The Ancient Library
 

Scanned text contains errors.

On this page: Celsus

662

CELSUS.

nus, who was consul suffectus a. d. 57, and whose cognomen might have been Verus. It was in the council of Ducenus Verus that the opinion of Celsus the father was given upon an important point, and was adopted as law. He held (to use the nomenclature of English jurisprudence), that the beneficial interest in a legacy did not lapse by the death of the trustee before the tes­tator. (As to the consilium of the consul and other magistrates, see Diet, of Ant. s. v, Conventus; also Cic. Brut. 22; Plin. Ep. i. 20 ; Amm. Mar. xxxiii. c. ult.; Suet. Tiber. 33 ; Tituli ex Corpore Ulpiani, 1. s. 13 ; Cod. 1. tit. 51; Dig. 1. tit. 21. 8. 2, pr.; tit. 22.) In Dig. 17. tit. 1. s. 39, his opinion is cited along with that of Aristo, who was rather younger than Celsus the father. The Celsus to whom Aristo gives answers in Dig. 2. tit. 14. s, 7. § 2, and Dig. 40. tit. 7. s. 29. § 1, was Celsus the son, who, having gained greater celebrity as a jurist than his father, is understood to be meant in the Digest whenever Celsus is named without the addition pater or filius. Bach, who thinks the contrary more likely (Ifist. Jurisp. Rom. iii. c. 1. § 22. n. [h.]), is certainly mistaken. Compare Dig. 12. tit. 4. s. 3. §§ 6, 7; Dig. 31. s. 20. It can scarcely be doubted that the name of the father was the same as that of the son, viz. P. Juventius Celsus, for otherwise he would probably have been distinguished by the difference of name, whereas he is never mentioned by any other appellation than Celsus pater. There is no direct citation from him in the Digest. Stockmann (ad Bachii Hist. Jurisp.

Rom. loc. cit.) mentions a conjecture of Ev. Otto (Praef. ad Tlies. i. p. 28), that there were three ju­ rists named Celsus, viz. father, son, and grandson ; but the reference to Otto seems to be incorrect. It is, indeed, highly probable that the P. Juventius, who appears from an inscription inGruter (p. 607) to have been promagister scrinii under Antoninus Pius, A. d. 155, was a grandson of the elder Celsus, but there is no proof that he was a jurist. Those who, like Menage (Amoen. jut. c. xx.), identify the promagister with the son, must suppose that the son discharged an exceedingly laborious office in a very advanced age. Very little is known of Celsus the father, though much has been written upon him. Among the legal biographers who have attributed to his life one or more of the events that belong to the life of his son, are Guil. Grotius, Gravina, and Strauchius. ( Vitae vet. JCtorum^ No. 2, p. 14.) The Gens Juventia was an ancient race, and could boast of several jurists, as T. Ju­ ventius, C. Juventius, and M. Juventius Latera- nensis. In manuscripts and monuments, from the ordinary interchange of V and B, the name is often spelt Jubentius. (Majansius, ad XXXJCtos, ii. pp. 236—255.) [J. T. G.]

CELSUS, P. JUVE'NTIUS, a Roman jurist, the son of the subject of the preceding article. He was an accomplice in a conspiracy against Domi-tian, along with Nerva (who was afterwards em­peror) and others; but although he was denounced to the emperor, he contrived to rescue himself and his companions, by flattering the emperor, by pro­fessing his innocence, and by promising to unravel the whole plot, and thus creating delays until the death of Domitian. (Dion Cass. Ixvii. 13; Phi-lostrat. ViL ApolL Tyan. vii. 3.) He was after­wards highly favoured by Nerva and his son Trajan. Pliny (Ep. vi. 5) mentions an altercation between him and Licinius Nepos, concerning the

CELSUS.

cause of Pomponius Rufus Varimis. Celsus was then praetor, and, as the leges annales were at that time religiously observed (Plin. Ep. vii. 16), may be supposed to have been 34 years of age. This would give A. d. 67 for the year of the birth of Celsus, for the cause of Pomponius Rufus was pleaded when M. Acilius was consul-elect (Plin. Ep. v. 20), that is to say, in a. d. 101. Celsus was twice consul. The date of his first consulship is not recorded. The second occurred a. d. 129, when he had C. Neratius Marcellus for his col­league. (Dig. 5. tit. 3. s. 20. § 6.) He was a friend of Hadrian, and one of that emperor's coun­cil (Spartian. Hadrian, c. 18, where for Julius Celsus is to be read Juventius Celsus), and he pro­bably died towards the end of Hadrian's reign, for Julianus, the jurist, in a fragment of a work (Digesta} which was written in the commencement of the reign of Antoninus Pius (compare Dig. 3. tit. 5. s. 6. § 12 ; 4. tit. 2. s. 18), speaks of Celsus in the past tense:—" Quod etiam Juventio Celso apertissime placuit." (Dig. 28. tit. 2. s. 28, pr.)

Celsus received legal instruction from his father, and is supposed from several indications in extant passages of his works to have studied philosophy, especially the philosophy of the Stoics. His edu­cation was probably attended to with great care, for his style is terse and elegant, and his latinity so pure, that Laurentius Valla and Floridus, who unsparingly criticise the diction of the ancient Ro­man jurists, find little or nothing to carp at in Celsus. There are fragments which prove that he was acquainted with Greek. (Dig. 33. tit. 10. s. 7, 13. tit. 3. s. 3.) He early commenced the practice of the law. One of his youthful opinions was followed by Julianus, and is cited by Paulus. (Dig. 45. tit. 1. s. 91. § 3, unless by Celsus adoles­cents we are here to understand Celsus the younger.) Celsus was manifestly well versed in the writings of his predecessors, for in the 20 pages which his 142 fragments occupy in tioiamel(Palingen. Pan-dect.\ will be found references to Sex. Aelius, Brutus, Cascellius, Cato, Livius Drusus, Q. Mucius Scaevola, Q. Antistius Labeo, C. Trebatius Testa, Aelius Tubero, M. Tullius Cicero, Servius Sulpicius, Nerva, Masurius Sabinus, Semp. Proculus, and Neratius Priscus. In return, we find him quoted by many of the most eminent later jurists, as Juli­anus, Pomponius, Maecianus, Ulpian, and Paulus, and by Justinian himself in the Institutes and the Code. In Cod. 6, tit. 2. s. 10 Justinian mentions a curious physiological opinion of Celsus concerning deafness. He belonged, like his father, to the sect of Proculus, but he was an independent thinker, sometimes differing from Labeo, Nerva, and his own father, and sometimes agreeing with Sabinus and Cassius. (Dig. 47. tit. 2. s. 25. § 1; 21. tit. 2. s. 29, pr.; 12. tit. 4. s. 8. §§ 6, 7; 12. tit. 5. s. 6.) In the fragments of Celsus there are several passages which betoken great self-confidence and uncivil dogmatism. In this he deviated from the usual practice (almost amounting to professional etiquette) of jurists ancient and modern. A Roman or an English lawyer would say, " mihi videtur," " I think," " verius est," " the better opinion is;" but Celsus sometimes omits such modest forms of expression. For example, it appears from Dig. 21. tit. 2. s. 29, pr., that he called Nerva's opinion false. But the grossest instance of rudeness occurs in an answer to one Dornitius Labeo, who inquired whether the person by whose hand a will was

Pages
About | First

661

662

663
letter/word  
volume
page #  
Search this site
Google


ancientlibrary.com
WWW
All non-public domain material, including introductions, markup, and OCR © 2005 Tim Spalding.
Ancient Library was developed and hosted by Tim Spalding of Isidore-of-Seville.com.