Act 1907, which constituted the court of criminal appeal, recognized the

responsibility by requiring a quorum of three judges in order to constitute a court. The same act, by permitting an appeal to persons convicted on indictment both on questions of fact and of law, removed to a great extent any possibility of error by a jury. But in civil causes, where the issue must be determined one way or the other on the balance of probabilities, a single judge would probably be a better tribunal than the present combination of judge and jury. Even if it be assumed that he would on the whole come to the same conclusion as a jury deliberating under his directions, he would come to it more quickly. Time would be saved in taking evidence, summing up would be unnecessary, and the addresses of counsel would inevitably be shortened and concentrated on the real points at issue. Modern legislation and practice in England have very much reduced the use of the jury both in civil and criminal cases.

In the county courts trial by jury is the exception and not the rule. In the court of chancery and the admiralty court it was never used. Under the Judicature Acts many cases which in the courts of common law would have been tried with a jury are now tried before a judge alone, or (rarely) with assessors, or before an official referee. Indeed cynics say that a jury is insisted on chiefly in cases when a jury, from prejudice or other causes, is likely to be more favourable than a judge alone.

In criminal cases, by reason of the enormous number of offences punishable on summary conviction and of the provisions made for trying certain indictable offences summarily if the offender is young or elects for summary trial, juries are less called on in proportion to the number of offences committed than was the practice in former years.

_Scotland._--According to the _Regiam Majestatem_, which is identical with the treatise of Glanvill on the law of England (but whether the original or only a copy of that work is disputed), trial by jury existed in Scotland for civil and criminal cases from as early a date as in England, and there is reason to believe that at all events the system became established at a very early date. Its history was very different from that of the English jury system. There was no grand jury under Scots law, but it was introduced in 1708 for the purpose of high treason (7 Anne c. 21). For the trial of criminal cases the petty jury is represented by the criminal "assize." This jury has always consisted of fifteen persons and the jurors are chosen by ballot by the clerk of the court from the list containing the names of the special and common jurors, five from the special, ten from the common. Prosecutor and accused each have five peremptory challenges, of which two only may be directed against the special jurors; but there is no limit to challenges for cause. The jury is not secluded during the trial except in capital cases or on special order of the court made _proprio motu_ or on the application of prosecutor or accused. The verdict need not be unanimous, nor is enclosure a necessary preliminary to a majority verdict. It is returned viva voce by the chancellor or foreman, and entered on the record by the clerk of the court, and the entry read to the jury. Besides the verdicts of "guilty" and "not guilty," a Scots jury may return a verdict of "not proven," which has legally the same effect as not guilty in releasing the accused from further proceedings on the particular charge, but inflicts on him the stigma of moral guilt.

Jury trial in civil cases was at one time in general if not prevailing use, but was gradually superseded for most purposes on the institution of the Court of Session (1 Mackay, _Ct. Sess. Pr._ 33). In this, as in many other matters, Scots law and procedure tend to follow continental rather than insular models. The civil jury was reintroduced in 1815 (55 Geo. III. c. 42), mainly on account of the difficulties experienced by the House of Lords in dealing with questions of fact raised on Scottish appeals. At the outset a special court was instituted in the nature of a judicial commission to ascertain by means of a jury facts deemed relevant to the issues in a cause and sent for such determination at the discretion of the court in which the cause was pending. The process was analogous to the sending of an issue out of chancery for trial in a superior court of common law, or in a court of assize. In 1830 the jury court ceased to exist as a separate tribunal and was merged in the Court of Session. By legislation of 1819 and 1823 certain classes of cases were indicated as appropriate to be tried by a jury; but in 1850 the cases so to be tried were limited to actions for defamation and nuisance, or properly and in substance actions for damages, and under an act of 1866 even in these cases the jury may be dispensed with by consent of parties.

The civil jury consists as in England of twelve jurors chosen by ballot from the names on the list of those summoned. There is a right of peremptory challenge limited to four, and also a right to challenge for cause. Unanimity was at first but is not now required. The jury if unanimous may return a verdict immediately on the close of the case. If they are not unanimous they are enclosed and may at any time not less than three hours after being enclosed return a verdict by a bare majority. If after six hours they do not agree by the requisite majority, i.e. are equally divided, they must be discharged. It was stated by Commissioner Adam, under whom the Scots civil jury was originated, that in twenty years he knew of only one case in which the jury disagreed. Jury trial in civil cases in Scotland has not flourished or given general satisfaction, and is resorted to only in a small proportion of cases. This is partly due to its being transplanted from England.

_Ireland._--The jury laws of Ireland do not differ in substance from those of England. The qualifications of jurors are regulated by O'Hagan's Acts 1871 and 1872, and the Juries Acts 1878 and 1894. In criminal cases much freer use is made than in England of the rights of the accused to challenge, and of the Crown to order jurors to stand by, and what is called "jury-packing" seems to be the object of both sides when some political or agrarian issue is involved in the trial. Until the passing of the Irish Local Government Act 1898, the grand jury, besides its functions as a jury of accusation, had large duties with respect to local government which are now transferred to the county councils and other elective bodies.

_British Empire._--In most parts of the British Empire the jury system is in force as part of the original law of the colonists or under the colonial charters of justice or by local legislation. The grand jury is not in use in India; was introduced but later abolished in the Cape Colony; and in Australia has been for most purposes superseded by the public prosecutor. The ordinary trial jury for criminal cases is twelve, but in India may be nine, seven, five or three, according to certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898. In countries where the British Crown has foreign jurisdiction the jury for criminal trials has in some cases been fixed at a less number than twelve and the right of the Crown to fix the number is established; see _ex p. Carew_, 1897, A.C. 719. In civil cases the number of the jury is reduced in some colonies, e.g. to seven in Tasmania and Trinidad.

_European Countries._--In France there is no civil jury. In criminal cases the place of the grand jury is taken by the _chambre des mises en accusation_, and the more serious crimes are tried before a jury of twelve which finds its verdict by a majority, the exact number of which may not be disclosed. In Belgium, Spain, Italy and Germany, certain classes of crime are tried with the aid of a jury.

_United States._--The English jury system was part of the law of the American colonies before the declaration of independence; and grand jury, coroner's jury and petty jury continue in full use in the United States. Under the Federal Constitution (Article iii.) there is a right to trial by jury in all criminal cases (except on impeachment) and in all civil actions at common law in which the subject matter exceeds $20 in value (amendments vi. and vii.). The trial jury must be of twelve and its verdict must be unanimous; see Cooley, _Constitutional Limitations_ (6th ed.), 389. The respective provinces of judge and jury have been much discussed and there has been a disposition to declare the jury supreme as to law as well as fact. The whole subject is fully treated by reference to English and American authorities, and the conflicting views are stated in _Sparf_ v. _United States_, 1895, 156 U.S. 61. The view of the majority of the court in that case was that it is the duty of the jury in a criminal case to receive the law from the court and to apply it as laid down by the court, subject to the condition that in giving a general verdict the jury may incidentally determine both law and fact as compounded in the issues submitted to them in the particular case. The power to give a general verdict renders the duty one of imperfect obligation and enables the jury to take its own view of the terms and merits of the law involved.

The extent to which the jury system is in force in the states of the union depends on the constitution and legislation of each state. In some the use of juries in civil and even in criminal cases is reduced or made subject to the election of the accused. In others unanimous verdicts are not required, while the constitutions of others require the unanimous verdict of the common law dozen. (W. F. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] I.e. the jury-box, or enclosed space in which the jurors sit in court.

[2] Freeman, _Norman Conquest_, v. 451.

[3] This fact would account for the remarkable development of the system on English ground, as contrasted with its decay and extinction in France.

[4] Blackstone puts the principle as being that no man shall be convicted except by the unanimous voice of twenty-four of his equals or neighbours--twelve on the grand, and twelve on the petty jury.

[5] The distinction between the functions of the grand jury, which presents or accuses criminals, and the petty jury, which tries them, has suggested the theory that the system of compurgation is the origin of the jury system--the first jury representing the compurgators of the accuser, the second the compurgators of the accused.

[6] Forsyth, 206. The number of the jury (twelve) is responsible for some unfounded theories of the origin of the system. This use of twelve is not confined to England, nor in England or elsewhere to judicial institutions. "Its general prevalence," says Hallam (_Middle Ages_, ch. viii.), "shows that in searching for the origin of trial by jury we cannot rely for a moment upon any analogy which the mere number affords." In a _Guide to English Juries_ (1682), by a person of quality (attributed to Lord Somers), the following passage occurs: "In analogy of late the jury is reduced to the number of twelve, like as the prophets were twelve to foretell the truth; the apostles twelve to preach the truth; the discoverers twelve, sent into Canaan to seek and report the truth; and the stones twelve that the heavenly Hierusalem is built on." Lord Coke indulged in similar speculations.

[7] See _R._ v. _Dean of St. Asaph_ (1789), 3 T.R. 418.

JUS PRIMAE NOCTIS, or DROIT DU SEIGNEUR, a custom alleged to have existed in medieval Europe, giving the overlord a right to the virginity of his vassals' daughters on their wedding night. For the existence of the custom in a legalized form there is no trustworthy evidence. That some such abuse of power may have been occasionally exercised by brutal nobles in the lawless days of the early middle ages is only too likely, but the _jus_, it seems, is a myth, invented no earlier than the 16th or 17th century. There appears to have been an entirely religious custom established by the council of Carthage in 398, whereby the Church required from the faithful continence on the wedding-night, and this may have been, and there is evidence that it was, known as _Droit du Seigneur_, or "God's right." Later the clerical admonition was extended to the first three days of marriage. This religious abstention, added to the undoubted fact that the feudal lord extorted fines on the marriages of his vassals and their children, doubtless gave rise to the belief that the _jus_ was once an established custom.

The whole subject has been exhaustively treated by Louis Veuillot in _Le Droit du seigneur au moyen âge_ (1854).

JUS RELICTAE, in Scots law, the widow's right in the movable property of her deceased husband. The deceased must have been domiciled in Scotland, but the right accrues from movable property, wherever situated. The widow's provision amounts to one-third where there are children surviving, and to one-half where there are no surviving children. The widow's right vests by survivance, and is independent of the husband's testamentary provisions; it may however be renounced by contract, or be discharged by satisfaction. It is subject to alienation of the husband's movable estate during his lifetime or by its conversion into heritage. See also WILL.

JUSSERAND, JEAN ADRIEN ANTOINE JULES (1855- ), French author and diplomatist, was born at Lyons on the 18th of February 1855. Entering the diplomatic service in 1876, he became in 1878 consul in London. After an interval spent in Tunis he returned to London in 1887 as a member of the French Embassy. In 1890 he became French minister at Copenhagen, and in 1902 was transferred to Washington. A close student of English literature, he produced some very lucid and vivacious monographs on comparatively little-known subjects: _Le Théâtre en Angleterre depuis la conquête jusqu' aux prédécesseurs immédiats de Shakespeare_ (1878); _Le Roman au temps de Shakespeare_ (1887; Eng. trans. by Miss E. Lee, 1890); _Les Anglais au moyen âge: la vie nomade et les routes d'Angleterre au XIV^e siècle_ (1884; Eng. trans., _English Wayfaring Life in the Middle Ages_, by L. T. Smith, 1889); and _L'Épopée de Langland_ (1893; Eng. trans., _Piers Plowman_, by M. C. R., 1894). His _Histoire littéraire du peuple anglais_, the first volume of which was published in 1895, was completed in three volumes in 1909. In English he wrote _A French Ambassador at the Court of Charles II._ (1892), from the unpublished papers of the count de Cominges.

JUSSIEU, DE, the name of a French family which came into prominent notice towards the close of the 16th century, and for a century and a half was distinguished for the botanists it produced. The following are its more eminent members:--

1. ANTOINE DE JUSSIEU (1686-1758), born at Lyons on the 6th of July 1686, was the son of Christophe de Jussieu (or Dejussieu), an apothecary of some repute, who published a _Nouveau traité de la thériaque_ (1708). Antoine studied at the university of Montpellier, and travelled with his brother Bernard through Spain, Portugal and southern France. He went to Paris in 1708, J. P. de Tournefort, whom he succeeded at the Jardin des Plantes, dying in that year. His own original publications are not of marked importance, but he edited an edition of Tournefort's _Institutiones rei herbariae_ (3 vols., 1719), and also a posthumous work of Jacques Barrelier, _Plantae per Galliam, Hispaniam, et Italiam observatae_, &c. (1714). He practised medicine, chiefly devoting himself to the very poor. He died at Paris on the 22nd of April 1758.

2. BERNARD DE JUSSIEU (1699-1777), a younger brother of the above, was born at Lyons on the 17th of August 1699. He took a medical degree at Montpellier and began practice in 1720, but finding the work uncongenial he gladly accepted his brother's invitation to Paris in 1722, when he succeeded Sébastien Vaillant as sub-demonstrator of plants in the Jardin du Roi. In 1725 he brought out a new edition of Tournefort's _Histoire des plantes qui naissent aux environs de Paris_, 2 vols., which was afterwards translated into English by John Martyn, the original work being incomplete. In the same year he was admitted into the académie des sciences, and communicated several papers to that body. Long before Abraham Trembley (1700-1784) published his _Histoire des polypes d'eau douce_, Jussieu maintained the doctrine that these organisms were animals, and not the flowers of marine plants, then the current notion; and to confirm his views he made three journeys to the coast of Normandy. Singularly modest and retiring, he published very little, but in 1759 he arranged the plants in the royal garden of the Trianon at Versailles, according to his own scheme of classification. This arrangement is printed in his nephew's _Genera_, pp. lxiii.-lxx., and formed the basis of that work. He cared little for the credit of enunciating new discoveries, so long as the facts were made public. On the death of his brother Antoine, he could not be induced to succeed him in his office, but prevailed upon L. G. Lemonnier to assume the higher position. He died at Paris on the 6th of November 1777.

3. JOSEPH DE JUSSIEU (1704-1779), brother of Antoine and Bernard, was born at Lyons on the 3rd of September 1704. Educated like the rest of the family for the medical profession, he accompanied C. M. de la Condamine to Peru, in the expedition for measuring an arc of meridian, and remained in South America for thirty-six years, returning to France in 1771. Amongst the seeds he sent to his brother Bernard were those of _Heliotropium peruvianum_, Linn., then first introduced into Europe. He died at Paris on the 11th of April 1779.

4. ANTOINE LAURENT DE JUSSIEU (1748-1836), nephew of the three preceding, was born at Lyons on the 12th of April 1748. Called to Paris by his uncle Bernard, and carefully trained by him for the pursuits of medicine and botany, he largely profited by the opportunities afforded him. Gifted with a tenacious memory, and the power of quickly grasping the salient points of subjects under observation, he steadily worked at the improvement of that system of plant arrangement which had been sketched out by his uncle. In 1789 was issued his _Genera plantarum secundum ordines naturales disposita, juxta methodum in horto regio Parisiensi exaratam, anno_ MDCCLXXIV. This volume formed the basis of modern classification; more than this, it is certain that Cuvier derived much help in his zoological classification from its perusal. Hardly had the last sheet passed through the press, when the French Revolution broke out, and the author was installed in charge of the hospitals of Paris. The muséum d'histoire naturelle was organized on its present footing mainly by him in 1793, and he selected for its library everything relating to natural history from the vast materials obtained from the convents then broken up. He continued as professor of botany there from 1770 to 1826, when his son Adrien succeeded him. Besides the _Genera_, he produced nearly sixty memoirs on botanical topics. He died at Paris on the 17th of September 1836.

5. ADRIEN LAURENT HENRI DE JUSSIEU (1797-1853), son of Antoine Laurent, was born at Paris on the 23rd of December 1797. He displayed the qualities of his family in his thesis for the degree of M.D., _De Euphorbiacearum generibus medicisque earundem viribus tentamen_, Paris, 1824. He was also the author of valuable contributions to botanical literature on the _Rutaceae_, _Meliaceae_ and _Malpighiaceae_ respectively, of "Taxonomie" in the _Dictionnaire universelle d'histoire naturelle_, and of an introductory work styled simply _Botanique_, which reached nine editions, and was translated into the principal languages of Europe. He also edited his father's _Introductio in historiam plantarum_, issued at Paris, without imprint or date, it being a fragment of the intended second edition of the _Genera_, which Antoine Laurent did not live to complete. He died at Paris on the 29th of June 1853, leaving two daughters, but no son, so that with him closed the brilliant botanical dynasty.

6. LAURENT PIERRE DE JUSSIEU (1792-1866), miscellaneous writer, nephew of Antoine Laurent, was born at Villeurbanne on the 7th of February 1792. His _Simon de Nantua, ou le marchand forain_ (1818), reached fifteen editions, and was translated into seven languages. He also wrote _Simples notions de physique et d'histoire naturelle_ (1857), and a few geological papers. He died at Passy on the 23rd of February 1866.

JUSTICE (Lat. _justitia_), a term used both in the abstract, for the quality of being or doing what is just, i.e. right in law and equity, and in the concrete for an officer deputed by the sovereign to administer justice, and do right by way of judgment. It has long been the official title of the judges of two of the English superior courts of common law, and it is now extended to all the judges in the supreme court of judicature--a judge in the High Court of Justice being styled Mr Justice, and in the court of appeal Lord Justice. The president of the king's bench division of the High Court is styled Lord Chief Justice (q.v.). The word is also applied, and perhaps more usually, to certain subordinate magistrates who administer justice in minor matters, and who are usually called _justices of the peace_ (q.v.).

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, an inferior magistrate appointed in England by special commission under the great seal to keep the peace within the jurisdiction for which he is appointed. The title is commonly abbreviated to J.P. and is used after the name. "The whole Christian world," said Coke, "hath not the like office as justice of the peace if duly executed." Lord Cowper, on the other hand, described them as "men sometimes illiterate and frequently bigoted and prejudiced." The truth is that the justices of the peace perform without any other reward than the consequence they acquire from their office a large amount of work indispensable to the administration of the law, and (though usually not professional lawyers, and therefore apt to be ill-informed in some of their decisions) for the most part they discharge their duties with becoming good sense and impartiality. For centuries they have necessarily been chosen mainly from the landed class of country gentlemen, usually Conservative in politics; and in recent years the attempt has been made by the Liberal party to reduce the balance by appointing others than those belonging to the landed gentry, such as tradesmen, Nonconformist ministers, and working-men. But it has been recognized that the appointment of justices according to their political views is undesirable, and in 1909 a royal commission was appointed to consider and report whether any and what steps should be taken to facilitate the selection of the most suitable persons to be justices of the peace irrespective of creed and political opinion. In great centres of population, when the judicial business of justices is heavy, it has been found necessary to appoint paid justices or stipendiary magistrates[1] to do the work, and an extension of the system to the country districts has been often advocated.

The commission of the peace assigns to justices the duty of keeping and causing to be kept all ordinances and statutes for the good of the peace and for preservation of the same, and for the quiet rule and government of the people, and further assigns "to you and every two or more of you (of whom any one of the aforesaid A, B, C, D, &c., we will, shall be one) to inquire the truth more fully by the oath of good and lawful men of the county of all and all manner of felonies, poisonings, enchantments, sorceries, arts, magic, trespasses, forestallings, regratings, engrossings, and extortions whatever." This part of the commission is the authority for the jurisdiction of the justices in _sessions_. Justices named specially in the parenthetical clause are said to be on the quorum. Justices for counties are appointed by the Crown on the advice of the lord chancellor, and usually with the recommendation of the lord lieutenant of the county. Justices for boroughs having municipal corporations and separate commissions of the peace are appointed by the crown, the lord chancellor either adopting the recommendation of the town council or acting independently. Justices cannot act as such until they have taken the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath. A justice for a borough while acting as such must reside in or within seven miles of the borough or occupy a house, warehouse or other property in the borough, but he need not be a burgess. The mayor of a borough is _ex officio_ a justice during his year of office and the succeeding year. He takes precedence over all borough justices, but not over justices acting in and for the county in which the borough or any part thereof is situated, unless when acting in relation to the business of the borough. The chairman of a county council is _ex officio_ a justice of the peace for the county, and the chairman of an urban or rural district council for the county in which the district is situated. Justices cannot act beyond the limits of the jurisdiction for which they are appointed, and the warrant of a justice cannot be executed out of his jurisdiction unless it be backed, that is, endorsed by a justice of the jurisdiction in which it is to be carried into execution. A justice improperly refusing to act on his office, or acting partially and corruptly, may be proceeded against by a criminal information, and a justice refusing to act may be compelled to do so by the High Court of Justice. An action will lie against a justice for any act done by him in excess of his jurisdiction, and for any act within his jurisdiction which has been done wrongfully and with malice, and without reasonable or probable cause. But no action can be brought against a justice for a wrongful conviction until it has been quashed. By the Justices' Qualification Act 1744, every justice for a county was required to have an estate of freehold, copyhold, or customary tenure in fee, for life or a given term, of the yearly value of £100. By an act of 1875 the occupation of a house rated at £100 was made a qualification. No such qualifications were ever required for a borough justice, and it was not until 1906 that county justices were put on the same footing in this respect. The Justices of the Peace Act 1906 did away with all qualification by estate. It also removed the necessity for residence within the county, permitting the same residential qualification as for borough justices, "within seven miles thereof." The same act removed the disqualification of solicitors to be county justices and assimilated to the existing power to remove other justices from the commission of the peace the power to exclude _ex officio_ justices.

The justices for every petty sessional division of a county or for a borough having a separate commission of the peace must appoint a fit person to be their salaried clerk. He must be either a barrister of not less than fourteen years' standing, or a solicitor of the supreme court, or have served for not less than seven years as a clerk to a police or stipendiary magistrate or to a metropolitan police court. An alderman or councillor of a borough must not be appointed as clerk, nor can a clerk of the peace for the borough or for the county in which the borough is situated be appointed. A borough clerk is not allowed to prosecute. The salary of a justice's clerk comes, in London, out of the police fund; in counties out of the county fund; in county boroughs out of the borough fund, and in other boroughs out of the county fund.

The vast and multifarious duties of the justices cover some portion of every important head of the criminal law, and extend to a considerable number of matters relating to the civil law.

In the United States these officers are sometimes appointed by the executive, sometimes elected. In some states, justices of the peace have jurisdiction in civil cases given to them by local regulations.

FOOTNOTE:

[1] Where a borough council desire the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate they may present a petition for the same to the secretary of state and it is thereupon lawful for the king to appoint to that office a barrister of seven years' standing. He is by virtue of his office a justice for the borough, and receives a yearly salary, payable in four equal quarterly instalments. On a vacancy, application must again be made as for a first appointment. There may be more than one stipendiary magistrate for a borough.

JUSTICIAR (med. Lat. _justiciarius_ or _justitiarius_, a judge), in English history, the title of the chief minister of the Norman and earlier Angevin kings. The history of the title in this connotation is somewhat obscure. _Justiciarius_ meant simply "judge," and was originally applied, as Stubbs points out (_Const. Hist._ i. 389, note), to any officer of the king's court, to the chief justice, or in a very general way to all and sundry who possessed courts of their own or were qualified to act as _judices_ in the shire-courts, even the style _capitalis justiciarius_ being used of judges of the royal court other than the chief. It was not till the reign of Henry II. that the title _summus_ or _capitalis justiciarius_, or _justiciarius totius Angliae_ was exclusively applied to the king's chief minister. The office, however, existed before the style of its holder was fixed; and, whatever their contemporary title (e.g. _Custos Angliae_), later writers refer to them as _justiciarii_, with or without the prefix _summus_ or _capitalis_ (ibid. p. 346). Thus Ranulf Flambard, the minister of William II., who was probably the first to exercise the powers of a justiciar, is called _justiciarius_ by Ordericus Vitalis.

The origin of the justiciarship is thus given by Stubbs (ibid. p. 276). The sheriff "was the king's representative in all matters judicial, military and financial in the shire. From him, or from the courts of which he was the presiding officer, appeal lay to the king alone; but the king was often absent from England and did not understand the language of his subjects. In his absence the administration was entrusted to a justiciar, a regent or lieutenant of the kingdom; and the convenience being once ascertained of having a minister who could in the whole kingdom represent the king, as the sheriff did in the shire, the justiciar became a permanent functionary."

The fact that the kings were often absent from England, and that the justiciarship was held by great nobles or churchmen, made this office of an importance which at times threatened to overshadow that of the Crown. It was this latter circumstance which ultimately led to its abolition. Hubert de Burgh (q.v.) was the last of the great justiciars; after his fall (1231) the justiciarship was not again committed to a great baron, and the chancellor soon took the position formerly occupied by the justiciar as second to the king in dignity, as well as in power and influence. Finally, under Edward I. and his successor, in place of the justiciar--who had presided over all causes _vice regis_--separate heads were established in the three branches into which the _curia regis_ as a judicial body had been divided: justices of common pleas, justices of the king's bench and barons of the exchequer.

Outside England the title justiciar was given under Henry II. to the seneschal of Normandy. In Scotland the title of justiciar was borne, under the earlier kings, by two high officials, one having his jurisdiction to the north, the other to the south of the Forth. They were the king's lieutenants for judicial and administrative purposes and were established in the 12th century, either by Alexander I. or by his successor David I. In the 12th century a _magister justitiarius_ also appears in the Norman kingdom of Sicily, title and office being probably borrowed from England; he presided over the royal court (_Magna curia_) and was, with his assistants, empowered to decide, _inter alia_, all cases reserved to the Crown (see Du Cange, _s.v. Magister Justitiarius_).

See W. Stubbs, _Const. Hist. of England_; Du Cange, _Glossarium_ (Niort, 1885) s.v. "Justitiarius."

JUSTICIARY, HIGH COURT OF, in Scotland, the supreme criminal court, consisting of five of the lords of session together with the lord justice-general and the lord justice-clerk as president and vice-president respectively. The constitution of the court is settled by the Act 1672 c. 16. The lords of justiciary hold circuits regularly twice a year according to the ancient practice, which, however, had been allowed to fall into disuse until revived in 1748. For circuit purposes Scotland is divided into northern, southern and western districts (see CIRCUIT). Two judges generally go on a circuit, and in Glasgow they are by special statute authorized to sit in separate courts. By the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1887 all the senators of the college of justice are lords commissioners of justiciary. The high court, sitting in Edinburgh, has, in addition to its general jurisdiction, an exclusive jurisdiction for districts not within the jurisdiction of the circuits--the three Lothians, and Orkney and Shetland. The high court also takes up points of difficulty arising before the special courts, like the court for crown cases reserved in England. The court of justiciary has authority to try all crimes, unless when its jurisdiction has been excluded by special enactment of the legislature. It is also stated to have an inherent jurisdiction to punish all criminal acts, even if they have never before been treated as crimes. Its judgments are believed to be not subject to any appeal or review, but it may be doubted whether an appeal on a point of law would not lie to the house of lords. The following crimes must be prosecuted in the court of justiciary: treason, murder, robbery, rape, fire-raising, deforcement of messengers, breach of duty by magistrates, and all offences for which a statutory punishment higher than imprisonment is imposed.

JUSTIFICATION, in law, the showing by a defendant in a suit of sufficient reason why he did what he was called upon to answer, For example, in an action for assault and battery, the defendant may prove in justification that the prosecutor assaulted or beat him first, and that he acted merely in self-defence. The word is employed particularly in actions for defamation, and has in this connexion a somewhat special meaning. When a libel consists of a specific charge a plea of justification is a plea that the words are true in substance and in fact (see LIBEL AND SLANDER).

JUSTIN I. (450-527), East Roman emperor (518-527), was born in 450 as a peasant in Asia, but enlisting under Leo I. he rose to be commander of the imperial guards of Anastasius. On the latter's death in 518 Justin used for his own election to the throne money that he had received for the support of another candidate. Being ignorant even of the rudiments of letters, Justin entrusted the administration of state to his wise and faithful quaestor Proclus and to his nephew Justinian, though his own experience dictated several improvements in military affairs. An orthodox churchman himself, he effected in 519 a reconciliation of the Eastern and Western Churches, after a schism of thirty-five years (see HORMISDAS). In 522 he entered upon a desultory war with Persia, in which he co-operated with the Arabs. In 522 also Justin ceded to Theodoric, the Gothic king of Italy, the right of naming the consuls. On the 1st of April 527 Justin, enfeebled by an incurable wound, yielded to the request of the senate and assumed Justinian at his colleague; on the 1st of August he died. Justin bestowed much care on the repairing of public buildings throughout his empire, and contributed large sums to repair the damage caused by a destructive earthquake at Antioch.

See E. Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ (ed. Bury, 1896), iv. 206-209.

JUSTIN II. (d. 578), East Roman emperor (565-578), was the nephew and successor of Justinian I. He availed himself of his influence as master of the palace, and as husband of Sophia, the niece of the late empress Theodora, to secure a peaceful election. The first few days of his reign--when he paid his uncle's debts, administered justice in person, and proclaimed universal religious toleration--gave bright promise, but in the face of the lawless aristocracy and defiant governors of provinces he effected few subsequent reforms. The most important event of his reign was the invasion of Italy by the Lombards (q.v.), who, entering in 568, under Alboin, in a few years made themselves masters of nearly the entire country. Justin's attention was distracted from Italy towards the N. and E. frontiers. After refusing to pay the Avars tribute, he fought several unsuccessful campaigns against them. In 572 his overtures to the Turks led to a war with Persia. After two disastrous campaigns, in which his enemies overran Syria, Justin bought a precarious peace by payment of a yearly tribute. The temporary fits of insanity into which he fell warned him to name a colleague. Passing over his own relatives, he raised, on the advice of Sophia, the general Tiberius (q.v.) to be Caesar in December 574 and withdrew for his remaining years into retirement.

See E. Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ (ed. Bury, 1896), v. 2-17; G. Finlay, _History of Greece_ (ed. 1877), i. 291-297; J. Bury, _The Later Roman Empire_ (1889), ii. 67-79. (M. O. B. C.)

JUSTIN (JUNIANUS JUSTINUS), Roman historian, probably lived during the age of the Antonines. Of his personal history nothing is known. He is the author of _Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV._, a work described by himself in his preface as a collection of the most important and interesting passages from the voluminous _Historiae philippicae et totius mundi origines et terrae situs_, written in the time of Augustus by Pompeius Trogus (q.v.). The work of Trogus is lost; but the _prologi_ or arguments of the text are preserved by Pliny and other writers. Although the main theme of Trogus was the rise and history of the Macedonian monarchy, Justin yet permitted himself considerable freedom of digression, and thus produced a capricious anthology instead of a regular epitome of the work. As it stands, however, the history contains much valuable information. The style, though far from perfect, is clear and occasionally elegant. The book was much used in the middle ages, when the author was sometimes confounded with Justin Martyr.

Ed. princeps (1470); J. G. Graevius (1668); J. F. Gronovius (1719); C. H. Frotscher (1827-1830); J. Jeep (1859); F. Rühl (1886, with prologues); see also J. F. Fischer, _De elocutione Justini_ (1868); F. Rühl, _Die Verbreitung des J. im Mittelalter_ (1871); O. Eichert, _Wörterbuch zu_ J. (1881); Köhler and Rühl in _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie_, xci., ci., cxxxiii. There are translations in the chief European languages; in English by A. Goldyng (1564); R. Codrington (1682); Brown-Dykes (1712); G. Turnbull (1746); J. Clarke (1790); J. S. Watson (1853).

JUSTINIAN I. (483-565). Flavius Anicius Justinianus, surnamed the Great, the most famous of all the emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire, was by birth a barbarian, native of a place called Tauresium in the district of Dardania, a region of Illyricum,[1] and was born, most probably, on the 11th of May 483. His family has been variously conjectured, on the strength of the proper names which its members are stated to have borne, to have been Teutonic or Slavonic. The latter seems the more probable view. His own name was originally Uprauda.[2] Justinianus was a Roman name which he took from his uncle Justin I., who adopted him, and to whom his advancement in life was due. Of his early life we know nothing except that he went to Constantinople while still a young man, and received there an excellent education. Doubtless he knew Latin before Greek; it is alleged that he always spoke Greek with a barbarian accent. When Justin ascended the throne in 518, Justinian became at once a person of the first consequence, guiding, especially in church matters, the policy of his aged, childless and ignorant uncle, receiving high rank and office at his hands, and soon coming to be regarded as his destined successor. On Justin's death in 527, having been a few months earlier associated with him as co-emperor, Justinian succeeded without opposition to the throne. About 523 he had married the famous Theodora (q.v.), who, as empress regnant, was closely associated in all his actions till her death in 547.

Justinian's reign was filled with great events, both at home and abroad, both in peace and in war. They may be classed under four heads: (1) his legal reforms; (2) his administration of the empire; (3) his ecclesiastical policy; and (4) his wars and foreign policy generally.

1. It is as a legislator and codifier of the law that Justinian's name is most familiar to the modern world; and it is therefore this department of his action that requires to be most fully dealt with here. He found the law of the Roman empire in a state of great confusion. It consisted of two masses, which were usually distinguished as old law (_jus vetus_) and new law (_jus novum_). The first of these comprised: (i.) all such of the statutes (_leges_) passed under the republic and early empire as had not become obsolete; (ii.) the decrees of the senate (_senatus consulta_) passed at the end of the republic and during the first two centuries of the empire; (iii.) the writings of the jurists of the later republic and of the empire, and more particularly of those jurists to whom the right of declaring the law with authority (_jus respondendi_) had been committed by the emperors. As these jurists had in their commentaries upon the _leges_, _senatus consulta_ and edicts of the magistrates practically incorporated all that was of importance in those documents, the books of the jurists may substantially be taken as including (i.) and (ii.). These writings were of course very numerous, and formed a vast mass of literature. Many of them had become exceedingly scarce--many had been altogether lost. Some were of doubtful authenticity. They were so costly that no person of moderate means could hope to possess any large number; even the public libraries had nothing approaching to a complete collection. Moreover, as they proceeded from a large number of independent authors, who wrote expressing their own opinions, they contained many discrepancies and contradictions, the dicta of one writer being controverted by another, while yet both writers might enjoy the same formal authority. A remedy had been attempted to be applied to this evil by a law of the emperors Theodosius II. and Valentinian III., which gave special weight to the writings of five eminent jurists (Papinian, Paulus, Ulpian, Modestinus, Gaius); but it was very far from removing it. As regards the _jus vetus_, therefore, the judges and practitioners of Justinian's time had two terrible difficulties to contend with--first, the bulk of the law, which made it impossible for any one to be sure that he possessed anything like the whole of the authorities bearing on the point in question, so that he was always liable to find his opponent quoting against him some authority for which he could not be prepared; and, secondly, the uncertainty of the law, there being a great many important points on which differing opinions of equal legal validity might be cited, so that the practising counsel could not advise, nor the judge decide, with any confidence that he was right, or that a superior court would uphold his view.

The new law (_jus novum_), which consisted of the ordinances of the emperors promulgated during the middle and later empires (_edicta_, _rescripta_, _mandata_, _decreta_, usually called by the general name of _constitutiones_), was in a condition not much better. These ordinances or constitutions were extremely numerous. No complete collection of them existed, for although two collections (_Codex gregorianus_ and _Codex hermogenianus_) had been made by two jurists in the 4th century, and a large supplementary collection published by the emperor Theodosius II. in 438 (_Codex theodosianus_), these collections did not include all the constitutions; there were others which it was necessary to obtain separately, but many whereof it must have been impossible for a private person to procure. In this branch too of the law there existed some, though a less formidable, uncertainty; for there were constitutions which practically, if not formally, repealed or superseded others without expressly mentioning them, so that a man who relied on one constitution might find that it had been varied or abrogated by another he had never heard of or on whose sense he had not put such a construction. It was therefore clearly necessary with regard to both the older and the newer law to take some steps to collect into one or more bodies or masses so much of the law as was to be regarded as binding, reducing it within a reasonable compass, and purging away the contradictions or inconsistencies which it contained. The evil had been long felt, and reforms apparently often proposed, but nothing (except by the compilation of the _Codex theodosianus_) had been done till Justinian's time. Immediately after his accession, in 528, he appointed a commission to deal with the imperial constitutions (_jus novum_), this being the easier part of the problem. The commissioners, ten in number, were directed to go through all the constitutions of which copies existed, to select such as were of practical value, to cut these down by retrenching all unnecessary matter, and gather them, arranged in order of date, into one volume, getting rid of any contradictions by omitting one or other of the conflicting passages.[3] These statute law commissioners, as one may call them, set to work forthwith, and completed their task in fourteen months, distributing the constitutions which they placed in the new collection into ten books, in general conformity with the order of the Perpetual Edict as settled by Salvius Julianus and enacted by Hadrian. By this means the bulk of the statute law was immensely reduced, its obscurities and internal discrepancies in great measure removed, its provisions adapted, by the abrogation of what was obsolete, to the circumstances of Justinian's own time. This _Codex constitutionum_ was formally promulgated and enacted as one great consolidating statute in 529, all imperial ordinances not included in it being repealed at one stroke.

The success of this first experiment encouraged the emperor to attempt the more difficult enterprise of simplifying and digesting the older law contained in the treatises of the jurists. Before entering on this, however, he wisely took the preliminary step of settling the more important of the legal questions as to which the older jurists had been divided in opinion, and which had therefore remained sources of difficulty, a difficulty aggravated by the general decline, during the last two centuries, of the level of forensic and judicial learning. This was accomplished by a series of constitutions known as the "Fifty Decisions" (_Quinquaginta decisiones_), along with which there were published other ordinances amending the law in a variety of points, in which old and now inconvenient rules had been suffered to subsist. Then in December 530 a new commission was appointed, consisting of sixteen eminent lawyers, of whom the president, the famous Tribonian (who had already served on the previous commission), was an exalted official (_quaestor_), four were professors of law, and the remaining eleven practising advocates. The instructions given to them by the emperor were as follows:--they were to procure and peruse all the writings of all the authorized jurists (those who had enjoyed the _jus respondendi_); were to extract from these writings whatever was of most permanent and substantial value, with power to change the expressions of the author wherever conciseness or clearness would be thereby promoted, or wherever such a change was needed in order to adapt his language to the condition of the law as it stood in Justinian's time; were to avoid repetitions and contradictions by giving only one statement of the law upon each point; were to insert nothing at variance with any provision contained in the _Codex constitutionum_; and were to distribute the results of their labours into fifty books, subdividing each book into titles, and following generally the order of the Perpetual Edict.[4]

These directions were carried out with a speed which is surprising when we remember not only that the work was interrupted by the terrible insurrection which broke out in Constantinople in January 532, and which led to the temporary retirement from office of Tribonian, but also that the mass of literature which had to be read through consisted of no less than two thousand treatises, comprising three millions of sentences. The commissioners, who had for greater despatch divided themselves into several committees, presented their selection of extracts to the emperor in 533, and he published it as an imperial statute on December 16th of that year, with two prefatory constitutions (those known as _Omnem reipublicae_ and _Dedit nobis_). It is the Latin volume which we now call the _Digest_ (_Digesta_) or _Pandects_ ([Greek: Pandektai]) and which is by far the most precious monument of the legal genius of the Romans, and indeed, whether one regards the intrinsic merits of its substance or the prodigious influence it has exerted and still exerts, the most remarkable law-book that the world has seen. The extracts comprised in it are 9123 in number, taken from thirty-nine authors, and are of greatly varying length, mostly only a few lines long. About one-third (in quantity) come from Ulpian, a very copious writer; Paulus stands next. To each extract there is prefixed the name of the author, and of the treatise whence it is taken.[5] The worst thing about the _Digest_ is its highly unscientific arrangement. The order of the Perpetual Edict, which appears to have been taken as a sort of model for the general scheme of books and titles, was doubtless convenient to the Roman lawyers from their familiarity with it, but was in itself rather accidental and historical than logical. The disposition of the extracts inside each title was still less rational; it has been shown by a modern jurist to have been the result of the way in which the committees of the commissioners worked through the books they had to peruse.[6] In enacting the _Digest_ as a law book, Justinian repealed all the other law contained in the treatises of the jurists (that _jus vetus_ which has been already mentioned), and directed that those treatises should never be cited in future even by way of illustration; and he of course at the same time abrogated all the older statutes, from the Twelve Tables downwards, which had formed a part of the _jus vetus_. This was a necessary incident of his scheme of reform. But he went too far, and indeed attempted what was impossible, when he forbade all commentaries upon the _Digest_. He was obliged to allow a Greek translation to be made of it, but directed this translation to be exactly literal.

These two great enterprises had substantially despatched Justinian's work; however, he, or rather Tribonian, who seems to have acted both as his adviser and as his chief executive officer in all legal affairs, conceived that a third book was needed, viz. an elementary manual for beginners which should present an outline of the law in a clear and simple form. The little work of Gaius, most of which we now possess under the title of _Commentarii institutionum_, had served this purpose for nearly four centuries; but much of it had, owing to changes in the law, become inapplicable, so that a new manual seemed to be required. Justinian accordingly directed Tribonian, with two coadjutors, Theophilus, professor of law in the university of Constantinople, and Dorotheus, professor in the great law school at Beyrout, to prepare an elementary textbook on the lines of Gaius. This they did while the _Digest_ was in progress, and produced the useful little treatise which has ever since been the book with which students commonly begin their studies of Roman law, the _Institutes of Justinian_. It was published as a statute with full legal validity shortly before the _Digest_. Such merits as it possesses--simplicity of arrangement, clearness and conciseness of expression--belong less to Tribonian than to Gaius, who was closely followed wherever the alterations in the law had not made him obsolete. However, the spirit of that great legal classic seems to have in a measure dwelt with and inspired the inferior men who were recasting his work; the _Institutes_ is better both in Latinity and in substance than we should have expected from the condition of Latin letters at that epoch, better than the other laws which emanate from Justinian.

In the four years and a half which elapsed between the publication of the _Codex_ and that of the _Digest_, many important changes had been made in the law, notably by the publication of the "Fifty Decisions," which settled many questions that had exercised the legal mind and given occasion to intricate statutory provisions. It was therefore natural that the idea should present itself of revising the _Codex_, so as to introduce these changes into it, for by so doing, not only would it be simplified, but the one volume would again be made to contain the whole statute law, whereas now it was necessary to read along with it the ordinances issued since its publication. Accordingly another commission was appointed, consisting of Tribonian with four other coadjutors, full power being given them not only to incorporate the new constitutions with the _Codex_ and make in it the requisite changes, but also to revise the _Codex_ generally, cutting down or filling in wherever they thought it necessary to do so. This work was completed in a few months; and in November 534 the revised _Codex_ (_Codex repetitae praelectionis_) was promulgated with the force of law, prefaced by a constitution (_Cordi nobis_) which sets forth its history, and declares it to be alone authoritative, the former _Codex_ being abrogated. It is this revised _Codex_ which has come down to the modern world, all copies of the earlier edition having disappeared.

The constitutions contained in it number 4652, the earliest dating from Hadrian, the latest being of course Justinian's own. A few thus belong to the period to which the greater part of the _Digest_ belongs, i.e. the so-called classical period of Roman law down to the time of Alexander Severus (244); but the great majority are later, and belong to one or other of the four great eras of imperial legislation, the eras of Diocletian, of Constantine, of Theodosius II., and of Justinian himself. Although this _Codex_ is said to have the same general order as that of the _Digest_, viz. the order of the Perpetual Edict, there are considerable differences of arrangement between the two. It is divided into twelve books. Its contents, although of course of the utmost practical importance to the lawyers of that time, and of much value still, historical as well as legal, are far less interesting and scientifically admirable than the extracts preserved in the _Digest_. The difference is even greater than that between the English reports of cases decided since the days of Lord Holt and the English acts of parliament for the same two centuries.

The emperor's scheme was now complete. All the Roman law had been gathered into two volumes of not excessive size, and a satisfactory manual for beginners added. But Justinian and Tribonian had grown so fond of legislating that they found it hard to leave off. Moreover, the very simplifications that had been so far effected brought into view with more clearness such anomalies or pieces of injustice as still continued to deform the law. Thus no sooner had the work been rounded off than fresh excrescences began to be created by the publication of new laws. Between 534 and 565 Justinian issued a great number of ordinances, dealing with all sorts of subjects and seriously altering the law on many points--the majority appearing before the death of Tribonian, which happened in 545. These ordinances are called, by way of distinction, new constitutions, _Novellae constitutiones post codicem_ ([Greek: nearai diataxeis]), _Novels_. Although the emperor had stated in publishing the Codex that all further statutes (if any) would be officially collected, this promise does not seem to have been redeemed. The three collections of the _Novels_ which we possess are apparently private collections, nor do we even know how many such constitutions were promulgated. One of the three contains 168 (together with 13 Edicts), but some of these are by the emperors Justin II. and Tiberius II. Another, the so-called _Epitome of Julian_, contains 125 Novels in Latin; and the third, the _Liber authenticarum_ or _vulgata versio_, has 134, also in Latin. This last was the collection first known and chiefly used in the West during the middle ages; and of its 134 only 97 have been written on by the _glossatores_ or medieval commentators; these therefore alone have been received as binding in those countries which recognize and obey the Roman law,--according to the maxim _Quicquid non agnoscit glossa, nec agnoscit curia_. And, whereas Justinian's constitutions contained in the _Codex_ were all issued in Latin, the rest of the book being in that tongue, these _Novels_ were nearly all published in Greek, Latin translations being of course made for the use of the western provinces. They are very bulky, and with the exception of a few, particularly the 116th and 118th, which introduce the most sweeping and laudable reforms into the law of intestate succession, are much more interesting, as supplying materials for the history of the time, social, economical and ecclesiastical, than in respect of any purely legal merits. They may be found printed in any edition of the _Corpus juris civilis_.

This _Corpus juris_, which bears and immortalizes Justinian's name, consists of the four books described above: (1) The authorized collection of imperial ordinances (_Codex constitutionum_); (2) the authorized collection of extracts from the great jurists (_Digesta_ or _Pandectae_); (3) the elementary handbook (_Institutiones_); (4) the unauthorized collection of constitutions subsequent to the _Codex_ (_Novellae_).

From what has been already stated, the reader will perceive that Justinian did not, according to a strict use of terms, codify the Roman law. By a codification we understand the reduction of the whole pre-existing body of law to a new form, the re-stating it in a series of propositions, scientifically ordered, which may or may not contain some new substance, but are at any rate new in form. If he had, so to speak, thrown into one furnace all the law contained in the treatises of the jurists and in the imperial ordinances, fused them down, the gold of the one and the silver of the other, and run them out into new moulds, this would have been codification. What he did do was something quite different. It was not codification but consolidation, not remoulding but abridging. He made extracts from the existing law, preserving the old words, and merely cutting out repetitions, removing contradictions, retrenching superfluities, so as immensely to reduce the bulk of the whole. And he made not one set of such extracts but two, one for the jurist law, the other for the statute law. He gave to posterity not one code but two digests or collections of extracts, which are new only to this extent that they are arranged in a new order, having been previously altogether unconnected with one another, and that here and there their words have been modified in order to bring one extract into harmony with some other. Except for this, the matter is old in expression as well as in substance.

Thus regarded, even without remarking that the _Novels_, never having been officially collected, much less incorporated with the _Codex_, mar the symmetry of the structure, Justinian's work may appear to entitle him and Tribonian to much less credit than they have usually received for it. But let it be observed, first, that to reduce the huge and confused mass of pre-existing law into the compass of these two collections was an immense practical benefit to the empire; secondly, that, whereas the work which he undertook was accomplished in seven years, the infinitely more difficult task of codification might probably have been left unfinished at Tribonian's death, or even at Justinian's own, and been abandoned by his successor; thirdly, that in the extracts preserved in the _Digest_ we have the opinions of the greatest legal luminaries given in their own admirably lucid, philosophical and concise language, while in the extracts of which the _Codex_ is composed we find valuable historical evidence bearing on the administration and social condition of the later Pagan and earlier Christian empire; fourthly, that Justinian's age, that is to say, the intellect of the men whose services he commanded, was quite unequal to so vast an undertaking as the fusing upon scientific principles into one new organic whole of the entire law of the empire. With sufficient time and labour the work might no doubt have been done; but what we possess of Justinian's own legislation, and still more what we know of the general condition of literary and legal capacity in his time, makes it certain that it would not have been well done, and that the result would have been not more valuable to the Romans of that age, and much less valuable to the modern world, than are the results, preserved in the _Digest_ and the _Codex_, of what he and Tribonian actually did.

To the merits of the work as actually performed some reference has already been made. The chief defect of the _Digest_ is in point of scientific arrangement, a matter about which the Roman lawyers, perhaps one may say the ancients generally, cared very little. There are some repetitions and some inconsistencies, but not more than may fairly be allowed for in a compilation of such magnitude executed so rapidly. Tribonian has been blamed for the insertions the compilers made in the sentences of the old jurists (the so-called _Emblemata Triboniani_); but it was a part of Justinian's plan that such insertions should be made, so as to adapt those sentences to the law as settled in the emperor's time. On Justinian's own laws, contained in the _Codex_ and in his _Novels_, a somewhat less favourable judgment must be pronounced. They, and especially the latter, are diffuse and often lax in expression, needlessly prolix, and pompously rhetorical. The policy of many, particularly of those which deal with ecclesiastical matters, may also be condemned; yet some gratitude is due to the legislator who put the law of intestate succession on that plain and rational footing whereon it has ever since continued to stand. It is somewhat remarkable that, although Justinian is so much more familiar to us by his legislation than by anything else, this sphere of his imperial labour is hardly referred to by any of the contemporary historians, and then only with censure. Procopius complains that he and Tribonian were always repealing old laws and enacting new ones, and accuses them of venal motives for doing so.

The _Corpus Juris_ of Justinian continued to be, with naturally a few additions in the ordinances of succeeding emperors, the chief law-book of the Roman world till the time of the Macedonian dynasty when, towards the end of the 9th century, a new system was prepared and issued by those sovereigns, which we know as the _Basilica_. It is of course written in Greek, and consists of parts of the substance of the _Codex_ and the _Digest_, thrown together and often altered in expression, together with some matter from the _Novels_ and imperial ordinances posterior to Justinian. In the western provinces, which had been wholly severed from the empire before the publication of the _Basilica_, the law as settled by Justinian held its ground; but copies of the _Corpus Juris_ were extremely rare, nor did the study of it revive until the end of the 11th century.

The best edition of the _Digest_ is that of Mommsen (Berlin 1868-1870), and of the _Codex_ that of Krüger (Berlin 1875-1877).

2. In his financial administration of the empire, Justinian is represented to us as being at once rapacious and extravagant. His unwearied activity and inordinate vanity led him to undertake a great many costly public works, many of them, such as the erection of palaces and churches, unremunerative. The money needed for these, for his wars, and for buying off the barbarians who threatened the frontiers, had to be obtained by increasing the burdens of the people. They suffered, not only from the regular taxes, which were seldom remitted even after bad seasons, but also from monopolies; and Procopius goes so far as to allege that the emperor made a practice of further recruiting his treasury by confiscating on slight or fictitious pretexts the property of persons who had displeased Theodora or himself. Fiscal severities were no doubt one cause of the insurrections which now and then broke out, and in the gravest of which, (532) thirty thousand persons are said to have perished in the capital. It is not always easy to discover, putting together the trustworthy evidence of Justinian's own laws and the angry complaints of Procopius, what was the nature and justification of the changes made in the civil administration. But the general conclusion seems to be that these changes were always in the direction of further centralization, increasing the power of the chief ministers and their offices, bringing all more directly under the control of the Crown, and in some cases limiting the powers and appropriating the funds of local municipalities. Financial necessities compelled retrenchment, so that a certain number of offices were suppressed altogether, much to the disgust of the office-holding class, which was numerous and wealthy, and had almost come to look on the civil service as its hereditary possession. The most remarkable instance of this policy was the discontinuance of the consulship. This great office had remained a dignity centuries after it had ceased to be a power; but it was a very costly dignity, the holder being expected to spend large sums in public displays. As these sums were provided by the state, Justinian saved something considerable by stopping the payment. He named no consul after Basilius, who was the name-giving consul of 541.

In a bureaucratic despotism the greatest merit of a sovereign is to choose capable and honest ministers. Justinian's selections were usually capable, but not so often honest; probably it was hard to find thoroughly upright officials; possibly they would not have been most serviceable in carrying out the imperial will, and especially in replenishing the imperial treasury. Even the great Tribonian labours under the reproach of corruption, while the fact that Justinian maintained John of Cappadocia in power long after his greed, his unscrupulousness, and the excesses of his private life had excited the anger of the whole empire, reflects little credit on his own principles of government and sense of duty to his subjects. The department of administration in which he seems to have felt most personal interest was that of public works. He spent immense sums on buildings of all sorts, on quays and harbours, on fortifications, repairing the walls of cities and erecting castles in Thrace to check the inroads of the barbarians, on aqueducts, on monasteries, above all, upon churches. Of these works only two remain perfect, St Sophia in Constantinople, now a mosque, and one of the architectural wonders of the world, and the church of SS Sergius and Bacchus, now commonly called Little St Sophia, which stands about half a mile from the great church, and is in its way a very delicate and beautiful piece of work. The church of S. Vitale at Ravenna, though built in Justinian's reign, and containing mosaic pictures of him and Theodora, does not appear to have owed anything to his mind or purse.

3. Justinian's ecclesiastical policy was so complex and varying that it is impossible within the limits of this article to do more than indicate its bare outlines. For many years before the accession of his uncle Justin, the Eastern world had been vexed by the struggles of the Monophysite party, who recognized only one nature in Christ, against the view which then and ever since has maintained itself as orthodox, that the divine and human natures coexisted in Him. The latter doctrine had triumphed at the council of Chalcedon, and was held by the whole Western Church, but Egypt, great part of Syria and Asia Minor, and a considerable minority even in Constantinople clung to Monophysitism. The emperors Zeno and Anastasius had been strongly suspected of it, and the Roman bishops had refused to communicate with the patriarchs of Constantinople since 484, when they had condemned Acacius for accepting the formula of conciliation issued by Zeno. One of Justinian's first public acts was to put an end to this schism by inducing Justin to make the then patriarch renounce this formula and declare his full adhesion to the creed of Chalcedon. When he himself came to the throne he endeavoured to persuade the Monophysites to come in by summoning some of their leaders to a conference. This failing, he ejected suspected prelates, and occasionally persecuted them, though with far less severity than that applied to the heretics of a deeper dye, such as Montanists or even Arians. Not long afterwards, his attention having been called to the spread of Origenistic opinions in Syria, he issued an edict condemning fourteen propositions drawn from the writings of the great Alexandrian, and caused a synod to be held under the presidency of Mennas (whom he had named patriarch of Constantinople), which renewed the condemnation of the impugned doctrines and anathematized Origen himself. Still later, he was induced by the machinations of some of the prelates who haunted his court, and by the influence of Theodora, herself much interested in theological questions, and more than suspected of Monophysitism, to raise a needless, mischievous, and protracted controversy. The Monophysites sometimes alleged that they could not accept the decrees of the council of Chalcedon because that council had not condemned, but (as they argued) virtually approved, three writers tainted with Nestorian principles, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and Ibas, bishop of Edessa. It was represented to the emperor, who was still pursued by the desire to bring back the schismatics, that a great step would have been taken towards reconciliation if a condemnation of these teachers, or rather of such of their books as were complained of, could be brought about, since then the Chalcedonian party would be purged from any appearance of sympathy with the errors of Nestorius. Not stopping to reflect that in the angry and suspicious state of men's minds he was sure to lose as much in one direction as he would gain in the other, Justinian entered into the idea, and put forth an edict exposing and denouncing the errors contained in the writings of Theodore generally, in the treatise of Theodoret against Cyril of Alexandria, and in a letter of Bishop Ibas (a letter whose authenticity was doubted, but which passed under his name) to the Persian bishop Maris. This edict was circulated through the Christian world to be subscribed by the bishops. The four Eastern patriarchs, and the great majority of the Eastern prelates generally, subscribed, though reluctantly, for it was felt that a dangerous precedent was being set when dead authors were anathematized, and that this new movement could hardly fail to weaken the authority of the council of Chalcedon. Among the Western bishops, who were less disposed both to Monophysitism and to subservience, and especially by those of Africa, the edict was earnestly resisted. When it was found that Pope Vigilius did not forthwith comply, he was summoned to Constantinople. Even there he resisted, not so much, it would seem, from any scruples of his own, for he was not a high-minded man, as because he knew that he dared not return to Italy if he gave way. Long disputes and negotiations followed, the end of which was that Justinian summoned a general council of the church, that which we reckon the Fifth, which condemned the impugned writings, and anathematized several other heretical authors. Its decrees were received in the East but long contested in the Western Church, where a schism arose that lasted for seventy years. This is the controversy known as that of the Three Chapters (_Tria capitula_, [Greek: tria kephalaia]), apparently from the three propositions or condemnations contained in Justinian's original edict, one relating to Theodore's writings and person, the second to the incriminated treatise of Theodoret (whose person was not attacked), the third to the letter (if genuine) of Ibas (see Hefele, _Conciliengeschichte_, ii. 777).

At the very end of his long career of theological discussion, Justinian himself lapsed into heresy, by accepting the doctrine that the earthly body of Christ was incorruptible, insensible to the weaknesses of the flesh, a doctrine which had been advanced by Julian, bishop of Halicarnassus, and went by the name of Aphthartodocetism. According to his usual practice, he issued an edict enforcing this view, and requiring all patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops to subscribe to it. Some, who not unnaturally held that it was rank Monophysitism, refused at once, and were deprived of their sees, among them Eutychius the eminent patriarch of Constantinople. Others submitted or temporized; but before there had been time enough for the matter to be carried through, the emperor died, having tarnished if not utterly forfeited by this last error the reputation won by a life devoted to the service of Orthodoxy.

As no preceding sovereign had been so much interested in church affairs, so none seems to have shown so much activity as a persecutor both of pagans and of heretics. He renewed with additional stringency the laws against both these classes. The former embraced a large part of the rural population in certain secluded districts, such as parts of Asia Minor and Peloponnesus; and we are told that the efforts directed against them resulted in the forcible baptism of 70,000 persons in Asia Minor alone. Paganism, however, survived; we find it in Laconia in the end of the 9th century, and in northern Syria it has lasted till our own times. There were also a good many crypto-pagans among the educated population of the capital. Procopius, for instance, if he was not actually a Pagan, was certainly very little of a Christian. Inquiries made in the third year of Justinian's reign drove nearly all of these persons into an outward conformity, and their offspring seem to have become ordinary Christians. At Athens, the philosophers who taught in the schools hallowed by memories of Plato still openly professed what passed for Paganism, though it was really a body of moral doctrine, strongly tinged with mysticism, in which there was far more of Christianity and of the speculative metaphysics of the East than of the old Olympian religion. Justinian, partly from religious motives, partly because he discountenanced all rivals to the imperial university of Constantinople, closed these Athenian schools (529). The professors sought refuge at the court of Chosroes, king of Persia, but were soon so much disgusted by the ideas and practices of the fire-worshippers that they returned to the empire, Chosroes having magnanimously obtained from Justinian a promise that they should be suffered to pass the rest of their days unmolested. Heresy proved more obstinate. The severities directed against the Montanists of Phrygia led to a furious war, in which most of the sectaries perished, while the doctrine was not extinguished. Harsh laws provoked the Samaritans to a revolt, from whose effects Palestine had not recovered when conquered by the Arabs in the following century. The Nestorians and the Eutychian Monophysites were not threatened with such severe civil penalties, although their worship was interdicted, and their bishops were sometimes banished; but this vexatious treatment was quite enough to keep them disaffected, and the rapidity of the Mahommedan conquests may be partly traced to that alienation of the bulk of the Egyptian and a large part of the Syrian population which dates from Justinian's persecutions.

4. Justinian was engaged in three great foreign wars, two of them of his own seeking, the third a legacy which nearly every emperor had come into for three centuries, the secular strife of Rome and Persia. The Sassanid kings of Persia ruled a dominion which extended from the confines of Syria to those of India, and from the straits of Oman to the Caucasus. The martial character of their population made them formidable enemies to the Romans, whose troops were at this epoch mainly barbarians, the settled and civilized subjects of the empire being as a rule averse from war. When Justinian came to the throne, his troops were maintaining an unequal struggle on the Euphrates against the armies of Kavadh I. (q.v.). After some campaigns, in which the skill of Belisarius obtained considerable successes, a peace was concluded in 533 with Chosroes I. (q.v.). This lasted till 539, when Chosroes declared war, alleging that Justinian had been secretly intriguing against him with the Hephthalite Huns, and doubtless moved by alarm and envy at the victories which the Romans had been gaining in Italy. The emperor was too much occupied in the West to be able adequately to defend his eastern frontier. Chosroes advanced into Syria with little resistance, and in 540 captured Antioch, then the greatest city in Asia, carrying off its inhabitants into captivity. The war continued with varying fortunes for four years more in this quarter; while in the meantime an even fiercer struggle had begun in the mountainous region inhabited by the Lazi at the south-eastern corner of the Black Sea (see COLCHIS). When after two-and-twenty years of fighting no substantial advantage had been gained by either party, Chosroes agreed in 562 to a peace which left Lazica to the Romans, but under the dishonourable condition of their paying 30,000 pieces of gold annually to the Persian king. Thus no result of permanent importance flowed from these Persian wars, except that they greatly weakened the Roman Empire, increased Justinian's financial embarrassments, and prevented him from prosecuting with sufficient vigour his enterprises in the West. (See further PERSIA: _Ancient History_, "The Sassanid Dynasty.")

These enterprises had begun in 533 with an attack on the Vandals, who were then reigning in Africa. Belisarius, despatched from Constantinople with a large fleet and army, landed without opposition, and destroyed the barbarian power in two engagements. North Africa from beyond the straits of Gibraltar to the Syrtes became again a Roman province, although the Moorish tribes of the interior maintained a species of independence; and part of southern Spain was also recovered for the empire. The ease with which so important a conquest had been effected encouraged Justinian to attack the Ostrogoths of Italy, whose kingdom, though vast in extent, for it included part of south-eastern Gaul, Raetia, Dalmatia and part of Pannonia, as well as Italy, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, had been grievously weakened by the death first of the great Theodoric, and some years later of his grandson Athalaric, so that the Gothic nation was practically without a head. Justinian began the war in 535, taking as his pretext the murder of Queen Amalasuntha, daughter of Theodoric, who had placed herself under his protection, and alleging that the Ostrogothic kingdom had always owned a species of allegiance to the emperor at Constantinople. There was some foundation for this claim, although of course it could not have been made effective against Theodoric, who was more powerful than his supposed suzerain. Belisarius, who had been made commander of the Italian expedition, overran Sicily, reduced southern Italy, and in 536 occupied Rome. Here he was attacked in the following year by Vitiges, who had been chosen king by the Goths, with a greatly superior force. After a siege of over a year, the energy, skill, and courage of Belisarius, and the sickness which was preying on the Gothic troops, obliged Vitiges to retire. Belisarius pursued his diminished army northwards, shut him up in Ravenna, and ultimately received the surrender of that impregnable city. Vitiges was sent prisoner to Constantinople, where Justinian treated him, as he had previously treated the captive Vandal king, with clemency. The imperial administration was established through Italy, but its rapacity soon began to excite discontent, and the kernel of the Gothic nation had not submitted. After two short and unfortunate reigns, the crown had been bestowed on Totila or Baduila, a warrior of distinguished abilities, who by degrees drove the imperial generals and governors out of Italy. Belisarius was sent against him, but with forces too small for the gravity of the situation. He moved from place to place during several years, but saw city after city captured by or open its gates to Totila, till only Ravenna, Otranto and Ancona remained. Justinian was occupied by the ecclesiastical controversy of the Three Chapters, and had not the money to fit out a proper army and fleet; indeed, it may be doubted whether he would ever have roused himself to the necessary exertions but for the presence at Constantinople of a knot of Roman exiles, who kept urging him to reconquer Italy, representing that with their help and the sympathy of the people it would not be a difficult enterprise. The emperor at last complied, and in 552 a powerful army was despatched under Narses, an Armenian eunuch now advanced in life, but reputed the most skilful general of the age, as Belisarius was the hottest soldier. He marched along the coast of the Gulf of Venice, and encountered the army of Totila at Taginae not far from Cesena. Totila was slain, and the Gothic cause irretrievably lost. The valiant remains of the nation made another stand under Teias on the Lactarian Hill in Campania; after that they disappear from history. Italy was recovered for the empire, but it was an Italy terribly impoverished and depopulated, whose possession carried little strength with it. Justinian's policy both in the Vandalic and in the Gothic War stands condemned by the result. The resources of the state, which might better have been spent in defending the northern frontier against Slavs and Huns and the eastern frontier against Persians, were consumed in the conquest of two countries which had suffered too much to be of any substantial value, and which, separated by language as well as by intervening seas, could not be permanently retained. However, Justinian must have been almost preternaturally wise to have foreseen this: his conduct was in the circumstances only what might have been expected from an ambitious prince who perceived an opportunity of recovering territories that had formerly belonged to the empire, and over which its rights were conceived to be only suspended.

Besides these three great foreign wars, Justinian's reign was troubled by a constant succession of border inroads, especially on the northern frontier, where the various Slavonic and Hunnish tribes who were established along the lower Danube and on the north coast of the Black Sea made frequent marauding expeditions into Thrace and Macedonia, sometimes penetrating as far as the walls of Constantinople in one direction and the Isthmus of Corinth in another. Immense damage was inflicted by these marauders on the subjects of the empire, who seem to have been mostly too peaceable to defend themselves, and whom the emperor could not spare troops enough to protect. Fields were laid waste, villages burnt, large numbers of people carried into captivity; and on one occasion the capital was itself in danger.

5. It only remains to say something regarding Justinian's personal character and capacities, with regard to which a great diversity of opinion has existed among historians. The civilians, looking on him as a patriarch of their science, have as a rule extolled his wisdom and virtues; while ecclesiastics of the Roman Church, from Cardinal Baronius downwards, have been offended by his arbitrary conduct towards the popes, and by his last lapse into heresy, and have therefore been disposed to accept the stories which ascribe to him perfidy, cruelty, rapacity and extravagance. The difficulty of arriving at a fair conclusion is increased by the fact that Procopius, who is our chief authority for the events of his reign, speaks with a very different voice in his secret memoirs (the _Anecdota_) from that which he has used in his published history, and that some of the accusations contained in the former work are so rancorous and improbable that a certain measure of discredit attaches to everything which it contains. The truth seems to be that Justinian was not a great ruler in the higher sense of the word, that is to say, a man of large views, deep insight, a capacity for forming just such plans as the circumstances needed, and carrying them out by a skilful adaptation of means to ends. But he was a man of considerable abilities, wonderful activity of mind, and admirable industry. He was interested in many things, and threw himself with ardour into whatever he took up; he contrived schemes quickly, and pushed them on with an energy which usually made them succeed when no long time was needed, for, if a project was delayed, there was a risk of his tiring of it and dropping it. Although vain and full of self-confidence, he was easily led by those who knew how to get at him, and particularly by his wife. She exercised over him that influence which a stronger character always exercises over a weaker, whatever their respective positions; and unfortunately it was seldom a good influence, for Theodora (q.v.) seems to have been a woman who, with all her brilliant gifts of intelligence and manner, had no principles and no pity. Justinian was rather quick than strong or profound; his policy does not strike one as the result of deliberate and well-considered views, but dictated by the hopes and fancies of the moment. His activity was in so far a misfortune as it led him to attempt too many things at once, and engage in undertakings so costly that oppression became necessary to provide the funds for them. Even his devotion to work, which excites our admiration, in the centre of a luxurious court, was to a great extent unprofitable, for it was mainly given to theological controversies which neither he nor any one else could settle. Still, after making all deductions, it is plain that the man who accomplished so much, and kept the whole world so occupied, as Justinian did during the thirty-eight years of his reign, must have possessed no common abilities. He was affable and easy of approach to all his subjects, with a pleasant address; nor does he seem to have been, like his wife, either cruel or revengeful. We hear several times of his sparing those who had conspired against him. But he was not scrupulous in the means he employed, and he was willing to maintain in power detestable ministers if only they served him efficiently and filled his coffers. His chief passion, after that for his own fame and glory, seems to have been for theology and religion; it was in this field that his literary powers exerted themselves (for he wrote controversial treatises and hymns), and his taste also, for among his numerous buildings the churches are those on which he spent most thought and money. Considering that his legal reforms are those by which his name is mainly known to posterity, it is curious that we should have hardly any information as to his legal knowledge, or the share which he took in those reforms. In person he was somewhat above the middle height, well-shaped, with plenty of fresh colour in his cheeks, and an extraordinary power of doing without food and sleep. He spent most of the night in reading or writing, and would sometimes go for a day with no food but a few green herbs. Two mosaic figures of him exist at Ravenna, one in the apse of the church of S. Vitale, the other in the church of S. Apollinare in Urbe; but of course one cannot be sure how far in such a material the portrait fairly represents the original. He had no children by his marriage with Theodora, and did not marry after her decease. On his death, which took place on the 14th of November 565, the crown passed to his nephew Justin II.

AUTHORITIES.--For the life of Justinian the chief authorities are Procopius (_Historiae, De aedificiis, Anecdota_) and (from 552 A.D.) the _History_ of Agathias; the Chronicle of Johannes Malalas is also of value. Occasional reference must be made to the writings of Jordanes and Marcellinus, and even to the late compilations of Cedrenus and Zonaras. The _Vita Justiniani_ of Ludewig or Ludwig (Halle, 1731), a work of patient research, is frequently referred to by Gibbon in his important chapters relating to the reign of Justinian, in the _Decline and Fall_ (see Bury's edition, 1900). There is a _Vie de Justinien_ by Isambert (2 vols., Paris, 1856). See also Hutton's _Church of the Sixth Century_ (1897); J. B. Bury's _Later Roman Empire_ (1889); Hodgkin's _Italy and her Invaders_ (1880). (J. Br.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] It is commonly identified with the modern Küstendil, but Usküb (the ancient Skupi) has also been suggested. See Tozer, _Highlands of European Turkey_, ii. 370.

[2] The name Uprauda is said to be derived from the word _prauda_, which in Old Slavic means _jus_, _justitia_, the prefix being simply a breathing frequently attached to Slavonic names.

[3] See, for an account of the instructions given to the commission, the constitution _Haec quae_, prefixed to the revised _Codex_ in the _Corpus juris civilis_.

[4] See the constitution _Deo auctore_ (_Cod._ i. 17, 1).

[5] In the middle ages people used to cite passages by the initial words; and the Germans do so still, giving, however, the number of the paragraph in the extract (if there are more paragraphs than one), and appending the number of the book and title. We in Britain and America usually cite by the numbers of the book, the title and the paragraph, without referring to the initial words.

[6] See Bluhme, "Die Ordnung der Fragmente in den Pandektentiteln," in Savigny's _Zeitschr. f. gesch. Rechtswissenschaft_, vol. iv.