an eminent Roman jurist, who flourished under Hadrian and the Antonines. Of his private history little is known, and different opinions have been held as to the place of his birth. Many of his biographers (as Rivallius, Val. Forsterus, Pancirolus, Rutilius, Bertrandus, Guil. Grotius) make him a native of Milan (Insuber Mediolanensis), while the majority of more modern writers say that he was born at Hadrumnetum, a Phoenician colony on the coast of Africa.
These opposite opinions are both grounded on a passage of Spartianus (Did. Julian.
100.1), where it is asserted that the paternal grandfather of the emperor who ascended the throne after Pertinax came from Mediolanum, and the maternal grandfather from Hadrumetum.
It is well ascertained that Salvius Julianus the jurist was a maternal
ancestor of the emperor Didius Julianus, and it is probable that, according to the express testimony of Spartianus (l.c.
), the jurist was the great-grandfather (proavus
) of the emperor, not, as Politianus asserts (Epist. ad Jac. Modesturm
), the uncle, nor, as Paulus Diaconus (Hist. Misc.
10.20) would make him, the grandfather. Eutropius (8.9
) hesitates. "Salvius Julianus," says he, "nepos vel, secundum Lampridium, pronepos Salvii Juliani, qui sub Hadriano perpetuum composuit edictum." Zimmern (R. R. G.
vol. 1.91) agrees with Paulus Diaconus. Many mistakes have been committed, from the confusion of the jurist with others of the same name and family. For example, Aurelius Victor, if his text be not interpolated (De Caes.
19), confounds the jurist with the emperor, who, like his ancestor, was distinguished on account of his legal acquirements. And this mistake of Aurelius Victor misled the celebrated Hugo Grotius (Florum Sparsio,
p. 78, ed. Amst. 1643).
It is therefore historically important to establish correctly the genealogy of the family.
This investigation was undertaken by Casaubon (ad Spartiani Did. Julian.
1, in Historiae Augustae Scriptores
), and was subsequently pursued, with the aid of two inscriptions, by Reinesius (Var. Lect.
3.2, p. 344; Gruter. Insc.
p. 18.2, 10, p. 459), who was followed by Christ. ad. Ruperti (Animad. in Enchirid. Pomponii,
p. 473, inserted in the useful collection of Uhlus, entitled Opuscula ad Historians Juris pertinentia,
The labours of former inquirers were reviewed by Heineccius, whose elaborate researches have explored every source of information concerning the jurist Julianus. We subjoin tables of the genealogy of the family, so far as may be useful to illustrate the relationships of persons with whom the jurist has been confounded.
These tables are constructed according to the view which, upon comparison of authorities, appears to us by far the most probable:--
It appears from Spartianus, that the emperor had a brother, Numius Albinus, and from an inscription in Gruter (Inscr.
p. 459, 2), it has been thought that Numius Albinus was the son of a Vibia Salvia Varia. Hence Reinesius conjectures that the Vibia of the inscription and the Aemilia Clara of Spartianus are the same person, while Heineccius supposes that Numius Albinus was called tes brother
of the emperor, though he had neither the same father nor the same mother, as being the son by a former husband of a former wife of the emperor's father.
According to Heineccius, one Numius and Vibia were the parents of Numius Albius ; then, after the death of Numius the father, Petronius Didius and Vibia were the parents of Didius Proculus; then, after the death of Vibia, Petronius Didius and Aemilia Clara were the parepts of the emperor.
Julianus was born about the year A. D. 100, after Trajan had become emperor.
This is inferred from the date of his labours on the Edict, which according to Eusebius, were undertaken about A. D. 132, when he was probably praetor.
At this period the leges annales
were strictly observed, and the regular age for the praetorship was about thirty. (Plin. Ep. 7.30
; Dio Cass. lii. p. 479.)
He is the first jurist named in the Florentine Index to the Digest, though there are fragments in that work from nine jurists of earlier date, and, though he was not the last of the Sabinians, he is the last jurist named by his contemporary Pomponius in the fragment De Origine Juris
. tit. 2. s. 2).
That he flourished under Antoninus Pius, and survived that emperor, may be collected from several passages in the Digest. (Dig. 4
. tit. 2. s. 18; Dig. 3
. tit. .5. s. 6.) In Dig. 37
. tit. 14. s. 17, the Divi Fratres, Antoninus Marcus and Lucius Verus, call him their friend,
a designation ordinarily given by the emperors to living members of their council.
By many it has been supposed that he lived to a great age, from a misunderstanding of Dig. 40
. tit. 5. s. 19.
In that passage, the person who speaks of having attained his 78th year, and of being desirous to gain information, though lie had one foot in the grave, is not Julianus, but the client who seeks his opinion.
In Dig. 40
. tit. 2. s. 5, he speaks of Javolenus as his praeceptor.
It was usual to manumit slaves before praetors and consuls, when they held their levees. Whether the magistrate could manumit his own slaves at his own levee was doubted. Julianus says that he remembered Javolenus having done so in Africa and Syria, that he followed his praeceptor's example in his own praetorship and consulship, and recommended other praetors who consulted him to act in the same manner.
It thus appears that he was consul, and Spartianus says that he was praefectus urbi, and twice consul, but his name does not appear in the Fasti among the consules ordinarii.
He was in Egypt when Serapias, the Alexandrian woman who produced five children at a birth, was in Rome. (Dig. 46
. tit. 3. s. 46.) Pancirolus and others, from supposing the jurist to be referred to in passages of the Digest (e. g. Dig. 48
. tit. 3. s. 12) which probably relate to other Salvii, have conferred upon him various provincial governments.
The time of his death is uncertain, but it appears that he was buried in the Via Lavicana, for Spartianus (Julian. c. ult.
) says that the body of the emperor was deposited in the monument of his proavus.
It was under Hadrian that he chiefly signalised himself.
That emperor was accustomed, when he presided at trials, to have the advice and assistance not only of his friends and officers of state, but of jurists approved by the senate. Among the most eminent of this legal council were Juventius Celsus, Salvius Julianus, and Neratius Priscus. (Spart. Hadr.
) By the order of Hadrian, he collected and arranged the clauses which the praetors were accustomed to insert in their annual edict, and appears to have condensed his materials, and to have omitted antiquated provisions.
The exact nature and extent of this reformation of the Edict is one of the most obscure and disputed questions in the history of the Roman law. Some legal historians look upon it as a most important change, and suppose that the power of departing from the Edict by additions or modified clauses was now taken away from the magistrates. Other writers, especially Hugo, seem disposed to reduce the dimensions of the change within the narrowest compass.
The direct testimony of ancient writers upon this subject is scanty. In Const. Δέδωκεν
, § 18, and Const. Tanta,
§ 18, is contained the most detailed information we possess. From these parallel passages, it appears that in the body of the reformed Edict, and in the decree of the senate which accompanied it, there was an enactment, that any case not provided for might be ruled cy près
by the emperor and his magistrates. In Const. Tanta,
§ 18, Julianus is styled by Justinian Legum
et Edicti perpetui subtilissimus Conditor, whence it may perhaps be inferred that Julianus not only arranged the Edict, but collected the Constitutions of emperors, which are often designated by the word Leges.
He introduced a new clause of his own into the Edict (Dig. 37
. tit. 8. s. 3). Paeanius, a contemporary of Justinian, in his Metaphrasis of Eutropius (8.9
, Paeanius, H. ιζ
), says that the new Edict was called the Edict of Hadrian, or, in Latin, the Edictum Perpetuum. The Edictum of Hadrian, mentioned in Cod. x. tit. 39. s. 7, was probably a special proclamation of that emperor, distinct from the Edict we are treating of.
The name perpetuum edictum
was given in early times to the praetor's annual
edicts, intended as the rule of ordinary practice, as distinguished from special proclamations-to "id quod jurisdictionis perpetuae causa,
non quod prout res incidit, in albo propositum erat" (Dig. 2
. tit. 1. s. 7); but, after the reform of Hadrian, the epithet perpetuum
seems to have acquired new force. Though all the great principles of the Jus Honorarium
were settled before the end of the republic, though the Edict had long assumed an approach to permanence, not only in matter but in form (for the earlier writers upon the Edict appear to follow the same order with those who wrote after Hadrian), the new edictum perpetuum was manifestly endowed with an additional authority, which, if it did not preclude the future exercise of the jus edicendi
in magistrates, must have practically restricted it to cases not provided for in the compilation of Julianus.
In a manuscript at Florence (Cod. Laurent. Plut. lxxx. cod. 6) of a Graeco-Roman Epitome of Law of the tenth century, Hadrian is said to have associated Servius Cornelius with Julianus in the task of consolidation and arrangement; but the Graeco-Roman jurists are very unsafe authorities in matters of history, and the author of the cited Epitome may have been led to mention a Cornelius in connection with the Edict, from having heard of the lex Cornelia (proposed by the tribune C. Cornelius in B. C. 67), by which it was enacted " ut praetores ex edictis suis perpetuis jus dicerent." [C. CORNELIUS; CORNELIUS, SERVIUS.] The other early writers who mention the labours of Julianus on the Edict are Aurelius Victor (de Caes.
19), Eusebius (Chron.
ad A.U.C. 884, n. 2147), and Paulus Diaconus (Hist. Misc.
10.20). How far the reform affected the edict of the praetor peregrinus (which was in the main similar to that of the praetor urbanus) and the edict of the aediles (which seems subsequently to have been treated of as an appendage to the praetor's edict, Pauli Sententiae,
i. tit. 15. s. 2), there are not sufficient data to determine. (F. A. Biener, de Salvii Juliani in edicto praetoris meritis rife aestumanldis,
4to. Lips. 1809; Francke, de Edicto practoris urbanii, praesertim perpeluo,
Kilon. 1830; Hugo, R.R.G.
p 795; Puchta, Institutionen,
In the Roman law there was a form of proceeding, called the Interdictum Salvianum, by which a landlord might obtain possession of goods of his tenant, which had been pledged as a security for the payment of the rent. (Gaius, 4.147.) Cujas suspected that Julianus the jurist was the author of the Interdictum Salvianum, and in this conjecture was followed by Ménage (Amoen. Jur.
100.24), but, as Bynkershoeck has shown (Observ. Jur. Rom.
1.24), the Interdictum Salvianum is probably of much earlier date than the reign of Hadrian.
It is commented upon by Julianus as an established form of proceeding, which had been extended by equitable construction to cases not originally contemplated (interdictumn utile
), and he does not use a single expression to render it likely that he himself introduced or invented it. (Dig. 43
. tit. 33. s. 1.)
Pomponius enumerates Aburnus Valens, Tuscianus, and Julianus, as the successors of Javolenus in the leadership of the Sabinian school of jurists.
The addiction of Julianus to the tenets of his school is clear, from many passages in his remains, but he was not an undeviating adherent. Thus, in Dig. 43
. tit. 24. s. 11.12, he differs from Cassius; and in Dig. 40
. tit. 4. s. 57, Gaius observes that his opinion is inconsistent with the principles of Cassius and Sabinus.
He was a voluminous legal writer, and a very able reasoner upon legal subjects. His style is easy and clear, and, though it has often been said that his language abounds in Graecisms, not one has been pointed out, except the use of the word manifestus,
in such an expression as " Manifestus est dotem relegasse," (Dig. 33
. tit. 4. s. 3.) His opinion was highly valued by contemporary and succeeding jurists, who constantly cite him with approbation, and some of whom appear to have consulted him personally on difficult questions. (Vat. Frag.
77, Dig. 37
. tit. 5. s. 6, Dig. 30
. tit. 1. s. 39.)
He is one of those foremost jurists whose names are mentioned by way of example in the citation-law of Valentinian III. (Cod. Theod. i. tit. 4. s. 3.) His authority is cited by emperors in their Constitutions, as by Leo and Anthemius in Cod. 6. tit. 61. s. 5, and by Justinian in Cod. 4. tit. 5. s. 10, Cod. 2. tit. 19. s. 24, Cod. 3. tit. 33. s. 15, Nov. 74 pr. About 457 extracts from his works are inserted in the Digest. In Hommel's Palingenesia
these fragments occupy ninety pages.
He is more often cited by other jurists than any legal writer, except Ulpian, Paulus, and Papinian, and he is commonly named without special reference to the passage where his opinion is contained. Volusius Maecianus and Terentius Clemens both call him Julianus noster
. tit. I. s. 85, Dig. 28
. tit. 6. s. 6), perhaps as his pupils, or perhaps as his associates in the imperial council.
In the fragments of Africanus there appears to be such a constant reference to the opinions of Julianus, that Africanus is generally supposed to have been his pupil.
The following are the titles of his works:--
It was perhaps this title which led Matthaeus Blastares, in the preface to his Syntagma, to the blunder of attributing the Digest of Justinian to Hadrian.
By some the voluminous Digest of Julianus has been confounded with the reformed Edict, which was comprised in a single book. The Digesta, like other works of other jurists bearing the same title, appears to have been a system of Roman law, following the arrangement of the Edict, and compiled from the commentators on the text of the Edict. In Julian's Digest, the actual words of the Edict seem to have been inserted and interpreted.
The work cited in Dig. 3
. tit. 2. s. 1, as Julianus, libro 1° ad Edictum, is perhaps no other than the Digesta of Julianus, but the reading of the Florentine MS. is doubtful, and it is very likely that Ulpianus ought to be substituted for Julianus. In Dig. 1
. tit. 3. s. 32, the 94th book of the Digesta is cited, but here there is undoubtedly an error in the reading of lxxxxiiii. in place of lxxxiiii. Indeed, L. T. Gronovius asserts that the fourth x in the Florentine manuscript is not from the first hand. The Digesta was annotated by the Proculeian Ulpius Marcellus, one of the very few jurists who seem more disposed, whenever it is practicable, to censure than to praise Julianus; hence Cujas remarks (Obs.
13.35) that there can scarcely be a stronger proof of the correctness of an opinion than the agreement of Marcellus and Julianus. Another critic was found in Mauricianus (Dig. 2
. tit. 14. s. 7.2, and Dig. 7
. tit. 1. s. 25.1). Cervidius Scaevola (Dig. 2
. tit. 14. s. 54, Dig. 18
. tit. 6. s. 10) was a less unfavourable annotator.
The fragment in Dig. 4
. tit. 2. s. 11, is inscribed " Paulus lib. iv. Juliani Digestorstm notat," and there is a similar inscription in Dig. 18
. tit. 5. s. 4, but there is no mention in the Florentine Index of any special work of Paulus upon Julianus.
There are 376 extracts from the Digesta of Julianus in the Digest of Justinian.
In modern times, the celebrated Cujas wrote lectures on the Digesta of Julianus. (Jac. Cujacii Recitationes solemnes ad Salvii Juliani libros Digestorum,
Opera, vol. i.)
In these various ways is this work named in the Florentine Index and the inscriptions of the Fragments. [FEROX.] This was a commentary upon some work of Minicius Natalis, who lived under Vespasian and Trajan.
It appears to follow the arrangement not of the Edict, but of the Libri Juris Civilis
of Sabinus. Of the forty fragments in the Digest, those from the first and second book relate to testaments, bonorum possessiones, legacies, and fidei-commissa; those from the third, to the patria potestas and the power of the dominus; those from the fourth, to loans and contracts; those from the fifth, to marriage, tutela, acquiring pessession, &c.; those from the sixth, to interdicts and procedure. In Dig. 19
. tit. 1. s. 11.15, Ulpian appears to cite the tenth book, but the reading ought probably to be altered from x to v.
A commentary upon some work of Urseius Ferox. From the forty-two extracts in the Digest, it appears that Julianus in this treatise followed the series of the books of Sabinus.
From this work there are four extracts in the Digest.
It explained the legal sense of ambiguous words, and the rules of interpretation to be applied to obscure expressions in wills and contracts.
These are all the ascertained works of Julianus. That Julianus wrote upon Sextus has by some been inferred from the expression " Juliano ex Sexto placuit " in Gaius, 2.2.18, compared with Fragmenta Vaticana,
§ 88. Bertrandus, from a misunderstanding of the expression "tractatu proposito" in Cod. 6. tit. 60. s. 5, imagined that he wrote a special treatise, De Dotali Praedio.
Ménage, Amoen. Juris,
24; Guil. Grotius, de Vit. Ictoruim,
2.6.1; Strauchius, Vitae aliquot JCtorum,
Num. 1; Neuber, Die juristischen Klassiker,
pp. 183-208. Above all, Heineccius, de Salvio Juliano, Ictorum sua aetate Coryphaeo,
Op. vol. ii. pp. 798-818; Historia Edictorum Edictique perpetui,
2.3, Op. vol. vii. sect. 2, pp. 196-2 G1.