¹ Abbreviations: B. = Basilica; T. = Tipoukeitos.Google Scholar

² See Seidl, E., ‘Die Basiliken des Patzes,’ Festschrift für P Koschaker III (Weimar 1939) 294; Müller, Hans, Der letzte Titel des XX. Buches der Basiliken des Patzes in seinem Repertorium Tipucitus (Diss. Greifswald 1940).—The phrase, die Basiliken des Patzes means the copy of B. which was used by Patzes.Google Scholar

³ More precise rubrics in B., e.g.: 2, 5; 3, 4; 6, 6.20. More precise rubrics in T.: 3, 1. Different wording of the title: 4, 1.Google Scholar

⁴ Thus Lingenthal, Zachariae v., Historiae iuris Graeco-Romani delineatio (Heidelbergae 1839) 66; Mortreuil, J. B., Histoire du droit Byzantin, III (Paris 1846) 252; Heimbach, C. W E., ‘Griechisch-römisches Recht,’ Ersch und Gruber's Allgemeine Encyclopädie 86 (Leipzig 1868) 437; Kübler, B., Geschichte des röm. Rechts (Leipzig-Erlangen 1925) 425: Arangio-Ruiz, V, Storia del diritto romano (Napoli 1937) 381.—In the critical edition of T. (see the following note) the work is characterized on the title-page as a summarium which, however, is less appropriate than repertorium because it does not reflect the distinction between this work and other kinds of summaries in the Byzantine legal literature.—P Noailles, Mélanges Cornil II (Gand—Paris 1926) speaks of the work once (p. 181) as a ‘répertoire des citations’ which does not correctly account for its character; better is his expression (p. 177) ‘résumé des Basiliques, enrichi des paratitla.’ The last addition concerns the numerous cross-references to other texts of B., with which T. is richly endowed. The technical term for those references is parapompai (correctly Mercati, ed cit. n. 5 infra, pp. ix, xii n. 2, and Doelger, ibid. p. iv) and they are thus called in T 10, 3, 47; 10, 4, 66; 10, 12; 10, 23, 5; 10, 24; 10, 27 i.f.; 18, 5, 47 The term paratitla is to be found on a slip of paper—attached to the MS of T —of much later origin (sixteenth century, cf. Heimbach Jr. Anecdota I [Lipsiae 1838] 220; Mercati, ed. cit. infra, p. xxii n. 2). The slip incorrectly calls the work: and Allatius does the same in his copy of the MS of T. (see infra n. 14): T. This identification with paratitla—the term is used here not in the sense of Justinian’ const. Tanta c. 21, as I shall show in another paper to be published in the Bulletin of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America 3 (1945) 661 ff.—is not correct since these references, although important and useful, are only a small part of the work.Google Scholar

⁵ M. KPITOT sive Librorum LX Basilicorum Summarium, libros I–XII Graece et Latine ediderunt Ferrini, C., Joannes Mercati (Romae 1914). The second volume, containing books XIII–XXIII, was edited by Fr. Doelger, without Latin translation, 1929 (= Studi e Testi, vols. 25 and 51). I have not seen the recently published third volume, books XXIV–XXXVIII, edd. Stephania Hoermann, nata de Stepski-Doliwa et Erwin Seidl (Studi e Testi 107, Città del Vaticano 1944)Google Scholar

⁶ Heimbach's edition of the first 12 books and two titles of books 16 and 17 of T in B. II, 742–753 is not satisfactory.Google Scholar

⁷ Some examples of the latest literature: Noailles op. cit. 175; Seidl, op. cit. 294; Hans Müller, in the title of his dissertation (supra n. 2).Google Scholar

⁸ The brothers Heimbach, Zachariae v. Lingenthal, and others.Google Scholar

⁹ Thirteenth century: Mercati, ed. cit. xiv; Heimbach, B. II, viii and in Ersch und Gruber's Encycl. 86, 437; Mortreuil, op. cit. III, 253; Treu, Byzant. Ztschr. 2(1892) 102.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Ferrini-Mercati, ed. cit. 1.—See infra, the text before n. 38.Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. Jr, Heimbach Anecdota I, 220; Mercati I, xxii n. 2; Heimbach, Encycl. 86, 438.Google Scholar

¹² This is a discovery of Heimbach, Anecdota I, 219, who shows also how many scholars have been misled by Papadopoli. Cf. Noailles, op. cit. 177 n. 2.Google Scholar

¹³ To this Papadopoli—who did not enjoy a good reputation among the scholars of the nineteenth century because of his untrustworthiness in quoting sources which nobody had seen, and personalities who had never lived—P Noailles devoted an article in Melanges Cornil II (1926) 177–196; he does not hesitate to call him an ‘impudent forger'—The description of the character of T., as given above in the text, does not agree with what Noailles (p. 178) said about it.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The copy is now Cod. Vat. Gr 1928, 1929.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Mercati, ed. cit. xxiv.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Mercati, , Noailles.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2 (1892) 96.Google Scholar

¹⁸ If this estimate be right, the origin of T should be antedated, and at any rate we should exclude the twelfth century (cfr., for instance, Kübler, Gesch. des röm. Rechts 445) because at the time of the colloquy T must have been widely read.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See the Appendix, infra. Google Scholar

²⁰

²¹ The Justinian Novels are not mentioned; see, however, the Appendix.Google Scholar

²²

²³ Cfr. supra n. 22.Google Scholar

²⁴ He lived about the middle of the eleventh century, cfr. Mortreuil, op. cit. III, 323, 468; Heimbach, B. VI, 197Google Scholar

²⁵ A manual composed in alphabetic order. Probably the Synopsis Basilicorum (of the middle of the tenth century) is meant.Google Scholar

²⁶ Cfr. Doelger, , op. cit. 104.Google Scholar

²⁷ Now nr. 886, cfr. Martini, E. Bassi, D., Cat. Cod. Gr Ambrosianae II (Mediolani 1906) 989; formerly C 222, inf fol. 338.Google Scholar

²⁸ From Martini, E., Catalogo di manoscritti greci II (1902) 184, nr 103, 8 it should be concluded that the MS belongs at the earliest to the fourteenth century, cfr. ibid. 183 nr. 103 = F 68. Studemund, G., Anecdota varia (1886) ascribes it to the fifteenth century.Google Scholar

²⁹ Treu does not say whether the latter MS has or τó before the three words.Google Scholar

³⁰ is frequent in the later scholia of B. especially in such statements as: But it is unknown in a book-title.Google Scholar

³¹ Suarez, cf. Noailles, op. cit. 183; Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur (2nd ed. München 1897) 607: ‘vgl. den Spitznamen Keitoukeitos.'Google Scholar

³² Cujas was the first to identify him with the jurist Ulpian, not Schweighäuser, as Wissowa, PWK 5 (1903) 1435, no. 87, and C. B. Gulick, in the edition of Athenaios (Loeb Cl. Lib.) I (1933) ix note a, affirm. The identification has been shown long ago to be mistaken, cf. Wissowa, , loc. cit.; Joers, PWK 5, 1435/6 no. 88; H Dessau, Prosop. Imp. Rom. II (Berlin 1898) 24, no. 1435: Krüger, P, Gesch. der Quellen (2nd ed. München und Leipzig 1912) 239 n. 143, and the authors quoted by Noailles op. cit. 182 nn. 2, 3.—Wentzel, ‘Athenaios,’ PWK 2 (1896) 2033 assumes that the rhetor Ulpian never did exist and was ‘dem berühmten Rechtslehrer nachgebildet’ by Athenaios. This strange conception seems to have impressed Mengis, K., Die schriftstellerische Technik im Sophistenmahl des Athenaios (Paderborn 1920) and Gulick, , op. cit. viii (‘if the Ulpian of the dialogue is really modeled on the celebrated jurist'). The latter author, however, ascribes (p. ix note a) the identification of the jurist with the sophist to Wentzel, and he, himself, writes on p. xxii: ‘Ulpian of Tyre = Roman jurist and official.'—Wentzel's idea seems to me quite untenable. None of the features of Athenaios’ Ulpian, one of the ‘Sophists at dinner'—except the common origin from Tyros—fits the jurist Ulpian. Cf. infra n. 34.Google Scholar

³³ 1, 1d, e.Google Scholar

³⁴ The dictionaries by Passow, , Liddell-Scott, , and similarly Noailles, op. cit. 182, note that Keitoukeitos’ questions referred only to meals and dishes. This is wrong because even the examples given by Athenaios go beyond this domain, cf. 1, 1d: (prodigal's house). In addition, Ulpian's portrait as given by Athenaios (see the quotation above) is against such an interpretation. Cf. Suidas, , ed. by Adler, A. II (Lipsiae 1931) 34 s.v. Deipnosophistai, and Kaibel, Hermes 22 (1887) 325.—I cannot realize how the jurist Ulpian should have served as a model for all this.—Incidentally, Cujas was wrong when, in his comment on Dig. 33, 6, 9 (Observ. XXIV c. 39), he scoffs at Ulpian, the jurist, who deals here with the term vinum for the interpretation of a legacy of wine: ‘now we understand how right was Athenaeus when he called Ulpian a word-hunter Ulpian's deliberations about what wine is, are perhaps too detailed, inasmuch as he takes into consideration different kinds of wine and wine-like products, but all this is neither hunting after words nor has it anything in common with the rhetor's mania of questioningGoogle Scholar

³⁵ The French version by Noailles, op. cit. 181: ‘qu'est-ce que c'est, où est-ce?’ does not reflect exactly the sense of the locution.Google Scholar

³⁶ Noailles 181.Google Scholar

³⁷ Thus Juncker, J., Sav.-Ztschr. Rom. Abt. 50 (1930) 714 n. 2.Google Scholar

³⁸ The following words are: Google Scholar

³⁹ Ed. cit. xxiv n. 1; also ‘Addenda et corrigenda’ (p. xlvii).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ed. cit. xxii, xxiii, xxiv.—This contradiction between the beginning of the edition, on one hand, and title-page and introduction, on the other, seems hardly understandable (cfr. Noailles op. cit. 180 n. 2) unless one realizes that Mercati wrote the introduction after the sheets of the edition itself had already been printed.Google Scholar

⁴¹ p. xxx.Google Scholar

⁴² p. xxxiii.Google Scholar

⁴³ Noailles, , op. cit. 181, sees in the ‘paradise’ a later addition by a copyist or a reader who wanted thus to express his admiration.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Mercati, , ed. cit. xxii.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ He appears already in the scholia to the B. The merit of having discovered the origin of his ‘name’ belongs to Cujas, Praef. ad librum. LX Basilicorum. Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Cfr. Mortreuil, , op. cit. I, 169; Heimbach, Encycl. cit. 276.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Cf. Heimbach, Jr., Anecdota I, 221; Noailles, op. cit. 189.—This Bafius is not a creation of Papadopoli, as Heimbach believed. His paternity is more distinguished: it was no one less than Cujas who ‘discovered’ him (loc. cit. supra n. 45). He was followed by Suaresius, J. M. (Suarez), Notitia Basilicorum (ed. Pohlius, C. F., Lipsiae 1804) 130, where Bafius is listed among the Byzantine jurists.Google Scholar