lative and judicial functions was little observed. The rescripts of the emperor (or of those authorized to make answers in his name) for the resolution of doubtful cases, the decrees in actions brought by appeal before the imperial court, and the edicts, as well those relating to the administration of the government as for the regulation of private rights, were all embraced under the general designation of constitutiones principum. The great number of these constitutions, and the crudity of many of them, rendered compilations and commentaries indispensable. Among these the principal are the imperial decrees or decisions collected by Paulus; "Rescripts of the Divi Fratres," collected by Papirius Justus; rescripts of Hadrian, compiled by Dositheus; the collection by Ulpian, in his work De Officio Proconsulis, of all the ordinances issued against Christians; and lastly, two general collections (codices) of constitutions from Hadrian to Constantine, the one by Gregorius, the other by Hermogenes (the latter a supplement to the first), both of which consisted chiefly, as is understood, of rescripts. All of these were private compilations, and do not strictly come under the definition of codes as given at the beginning of this article. The Codex Theodosianus, published A. D. 438, by order of Theodosius the Younger, was a compilation of all the edicts of the emperors which were deemed important, and also many of the rescripts. This was a work of great importance, not merely as the initiative of the great work of digesting the whole Roman law afterward completed by Justinian, but for its influence upon several of the Germanic nations, by whom it was adopted or in some degree made the basis of their laws before the revision had been made which is now known by the name of Corpus Juris Gimlis. The compilations made by order of Justinian in 528-'35, the Institutes, Pandects, and code, and the new constitutions which were published after his death in 565, have been described in the article Civil Law. In the same article will also be found an account of three of the barbaric codes, viz.: the edict of Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, in 500; the Breviarium Alaricianum, issued by Alaric II., king of the Visigoths, in 506; and the Lex Romano, of the Burgundians, published in 517-534. All of these were intended chiefly for Roman subjects. But there were also distinct laws for the barbarians themselves, which it will be proper to notice more in detail. First as to the Franks. There were two tribes, one called Salian (probably from the river Sala, or Yssel, upon which they were first established), the other Ripuarian (from the Latin ripa, the name expressing their location upon the banks of the Rhine). These tribes had separate compilations of laws, which continued in force even after the union of the two tribes under Clovis. Of the Salic law our knowledge is derived from manuscripts still extant, most of which are an unmixed Latin text, but others have an intermixture of Germanic words. The latter are entitled Lex Salica antiqua (or antiquissima, or vetusta), the other Lex Salica recentior (or emendata, or reformata}. M. Wiarda, in a work entitled Histoire et explication de la loi salique, has proved that none of the compilations are of an earlier date than the 7th century, and that the manuscripts containing Germanic words and purporting to be the more ancient are in fact later in time than the others. The laws themselves he supposes to have been compiled after the Franks had become established in Belgium, and that they were originally written in Latin. He also concludes that they were not published as a code by public authority, but were compiled from customs and judicial decisions; and that they do not constitute all the laws of the Salian Franks. The earliest historical notice of any such compilation is in the 8th century, in a work called Gesta Francorum. Guizot (Histoire de la civilisation en France) deduces from a critical examination of all the manuscripts that the law is essentially penal. It contains 343 penal articles, and only 65 upon all other subjects. The nature of the crimes and punishments which are specified indicates an exceedingly rude condition of society. There is no generalization, but a chaotic mingling together of the various individual cases of crime that might occur in an uncivilized community, without definition, classification, or any arrangement. One peculiarity is observable, which indeed may be found in the laws of all the Germanic nations at an early period, viz., the extreme mildness of punishments as respects free men, whether Franks or Romans. Pecuniary composition, Wehrgeld or Wiedergeld (prohibition money), was the only penalty prescribed by the Salic law, and this only as a substitute for the right of the injured party to take personal vengeance; but if accepted, the law merely fixed the amount. In respect to slaves it was different; they were subject to cruel corporal punishments, imprisonment, and death. Another peculiarity, which also belonged to the laws of other tribes, was the mode of proof in judicial trials. This was by the oath of compurgators or conjurators, that is to say, a certain number of the friends of the accused who deposed that he had not done what was imputed to him; and on the other hand, conjurators could be produced by the accuser. There was no examination of witnesses nor discussion of the facts, but a simple attestation under oath of the truth of the charge or a denial thereof.. The laws of the Ripuarian Franks were essentially the same as those above described, with only the following distinguishing circumstances: 1, that there is more of precision and legislative form, and that the subjects are less exclusively penal; 2, that the mode of proof by compurgators or conjurators is more distinctly regulated; 3, judicial combat is recognized as a mode of deciding controversies. This cus-
