justice fred blume and the translation of justinian’s … justice fred blume and the translation...

525

Justice Fred Blume and the Translation of Justinian’s Code*

TimothyG.Kearley**

Professor Kearley tells the awe-inspiring story of how a German immigrant, Justice Fred Blume of the Wyoming Supreme Court, singlehandedly created what is still today the only known English translation of Justinian’s Code made from the standard Latin edition. He also describes his ongoing project to cre-ate a digital version of the translation, so that the huge manuscript, with its extensive notes on Roman law, will become widely available.

¶1 In the United States today, Roman law is of little consequence for the legalprofession.Relativelyfewlawschoolsteachacourseinit,andcourtsdonotseekguidancefromit.YetRomanlawisaliveandwellinothervenues.Itprovidesthefoundation for modern civil law systems and is still commonly taught in manycountries.Moreover,Romanlaw,especiallytheCorpusJurisCivilis(CJC),1isstillverymuchof interest toclassicistsandhistoriansaround theworldwhofind inJustinian’scompilationsawealthofinformationaboutRomancultureandsociety.Writingveryrecently,CarolineHumfressnotedthat:

Forthelegalhistorian,theAgeofJustinianisnothingshortofpivotal.Medievalistsandearlymodernistsinterestedintheso-calledreceptionofRomanlawinlatertimesandplacesmustlookbacktoJustinianandhislawbooks,asclassicistsandhistoriansinterestedintheRomanrepublicanorearlyimperiallawmustfrequentlylookforwardtothem.2

¶2 Roman law was quite significant to many American legal scholars andjuristsearlierinthecountry’shistory.LeadingfiguressuchasKentandStoryhadastronginterestinRomanlawandreferredtoitoften.3InterestinRomanlawandhistorywasstrongamong theFoundersand itcontinued tobestudiedbymany

* ©TimothyG.Kearley,2007.

** DirectoroftheLawLibraryandCentennialDistinguishedProfessorofLaw,UniversityofWyomingCollegeofLaw,Laramie,Wyoming.IwouldliketothankLindaJ.Hall,professorofhistoryatSt.Mary’sCollegeofMaryland,forhergenerosityinsharinginformationwithmeandforherhelpfulcommentsonadraftofthisarticle.Atthetimeofthiswriting,ProfessorHallwaswritinganarticletentatively titled “Clyde Pharr and Theresa Sherrer Davidson: The Translation of the TheodosianCodeatVanderbiltUniversity,”therelevanceofwhichformyarticlewillbeapparentasthereaderproceeds.

1. See infra¶¶5–9foradiscussionoftheCJC.

2. CarolineHumfress,Law and Legal Practice in the Age of Justinian,inTHeCambridGeComPanionto tHeAGeoF JuStinian 161, 162 (MichaelMaased.,2005).

3. See miCHael H. HoeFliCH, roman and CiVil laW and tHe deVeloPment oF anGlo-ameriCan JuriSPrudenCe in tHe nineteentH Century 28–29 (1997). Compare Alan Watson, Chancellor Kent’s Use of Foreign Law, inTHe ReCePtion oF ContinentalIdeaS in tHe Common LaWWorld 1820–1920,at45(MathiasReimanned.,1993).

526 Law Library Journal [Vol.99:3

Americanjuristsinthenineteenthcentury.Onlyintheearlydecadesofthetwen-tiethcenturywasitreducedtoasubjectoflesseracademicinterest.4Ironically,itwasinthissameperiod,asinterestinRomanlawwasfading,thatFredBlumeofWyomingwaslaboringasa“lonewolf”onhistranslationofJustinian’sCodeandNovels5—yettobepublishedtothisday—anditwasin1932thatSamuelParsonScott’sEnglishtranslationoftheentireCJCwaspublished.6

¶3 Roman law will never again be of any great practical significance toAmerican lawyers. However, a rudimentary knowledge of its widespread influ-enceoncivillawsystemsandoftheheroiceffortsthathavegoneintoitstrans-missionacrossthecenturiesisaninspiringstoryfortheprofession.So,thefactthat Blume, a German immigrant who served on theWyoming Supreme Courtforforty-twoyears,singlehandedlyandinhissparetimecreatedwhatisstilltheonlyknownEnglishtranslationofJustinian’sCodemadefromthestandardLatinedition7shouldbewidelyknown.Moreimportant,thatmassivemanuscript,withitsextensivenotesonRomanlawshouldbeavailabletoall.Whileitmaybeusedextensivelyonlybyrelativelyfewspecialists,simplyviewingthemagnitudeoftheaccomplishmentinspiresthekindofaweoneassociateswithanexperiencesuchasseeingMountRushmoreforthefirsttime.ThisiswhyIdecidedtoengageinthelengthyprocessofeditingandretypingJusticeBlume’s4521-pagemanuscriptintodigitalform.

¶4IwasgrantedasabbaticalleavefromtheUniversityofWyominginspring2005tostartworkingwiththehugemanuscriptthathadbeensittingincabinetsinthelawlibrary’sBlumeRoomsinceJusticeBlumebequeathedittotheuniversity,alongwithhisextensivelibraryonRomanlawandWesterncivilization,uponhisdeathin1971.Aswillbeexplainedlater,Blumecontinuedtorevisehismanuscriptfordecades,makingpenciledcorrectionsandpastinglargepatchesoftextcorrec-tionsontooriginalpages,renderingituselessforscanning.8Duringmysabbatical,Ilearnedtodecipherhishandwritingandmanagedtoeditandre-typefiveofthe

4. The ebb and flowofRoman law’s significance in theUnitedStates is subject todebate. I followHoeflich in thissynopsis.SeeHoeFliCH,supranote3,at1–8.Others, suchasStein,contend thatRomanlaw’sinfluenceintheUnitedStateswasstrongerthanHoeflichviewsittohavebeenearlyin the nineteenth century, but accept that it had “ceased to be a real force in the development ofAmericanlaw”by1850.PeterStein,The Attraction of the Civil Law in Post-Revolutionary America,52Va.L.ReV.403,432(1966).

5. See infra¶¶12–26.

6. THeCiVilLaW (S.P.Scotted.&trans.,photo.reprint1973)(1932).

7. Scottmadehis translation fromaneditionby theKriegelbrothers rather than the latereditionbyKrueger, Mommsen, Schoell, and Kroll, which is accepted as the authoritative Latin version. SeeStephenSass,Research in Roman Law: A Guide to the Sources and Their English Translations,56LaWLibr.J.210,229(1963);a. artHur SCHiller, roman laW: meCHaniSmS oF deVeloPment §12,at30–31(1978).BlumealsotranslatedtheNovels.See infra ¶8foradescriptionoftheNovels.TheyhavebeenscannedandareavailableatGeorgeWilliamHopperLawLibrary,Univ.ofWyo.,Justice Fred H. Blume, http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/blume&justinian (follow link to Novels frompull-downmenu)(lastvisitedApr.9,2007).

8. See infra¶¶51–55foradiscussionofBlume’smanuscript.

527Justice Fred Blume2007-31]

Code’s twelvebooksintoWordformat.Infall2005,whenIreturnedtowork,IwasawardedanAALL/AspenPublishersresearchgranttohireatypisttodoroughinputtingofthemanuscript,whichIwouldthenedit.Whentheeditingprocessiscompleted,theentireworkwillbepublishedontheWeb,bringingJusticeBlume’sdecadesofworktofruitionandfillingalong-perceivedneedforareliableEnglishtranslationofJustinian’sCode.9

The Corpus Juris Civilis

¶5 Inhis introduction toThe Digest of Justinian,AlanWatson justlywrites that“theCorpusJurisCivilishasbeenwithoutdoubtthemostimportantandinfluentialcollectionofsecularlegalmaterialsthattheworldhaseverknown.Thecompila-tionpreservedRomanLaw for succeedinggenerations andnations.”10TheCJCconsistsoffourelements:theCode,theDigestorPandects,theInstitutes,andtheNovels.11

¶6Justinian,whoruledtheRomanEmpirefromConstantinopleintheyears527to565,hadasoneofhisearlyconcernsthenumberofcontradictorylawsthathadarisenthroughthecenturiesofRomanlegislationandhadaddedtoconfusionanddelayinthecourts.Heorderedthatacommissionorganizeintoonecollectiontheexistingcompilationsofimperiallegislation(coveringtheyearsfrom117to438), add to it all subsequent imperial enactments, andharmonize the resultingmaterial to eliminate the contradictions.12 This first compilation, known as theCodexJustinianusorCodeofJustinian,wasissuedin529.

¶7 Justiniannextorderedacommission toharmonize theviewsof themostauthoritative classical jurists, because the conflicts among their opinions alsocreatedproblemsin litigation.13Theresultingpublication, theDigest,cameinto

9. Reviewinga relativelyrecent translationof theDigest,aspecialistcommented that“[i]twouldbewonderfuliftheprocesscouldcontinue;thecauseofRomanlegalhistorywouldbeadvancedevenfurther by comparable translations of Justinian’s Code and Novels.” William Turpin, The Digest of Justinian, 8 J. leGal HiSt. 381, 382 (1987) (reviewing tHe diGeSt oF JuStinian (TheodorMommsen,PaulKrueger&AlanWatsoneds.,1985)).

10. tHe diGeSt oF JuStinian,atxi(TheodorMommsen,PaulKrueger&AlanWatsoneds.,1985).

11. Denys Godefroy, in the late sixteenth century, was the firstWestern scholar both to use the termCorpusJurisCivilis (bodyofthecivillaw)fortheseworksandtodividetheminthismanner.Thephrase“bodyofthecivillaw”wasemployedtodistinguishtheseworksfromthe“bodyofthecanonlaw,”orCorpusJurisCanonici.SeeSCHiller,supranote7,§12,at29.BeforeGodefroy,theglossa-torsintheWesthaddividedthemintofivebooks:threefortheDigest;oneforthefirstninebooksoftheCode;andonethatcontainedboththelastthreebooksoftheCode,theInstitutes,andtheNovels.SeeSass,supranote7,at221,225;SCHiller,supranote7,§12,at30.ThetermCodewillbeusedheretoreferonlytoJustinian’sCode;theTheodosianCodewillbereferredtobythatfulldesigna-tion.

12. AstoJustinian’sintentincodification,seeCharlesPazdernik,Justinianic Ideology and the Power of the Past,inTHe CambridGe ComPanion to tHe AGe oF JuStinian 185, 198–202(MichaelMaased.,2005).Foradescriptionofthepre-Justiniancompilationsandtheirdatesofcoverage,seeSass,supranote7,at219;SCHiller,supranote7,§24,at55&§35,at56.

13. TonyHonoré,Justinian’s Codification: Some Reflections,25BraCton L.J.29,30(1993).


forceaslawin533,butitalsowasusedasanadvancedlawschooltext.Manyoftheconflictsamongtheclassical juristicwritingswereresolvedbythecommis-sionitselfsimplychoosingwhatitdeemedtobethebestopinion,butsomewerethoughtseriousenoughtorequirelegislationfromtheemperor.JustinianissuedasufficientlylargenumberofstatutesduringtheyearstheDigestwasbeingcom-posedthathedecideditwasnecessarytopublishasecondeditionof theCode,integratingthenewstatutesintothecompilation.14Thissecondversionwaspub-lishedin534andistheonlyonethathascomedowntous.15JustinianalsowantedtocreateanintroductorylawschooltexttoaccompanytheadvancedDigest.ForthispurposehedecidedtoupdateandmodifyacollectionofthelecturesofGaiuscalledtheInstitutes.ThisnewversionoftheInstituteswaspublishedthesameyearastheDigest.16

¶8 Because Justinian did not stop legislating after he published the secondeditionoftheCode,manyuncodifiedstatutesaccumulated.Justinianhadindeedintendedtomakeanofficialcompilationofthenewstatutesheissuedafterthesec-ondeditionoftheCode,buttheprojectnevermaterialized.However,privatejuristscreatedcollectionsof thesenewstatutes (Novellae ConstitutionesorNovels).AversionknownastheAuthenticumeventuallybecamethestandardsourceforwhathascomedowntousastheNovels.17

¶9TheCorpusJurisCivilisdidnotsurvive, tidily intact,with fullcopiesoftheoriginalmanuscriptshandeddownacrossthecenturies.ManygenerationsofscholarslaboredtopiecetogethertheversionsoftheCJCwehavetoday.Muchofthestoryofthistransmission,discussingtheworkoftheglossators,commenta-tors,andmoderntextualcritics,istoldsuccinctly,butwell,bySchillerinRoman Law: Mechanisms of Development.18ThehubofRomanlawresearchshiftedfromtimeto time,and, fortunatelyforFredBlume, ithadmovedtoGermanyby thenineteenthcentury.BecauseGermanwashisnativetongue,BlumecouldreadthevastbodyofworkbeingproducedtherebythePandecticistsandotherscholarsofRomanlaw.Thisscholarship,aswellastheGermantranslationoftheCJCpub-lishedintheearly1830s,19wasessentialfortheEnglishtranslationoftheCodeandNovelshewouldeventuallyproducethroughdecadesofeffort.

14. SeePazdernik,supra note12,at199.

15. SeeSass,supranote7,at222–24;SCHiller,supra note7,§15,at37.

16. Sass,supranote7,at223;Honoré,supranote11,at30.

17. Sass,supranote7,at224;SCHillersupranote7,§11,at39.

18. SCHiller,supranote7,§§12–16,at29–40.SeealsoSass,supranote7,at224–26.

19. Carl edWard otto, bruno SCHillinG & Carl FriedriCH StinteniS, daS CorPuS JuriS CiViliS(Leipzig,Focke1831–39).


Fred Blume

¶10FriedrichHeinrichBlumewasborninWinzlar,Germany,onJanuary9,1875.20Hisprospectsthereweremeager,so,likemanyothersinthatera,heemigratedtotheUnitedStates,joininghiselderbrotherWilhelminElgin,Illinois,in1887.Fiveyearslater,atageseventeen,Fredstruckoffonhisown,intendingtoearnhislivingasafarmhandinKansas.21However,fateintervened;enroute,inAudubon,Iowa,FredmetTheodoreMyers,aGerman-speakinglawyerwhowasalsoamemberofthelocalschoolboard.MyersofferedBlumeapart-timejobinhislawofficeandalivingspacethere.22BlumefinishedhighschoolinAudubonintwoyears,23then,ayearlaterin1895,heenrolledattheStateUniversityofIowa(nowtheUniversityofIowa).24HegraduatedfromtheuniversitythreeyearslaterasamemberofPhiBetaKappa,25readlaw,andwasadmittedtotheIowabarin1899,sevenmonthsafterhehadreceivedhisdegree.26

¶11BlumepracticedlawinIowauntil1905whenheandhiswifemovedtoSheridan,Wyoming,wherehehadbeenofferedapartnershipwithJ.L.Stotts.27Hissubstantialenergysoonrevealeditself,ashewaselectedcityattorney28andthentotheWyomingHousein1907,29followedbytermsintheWyomingSenatein1909and1911.30OneofthemoremomentousdecisionsofBlume’slifewashischoiceasaRepublicantobackTeddyRoosevelt’sBullMoosebidforthepresi-dencyin1912insteadofstickingwiththeRepublicanmachine-supportedWilliamHowardTaft.31ForwhentheBullMoosepartywentdowntodefeat,Blumeknewhis political prospects inWyomingunderTaft-supporterF.E.Warrenwouldbeslim.ThisledBlume,thenagethirty-seven,toponderhisfuture.

20. MichaelGolden,Journey for the Pole: The Life and Times of Fred H. Blume, Justice of the Wyoming Supreme Court (pts.1–2),28Land&WaterL.ReV.195,202,511(1993).ThefactsconcerningJusticeBlume’searlylifewhichfollowarealltakenfromWyomingSupremeCourtJusticeMichaelGolden’sdetailed,two-partbiographyofBlumeanddiscussionofhisjurisprudence.IhaveprovidedpagecitationsforthemoreimportantdatesandfactstoaidthereaderwhoisinterestedinfindingthedetailsofaparticularaspectofBlume’slifeinthatextensivepiece.Thepresentarticle,forthemostpart,willavoidplowingthesamegroundalreadytilledsoablybyGoldenandwillinsteadfocusonthedetailssurroundingJusticeBlume’stranslation.

21. Id.at205.

22. Id.at205–06.

23. Id.at206.

24. Id.at208.

25. Id.at210.

26. Id.at210–11.

27. Id.at213–14.

28. Id.at216.

29. Id.

30. Id.at218.

31. Id.at220–22.


The Translation

Origins and Preparation

¶12Writingof the1912electionyears later,Blumesaid,“Idecidedonthatdaythat Iwouldquitpoliticsandspend the timewhichIhaddevoted tosomethingelse.”32Thesameday,withnoclientsharryinghim,BlumestartedreadingabouttheMiddleAges,eventuallygoingontoread“dozensupondozensofbooksontheMedieval,Roman,Greek,Oriental andEgyptianworlds . . .” until he “wasreasonablywellsatisfiedin[his]mind”onthewidevarietyofsubjectshisbookshadcovered.33

¶13BecauseSheridan,Wyoming,in1912wasnotexactlyattheheartofthebookpublishing industryand interlibrary loanwasnotoperating,Blumehad todevelop his own collection of research materials through correspondence. Hispapersrevealanextensivecorrespondencebeginningintheseconddecadeofthetwentieth century, following the Bull Moose defeat, with publishers and bookdealers fromCedarRapids, Iowa(worksonGreekdramaand theVedantafromtheTorchPressBookShop);Chicago(theBookSupplyCompany—D’Aubigne’sHistory of the Reformation);Boston(A History of the Eastern Roman EmpirebyJ.B.BuryandBeirer’sEvolution of ReligionsfromDeWolfe&Fiske);Philadelphia(Vattel’sLaw of NationsfromLeary,Stuart&Co.);andNewYork,wherehedidagreatdealofbusinesswithShulte’sBookstoreandabranchofG.E.Stechert&Co.,bothofwhichshippedhimnumerousworksonRomanhistoryandlaw.34

¶14Blume’slibraryofmorethan2300volumes,whichhelefttotheUniversityofWyomingCollegeofLaw,atteststothebreadthofhisreadingandthetimeheinvested in its creation.His collection runs from tomesonAltaic hieroglyphicsandHittiteinscriptions,andvolumesonancientempiresoftheEast,toworksonecclesiasticalhistoryandmanyothersonRomanlawandhistory(some880).Itwasverymuchaworkingcollection,andBlumedidnothesitatetomakemarginalnotesinthevolumesthatweremostimportanttohisstudy.(Blumealsopermittedhimselfsomeleisurereading,whichconsistedmainlyofpaperbackwesternsand

32. FredBlume,[HistoryoftheTranslationanditsBackground]5(n.d.)(untitledmanuscriptannexedtoLetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity(Dec.28,1943))[hereinafterHistoryof theTranslationand itsBackground] (available inBlumeCollection,H69-10,WyomingStateArchives,Reference,ResearchandHistoricalPhotoUnit,WyomingDepartmentofStateParksandCulturalResources,Cheyenne,Wyoming) [hereinafterBlumeCollection,H69-10].My“title”forthisannexedmaterialwasusedbyBlumehimselfforpartofthisexplanationofhowhecametoundertakethetranslationandofhisapproachtotranslation.Blumedidnotgiveatitletohisexplana-tionasawhole,buttheoneIhaveusedaccuratelydescribesitsmaintheme.ItshouldbenotedthattheinstitutionalreferencestoBlume’scorrespondenceinthisarticlewilldifferfromthoseinGolden’spiece,duetoareorganizationoftheresponsibleagency.

33. Id.;alsoexcerptedinGolden,supranote20,at226.

34. Thisinformationwasgleanedfromanunlabeledaccordionfilecontainingscoresofreceipts,piecesof correspondence, cards notifying Blume of the availability of various works, etc., that BlumebequeathedtotheUniversityofWyomingCollegeofLaw,alongwithhisbookcollection(onfilewiththeauthor).


mysteries.ErleStanleyGardnerappearstohavebeenoneofhisfavoriteauthors.)Two particular books by Samuel Dill on Roman society initiated the chain ofeventsleadingtohissingle-handedtranslationofJustinian’sCodeandNovels.

¶15Blumerecalledthat:

DuringprobablythefirstyearafterNovember1912,IreadtwobooksbyDillonRomansocietyafterNero.HegivesmanycitationsfromtheTheodosianandJustinianCodes. Iwantedtoreadtheoriginalsources,soIwrotetoStechertandCompanyinNewYork,thelargestsecond-handbookfirmintheUnitedStates,toprocureformeanEnglishtranslationoftheseCodes.MuchtomychagrinandsurpriseIfoundthattherewasnoneinexistence.Soruminatingonthesubject,IwonderedifImightnotbeabletoaddmylittlemitetothecultureoftheworldbytranslatingatleastoneoftheseCodes.HerewasthegermofthethoughtofthetranslationoftheJustinianCode,althoughIdidnotrealizeatthattimethe

difficultiesthatlayahead.35

Not surprisingly, in writing the above lines some thirty-one years later, at agesixty-eight, Blume appears to have considerably condensed in his memory thebeginningofhisreadingswiththeinitiationofhisimpulsetotranslateoneoftheCodes.HisrecordsindicateheactuallypurchasedDill’sworks36in1915for$1.50each,not1912or1913.Moreover,hiscorrespondenceshowsitwasnotuntilJuly1919thatBlumewrotealettertoStechert&Co.inwhichheaskedwhethertheTheodosianCode ortheJustinianCodehadeverbeentranslatedintoEnglish,and,iftheyhadnot,indicatedhewouldliketohaveaGermanversion.37Inthissameletter,hestatedthathehadvolumeoneoftheCorpusJurisCivilis,editio stereo-typa38(whichcontainsonlytheInstitutesandDigests),andwantedvolumetwoofthework(whichcontainstheJustinianCodeaseditedbyPaulKrueger)aswellastheTheodosianCode.InAugustofthesameyear,aStechertrepresentativerepliedtoBlumewithacardinforminghim“WecannotfindthatthereareEnglishtransla-tions....”39Atthispoint,Blume’scorrespondenceshowsthathebegantonarrowthefocusofhiscollectingandreadingtoRomanlawandhistoryandahandfulofothersubjects,suchasreligioushistory,thatboredirectlyonhisdesiretotranslateeitheroftheCodes.

Start and First Draft

¶16Unfortunately,neitherBlumenorhisrecordsidentifyanexactdateonwhichheeither receivedhis first copyofKrueger’s authoritativeeditionof Justinian’s

35. HistoryoftheTranslationanditsBackground, supranote32,at6;Golden,supranote20,at226.

36. Samuel dill, roman SoCiety From nero to marCuS aureliuS (1905); Samuel dill, roman SoCiety in tHe laSt Century oF WeStern emPire (1906).

37. LetterfromFredBlumetoG.F.Stechert&Co.(July28,1919)(onfilewiththeauthor).

38. CorPuS iuriS CiViliS (Paul Krueger &Theodor Mommsen eds., Berlin,Weidmann 1872). BlumelateracquiredseveraldifferenteditionsofvariousCJCvolumes.Seeinfranote48.Aneditio sterotypahasdualcolumnprinting,muchlikeatypicalWestreportervolume.

39. CardfromG.E.Stechert&Co.toFredBlume(Aug.21,1919)(onfilewiththeauthor).


Codeorbeganthemonumental translation.TherearenoinvoicesfromStechertforvolumetwooftheeditio stereotypaCJCthathehadrequestedinJuly1919.However,itseemsthatheprobablygotacopyofthisKruegereditionoftheCodesometimeinlate1919orearly1920.InaletterwritteninDecember1922toDeanWigmore of the Northwestern University Law School, Blume indicated that hestartedtotranslatetheJustinianCode“sometwoormoreyearsago.”40Thisisveri-fiedbyaFebruary1924lettertoYaleLawSchoolDeanThomasSwaninwhichBlumenotedthathehadfinishedaroughdraftofhisCodetranslationthathehadbeenworkingoninhis“leisuretime”forsomefouryears.41Morespecifically,henotedinthe1943historyofhistranslationthathehadtriedwithoutsuccesstogetacopyofKrueger’seditionoftheCodewhilecontinuinghisbackgroundreading;hewentontosaythatitwasnotuntil“afterthefirstWorldWar”thathegothismoderneditionofKrueger.42Inaddition,BlumewrotetoStechertagaininMay1920to tell themhehadfound,contrary toprevious information thebooksellerhadgivenhim,thattherewasinfactaGermantranslationoftheCodepublishedinthe1830s.43Herequestedasecondhandcopyofthisworkfromthem,andoneisinhiscollection,butthereisnoproofhereceiveditin1920asaresultofthisrequest.44

¶17Another sign that Blume had begun the translation around 1920 is thatcorrespondence from that era between Blume and publishers or book dealerstendstofocusonwritingsaboutRomanhistory,culture,andlaw,suchasSohm’sInstitutes45andMuirhead’sHistorical Introduction to the Private Roman Law.46

40. Letter from Fred Blume to John H.Wigmore, Dean, Northwestern University Law School (Dec.11,1922) (available inBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).Wigmorerespondedwithgreatenthusiasm,writing:“WhatyousayaboutthetranslationofJustinian’sCodeisthemostfascinatingpieceofnewsthatIhavereceivedforalongtime.TheAnglo-AmericanworldhasbeenwaitingforanEnglishtranslationoftheCodeandoftheDigest.”LetterfromJohnH.Wigmore,Dean,NorthwesternUniversityLawSchool(Dec.12,1922)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

41. Letter from Fred Blume to Thomas Swann, Dean,Yale Law School (Feb.18, 1924) (available inBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

42. “Ifoundaneditionof1571,buttheprintofthatistoofineandIdidnotundertaketotranslatefromthat. I did not get the modern edition of Krueger until after the firstWorldWar.” History of theTranslationand itsBackground, supra note32, at7; see also Golden,supra note20, at227.The1571 edition he refers to probably isantoniuS ContiuS, CodiCiS dn. iuStiniani . . . rePetitae PraeleCtioniS lib. Xii ...(London,1571).ThisvolumewasnotinBlume’scollectionwhenitwasturnedovertotheUniversityofWyoming.

43. LetterfromFredBlumetoG.E.Stechert&Co.(May8,1920)(onfilewiththeauthor).

44. Theworkinquestionistheseven-volumeotto, SCHillinG & StinteniS,supranote19.ItisclearthatBlumehadthistranslationby1924,becauseinthatyearhewrote:“IamalsofortunateinhavingaGermantranslationof thework,whichMonrosays is thebest translationof theJustinianworksextant,andwhich,withitsnotes,hasbeenagreathelpinsecuringaccuracy.”LetterfromFredBlumetoThomasSwann,Dean,YaleLawSchool(May26,1924)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

45. rudoloPH SoHm, tHe inStituteS(JamesCrawfordLedlietrans.,1901).

46. JameS muirHead, HiStoriCal introduCtion to tHe PriVate roman laW(HenryGoudyed.,2ded.,London,AdamandCharlesBlack1899).


HealsosoughtgoodLatin-Englishdictionariesatthattime.HewrotetoBarnesandNoble inMay1920askingfora recentand“absolutelyfirstclasscompleteLatindictionary,andnotHarper’s.”47Inreply,BarnesandNoble“beggedtostate”thatHarperswasevidentlythelargestandbestavailable,48andthatdictionarydoesappearinBlume’scollection.Infact,Blume’slibrarygrewtoincludesomethirty-five Greek and Latin dictionaries, grammars, guides to composition, synonymfinders,etc.

¶18Inaddition,adisassembled,partialcopyof the1914KruegereditionoftheCodeinBlume’slibraryhas1920datespenciledinatvariousspotsinthetext,apparentlyinBlume’shandandseemingtoreflectwhenhereachedthatspotinhistranslation.TheearliestdateisattheendofC.1.1.8.6,whereBlumedrewalinetothetopofthepageandwrote“4/3/20.”49

¶19Blumealsowrote thathedidnot rememberexactlywhenhestarted thetranslationbutknewhe“didnothavemuchofitdoneonApril23,1921,when[he]wasappointedtothe[Wyoming]SupremeCourt.”50Hismemorymayhavebeenweakon thispoint,however,because in theDecember1922 letter toWigmore,Blumereported thathehad translated“substantiallyone-halfof thebook”eventhough“duringthelastyearormoreIhavebeenunabletodoanyworkonthis.”51Itseemsmorelikelythat this latter,contemporaneousstatement is true—thathehad done a good deal of translating before he was appointed to the WyomingSupreme Court but had not done much more immediately thereafter as he waslearninghowtobeajustice.Inanyevent,BlumeseemstohavestartedhissolotranslationofJustinian’sCodetowardtheendof1919orthebeginningof1920andtohavecompletedhisfirstdraftinlate1923orearly1924,sometwelveyearsafterhe’dembarkedonhisbackgroundpreparationfollowingtheelectiondefeatof1912.

¶20JusticeBlume’sproductionofafirstdrafttranslationoftheCodewasdoneatconsiderablecosttohishealthandprivatelifeaswell.Inhislaterrecollection

47. LetterfromFredBlumetoBarnesandNoble,Inc.(May27,1920)(onfilewiththeauthor)(referringtoe.a. andreWS et al., HarPer’S latin diCtionary (rev.,enl.1888)).

48. LetterfromBarnesandNoble,Inc.toFredBlume(June2,1920)(onfilewiththeauthor).

49. AndatC.1.3.44,hewrote“4/26/20.”However,italsoshouldbenotedthatatC.1.3.10thereisanotestating“here12/21/23”andthatthereareother,muchlaterdates,atotherplacesinthetext.Theselikely reflect the dates at which he came to these passages again in his nearly endless revisions.CitationformsforRomanlawarecoveredintHe bluebook, a uniForm SyStem oF Citation 303tbl.T2(ColumbiaLawReviewAss’netal.eds.,18thed.2005).ForadditionaldetailoncitingRomanlawsources,seeSass,supranote7,at232–33;LuciaDiamond,Roman and Canon Law Research,leGal reFerenCe SerViCeS Q.,2001,no.1–2,at99,105–08.TheKruegereditioninquestionisPaul krueGer, CodeX iuStinianuS (1914).Therealsoisan1877versionofKrueger’sCodeX iuStinianuS (Berlin,Weidmann1877)andaneditio stereotypawhichwasvolumetwoofasetofwhichMommsenand Krueger’s Institutes and Digests were volume one (CorPuS iuriS CiViliS (Berlin,Wiedmann1872)).So,bythe“moderneditionofKrueger,”Blumeprobablymeansthe1914edition.Foradis-cussionofMommsen’s&Krueger’seditions,seeSass,supranote7,at225–26.

50. HistoryoftheTranslationanditsBackground,supranote32,at7.

51. LetterfromFredBlumetoJohnH.Wigmore,NorthwesternUniversityLawSchool,supranote40.


ofthetranslationeffort,hewritesofhowbusyhewaswithhisregularcourtworkandgoesontoexplain:

SotheworkontheJustinianCodeandNovelswasnecessarilydoneinsparemoments.Idevotedtoitsubstantiallyeveryeveninguntileleveno’clockatnightorlater,andeverySaturdayafternoonandSundaywithfewexceptions.Ilimitedmysociallifetothemini-mum.Iwroteeverythinginlonghand,until,afterayearortwoafterIbegan,myrighthandandarmwouldworknolonger,soIhadtoresorttoatypewriter,whichisnotsogoodforatranslator.IttookmeayearorsobeforeIcouldwritelonghandagain.52

Despitethesehardships,BlumeperseveredandcertainlyhadcompletedthefirstdraftbythetimehewrotetoDeanSwanofYaleinFebruary1924.Swan’spositivereplyclearlyheartenedhimandrenewedhisenthusiasmfor the longprocessofrevisionthatlayahead.Blumerespondedbythankinghimforhisletter,confid-ingthat“[i]tgivesalittlezesttoaworkwhichisnecessarilytediousandwhichIamdoingattheexpense,often,ofmomentswhich,perhapsshouldbedevotedtorecreationfrommycourtwork,whichitself,withacrowdeddocket,keepsusbusy.”53

Revisions and Notes

¶21BlumewasnotcontentwiththefirstdraftoftheCodetranslationandappearstohavebegunrevisingitalmostimmediately.IntheFebruary1924lettertoSwan,Blumewrotethathewas“nowworkingonarevisionofmytranslation,andamproceeding with that comparatively rapidly, and if I continue to work on thatwithouttakingupsomeothermatters,Ishallprobablyhavethemajorportionofitrevisedbytheendofthisyear.”54Thispredictionprovedtobeoverlyoptimistic,asBlumewasnotsufficientlysatisfiedwithhisrevisionstohavethewholemanu-script translationtypeduntilanadditionalfiveyearshadpassed.Theprocessofrevisingthetranslationturnedintoaprocessofadditionalextensivebookcollect-ing,self-education,andannotationwriting,ratherlikeado-it-yourselfprojectthatbeginsasanefforttoaddabedroomandendswithapalatialannexandagaragefulloftools.Helaterdescribedtheprocess:

AfterIhadmadethefirst roughdraft, Iwentover the textasecondtime.AsIdidsoInoteddownseveralhundredpassagesinthetextwhich[sic]seemedtometobeobscure.Iwentovertheseagainlaterandmadewhatevercorrection[s]Ithoughtnecessary.Inthemeantime,Ireadonthesubjectsdealtwithagreatdeal,butmyrecollectionisthatImadethemainnotes[Blume’sextensiveexplanationofvariousCodeprovisions]aftermakingtherevision,inthemeantimemakingcorrectionsfromtimetotimeinthetranslation.Thenotesnecessitated,ofcourse,extensivereading,andIhadbythattimeacquiredbookson


53. LetterfromFredBlumetoThomasW.Swan,Dean,YaleLawSchool(May26,1924)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

54. LetterfromFredBlumetoThomasW.Swan,supranote41.


nearlyeveryphaseofthesubject[s]dealtwithinthelatter....Ihadthemanuscripttypedbyothers,Ithink,inthespringof1929.55

¶22Blumewasabletoputanapproximatedatetothefirsttypingofhismanu-scriptbecauseherememberedhavingsomeofthetranslatedbookswithhimwhenhelecturedonRomanlawattheNorthwesternUniversityLawSchoolinsummer1929,56atagefifty-four,sevenyearsafterDeanWigmorehadfirstinvitedhimtoteachthere.57Unfortunately,thereisagapofsomenineyears,fromabout1920to1929, in therecordsofBlume’s transactionswithpublishersanddealers,andhedidnotnotetheacquisitiondatesinthebookshecollected,soitisdifficulttodeterminewhattitlesinformedhisworkduringthisperiod.HedoescommentinhisgratefulletterofMay1924toDeanSwanthathehadjustrecentlyobtainedacopyofGothofredusontheTheodosianCodethathewasusinginhistranslationoftheJustinianCode“wheneverithasanypertinentcomments.”58However,itisclearthatneitherhiscollection-buildingeffortsnorhisrevisionworkceasedoncehehadthetranslationfirsttyped.

¶23 It was about at the point that Blume had his typed manuscript in handthat he appears to have begun to read extensively the Continental literature onRoman law,especially thePandecticistsandotherRoman lawscholarsworkinginGermany.Blume’srecordsfromtheyears1929to1931revealanabundanceofcorrespondencewithEuropeanpublishersandbookdealers.In1929,hepurchasedfromtheAlbertRausteinSchweitzerischesAntiquariatinZurichausedthree-vol-umesetoftheCorpus Iuris CivilisbyMommsen,Krueger,andSchoell,59alongwith Savigny’s System des Heutigen Römischen Rechts,60 Esmark’s Römische Rechtsgeschichte,61Windscheid’sPandechtenrechts,62andmanyotherwell-knownworksinthefieldthathelaterreferstoofteninthecopiousnotesaccompanyinghistranslation.

¶24InthenexttwoyearsBlumeboughtnumerousotherworksfromRaustein(and its successor Hellmut Schumann), Alfred Loren of Leipzig, Praeger inBerlin, theRichardCohnBuchhandlungundAntiquariatofFrankfurtamMain,

55. HistoryoftheTranslationanditsBackground,supranote32,at8–9.

56. Id.at9.

57. Wigmorefirstextendedsuchaninvitationin1922.LetterfromJohnH.Wigmore,Dean,NorthwesternUniversityLawSchool,toFredBlume(Dec.18,1922)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

58. LetterfromFredBlumetoThomasW.Swan,YaleLawSchool,supranote53.TheGothofredusworkinquestionisJoCobuS GotHoFreduS, CodeX tHeodoSianuS Cum PerPetuiS CommentariiS(London,Ioannis-AntoniiHeuguetan&Marci-AntoniiRauaud1665).

59. tHeodor mommSen, Paul krueGer & rudolF SCHoell, CorPuS iuriS CiViliS(Berlin,Weidmann1872,1895,1915).ThesewerenotthemostrecenteditionsoftheCJCavailableatthetime.

60. FriedriCH Carl Von SaViGny, SyStem deS HeutiGen römiSCHen reCHtS (Berlin,Veit1840–49).

61. karl eSmark, römiSCHe reCHtSGeSCHiCHte(Kassel,Wigand1888).

62. bernHard WindSCHeid, leHrbuCH deS PandenktenreCHtS(Frankfurt,Rütten&Löening1887).


andMartinusNijhofintheHague,tomentionbutafew.In1931,hereceivedinresponsetolettersheapparentlyhadwrittentotheU.S.legationsinViennaandPrague,listsofsecondhandbookstoresinthosecitiesspecializinginRomanlawandhistory.Hefollowedupwithcorrespondencetoatleastoneofthebusinessesmentioned, but after 1931 Blume’s collection development activities appear tohavediminishedconsiderably.

¶25 His records show only a few book purchases after that time.This mayhavebeenduetotheincreasingcostofhiscollection.In1933,Blumewrotethatanumberofbookshewantedwereavailable inacatalogofsecondhandbooks,but that“thematterofexchange isgettingsogrotesquelyexpensive that Ihavehesitated to send for these books under present economic circumstances.”63 In1934,heandClydePharrexchangedlamentationsaboutthehighcostofforeignlegal materials.64 It seemshe then focusedon studying thenumerousworkshehadalreadyobtainedandonapplyingwhathelearnedtohiscontinuingrevisionofthetranslationandthewritingofhisextensiveexplanatorynotes.Forexample,hismanuscripttranslationcontainsan“original”BookIIthathasonitstitlepageanoteinBlume’shandstating“revised1/24/31,”aswellasa“revised”BookII.DespitetheapparentslowdowninBlume’sacquisitions,byApril1937hisRomanlawcollection,accordingtohisowncount,consistedof862volumes.65

Involvement with Clyde Pharr and the Corpus Juris Romani

¶26OnMay27, 1933,ClydePharr, professorofGreek andLatin atVanderbiltUniversity,66wrotea letter toBlumethatwouldbe thestartof threedecadesofintermittentcorrespondencebetweenthetwoandthatwouldbothhelpandhinderBlume’sworkontheCode.67Withoutbeingspecificabouthissources,Pharrsaid:“IhaverecentlybeeninformedthatyouareatworkonanannotatedtranslationoftheCodeofJustinian.SoIamtakingthelibertyofwritingyoutoseewhetheritmaybepracticabletoworkoutsomethingonacooperativebasis.”68

63. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity(Sept.25,1933)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

64. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity(Jan.26,1934)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32);LetterfromClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity,toFredBlume(Apr.9,1934)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).Inthelatter,Pharrnotesthatforeignbookpricesare“unreasonablyhigh,duepartlytothedevaluationofourdol-lar”andgoesontosaythathehasbeenona“buyersstrike”foreighttotenmonths.Id.

65. AmongtheitemsdonatedtotheUniversityofWyomingisanotebooklabeled“CatalogofRomanLawBooks,”datedApril3,1937,whichprovidesavolumecountinBlume’shand.

66. ForabriefbiographyofPharr,seeGolden,supranote20,at525–26.BythetimehewrotetoBlume,Pharrhadestablishedhimselfprominentlyinhisfieldwithtwotextbooks:Clyde PHarr, HomeriC Greek: a book For beGinnerS (1920)andClyde PHarr, VerGil’S aeneid (1930),bothofwhichhavegonethroughseveralprintings.SeeRowenaRutherfordFarrar,Clyde Pharr, Practical Scholar,Holland’S,July1934,n.p.

67. LetterfromClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity,toFredBlume(May27,1933)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

68. Id.


¶27 Pharr included a seven-page proposal titled “A Project for a VariorumTranslationintoEnglishoftheEntireBodyofRomanLaw,”69whichheapparentlywassendingtopotentialcollaboratorsandpossiblytofundingsources.Avariorumtranslation,astheproposalindicates,includes“varianttranslationsofallpassagesonwhich theremaybeadifferenceofopinionamongcompetent scholarsas totheproperinterpretation.”70AsPharrenvisionedtheprojectinthisinitialproposal(which,inhindsight,weeasilycanseeaswildlyoptimistic),itwouldconsistof“atleast”eightunits,includingtheTheodosianCodeandtheentireCJC.71Heattachednotimelineforthisambitiousendeavor,whichheacknowledgedwouldresultinprintedmatterthreeorfourtimeslargerthantheKingJamesBible.72

¶28Yearslater,whenPharrhadmovedtotheUniversityofTexas,thisenor-mousprojectwaswhittleddownintotheserieshecalledTheCorpusofRomanLaw,orCorpusJurisRomani.Accordingtoatwenty-pageprospectusdated1952,therevisedserieswastohaveincluded:(1)theTheodosianCodeandNovels;(2)“other pre-Justinian legislation and jurisprudence”; (3) Justinian’s Corpus JurisCivilis;and(4)“legalinscriptionsandpapyriandthemoreimportantlegalmate-rialculledfromtheancientGreekandLatinauthors,andothersources,suchasPolybius, Cicero, Livy, Tacitus, Pliny, Aulus Gellius, Cassius Dio, AmmianusMarcellinus,andtheSyro-RomanLawBook.”73Ofthese,onlythefirstandpartofthefourthwereeverpublished.74

¶29 In his initial response to Pharr, Blume expressed interest in joining theprojectbutalsoaskedwhetherPharrwasfamiliarwithScott’srecenttranslationoftheentireCJC.75(HadBlumereadPharr’sprojectoutlinecarefully,hewouldhaveseenthatinitPharrhadwrittenthat“arecentattempttotranslatetheCorpus

69. ClydePharr,AProjectforaVariorumTranslationintoEnglishof theEntireBodyofRomanLaw(n.d.)(noteannexedtoletterfromClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity,toFredBlume(May27,1933))[hereinafterAProjectforaVariorumTranslation](availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

70. Id. at2.

71. Id. at5. ThepartsPharrmentionsare:“1)Brunes,FonteSIuriSRomani;2)otherinscriptionalmate-rial;3) thepre-JustiniancollectionsofRomanjurisprudence;4) theTheodosianCodeandNovels;5)otherpre-Justinianlegislation;6)theCorpusJurisCivilis;7)themoreimportantlegalmaterialsculledfromclassicalauthors,suchasCicero,PlinyandAulusGellius;8)papyrimaterial.”Id.

72. Id.at6.

73. ClydePharr,AProjectfortheCollection,Translation,andAnnotationofAlltheSourceMaterialofRomanLaw1–2(May15,1952) (available inBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).Anotherprospectus,writtensomeeightyearsearlier,whenPharrwasstillatVanderbilt,hadretainedthesameambitiousscopeashisoriginalAProjectforaVariorumTranslation,supranote69.SeeClydePharr,AProjectfortheCollection,Translation,andAnnotationofAlltheSourceMaterialofRomanLaw(1944)(copyonfilewiththeauthor).

74. Clyde PHarr, tHe tHeodoSian Code and noVelS, and tHe Sirmondian ConStitutionS(CorpusofRomanLaw,vol.1,1952);anCient roman StatuteS: a tranSlation (AllanChesterJohnsoned.&trans.,CorpusofRomanLaw,vol.2,1961).

75. Letter fromFredBlume toClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity (June1,1933) (availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).BlumewasreferringtotHe CiVil laW,supranote6,editedandtranslatedbyS.P.Scott.


JurisCivilisandsomeothermaterialhasbeensopoorlydonethatitisthoroughlyuntrustworthyandasaconsequencequitevalueless.”76)Referring to thatpubli-cation,Blume toldPharr:“Italmosthaltedmypersonalworkon theAnnotatedJustinianCode.”77However,afterexplainingthathehadnotgonethroughmuchoftheworkyet,hewentontosay:“IhavegonethroughonebookoftheCodeandfoundwhatIthoughtsomanyglaringmistakesthatIconcludedtogoonwithmywork....”78PharrwaitedsomethreeweeksbeforereplyingtoBlume,inpartsothathecouldtakealongerlookatScott’stranslation,which,ifadequate,wouldhavepre-emptedthecoreofPharr’sproject.Pharr’sconsideredjudgmentof theScott translation was damning: “A more careful examination has unfortunatelyconfirmedmyearlierimpressionandIamconvincedthathisworkisvalueless.”79Pharrwenton to refer to a letterDeanRoscoePoundhad recently senthim inwhichPoundlabelsScott’sworkas“mostunfortunate,”andwhichPharrclaimsis“theprevailingopinionofcompetentscholarship.”80

¶30It ishighlyironic thatScottandBlumebothhadbeenlaboringawayinobscurityaroundthesametimeontranslatingtheCJC.AlthoughScott’stransla-tionoftheentireCJCwaspublishedin1932,heapparentlyhadcompleteditsometen years before, when Blume was still working on his first draft of the Codetranslation.Scott’s“Editor’sPreface”isdatedFebruary11,1922,81anditisinter-estingtospeculateastowhetherBlumewouldhavecontinuedwithhiseffortshadhebeenconfrontedwithScott’smassive,completedworkinthatyear,evenifhedeemeditflawed.Thattheworkisseriouslyflaweddoesindeedseemtobethe“prevailingopinionofcompetentscholarship,”asPharrasserted.SchillerreferstoScott’s translationas“distinctlypoor”andindicates itmustbeused“withgreatcaution, formistranslationsarefrequent . . . inpartdue to thefact thatananti-quatedtextwasusedfortranslation.”82Anotherscholarhasnotedthat“[i]fScotthadimmersedhimselfintheRomanlawscholarshipavailableinhisday,heprob-ablycouldhaveproducedanadequatetranslation—onegoodenoughthatitmight

76. AProjectforaVariorumTranslation,supranote69,at6–7.

77. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,supranote75.

78. Id.Later,BlumewrotethathecouldnotunderstandhowScotthadmadesomanyerrors,andhesug-gestedthathe“halfsuspect[ed]thathedidnotpersonallytranslatetheCode,butleftthattosubordi-nates,andthatthemistakesarenotduetohimself.”HistoryoftheTranslationanditsBackground,supranote32,at32(inasubsectionheaded“AnentS.P.Scott”).

79. LetterfromClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity,toFredBlume(June24,1933)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

80. Id.Pharrgoesontocriticizethetranslationextensively,referringtoBuckland’srathercriticalreviewintheTulane Law Reviewas“entirelytookindhearted”andthenproceedingtoattackthetranslationfornumerousfaults.Id.

81. Scott,supranote6,at49.

82. SCHiller,supranote7,§12,at31.


not be worth doing again.”83 This critic pointed out that Scott’s work failed toreflectthemanyvaluableadvancesinRomanlawscholarshipthathadbeenmadeafterthemid-1800s.84Blume’sworkdoesnotfailinthis,duetohisexpansivebookcollectionandresearchactivitiesalreadynoted.

¶31Inanyevent,BlumerepliedquicklytoPharr,saying“IshallbegladtojoinyouintheworkandcooperatewithyouineverywayIcan,consideringthelim-itedtimeatmydisposal.”85WhiletheselettersshowthemutualinterestofBlumeandPharrinJustinian’sCode,thecorrespondencealsohintsatproblemstocome:Blume’s“limitedtime”laterwouldbechanneledintotheTheodosianCodepieceofPharr’sproject,asopposedtotheJustinianCode,andPharr’sandBlume’scon-ceptsofhowJustinian’sCodeshouldbepresentedwereatvariance.

¶32Astothelatter,Blume’svisionwastocreate,ashecalledit,anAnnotated Justinian Code “formainlytheordinarylawyerintheUnitedStates,whodoesnotknowanygreatamountofLatinorGreek.”86Therefore,hetranslatedalltheLatinandGreektermsintoEnglish(unlikeBucklandwho,Blumenotes, leftsomanyLatintermsuntranslatedthathisTextbook on Roman Lawis“nearlyworthlessforanaverageAmericanlawyer”),87andhemadeheadnotestothevarioustitlesoftheCodeinordertoexplaindifficultpassages.Blumemadeclearonnumeroussub-sequentoccasionsthathethoughthisnoteswereextremelyimportantandthathevaluedthemhighly.InhisletterofJune1toPharr,BlumesumsuphisconceptofaCodetranslationbyindicatingthattheletter’sprecedingexplanationwasintendedtoshowwhathethoughtitadvisabletodo“inordertomaketheworksalableandsufficiently interesting tobereadby theAmerican lawyerandby thestudentofRomanlawandcustomsingeneral.”88

¶33 Pharr’s intent, on the other hand, was to create the definitive scholarlyEnglish translation of the documents, primarily for specialists. Pharr’s letter inresponsetoBlume’sacceptanceandsomewhatdifferentvisionindicatedhisagree-mentwithwhathecalledBlume’s“generalscheme,”buthewentontoreiteratehispreferencefor“theuseofalimitedamountofnotes”and“briefnotes.”89Inshort,Pharr,theclassicist,wantedmoreofa“pure”translationoftheoriginaldocuments,fortheirownsake,whileBlume,thelawyer,wantedtoexplaintheirsignificanceandsubstancetoAmericanlawyersandhoped“thatitmightbecomeaworkwhich

83. CharlesDonahue,On Translating the Digest,39Stan.L.ReV. 1057,1062(1987)(reviewingTHeDiGeSt oF JuStinian(TheodorMommsen,PaulKrueger&AlanWatsoneds.,1985)).

84. Id.

85. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity(June30,1933)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).


87. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,supranote85(referringtoW. W. buCkland, a teXt-book oF roman laW From auGuStuS to JuStinian (1921)).


89. LetterfromClydePharrtoFredBlume,supranote79.


couldwithconfidencebeutilizedbythecourtsofthiscountry,eitheronaccountofanalogyorcontrast.”90Blume’sextensivenotesmayhavebotheredPharr thepurist,buttheylaterprovedextremelyvaluableintheeventualtranslationoftheTheodosianCode,andPharrlaterrepeatedlyexpressedhisviewthattheyshouldbepublished.91

¶34ThedrainofPharr’sprojectonBlume’s translationwasnot immediate.Pharr had difficulty organizing and fundingThe Corpus of the Roman Law, soBlumecontinuedtoreadRomanlawandrevisehismanuscriptaccordingtohisownplanforseveralyearsaftertheirinitialdiscussionofenteringintoacoopera-tiveventure.WhenhewrotetoPharrin1933,Blumetoldhimhehad“goneoveritthreeorfourtimes,and...[was]stillgoingoverit,as...[hestudied]thevarioussubjects separatelyand the lawsof theCode inconnection therewith.”92Blumecontinuedtoworkonhisrevisionandnotesallthroughthe1930s.However,attheoutbreakofthewarin1939,heceasedcorrectinghisnotesandreadRomanlawonlyalittle,becauseatthatpointhe“thoughtthatalleffortsinconnectionwiththetranslationofanyoftheRomanLawwouldbeuseless.”93

¶35BlumeandPharr also seem tohave ceased correspondingby then.TheBlume archives show a flurry of sixteen letters (eight from each) in the yearbetween Pharr’s first letter to Blume in May 1933 and his last inApril 1934.Thereafter,onlyoneappears—in1937—untilthetworeconnectedin1943.

“Completion” of the Translation and Collaboration on the Theodosian Code

¶36InMay1943,afterasix-yearhiatus,PharrwrotetoBlumewithgreatenthu-siasm, indicating he would like to renew their “lively correspondence.”94 Nowsecretary-treasurerof theAmericanClassicalLeague,Pharr toldBlume thathisinstitution—VanderbiltUniversity—wasproviding funds to start the translation.He greatly desired Blume’s collaboration. “I found your work on the Code ofJustiniansofarsuperiortoanythingelsethathasbeendonethatIhopewemaybeabletoarrangesomesortofcollaboration.Youhavedoneafinejobandhavespentanenormousamountofworkonit.”95PharrwentontoaskBlumeifhewouldbe


91. See, e.g.,LetterfromClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity,toFredBlume(July12,1945)(available in Blume Collection, H69-10, supra note 32); Letter from Clyde Pharr, Professor,VanderbiltUniversity,toFredBlume(Jan.25,1958)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).


93. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity(May28,1943)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).


95. Id.


willingtosendhimhismanuscriptsothathecouldhaveitcopied.96HisintentionwastostartwiththeTheodosianCode,duetoitslinguistic,historical,economic,andsociologicalinterest,buthedesiredtoapplyBlume’sknowledgeandexperi-encewiththeJustinianCodetothisearlierwork.97(AgoodmanyofthelawsoftheTheodosianCodewereretainedintheJustinianCode;henceBlume’stranslationofthelatterwasextremelyusefulfortranslatingtheformer.98)

¶37WhenPharrwrotetoBlumeagaininJunewithmoredetailsabouthisplanfortheproject,heindicatedthatBlumewouldbecreditedastranslatorandannota-toroftheCodeandtheNovels,aswellasanassistanteditoronthewholeproject,giventheamountofworkhehaddonealready.99Blumewashappytocooperatebutwantedtimetoreviewthemanuscriptagainbeforehesentit,sincehehadnotworkedon it forsomefouryearsat thispoint.100 InJune1943,Blumewrote toPharragain,sayinghewasworkinghardonhisnotestotheCode,makingmanyrevisions,butthathehadbeenhavingtroublefindingstenographersforthemanu-scriptbecauseCheyennewas“oneofthewarcentersofthecountry.”101

¶38Previously,inSeptember1933,BlumehadsentPharracopyofhistransla-tionandnotesforBookIIoftheCode;hehadpromisedtodosoinhislastletterofJuneinorderthatPharrmightgetafeelforhiswork.102(Intheaccompanyinglet-ter,Blumedescribedhisphilosophyandmethodsoftranslationinsomedetail.103)Pharr hadwrittenbackpraising it as “a fineworkof scholarship and the resultofmuchcarefulthought”andofferedtocritiqueit,withthehelpofsomegradu-

96. Id.

97. Id.ItisinterestingandamusingtonotethatinBlume’sresponsetoPharrherecalledanencounterhehadwithDeanRoscoePoundyearsearlierinwhichBlumehadaskedhimifhethoughtitwouldbe“ofanyuse”totranslatetheTheodosianCode,towhichPoundbrusquelyrepliedthat“itwouldbeofnouse,nouseatall.”LetterfromFredBlumetoProfessorClydePharr,supranote93.TheaugustPound’sopinionobviouslyhadnoeffect,noeffectatall,onPharrandBlume.

98. AtonepointPharrwrote toBlume:“Youwill findhowmuchweareplundering fromyourworkwhenyoureceiveourissueofthesecondbookoftheTheodosianCode.”LetterfromClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity,toFredBlume(Apr.28,1945)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).




102. Id.

103. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity(Sept.12,1933)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).See infra¶¶56–64foradditionaldiscussionof thistopic.


atestudents.104InDecember1933,Pharrforwardedthatcritique,someofwhichseemsabitcondescending105butwhichBlumetookwell.106

¶39SomesevenmonthspassedbeforeBlumewasprepared topartwithhiscompletemanuscript translationof theCodeand theNovels.OnDecember28,1943,nearlysixty-nineyearsofage,hefinallywrotetoPharr:“Iamsendingyou,as Ipromised Iwould,byexpress,copy [sic]ofmy translationof theJustinianCodeandtheJustinianNovels,includingtheedictsandappendicesappearingintheeditionof theNovelsofSchoellandKroll.”107 (Blume’s focushadbeen theCode,butheendeduptranslatingtheNovelsaswelltoshowhowthelatterhadaffectedsomeoftheCodesections.)HewentontoexplainthatsincePharrhadwrittentohiminMay,hehadre-readtheentiretranslationandmostofthetext(hisnotes);therefore,hewarnedPharr,“numerousinterlineations,orcorrectionsinpencilappear.”108BlumereferredtotheshipmentofhistranslationoftheCodeandNovelsastheequivalentofbiddingfarewelltoachildandabrother,respec-tively.Itwassuchamomentousoccasiontohimthatheappendedtothisletteraseparate,thirty-twopageannexinwhichhediscussedthehistoryofhistranslation,hisapproachtotranslating,andwhyhetranslatedcertaintermsashedid(inpart,asaresponsetoPharr’scriticismsof1933);respondedtocertainothercriticismsofBook II inPharr’s1933critique;andmadea lastcommentonScottandhisunfortunatetranslation.109

¶40 Professor Pharr wrote to Blume on January 8, 1944 to assure him themanuscripthadarrived safely thatday.This time,asopposed tohis reaction in1933toBlume’stranslationofBookII,Pharr’spraisewasunstinting.

Frankly, I am quite overwhelmed by the indication of extremely sound research andscholarship [shown] by your work. . . . I remember criticising part of your manuscriptsomeelevenyearsago.Atthattime,IwasabeginnerinRomanLaw,althoughIhavebeenengagedinclassicalscholarship.BecauseofmyrathersuperficialknowledgeofRoman

104. LetterfromClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity,toFredBlume(Sept.22,1933)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

105. Forexample,Pharrwrote:“Thefineartoftranslationcanbedevelopedonlythroughlongcontinuedpracticeandrequiresagreatdealofcriticismfor itsbestdevelopment. . . .This translationshowsmarkedabilityandinsightbutthesentencestructureadherestoocloselytotheLatin.”ClydePharr,Notes to JusticeBlume’sTranslation (n.d.) (unpublishednote annexed to letter fromClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity,toFredBlume(Dec.1,1933))(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

106. BlumetoldPharrhewasaccustomedtoreceivingconstructivecriticismconcerninghisjudicialopin-ionsfromothermembersofthecourt, thebar,andlawreviews.However,heindicatedhethoughtsomeofPharr’scriticisms“probablyoughtnot tobeaccepted.”Letter fromFredBlume toClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity(Jan.26,1934)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

107. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity,supranote32.

108. Id.



lawatthattime,Icriticisedcertainfeaturesofyourmanuscriptwhich,inthelightoffurtherknowledge,Inowgladlyrevise.110

GivenBlume’sdecadesofRomanlawstudyandtheenormousamountoftimehelavishedonhis“AnnotatedJustinian’sCode,” it isnotsurprising thatPharrwasimpressed by the result. In addition to praising the translation, Pharr character-izedwhathecalledBlume’s“magnificenttask”inwordsthatarestillappropriatetoday:“Youplaceusall,boththoseofthepresentandthoseofthefuturegreatlyinyourdebt.ThoughIamsureyouaretoomodesttosaysoyourself,IshallfeelconfidentthatyouwerejustifiedinwritingwithHorace,Exegi monumentum aere perennius”[Ihaveerectedamonumentmorelastingthanbronze].111

¶41At this point, Blume turned to his duties as a consulting editor on theTheodosianCodetranslationbut,asweshallsee,hehadintruthnotseenthelastofhisownCodeofJustiniantranslation.

The Theodosian Code

¶42Having“bidfarewelltohischildandhisbrother,”BlumeshiftedhisattentiontothedutiesofaconsultingeditorfortheCorpusJurisRomani,thefirstproductofwhichwastobetheTheodosianCode.Pharrhadmanagedtorecruitastellargroupofconsultants,including,amongothers,RoscoePound,ErnstRabel,MaxRadin,A.ArthurSchiller,andHesselYntema.112Pharr’splanwastohaveinitialdraftsdonebyhimselfandothersatVanderbilt,abookatatime,andthentosendmimeographedcopiestotheconsultingeditorsfortheircritiques.113

¶43JusticeBlumeappliedhimselftotheTheodosianCodetranslationasfullyashehaddonetoJustinian’sCodeandtheNovels.InaseriesoflettersBlumesenttoPharrfrom1944to1947,hereferstohisdifficultiesinacquiringtheKruegerLatineditionoftheTheodosianCode,114makessuggestionsforreferencesshow-

110. LetterfromClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity,toFredBlume(Jan.8,1944)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).Pharrwentontowrite:“IamdelightedthatyoustandbyyourgunsandmanyofthestatementsandmanyofthecolorfulphraseswhichyouhavecoinedtoexpressthecloserelationshipbetweenRomanLawideasandotherlegalideas,includingthosefoundinourownperiod.”Id.

111. Id.

112. AlistofalltheconsultingeditorsfacesthetitlepageofPHarr,supranote74.

113. Letter fromClydePharr toFredBlume supra note99. In the firstmimeographedvolume sent totheseeditors,Pharr andAssociateEditorT.S.Davidsonwroteapreface (“GeneralDirections fortheEditorialStaff”) inwhich theyrefer toJusticeBlume’sworkonJustinian’sCodeas“ofmuchhigherqualitythananythingelsethathasbeendoneinthisfield”andstatethatthey“arefindingbothhistranslationandhisnotesinvaluableintheinterpretationofmanydifficultandobscurepassagesof theTheodosianCode.”TheodosianCode,BookI,at iv-v (ClydePharred.,1944) (copyonfilewiththeauthor;WorldCatalsoshowsthesepreliminary,mimeographededitionsasbeingheldintheVanderbiltlibrary).

114. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity(May25,1944)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).Hemakesthesamecomplainttwoyearslater.LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity(July1,1946)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).


ingwhereportionsofthatCodeappearinJustinian’sCode,115andindicatesthathehadreadtheentireTheodosianCodeinpursuanceofhisobligationsasacon-sultingeditor.116Bythistime,however,Blumewaswearingdownabit.In1945,atageseventy,heconfessedtoPharrthat“[a]hardday’sworkintheofficeisnotconducivetomakeamanofmyagewanttoreadLatinintheevening,whichmightberecreationtoyoubutlabortome.”117Thus,BlumehadalmostentirelyceasedtoconcernhimselfwithhisownJustinianCodetranslation,thoughhedidlookbackatitfromtimetotime.118

¶44In1947,Blume,atPharr’srequest,wrotealettertotheAmericanSocietyofLearnedSocieties,urgingapublicationsubventionfortheTheodosianCode;119Pharr subsequently noted the importance of Blume’s recommendation.120 Thissubvention made it possible for the Princeton University Press to take on itspublication.Inhisinitialannouncementtotheconsultingeditors,Pharrindicatedtheworkwould likelyappeararoundJune1,1948.121However, itwasnotuntilJanuary1949thatheshippedtheforty-eight-poundmanuscripttothepress,122andnotuntilJanuary1952didPharrwritetoBlumetosaythatthevolumehadjustappearedandthathewouldforwardacopytohim.123Inthesameletter,afterlaud-ingBlume’scontributiontothisfirstvolumeonTheCorpusoftheRomanLaw,


116. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity(July18,1944)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

117. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity(Apr.2,1945)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

118. Early in1947,Blumeconfessed toPharr:“Ihavebeenreadinga little in theJustinianCodefromtimetotime,andIhavebeenastonishedfrommypresentstandpointhowmanymistakesImadeorhowmanycorrectionsor improvementsmightbemade.”Letter fromFredBlume toClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity(Jan.29,1947)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

119. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity(Apr.24,1947)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).


121. LetterfromClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity,totheconsultingeditorsoftheCorpusJurisRomani(n.d.)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

122. LetterfromClydePharr,VanderbiltUniversity,toFredBlume(Jan.15,1949)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).JusticeBlume’smanuscriptweighsinat“only”thirty-sixpounds,butitistypedononionskinpaper.

123. LetterfromClydePharr,Professor,UniversityofTexas,toFredBlume(Jan.4,1952)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).


PharrassuredhimthatworkwasalreadyunderwayonJustinian’sCodeandNovelsandthatitshouldbereadyintwotothreeyears.124

False Hope for Justinian’s Code and Novels

¶45 Pharr’s optimistic assessment of the status of Justinian’s Code and Novelsmotivated Blume, now seventy-seven years old, to return to the translation hehadsentoffsomenineyearsearlier.InhisletterofJanuary1952acknowledgingreceiptofThe Theodosian Code,BlumetoldPharr,“Ishall,ifIfindtime,goovertheCodeandNovelsagainandmakenoteofthepassageswhich[sic]Iconsiderdoubtful as Ididwhen Iwentover thework the first time, andparticularly thesecondtime.”125Althoughthere isnocorrespondencebetweenBlumeandPharronthematter,itdoesappearasifBlumebegantoreviewhistranslationyetagain,becausehisold,disassembledcopyofKruegerbearsmarginaldatesofFebruary,March,andJune1952atvariouspoints.126

¶46However,itseemsthatBlumestoppedthisreview,andhiscorrespondencewithPharrlikewiseceasesfromFebruary1952untilOctober1956.EventhoughPharrresignedhispositionattheUniversityofTexasin1952todevoteallhistimetowhathecalled“ourRomanlawproject,”127itappearsasifBlumebythenmayhavegivenuphopeofseeinghis translationofJustinian’sCodeandtheNovelspublished,perhapsbecausehehadnotheardfromPharrinthatperiod.InaprècisofhiscareerthathesentasanenclosuretoDeanR.R.HamiltonoftheUniversityofWyomingLawSchoolinanticipationofreceivinganhonorarydoctoroflawsdegree, Blume notes that he assisted Pharr in translating the Theodosian CodeandquotesPharr’spraiseofhimintheprefaceofthatbook,buthesaysnothingaboutthelikelypublicationofhislife’swork,theJustinian’sCode andNovels.128Moreover, less than a year later, in March 1957, Blume wrote to Dr. GeorgeHumphrey,presidentoftheUniversityofWyoming:“Idoubt,becauseoflackofmoney,thatmytranslationwillbepublishedinmylifetime.”129Inthissamelet-

124. Id.Pharrwrote:“Thereisnowaytoestimatethevalueofyourassistancetousincompletingthiswork,andwefeelthatbyallrightsyouaredefinitelyacollaborator—reallyoneoftheauthors—inthisenterprise.Althoughyouhavenotbeenwillingtoacceptfullcreditforyourpartinourwork,youarecertainlyentitledtooneoftheauthor’scopiesthatthepublishersentus.”Id.

125. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,Professor,UniversityofTexas(Jan.17,1952)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

126. Thefirstis2/24/52andthelastis6/1/52.

127. LetterfromClydePharr,Professor,UniversityofTexas,toFredBlume(Feb.9,1952)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

128. FredBlume,Unpublishedprècis(n.d.)(annextoletterfromFredBlumetoR.R.Hamilton,Dean,UniversityofWyomingLawSchool(Oct.29,1956))(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

129. LetterfromFredBlumetoGeorgeD.Humphrey,President,UniversityofWyoming(Mar.22,1957)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).


ter(againinconnectionwithBlume’sbeinggrantedthehonorarydegree),Blumedescribedhisfifteen-volume,4521-pagemanuscript translationandindicatedhewouldleaveit,togetherwithhisprivatelibrary,totheuniversity.130Thenextyear,Blume’shopesmayhaverisensomewhatinresponsetoPharr’soptimism,andheurgedPharrtoretainhisannotations,131butthatmarkedthelasttimehementionedthesubjecttoPharr.

¶47Pharr seems tohavekeptworkingon Justinian’sCodeduring this timeeventhoughhedidnotwritetoBlumeaboutit.InresponsetoBlume’sOctober1956letterinwhichBlumetangentiallyreferstothetranslation,Pharrimplieditwasstillagoingconcernwithhim.“Youdidtheharderpartofthistask,anditisenormouslyeasierformetoreviseyourtranslation,whichisatleast95percentcorrect,thanitwouldbeformetodraftmyowntranslationwithoutthehelpthatyougave.”132HealsoindicatedhewaswritingagaintoProfessorMaxRheinsteinoftheUniversityofChicagotoinquireaboutfunding.133

¶48Lessthanayearlater,PharraskedBlumetoagainwritetotheAmericanCouncilofLearnedSocieties, this timetorecommendPharrbegivenagrant toprepareJustinian’sCodeforpublication,justasBlumehaddonebeforeinregardtotheTheodosianCode.134Thisrequestwassuccessful,andPharrwrotetoBlumeinJanuary1958tothankhimandtolethimknowthatheandhiswifewere“nowgivingfulltimetothecompletionofthetranslationandannotationoftheCode.”135Everoptimistic,Pharrwentontosay:“Theworkisproceedingverysatisfactorilyandwehopethatinafewmonthsweshallhavesomethingsubstantialtoshowforourlabors....WearehopingtobeabletosendtoyouthetranslationandnotesofthefirstbookoftheCodewithinafewweeks....”136Blumerepliedthathewasstillwillingtoreviewthemanuscriptdespitenotbeingabletoworkonitforthelengthoftimehecouldhaveinthepast(hewastheneighty-three),butthereisnoindicationPharreversenthisrevisionsforBlumetoreview.

¶49Instead,Pharrhadtemporarilyshiftedhisattentiontowhatwastobecomethesecond,andlast,volumeintheCorpusJurisRomaniseries—Ancient Roman Statutes: A Translation.137 In the same letter inwhichhe toldBlumeabout this

130. Id.

131. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,Professor,UniversityofTexas(Feb.3,1958)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

132. LetterfromClydePharr,Professor,UniversityofTexas,toFredBlume(Dec.6,1956)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

133. Id.

134. LetterfromClydePharr,Professor,UniversityofTexas,toFredBlume(Sept.15,1957)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).


136. Id.Thesamelettersuggestedthatthetitlepageshouldread“The Code of Justinian, A Translation with Commentary, Glossary, and Bibliography byFredH.BlumeandClydePharr.”Id.

137. anCient roman StatuteS, supra note 74. See Letter from Clyde Pharr, Professor, University ofTexas,toFredBlume(Mar.11,1959)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).


detour,PharrassuredhimtheywerebackontrackwiththeCodeandstillplannedtopublish it,probablywith theUniversityofTexasPress, though thePrincetonPresshadanoptiononallvolumesintheseries.138Infact,Ancient Roman Statuteswasnotpublisheduntillate1961,furtherdisruptingPharr’sworkontheCode.139After1961Pharrmayhavecontinuedhiseffortson the translation,but the fivelettersbetweenBlumeandPharrin1962,1963,and1965makenomentionofit.By1961,Pharrwouldhavebeenseventy-sixhimselfandmaysimplyhavelackedtheenergytocontinue.InthelastletterdiscussingtheCodetranslation,PharrtoldBlume,“Icontinuallymarvelthatyouwereabletoproduceaworkofthisextentandqualityinthemidstofyourexactingjudicialactivities.”140

¶50Thus,whenJusticeBlumediedin1971,atageninety-six,141henodoubtbelievedthat,ashehadwrittentoPresidentHumphrey:“It[might]bethatsomeday [theremightbe] somestudent at theUniversity [ofWyoming]whowillbeinterestedinthesubjectandifsomytranslationandthenotesshouldbeofimmensevaluetohim.SoIthinkmymanuscriptsoughttobepreserved.”142Fortunately,therelativelysmallmonetaryexpenseinvolvedinelectronicpublicationnowmakesitpossiblefortheentireworldtobenefitfromJusticeBlume’sdecadesoflabor,notjustthathypotheticalstudentinLaramie.

The Manuscript

¶51ThemanuscriptBlumedonatedto theUniversityofWyomingappears tobehisoriginal.Itconsistsofthirteenvolumesof81/2”X13”typedpages,betweenboardsusedtobindWyomingHouseandSenatebills.143EachbookoftheCodeisinitsownvolume,exceptforbookIIofwhichthereisone“original”andone“revised”volume.Alltheresthave“original”inscribedinthem.Thepageshaveholespunchedontheirleftsidesandareboundtogetherandtotheboardsbyshoe-laces.ThepagesshowsignsofhavingbeeneditedextensivelybyBlume—pen-ciledcorrectionsinhishand,partialpagespastedandevenpinnedontopofotherpages,anddatesapparentlyindicatingwhenhehadrevisedaparticulartitle(e.g.,“Rev.4/3/32”). Inside thefrontcoverofbookXII,Blumetallied thenumberofpagesineachvolume(thetotalis4521)andwrote“comparedfinally11/14/43.”Noneofthisseemstheleastmysteriousonthesurface—thismustbetheoriginalmanuscriptthatBlumetoiledoverfordecades.

138. Id.

139. LetterfromClydePharr,Professor,UniversityofTexas,toFredBlume(Dec.19,1961)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

140. Id.

141. ProfessorPharrdiedonlysometwoyearslater,onDec.31,1972.Golden,supranote20,at564.

142. Letter from Fred Blume to George D. Humphrey, President, University of Wyoming, supra note129.

143. Inaddition,Blume’sfilescontainanunboundcopyoftheearlyversionofbookIIinanaccordionfolder.


¶52However, there issomeslightdoubtabout its status. InPharr’s letterofMay25,1943, inwhichheaskedBlumeto join theCorpusof theRomanLawproject,hewrote:“Ifyouarewilling tosendusyourmanuscript Ishallhave itcopied foryou, since theUniversity isproviding funds for clericalhelpon thisproject.”144Blumeclearlydidsendamanuscript,biddingfarewelltotheCodelikeachild,etc.145Itispossiblehesenttheoriginal,inasmuchashetoldPharrthat“[n]umerousinterliniationsorcorrectionsinpencilappear,butIhopethattheyarereasonablyreadable.”146ThereisnorecordofPharrhavingreturnedeitherwhat-everBlumesentoracopythereofandin1959,whenProfessorColeman-NortonwrotetoBlumetoseeifhecouldborrowsomeofthetranslation,BlumereferredhimtoPharr.147Inresponse,PharrtoldColeman-Norton:“IamnotwillingtotrustJusticeBlume’soriginalcopytothemailsortoanyexpresscompany,butIhavehaditcopied,triplespaced,andIshallbegladtolendyouanypartorpartsofitthatyoumaywish....”148

¶53On theotherhand, it ismuchmore likely thatBlumesentPharra less-than-perfectcopy,retainingtheprecious—andhardtoread—originalhehadtoiledoverfordecades.InthelettertoPharrinwhichheagreedtoshipthemanuscript,Blumesaidwithrespecttocopyingitthat“thebestthatIcandoistodoitmyselfwithsuchhelpasIcangetfrommyownsecretary....ManyplaceshoweverwillstillcontainchangesmadeinpencilbutIamaimingtomakethesechangesread-able.”149Theselatterpenciledcorrectionsprobablyaretheinterliniationsreferredtoabove.

¶54Moresignificantly,aswehaveseen,intheletterinwhichBlumetoldPharrhewassendingthemanuscript,hereferstosending“byexpress,copy [sic]ofmytranslationoftheJustinianCodeandtheJustinianNovels....”150Moreover,wealsohaveseenthatafterBlumereceivedhiscopyoftheTheodosian Codein1952,hementionedtoPharrthathewouldreviewtheCodeandtheNovelsyetagaintonotedoubtfulpassages,andthathisdisassembledcopyoftheKruegertextshowshedidthis.151Itseemshighlyunlikelyhewouldonlyhavere-readtheLatinwith-outhavinghistranslationonhand,orthathecouldhaveworkedontheTheodosianCodeashedidwithouttheaidofhisJustinianCodetranslation.Also,ina1957lettertoBlume,Pharrreferstothe“translationandnotes,ofwhichyousokindly



146. Id.

147. Letter from Clyde Pharr, Professor, University of Texas, to Paul Coleman-Norton, Professor,PrincetonUniversity(Feb.27,1959)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

148. Id.


150. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,supranote107(emphasisadded).

151. See supratextaccompanyingnote126.


sentmecopies.”152Finally,Pharr’slettertoColeman-Nortonreferstoan“originalcopy”asopposedsimplytoan“original.”153

¶55So,whiletheinternalevidenceissomewhatcontradictory,itseemsmostlikelythatJusticeBlumeretainedhisoriginalmanuscript,andthatwhathesentPharrinDecemberof1943wasacopy,withsomehandwrittenedits.ThusthetextwewillpublishontheWebwillbeBlume’sown,originalwork.

Nature of the Translation

¶56Ashasalreadybeennoted,Blume,unlikeScott,usedasthebasisforhistrans-lationoftheCodeandtheNovelstheLatinversionsthatmodernscholarshiphasacceptedasauthoritative154—Krueger’seditionoftheCodeandSchoell’seditionof the Novels.155 He also “constantly” consulted the German translation of theCode, theBasilica,Cujas,Donellus,Perez, and the“innumerable specialworksonvarioussubjects”thathehadinhisextensivelibrary.156BlumeusedtheFrenchtranslationoftheCodeonlyalittle,becausehenevercouldbuyhisowncopy.HedidnotconsidervariantreadingsoftheCodeatall,tellingPharrthathe“lookedatthemattermorefromalawyer’sstandpointthanthatofthelinguist.”157Heobvi-ouslyhadaccesstoScott’s1932translation,afterhehadcompletedhisownfirstdraftandseveralyearsofrevisions,sincehereferredtoitinhiscorrespondencewithPharrin1933.HisCatalogue of Roman Law BooksdoesnotlistacopyofScott’swork,buthedoesseemtohaveconsultedonefromtimetotime,inasmuchashismanuscriptandoneofhisKruegereditionsrefertoScottinthemargins.158

¶57 Blume found that the Novels were relatively easy to translate, but thattheCodepresentedgreaterdifficulties.He startedon theNovelswhileworking

152. LetterfromClydePharrtoFredBlume,supranote134(emphasisadded).

153. LetterfromClydePharrtoPaulColeman-Norton,supranote147.InanotherlettertoBlumeconcern-ingasimilarrequestfromG.O.W.Mueller,aprofessoratNewYorkUniversity,PharrtoldBlumethatherepliedtohim“thatIhavehadyourtranslationcopiedandthatIshallalwaysbegladtolenditoranypartofittoscholarswhomaybeinterested.”LetterfromClydePharr,Professor,UniversityofTexas, toFredBlume(Mar.11,1959) (available inBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).AlthoughBlume’slettertoPharrconcerningColeman-Norton’srequestdoesnotappearinthefiles,itsoundsasifBlume,atthisstage,simplydidnotwanttofusswithmakingcopiesofhismuch-editedmanuscriptandhadarrangedwithPharrtoreferrequeststohim.

154. Seesupratextaccompanyingnotes7and40–42.

155. See supranotes38,49,59,andaccompanyingtextforcitationstothevariouseditionsofthesemateri-alsownedbyBlume.

156. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,supranote85.TheBasilicawasatenth-centuryByzantinelegalcompilation,inGreek,thatcontainedaversionoftheCJC.Schillerreferstomanywritingsthat“conclusivelyshowthevalueoftheBasilicatextandscholiaforthecorrectionandinterpretationofCodepassages.”SCHiller,supranote7,§27,at62n.12.BlumeconsultedtheBasilicorum,aLatintranslation.Cujas,Donellus,andPerezcommentedontheCode.

157. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,supra note85.

158. E.g., at C.1.10.1., Blume wrote in the margin of his manuscript “German translation and Scottwrong.”AndinhiscopyoftheNovelsat43.1hewrote“Scott204?”


ontheCodesince theformerhadaneffecton the latter.Writingof theNovels,Blumesaid:“WhentheseweretranslatedthenumbertranslatedwassogreatthatIthoughtitwouldbejustaswelltotranslatethemall.AndapartialincentivetothatwasthefactthattheLatinofSchoellis,generallyspeaking,easyascomparedwiththeLatinintheCode.”159BlumealsofelttheCodewasmuchmoreproblematictotranslatethantheDigestbecause“thereareinnumerablepassagesin[theCode]whichrepresentabominableLatin,andthelanguageisapt,attimes,tomisleadamanunlessheisextremelycareful.”160Originally,heplacedhistranslationsoftheNovelsintotheCodefollowingtheprovisionsthateachNovelmodified;however,he separated them out and made them a self-standing work before he sent hiswholeopustoPharrin1943.161

¶58Despite theadmirationonemusthave forJusticeBlume’sheroiceffort,onemust still askwhether theproduct that resulted isworthwhile. Is it a goodtranslation?Iamnotqualifiedtosay,but,aswehaveseen,ClydePharr,anemi-nent classicist certainly thought so.162 Blume’s expertise in Roman law seemswell established.As previously noted, he taught a course on the subject at theNorthwesternUniversityLawSchoolinthesummerof1929atDeanWigmore’sinvitation;163 in 1931 he published an article on Roman law in the Tulane Law Review;164hewroteandreadpartofapaperon“TheJustinianCodeanditsValue”fortheRiccobonoSocietyinWashington,D.C.,in1938;165inthatsameyearhereviewedCharlesP.Sherman’sEpitome of the Roman Law fortheAmerican Bar Association Journal;166andhelaterreviewedanotherbookonRomanlawforalaw review.167 Moreover, he put his Roman legal knowledge to practical use inwritingWyoming Supreme Court opinions.According to one study, from 1922to 1959, JusticeBlume “citedRoman law79 times in 19 cases and referred to


160. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity(Sept.25,1933) (availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).


162. See supra¶40.

163. Blume, Unpublished prècis, supra note 128.According to Blume, he was told “I had the largestRomanlawclasseverassembledinAmerica,namelyover50.Thatdoubtlesswasbecausethestu-dentsfiguredthatalecturerfromthewildwestwouldbeeasyongrading.”Id.

164. FredH.Blume,Legitimation Under the Roman Law,5tul. l. reV.256(1931).

165. Blume,Unpublishedprècis,supranote128,at5.RiccobnowasanItalianscholarofRomanlaw,andthesocietywasdevotedtothattopic.AccordingtoBlume,“TherewerepresentatthemeetingthethreegreatestlawwritersofAmerica,ProfessorBeale,ProfessorWilliston,andCol.Wigmore,andanumberoftheJusticesoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates.”Id.AcopyofBlume’spaperisamongthematerialshebequeathedtotheUniversityofWyoming.

166. FredH.Blume,Epitome of the Roman Law,24A.B.A.J.660(1938)(bookreview).

167. Fred H. Blume, Roman Law, An Historical Introduction, 5 Okla. L. ReV. 264 (1952) (reviewingHanS JuliuS WolFF, roman laW, an HiStoriCal introduCtion (1951)).


RomanlaworRomanhistoryin12othercases.”168Thisexpertise,ofcourse,wasdevelopedthroughthedecadesofRomanlawstudyhedid toproducehisCodetranslation.

¶59Ontheotherhand,JusticeBlumeneverclaimedtobeanexpertlinguist.HetoldPharrheknewlaw-LatinmuchbetterthanordinaryLatinandthathehadtoworkthroughunfamiliartexts“inalaboriousmanner.”169HealsomadenopretenseofknowingGreek.170(However,BlumereadGermanwellandcouldreadFrenchandItalianwellenoughtobenefitfromcommentariesinthoselanguages,ofwhichhiscollectioncontainsseveral.)HismaininterestwasinprovidingAmericanlaw-yerswithaversionoftheCodethatadequatelyexpressedthelegalcontentoftheoriginal.Acknowledginghislimitationsasatranslator,Blumewrote:“Ihavenodoubtthatimprovementscanbemadeinmanyplacesinthephrasingandintheselectionofwords...[;]eachmanwhodoesmuchwritingisboundtohaveastyleofhisownandisapttofallintophraseologywhichmaynotbefaultless.”171Hewentontonotethatlawyersandjudges“donotalwaysusethebestEnglishandareapttohaveoracquireastylewhichisnotthebest.”172Hence,BlumewashappytobeworkingwiththeclassicistPharrandpleasedtoagreetohavehistranslationberevisedbythepanelofexpertsenvisionedinPharr’sprojectproposal.173

¶60Atleastthreebasicapproachestotranslationcanbeidentified.Onefocusesonmakingafluentversionofthetargetlanguageandiswillingtosacrificetech-nicalaccuracywherenecessaryforfluency.Asecond,attheoppositeendofthespectrumfromthefirst,strivesfortechnicalaccuracyaboveallandiswillingtoacceptanawkwardversionofthetargetlanguageinpursuanceofthataccuracy.Scotttendedtowardtheformer.BucklandopinedinhisreviewofScott’stransla-tionthatScotthad“producedaversionwritteninanEnglishwhichcanbereadwithpleasure,”174buthewentontonote,asdidothers,themanytechnicalinac-curaciesofthework.175Accordingtoatleastonecritic,therelativelyrecent1985

168. HaroldD.Evjen,Rome on the Range: Roman Law and Justice Blume of Wyoming,79zeitSCHriFt der SaViGny-StiFtunG Für reCHtSGeSCHiCHte (romaniStiSCHe abteilunG)213,214(1980).

169. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,Professor,VanderbiltUniversity(July5,1945)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).

170. Id.See alsoHistoryoftheTranslationanditsBackground,supranote32,at10(“ItriedseveraltimestolearnenoughGreektounderstandtheGreektexts,butcouldnotfindenoughtimetodoanygood,andsoIfinallygaveitup....”).


172. Id.

173. Intheproposal,PharrforesawaGeneralEditorialBoardof“notlessthantwophilologiansandonejurist,”whowould“assureuniformityof languageandstyle,”aswellashavingthedrafts initiallycritiquedbyotherspecialists.AProjectforaVariorumTranslation,supranote69,at4.

174. W.W.Buckland,The Civil Law,7tul. l. reV.627,629(1932–33)(bookreview).

175. BucklandassertedthatScottmistranslatedmanyRomanlawtermsandsuggestedheoughttohavedoneasMonroandThayerdidandleavehighlytechnicaltermsintheoriginalLatin.Id.at630.


WatsontranslationoftheDigest176issomewhatbiasedtowardlinguisticfluencyaswell.Donahuesaysofit:

TheproblemisthatitmakestheassumptionthatthereaderknowsnoLatinandnothingatallaboutRomanlaw.Thereaderisgivenaflowingtranslation,onethatcaptureswellthejuristicstyle,attheexpenseofflaggingforthereadertheambiguitiesanddifficultiesofthetexts.Itis,inshort,atranslationforareaderwhowillnotorcannotgofurtherinpursuitofthemeaningoftheLatinorinpursuitofthevariouslevelsoflawthatarehiddeninthetext.177

¶61The opposite approach is taken by Charles Henry Monro, for example,whosepartialEnglishtranslationoftheDigest178evidencesabenttowardtechni-calaccuracythatresultsinstiffness.MonroleftuntranslatedmanyLatinterms,asBucklandandotherssayshouldbedonetoavoidconfusion,buthisproseismuchlessreadablethanScott’s.ComparingScott’sandMonro’stranslationsofthesameportionsoftheDigest,onecanseethatMonro’slengthyEnglishsentencesfollowthepatternoftheoriginal,run-onLatin,whereasScottbrokethemupintosmallerunitswithsemicolonsorseparatesentences.179

¶62BlumedidnotappreciateMonro’sapproach.InalettertoPharr,hereferredtoMonro’stranslationoftheDigestas“exceedinglydryreading,whichcouldbeobviated toa largeextent if somenoteswereadded.”180Therefore,Blume tookwhat he called “a middle course, making the translation as fairly good Englishwouldwarrant,withoutattemptingbyeuphonytosoftendownwhat—forthewantofabetterterm—Imaycall‘strong’statementsinthetext,butleaving,ifpossible,thefeelingmanifestedinthetextbythetranslation.”181Blume’saim,aswehaveseen,wastoproduceatranslationforareadersuchasdescribedbyDonahue—theonewhoknowslittleornoLatinorRomanlaw.182However,whilehetranslatedallLatin terms intoEnglish,making someupwhennecessary,183 he sometimes

176. THeDiGeSt oF JuStinian,supranote10.

177. Donahue,supranote83,at1071.

178. CHarleS Henry monro, tHe diGeSt oF JuStinian(1904–09).

179. Compare1SCott, supranote6,at79(Scott’sfirstprefacetotheDigest),with1monro,supranote178,atxiii.



182. InhisveryfirstlettertoPharr,Blumewrotethat“thestudyofLatinisdecreasingmoreandmore,andIhaveinmindmainlytheordinarylawyerintheUnitedStates,whodoesnotknowanygreatamountofLatinorGreek.”LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharr,supranote75

183. Henotedthathehadcreatedtermssuchas“volunteeragent”and“volunteeragency.”LetterfromFred Blume to Clyde Pharr (Sept. 12, 1933), supra note 103. He said he had discussed this withProfessorKocourekatNorthwestern(presumablywhenhetaughtsummerschooltherein1929)andthatthesetermswere“suggestedbyhim,oratleastemphaticallyapproved.”Id.Wigmorehadmen-tionedtoBlumeinhisletteraskingBlumetoteachasummersessionatNorthwesternthatProfessorAlbertKocourekwhotaughtRomanlawtherewantedtotalkwithhimabouttranslation.LetterfromJohnH.Wigmore,Dean,NorthwesternUniversityLawSchool(Dec.28,1922)(availableinBlumeCollection,H69-10,supranote32).


“insert[ed]theLatinterminbrackets,andattimesalso[made]furtherexplanationbyashortnote.”184Inthecourseofhisextendedstudyandrevision,hewentontoexplainconcepts incopiousheadnotessoas further toavoidsuggesting falseequivalenciesbetweenRomanandAnglo-Americanlegalconcepts.

¶63However,Blumetriedtobefaithfultothesubstantiveessenceofthetextat theexpenseof stylewhen thoseconflicted. In later reflectingonhiswork increatingthetranslation,heapologizedfornotalwayshavingtherightwordathisfingertipsbutwentontowrite:

Then, too, the text isbound, toamoreor lessextent, topreventamanfromexpressingthethoughtinthetextinthemostelegantmannerifamanwantsto,asIdid,stickreason-ablyclosetothetext.Totranslateisnotthesameaswritingonthesubjectinyourownwords.185

Therefore,he retainedLatin “circumlocutionsandmetaphorical expressions”aslongastheydidnotresultinmisleadingEnglish.186Nevertheless,Blumeindicatedhedidnotfeelboundbythetenseoftheoriginalverbs,preferringtousethepres-enttense,aslongasit“wouldgivejustasgoodsense”astheoriginal.187Whilesometimes loose with verbs, Blume paid great attention to punctuation, a topicaboutwhichheandPharrsometimesdisagreed.Pharrinitiallyexpressedadesiretolimitpunctuation,butBlume,callinguponhisjudicialexperience,insistedthat“punctuation in a statute may make all the difference in the world at times.”188Pharr eventuallycamearound toBlume’sperspective, agreeing thatusingmorepunctuationcanavoidambiguity.189

¶64Fundamentally,Blumesawhimselfasmuchmoreajuristthanalinguist,so he limited the amount of time he spent striving for exactly the right word.DescribinghisprocesstoPharrnotlongafterhesentthetranslationtohim,Blumewrote:

Iusedtositdown,mentallymakewhatIthoughtwasareasonabletranslation,thenturntothetypewriterandwriteitout.Intheprocess,particularlyinlawsofanylength,onewouldbeaptattimestomissorleaveoutthemeaningofawordortwoorevenofasentence,ormisconstrueameaning.190

Tocompensateforhisdeficienciesasalinguist,Blumewentovertheworkrepeat-edly, looking for trouble spotsandmakingcorrections.Toassisthim in finding




187. Id.



190. LetterfromFredBlumetoClydePharrsupranote116.


191. G. SeCkel, HeumannS HandleXikon zu den Quellen deS römiSCHen reCHtS(9thed.1926).

192. robert mayr, VoCabularium CodiCiS iuStiniani(1923).

193. Pauly’S real-enCyCloPädie der ClaSSiSCHen altertumSWiSSenSCHaFt (Georg Wissowa ed.,Stuttgart,Metzlerscher1894–1937).

194. Sincethissentencewaswritten,apanelofexpertshasinfactbeenorganizedbyProfessorBruceFrieroftheUniversityofMichigantodojustthis.

195. LetterfromFredBlumetoThomasA.Swan(Feb.18,1924),supranote41.

theproperEnglishwordor toexplainadifficultLatin termorRomanlawcon-cept,BlumehadtheaidnotonlyofhismanydictionariesandextensiveRomanlaw collection but also of some specialized reference works. His library con-tainsHeumann’s Handlexikon zu den Quellen des Römischen Rechts,191Mayr’sVocabularium Codicis Iustiniani,192 and Wissowa’s Pauly’s Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft,193amongothers.Blumefrequentlyreferstotheseworksinhisannotations.

¶65Blumeremainedmodestabouthiseffortsatalltimes.Heacknowledgedthathehadundoubtedlymademistakes,andhehadnoobjection tootherscor-rectingthem.ItwouldbefittingifJusticeBlume’sgreatworkwouldprovidethebasisforadefinitivescholarlyEnglishtranslationoftheCodebymodernexperts,standing on his shoulders, so to speak.194 In any case, Blume’s effort deservesrecognitioninitsownrightfor,ashewrote,

[I]twouldseemthatitisonlyoccasionallythatapersoncanbefoundwhohaseithertheabilityortheinclinationtomakethetranslation,andhenceIhavesometimesthoughtthatinasmuchasIam,asIthink,reasonablyfittedtodothework,myknowledgeoughtnotto

bealtogetherwasted.195

¶66ItisinaneffortnottowasteJusticeBlume’sencyclopedicknowledgeoftheCodethatwearefinallymakingitavailableontheWeb,morethaneightyyearsafterhecompletedhisfirstdraft.

justice fred blume and the translation of justinian’s … justice fred blume and the translation...

Documents