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, p. 215). 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
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 (Dig. 1. 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
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 (Dig. 35. 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.
[J.T.G]