[Modus legendi abbreviaturas]

the Digestum Novum (New Digest), which has 7 principal books. Which, being enumerated, [makes] 50 partial books. And it is called the Digest. By another name [it is called] the Pandects, or the book of Pandects, from "pan" in Greek, meaning "all" in Latin, and "decta" [meaning] doctrine, as if the entire doctrine of all the jurisconsults were there, containing in itself all legitimate disputations and decisions, as is said in law 2, C. "de veteri iure enucleando", section "Cum omnia". And this book, the Digest, is collected from the old law which, founded from the Roman city and from the time of Romulus up to the time of the Emperor Justinian, was set forth confusedly for almost one thousand and three hundred years.

And it extended into almost two thousand books and ten hundred thousand verses, that is, paragraphs or responses, as is had in the section "Cum omnia" pre-cited. But it is called by this name "Digest" because all things to be decided are digested and solved there.

It is also written by a double 'ff', contrary to the custom of all legal books, since no such letter is placed in this name "Digest". Therefore, as some say, it is because it was ruminated and digested more maturely later by two emperors, each of whom was named Frederick, and from the name of each of these emperors the first letter 'f' was taken, etc. Others say it is arbitrary, and that the reason for everything is not to be rendered, as in law "Non omnium", ff. "de legibus et senatusconsultis".

Why it is called Inforciatum

The Inforciatum, however, is so called from 'in' meaning "very" and 'fortis' meaning "strong", because very strong laws are in it, or because the dispositions of last wills are in it. Whence: "I am a strong book, disposing of the spoils of death." And: "With gates closed, let the reader learn in leisure." As is had in the beginning of the Inforciatum in the gloss. Where it is also said: "It is left to the more learned to decide about the disputing of names." And these are magisterial names. Therefore, there is no disputing about them. It suffices at least that attention be paid to what is said in the books, according to Seneca. Whence: "He who wants to keep the individual feasts of the saints, will not be able to know the Digests clearly with the Code."

A small red manicule (pointing hand) is drawn in the right margin, pointing towards the section on legal citations.

Concerning citations in the ff

And note: that when in the Digestum Vetus, Inforciatum, or Digestum Novum, some text is cited, then the name of the book is placed first—not the partial [book] nor the "vetus", "novum", or "inforciatum"—but "digestum" in general by a double 'ff'. Afterward, the title or rubric. Then the law of that title is added with its determination or following number. And if the law is long, the "section first or second" is placed, or "response first, second," and so forth. Example: In the Digest it is cited thus: ff. de damp. infec. l. si finita. §. Si quis autem Digest, on damnum infectum, law "Si finita", section "Si quis autem". Which, being so abbreviated, is worth as much as: In the book ff., under the title "on damnum infectum", in the law which...