hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
43 BC 170 170 Browse Search
44 BC 146 146 Browse Search
49 BC 140 140 Browse Search
45 BC 124 124 Browse Search
54 BC 121 121 Browse Search
46 BC 119 119 Browse Search
63 BC 109 109 Browse Search
48 BC 106 106 Browse Search
69 AD 95 95 Browse Search
59 BC 90 90 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith). Search the whole document.

Found 3 total hits in 3 results.

506 AD (search for this): entry gaius-bio-2
buch des Röm. Rechts, p. 52, n. (b) (12th ed. Gessen. 1842). There is a German translation of the first book, with copious notes of little merit, by Von Brockdorff (8vo. Schles. 1824). There are French translations of the whole work by Boulet (Paris, 1826), Domenget (1843), and Pellat (1844). From the forthcoming volume of notes and commentary, by the last-mentioned eminent professor, much is expected. Lex Romana Wisigothorum In the Lex Romana Wisigothorum, published under Alaric II. in A. D. 506, for the use of the Roman subjects of the Westgothic kingdom, the Institutes of Gaius appear, remodelled in barbarous fashion. They have been worse treated than the Theodosian Code and other legal works introduced into the same collection; for while a barbarous interpretation (scintilla) was subjoined to the text of the other works, Gaius was found to be so full of antiquated law, that his text, in its original state, would have been unsuitable to the character of the times. Accordingly, i
436 AD (search for this): entry gaius-bio-2
erienced, would probably have been deemed as unprofessional as for an English barrister to cite in court a clever treatise written by a contemporary below the bar, instead of seeking his authorities in the decisions of judges, and in the dicta of the recognised sages of the law. That this is the true explanation of the silence of other jurists with respect to Gaius may be inferred from a constitution of Theodosius II. and Valentinian III., despatched from Ravenna to the senate of Rome in A. D. 436. (Cod. Theod. 1. tit. 4. s. 3.) By that rescript the same authority is given to the writings of Gaius as to the writings of Papinian, Paulus, Ulpian, and Modestinus. Hence it may be inferred that Gaius was previously in a different and inferior position with respect to authority. All the writings of these five jurists (with the exception, subsequently specified, of the Notae of Paulus and Ulpian on Papinian) are invested with authority, as if to obviate the question as to the date when the
158 AD (search for this): entry gaius-bio-2
him with the addition Divus (2.195), and that he speaks of the law of cretio, as it stood in the region of Marcus, before it was altered by a constitution of that emperor. (Compare Gaius, 2.177 with Ulpian, Frag. 22.34.) In like manner, the statements made by Gaius in 3.23, 24, as to hardships in the law of succession which required the correction of the praetor's edict, could scarcely have been written after the senatus consultunm Tertullianum, made in the reign of M. Aurelius and Verus, A. D. 158, and still less after the senatus consultum Orphitianum, made in the reign of Marcus and Commodus, A. D. 178. (Compare Inst. 3. tit. 4. pr., and Capitolinus, in Marco. 11). Some critics have been so nice as to infer that the beginning of the Institutes of Gaius was written under Antoninus Pius, and the remainder under M. Aurelius. In 1.53. the former emperor is termed Sacratissimus Imperator Antoninus. So, in 1.102, we have " Nunc ex epistola optimi Imperatoris Antonini," and, in 2.126,