Traditio craft dispute: added 2026-11-03

Gaius, Gai Institutiones, or Institutes of Roman Law, Latin text with
translation and commentary by Edward Poste, fourth edition revised and
enlarged by E. A. Whittuck, introduction by A. H. J. Greenidge.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1904. Printed pages 162-163, complete and unchanged.
University of Toronto copy, Internet Archive: gaiinstitutiones00gaiuuoft.
https://archive.org/details/gaiinstitutiones00gaiuuoft
https://archive.org/download/gaiinstitutiones00gaiuuoft/page/n225.jpg
https://archive.org/download/gaiinstitutiones00gaiuuoft/page/n226.jpg
Downloaded 2026-11-03; printed numbers, Latin and continuation independently
inspected in the actual images. The page endpoint uses printed number + 63.

These are photographs of a modern historical edition, not an ancient
manuscript or newly recovered artifact. Both its text and faithful page
reproductions are public domain. They are not relicensed under the project's
PolyForm Noncommercial license. The new code, original schematic drawings,
English and word notes are project work. Fonts retain their OFL licenses.

Scope: selected clauses of Institutes 2.77-79. No later Digest or Justinian
compromise is imported into this lesson. Page 162 retains writing, painting
and the opening examples; page 163 retains the rival views and remedies.
The lower part of page 163 begins an earlier-numbered section in this edition;
it is surrounding editorial context, not a second part of 2.79.

Transcription joins line wraps, prints consonantal u as v, retains spelling
such as inpensam, conpetit and subripuerit, marks supplied words with angle
brackets and omissions with [...], displayed as a bracketed ellipsis. It
does not silently import later additions or a rule of reversibility.
Latin cross-check: https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/gaius2.html
Historical English cross-check:
https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Anglica/gai2_Poste.htm
Our close English and phrase notes are new, not a quotation of Poste's
translation or an independently reviewed philological edition. In particular,
tabula is rendered board/panel, not the historical translation's canvas.

The schools in 2.79 offer rival answers, not shared ownership. Gaius names
Sabinus and Cassius but calls their rivals the opposing school here. We do
not claim a philosophical affiliation for either school. The writing and
painting paragraphs separately report their rules and qualify recovery.
Theft is an added premise in the remedy example; making does not prove theft.
The repair example is an undecided modern analogy. No complete survey of
Roman law or present-day legal advice is offered.

The saved notebook embeds both source pages, provenance hashes, the new
readings, original diagrams, fonts, their licenses and the project license.
Checksums identify retained bytes; they do not certify historical claims.