Institutes in United States

Institutes Definition

Elements of jurisprudence; text books containing the principles of law made the foundation of legal studies. The word was first used by the civilians to designate those books prepared for the student, and supposed to embrace the fundamental legal principles arranged in an orderly manner. Two books of Institutes were known to the civil lawyers of antiquity, Gaius and Justinian.
(1) Coke’s Institutes. Four volumes of commentaries upon various parts of the English law. Sir Edward Coke hath written four volumes of “Institutes,” as he is pleased to call them, though they have little of the institutional method to warrant such a title. The first volume is a very extensive commentary upon a little excellent treatise of tenures, compiled by Judge Littleton in the reign of Edw. IV. This comment is a rich mine of valuable common-law learning, collected and heaped together from the ancient reports and Year Books, but greatly defective in method. The second volume is a comment on many old acts of parliament, without any systematical order; the third, a more methodical treatise on the pleas of the crown; and the fourth, an account of the several species of courts. These Institutes are usually cited thus: The first volume as Co. Litt., or 1 Inst.; the second, third, and fourth as 2, 3, or 4 Inst., without any author’s name. 1 Bl. Comm. 72.
(2) Gaius’ Institutes. A tractate upon the Roman law, ascribed to Caius or Gaius. Of the personal history of this jurist nothing is known. Even the spelling of his name is matter of controversy, and he is known by no other title than Gaius, or Caius. He is believed to have lived in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, The history of Gaius’ Institutes is remarkable. In 1816, Niebuhr was sent to Rome by the king of Prussia. On his way thither, he spent two days in the cathedral library of Verona, and at this time discovered these Institutes, which had been lost to the jurists of the middle ages. In 1817, the Royal Academy of Berlin charged Goeschen, Bekker, and Hollweg with the duty of transcribing the discovered manuscript. In 1819, Goeschen gave the first completed edition, as far as the manuscript could be deciphered, to his fellow jurists. It created an unusual sensation, and became a fruitful source of comment. It formed a new era in the study of Roman law. It gave the modern jurist the signal advantage of studying the source of the Institutes of Justinian. It is believed by the best modern scholars that Gains’ was the first original tractate of the kind, not being compiled from former publications. The language of Gains is clear, terse, and technical, evidently written by a master of law, and a master of the Latin tongue. The Institutes were unquestionably practical. There is no attempt at criticism or philosophical discussion. The disciple of Sabinus is content to teach law as he finds it. Its arrangement is solid and logical, and Justinian follows it with an almost servile imitation. The best editions of Gains are Goeschen’s second edition, Berlin, 1824, in which the text was again collated by Bluhme, and the third edition of Goeschen, Berlin, 1842, edited by Lachman from a critical revision by Goeschen, which had been interrupted by his death. In France, Gains attracted equal attention, and we have three editions and translations: Boulet, Paris, 1824; Domenget, 1843; and Pellat, 1844. In 1859, Francesco Lisi, a learned Italian scholar, published, at Bologna, a new edition of the first book of Gaius, with an Italian translation, en regard. The edition is accompanied and enriched by many valuable notes, printed in both Latin and Italian. Perhaps this must be considered, so far as printed, the most complete edition of the old civilian that modern scholars have yet produced. The reader who may wish to pursue his Gaiian studies should consult the list of some thirty-odd treatises and commentaries mentioned in Mackeldey’s Lehrbuch des Rom. Rechts, p. 47, note (b), (13th Ed.) Wein, 1851; Buschke, Essay Zur Kritik und Interp. von Gaius Inst., Breslau, 1830; Haubold’s Inst.’Jur. Rom. Prev. Line pp. 151, 152, 505, 506, Lipsiae, 1826; Boecking’s Gaius, Preface, pp. 11-18, Leps. 1845;Lisi’s Gaius, Preface, pp. x. xi., Bologna, 1859.
(3) Justinian’s Institutes. An abridgment of the Code and Digest, composed by order of that emperor, and under his guidance, with an intention to give a summary knowledge of the law to those persons not versed in it, and particularly to students. Inst. Proem. § 3. The lawyers employed to compile it were Tribonian, Theophilus, and Dorotheus. The work was first published on the 21st of November in the year 533, and received the sanction of statute law by order of the emperor. It is divided into four books; each book is divided into titles, and each title into separate paragraphs or sections, preceded by an introductory part. The first part is called principium, because it is the commencement of the title; those which follow are numbered, and called “paragraphs.” The work treats of the rights of persons, of things, and of actions. The first book treats of persons; the second, third, and the first five titles of the fourth book, of things; and the remainder of the fourth book, of actions. The method of citing the Institutes should be understood, and is now commonly by giving the number of the book, title, and section, thus : Inst. I. 2. 5, thereby indicating book I. title 2, section 5. Where it is intended to indicate the first paragraph, or principium, thus: Inst. B. I. 2. pr. Frequently the citation is simply I. or J. I. 2. 5. A second mode of citation is thus : § 5, Inst, or I. I. 2, meaning book L title 2, paragraph 5. A third method of citation, and one in universal use with the older jurists, was by giving the name of the title and the first words of the paragraph referred to, thus: § senatusconsultum est I de jure nat. gen. et civil, which means, as before, Inst. B. I. tit. 2, § 5. See 1 Colquhoun, § 61. The first printed edition of the Institutes is that of Schoyffer, fol. 1468. The last critical German edition is that of Schrader, Berlin, 1832. This work of Schrader is the most learned and most elaborate commentary on the text of Justinian in any language, and was intended to form a part of the Berlin Corpus Juris, but nothing further has been published. It is impossible in this brief article to name all the commentaries on these Institutes, which in all ages have commanded the study and admiration of jurists. More than one hundred and fifty years ago, one Homberg printed a tract De Multitudine nimia Commentatorum in Instutiones Juris. But we must refer the reader to the best recent French and English editions. Ortolan’s Institutes de I’Empereur Justinien avec le texte, la traduction en regard, et las explications sous chaque paragraphe, Paris, 1857, 3 vols. 8vo, sixth edition. This is, by common consent of scholars, regarded as the best historical edition of the Institutes ever published. Du Caurroy’s Institutes de Justinean traduites et expliquees par A. M. Du Caurroy, Paris, 1851, 8th ed. 2 vols. 8vo. The Institutes of Justinian, with English Introduction, Translation, and Notes, by Thomas Collet Sandars, M. A., London, 1853, 8vo; 2d Ed., 1860. This work has been prepared expressly for beginners, and is founded mainly upon Ortolan, with a liberal use of La Grange. Du Caurroy, Warnkoenig, and Puchta, as well as Harris and Cooper. A careful study of this edition will result in the student’s abandoning its pages, and betaking himself to Schrader and Ortolan. The English edition of Harris, and the American one of Cooper, have ceased to attract attention.
(4) Theophilus’ Institutes. A paraphrase of Justinian, made, it is believed, soon after A. D. 533. It is generally supposed that in A. D. 534, 535, and 536, Theophilus read his commentary in Greek to his pupils in the law school of Constantinople. He is conjectured to have died some time in A. D. 536. This paraphrase maintained itself as a manual of law until the eighth or tenth century. This text
was used in the time of Hexabiblos of Harmenipulus, the last of the Greek jurists. It is also conjectured that Theophilus was not the editor of his own paraphrase, but that it was drawn up by some of his pupils after his explanations and lectures, inasmuch as it contains certain barbarous phrases, and the texts of the manuscripts vary greatly from each other. It has, however, always been somewhat in use, and jurists consider that its study aids the text of the Institutes; and Cujas and Hugo have both praised it. The first edition was that of Zuichem, fol. Basle, 1531; the best edition is that of Reitz, 2 vols. 4to, 1751, Haag. There is a German translation by Wusterman, 1823, 2 vols. 8vo; and a French translation by Mons. Ilregier, Paris, 1847, 8vo, whose edition is prefaced by a learned and valuable introduction and dissertation. Consult Mortreuil, Hist, du Droit Byzan., Paris, 1843; Smith, Diet. Biog. London, 1849, 3 vols. 8vo; 1 Kent, Comm. 533; Profession d’Avocat, torn. ii. note 536, p. 95; Introd. a I’Etude du Droit Romain, p. 124; Diet, de Jurisp.; Merlin, Repert.; Enc. d’Alembert.

Institutes in Foreign Legal Encyclopedias

Back to Top

For starting research in the law of a foreign country:

Browse the American Encyclopedia of Law for Institutes

Scan Institutes in the appropriate area of law:

Explore other Reference Works

Back to Top

Legal Issue for Attorneys

Elements of jurisprudence; text books containing the principles of law made the foundation of legal studies. The word was first used by the civilians to designate those books prepared for the student, and supposed to embrace the fundamental legal principles arranged in an orderly manner. Two books of Institutes were known to the civil lawyers of antiquity, Gaius and Justinian.
(1) Coke’s Institutes. Four volumes of commentaries upon various parts of the English law. Sir Edward Coke hath written four volumes of “Institutes,” as he is pleased to call them, though they have little of the institutional method to warrant such a title. The first volume is a very extensive commentary upon a little excellent treatise of tenures, compiled by Judge Littleton in the reign of Edw. IV. This comment is a rich mine of valuable common-law learning, collected and heaped together from the ancient reports and Year Books, but greatly defective in method. The second volume is a comment on many old acts of parliament, without any systematical order; the third, a more methodical treatise on the pleas of the crown; and the fourth, an account of the several species of courts. These Institutes are usually cited thus: The first volume as Co. Litt., or 1 Inst.; the second, third, and fourth as 2, 3, or 4 Inst., without any author’s name. 1 Bl. Comm. 72.
(2) Gaius’ Institutes. A tractate upon the Roman law, ascribed to Caius or Gaius. Of the personal history of this jurist nothing is known. Even the spelling of his name is matter of controversy, and he is known by no other title than Gaius, or Caius. He is believed to have lived in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, The history of Gaius’ Institutes is remarkable. In 1816, Niebuhr was sent to Rome by the king of Prussia. On his way thither, he spent two days in the cathedral library of Verona, and at this time discovered these Institutes, which had been lost to the jurists of the middle ages. In 1817, the Royal Academy of Berlin charged Goeschen, Bekker, and Hollweg with the duty of transcribing the discovered manuscript. In 1819, Goeschen gave the first completed edition, as far as the manuscript could be deciphered, to his fellow jurists. It created an unusual sensation, and became a fruitful source of comment. It formed a new era in the study of Roman law. It gave the modern jurist the signal advantage of studying the source of the Institutes of Justinian. It is believed by the best modern scholars that Gains’ was the first original tractate of the kind, not being compiled from former publications. The language of Gains is clear, terse, and technical, evidently written by a master of law, and a master of the Latin tongue. The Institutes were unquestionably practical. There is no attempt at criticism or philosophical discussion. The disciple of Sabinus is content to teach law as he finds it. Its arrangement is solid and logical, and Justinian follows it with an almost servile imitation. The best editions of Gains are Goeschen’s second edition, Berlin, 1824, in which the text was again collated by Bluhme, and the
third edition of Goeschen, Berlin, 1842, edited by Lachman from a critical revision by Goeschen, which had been interrupted by his death. In France, Gains attracted equal attention, and we have three editions and translations: Boulet, Paris, 1824; Domenget, 1843; and Pellat, 1844. In 1859, Francesco Lisi, a learned Italian scholar, published, at Bologna, a new edition of the first book of Gaius, with an Italian translation, en regard. The edition is accompanied and enriched by many valuable notes, printed in both Latin and Italian. Perhaps this must be considered, so far as printed, the most complete edition of the old civilian that modern scholars have yet produced. The reader who may wish to pursue his Gaiian studies should consult the list of some thirty-odd treatises and commentaries mentioned in Mackeldey’s Lehrbuch des Rom. Rechts, p. 47, note (b), (13th Ed.) Wein, 1851; Buschke, Essay Zur Kritik und Interp. von Gaius Inst., Breslau, 1830; Haubold’s Inst.’Jur. Rom. Prev. Line pp. 151, 152, 505, 506, Lipsiae, 1826; Boecking’s Gaius, Preface, pp. 11-18, Leps. 1845;Lisi’s Gaius, Preface, pp. x. xi., Bologna, 1859.
(3) Justinian’s Institutes. An abridgment of the Code and Digest, composed by order of that emperor, and under his guidance, with an intention to give a summary knowledge of the law to those persons not versed in it, and particularly to students. Inst. Proem. § 3. The lawyers employed to compile it were Tribonian, Theophilus, and Dorotheus. The work was first published on the 21st of November in the year 533, and received the sanction of statute law by order of the emperor. It is divided into four books; each book is divided into titles, and each title into separate paragraphs or sections, preceded by an introductory part. The first part is called principium, because it is the commencement of the title; those which follow are numbered, and called “paragraphs.” The work treats of the rights of persons, of things, and of actions. The first book treats of persons; the second, third, and the first five titles of the fourth book, of things; and the remainder of the fourth book, of actions. The method of citing the Institutes should be understood, and is now commonly by giving the number of the book, title, and section, thus : Inst. I. 2. 5, thereby indicating book I. title 2, section 5. Where it is intended to indicate the first paragraph, or principium, thus: Inst. B. I. 2. pr. Frequently the citation is simply I. or J. I. 2. 5. A second mode of citation is thus : § 5, Inst, or I. I. 2, meaning book L title 2, paragraph 5. A third method of citation, and one in universal use with the older jurists, was by giving the name of the title and the first words of the paragraph referred to, thus: § senatusconsultum est I de jure nat. gen. et civil, which means, as before, Inst. B. I. tit. 2, § 5. See 1 Colquhoun, § 61. The first printed edition of the Institutes is that of Schoyffer, fol. 1468. The last critical German edition is that of Schrader, Berlin, 1832. This work of Schrader is the most learned and most elaborate commentary on the text of Justinian in any language, and was intended to form a part of the Berlin Corpus Juris, but nothing further has been published. It is impossible in this brief article to name all the commentaries on these Institutes, which in all ages have commanded the study and admiration of jurists. More than one hundred and fifty years ago, one Homberg printed a tract De Multitudine nimia Commentatorum in Instutiones Juris. But we must refer the reader to the best recent French and English editions. Ortolan’s Institutes de I’Empereur Justinien avec le texte, la traduction en regard, et las explications sous chaque paragraphe, Paris, 1857, 3 vols. 8vo, sixth edition. This is, by common consent of scholars, regarded as the best historical edition of the Institutes ever published. Du Caurroy’s Institutes de Justinean traduites et expliquees par A. M. Du Caurroy, Paris, 1851, 8th ed. 2 vols. 8vo. The Institutes of Justinian, with English Introduction, Translation, and Notes, by Thomas Collet Sandars, M. A., London, 1853, 8vo; 2d Ed., 1860. This work has been prepared expressly for beginners, and is founded mainly upon Ortolan, with a liberal use of La Grange. Du Caurroy, Warnkoenig, and Puchta, as well as Harris and Cooper. A careful study of this edition will result in the student’s abandoning its pages, and betaking himself to Schrader and Ortolan. The English edition of Harris, and the American one of Cooper, have ceased to attract attention.
(4) Theophilus’ Institutes. A paraphrase of Justinian, made, it is believed, soon after A. D. 533. It is generally supposed that in A. D. 534, 535, and 536, Theophilus read his commentary in Greek to his pupils in the law school of Constantinople. He is conjectured to have died some time in A. D. 536. This paraphrase maintained itself as a manual of law until the eighth or tenth century. This text was used in the time of Hexabiblos of Harmenipulus, the last of the Greek jurists. It is also conjectured that Theophilus was not the editor of his own paraphrase, but that it was drawn up by some of his pupils after his explanations and lectures, inasmuch as it contains certain barbarous phrases, and the texts of the manuscripts vary greatly from each other. It has, however, always been somewhat in use, and jurists consider that its study aids the text of the Institutes; and Cujas and Hugo have both praised it. The first edition was that of Zuichem, fol. Basle, 1531; the best edition is that of Reitz, 2 vols. 4to, 1751, Haag. There is a German translation by Wusterman, 1823, 2 vols. 8vo; and a French translation by Mons. Ilregier, Paris, 1847, 8vo, whose edition is prefaced by a learned and valuable introduction and dissertation. Consult Mortreuil, Hist, du Droit Byzan., Paris, 1843; Smith, Diet. Biog. London, 1849, 3 vols. 8vo; 1 Kent, Comm. 533; Profession d’Avocat, torn. ii. note 536, p. 95; Introd. a I’Etude du Droit Romain, p. 124; Diet, de Jurisp.; Merlin, Repert.; Enc. d’Alembert.

This definition of Institutes is based on The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary. This entry needs to be proofread.

Institutes

In Legislation

Institutes in the U.S. Code: Title 20, Chapter 17, Subchapter IX

The current, permanent, in-force federal laws regulating institutes are compiled in the United States Code under Title 20, Chapter 17, Subchapter IX. It constitutes “prima facie” evidence of statutes relating to Education (including institutes) of the United States. The reader can further narrow his/her legal research of the general topic (in this case, Military Training of the US Code, including institutes) by chapter and subchapter.