Scanned text contains errors.
ought probably to read Titidius instead of Ateius. See below, p. 695, a. [J. T. G.J
2. Praetor in b.c. 190. He received Sicily as his province. (Liv. xxxvi. 45. xxxvii. 2.) [C.P.M.]
LABEO, A'TTIUS, a-Roman poet, the author of a translation of the poems of Homer, which is no longer extant. (Wernsdorf, Poetae Lat. min. vol. iv. p. 577). [C. P. M.]
LABEO, CLAU'DIUS, a Batavian, was prefect of the Batavian «?«, which went over from Lupercus to Civilis. [CiviLis.] Civilis, whose rival he was in their native town, not being willing to incur the odium of putting him to death, and yet fearing that, if allowed to remain with his army, he might excite disaffection, sent him as a prisoner among the Frisii. He afterwards escaped, and offered his services to Vocula, who gave him a small force, with, which lie carried on an irregular warfare against the insurgents. He was defeated by Civilis, who, however, tried in vain to crush him. [CiviLis.] (Tac. Hist. iv. 18, 56, 66, 70.) [P.S.]
LABEO, CORNE'LIUS, a writer cited by Macrobius. He wrote books de Fastis (Saturn, i. 16), and de Oraculo Apollmis Clarii (i. 18). From the former work are probably extracted the passages cited in Saturn, i. 12. He evidently went deep into mythological speculations. That he wrote a treatise entitled De Diis Penatibus cannot fairly be inferred from Saturn, iii. 4, though it is clear that he treated of the Penates. In Saturn. iii. 10, Labeo, without the name Cornelius (Labeo, sexagesimo et octavo libro), is coupled with Ateius Capito, and it is evident from the context, that here the same Labeo is meant as in Saturn, iii. 4. Hence, there appears to be some ground for suspecting that Macrobius intends to designate the celebrated jurist Antistius Labeo, the contemporary of Capito, and has given to him by mistake the name Cornelius. This suspicion is confirmed, when we find that Cornelius Labeo is nowhere mentioned but in Macrobius, that Labeo, without any additional name, is cited by other writers as having written on exactly similar subjects ; and when we know that Antistius Labeo the jurist wrote upon pontifical law, was given to mythological research, and was learned in antiquity (literas antiqiiiores altio-resque penetraverat, Gell. xiii. .10). Servius (ad Virg. Aen. iii. 168) cites a work of Labeo de Diis Animalibus, and Fulgentius (de Prisco Ser-mone, § 4. s. v. Manales) gives a fragment from the work of Labeo de Disciplinis Hetruscis Tagetis et Bacdietidis. There are several passages relating to ancient Roman mythology, cited from Labeo by St. Augustin (De Civ. Dei9 ii. 11 (compare viii. 13), ii. 14, iii. 25, ix. 19, xxii. 28).
Now we know from the citations of Festus (s. vv. Proculiunt) Spurcum^ Prox, Sistere fana), that Antistius Labeo, the jurist, wrote a treatise, containing at least 15 books, de Jure Pontificio, and it is not unlikely that the 68th book, cited by Macrobius (Saturn, iii. 10), is one of the books of this treatise. Pomponius (Dig. 1. tit. 2. s. 2. § 47) tells us that Antistius Labeo left behind him 400 volumes. The work De Offido Augurum^ mentioned by Festus (s. v. Remisso), probably formed a part of the treatise De Jure Pontificio. It cannot be doubted that the Labeo cited by Festus (s. v. Popularia Sacray Puilia Saaxi), by Pliny (H. N.
x. 15.), and by Aulus Gellius (xv. 27), from the work of Laelius Felix ad Q. Mucium, is Antistius Labeo the jurist. Antistius Labeo probably treated of the Penates as Cornelius Labeo did, according to Macrobius, for we learn from Festus (s. v. Penatis) that Antistius Labeo thought that the word Penatis might be used in the singular number. Other fragments, similarly relating to antiquarian and pontifical researches (e. g. Festus, s. v. Septimontio, Prosimurium, Scriptum Lapidem, Secespita, Subigere Arietem ; Plut. Quaest.Rom. c. 46), where Antistius alone or Antistius Labeo is expressly mentioned, confirm our opinion as to the mistake of Macrobius (who is not accurate in names), and as to the iden tity of the jurist with the writer whom he calls Cornelius Labeo. (Heinec. Hist. Jur. Rom. § 182 ; Bach. Hist. Jur. Rom. iii. 1. § 10 ; Bynkershoeck, Praetermissa ad Pomponium, § 47 ; Dirksen,.&m$- stuche aus den Schnften der Romischen Juristen, p. 74—83.) [J.T. G.}.
LABEO, DOMI'TIUS. In Dig. 28. tit. 1. s. 27, is contained an epistle of Domitius Labeo to Juventius Celsus, with the rude answer of the latter [celsus, Vol. I. p. 662]. In Dig. 41. tit. 3. s. 30. § 1, Pomponius cites Labeo Libris Episto-larum^ and Cujas supposes that for Labeo should be read Javolenus, as the Libri Epistolarum of Antistius Labeo the jurist are nowhere else mentioned ; but there is nothing unusual in the work of a jurist being a7ra£ \ey6/u.€vov.
It is not unlikely, indeed, that the Libri Epistolarum cited by Pomponius is identical with the Libri Responsorum of Antistius Labeo, of which the 15th book is cited by Ulpian, in Coll. Leg. Rom. et Mos. xii. 7. We have Labeo rescribit in Dig, 37. tit. 1. s. 3. § 1. and in Dig. 33. tit. 7. s. 12. § 35, we find the expression Neratius, lib. iv, epistolarum respondit^ showing that epistolae and responsa may be used synonymously. As the proposed alteration of Cujas is unnecessary, so there is no need for the conjecture of Bertrandus (De Jurisp. i. 10. § 9), that the Labeo mentioned in Dig. 41. tit. 3. s. 30. § 1. is Domitius Labeo. In Dig. 28. tit. 1. s. 27, Domitius Labeo is the questioner, and it is the jurist who is questioned from whom we should expect the publication of Epistolae. There is nothing even to prove that Domitius Labeo was a jurist, though he is classed as such by Cotta, Rivallius, Eberlinus and others. It is true that one jurist sometimes consulted another, as Atilicinus consulted Proculus (Dig. 23. tit. 4. s. 17), but epistolae were more frequently addressed to jurists by non-professional persons. B. Rutilius ( Vitae Icforum, c. 60) seems to think that in Dig. 35. tit. 1. s. 39. § 40, the extract is taken from one Labeo, and contains a citation of another Labeo, and that Domitius Labeo cites the earlier jurist, Antistius Labeo ; but in the extract referred to, it is Javolenus who cites Antistius Labeo. (Guil. Grot, de Vit. let. ii. 4. § 8 ; Menage, Amoen. Jur. c. 20 ; Alphen, de Javdleno, c. 4. § 2.)
It has been supposed by some that the ignorance of law manifested by Domitius Labeo in his celebrated letter, is rather an argument, that he was not a jurist, and Celsus has been thought unpolite, but not hasty, in charging him with folly. But F. Kammerer (Beitr'dge zur GescJdchte und Theorie des Romischen Rechts, pp. 208—226) has shown that this question may have a deeper meaning than is commonly supposed. We find from Ulpian (Dig. 28. tit. 1. s. 21. § 2), that in wills whero