No More Learning

D. 188, by many bio-
was consul, and Spartianus says that he was prae-
graphers confounded with
fectus urbi, and twice consul, but his name does not
the jurist.
appear in the Fasti among the consules ordinarii.
1
He was in Egypt when Serapias, the Alexandrian
woman who produced five children at a birth, was.
Aemilia Clara, married Salvius Julianus, uncle
in Rome. (Dig. 46. tit. 3. s. 46. ) Pancirolus and
Petronius Didius of the emperor, be-
others, from supposing the jurist to be referred to
Severus, father of
trothed to the daugh. 12)
which probably relate to other Salvii, have
in passages of the Digest (e. g. Dig. 48. tit. 3. s.
the emperor. [See
of the jurist conferred upon him various provincial governments.
(A)].
Taruntenus Paternus, The time of his death is uncertain, but it appears
has been sometimes that he was buried in the Via Lavicana, for Spar-
confounded with the
tianus (Julian. c. ult. ) says that the body of the
jurist Julianus.
emperor was deposited in the monument of his
proavus.
It appears from Spartianus, that the emperor had It was under Hadrian that he chiefly signalised
a brother, Numius Albinus, and from an inscription himself. That emperor was accustomed, when he
in Gruter (Inscr. p. 459, 2), it has been thought presided at trials, to have the advice and assistance
that Numius Albinus was the son of a Vibia Salvia not only of his friends and officers of state, but of
Varia Hence Reinesius conjectures that the Vi- jurists approved by the senate. Among the most
bia of the inscription and the Aemilia Clara of eminent of this legal council were Juventius Celsus,
Spartianus are the same person, while Heineccius Salvius Julianus, and Neratius Priscus. (Spart.
supposes that Numius Albinus was called the bro. Hadr. ) By the order of Hadrian, he collected
ther of the emperor, though he had neither the and arranged the clauses which the praetors were
same father nor the same mother, as being the son accustomed to insert in their annual edich, and ap-
by a former husband of a former wife of the em- pears to have condensed his materials, and to have
peror's father. According to Heineccius, one Nu- omitted antiquated provisions. The exact nature
mius and Vibia were the parents of Numius Albi- and extent of this reformation of the Edict is one
nus ; then, after the death of Numius the father, of the most obscure and disputed questions in the
Petronius Didius and Vibia were the parents of history of the Roman law. Some legal historians
Didius Proculus ; then, after the death of Vibia, look upon it as a most important change, and sup-
Petronius Didius and Aemilia Clara were the pa pose that the power of departing from the Edict by
repts of the emperor.
additions or modified clauses was now taken away
ter


## p. 654 (#670) ############################################

654
JULIANUS.
JULIANUS.
from the magistrates. Other writers, especially sertim perpetuo, Kilon. 1830 ; Hugo, R. R. G. p.
Hugo, seem disposed to reduce the dimensions of | 795; Puchta, Institutionen, vol. i. $ 114. )
the change within the narrowest compass. The In the Roman law there was a form of proceed-
direct testimony of ancient writers upon this sub-ing, called the Interdictum Salvianum, by which a
ject is scanty. In Const. Aébwkev, § 18, and landlord might obtain possession of goods of his
Const. Tanta, $ 18, is contained the most detailed tenant, which had been pledged as a security for
information we possess. From these parallel pas- the payment of the rent. (Gaius, iv. 147. ) Cujas
Bages, it appears that in the body of the reformed suspected that Julianus the jurist was the author
Edict, and in the decree of the senate which ac- of the Interdictum Salvianum, and in this conjec-
companied it, there was an enactment, that any ture was followed by Menage (Amoen. Jur. c. 24),
case not provided for might be ruled cy près by but, as Bynkershoeck has shown (Observ. Jur.
the emperor and his magistrates. In Const. Tuntă, Rom. i. 24), the Interdictum Salvianum is probably
§ 18, Julianus is styled by Justinian Tegum et of much earlier date than the reign of Hadrian. It
Edicti perpetui subtilissiinus Conditor, whence it is commented upon by Julianus as an established
may perhaps be inferred that Julianus not only form of proceeding, which had been extended by
arranged the Edick, but collected the Constitutions equitable construction to cases not originally con-
of emperors, which are often designated by the word templated (interdictum utile), and he does not use
Leges. He introduced a new clause of his own a single expression to render it likely that he him-
into the Edict (Dig. 37. tit. 8. B. 3). Pacanius, a self introduced or invented it. (Dig. 43. tit. 33.
contemporary of Justinian, in his Metaphrasis of s. 1. )
Eutropius (viii. 9, Paennius, H. 15), bays that the Pomponius enumerates Aburnus Valens, Tuscia-
new Edict was called the Edict of Hadrian, or, in nus, and Julianus, as the successors of Jarolenus in
Latin, the Edictum Perpetuum. The Edictum of the leadership of the Sabinian school of jurists. The
Hadrian, mentioned in Cod. x. tit. 39. s. 7, was addiction of Julianus to the tenets of his school is
probably a special proclamation of that emperor, clear, from many passages in his remains, but he was
distinct from the Edict we are treating of. The not an undeviating adherent. Thus, in Dig. 43. tit.
name perpetuum edictum was given in early times 24. s. 11. § 12, he differs from Cassius ; and in
to the praetor's annual edicts, intended as the rule Dig. 40. tit. 4. s. 57, Gaius observes that his opi-
of ordinary practice, as distinguished from special nion is inconsistent with the principles of Cassius
proclamations—to “id quod jurisdictionis perpetuae and Sabinus.
causa, non quod prout res incidit, in albo proposi- He was a voluminous legal writer, and a rery
tum erat” (Dig. 2. tit. 1. s. 7); but, after the re able reasoner upon legal subjects. His style is
form of Hadrian, the epithet perpetuum seems to easy and clear, and, though it has often been said
have acquired new force. Though all the great that his language abounds in Graecisms, not one
principles of the Jus Honorarium were settled has been pointed out, except the use of the word
before the end of the republic, though the Edict manifestus, in such an expression as “ Manifestus
had long assumed an approach to permanence, not est dotem relegasse,” (Dig. 33. tit. 4. 5. 3. ) His
only in matter but in form (for the earlier writers opinion was bighly valued by contemporary and
upon the Edict appear to follow the same order succeeding jurists, who constantly cite him with
with those who wrote after Hadrian), the new approbation, and some of whom appear to have
edictum perpetuum was manifestly endowed with consulted him personally on difficult questions.
an additional authority, which, if it did not pre. (lat. Frag. 77, Dig. 37. tit. 5. s. 6, Dig. 30. tit. 1.
clude the future exercise of the jus edicendi in s. 39. ) He is one of those foremost jurists whose
magistrates, must have practically restricted it to names are mentioned by way of example in the
cases not provided for in the compilation of Juli- citation-law of Valentinian 111. (Cod. Theod. i.
anus. In a manuscript at Florence (Cod. Laurent. tit. 4. s. 3. ) His authority is cited by emperors
Plut. lxxx. cod. 6) of a Graeco-Roman Epitome of in their Constitutions, as by Leo and Anthemius in
Law of the tenth century, Hadrian is said to have Cod. 6. tit. 61. s. 5, and by Justinian in Cod. 4.
associated Servius Cornelius with Julianus in the tit. 5. 6. 10, Cod. 2. tit. 19. s. 24, Cod. 3. tit. 33.
task of consolidation and arrangement; but the s. 15, Nov. 74 pr. About 457 extracts from his
Graeco-Roman jurists are very unsafe authorities works are inserted in the Digest. In Hommel's
in matters of history, and the author of the cited Palingenesia these fragments occupy ninety pages.
Epitome may have been led to mention a Cornelius He is more often cited by other jurists than any
in connection with the Edict, from having heard of legal writer, except Ulpian, Paulus, and Papinian,
the lex Cornelia (proposed by the tribune C. Cor- and he is commonly named without special refer-
nelius in B. C. 67), by which it was enacted “ut ence to the passage where his opinion is contained.
praetores ex edictis suis perpetuis jus dicerent. " | Volusius Maecianus and Terentius Clemens both
C. CORNELIUS; CORNELIUS, Servius. ] The call him Julianus noster (Dig. 35. tit. I. s. 85, Dig.
other early writers who mention the labours of Ju- 28. tit. 6. 8. 6), perhaps as his pupils, or perhaps
lianus on the Edict are Aurelius Victor (de Caes. as his associates in the imperial council
. In the
19), Eusebius (Chron. ad A. U. c. 884, n. 2147), and fragments of Africanus there appears to be such a
Paulus Diaconus (Hist. Misc. 1. 20).
How far constant reference to the opinions of Julianus, that
the reform affected the edict of the praetor pere- Africanus is generally supposed to have been his
grinus (which was in the main similar to that of pupil.
the praetor urbanus) and the edict of the aediles
The following are the titles of his works:-
(which seems subsequently to have been treated of 1. Digestorum Libri XC. It was perhaps this
as an appendage to the praetor's edict, Pauli Sen- title which lea Matthaeus Blastares, in the preface
tentiae, i. tit. 15. s. 2), there are not sufficient data to his Syntagma, to the blunder of attributing the
to determine. (F. A. Biener, de Salvii Juliani in Digest of Justinian to Hadrian. By some the va
edicto praetoris meritis rite aestumandis, 4to. Lips. luminous Digest of Julianus has been confounded
1809; Francke, de Edicto practoris urbani, prae- | with the reformed Edict, which was comprised in a
a


## p. 655 (#671) ############################################

JULIANUS.
058
JULIUS.
single book. The Digesta, like other works of other | Fragmenta l'uticana, & 88. Bertandus, froia a
jurists bearing the same title, appears to have been misunderstanding of the expression " tractatu pro-
a system of Roman law, following the arrangement posito " in Cod. 6. tit. 60. 8. 5, imagined that he
of the Edict, and compiled from the commentators wrote a special treatise, De Dotali Praedio.
on the text of the Edict. In Julian's Digest, the (Ménage, Amoen. Juris, 24 ; Guil. Grotius, de
actual words of the Edict seem to have been in- Vit
. Ictorum, ii. 6. § 1 ; Strauchius, Vitae aliquot
serted and interpreted. The work cited in Dig. 3. Ictorum, Num. 1 ; Neuber, Die juristischen Klas-
tit. 2. s. 1, as Julianus, libro lº ad Edictum, is siker, pp. 183—208. Above all, Heineccius, de
perhaps no other than the Digesta of Julianus, but Salcio Juliano, Ictorum sua actate Coryphaco, Op.
the reading of the Florentine MS. is doubtful, and vol. ii. pp. 798–818 ; Historia Edictorum Edicti-
it is very likely that Ulpianuis ought to be sub que perpetui, ü. 3, Op. vol. vii. sect. 2, pp. 196—
stituted for Julianus. In Dig. 1. tit. 3. s. 32, the 261. )
(J. T. G. )
94th book of the Digesta is cited, but here there is JU’LIUS, was ordained bishop of Rome, as the
undoubtedly an error in the reading of lxxxxiiii. successor of Mark, on the 6th of February, A. D.
in place of lxxxiiii. Indeed, L. T. Gronovius as- 337, a short time before the period when the per-
serts that the fourth x in the Florentine manuscript secution against Athanasius was most fiercely
is not from the first hand. The Digesta was an- revived in consequence of the permission accorded
notated by the l’roculeian Ulpius Marcellus, one of to him by Constantinus, Constantius, and Constans
the very few jurists who seem more disposed, to quit Trèves, where he had been living in exile,
whenever it is practicable, to censure than to praise and return to Alexandria. Julius, who desired to
Julianus ; hence Cujas reinarks (Obs. xiii. 35) that be considered the arbiter of the dispute, invited
there can scarcely be a stronger proof of the cor- both parties to appear before a council summoned
rectness of an opinion than the agreement of Mar- to meet at Rome in the month of June, 3+1, a
cellus and Julianus. Another critic was found in proposal gladly accepted by Athanasius, but evaded
Mauricianus (Dig. 2. tit. 14. s. 7. $ 2, and Dig. 7. by his opponents. The cause of the former having
tit. 1. s. 25. § 1). Cervidius Scaevola (Dig. 2. tit. been fully investigated before this assembly, he
14. 8. 54, Dig. 18. tit. 6. 8. 10) was a less unfavour- and his adherents were declared guiltless of all the
able annotator. The fragment in Dig. 4. tit. 2. B. crimes with which they had been charged, and
11, is inscribed “ Paulus lib. iv. Juliani Digest-were restored to the full exercise of all their
orum notat,” and there is a similar inscription in rights,-a decision confirmed by the synod of Sar-
Dig. 18. tit. 5. 8. 4, but there is no mention in the dica, held a. D. 347, by permission of Constantius
Florentine Index of any special work of Paulus at the solicitation of Constans, in the proceedings
upon Julianus. There are 376 extracts from the of which the Arian dignitaries refused to take any
Digesta of Julianus in the Digest of Justinian. In share, because the bishops whom they had con-
modern times, the celebrated Cujas wrote lectures demned were not excluded. Throughout the
on the Digesta of Julianus. (Jac. Cujacii Recitati- struggle, the prelates of the Western churches, in
ones solemnes ad Salvii Juliani libros Digestorum, their eagerness for victory, made many most im-
Opera, vol. i. )
portant admissions with regard to the authority of
2. Ad Minicium, or Ex Minicio, or Apud Mini. the Roman see, admissions whiich were carefully
cium Libri VI. In these various ways is this work noted, and at a subsequent period turned to the
named in the Florentine Index and the inscriptions best account. Julius died on the 12th of April,
of the Fragments. (Ferox. ] This was a com- A. D. 352, after having occupied the papal chair
mentary upon some work of Minicius Natalis, who for upwards of fifteen years.
lived under Vespasian and Trajan. It appears to Many epistles of this pope connected with the
follow the arrangement not of the Edict, but of the Athanasian controversy have perished; but two,
Libri Juris Civilis of Sabinus. Of the forty frag: unquestionably genuine, are still extant, written in
ments in the Digest, those from the first and second Greek, one addressed to the inhabitants of Antioch
book relate to testaments, bonorum possessiones, in 342, the other to the Alexandrians in 349, both
legacies, and fidei-commissa; those from the third, preserved in the Apologia contra Arianos of
to the patria potestas and the power of the do- Athanasius. They will be found also in the
minus ; those from the fourth, to loans and con- Epistolae Pontificum Romanorum of Coustant (fol.
tracts ; those from the fifth, to marriage, tutela, Par. 1721), p. 350, p. 399, and Append. p. 69,
acquiring pessession, &c. ; those from the sixth, to with notes and illustrative pieces ; and in the
interdicts and procedure. In Dig. 19. tit. 1. & 11. Bibliotheca Patrum of Galland, vol. v. (fol. Venet.
§ 15, Ulpian appears to cite the tenth book, but 1769), p. 3.
the reading ought probably to be altered from x The letters Ad Dionysium Alexandrinum; Ad
Ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum, on topics
3. Ad Urseium Libri IV. A commentary upon connected with the Incarnation ; fragments of a
some work of Urseius Ferox. From the forty-two Sermo de Homousio, several Decreta, and various
extracts in the Digest, it appears that Julianus in other tracts collected in the compilation of Cou-
this treatise followed the series of the books of stant, Append. p. 69, all of which have at different
Sabinus.
periods been ascribed to Julius, are now univer-
4. De Ambiguitatilrus Liber Singularis. From sally admitted to be the work of other hands,
this work there are four extracts in the Digest. It many of them being forgeries by the Eutychians.
explained the legal sense of ambiguous words, and (See Du Pin, Ecclesiastical History of the Fourth
the rules of interpretation to be applied to obscure Century; Schönemann, Biblioth. Patrum Lat. vol.
expressions in wills and contracts.
i. cap. 4. § 3; Bähr, Geschicht, der Röm. Litterat.
These are all the ascertained works of Julianus. Suppl. Band. IIte Abtheil. 8 61. ) (W. R. )
That Julianus wrote upon Sextus has by some JULIUS AFRICANUS. (AFRICANUS. )
been inferred from the expression “ Juliano ex JU'LIUS AGRI'COLA. (AGRICOLA. ]
Sexto placuit" in Gaius, ii. 218, compared with JU’LIUS A'QUILA. [AQUILA. )
to y.
Docum ;


## p. 656 (#672) ############################################

656
JULIUS.
JULUS.
1
JU'LIUS ATERIA'NUS. (ATERIANUS. ] JUʻLIUS VINDEX. (VisDEX. ]
JUʻLIUS AUSOʻNIUS. (AUSONIUS. ) JUʻLUS, the eldest son of Ascanius, who
JU'LIUS BASSUS. (Bassus. ]
claimed the government of Latium, but was obliged
JU’LIUS BRIGA'NTICUS. (BRIGANTICUS. ] to give it up to his brother Silvius, and received
JU’LIUS BURDO. [BURDO. )
a compensation in the form of a priestly office.
JU’LIUS CALENUS. (CALENUS. ) (Dionys.