Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

640 INSTITUTIONES. INTERCESSIO.
the parchument for the purposes of the transcriber. Actiones, which is the third of the three dlivisionsl
The parchment, after being thus treated, was used of Gaius. The division of Gaius is faulty in several
for transcribing upon it some works of Jerome, respects; but this does not detract from the merit
chiefly his epistles. The old writing was so ob- of the work, which is perspicuous and abounds in
scure that it could only be seen by applying to it valuable matter. This view of the nature of the
an infusion of gall.nuts. A fresh examination of division of Gaius is from Savigny. (System, &c.,
the MS. was made by Blume, but with little ad- vol. i. p. 393, &c.) [G. L.]
ditional profit, owing to the condition of the manu- INSTITUTO'RIA ACTIO. [INTERCESSIO.]
script. A second edition of Gains was published I'NSULA. [DoMus, p. 430, a.]
by Goeschen in 1824, with valuable notes, and an IINTEGRUM RESTITUTIO, IN. [RsIndex Siglarurl used in the MS. The preface to STITUTIO.]
the first edition contains the complete demonstra- INTEINTIO. [ACTIO.]
tion that the MS. of Verona is the genuine Com- INTERCE'SSIO. It is a case of Intercessio
mentarii of Gaius, though the MS. itself has no when a man takes upon himself the debt of another
title. An improved edition of Goeschen's by Lach- -by virtue of some dealing with the creditor. This
mann appeared in 1842. may be in either of the following ways: he who
It appears from the Institutiones that Gains intercedes may take upon himself the debt of
wrote that work under Antoninus Pius and M. another, and may become debtor in place of that
Aurelius. other: or the intercedent may become debtor while
Many passages in the Fragments of Ulpian are the debtor still continues debtor. (Vangerow,
the same as passages in Gaius, which may be ex- Pandekten, &c. vol. iii. p. 133, &c.)
plained by assuming that both these writers copied To the first class belong (1) the case of a man
such parts from the same original. Though the undertaking an already existing obligatio, so as to
Institutiones of Justinian were mainly based on exclude the existing debtor; (2.) And the case of a
those of Gaius the compilers of the Institutiones of man taking an obligatio on himself, which does
Justinian sometimes followed other works: thus not already exist in the person of another, but which
the passage in the Institutes (ii. tit. 17. ~ 2, "si without such intervention would exist.
quis priori ") is from the fourth book of Marcianus' To the second class belong (1), the case when
Institutes (Dig. 36. tit. 1. s. 29); and, in some in- the creditor may consider either the original debtor
stances, the Institutiones of Justinian are more or the intercedent as his principal debtor, or when,
clear and explicit than those of Gaius. An in- in other words, the intercedent is correus debendi
stance of this occurs in Gaiuns (iii. 109) and the (Inst. iii. tit. 16. De duobus reis stipulandi et
Institutiones of Justinian (iii. tit. 19. s. 10). promittendi); (2) When the creditor can consider
Gains belonged to the school of the Sabiniani the intercedent only as liable to pay, when the
[JtRISCONSULI1]. The Jurists whom, he cites in principal debtor does not pay, or when in other
the Institutiones, are Cassius, Fufidius, Javolenus, words, the intercedent is a fidejussor. (Inst. iii.
Julianus, Labeo, Maximus, Q. Mucius, Ofilius, tit. 20, de Fidejussoribus.)
Proculus, Sabinus, Servius, Servius Sulpicius, Sex- The views of Puclhta as to the Intercessio are
tus, Tubero. contained in his Institutionen, vol. iii. p. 48, &c.)
The arrangement of the Institutes of Justinian In the Institutes of Gains, a distinction is made
is the samie as that of the work of Gaius; what- between sponsores and fidepromissores, on one side;
ever difference there is between them in this re- and fidejussores on the other. With respect to one
spect, is solely owing to the changes in the Roman another, sponsores were consponsores. (Cic. ad Att.
law, whichhad beenmadebetween the time of Gaius xii. 17.) In the Institutes of Justinian, the disand that of Justinian. There has been considerable tinction between sponsores and fidejussores does not
difference of opinion as to the nature of the ar- exist.
rangement of Gaius; and it is obvious that most Sponsores and fidepromissores could only become
persons havemisunderstood it. Accordilg to Gaius: parties to an obligatio verbortm, though in some
"omne jus quo utimur vel ad personas pertincet, cases they might be bound, when their principal
vel ad res, vel ad actiones " (i. 8). It is generally (qui p]romiselit) was not, as in the case of a pupillus
supposed that the division (the first book) which who promised without the auctoritas of his tutor,
treats of Persons comprehends the status or con- or of a man who promised something after his
dition of persons as the subjects of rights; others death. A fidejussor might become a party to all
affirm that it treats of legal capacity, or of the obligations, whether contracted re, verbis, litteris, or
three conditions which correspond to the threefold consensu. In the case of a sponsor the interrogatio
capitis deminutio. But the first book of Gaius was, Idem dari spondes? in the case of a fideprowhich treats of Persons contains both matter which missor, it was, Idem fidepromittis? in the case of
has nothing to do with legal capacity, and it does a fidejussor, it was, Idem fide tua esse jubes? The
not contain all that relates to legal capacity, for it object of having a sponsor, fidepromissor, or fidedoes not treat of one of three chief divisions which jussor, was greater security to the stipulator. On
relate to legal capacity, that of Cives, Latini, Pere- the other. hand, the stipulator had an adstipulator
grini. It treats in fact only of Marriage, Patria only when the promise was to pay something after
Potestas, Manus, Slavery, Patronatus with respect the stipulator's death, for if there was no adstipulto the different classes of freed men, Mancipium latoer the stipulatio was inutilis or void. (Gaius,
and Tutela. Accordingly, this part of the work iii. 100, 117.) The adstipulator was' the proper
treats only of persons so far as they belong to partyto sue after the stipulator's death, and he could
Familia, in the widest and Roman acceptation of be compelled by a mandati judiciuirs to pay to the
that term. The part which treats of res com- heres whatever he recovered.
prehends the Law of ownership, &c. and Law of The heres of a sponsor and fidepronmissor w-as
Obligationes, which two divisions occupy the se- not bound, unless the fidepromuissor were a pcltecond and third books. The fourth book treats of grinusa whose state had a different law on tho