GAIUS, or CAIUS, one of the Roman classical jurists whose works entitle him to a place among the great writers on law, such as Papinian, Pardue, and Ulpian. Nothing is known of the personal history of Gains beyond the probable fact that he wrote under Autouinus Pius and Aurelius. His works were largely used in the compilation of the ',Digest,' or 'Pandect,' which contains extracts from the writings of Gaius under the following titles Res Cottidianm sive Aureorum,' (Dig. xl. 9, 10, &c.); 'De Casibue,' (xii. 6, 63, &c.); 'Ad Edictum £dilium Curulium,' (xxi. 1, 18, &c.); 'Liber ad Edictum Prmtoris Urbani,' (xl. 12, 6, &c.); Ad Edictum Provinciale,' (xiv. 4, 9, &c.), which consisted of thirty books at least ; 'Fidel Commissorum,' (xxxii. I, 14, etc.) ; Formula Hypothecaria,' (xx. 1, 4, &c.); Institu tiones,' (i. 6, 1, &c.); `De Verborum Obligationibus,' (xlvi. 1, 70). There are also extracts from several other works of Gaius in the Pandect.' The 'Institutions' of Gains were probably the earliest attempt to present a sketch of the Roman law in the form of an elementary text book. This work continued in general use till the compilation of the 'Institutions ' which bear the name of Justinian, and which were not only mainly based on the Institutious ' of Gaius, but, like this earlier work, were divided into four books, with the same general distribution of the subject-matter as that adopted by Gaius.
The 'Institutions' of Oaius appear to have been neglected after the promulgation of Justinian's compilation, and were finally lost. The detached pieces collected in the 'Digest,' and what could be gathered from the 'Breviarium Alaricianum,' as the code of the Visigoths is sometimes called, were all that remained. But in 1816, Niebuhr dis covered a manuscript in the library of the chapter of Verona, which he ascertained to be a treatise on Roman law, and which Savigny, founding his opinion on the specimen published by Niebuhr, con jectured to be the Institutions' of Gains.
This conjecture of Savigny was soon fully confirmed, though the manuscript has no author's name ou it. Goeschen, Bekker, and Hollweg undertook to examine and copy this manuscript, an edition of which appeared at Berlin in 1820, edited by Goeseheu. To form some idea of the labour necessary to decipher this manuscript, and of the patient perseverance of the scholars who undertook this formidable task, tho reader must refer to the report of Ooescheu to the Academy of Berlin, November 6, 1817. The mauuscript consists of one hun dred and twenty-seven sheets of parchment, thel original writing on which was the four books of the Institutions' of Gaius. This
original writing had on some pages been washed out, so far as was practicable, and on others scratched out; and the whole, -with the exception of two sheets, had been re-written with the epistles of St. Jerome. The lines of the original and of the substituted writing run in the same direction, and often cover one another ; a circumstance) which considerably increased the difficulty of deciphering the text of Oaius. In addition to this, sixty-three pages had been written on three times : the first writing was the text of Gains, which had been erased; and the second, which was a theological work, had shared the same fate, to make room for the epistles of St. Jerome.
A second examination of this manuscript was made by Bluhmo ('Prrefatio Novas Editionis '), and a new edition of the Institutions' was published by Goeschen, at Berlin, in 1824, which presents us with an exact copy of the manuscript with all its deficiencies, and contains a most copious list of the abbreviations used by the copyist of Galas.
The discovery of a work, the loss of which had so long been regretted, produced a most lively sensation among continental jurists, and called forth a great number of essays. In England it attracted comparatively little attention, though it is undoubtedly one of the most valuable additions that have been made in modern times to our knowledge of Roman Law. The fourth book of the Institutions' is particularly useful for the information which it contains on actions end the forms of procedure. The style of Gaius, liko that of all the flassical Roman jurists, is perspicuous and yet concise.
Among the most useful editions of Gains is that by Klenze and [locking (Berlin, 1829), which contains the 'Institutions' of Gains end Justinian, so arranged as to present a parallelism, and to furnish I proof, if any were yet wanting, that the manuscript of Verona is the ;enuine work of Gains; and 13Ocking's subsequent edition, 12mo, Bonn, 1841.
In addition to the references already made, the reader may consult en ingenious essay by Goeschen on the Res Quotidiame,' of Gaius, %eitschreft far Geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft, Berlin, 1815 ; Hugo, behrbuch der Gesehichte des Rom.ischen Rechts ; Dupont, Disquisit. ire 2ornmentarium iv. Instil. Gaii, &c., Lugd. Bat. 1822; Huschke, Zur Vritik and Inter-p. von Gains Instil., in his Studien des Rom. Reeked, km, Brea. 1830. The Institutes of Gains have been translated into ?much by Boulet, 1826 ; Domenget, 1843 ; and Pellet, 1844, &c. ; :ad the first book into German by Von Brockdorff, 1824.