their codes, were now and again influenced by Rome. The Salic law was, however, a more or less official transcription of customs that antedated Justinian by many centuries. These customs were purely Teutonic, and consequently the code was also. Indeed, " it was the most purely Germanic of all the Bar. barian Codes." Yet the Salic law, as it has been handed down to us, is not without its Roman side. But it is not the form or contents of the code, but the vehicle by which the laws have been transmitted, that is, through the Latin in which the manuscripts are written, that has given rise to the impression that the Salic law was largely affected by the Roman Law. Yet, aside from the language, it is generally ad mitted that Roman influence was extremely slight. So much so that the Salic law may rightly be called Teutonic. The testimony of the language employed is neither conclusive nor important in deter mining the character of the Salian or other barbarian codes, for the manuscripts that have been preserved are in all probability copies in Latin of earlier copies in the Prank ish tongue. If the Latin manuscripts are not translations of earlier written codes, then they can at best be but the written evidences of ancient oral traditions. As Latin was the language of the educated portion of the com munity in the earliest period of written codes it is reasonably certain that the Salian cus toms, whether oral or written, were preserved unaltered by the current medium of thought, and the Malbcrg glosses go far to substan tiate this theory. The date of the Salian code is uncertain. The most probable period assigned to its compilation seems to be the reign of Chlod wig (Clovis). We may perhaps regard the years 468—488 as approximately correct. The various manuscripts of the Salic law ex hibit such differences as to cause them to be divided into classes, the number of which Pardessus (Loi Salique) places at five, and Hessels (Lex Sálica) at eight.
The code of the Ripuarian Franks, or the Lex Ribuariorum, dates from the eighth century. Unlike the Lex Sálica, the various manuscripts fall more or less readily into one class and thus one of the greatest difficulties attending a critical study of the code is ab sent. The text is, however, of a complex and heterogeneous nature. Sohm (Zietschrift fur Rechtgeschichte t. V.) has thrown much light upon this code. The Lex Francorum Chamovorum is the least important of the Prankish codes. The text is very short and contains little that is original. The consensus of authority classes it as a collection of local usages peculiar to a somewhat uncertainly defined area known, among other names, as Amor or Hamaland. The Prankish codes were for Franks, and the many Romans under subjection to the Franks were judged by Roman Law and that too by a Roman Law with which the Franks concerned themselves little if at all. They neither codified nor adapted it. Indeed, its very declaration and interpretation was for years left to the subject Romans themselves. The Visigoths and Burgundians were, dur ing the centuries next following the Wander ing, as tenacious of the principle of "per sonality" as the Franks. But the Roman influence in Spain and Burgundy exerted an earlier and more permeating effect upon the legal systems of those countries than on those of France and Germany. This influence was destined to establish the modern doctrine of "territoriality." The Burgundians and the Visigoths not only codified their own laws but promul gated a modified and rearranged Roman code of Law. The Visigotho-Roman code of Spain pre ceded by one hundred years the first purely Visigothic collection of laws of which a manuscript has been discovered. This Visi gotho-Roman code was published by Alaric II (483-506) in the first decade of the sixth century. It is cited as the Liber Aniani—
