[1] Where a borough council desire the appointment of a stipendiary
magistrate they may present a petition for the same to the secretary
of state and it is thereupon lawful for the king to appoint to that
office a barrister of seven years' standing. He is by virtue of his
office a justice for the borough, and receives a yearly salary,
payable in four equal quarterly instalments. On a vacancy,
application must again be made as for a first appointment. There may
be more than one stipendiary magistrate for a borough.
JUSTICIAR (med. Lat. _justiciarius_ or _justitiarius_, a judge), in
English history, the title of the chief minister of the Norman and
earlier Angevin kings. The history of the title in this connotation is
somewhat obscure. _Justiciarius_ meant simply "judge," and was
originally applied, as Stubbs points out (_Const. Hist._ i. 389, note),
to any officer of the king's court, to the chief justice, or in a very
general way to all and sundry who possessed courts of their own or were
qualified to act as _judices_ in the shire-courts, even the style
_capitalis justiciarius_ being used of judges of the royal court other
than the chief. It was not till the reign of Henry II. that the title
_summus_ or _capitalis justiciarius_, or _justiciarius totius Angliae_
was exclusively applied to the king's chief minister. The office,
however, existed before the style of its holder was fixed; and, whatever
their contemporary title (e.g. _Custos Angliae_), later writers refer to
them as _justiciarii_, with or without the prefix _summus_ or
_capitalis_ (ibid. p. 346). Thus Ranulf Flambard, the minister of
William II., who was probably the first to exercise the powers of a
justiciar, is called _justiciarius_ by Ordericus Vitalis.
The origin of the justiciarship is thus given by Stubbs (ibid. p. 276).
The sheriff "was the king's representative in all matters judicial,
military and financial in the shire. From him, or from the courts of
which he was the presiding officer, appeal lay to the king alone; but
the king was often absent from England and did not understand the
language of his subjects. In his absence the administration was
entrusted to a justiciar, a regent or lieutenant of the kingdom; and the
convenience being once ascertained of having a minister who could in the
whole kingdom represent the king, as the sheriff did in the shire, the
justiciar became a permanent functionary."
The fact that the kings were often absent from England, and that the
justiciarship was held by great nobles or churchmen, made this office of
an importance which at times threatened to overshadow that of the Crown.
It was this latter circumstance which ultimately led to its abolition.
Hubert de Burgh (q.v.) was the last of the great justiciars; after his
fall (1231) the justiciarship was not again committed to a great baron,
and the chancellor soon took the position formerly occupied by the
justiciar as second to the king in dignity, as well as in power and
influence. Finally, under Edward I. and his successor, in place of the
justiciar--who had presided over all causes _vice regis_--separate heads
were established in the three branches into which the _curia regis_ as a
judicial body had been divided: justices of common pleas, justices of
the king's bench and barons of the exchequer.
Outside England the title justiciar was given under Henry II. to the
seneschal of Normandy. In Scotland the title of justiciar was borne,
under the earlier kings, by two high officials, one having his
jurisdiction to the north, the other to the south of the Forth. They
were the king's lieutenants for judicial and administrative purposes and
were established in the 12th century, either by Alexander I. or by his
successor David I. In the 12th century a _magister justitiarius_ also
appears in the Norman kingdom of Sicily, title and office being probably
borrowed from England; he presided over the royal court (_Magna curia_)
and was, with his assistants, empowered to decide, _inter alia_, all
cases reserved to the Crown (see Du Cange, _s.v. Magister
Justitiarius_).
See W. Stubbs, _Const. Hist. of England_; Du Cange, _Glossarium_
(Niort, 1885) s.v. "Justitiarius."
JUSTICIARY, HIGH COURT OF, in Scotland, the supreme criminal court,
consisting of five of the lords of session together with the lord
justice-general and the lord justice-clerk as president and
vice-president respectively. The constitution of the court is settled by
the Act 1672 c. 16. The lords of justiciary hold circuits regularly
twice a year according to the ancient practice, which, however, had been
allowed to fall into disuse until revived in 1748. For circuit purposes
Scotland is divided into northern, southern and western districts (see
CIRCUIT). Two judges generally go on a circuit, and in Glasgow they are
by special statute authorized to sit in separate courts. By the Criminal
Procedure (Scotland) Act 1887 all the senators of the college of justice
are lords commissioners of justiciary. The high court, sitting in
Edinburgh, has, in addition to its general jurisdiction, an exclusive
jurisdiction for districts not within the jurisdiction of the
circuits--the three Lothians, and Orkney and Shetland. The high court
also takes up points of difficulty arising before the special courts,
like the court for crown cases reserved in England. The court of
justiciary has authority to try all crimes, unless when its jurisdiction
has been excluded by special enactment of the legislature. It is also
stated to have an inherent jurisdiction to punish all criminal acts,
even if they have never before been treated as crimes. Its judgments are
believed to be not subject to any appeal or review, but it may be
doubted whether an appeal on a point of law would not lie to the house
of lords. The following crimes must be prosecuted in the court of
justiciary: treason, murder, robbery, rape, fire-raising, deforcement of
messengers, breach of duty by magistrates, and all offences for which a
statutory punishment higher than imprisonment is imposed.
JUSTIFICATION, in law, the showing by a defendant in a suit of
sufficient reason why he did what he was called upon to answer, For
example, in an action for assault and battery, the defendant may prove
in justification that the prosecutor assaulted or beat him first, and
that he acted merely in self-defence. The word is employed particularly
in actions for defamation, and has in this connexion a somewhat special
meaning. When a libel consists of a specific charge a plea of
justification is a plea that the words are true in substance and in fact
(see LIBEL AND SLANDER).
JUSTIN I. (450-527), East Roman emperor (518-527), was born in 450 as a
peasant in Asia, but enlisting under Leo I. he rose to be commander of
the imperial guards of Anastasius. On the latter's death in 518 Justin
used for his own election to the throne money that he had received for
the support of another candidate. Being ignorant even of the rudiments
of letters, Justin entrusted the administration of state to his wise and
faithful quaestor Proclus and to his nephew Justinian, though his own
experience dictated several improvements in military affairs. An
orthodox churchman himself, he effected in 519 a reconciliation of the
Eastern and Western Churches, after a schism of thirty-five years (see
HORMISDAS). In 522 he entered upon a desultory war with Persia, in which
he co-operated with the Arabs. In 522 also Justin ceded to Theodoric,
the Gothic king of Italy, the right of naming the consuls. On the 1st of
April 527 Justin, enfeebled by an incurable wound, yielded to the
request of the senate and assumed Justinian at his colleague; on the 1st
of August he died. Justin bestowed much care on the repairing of public
buildings throughout his empire, and contributed large sums to repair
the damage caused by a destructive earthquake at Antioch.
See E. Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ (ed. Bury,
1896), iv. 206-209.
JUSTIN II. (d. 578), East Roman emperor (565-578), was the nephew and
successor of Justinian I. He availed himself of his influence as master
of the palace, and as husband of Sophia, the niece of the late empress
Theodora, to secure a peaceful election. The first few days of his
reign--when he paid his uncle's debts, administered justice in person,
and proclaimed universal religious toleration--gave bright promise, but
in the face of the lawless aristocracy and defiant governors of
provinces he effected few subsequent reforms. The most important event
of his reign was the invasion of Italy by the Lombards (q.v.), who,
entering in 568, under Alboin, in a few years made themselves masters of
nearly the entire country. Justin's attention was distracted from Italy
towards the N. and E. frontiers. After refusing to pay the Avars
tribute, he fought several unsuccessful campaigns against them. In 572
his overtures to the Turks led to a war with Persia. After two
disastrous campaigns, in which his enemies overran Syria, Justin bought
a precarious peace by payment of a yearly tribute. The temporary fits of
insanity into which he fell warned him to name a colleague. Passing over
his own relatives, he raised, on the advice of Sophia, the general
Tiberius (q.v.) to be Caesar in December 574 and withdrew for his
remaining years into retirement.
See E. Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ (ed. Bury,
1896), v. 2-17; G. Finlay, _History of Greece_ (ed. 1877), i. 291-297;
J. Bury, _The Later Roman Empire_ (1889), ii. 67-79. (M. O. B. C.)
JUSTIN (JUNIANUS JUSTINUS), Roman historian, probably lived during the
age of the Antonines. Of his personal history nothing is known. He is
the author of _Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV._, a work described
by himself in his preface as a collection of the most important and
interesting passages from the voluminous _Historiae philippicae et
totius mundi origines et terrae situs_, written in the time of Augustus
by Pompeius Trogus (q.v.). The work of Trogus is lost; but the _prologi_
or arguments of the text are preserved by Pliny and other writers.
Although the main theme of Trogus was the rise and history of the
Macedonian monarchy, Justin yet permitted himself considerable freedom
of digression, and thus produced a capricious anthology instead of a
regular epitome of the work. As it stands, however, the history contains
much valuable information. The style, though far from perfect, is clear
and occasionally elegant. The book was much used in the middle ages,
when the author was sometimes confounded with Justin Martyr.
Ed. princeps (1470); J. G. Graevius (1668); J. F. Gronovius (1719); C.
H. Frotscher (1827-1830); J. Jeep (1859); F. Rühl (1886, with
prologues); see also J. F. Fischer, _De elocutione Justini_ (1868); F.
Rühl, _Die Verbreitung des J. im Mittelalter_ (1871); O. Eichert,
_Wörterbuch zu_ J. (1881); Köhler and Rühl in _Neue Jahrbücher für
Philologie_, xci., ci., cxxxiii. There are translations in the chief
European languages; in English by A. Goldyng (1564); R. Codrington
(1682); Brown-Dykes (1712); G. Turnbull (1746); J. Clarke (1790); J.
S. Watson (1853).
JUSTINIAN I. (483-565). Flavius Anicius Justinianus, surnamed the Great,
the most famous of all the emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire, was by
birth a barbarian, native of a place called Tauresium in the district of
Dardania, a region of Illyricum,[1] and was born, most probably, on the
11th of May 483. His family has been variously conjectured, on the
strength of the proper names which its members are stated to have borne,
to have been Teutonic or Slavonic. The latter seems the more probable
view. His own name was originally Uprauda.[2] Justinianus was a Roman
name which he took from his uncle Justin I., who adopted him, and to
whom his advancement in life was due. Of his early life we know nothing
except that he went to Constantinople while still a young man, and
received there an excellent education. Doubtless he knew Latin before
Greek; it is alleged that he always spoke Greek with a barbarian accent.
When Justin ascended the throne in 518, Justinian became at once a
person of the first consequence, guiding, especially in church matters,
the policy of his aged, childless and ignorant uncle, receiving high
rank and office at his hands, and soon coming to be regarded as his
destined successor. On Justin's death in 527, having been a few months
earlier associated with him as co-emperor, Justinian succeeded without
opposition to the throne. About 523 he had married the famous Theodora
(q.v.), who, as empress regnant, was closely associated in all his
actions till her death in 547.
Justinian's reign was filled with great events, both at home and abroad,
both in peace and in war. They may be classed under four heads: (1) his
legal reforms; (2) his administration of the empire; (3) his
ecclesiastical policy; and (4) his wars and foreign policy generally.
1. It is as a legislator and codifier of the law that Justinian's name
is most familiar to the modern world; and it is therefore this
department of his action that requires to be most fully dealt with here.
He found the law of the Roman empire in a state of great confusion. It
consisted of two masses, which were usually distinguished as old law
(_jus vetus_) and new law (_jus novum_). The first of these comprised:
(i.) all such of the statutes (_leges_) passed under the republic and
early empire as had not become obsolete; (ii.) the decrees of the senate
(_senatus consulta_) passed at the end of the republic and during the
first two centuries of the empire; (iii.) the writings of the jurists of
the later republic and of the empire, and more particularly of those
jurists to whom the right of declaring the law with authority (_jus
respondendi_) had been committed by the emperors. As these jurists had
in their commentaries upon the _leges_, _senatus consulta_ and edicts of
the magistrates practically incorporated all that was of importance in
those documents, the books of the jurists may substantially be taken as
including (i.) and (ii.). These writings were of course very numerous,
and formed a vast mass of literature. Many of them had become
exceedingly scarce--many had been altogether lost. Some were of doubtful
authenticity. They were so costly that no person of moderate means could
hope to possess any large number; even the public libraries had nothing
approaching to a complete collection. Moreover, as they proceeded from a
large number of independent authors, who wrote expressing their own
opinions, they contained many discrepancies and contradictions, the
dicta of one writer being controverted by another, while yet both
writers might enjoy the same formal authority. A remedy had been
attempted to be applied to this evil by a law of the emperors
Theodosius II. and Valentinian III., which gave special weight to the
writings of five eminent jurists (Papinian, Paulus, Ulpian, Modestinus,
Gaius); but it was very far from removing it. As regards the _jus
vetus_, therefore, the judges and practitioners of Justinian's time had
two terrible difficulties to contend with--first, the bulk of the law,
which made it impossible for any one to be sure that he possessed
anything like the whole of the authorities bearing on the point in
question, so that he was always liable to find his opponent quoting
against him some authority for which he could not be prepared; and,
secondly, the uncertainty of the law, there being a great many important
points on which differing opinions of equal legal validity might be
cited, so that the practising counsel could not advise, nor the judge
decide, with any confidence that he was right, or that a superior court
would uphold his view.
The new law (_jus novum_), which consisted of the ordinances of the
emperors promulgated during the middle and later empires (_edicta_,
_rescripta_, _mandata_, _decreta_, usually called by the general name of
_constitutiones_), was in a condition not much better. These ordinances
or constitutions were extremely numerous. No complete collection of them
existed, for although two collections (_Codex gregorianus_ and _Codex
hermogenianus_) had been made by two jurists in the 4th century, and a
large supplementary collection published by the emperor Theodosius II.
in 438 (_Codex theodosianus_), these collections did not include all the
constitutions; there were others which it was necessary to obtain
separately, but many whereof it must have been impossible for a private
person to procure. In this branch too of the law there existed some,
though a less formidable, uncertainty; for there were constitutions
which practically, if not formally, repealed or superseded others
without expressly mentioning them, so that a man who relied on one
constitution might find that it had been varied or abrogated by another
he had never heard of or on whose sense he had not put such a
construction. It was therefore clearly necessary with regard to both the
older and the newer law to take some steps to collect into one or more
bodies or masses so much of the law as was to be regarded as binding,
reducing it within a reasonable compass, and purging away the
contradictions or inconsistencies which it contained. The evil had been
long felt, and reforms apparently often proposed, but nothing (except by
the compilation of the _Codex theodosianus_) had been done till
Justinian's time. Immediately after his accession, in 528, he appointed
a commission to deal with the imperial constitutions (_jus novum_), this
being the easier part of the problem. The commissioners, ten in number,
were directed to go through all the constitutions of which copies
existed, to select such as were of practical value, to cut these down by
retrenching all unnecessary matter, and gather them, arranged in order
of date, into one volume, getting rid of any contradictions by omitting
one or other of the conflicting passages.[3] These statute law
commissioners, as one may call them, set to work forthwith, and
completed their task in fourteen months, distributing the constitutions
which they placed in the new collection into ten books, in general
conformity with the order of the Perpetual Edict as settled by Salvius
Julianus and enacted by Hadrian. By this means the bulk of the statute
law was immensely reduced, its obscurities and internal discrepancies in
great measure removed, its provisions adapted, by the abrogation of what
was obsolete, to the circumstances of Justinian's own time. This _Codex
constitutionum_ was formally promulgated and enacted as one great
consolidating statute in 529, all imperial ordinances not included in it
being repealed at one stroke.
The success of this first experiment encouraged the emperor to attempt
the more difficult enterprise of simplifying and digesting the older law
contained in the treatises of the jurists. Before entering on this,
however, he wisely took the preliminary step of settling the more
important of the legal questions as to which the older jurists had been
divided in opinion, and which had therefore remained sources of
difficulty, a difficulty aggravated by the general decline, during the
last two centuries, of the level of forensic and judicial learning. This
was accomplished by a series of constitutions known as the "Fifty
Decisions" (_Quinquaginta decisiones_), along with which there were
published other ordinances amending the law in a variety of points, in
which old and now inconvenient rules had been suffered to subsist. Then
in December 530 a new commission was appointed, consisting of sixteen
eminent lawyers, of whom the president, the famous Tribonian (who had
already served on the previous commission), was an exalted official
(_quaestor_), four were professors of law, and the remaining eleven
practising advocates. The instructions given to them by the emperor were
as follows:--they were to procure and peruse all the writings of all the
authorized jurists (those who had enjoyed the _jus respondendi_); were
to extract from these writings whatever was of most permanent and
substantial value, with power to change the expressions of the author
wherever conciseness or clearness would be thereby promoted, or wherever
such a change was needed in order to adapt his language to the condition
of the law as it stood in Justinian's time; were to avoid repetitions
and contradictions by giving only one statement of the law upon each
point; were to insert nothing at variance with any provision contained
in the _Codex constitutionum_; and were to distribute the results of
their labours into fifty books, subdividing each book into titles, and
following generally the order of the Perpetual Edict.[4]
These directions were carried out with a speed which is surprising when
we remember not only that the work was interrupted by the terrible
insurrection which broke out in Constantinople in January 532, and which
led to the temporary retirement from office of Tribonian, but also that
the mass of literature which had to be read through consisted of no less
than two thousand treatises, comprising three millions of sentences. The
commissioners, who had for greater despatch divided themselves into
several committees, presented their selection of extracts to the emperor
in 533, and he published it as an imperial statute on December 16th of
that year, with two prefatory constitutions (those known as _Omnem
reipublicae_ and _Dedit nobis_). It is the Latin volume which we now
call the _Digest_ (_Digesta_) or _Pandects_ ([Greek: Pandektai]) and
which is by far the most precious monument of the legal genius of the
Romans, and indeed, whether one regards the intrinsic merits of its
substance or the prodigious influence it has exerted and still exerts,
the most remarkable law-book that the world has seen. The extracts
comprised in it are 9123 in number, taken from thirty-nine authors, and
are of greatly varying length, mostly only a few lines long. About
one-third (in quantity) come from Ulpian, a very copious writer; Paulus
stands next. To each extract there is prefixed the name of the author,
and of the treatise whence it is taken.[5] The worst thing about the
_Digest_ is its highly unscientific arrangement. The order of the
Perpetual Edict, which appears to have been taken as a sort of model for
the general scheme of books and titles, was doubtless convenient to the
Roman lawyers from their familiarity with it, but was in itself rather
accidental and historical than logical. The disposition of the extracts
inside each title was still less rational; it has been shown by a modern
jurist to have been the result of the way in which the committees of the
commissioners worked through the books they had to peruse.[6] In
enacting the _Digest_ as a law book, Justinian repealed all the other
law contained in the treatises of the jurists (that _jus vetus_ which
has been already mentioned), and directed that those treatises should
never be cited in future even by way of illustration; and he of course
at the same time abrogated all the older statutes, from the Twelve
Tables downwards, which had formed a part of the _jus vetus_. This was a
necessary incident of his scheme of reform. But he went too far, and
indeed attempted what was impossible, when he forbade all commentaries
upon the _Digest_. He was obliged to allow a Greek translation to be
made of it, but directed this translation to be exactly literal.
These two great enterprises had substantially despatched Justinian's
work; however, he, or rather Tribonian, who seems to have acted both as
his adviser and as his chief executive officer in all legal affairs,
conceived that a third book was needed, viz. an elementary manual for
beginners which should present an outline of the law in a clear and
simple form. The little work of Gaius, most of which we now possess
under the title of _Commentarii institutionum_, had served this purpose
for nearly four centuries; but much of it had, owing to changes in the
law, become inapplicable, so that a new manual seemed to be required.
Justinian accordingly directed Tribonian, with two coadjutors,
Theophilus, professor of law in the university of Constantinople, and
Dorotheus, professor in the great law school at Beyrout, to prepare an
elementary textbook on the lines of Gaius. This they did while the
_Digest_ was in progress, and produced the useful little treatise which
has ever since been the book with which students commonly begin their
studies of Roman law, the _Institutes of Justinian_. It was published as
a statute with full legal validity shortly before the _Digest_. Such
merits as it possesses--simplicity of arrangement, clearness and
conciseness of expression--belong less to Tribonian than to Gaius, who
was closely followed wherever the alterations in the law had not made
him obsolete. However, the spirit of that great legal classic seems to
have in a measure dwelt with and inspired the inferior men who were
recasting his work; the _Institutes_ is better both in Latinity and in
substance than we should have expected from the condition of Latin
letters at that epoch, better than the other laws which emanate from
Justinian.
In the four years and a half which elapsed between the publication of
the _Codex_ and that of the _Digest_, many important changes had been
made in the law, notably by the publication of the "Fifty Decisions,"
which settled many questions that had exercised the legal mind and given
occasion to intricate statutory provisions. It was therefore natural
that the idea should present itself of revising the _Codex_, so as to
introduce these changes into it, for by so doing, not only would it be
simplified, but the one volume would again be made to contain the whole
statute law, whereas now it was necessary to read along with it the
ordinances issued since its publication. Accordingly another commission
was appointed, consisting of Tribonian with four other coadjutors, full
power being given them not only to incorporate the new constitutions
with the _Codex_ and make in it the requisite changes, but also to
revise the _Codex_ generally, cutting down or filling in wherever they
thought it necessary to do so. This work was completed in a few months;
and in November 534 the revised _Codex_ (_Codex repetitae
praelectionis_) was promulgated with the force of law, prefaced by a
constitution (_Cordi nobis_) which sets forth its history, and declares
it to be alone authoritative, the former _Codex_ being abrogated. It is
this revised _Codex_ which has come down to the modern world, all copies
of the earlier edition having disappeared.
The constitutions contained in it number 4652, the earliest dating
from Hadrian, the latest being of course Justinian's own. A few thus
belong to the period to which the greater part of the _Digest_
belongs, i.e. the so-called classical period of Roman law down to the
time of Alexander Severus (244); but the great majority are later, and
belong to one or other of the four great eras of imperial legislation,
the eras of Diocletian, of Constantine, of Theodosius II., and of
Justinian himself. Although this _Codex_ is said to have the same
general order as that of the _Digest_, viz. the order of the Perpetual
Edict, there are considerable differences of arrangement between the
two. It is divided into twelve books. Its contents, although of course
of the utmost practical importance to the lawyers of that time, and of
much value still, historical as well as legal, are far less
interesting and scientifically admirable than the extracts preserved
in the _Digest_. The difference is even greater than that between the
English reports of cases decided since the days of Lord Holt and the
English acts of parliament for the same two centuries.
The emperor's scheme was now complete. All the Roman law had been
gathered into two volumes of not excessive size, and a satisfactory
manual for beginners added. But Justinian and Tribonian had grown so
fond of legislating that they found it hard to leave off. Moreover,
the very simplifications that had been so far effected brought into
view with more clearness such anomalies or pieces of injustice as
still continued to deform the law. Thus no sooner had the work been
rounded off than fresh excrescences began to be created by the
publication of new laws. Between 534 and 565 Justinian issued a great
number of ordinances, dealing with all sorts of subjects and seriously
altering the law on many points--the majority appearing before the
death of Tribonian, which happened in 545. These ordinances are
called, by way of distinction, new constitutions, _Novellae
constitutiones post codicem_ ([Greek: nearai diataxeis]), _Novels_.
Although the emperor had stated in publishing the Codex that all
further statutes (if any) would be officially collected, this promise
does not seem to have been redeemed. The three collections of the
_Novels_ which we possess are apparently private collections, nor do
we even know how many such constitutions were promulgated. One of the
three contains 168 (together with 13 Edicts), but some of these are by
the emperors Justin II. and Tiberius II. Another, the so-called
_Epitome of Julian_, contains 125 Novels in Latin; and the third, the
_Liber authenticarum_ or _vulgata versio_, has 134, also in Latin.
This last was the collection first known and chiefly used in the West
during the middle ages; and of its 134 only 97 have been written on by
the _glossatores_ or medieval commentators; these therefore alone have
been received as binding in those countries which recognize and obey
the Roman law,--according to the maxim _Quicquid non agnoscit glossa,
nec agnoscit curia_. And, whereas Justinian's constitutions contained
in the _Codex_ were all issued in Latin, the rest of the book being in
that tongue, these _Novels_ were nearly all published in Greek, Latin
translations being of course made for the use of the western
provinces. They are very bulky, and with the exception of a few,
particularly the 116th and 118th, which introduce the most sweeping
and laudable reforms into the law of intestate succession, are much
more interesting, as supplying materials for the history of the time,
social, economical and ecclesiastical, than in respect of any purely
legal merits. They may be found printed in any edition of the _Corpus
juris civilis_.
This _Corpus juris_, which bears and immortalizes Justinian's name,
consists of the four books described above: (1) The authorized
collection of imperial ordinances (_Codex constitutionum_); (2) the
authorized collection of extracts from the great jurists (_Digesta_ or
_Pandectae_); (3) the elementary handbook (_Institutiones_); (4) the
unauthorized collection of constitutions subsequent to the _Codex_
(_Novellae_).
From what has been already stated, the reader will perceive that
Justinian did not, according to a strict use of terms, codify the Roman
law. By a codification we understand the reduction of the whole
pre-existing body of law to a new form, the re-stating it in a series of
propositions, scientifically ordered, which may or may not contain some
new substance, but are at any rate new in form. If he had, so to speak,
thrown into one furnace all the law contained in the treatises of the
jurists and in the imperial ordinances, fused them down, the gold of the
one and the silver of the other, and run them out into new moulds, this
would have been codification. What he did do was something quite
different. It was not codification but consolidation, not remoulding but
abridging. He made extracts from the existing law, preserving the old
words, and merely cutting out repetitions, removing contradictions,
retrenching superfluities, so as immensely to reduce the bulk of the
whole. And he made not one set of such extracts but two, one for the
jurist law, the other for the statute law. He gave to posterity not one
code but two digests or collections of extracts, which are new only to
this extent that they are arranged in a new order, having been
previously altogether unconnected with one another, and that here and
there their words have been modified in order to bring one extract into
harmony with some other. Except for this, the matter is old in
expression as well as in substance.
Thus regarded, even without remarking that the _Novels_, never having
been officially collected, much less incorporated with the _Codex_, mar
the symmetry of the structure, Justinian's work may appear to entitle
him and Tribonian to much less credit than they have usually received
for it. But let it be observed, first, that to reduce the huge and
confused mass of pre-existing law into the compass of these two
collections was an immense practical benefit to the empire; secondly,
that, whereas the work which he undertook was accomplished in seven
years, the infinitely more difficult task of codification might probably
have been left unfinished at Tribonian's death, or even at Justinian's
own, and been abandoned by his successor; thirdly, that in the extracts
preserved in the _Digest_ we have the opinions of the greatest legal
luminaries given in their own admirably lucid, philosophical and concise
language, while in the extracts of which the _Codex_ is composed we
find valuable historical evidence bearing on the administration and
social condition of the later Pagan and earlier Christian empire;
fourthly, that Justinian's age, that is to say, the intellect of the men
whose services he commanded, was quite unequal to so vast an undertaking
as the fusing upon scientific principles into one new organic whole of
the entire law of the empire. With sufficient time and labour the work
might no doubt have been done; but what we possess of Justinian's own
legislation, and still more what we know of the general condition of
literary and legal capacity in his time, makes it certain that it would
not have been well done, and that the result would have been not more
valuable to the Romans of that age, and much less valuable to the modern
world, than are the results, preserved in the _Digest_ and the _Codex_,
of what he and Tribonian actually did.
To the merits of the work as actually performed some reference has
already been made. The chief defect of the _Digest_ is in point of
scientific arrangement, a matter about which the Roman lawyers, perhaps
one may say the ancients generally, cared very little. There are some
repetitions and some inconsistencies, but not more than may fairly be
allowed for in a compilation of such magnitude executed so rapidly.
Tribonian has been blamed for the insertions the compilers made in the
sentences of the old jurists (the so-called _Emblemata Triboniani_); but
it was a part of Justinian's plan that such insertions should be made,
so as to adapt those sentences to the law as settled in the emperor's
time. On Justinian's own laws, contained in the _Codex_ and in his
_Novels_, a somewhat less favourable judgment must be pronounced. They,
and especially the latter, are diffuse and often lax in expression,
needlessly prolix, and pompously rhetorical. The policy of many,
particularly of those which deal with ecclesiastical matters, may also
be condemned; yet some gratitude is due to the legislator who put the
law of intestate succession on that plain and rational footing whereon
it has ever since continued to stand. It is somewhat remarkable that,
although Justinian is so much more familiar to us by his legislation
than by anything else, this sphere of his imperial labour is hardly
referred to by any of the contemporary historians, and then only with
censure. Procopius complains that he and Tribonian were always repealing
old laws and enacting new ones, and accuses them of venal motives for
doing so.
The _Corpus Juris_ of Justinian continued to be, with naturally a few
additions in the ordinances of succeeding emperors, the chief law-book
of the Roman world till the time of the Macedonian dynasty when,
towards the end of the 9th century, a new system was prepared and
issued by those sovereigns, which we know as the _Basilica_. It is of
course written in Greek, and consists of parts of the substance of the
_Codex_ and the _Digest_, thrown together and often altered in
expression, together with some matter from the _Novels_ and imperial
ordinances posterior to Justinian. In the western provinces, which had
been wholly severed from the empire before the publication of the
_Basilica_, the law as settled by Justinian held its ground; but
copies of the _Corpus Juris_ were extremely rare, nor did the study of
it revive until the end of the 11th century.
The best edition of the _Digest_ is that of Mommsen (Berlin
1868-1870), and of the _Codex_ that of Krüger (Berlin 1875-1877).
2. In his financial administration of the empire, Justinian is
represented to us as being at once rapacious and extravagant. His
unwearied activity and inordinate vanity led him to undertake a great
many costly public works, many of them, such as the erection of palaces
and churches, unremunerative. The money needed for these, for his wars,
and for buying off the barbarians who threatened the frontiers, had to
be obtained by increasing the burdens of the people. They suffered, not
only from the regular taxes, which were seldom remitted even after bad
seasons, but also from monopolies; and Procopius goes so far as to
allege that the emperor made a practice of further recruiting his
treasury by confiscating on slight or fictitious pretexts the property
of persons who had displeased Theodora or himself. Fiscal severities
were no doubt one cause of the insurrections which now and then broke
out, and in the gravest of which, (532) thirty thousand persons are said
to have perished in the capital. It is not always easy to discover,
putting together the trustworthy evidence of Justinian's own laws and
the angry complaints of Procopius, what was the nature and
justification of the changes made in the civil administration. But the
general conclusion seems to be that these changes were always in the
direction of further centralization, increasing the power of the chief
ministers and their offices, bringing all more directly under the
control of the Crown, and in some cases limiting the powers and
appropriating the funds of local municipalities. Financial necessities
compelled retrenchment, so that a certain number of offices were
suppressed altogether, much to the disgust of the office-holding class,
which was numerous and wealthy, and had almost come to look on the civil
service as its hereditary possession. The most remarkable instance of
this policy was the discontinuance of the consulship. This great office
had remained a dignity centuries after it had ceased to be a power; but
it was a very costly dignity, the holder being expected to spend large
sums in public displays. As these sums were provided by the state,
Justinian saved something considerable by stopping the payment. He named
no consul after Basilius, who was the name-giving consul of 541.
In a bureaucratic despotism the greatest merit of a sovereign is to
choose capable and honest ministers. Justinian's selections were usually
capable, but not so often honest; probably it was hard to find
thoroughly upright officials; possibly they would not have been most
serviceable in carrying out the imperial will, and especially in
replenishing the imperial treasury. Even the great Tribonian labours
under the reproach of corruption, while the fact that Justinian
maintained John of Cappadocia in power long after his greed, his
unscrupulousness, and the excesses of his private life had excited the
anger of the whole empire, reflects little credit on his own principles
of government and sense of duty to his subjects. The department of
administration in which he seems to have felt most personal interest was
that of public works. He spent immense sums on buildings of all sorts,
on quays and harbours, on fortifications, repairing the walls of cities
and erecting castles in Thrace to check the inroads of the barbarians,
on aqueducts, on monasteries, above all, upon churches. Of these works
only two remain perfect, St Sophia in Constantinople, now a mosque, and
one of the architectural wonders of the world, and the church of SS
Sergius and Bacchus, now commonly called Little St Sophia, which stands
about half a mile from the great church, and is in its way a very
delicate and beautiful piece of work. The church of S. Vitale at
Ravenna, though built in Justinian's reign, and containing mosaic
pictures of him and Theodora, does not appear to have owed anything to
his mind or purse.
3. Justinian's ecclesiastical policy was so complex and varying that it
is impossible within the limits of this article to do more than indicate
its bare outlines. For many years before the accession of his uncle
Justin, the Eastern world had been vexed by the struggles of the
Monophysite party, who recognized only one nature in Christ, against the
view which then and ever since has maintained itself as orthodox, that
the divine and human natures coexisted in Him. The latter doctrine had
triumphed at the council of Chalcedon, and was held by the whole Western
Church, but Egypt, great part of Syria and Asia Minor, and a
considerable minority even in Constantinople clung to Monophysitism. The
emperors Zeno and Anastasius had been strongly suspected of it, and the
Roman bishops had refused to communicate with the patriarchs of
Constantinople since 484, when they had condemned Acacius for accepting
the formula of conciliation issued by Zeno. One of Justinian's first
public acts was to put an end to this schism by inducing Justin to make
the then patriarch renounce this formula and declare his full adhesion
to the creed of Chalcedon. When he himself came to the throne he
endeavoured to persuade the Monophysites to come in by summoning some of
their leaders to a conference. This failing, he ejected suspected
prelates, and occasionally persecuted them, though with far less
severity than that applied to the heretics of a deeper dye, such as
Montanists or even Arians. Not long afterwards, his attention having
been called to the spread of Origenistic opinions in Syria, he issued an
edict condemning fourteen propositions drawn from the writings of the
great Alexandrian, and caused a synod to be held under the presidency
of Mennas (whom he had named patriarch of Constantinople), which renewed
the condemnation of the impugned doctrines and anathematized Origen
himself. Still later, he was induced by the machinations of some of the
prelates who haunted his court, and by the influence of Theodora,
herself much interested in theological questions, and more than
suspected of Monophysitism, to raise a needless, mischievous, and
protracted controversy. The Monophysites sometimes alleged that they
could not accept the decrees of the council of Chalcedon because that
council had not condemned, but (as they argued) virtually approved,
three writers tainted with Nestorian principles, Theodore of Mopsuestia,
Theodoret, and Ibas, bishop of Edessa. It was represented to the
emperor, who was still pursued by the desire to bring back the
schismatics, that a great step would have been taken towards
reconciliation if a condemnation of these teachers, or rather of such of
their books as were complained of, could be brought about, since then
the Chalcedonian party would be purged from any appearance of sympathy
with the errors of Nestorius. Not stopping to reflect that in the angry
and suspicious state of men's minds he was sure to lose as much in one
direction as he would gain in the other, Justinian entered into the
idea, and put forth an edict exposing and denouncing the errors
contained in the writings of Theodore generally, in the treatise of
Theodoret against Cyril of Alexandria, and in a letter of Bishop Ibas (a
letter whose authenticity was doubted, but which passed under his name)
to the Persian bishop Maris. This edict was circulated through the
Christian world to be subscribed by the bishops. The four Eastern
patriarchs, and the great majority of the Eastern prelates generally,
subscribed, though reluctantly, for it was felt that a dangerous
precedent was being set when dead authors were anathematized, and that
this new movement could hardly fail to weaken the authority of the
council of Chalcedon. Among the Western bishops, who were less disposed
both to Monophysitism and to subservience, and especially by those of
Africa, the edict was earnestly resisted. When it was found that Pope
Vigilius did not forthwith comply, he was summoned to Constantinople.
Even there he resisted, not so much, it would seem, from any scruples of
his own, for he was not a high-minded man, as because he knew that he
dared not return to Italy if he gave way. Long disputes and negotiations
followed, the end of which was that Justinian summoned a general council
of the church, that which we reckon the Fifth, which condemned the
impugned writings, and anathematized several other heretical authors.
Its decrees were received in the East but long contested in the Western
Church, where a schism arose that lasted for seventy years. This is the
controversy known as that of the Three Chapters (_Tria capitula_,
[Greek: tria kephalaia]), apparently from the three propositions or
condemnations contained in Justinian's original edict, one relating to
Theodore's writings and person, the second to the incriminated treatise
of Theodoret (whose person was not attacked), the third to the letter
(if genuine) of Ibas (see Hefele, _Conciliengeschichte_, ii. 777).
At the very end of his long career of theological discussion, Justinian
himself lapsed into heresy, by accepting the doctrine that the earthly
body of Christ was incorruptible, insensible to the weaknesses of the
flesh, a doctrine which had been advanced by Julian, bishop of
Halicarnassus, and went by the name of Aphthartodocetism. According to
his usual practice, he issued an edict enforcing this view, and
requiring all patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops to subscribe to it.
Some, who not unnaturally held that it was rank Monophysitism, refused
at once, and were deprived of their sees, among them Eutychius the
eminent patriarch of Constantinople. Others submitted or temporized; but
before there had been time enough for the matter to be carried through,
the emperor died, having tarnished if not utterly forfeited by this last
error the reputation won by a life devoted to the service of Orthodoxy.
As no preceding sovereign had been so much interested in church affairs,
so none seems to have shown so much activity as a persecutor both of
pagans and of heretics. He renewed with additional stringency the laws
against both these classes. The former embraced a large part of the
rural population in certain secluded districts, such as parts of Asia
Minor and Peloponnesus; and we are told that the efforts directed
against them resulted in the forcible baptism of 70,000 persons in Asia
Minor alone. Paganism, however, survived; we find it in Laconia in the
end of the 9th century, and in northern Syria it has lasted till our own
times. There were also a good many crypto-pagans among the educated
population of the capital. Procopius, for instance, if he was not
actually a Pagan, was certainly very little of a Christian. Inquiries
made in the third year of Justinian's reign drove nearly all of these
persons into an outward conformity, and their offspring seem to have
become ordinary Christians. At Athens, the philosophers who taught in
the schools hallowed by memories of Plato still openly professed what
passed for Paganism, though it was really a body of moral doctrine,
strongly tinged with mysticism, in which there was far more of
Christianity and of the speculative metaphysics of the East than of the
old Olympian religion. Justinian, partly from religious motives, partly
because he discountenanced all rivals to the imperial university of
Constantinople, closed these Athenian schools (529). The professors
sought refuge at the court of Chosroes, king of Persia, but were soon so
much disgusted by the ideas and practices of the fire-worshippers that
they returned to the empire, Chosroes having magnanimously obtained from
Justinian a promise that they should be suffered to pass the rest of
their days unmolested. Heresy proved more obstinate. The severities
directed against the Montanists of Phrygia led to a furious war, in
which most of the sectaries perished, while the doctrine was not
extinguished. Harsh laws provoked the Samaritans to a revolt, from whose
effects Palestine had not recovered when conquered by the Arabs in the
following century. The Nestorians and the Eutychian Monophysites were
not threatened with such severe civil penalties, although their worship
was interdicted, and their bishops were sometimes banished; but this
vexatious treatment was quite enough to keep them disaffected, and the
rapidity of the Mahommedan conquests may be partly traced to that
alienation of the bulk of the Egyptian and a large part of the Syrian
population which dates from Justinian's persecutions.
4. Justinian was engaged in three great foreign wars, two of them of his
own seeking, the third a legacy which nearly every emperor had come into
for three centuries, the secular strife of Rome and Persia. The Sassanid
kings of Persia ruled a dominion which extended from the confines of
Syria to those of India, and from the straits of Oman to the Caucasus.
The martial character of their population made them formidable enemies
to the Romans, whose troops were at this epoch mainly barbarians, the
settled and civilized subjects of the empire being as a rule averse from
war. When Justinian came to the throne, his troops were maintaining an
unequal struggle on the Euphrates against the armies of Kavadh I.
(q.v.). After some campaigns, in which the skill of Belisarius obtained
considerable successes, a peace was concluded in 533 with Chosroes I.
(q.v.). This lasted till 539, when Chosroes declared war, alleging that
Justinian had been secretly intriguing against him with the Hephthalite
Huns, and doubtless moved by alarm and envy at the victories which the
Romans had been gaining in Italy. The emperor was too much occupied in
the West to be able adequately to defend his eastern frontier. Chosroes
advanced into Syria with little resistance, and in 540 captured Antioch,
then the greatest city in Asia, carrying off its inhabitants into
captivity. The war continued with varying fortunes for four years more
in this quarter; while in the meantime an even fiercer struggle had
begun in the mountainous region inhabited by the Lazi at the
south-eastern corner of the Black Sea (see COLCHIS). When after
two-and-twenty years of fighting no substantial advantage had been
gained by either party, Chosroes agreed in 562 to a peace which left
Lazica to the Romans, but under the dishonourable condition of their
paying 30,000 pieces of gold annually to the Persian king. Thus no
result of permanent importance flowed from these Persian wars, except
that they greatly weakened the Roman Empire, increased Justinian's
financial embarrassments, and prevented him from prosecuting with
sufficient vigour his enterprises in the West. (See further PERSIA:
_Ancient History_, "The Sassanid Dynasty.")
These enterprises had begun in 533 with an attack on the Vandals, who
were then reigning in Africa. Belisarius, despatched from Constantinople
with a large fleet and army, landed without opposition, and destroyed
the barbarian power in two engagements. North Africa from beyond the
straits of Gibraltar to the Syrtes became again a Roman province,
although the Moorish tribes of the interior maintained a species of
independence; and part of southern Spain was also recovered for the
empire. The ease with which so important a conquest had been effected
encouraged Justinian to attack the Ostrogoths of Italy, whose kingdom,
though vast in extent, for it included part of south-eastern Gaul,
Raetia, Dalmatia and part of Pannonia, as well as Italy, Sicily,
Sardinia and Corsica, had been grievously weakened by the death first of
the great Theodoric, and some years later of his grandson Athalaric, so
that the Gothic nation was practically without a head. Justinian began
the war in 535, taking as his pretext the murder of Queen Amalasuntha,
daughter of Theodoric, who had placed herself under his protection, and
alleging that the Ostrogothic kingdom had always owned a species of
allegiance to the emperor at Constantinople. There was some foundation
for this claim, although of course it could not have been made effective
against Theodoric, who was more powerful than his supposed suzerain.
Belisarius, who had been made commander of the Italian expedition,
overran Sicily, reduced southern Italy, and in 536 occupied Rome. Here
he was attacked in the following year by Vitiges, who had been chosen
king by the Goths, with a greatly superior force. After a siege of over
a year, the energy, skill, and courage of Belisarius, and the sickness
which was preying on the Gothic troops, obliged Vitiges to retire.
Belisarius pursued his diminished army northwards, shut him up in
Ravenna, and ultimately received the surrender of that impregnable city.
Vitiges was sent prisoner to Constantinople, where Justinian treated
him, as he had previously treated the captive Vandal king, with
clemency. The imperial administration was established through Italy, but
its rapacity soon began to excite discontent, and the kernel of the
Gothic nation had not submitted. After two short and unfortunate reigns,
the crown had been bestowed on Totila or Baduila, a warrior of
distinguished abilities, who by degrees drove the imperial generals and
governors out of Italy. Belisarius was sent against him, but with forces
too small for the gravity of the situation. He moved from place to place
during several years, but saw city after city captured by or open its
gates to Totila, till only Ravenna, Otranto and Ancona remained.
Justinian was occupied by the ecclesiastical controversy of the Three
Chapters, and had not the money to fit out a proper army and fleet;
indeed, it may be doubted whether he would ever have roused himself to
the necessary exertions but for the presence at Constantinople of a knot
of Roman exiles, who kept urging him to reconquer Italy, representing
that with their help and the sympathy of the people it would not be a
difficult enterprise. The emperor at last complied, and in 552 a
powerful army was despatched under Narses, an Armenian eunuch now
advanced in life, but reputed the most skilful general of the age, as
Belisarius was the hottest soldier. He marched along the coast of the
Gulf of Venice, and encountered the army of Totila at Taginae not far
from Cesena. Totila was slain, and the Gothic cause irretrievably lost.
The valiant remains of the nation made another stand under Teias on the
Lactarian Hill in Campania; after that they disappear from history.
Italy was recovered for the empire, but it was an Italy terribly
impoverished and depopulated, whose possession carried little strength
with it. Justinian's policy both in the Vandalic and in the Gothic War
stands condemned by the result. The resources of the state, which might
better have been spent in defending the northern frontier against Slavs
and Huns and the eastern frontier against Persians, were consumed in the
conquest of two countries which had suffered too much to be of any
substantial value, and which, separated by language as well as by
intervening seas, could not be permanently retained. However, Justinian
must have been almost preternaturally wise to have foreseen this: his
conduct was in the circumstances only what might have been expected from
an ambitious prince who perceived an opportunity of recovering
territories that had formerly belonged to the empire, and over which its
rights were conceived to be only suspended.
Besides these three great foreign wars, Justinian's reign was troubled
by a constant succession of border inroads, especially on the northern
frontier, where the various Slavonic and Hunnish tribes who were
established along the lower Danube and on the north coast of the Black
Sea made frequent marauding expeditions into Thrace and Macedonia,
sometimes penetrating as far as the walls of Constantinople in one
direction and the Isthmus of Corinth in another. Immense damage was
inflicted by these marauders on the subjects of the empire, who seem to
have been mostly too peaceable to defend themselves, and whom the
emperor could not spare troops enough to protect. Fields were laid
waste, villages burnt, large numbers of people carried into captivity;
and on one occasion the capital was itself in danger.
5. It only remains to say something regarding Justinian's personal
character and capacities, with regard to which a great diversity of
opinion has existed among historians. The civilians, looking on him as a
patriarch of their science, have as a rule extolled his wisdom and
virtues; while ecclesiastics of the Roman Church, from Cardinal Baronius
downwards, have been offended by his arbitrary conduct towards the
popes, and by his last lapse into heresy, and have therefore been
disposed to accept the stories which ascribe to him perfidy, cruelty,
rapacity and extravagance. The difficulty of arriving at a fair
conclusion is increased by the fact that Procopius, who is our chief
authority for the events of his reign, speaks with a very different
voice in his secret memoirs (the _Anecdota_) from that which he has used
in his published history, and that some of the accusations contained in
the former work are so rancorous and improbable that a certain measure
of discredit attaches to everything which it contains. The truth seems
to be that Justinian was not a great ruler in the higher sense of the
word, that is to say, a man of large views, deep insight, a capacity for
forming just such plans as the circumstances needed, and carrying them
out by a skilful adaptation of means to ends. But he was a man of
considerable abilities, wonderful activity of mind, and admirable
industry. He was interested in many things, and threw himself with
ardour into whatever he took up; he contrived schemes quickly, and
pushed them on with an energy which usually made them succeed when no
long time was needed, for, if a project was delayed, there was a risk of
his tiring of it and dropping it. Although vain and full of
self-confidence, he was easily led by those who knew how to get at him,
and particularly by his wife. She exercised over him that influence
which a stronger character always exercises over a weaker, whatever
their respective positions; and unfortunately it was seldom a good
influence, for Theodora (q.v.) seems to have been a woman who, with all
her brilliant gifts of intelligence and manner, had no principles and no
pity. Justinian was rather quick than strong or profound; his policy
does not strike one as the result of deliberate and well-considered
views, but dictated by the hopes and fancies of the moment. His activity
was in so far a misfortune as it led him to attempt too many things at
once, and engage in undertakings so costly that oppression became
necessary to provide the funds for them. Even his devotion to work,
which excites our admiration, in the centre of a luxurious court, was to
a great extent unprofitable, for it was mainly given to theological
controversies which neither he nor any one else could settle. Still,
after making all deductions, it is plain that the man who accomplished
so much, and kept the whole world so occupied, as Justinian did during
the thirty-eight years of his reign, must have possessed no common
abilities. He was affable and easy of approach to all his subjects, with
a pleasant address; nor does he seem to have been, like his wife, either
cruel or revengeful. We hear several times of his sparing those who had
conspired against him. But he was not scrupulous in the means he
employed, and he was willing to maintain in power detestable ministers
if only they served him efficiently and filled his coffers. His chief
passion, after that for his own fame and glory, seems to have been for
theology and religion; it was in this field that his literary powers
exerted themselves (for he wrote controversial treatises and hymns), and
his taste also, for among his numerous buildings the churches are those
on which he spent most thought and money. Considering that his legal
reforms are those by which his name is mainly known to posterity, it is
curious that we should have hardly any information as to his legal
knowledge, or the share which he took in those reforms. In person he was
somewhat above the middle height, well-shaped, with plenty of fresh
colour in his cheeks, and an extraordinary power of doing without food
and sleep. He spent most of the night in reading or writing, and would
sometimes go for a day with no food but a few green herbs. Two mosaic
figures of him exist at Ravenna, one in the apse of the church of S.
Vitale, the other in the church of S. Apollinare in Urbe; but of course
one cannot be sure how far in such a material the portrait fairly
represents the original. He had no children by his marriage with
Theodora, and did not marry after her decease. On his death, which took
place on the 14th of November 565, the crown passed to his nephew Justin
II.
AUTHORITIES.--For the life of Justinian the chief authorities are
Procopius (_Historiae, De aedificiis, Anecdota_) and (from 552 A.D.)
the _History_ of Agathias; the Chronicle of Johannes Malalas is also
of value. Occasional reference must be made to the writings of
Jordanes and Marcellinus, and even to the late compilations of
Cedrenus and Zonaras. The _Vita Justiniani_ of Ludewig or Ludwig
(Halle, 1731), a work of patient research, is frequently referred to
by Gibbon in his important chapters relating to the reign of
Justinian, in the _Decline and Fall_ (see Bury's edition, 1900). There
is a _Vie de Justinien_ by Isambert (2 vols., Paris, 1856). See also
Hutton's _Church of the Sixth Century_ (1897); J. B. Bury's _Later
Roman Empire_ (1889); Hodgkin's _Italy and her Invaders_ (1880).
(J. Br.)