Capito, and was succeeded by Javolenus. He was (with Flavius Sabinus) consul suffectus A.D. 69, having been appointed by Otho, and confirmed by Vitellius (Tac. H. 1. 77). His full name is given in the Act. Arual. of that year as Cn. Arulenus Caelius Sabinus. He wrote a work de edicto aedilium curulium from which one short extract is given by Gellius (1v. 2. §§ 3—5), and probably another (ib. VI. (VII.) 4. §§ 1-3). He is cited by Gaius III. 70; 141; and by Ulpian and others in several places on the Aediles' edict, XXI. 1. ll 14, 17, 20, 38, 65; also xxxv. 1. 1 72. § 7.

URSEIUS FEROX is chiefly known from the title of a work attributed to Julian in the Florentine Index, from which there are 43 extracts in the Digest, filling five of Hommel's pages. The precise nature of Julian's four books ad Urseium Ferocem is not certain. In three extracts (XXIII. 3. 1 48; xxx. 1 104; XLVI. 3. 1 36) after a certain amount of matter come the words Iulianus notat. So Ulpian D. x. 3. 1 6. § 12 has Urseius ait, &c. followed by Iulianus autem recte notat. In an extract from this work which forms xvI. 1. 1 16. § 1 we have Gaius Cassius respondit, &c. followed by Iulianus autem recte putat. This last has probably been altered by Tribonian. But the other passages seem to shew that the work was really not a commentary of Julian's on a work of Urseius Ferox, but the work of Urseius edited with notes by Julian (so also Mommsen Z. R. G. VII. 483), and therefore probably the language generally in these extracts is that of Urseius, not of Julian. Hence Cassius apud Urseium notat (D. VII. 4. 1 10. § 5) probably refers either to some notes written by Cassius on this work, and retained by Julian, or to some notes of Cassius quoted by Urseius. And the like may be said of Cassius existimasse Urseium refert (D. XLIV. 5. 1 1. § 10), where Mommsen inclines to correct it to Cassium... Urseius. Several of the extracts contain answers given by Sabinus, e.g. D. vii. 1. 1 35; xxx. 1 104. § 7, &c.; Collat. XII. 7. § 9; or Proculus e.g. D. ix. 2. 1 27. § 1; x. 3. 15; &c.: one at least contains an answer of Gaius Cassius (D. XVI. 1. 1 16. § 1), and so probably D. xxiv. 3. 1 59, where 'Gaius' is named. In another (D. XXXIX. 6. 1 21) we have plerique, in quibus Priscus quoque, responderunt. Priscus is probably Javolen.

Perhaps the easiest explanation of the facts is that Urseius lived about the time of Nero, that Cassius wrote some notes on his work, and Julian incorporated them with his own; and that the passages in which Cassius and Priscus are referred to are part, not of the

work of Urseius, but of Julian's notes to it. Paul was doubtless referring to the same work, when he says apud Ferocem Proculus ait (D. xxxix. 3.1 11. § 2). In the Collatio 1.c. the 10th book of Urseius is mentioned. Probably this is a mistake.

ATILICINUS is often (27 times) mentioned in the Digest as an authority, frequently beside Proculus or Nerva, e.g. D. 11. 14. 1 27. pr. Neratius Atilicinus Proculus; iv. 8. 1 21. § 9 Proculus et Atilicinus; VIII. 3. 15 Neratius hoc Proculum et Atilicinum existimasse ait; x. 3. 1 6. § 3 Sabinus et Atilicinus responderunt; XII. 4. 17 Nerua Atilicinus responderunt; XVII. 1. 1 45. § 7 Nerua Atilicinus aiunt; XXXII. 1 19; xxxiv. 3. 1 16; xxxv. 2. 1 49. pr. Atilicinus Nerua Sabinus; XLIV. 4. 14. § 8; XLV. 2. 1 17 Atilicinus Sabinus Cassius; but also by himself, e.g. D. xx. 6. 16. § 2. He is cited by Julian Dig. XVI. (D. XII. 4. 17) and Pomponius VI. ad Sab. (D. xxx. 1 48) and Neratius (above). See also Vat. Fr. 77. In xxIII. 4. 1 17 we have an answer by Proculus to a case put by Atilicinus. There is no reason for refusing to identify the questioner with our jurist, so that we may well consider him to have been somewhat younger than Proculus.

An opinion of his is reported by Aufidius (Anfidius Ms.) Chius in the Vat. Fr. 77. Aufid. Ch. is alluded to in Mart. v. 61.

PLAUTIUS must have been an important writer, as Neratius wrote on him in several books (Neratius libris ex Plautio ait D. VIII. 3.15), Javolenus in five books, Pomponius in seven books, and Paulus in 18 books. In the Florentine Index the three last works are mentioned and are all called ad Plautium; but in the inscriptions to the extracts themselves Javolen and Pomponius' works are called, like that of Neratius, ex Plautio. (The sole exceptions D. vII. 1. 149 Pompon. ad Plautium and xxv. 3. 1 34 Iauolenus ad Plautio (so F) are clearly mistakes.) The extracts from Paul's work are always inscribed ad Plautium. What this difference in title indicates is not certain but, as Paul's work was so much more voluminous than the others, it is natural to suppose that he edited and commented on the whole of Plautius, and that the others commented on selections only. The number of extracts from Javolen's work are 18, occupying oneand-a-half of Hommel's pages; from Pomponius' are 37 occupying four pages; from Paul's are 190 occupying 22 pages, this work of Paul's being one of the larger components of the Digest. The various treatises on Plautius were dealt with together by the Edictal Com

mittee immediately after the works on the Edicts, Paul's being taken first as the latest and largest. In some extracts from it (D. III. 3. 1 61; xx. 4. 113; xxxiv. 2. 18; xxxv. 1. 1 43; 1 44; 2. 1 49) part is stated to be Plautius' text, part to be Paul's note; and as Plautius refers to Cassius, Nerva, Proculus, and Atilicinus we get a superior limit for the time of his writing, Javolen and Neratius giving the inferior limit. His time will be about Vespasian, or at any rate towards the end of the first century p. Chr. Ulpian in his 17th book ad Sabinum uses the expression omnes auctores apud Plautium de hoc consenserunt (Vat. Fr. 77) which points to the work having been so edited as to make it a collection of various opinions.

CELSUS pater is mentioned by Pomponius as the successor of Pegasus in the leadership of the school started by Labeo, and as himself succeeded by his more distinguished son. His opinions are quoted by his son D. XII. 4. 1 3. § 7; xxxI. 1 20; 1 29. Neratius says et Aristoni et Celso patri placuit, &c. (D. xvII. 1. 1 39). Where Celsus is named without the addition of pater it is generally assumed that the son is meant. The last quarter of the 1st century is the time to which the father must be assigned. In xxxI. 1 29 he is said to have been in the council of the consul Ducennius Uerus, but this consulship is wholly unknown. (C. Ducenius Proculus was consul suffectus A.D. 87, as we learn from the Acta Arualia.)

PEDIUS, whose name is given as Sextus Pedius (D. Iv. 8. 1 32. § 20; IX. 2. 1 33; xxxix. 5. § 9), was later than Ofilius and Sabinus (D. xiv. 1. 1 1. § 9; L. 16. 1 13. § 1), but apparently earlier than Pomponius (D. Iv. 3. 1 1. § 4); the inference commonly taken from III. 5. 16 that he was earlier than Julian being displaced by Mommsen's making 16 continuous with 1 5). He wrote on the Edict in at least 25 books (D. xxxvII. 1. 1 6 § 2), and on Stipulations in more than one book (D. XII. 1. 16). He is often (54 times) quoted by Paul and Ulpian and by them only (see above and vI. 1. 16 ; xxI. 1. 1 4. § 4 ; 1 23. § 9; XLIII. 17. 11. §4; 19. 1 1. §7; 24. 11. §6; cf. Vat. Fr. 93). There are no extracts in the Digest. In the abbreviations given in Cod. Einsidl. (Keil's Gram. Iv. p. 328; Huschke Tur. Anteiust. p. 143, ed. 4) S. P. M. is interpreted Sextii Pedii Mediuani. (I see however no other jurist so denoted in these notes by initials.)

UIUIANUS is cited 16 times in the Digest, but there are no extracts from his writings. He reported opinions of Sabinus, Cassius,

and Proculus (D. xxix. 7. 1 14); and his opinion was referred to by Pomponius (D. XIII. 6. 1 17. §4); but there is no further indication of the time at which he wrote. His opinions are cited by Scaevola

XXIX. 7.1 14; by Ulpian in his works on the Edicts D. IV. 2. 114. §5; 8. 121. § 11; IX. 2. 127. § 24; xIx. 5. 117; xxi. 1. 1 1. §§ 9, 10 '; 117. §§ 3, 5; XXXIX. 2. 124. § 9; XLIII. 16. 11. §§ 41-46; 19.11. § 6; by Paulus, D. IV. 9. 1 4. § 2; XIII. l. c.; XIX. 4. 1 1. § 3. In Collat. XII. 7. § 8 we have Item libro VI. ex Uiuiano relatum est, si furnus, &c., which reference is omitted in transferring the passage to D. Ix. 2. 1 27. § 10 (see above p. lxx).

FUFIDIUS wrote Quaestiones, from the second book of which African quotes in D. XXXIV. 2. 1 15. Fufidius there reports an opinion of Atilicinus. Gaius (D. XL. 2.1 25) contrasts the opinions of Fufidius and Nerva the younger. Paul refers to Fufidius in D. XLII. 5. 1 29. (Cujas suggested his identification with L. Fufidius, an advocate mentioned by Cic. Brut. 29. § 112; Plin. H. N. xxxIII. § 21; others of the name are mentioned Cic. Pis. 35; Fam. XIII. 11, 12; Q. Fr. III. 1,2; Hor. Sat. 1. 2. 12, but they are all inconsistent with the Digest.)

CAMPANUS is twice mentioned, in both cases by writers on trusts, viz, by Valens D. XXXVIII. 1. 1 47; by Pomponius XL. 5. 1 34. § 1.

PUTEOLANUS libro primo adsessoriorum scribit D. 11. 14. 1 12 (Ulp.). Nothing more is known of him or his work.

OCTAUENUS is quoted by Valens (D. xxxvi. 1. 1 69. (67.) pr.); by Terentius Clemens (XL. 9. 1 32), by Pomponius (xix. 1. 155; xxx. 19; XL. 1.1 13; 4. 1 61. § 2; 5. 1 20 bellissime Aristo et Octauenus putabant); by Marcian (xx. 3. 1 1. § 2); often by Paulus (e.g. vi. 1. 1 6 ; XVIII. 6. 1 8 Proculus et Octauenus aiunt); and Ulpian (e. g. v. 2. 1 16; 1. 18; vII. 8. 1 12. § 6). He wrote after the lex Iunia Norbana, which was passed 19 p. Chr. (Dosith. 2). There are no extracts from him in the Digest.

UARIUS LUCULLUS is referred to by Aristo in an extract from Pomponius (D. XLI. 1. 119). Mommsen conjectures Uarius to be a mistake for Uarro; and for Lucullus refers to C. Tull. 4. § 8 M. Lucullus, qui summa aequitate et sapientia ius dixit primus hoc iudicium, composuit. If this was the Lucullus meant, one would have expected Pomponius (who wrote on Aristo) to have named him in his list of the lawyers.

SERUILIUS is stated by Terentius Clemens (D. xxxvii. 14. 1 10) to have reported an opinion of Proculus.

ARISTO, often quoted (80 times) in the Digest, is no doubt the same as Titius Aristo, a friend of Pliny the younger, who addresses two letters to him (v. 3; vIII. 14). He attended Cassius' lectures (D. Iv. 8. 1 10); was with Neratius Priscus in the Council of Trajan (D. XXXVII. 12. 15); and was so ill A. D. 97, that he requested Pliny and other friends to ascertain from the physicians whether his disease was incurable, in order that he might in that case adopt a voluntary death (Plin. Ep. 1. 22). The doctors gave a favourable prognostic; and Aristo was still alive in the consulship of Afranius Dexter, i.e. A.D. 105 (ib. VIII. 14. § 12). Pliny speaks of him in terms of warm praise: Nihil illo grauius, sanctius, doctius, ut mihi non unus homo sed literae ipsae omnesque bonae artes in uno homine summum periculum adire uideantur. Quam peritus ille et priuati iuris et publici! Quantum rerum, quantum exemplorum, quantum antiquitatis tenet! Nihil est quod discere uelis, quod ille docere non possit.... In toga negotiisque uersatur, multos aduocatione plures consilio iuuat. Nemini tamen istorum (i. e. philosophers) castitate, pietate, iustitia, fortitudine etiam primo loco cesserit (ib. 1. 22).

There are no extracts from him in the Digest, but he is frequently referred to. He often gave answers on points of law. Thus answers to Celsus are named (D. 11. 14. 17. § 2; XL. 7. 1 29. § 1); to Neratius Priscus (xx. 3. 1 3; cf. XL. 4. 1 46); and also of Neratius to him (XIX. 2. 1 19. § 2); and of Aristo to others (VIII. 5. 18. §5; xxxvi. 1. 13. § 2). He wrote notes on Labeo's posteriores (D. xxviii. 5. 1 17. $5); on Sabinus (vII. 8. 16); on Sabinus' books ad Uitellium (xxxIII. 9. 13. § 1); on Cassius (VII. 1. 1 7. § 3; 1 17. § 1; xxxix. 2. 1 28); and apparently made a collection of decisions (Aristo in decretis Frontianis ita refert, D. XXIX. 2. 1 99, which Rudorff (R. G. 1. p. 184) and Mommsen suppose to refer to decisions on appeal given by Frontinus, who was several times consul). Gellius says that he read in a book of Aristo the jurisconsult haudquaquam indocti uiri, that the Egyptians regarded thefts as lawful and did not punish them. Neratius in his Membranae often reports Aristo's opinions (D. 11. 14. 1 58; XIII. 1.1 12. § 2 ; xvII. 1. 1 39; xvIII. 3.1 5 ; xxxvi. 3. 113); and hence probably it comes that their two opinions are so often cited together (e.g. VII. 2. 1 3. § 2 (= Vat. Fr. 83); XVII. 2. 1 62; XXIII. 3. 120; &c.). Further Pomponius frequently refers to Aristo, and as