a jurist, who probably lived between the time of Vespasian and Hadrian.
We do not subscribe to the conjecture of Maiansius, who believes that he may have been the same person with the L. Fufidius Pollio, who was consul in A. D. 166. He was not later than Africanus, and appears not to have been earlier than Atilicinus, a contemporary of Proculus, for, in Dig. 34. tit. 2. s. 5, Africanus seems to quote an opinion of Atilicinus from the second book of Quaestiones of Fufidius. Zimmern, however, must have understood this passage differently, for he draws from it the inference that Fufidius was earlier than Atilicinus. In Dig. 40. tit. 2. s. 25, Gaius quotes an opinion of Fufidius (for such is the true reading, not Aufidius, as some editions read, following Haloander in his departure from the Florentine manuscript of the Pandects). To the opinion of Fufidius Gaius opposes that of Nerva, the son, and adopts the latter. Hence Nerva, the son, is thought by Zimmern to have written after Fufidius, but the inference is not conclusive, for the question on which Nerva differed from Fufidius may have been disputed in the schools, and the opinion subsequently selected by Fufidius may have been controverted by Nerva before Fufidius wrote.
[J.T.G]