¹ P. Oxy, xvii, 2103. See the supplement to Kübler's, B. sixth edition of Gaius, Teubner, 1928.Google Scholar

² So A.-R. 26, on lines 44–5. Levy, 268–9, arrives at a smaller residuum for the end of the new passage, his ratio being: one page F=three-eighths page V. I have made no allowance for the possible presence of other passages omitted by V: see A.-R. l.c.

³ Add to ABCD (one folio) the two folios missing between B and C, and add another of which EF is the right half (E being a recto and its text continuous with D's), and we have a gathering of four, but the editor courteously informs me that markings on C suggest, as a conjecture, that there may have been another folio outside. Cf. A.-R. I.

⁴ Not entirely free: lines 134, 147, 163–4, 167, 187, 188–9, 192, 206–7, 217–8, 219, not to mention misspellings: lines 3, etc., 6, 33, 35, 189. Corrections in the MS: lines 12–3, 27, 33 (?), 34 (?), 37, 38, 53, 54, 87, 217 (?).

⁵ Lines 55–6, 95–7, 106–8, 113–4, 129–30, 134–5, 155–6, 169–70.

⁶ See my note on line 54.

⁷ Levy 261, 2.

⁸ nominabant V.

⁹ Lines 3, 48, 84, 95–7, 113–4.

¹⁰ Lines 87, 92, 99, 215–6.

¹¹ Line 115: acceptilatio. In 50 and 72 VF agree against Inst.

¹² For the general literature up to 1931 see De Francisci, Conferenze per il xiv Centenario delle Pandette (Milan, 1931), 29, 2. The particular literature on the F passages is given more fully than by A.-R. 32 and my own notes by Levy 272, whose list I reproduce for convenience. 3, 153: Beseler, Sav. Z., xlv, 222Google Scholar, Tijdschr., x, 193, Beitr., v, 4. 3, 154: Stoll, Sav. Z., xliv, 8, 2Google Scholar; Beseler, Sav. Z., xlvi, 268Google Scholar, Tijdschr., viii, 320, Beitr., v, 4; Perozzi, Ist. ², i, 97Google Scholar, 1; Solazzi, Dir. ered., ii, 26Google Scholar. 3, 169 init.: Kniep, , Gaius, iii, 2, 43Google Scholar, n. 1. 3, 170: Stoll, o.c., 9, 1Google Scholar; Solazzi, , Rend. Ist. Lomb., lix, 359Google Scholar, 2. 3, 172–3: Kniep, o.c., 44, nn. 2, 8. 4, 16: Lévy-Bruhl, , Rev. hist, dr., xi, 127Google Scholar. 4, 17: Solazzi, , Glosse, ii, 446Google Scholar.

¹³ A.-R. 31. Levy 272.

¹⁴ Similarly, the concordance of O with V does not strictly show more than that the common text must be at least as early as about A.D. 250, which means that it cannot contain post-classical matter. But O's text is from book 4, which was obsolete in the post-classical period, so that post-classical matter was not likely and had not been conjectured to be present. I should not now express myself so strongly as I did in Law Quart. Rev., xliv (1928), 200Google Scholar. Cf. Francisci, De, Conferenze xiv Centen. (Milan), 29Google Scholar, 2.

¹⁵ École de Beyrout, 124 ff., 129.

¹⁶ 273. He cites his own ‘Westen u. Osten in d. nachklass. Entwicklung des r. R.’, Sav. Z., xlix (1929), 233Google Scholar and ‘Paulus u. der Sentenzenverfasser,’ Sav. Z., l (1930), 272, 294Google Scholar; also Francisci, De, Conferenze xiv Centen. (Milan), 21 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ Collect. libr. iuris anteiust., i, ix.

¹⁸ Collinet, École de Beyrout, 211 ff.

¹⁹ Collinet, ‘Les nouveaux fragments,’ 101, alone seems dissatisfied.

²⁰ A.-R. 33–4. Arangio-Ruiz, Revue Al Q., 69, 2. Scherillo, , Rend. Ist. Lomb., lxiii (1930), 103Google Scholar. Arangio-Ruiz now abandons the view that Gaius issued two editions of his Institutes in support of which he first advanced the idea that V is a shortened version: Bull., xxx (1920), 181Google Scholar, and xxxv (1927), 191. Cf. Albertano, , Bull., xxxii (1922), 117Google Scholar; Buckland, , Law Quart. Rev., xxxviii (1922), 38Google Scholar and xl (1924), 185; Schulz, Epitome Ulpiani (1926), 11.

²¹ Except by Levy 271, 2.

²² Consortium, 35.

²³ Sav. Z., xlvi (1926), 268Google Scholar: the passage is post-Gaian. The recent literature is given by A.-R. 32, 5; Levy, 276; Albertario, Nuovi Frammenti, 516; Frezza, Consortium, 36 ff.; Arangio-Ruiz, Societas re contracta, 357. But Dubois' edition shows that editors have alwavs found the passage unsatisfactory. Some came pretty near the truth, e.g. Seckel-Kübler: videntur nonnulla excidisse (not quite at the right place).

²⁴ Probably the passage occupied another page of F: supra p. 178. The whole passage would have taken about a page of V.

²⁵ Especially Societas re conlracta, 393.

²⁶ See Levy's interesting suggestion, p. 292.

²⁷ Frezza, Consortium, 45–6.

²⁸ This consideration would help to explain the omission even if the passage was confined to antiquities.

²⁹ That he was perfectly capable of such a distinction is shown by the last sentence of 3, 91, or is that gloss ?

³⁰ On the strength of Gaius 3, 154 and various Digest passages. Ein, ‘Le azioni dei condomini,’ Bull., xxxix (1931), 73Google Scholar. Frezza, , ‘Actio communi dividundo,’ Riv. ital. sc. giur., N.S. vii (1932), 108Google Scholar. Borettini, ‘Societas e communio in due recenti studi romanistici’ (not seen), ibid., 458. Cf. Frezza, Consortium, 36 ff. Albertario, Nuovi Frammenti, 515 and Appunti, 232. Contra Arangio-Ruiz, ‘Societas re contracta,’ published 1934, but mostly written 1932.

³¹ Consortium, 45–6.

³² Albertario, Nuovi Frammenti, 517, and Appunti, 233, points out that the formulation communio cum and sine societate in Gaius (ad ed. prov.) D. 10, 3, 2 cannot, in view of the present passage, be Gaian; but the commentary on the provincial edict might be more mature work. Papinian D. 17, 2, 52, 8 qualifies a consortium as voluntarium, and Paul D. 10, 2, 25, 16 and Ulpian D. 17, 2, 31 have the idea of communio incidens, but neither formulation may have been known to Gaius, who, however, wrote (?) 3, 91 fin.

³³ Gloss according to Solazzi, o.c., 445 ff.