The Ancient Library

Scanned text contains errors.


Bassus, thus confounding him with'Gabius Bassus the grammarian.

To proceed to less futile or more plausible con­jectures, some have tried to identify Gaius with Laelius, or Laelius Felix, for both Gaius and Laelius Felix wrote notes on Q. Mucius Scaevola. (Gaius, i. 188 ; Gell. xv. 27») In favour of the compound Gaius Laelius Felix are quoted two passages from the Digest, in one of which (Dig. 5. tit. 3. s. 43) Gaius says, " Et nostra quidem aetatc Serapias, Alexandrina mulier, ad Divum Hadria-num perducta est cum quinque liberis, quos uno foetu enixa est;" and in the other (Dig. 5. tit. 4. s. 3), Paulus reports, u Sed et Laelius jscribit se vidisse in Palatio mulierem liberam, quae ab Alexandria perducta est ut Hadriano ostendere-tur, cum quinque liberis, ex quibus quatuor eodem .tempore enixa (inquit) dicebatur, quintum post diem quadragesimum." A comparison of these passages is against the identity of Gaius and Lae-lius, for, not to mention the variation between their accounts, Laelius speaks more circumstan­tially, as an eye-witness, while Gaius writes as if mentioning a fact which he knew only from ru­mour. By the phrase nostra aetate, he probably intends to denote that the extraordinary birth took place after he himself was born, but the words may have a wider acceptation, and refer to living me­mory generally.

It has been guessed that Gaius was closely connected by relationship witli Pomponius, for, on the one hand,. Pomponius calls Gaius u Gaius nos-ter" (/. c.), and, on the other hand, Gaius calls Pomponius simply Sextus (Gaius, ii. 218), but it is* not certain that, in this last-cited passage, Pom­ponius is meant, and, if he be, Gaius is not sin­gular in alluding to him by his praenomen simply, for Ulpian does the same. (Dig. 29. tit. 5. s. 1. § 27.)

Two passages, which closely agree with frag­ments attributed in the Digest to the Enchiridion of Pomponius (Dig. 2. tit. 2. s. 2. § 22 and § 24), are cited by Joannes Lydus (De Magistral, i. 26 and 34), as from the commentary of Gaius on the Twelve Tables, From the contents of these pas­sages, it is not unlikely that something of similar import would be inserted in an introduction to a commentary on the Twelve Tables, and that the agreement between Gaius and Pomponius may have been produced, not by the latter borrowing from the former, but by both borrowing from the same source, namely, M. Junius Gracchanus, who wrote upon the. ancient magistracies of Rome. [gracchanus.] But it is also not impossible, that in compiling from the title De Origine Juris (Dig. 1. tit. 2), Lydus may have seen the heading of the first fragment, which is taken from Gaius, and have overlooked the heading of the second, which is taken from Pomponius. Yet it must be admitted that he afterwards (i. 48) cites as from -Pomponius another passage taken from the same second fragment. (Dig. 1. tit. 2. s. 2. § 34.) The first fragment from Gaius, and the second from Pomponius, run together in sense, reading as if the former were the preface to the latter ; and in this way, with the simple heading " Gaius li°. i°." they are introduced by Magister Vacarius* into his ele-

* Magister Vacarius taught the civil law in this country about the middle of the twelfth century, and, after being silenced, by king Stephen, seems to have retired to the abbey De Foiitibus^ by which



mentary work on Roman law. (Wenck, 'Magister VacariuSi) p. 91.)

One of the conjectures, which has found nu­merous supporters, is, that the full designation of Gaius is C. Cassius Longinus, and that he is re­ferred to by his praenomen simply, in order to distinguish him from an elder C. Cassius, the eminent follower of Capito and Masurius Sabinus, and the head of the Cassiani, a sect to which Gaius adheres with strict devotion. C. Cassius is thrice cited in the Digest by his jpraenomen Gaius,

—twice by Javolenus, Hbro ii. ex Cassio, in Dig. 35. tit. 1. s. 54, and libra xi. ex Cassio^ in Dig. 46'. tit. 3. § 78,—and once by Julianus, in a passage where Sabinus and Gaius are coupled. (Dig. 24. tit. 3. s. 59.) Where Pomponius uses the ex­pression " Gaius noster " (Dig. 45. tit. 3. s. 39), it is not certain that C. Cassius was not meant, for Pomponius was one of the Cassiani. There is, however, strong reason for supposing that Pom­ponius refers to our Gaius, inasmuch as the frag­ment in which the expression occurs is taken from the 22nd book of Pomponius ad Q. Mudum, and we know that Gaius speaks of a similar work of his own, " In kis libris, quos eon Q. Mucio fecimus" (ii. 188). Gaius liimself always quotes C. Cassius simply as Cassius, not as C. Cassius. Servius (ad Virg. Qeorg. ii. v. 306, 307) says, " Apud majores omne mercimonium in permutatione constabat, quod et Gaius Homerico confirmat exemplo.'* Now, we find from Inst. 3. tit. 23. § 2, and from Dig. 18. tit. 1. § 1, that C. Cassius and Proculus quoted Homer (II. vii. 472—475) to prove that barter was a case of emtio et vendttio. But the very same lines are cited by Gaius (iii. 141), and they seem to have been a trite quotation among the earlier jurists of his school, so that it is doubt­ful whether our jurist or C. Cassius is referred to by Servius, the commentator on Virgil.

It would be useless to mention all the niaiseries. of those who have written on the age of Gains. Some divide Gaius Juventius (Dig. 1. tit. 2. s. 2. § 42) into 'two persons, and so make Gaius a diV ciple of L. Mucius; others perform the same di­vision on Gaius Aulus Ofilius or Gaius A teiu& Pacuvius (Dig. I. tit. 2. s. 2. § 44), and so make Gaius one of the disciples of Servius Sulpicius. But the most common error has consisted in the assignation of too late rather than too early a date; and Hugo's authority (Civilist. Mag. vol. ii. p. 358

—378) for some time gave currency to the opinion which had previously been maintained by Raevaiv dus and Conradi, that Gaius was a contemporary of Caracalla, who is designated in the Digest by the name of Antoninus. There are certainly some circumstances difficult to account for, which might naturally have led to this belief. .The Institutiones of Gaius were an ordinary text book of instruction before the time when Justinian reformed the legal course appointed for students.. Four libri singulares of the same author (1. DeRe Useoria, 2. De Tutelis, 3 and 4. De Testamentis etLegatis) were similarly honoured as text books. Such parts of the Insti" tutiones and the Libri Singulares as were thought to be of practical use were taught in the lectures of the professors, while other parts were passed over as antiquated. Why was it that Gaius should be

we understand Fountains Abbey, near Ripon, not, as Wenck imagines (p. 46. n, 6), an abbey at Wells, in Somersetshire^

o 3

About | First



page #  
Search this site
All non-public domain material, including introductions, markup, and OCR © 2005 Tim Spalding.
Ancient Library was developed and hosted by Tim Spalding of