Scanned text contains errors.
from the magistrates. Other writers, especially Hugo, seem disposed to reduce the dimensions of the change within the narrowest compass. The direct testimony of ancient writers upon this subject is scanty. In Const. AeStw/csp, § 18, and Const. Tanta, § 18, is contained the most detailed information we possess. From these parallel passages, it appears that in the body of the reformed Edict, and in the decree of the senate which accompanied it, there was an enactment, that any case not provided for might be ruled cy pres by the emperor and his magistrates. In Const. Tanta, § 18, Julianus is styled by Justinian Legum et Edicti perpetui subtilissimus Conditor, whence it may perhaps be inferred that Julianus not only arranged the Edict, but collected the Constitutions of emperors, which are often designated by the word Leges. He introduced a new clause of his own into the Edict (Dig. 37. tit. 8. s. 3). Paeanius, a contemporary of Justinian, in his Metaphrasis of Eutropius (viii. 9, Paeanius, H. i£"), says that the new Edict was called the Edict of Hadrian, or, in Latin, the Edictum Perpetuum. The Edictum of Hadrian, mentioned in Cod. x. tit. 39. s. 7, was probably a special proclamation of that emperor, distinct from the Edict we are treating of. The name perpetuum edictum was given in early times to the praetor's annual edicts, intended as the rule of ordinary practice, as distinguished from special proclamations—to " id quod jurisdictionis perpetuae causa, non quod prout res incidit, in albo proposi-tum. erat " (Dig. 2. tit. 1. s. 7) ; but, after the reform of Hadrian, the epithet perpetuum seems to have acquired new force. Though all the great principles of the Jus Honorarium were settled before the end of the republic, though the Edict had long assumed an approach to permanence, not only in matter but in form (for the earlier writers upon the Edict appear to follow the same order with those who wrote after Hadrian), the new edictum perpetuum was manifestly endowed with an additional authority, which, if it did not preclude the future exercise of the jus edicendi in magistrates, must have practically restricted it to cases not provided for in the compilation of Julianus. In a manuscript at Florence (Cod. Laurent. Plut. Ixxx. cod. 6) of a Graeco-Roman Epitome of Law of the tenth century, Hadrian is said to have associated Servius Cornelius with Julianus in the task of consolidation and arrangement; but the Graeco-Roman jurists are very unsafe authorities in matters of history, and the author of the cited Epitome may have been led to mention a Cornelius in connection with the Edict, from having heard of the lex Cornelia (proposed by the tribune C. Cornelius in b. c. 67), by which it was enacted " ut praetores ex edictis suis perpetuis jus dicerent." [C. cornelius; cornelius, servjus.] The other early writers who mention the labours of Julianus on the Edict are Aurelius Victor (de Goes. 19), Eusebius (Cliron. ad a.u.c. 884, n. 2147), and Paulus Diaconus (Hist. Misc. x. 20). How far the reform affected the edict of the praetor pere-grinus (which was in the main similar to that of the praetor urbanus) and the edict of the aediles (which seems subsequently to have been treated of as an appendage to the praetor's edict, Pauli Sen-tentiae, i. tit. 15. s. 2), there are not sufficient data to determine. (F. A. Biener, de Salvii Juliani in edicto praetoris meritis rite aestumandis, 4to. Lips. 1809 ; Francke, de Edicto praetoris urbani^prae-
sertim perpetuo, Kilon. 1830 ; Hugo, R.R.G. p, 795 ; Piichta, Institutionen, vol. i, § 114.)
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. (Gains, iv. 147.) Cujas suspected that Julianus the jurist was the author of the Interdictum Salvianum, and in this conjecture was followed by Menage (Amoen. Jur. c. 24), but, as Bynkershoeck has^ shown (Observ. Jur. Rom. i. 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 (int&rdictiem 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, Tuscia-nus, 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 manifestos, 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. r. 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 Hommers 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 nosier (Dig. 35. tit. 1. 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.
The following are the titles of his works:—
1. Digestorum Libri XG. It was perhaps this title which led Matthaeus Blastares, in the preface to his Syntagma, to the blunder of attributing the Digest of Justinian to Hadrian. By some the voluminous Digest of Julianus has been confounded with the reformed Edict, which was comprised in 9