, 74, 98, 128–32, 134, 136–7, Tribonian 124, 132, 140, 228–9
141–4, 146–7, 149–53, 179, 211 Trollope 169, 187
Porphyry 82 Tryphoninus 4, 88, 135–7, 139, 153, 155, 166
Pothier vii Tubero 145, 148–9
Proculus 99, 130–1, 143, 146, 149–51 Tyre 1, 7–14, 29, 35, 92, 130
Publicius 149
Puteolanus 130, 142–3 Ulpian
Puteoli 10 adjectives 69–71
adverbs 71–3
Quintilian 14, 37, 84, 225 analogy 51–2, 94
Quintus Mucius, see Mucius art 76–8
300 Index
Ulpian (cont.): Excuses 23, 121, 123, 186, 191

background 1–14 genuine 102–25
blocks of commentary 172–6 Institutes, see Teaching Manual
campaign in Britain 21 LSR, see Replies in one book
career 14–35 On the Edict 23, 45, 56, 92–3, 105–12,
concern for weak 89–90 123, 128, 133–4, 137, 140–1, 144,
dictation viii 158–75, 177–82, 184, 188–9, 191–3,
empirical method 94–104 195–7, 201–3, 205
equality 85–6, 101 On Sabinus viii, 27, 45, 56, 105, 112–14,
equity 93–4, 98–100 123, 128, 133–4, 137–42, 144, 167, 173,
first person 55–9 176–81, 183, 189, 191, 193, 196, 202–3,
future tense 89–62 205, 229
human rights viii, 84–93 ‘Opinions’ viii, 206, 214, 217–22
humanity 100–1 Notes on Marcellus’ Digest 23, 124
interpretation 96–7 Notes on Papinian’s Replies 23, 124
knew Aramaic? 14 rate of composition 186–8
‘nature’ 79–81 ‘Replies’ viii, 206, 222–5
nouns 67–9 Rescripts of Septimius Severus 18–22, 125
philosophy viii, 76–93 ‘Rules in one book’ viii, 106, 206–12,
readership 90–3, 127 215, 225
relation to Caracalla 22–6, 161–71 ‘Rules in seven books’ 206, 215–17, 225
relation to Tyre 9–14 spurious xiii, 206–26
religion 82–4 Taxation 24, 26, 118, 123, 186, 190–1, 195
replies by 207 Teaching Manual 17, 76, 119, 123, 186,
reputation 227–9 192, 195, 210–12
rivalry with Paul? 137–8 The Aelio-Sentian Law 120, 123, 186,
secretary for petitions 18–22 202, 204–5
slavery 86–8 The Community Treasurer 120, 123, 154,
sources 126–57 186, 197, 199, 201
first hand 128–44 The Consul 118, 123, 154, 186, 196–8,
imperial 152–7 201
second hand 149–51 The Julio-Papian Law 45, 116–17, 123,
source books 145–8 181, 185, 202–3, 2205
Stoicism 80–3 The Market-Masters’ Edict 119, 123,
style, oral viii, 37–75 140–1, 159, 186, 192,195
compared to others 136–7 The Praetor for Guardianship 120, 123,
variations in 172–7 186, 191, 198, 200–1
use of Greek viii, 5, 14, 89–92 The Prefect of Police 122, 124, 186, 198,
use of Punic etc. 89 201–2, 205
utility 92–4, 98 The Proconsul 45, 83, 114–15, 123, 133,
verbs 64–7 140, 154, 167, 181–5, 188–9, 191, 195,
word order 62–4 227–8
working plan 158–205 The Quaestor 122–3, 133, 186, 198–9,
WORKS: 201
Latin and English titles xii-xiii The Speech of Marcus and Commodus
Adultery 118, 123, 139, 186, 202–5 xii, 123, 186, 202, 204–5
Appeals 119, 123, 133, 154,186, 191, The Urban Prefect 120, 123, 152, 154,
202–3, 205 186, 197, 201
Consular Judges 122, 124, 186, 198, Tituli, see Rules in one book
201–2, 205 Tribunals 45, 77, 116, 123, 133, 138, 154,
dates 177–205 181, 185, 187, 189, 196–7, 201
Disputations 17, 45, 56, 115–16, 123, Trusts 117–18, 123, 131, 133, 138–9, 185,
133, 137, 139–40, 181, 184–5, 189, 192–4, 196, 225
191–4, 196, 225, 227 ‘Ulpian II?’ 214, 225
‘Encyclopedia’ 206, 212–15, 225 ‘Ulpian III?’ 217
Engagement to Marry 122, 124, 186, Ulpius Marcellus, see Marcellus
202, 204–5 Urseius Ferox 143, 145, 147, 149
Index 301
Valerius Comazon, see Comazon Vivianus 131, 134, 140, 144–5, 147, 149
Venuleius Saturninus 130, 142–3
Verus (emperor) 23, 154–5, 177, 191, 221–2 Xenophon 90
Vespasian (emperor) 141, 150
Victor 8, 28–9, 225 York 2, 22
Vindius Verus 150
Virgil 225 Zonaras 8
Vitellius 141–2, 145–7 Zosimus 8, 31

Ulpian - Pioneer of Human Rights (2002) PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ulpian - Pioneer of Human Rights (2002) PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

List of Ulpian’s Works with Method of Citation xii

Certainly or probably genuine

Opinions Opiniones 6 (opin.)

Background and Career

I. THE POLITICAL BACKGROUND

The dynasty founded by Septimius Severus was concerned to present itself in

Dio 75.7.3; Herodian 2.9.4; Victor 20.22

24 Birley (1988) 1–22 25 Title of Birley (1988)

alterius cuiuscumque gentis), 45.1.1.6 (48 Sab: omnis sermo)

II. ULPIAN’S CAREER: SOURCES

item praefecto/annonae sacrae Urbis, Seberia/Felix Aug(usta Ty)riorum col(onia) metropol-

III. NAME AND ORIGIN: TYRE

Spagnuolo Vigorita (1990)

No other Domitius Ulpianus is known, unless we can make something of an

A number of scholars, including Kunkel, have taken this to refer to the

He calls Tyre his ‘origo’. Origo is local citizenship at birth,78 citizenship of

in lawful marriage. Citizenship depended on the father’s status as a citizen,

90 Leunissen (1989); Millar (1993) 91 Eissfeldt (1939) 1900

Ziegler (1978) 498

‘Mr Is-the-term-found-or-not?’.113 Though both were scholars, intellectually

113 Athenaeus 1.1c: Κειτοκειτος 114 Frezza (1983) 415–6

IV. THE REIGN OF SEVERUS 193–211

who is a member of a magistrate or official’s council128 there is evidence that

(praetor fideicommissarius). In another text he mentions a trust by which a

interpretation of Severus’ speech to the senate that validated gifts between

145 D 24.1.23 (6 Sab.) 146 Bremer (1883) 84 147 D 32.11 pr (2 fid.)

shown by the prefectures of Paul and Ulpian. Both were councillors of

190 Syme (1980) 94 = (1984) 1406

hasty in ordering’ (Nimis propere iudex iussit).207 He freely resorts to impera-

V. THE REIGNS OF CARACALLA AND MACRINUS

Liebs (1997) §419.7

there were indeed arguments to support Caracalla. Though Severus ulti-

The traditional date of the Antonine constitution has been challenged.258

258 Millar (1962); Crifò (1976) 627

VI. THE REIGNS OF ELAGABAL AND ALEXANDER (218–223/4)

(imperator noster Antoninus) seems to be Elagabal. But the emperor

Karlowa (1885–1901) 2.784; Fitting (1908) 97; P. Krueger (1912) 238123

designed to mislead: Liebs (1987a) 177

as a supporter of Alexander’s. Yet Ulpian probably held office under

286 CJ 8.37.4 (31 March 222)

(1926); Liebs (1987a) 181

sulti amici mei).

D 37.14.17 pr (Ulp. 11 leg. Iul. Pap.)

recruited from prefects of Egypt, prefects of supply, and prefects of police

76–81; Liebs (1997) §416

Epagathus, a powerful figure of freeman stock, who had engineered Ulpian’s

322 Dio 80.2.3

similar discipline.335 Presumably they meant to warn Ulpian against attempt-

335 Dio 80.4.2

344 Herodian 6.1.3 345 Herodian 6.1.2 cf. 7.1.3

constitutional government, of which the mythology of Alexander’s reign is an

The Oral Style

Honoré (1994 diskette) 96–201 omitting 122–7, 135–7, 168, 174

This study gives pride of place to texts attributed to Ulpian in Justinian’s

In general the method followed here is the same as in my other studies of

The delineation of style does not rest on distinctiveness alone. If it did, to

25 D 4.4.13 pr (11 ed.)

on linking a sentence to what precedes. But, in building up a picture of

40 Birks (1983) 171 41 Honoré–Menner (1980)

passages, though sometimes with more difficulty, in the Vocabularium

II. MARKS OF STYLE

The marks of style to be listed, which do not purport to be exhaustive, are

113 Athenaeus 1.1c: Κειτοκειτος 114 Frezza (1983) 415–6