Talk:Institutes (Gaius)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: WatkynBassett (talk · contribs) 08:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 10:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing now … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• The Institutes are divided into four books. – Probably I misunderstood, but wasn't the almost complete copy in a single palimpsest? In any case, the article does not give me any idea how long this work actually is, in terms of words or sentences.
  • This is a very valid point. I added a sentence regarding the length of the original text together with an English translation to the lead.

• when he was dispatched to negotiate a Concordat – should concordat be in lower case?
  • Yes.

• Zeitschrift für geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft – needs English translation
  • Done

• while many others see a fortunate coincidence ('Glücksstern') – Is the German word here really necessary? It is not attributed to any particular source.
  • On reflection, I concur and deleted the word.

• Later known as components of the Corpus Juris Civilis, the influences of Gaius also found their way into the Digesta and the Institutiones Iustiniani. – I think this nees some background information for context, otherwise it is hard to understand. Same with "true architect of Justinian's collection" later in the article; the significance of Justinian should be briefly explained here, and this collection introduced.
  • This is a good idea. I added a sentence and a source and wlinked Justinian's collection.

• and are considered to be "by far the most influential elementary-systematic presentation of Roman private law in late antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times". – This is the quote of a single author translated from German, right? So we should have the German original here, too (as you already did with another quote in the article). Also, it is the opinion of a single author, so it should have author attribution, e.g. "Scholar xx consideres it to be" or similar.
  • I think this view is very widely shared. The Der Kleine Pauly in which the statement is made is of high authoritativeness. I connected the statement to the source and will provide the German original once access to the Internet Archive is restored.

• because of its apparent comprehensibility or simplicity. – The "or" does not make much sense to me, should it be "and"?
  • Correct.

• In addition, Gaius' legal thinking is said to be – Again, needs author attribution and the German original.
  • I attributed the text and will provide the German original as an efn when the access to the Internet Archive is restored.

• and what part of them, if any, are, e.g. glosses or interpolations, – better formulate as "are taken from other texts, e.g. as glosses or interpulations"?
  • This might be a misunderstanding: It is unclear whether the 6th century manuscript of the Institutes itself is (in part) an interpolation.

• The editio maior – Add translation? What makes this edition "maior"?
  • I added what is meant by this term. What makes an edition "major" is of course a contentious point. I simply stated what the secondary source said about this planned edition.

• The "Further reading" section consists of German sources only, not sure if that makes much sense for the English Wikipedia?
  • Here I disagree: I find English WP very valuable when it provides the best sources available, which are easily accessable - nevermind the language. The current state of machine translation makes it possible to grasp all languages. Roman law scholarship is for historical reasons done in German and in Italian. I am unfortunately not familiar with the current Italian scholarship on the Institutes , but would love it if someone edits it in.

• Parts of the section "Structure of the Institutes" is not supported by inline citations.
  • This was a major oversight. I completly rewrote the section and expanded it.

• The article is mostly based on German sources; is this because most of the research on the topic comes from Germany?
  • Yes! Roman law scholarship is usually done in German or Italian. The common law is not really based on Roman legal thinking, therefore the interest of English-speaking lawyers into Roman law has historically been lower.

• I did some source spot-checking and did not encounter any problems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments and your valuable time. I worked on the first four issues (and prepared a bit for the next) and will continue tomorrow or the day after. WatkynBassett (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I will continue tomorrow with getting to your comments. Thanks for your patience. WatkynBassett (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I think, I adressed all issues except the still missing German quotes (which I can only add when the IA is back), but I will come back tomorrow and re-read your comments and give the article another copy edit. WatkynBassett (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your careful edits! This is looking very good already, and since the GA criteria are fully met and all comments are addressed, I will promote this now. Congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.