As scholars of classical antiquity know only too well, every attempt at conveying the past through translation is fraught with peril (beautifully explored in Umberto Eco's Mouse or Rat?: Translation as Negotiation, 2003). Therefore, when evaluating the “success” of a translation, a reviewer must (in my view) ask three questions: first, whether the aims of the work have been set out clearly and carefully; second, whether the work is “useful” and conforms to the expectations of the target audience; and finally, whether the work makes a significant contribution to the existing scholarly field(s). There is no denying that a comprehensive and accurate English translation of the Codex was long overdue. The infelicitous translation by Samuel Parsons Scott had long been deemed to be scientifically problematic and insufficient for current purposes. When the translation by Fred H. Blume, a justice of the Wyoming Supreme Court, was rediscovered in the early 1990s, it was hoped that one would at last have access to a more reliable translation of this important source. Although the translation was posted online, it showed its age and left one with the sense that more could be done. It was, therefore, with some anticipation that the publication of the Frier translation was awaited.

The first volume of this translation contains three introductory chapters that set the scene for the translation. Timothy Kearley provides a fascinating account of the life of Fred Blume, his legal career on the bench in Wyoming, and his correspondence with Clyde Pharr, translator of the Theodosian Code. The next chapter by Bruce Frier (with an appendix by Noel Lenski) sets out the aims of the project and explains the complexities. In my view, this should be required reading, as it shows only too clearly the shortcomings of the Scott translation, the state of the original Blume translation, and the extent to which the translators involved in this project have used Blume's translation as a starting point. There are also important issues about the apparatus criticus that are worth noting. The final chapter in this section is a tour de force by Simon Corcoran on the compilation of the Codex, its use as a teaching tool and a courtroom aid in antiquity, and, finally, the transmission of the manuscript from the late medieval period to the modern edition. I have every intention of making this chapter prescribed reading for my students.

This then brings me to the second aim; namely, whether the translation will be “useful.” Utility is a slippery concept, but I have no doubt that this translation will be used widely and for a long time. It is clear and dynamic without coming across as overly technical or dense. There is a great sense of “dynamic equivalence,” and the retention of technical legal terms in Latin in brackets makes for a very enjoyable read. The text and translation appear on facing pages, and the font is clear and legible. The inclusion of a list of technical Roman-law terms at the end of the third volume also adds another dimension of utility to the translation. I was particularly impressed by the decisions concerning the apparatus criticus and the notes occurring in the original Blume translation. They add a nice touch to the project without leaving the reader with a sense of despair.

Regarding my final point; namely, whether the translation will have an impact on various academic fields, I have no doubt that this translation will open up a new world to those not yet familiar with the Codex. It is a vivid text full of life and can be used across many disciplines to show, for example, how Imperial law operated and what the concerns of the Imperial administration were across a span of a number of centuries when the fortunes of the Empire waxed and waned. Of course, no work is above criticism, and, therefore, I offer one small point of critique: the price. Although the volumes are substantial, the price tag places the set out of the price range of most readers. One would hope that the press will invest in a more affordable paperback or online version. This translation certainly deserves to be read as widely as possible.

To all three questions posed at the start of this review, the answer is a resounding yes. Bruce Frier and his team of translators (familiar names for anyone working on Roman law in the Anglophone world) are to be thoroughly congratulated for their excellent efforts. My prediction is that this translation will become even more celebrated than the Watson translation of the Digest. Now, if only they would turn their translation efforts next to the Basilika…