Theodosian Code, Volume 2

with the attached quaternion torn away, today joined with Parisinus 4406 (fol. 60—67) [our $Ω$], which—as will be shown below—generally agree with $Σ Λ Ξ Θ O$ in individual readings, and almost always disagree with $Γ$. Therefore, the opinion of Mommsen (Theod. I p. XCVI) must be rejected, who thinks that the novels of Majorian 1—6 were transferred into these books from the archetype of codex $Γ$. However, the table of contents of book $Σ$ preserves the rubrics of novels 3 (= V) and 6 (= VIII), and $Ξ$ preserves novel 3 (= V) complete in both the table of contents and the text; $Ψ Θ Ω$ exhibit the first six of Majorian in full, whose rubrics are read in the books of the Aegidian epitome.

We therefore have this account of the Majorian novels: since codex $Γ$ of the first collection has the first six and the beginning of the seventh, with the text of the rest missing in the mutilated book, the founders of the Breviary used a complete copy and took only the seventh from it, to which the continuators added a part of the eleventh. To these two novels in the archetype of the third collection are added both novel 9, placed among the Theodosian laws (the source of which remains hidden), and novels 1—6, described from a mutilated copy of the first collection (but different from $Γ$), which are placed after the Majorian novels of the Breviary.

The legal experts under Alaric possessed the corpus of Novellae of the Emperor Marcian of the East, and from it they inserted an epitome into their Breviary, which then passed into the third collection neither enlarged nor diminished.

The novel of Severus, the one that is numbered first, shows by the fact that it was not received in its entirety, as well as by the form of its interpretation, that it was absent from the Alaric archetype, as we saw above (p. XVII). Besides the codices of the Breviary, it is exhibited by the Fuldensis and O books of the third collection. — The second novel of Severus (issued Sept. 25, 465) has a different origin; for it is probable that this novel, which was an extravagans a law issued outside the main collection, was transferred into some books of the third collection from a very ancient codex of the law of the Burgundian Romans, in which it had been appended to a chapter, where it was joined with the Papinian The Responsa of Papinian, which marks the end of the Breviary. A book of this kind was the lost Pithoeanus, from which P. Pithoeus the elder took the complete constitution and appended it in his own place in the Parisian copy of Sichardus, F 380, cited above (p. XVIII) on fol. 167v, and Cuiacius published it as appended in 1566. Furthermore, a fragment of the law is present in the Fuldensis (fol. 128v) under the name of Papinian (see p. XVIII, note 2), and we read a larger part in the Vatican Reg. 1050 (fol. 118) between the index of authors subscribed to the Breviary and the law of the Burgundian Romans.

The third collection preserved three constitutions of Anthemius; they are held in the Fuldensis and Pithoeanus codices along with $Δ, Ξ, O$; furthermore, they exist in the rubrics. The rubric of Novella 2 in $Σ$, which is handed down as follows: ‘On the confirmation of the law of our lord Leo Augustus’, teaches us that the genuine form of these novels is preserved for us. I said above (p. XI) that novels 2 and 3, promulgated on the same day, are so connected that the third, sent by Leo to Anthemius, is placed under the other (see ad nov. Anth. 3, 1 p. 206).

Finally, a few things must be said about the so-called formless fragment of the late Maximus, which is found in the Fuldensis, fol. 13v (see p. XVIII) and 132v under the heading where the titles of the late Maximus on the highest silt original: "de summo silaquidio"; the translator notes this is likely a corruption of "siliquaticum", a tax on the sale of goods begin, and it is also mentioned in the rubric of codices $Σ$ (fol. 2v) and $Ξ$ (fol. 8r), which I described on p. XVIII. This fragment is usually wrongly attributed to Petronius Maximus, who reigned for a few months after the murder of Valentinian III in 455 AD: for both the Fuldensis and that rubric name Maximus after Severus, nor is it probable that any constitution of that emperor was ever recorded in the volumes of laws. For this reason, I have not included that fragment among the laws of our edition; its words are given below in the annotation 1.

1) "We concede in kindness (-ti in Latin) if he refuses he will be admitted; but what is to be done regarding the condition granted to him where the singular objection of the man is preferred because of the black garments original: "pullata... coria"; likely referring to mourning attire which he will seek for the sake of our serene edict to all provinces, you will soon send back the written documents (or it is sent back)."