Pighius, (Annal. Rom. tom. ii. p. 377, 378,)
Graevius, (ad Sueton. p. 778,) Dodwell, (Praelection. Cambden, p.
665,) and Heineccius: but a single word, Scutum Cimbricum, detects the
forgery, (Moyle's Works, vol. i. p. 303.)]

[Footnote 35: The history of edicts is composed, and the text of the
perpetual edict is restored, by the master-hand of Heineccius, (Opp.
tom. vii. P. ii. p. 1--564;) in whose researches I might safely
acquiesce. In the Academy of Inscriptions, M. Bouchaud has given a
series of memoirs to this interesting subject of law and literature. *
Note: This restoration was only the commencement of a work found among
the papers of Heineccius, and published after his death.--G. ----Note:
Gibbon has here fallen into an error, with Heineccius, and almost the
whole literary world, concerning the real meaning of what is called the
perpetual edict of Hadrian. Since the Cornelian law, the edicts were
perpetual, but only in this sense, that the praetor could not change
them during the year of his magistracy. And although it appears that
under Hadrian, the civilian Julianus made, or assisted in making,
a complete collection of the edicts, (which certainly had been done
likewise before Hadrian, for example, by Ofilius, qui diligenter edictum
composuit,) we have no sufficient proof to admit the common opinion,
that the Praetorian edict was declared perpetually unalterable by
Hadrian. The writers on law subsequent to Hadrian (and among the rest
Pomponius, in his Summary of the Roman Jurisprudence) speak of the
edict as it existed in the time of Cicero. They would not certainly
have passed over in silence so remarkable a change in the most important
source of the civil law. M. Hugo has conclusively shown that the various
passages in authors, like Eutropius, are not sufficient to establish the
opinion introduced by Heineccius. Compare Hugo, vol. ii. p. 78. A new
proof of this is found in the Institutes of Gaius, who, in the first
books of his work, expresses himself in the same manner, without
mentioning any change made by Hadrian. Nevertheless, if it had taken
place, he must have noticed it, as he does l. i. 8, the responsa
prudentum, on the occasion of a rescript of Hadrian. There is no lacuna
in the text. Why then should Gaius maintain silence concerning an
innovation so much more important than that of which he speaks? After
all, this question becomes of slight interest, since, in fact, we find
no change in the perpet