I THE JURISTS

(i)

i. The jurists of sacral law continued at first to be members of the priestly colleges; to such alone were the necessary materials available. The situation is revealed by what the elder Cato said in 149: T wish to learn the pontifical law, but that does not make me a pontifex ; I would learn the augural law but that does not make me an augur.’¹ Hence the writers on sacral law were at first exclusively priests: for example the pontiff Q.

Fabius Maximus Servilianus, author of a large work on pontifical law,² and the augurs L. lulius Caesar,³ Appius Claudius Pülcher,⁴ C. Claudius Marcellus,⁵ and Μ. Valerius Messala,⁶ all of whom wrote on augural law. It follows that the well-known historian Q. Fabius Pictor,⁷ who did not belong to the pontifical college cannot have been the author of the comprehensive work on pontifical law which tradition attributes to him; its author must have been some pontifex, not otherwise known to us, belonging to the gens Fabia.³ The sociological character of these priests remained unchanged from that which we have described above,’ as a glance at the lists of the known priests at once shows.¹⁰

2. But in the second half of the first century laymen also began to concern themselves with sacral law: for example, the jurisconsults ServiusSulpicius’¹ andC. Trebatius,¹² Μ. Terentius Varro, the

^I From his speech prosecuting Galba for his treatment of the Lusitanians: Gell.

1.12.17: ‘Tarnen dicunt deficere “voluisse ” (sdl. Lusitanos). Ego me nunc “ volo ” ius pontificium optime scire: iamne ea causa pontifex capiar? si “ volo ” augurium optime tenere, ecquis me ob rem earn augurem capiat? ’ Cf. Cic. De domo, 12. 33; 54.138. ¹ Consul 142 b.c. Münzer, PW vi.

1811; below, p. 89.

* Consul 64 B.c. Münzer, Hermes, lii (1917), 154; PW x. 468; Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 200, 600; also below, p. 89.

♦ Consul 54 B.c. Münzer, PW iii. 2849; Rom· Adelsparteien, 255; Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 200; also below, p. 89.

⁵ Proconsul 79 b.c. Münzer, PW iii. 2733, no. 214; Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 200; below, p. 81. ⁶ Consul 53 B.c. Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 200; below, p. 89.

Münzer, PW vi. 1836; Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 64.

⁸ Münzer, PW vi. 1842; Sigwart, Klio, vi (1906), 367; Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 64, p. 174. ’ Above, p. 6.

¹⁰ See, for the list oipontifices, augures, and decemviri (quindecemviri) of this period, Carl Bardt, l.c. (above, p. 13), and Ross Taylor, Am. Journal of Philology, Ixiii (1942), 385 ff.

^II See below, p. 42, for the man, and p. 90 for his work on sacral law. He also lectured on ius pontificium ‘qua ex parte cum iure civili coniunctum esset’: Cic. Brut. 42.156.

¹² The man, below,p. 48; his work on sacral law, below, p. 90. eminent antiquary,¹ and an otherwise unknown Granius Flaccus.² These men found in already published works on sacral law ample materials ready to their hand; all four, moreover, belonged to Julius Caesar’s circle, and he, as pontifex maximus, was naturally in a position to throw open to them the pontifical archives.³

(ii)

In private law the movement that had begun as early as the third century b.c.⁴ was carried farther: by the side of the pontifical jurists the non-pontifical waxed ever more numerous. The circle of jurists thus became very wide, but at the same time lost its uniformity. Various groups must be distinguished.

1. In the second century the pontiffs continued to be prominent consultants in private law. The best known are three members of the gens Mucia, P. Mucius Scaevola, his brother P. Licinius Crassus Mucianus, and Q. Mucius Scaevola the pontifex,⁵ all of whom held the office of pontifex maximus.

But with Q. Mucius we reach at once the climax and the end of the pontifical science of private law. The lists of pontifices after his death include not one of the jurisconsults known to us; clearly the pontiffs were withdrawing from private law, perhaps for the very reasons on which Cicero⁶ bases his criticism of their private jurisprudence. This tendency had long been operative, for already P. Mucius had found it necessary to insist that no one could be a good pontifex without a knowledge of the ius civile.'¹ His warning was ineffectual: the Hellenistic tendency to specialization⁸ led to the abandonment of private law by the pontiffs.

2. A second group was formed by the non-pontifical jurisconsults. They practised mainly as consultants in private law; as advocates they figured only occasionally. This group must be subdivided.

(a) In the second century b.c. the jurisconsults still sprang from

¹ Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 187; Stella- Maranca, Atti del 4 congr. naz. iv (1938), 45 ff.

² Funaioli, PW vii. 1819; Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 201,603. On his book, below, p. 89.

³ Cincius and Veranius seem to have appeared in the time of Augustus; see below,

p. 138. ⁴ Above, p. 8 f.

³ See the tree of the gens Mucia given by Münzer, Rom. Adelsparteien, 224; PW xvi. 413.

⁶ Cic. De leg. 2. 21. 52: *... si vos tantummodo pontifices essetis, pontificalis maneret auctoritas, sed quod idem iuris civilis estis peritissimi, hac scientia illam eluditis.’ Spoken, it is true, with reference to a special question, the treatment of sacra.

1 Cic. De leg. 2.19. 47: ‘ Saepe, inquit Publii filius ’ (i.e. Q. Mucius Scaevola pent.) ‘ex patre audivi pontificem bonum neminem esse nisi qui ius civile cognosset.’ Cf. Schulz, 26. ⁸ Kaerst, Gesch. d. Hellenismus, ii. 146 ff.

: Госудаосій;. ~~~~f •, ордена /Itnx··«. '

; panic:.· і ·>. the same social class as the pontiffs.

Like the pontiffs they were members of the nobilityas a rule they took part in public life and held high offices. A comparison of M’. Manilius or the augur Q. Mucius with the pontiff of the same name at once reveals a unity of type, but it was a type which from the end of the second century was becoming rare. From then to the end of the Ciceronian period we find only one jurisconsult who fully represents it, namely Servius Sulpicius Rufus. This man was a true jurisconsult in the style of the second and third centuries. He reckoned himself a member of the nobility, though according to his friend Cicero it was rather an obscure nobility (his father was an eques).² He climbed the ladder of magistracies, attaining, after a failure at his first candidature, the consulship in 51 B.c. He was given the proconsulship of Achaia by Caesar in 46 and stayed there till 45. After Caesar’s murder he continued to take part in politics till the end of his life. Apart from him, the last years of the Republic produced only P. Alfenus Varus of Cremona, who reached the consulship in 39 b.c. He was a homo novus, but so had been M’. Manilius. The tale that in earlier Hie he was a cobbler or a barber³ is about on a level with the tale that Augustus’ great-grandfather was a freedman ropemaker or that Cicero’s father was a fuller.⁴ In the same group we may place Q. Aelius Tubero, who was of noble birth and pursued, though unsuccessfully, a political career, and also Pacuvius Labeo, who, though not of noble birth, belonged to Brutus’ circle of friends and had political ambitions, which were only frustrated by the civil war.

¹ Nobiles were those who had held the highest offices (of dictator, consul, consular tribune) and their descendants: Gelzer, Die Nobilitfil d. rom. Republik (1912), 42; Strassburger, PW xvii. 785 ff.; Afzelius, ‘Zur Definition der rom. Nobilitat in der Zeit Ciceros ’, Classica et Mediaevalia, i (1938), 40 ff.

² Cic.

p. Mur. 7. 16: ‘Tua vero nobilitas, Ser. Sulpici, tametsi summa est, tamen hominibus litteratis et historicis est notior, populo vero et suffragatoribus obscurior: pater enim fuit equestri loco; avus nulla inlustri laude celebratus; itaque non ex sermone hominum recenti, sed ex annalium vetustate eruenda memoria est nobilitatis tuae.’And it is a homo novus who is introducing considerations of genealogy.

³ Horace, Sat. 1. 3. 130: ‘Alfenus vafer omni / Abiecto instrumento artis clausaque tabema / Sutor erat.’ This text is adopted by F. Klingner in his edition of Horace (Teubner, 1939). The Cod. Bland, reads: ‘Alfenus vafer omni / Abiecto instrumento artis clausaque ustrina / Tonsor erat.’ This reading is defended by Pasquali, Studi it. di filologia class, x (1933), 255 ff.; Storia della tradizione e critica del testa (1934), 383 f. Cf. Tenney Frank, Class. Quart, xiv (1920), 160 ff. On rich cobblers see Marquardt-Mau, Privatleben, 597; CIL v. 7388 and Gummerus, Rom. Mitt, xxvii (1912), 233.

⁴ Lies of this kind, imputing a base origin, are commonplaces of satire and invective at the end of the Republic: Gelzer, Nobilitat, n. This also is due to Hellenism, for it was from the Greeks that the Romans learnt the ‘ art ’ of detraction: W. Suess, Ethos. Studien z. alteren griech. Rhetorik (1910), 45 ff., giving ample Graeco-Roman materials.

(&) In the Ciceronian age there appeared a group of jurisconsults of an essentially different type. C. Aquilius Gallus, of equestrian stock, pursued the career of magistracies, but only as far as the praetorship (praetor of the quaestio de ambitu in 66 b.c.). He refrained from seeking the consulship in order to dedicate himself to the law. Aulus Cascellius, son of a speculator in estates (praediator) in the Sullan period,¹ became quaestor, but held no higher office: he refused the consulship which, in spite of his mere quaestorian rank, was offered him by Augustus. A. Ofilius was an eques whose family came into public consideration after the Social War.

As a friend of Caesar’s he would have found a political career open to him, but he preferred to confine himself to practising as a jurisconsult. C. Trebatius, of a respected family in Velia (Lucania), belonged to Caesar’s and Cicero’s circle of friends, but, though promoted by Augustus to the equestrian order, he never took office. The jurists of this group, by their withdrawal from politics² and their tendency towards specialization,³ exhibit very clearly two characteristics of the Hellenistic spirit.

(c) A third group is formed by a number of jurisconsults of whom we know little more than their names, and who evidently came from humbler social origins. Lucilius Balbus was Servius’ teacher, Cornelius Maximus was Trebatius’; that is all we know about them, the second being not even mentioned in Pomponius’ list. We have no personal details at all about Servius’ pupils, Titus Caesius, Aufidius Tucca, Aufidius Namusa, Flavius Priscus, Gaius Ateius, Cinna, and Publius Gellius. Mentioned in Cicero’s letters are L. Valerius and Precianus. These minor jurists obviously did not belong to the social class which served the State without pay; doubtless they demanded and received remuneration for their legal services.⁴

3. From the jurisconsults we must sharply distinguish the advocates (oratores),^s in spite of the modicum of legal knowledge which they necessarily possessed.⁶ Greek example brought rhetoric into the Roman courts; Cato’s plain, thoroughly Roman advice,⁷ rem tene, verba sequentur, came to be thought old-fashioned

¹ The father was not a jurisconsult: Cic., p. Balbo, 20. 45, contrasts him with the jurisconsults.

² Burckhardt, Griech. Kulturgesck. iv. 390, 598; Kaerst, Gesch. d. Hellenismus,

ii. 157 ff., 87 ff.; Tam, Hellenistic Civilization (ed. 2, 1930), ch. 3; Kroll, Kultur, ii. 125. Condemnation of such withdrawal from politics: Cic. De re pub. x.1-6.

³ Above, p. 41.

⁴ Cic. De off. 2.19.65: * Nam in iure cavere, consilio iuvare atque hoc scientiae genere prodesse quam plurimis vehementer et ad opes augendas pertinet et ad gratiam.’

⁵ Mommsen, Schr. i. 453. ⁶ Below, pp. 44 and 95. ’ Jordan, 80. and out of date. Thus from the second century onwards there arose a class of specialists in forensic oratory; some knowledge of public and private law they might have, but not enough to qualify them to give consultations. Occasionally, as the cases of Servius¹ and Tubero¹ show, an advocate might develop into a jurisconsult, but that would be as a result of further studies.

The best-known representative of this group is Cicero.³ In his youth he was instructed in the law by Q. Mucius augur and Q. Mucius pontifex* Cicero took good note of the merry old augur’s anecdotes⁵ which are both entertaining and of real interest to the historian of Roman legal science. But obviously Cicero’s main interest did not lie in his legal studies. In later life he showed a certain elementary knowledge of the law,⁶ but also a thorough dislike and lack of understanding of the higher aspects of jurisprudence. He classes himself, in so many words, outside the jurisconsults, his feeling with regard to them being one of opposition and superiority.⁷ He jeers at his friend Servius who, lacking the endowments of an orator, had conceived, faute de tnieux, a fatherly affection for jurisprudence.⁸ The jurisconsult Aquilius Gallus felt himself correspondingly antithetical to Cicero: ‘Nihil hoc ad ius,

¹ See Note E, p. 334.

² Pomp. D. (1.2) 2.46: ‘ transiit a causis agendis ad ius civile? He obtained legal

schooling from A. Ofilius. '

³ Costa’s useful Cicerone Giureconsulto (ed. 2, 1927) nowhere discusses Cicero’s

position in Roman jurisprudence. The title is misleading in that it implies that Cicero was a jurisconsult. ⁴ See Note F, p. 344.

⁵ On Sex. Aelius Paetus, above, p. 36, n. 2; Cic. De or. 2.55. 224, when describing lunius Brutus’ Dialogue (below, p. 92), writes: ‘Turn ex libro tertio, in quo finem scribendi fecit—tot enim, ut audivi Scaevolam dicere, sunt veri Bruti libri—...’ Thus the work was in more than three books, but Cicero had it from Scaevola (probably the augur) that only the first three were by Brutus himself. Cic. Ad AU. 4.16. 3: ‘ioculatorem senem ilium, ut noras....’

⁶ Cicero and Trebatius had spent an evening over their cups and a question of civil law had been discussed. On getting home Cicero, late as it was (‘ etsi domum bene potus seroque redieram ’), turned up his lawbooks: Cic. Ad fam. J. 22. Again, Cic. De re pub. 1. 13. 20: 'Laelius. Imino vero te audiamus, nisi forte Manilius’ (the jurisconsult, below, p. 47) ‘interdictum aliquod inter duos soles putat esse componendum, ut ita caelum possideant, ut uterque possederit? He is parodying the interdict Uli possidetis·, a man could not write like this unless he were thoroughly familiar with the elements of the civil law. Cf. Ad fam. 15.16. 3 (jnterd. de vi).

¹ This appears not only in the pro Murena, which was not meant quite seriously (see De fin. 4. 27. 74: ‘Non ego tecum iam ita iocabor, ut isdem his de rebus, cum L. Murenam te accusante defenderem: apud imperitos turn ilia dicta sunt, aliquid etiam coronae datum ’). Also in other passages he always makes jurisprudence the secunda ars in comparison with rhetoric, his view being that men became jurisconsults only if they lacked the endowments of an orator: Brut. 41. 151; p. Mur. 13. 29 f.; Orat. 41. 141; De off. 2. 19. 65 f.

* Cic. p. Mur. 10. 23: ‘ mihi videris istam scientiam iuris tamquam filiolam osculari tuam? ad Ciceronem’, he was wont to say when the case on which he was consulted raised an issue of fact.¹

Allowing for individual idiosyncrasies, we may take Cicero as representing the whole class of forensic orators. He names and describes them, especially in his Brutus, and Incidentally discusses their knowledge of law. In book i of the De oratore we find a debate between Q. Mucius augur and the two orators, L. Crassus and M. Antonins, on the question whether legal studies ought to form part of an advocate’s education.^[62] ^{^[63] The picture painted by Cicero shows that here too Hellenistic influence had led to differentiation of pro-. fessions and to the emergence of a class of specialists in rhetoric.^[64] An advocate like Antonius rejected legal studies on principle,^[65] and the majority of advocates possessed only a very meagre knowledge of law. ‘Never yet have I seen the fine furniture of legal science among the household goods of an advocate’,^[66] remarked the old augur in his humorous manner. Crassus, who declares himself in favour of legal studies^[67] and whom Cicero describes as the best lawyer among the orators,^[68] is presented as an exception. It may well be that this judgment of Cicero’s is correct, but Crassus was no jurisconsult and is quoted by Cicero as saying that he reserved legal studies for his old age.^[69] What Cicero says as to the legal attainments of other advocates must be received with caution: iuris civilis peritissimus would come all too readily from the mouth of that lover of superlatives. Pomponius’ sketch⁹ is intended to be confined to the jurisconsults; consequently he omits not only the jurists of the ius sacrum and the ius publicum, but also the orators, including Cicero himself. Nevertheless, he is misled by Cicero’s superlatives into the error of including some of the orators. These, as a class, are interesting and certainly not to be ignored by the historian of Roman legal science; in the sense defined above¹⁰ they were certainly jurists, but they must be sharply distinguished from the jurisconsults. Socially there was no wide gulf between the two classes; still, the son of a freedman, as was L. Coelius Antipater, the teacher of the orator Crassus, could not in this period have ranked as a jurisconsult.}

(ІІІ)

About the jurists of public law there is little to be said.¹ As previously, they were to be found among the senators and magistrates. The only writers we know of are C. Sempronius Tudi- tanus, consul 129 b.c., who wrote a large work on the magistracy/ Μ. lunius Gracchanus, the friend of C. Gracchus, whose work De potestatibus is mentioned,³ and finally Varro, the famous antiquary.⁴ Cincius and Nicostratus belong rather to the Augustan period.⁵ In principle the jurisconsults did not concern themselves with public law ;⁶ Tubero,⁷ however, who in this as in other respects is exceptional among the jurisconsults,⁸ seems to have written on constitutional law.⁹ Taken as a whole the republican literature of public law was not extensive; if Pompey, when preparing for his consulship, asked his friend Varro to write him an introduction to constitutional law,¹⁰ it must have been because the existing literature was inadequate. Clearly the long constitutional crisis cramped the development of this branch of jurisprudence during the last century of the Republic.

(iv)

In conclusion we give a conspectus of the jurisconsults,ⁿ arranged so far as possible in chronological order. We omit the pontiffs who made no individual mark in private law. Biography lies outside our programme, but the literature cited will supply any details that may be required and also indicate the older literature of the subject. Pomponius’ list (D. I. 2. 2. 38 f.) is in many respects untrustworthy.

L. Acilius (corrupted in Pomponius, s. 38, to P. Atilius). Apparently early second century b.c. Nothing more known. Joers, 247; Klebs, PW i. 252.

Μ. Porcius Cato, fi52, ^son of Cato Censorinus; died when praetor designatus.¹² Joers, 283; Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 79.

¹ On what follows: Dirksen, ‘ Ueber die Anfänge d. Staatsrechtswissensch. bei d. Romern’; H. Rehm, ‘Gesch. d. Staatsrechtswissensch.’ s. 36 {Handb. d. offentl. Rechts, i, 1896).

² Münzer, PW ii A. 1441; Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 70. 3. CIL і (ed. alt.), 652, Add.

p. 725; ILS 8885. ³ Wissowa, PW x. 1031; Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 77.

⁴ See above, p. 40. Perhaps Furius Philus should be mentioned here: Schanz- Hosius, i, s. 77. ³ Below, p. 138.

⁶ Expressly stated by Cic. p. Balbo, 19. 45; De leg. 1. 4.14.

r Pomp. D. (1. 2) 2. 46: ‘doctissimus habitus est iuris publici et privati.’

⁸ Pomp. D. (1. 2) 2. 46. » Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 112. 4.

¹⁰ Gell. 14. 7. i (Bremer, i. 124). ¹¹ See above, pp. 21 and 43.

¹² Whether the father, Cato Censorinus, also practised as a jurisconsult is quite uncertain. No safe conclusion can be drawn from Cic. De or. III. 33.135. Joers, 275, goes wrong.

M’. Manilius, consul 149 (homo novus). Münzer, PW xiv. 1135; Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 79.

C. Livius Drusus, son of the consul of 147, being blind held no office. Münzer, PW xiii. 855, no. 15; Rom. Adelsparteien, 312.

Μ. Iunius Brutus, probably son of the consul of 178; praetor at an uncertain date. Münzer, PW x. 971, no. 49; Schanz-Hosius, i,s. 79.

P. Mucius Scaevola, pont. max., consul 133. Münzer, PW xvi. 425, no. 17; Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 79.

P. Licinius Crassus Mucianus, pont. max., consul 131, brother of the last mentioned. Münzer, PW xiii. 334, no. 72; Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 79.

Q. Mucius Scaevola augur, consul 117. Münzer, PW xvi. 430, no. 21; Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 80.

C. Marcius Figulus, son of the consul of 162 and 156; stood unsuccessfully for the consulship. Joers, 256; Münzer, PW xiv. 1559, no. 62.

Q. Aelius Tubero, of noble family (Cic. p. Mur. 36. 75; Gelzer, Nobilitat, 22), but did not reach the praetorship and therefore was never consul, in spite of Pomponius, s. 40. Of the Scipionic circle (fi29). Klebs, PW i. 535, no. 155.

Sex. Pompeius, uncle of Pompey the Great. Held no office.

P. Rutilius Rufus, consul 105. Münzer, PW i a. 1270, no. 34; Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 73. 3.

A. Verginius (corrupted in Pomponius, s. 40, to Paulus Verginius), doubtfully a jurisconsult. Pomponius’ mention seems to be fabricated out of Cic. De am. 27. 101.

Q. Mucius Scaevola pontifex, pont. max., consul 95, |8г. Münzer- Kübler, PW xvi. 437. Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 80.

C. Aquilius Gallus, praetor of the quaestio de ambitu 66; praetor peregrinus ? Klebs-Joers, PW ii. 327, no. 23; Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 198; Beseler, Bull, xxxix (1931), 314.

L. Lucilius Balbus, pupil of Q. Mucius, teacher of Servius; member of Aquilius Gallus’ consilium in 81. Nothing more known. Münzer, PW xiii. 1640, no. 19.

Volcatius (corrupted in Pomponius, s. 45, to Volusius), pupil of Q. Mucius, teacher of Cascellius (Plin. Hist. not. 8. 40.144). He is probably identical with L. Volcacius, tribunus plebis and curator viarum 71 B.c.: CIL i (2nd ed.), 744; ILS 5800.

A. Cascellius, quaestor before 73. Joers, PW iii. 1634; Schanz- Hosius, i, s. 198, p. 597; Wlassak, Prozessformel, i. 28 ff.; Ferrini, IL 53 ff-

Servius Sulpicius Rufus, consul 51. Münzer-Kübler, PW iv a. 851, no. 95; Stemkopf, Hermes, xlvii (1912), 329. Groag, Die rom. Reichsbeamten von Achaia bis auf Diokletian, 6 (Ak. Wien, Schriften d. Balkankommission. Antiquar. Abt. ix. 1939).

Q. Cornelius Maximus, teacher of Trebatius. Joers, PW iv. 1406, no. 264.

L. Valerius, only known from Cic. Ad fam. 1. 10; 3. 1; 7.11. 2. Precianus, only known from Cic. Ad fam. 7. 8. 2.

School of Servius: T. Caesius, Aufidius Tucca, Flavius Priscus, C. Ateius, Cinna, Publicius Gellius, Aufidius Namusa. No further personal details known.

Pacuvius Labeo, -f42. Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 198, p. 595; Pernice, Labeo, i. 7 ff.

P. Alfenus Varus, consul 39. Klebs-Joers, PW i. 1472, no. 8. Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 198, p. 596; L. de Sario, Alfeno Varo e i suoi Digesta (1940? inaccessible).

A. Ofilius, pupil of Servius. Münzer, PW xvii. 2040; Schanz- Hosius, i, s. 198, pp. 595 ff.

Q. Aelius Tubero, prosecutor of Ligarius in 46. Klebs, PW i. 537, no. 156; Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 112, p. 322.

C. Trebatius (only Cicero calls him ‘Trebatius Testa’). Sonnet, C. Trebatius Testa, Giessener phil. DiSs. (1932); PW vi a. 2251.

The following are the outstanding orators having some knowledge of law, but not jurisconsults, and therefore wrongly reckoned as such by Bremer i, and others.

L. Coelius Antipater, teacher of the orator Crassus, valde iuris peritus (Cic. Brut. 26. 102), but not a jurisconsult. Pomponius, s. 40, is doubtful. Gensel, PW iv. 186, no. 7; Schanz-Hosius i, s. 71.

C. Aculeo, friend of Crassus the orator. His legal knowledge receives exaggerated praise from Crassus in Cic. De or. 1. 43.191; cf. Brut. yf>. 264. But Pomponius excluded him from his list of jurists.

T. Iuventius (C. Iuventius by error in Pomponius, s. 42), an orator magna cum iuris intellegentia according to Cic. Brut. 48. 178, but not a jurisconsult, though Pomponius classes him as such because he had been a pupil of Q. Mucius. But so, for that matter, was Cicero!

L. Licinius Crassus, the famous orator, fgi. According to Cic. Brut. 39.145, eloquentium iuris peritissimus, but not a jurisconsult, for all that Pomponius, s. 40, confusing him with P. Licinius Crassus Mucianus, mentioned above among the jurisconsults, includes him in his list. Häpke, PW xiii. 252, no. 55.

P. Orbius, pupil of T. Iuventius and, according to Cic. Brut. 48. 179, not inferior to his teacher as a lawyer. Not in Pomponius. Münzer, PW xviii. 880, no. 3.

Q. Lucretius Vispillo, f8i. Cic. Brut. 48.178: ‘in privatis causis acutus et iuris peritus.’ Not in Pomponius. Münzer, PW xiii. 1691, no. 35.

C. Visellius Varro. Cic. Brut. 76. 264. Not in Pomponius. Schanz- Hosius, i. 224.

<< | >>

↑

Source: Schulz F.. History of Roman legal science. Oxford University Press,1946. — 375 p.. 1946

I THE JURISTS

More on the topic I THE JURISTS: