Scanned text contains errors.
comparison of authorities, appears to us by far the most probable:—
Didia Clara Augusta, destined for her the son of
A son, to whom Didia Clara was betrothed.
has been sometimes confounded with the jurist Julianus.
It appears from Spartianus, that the emperor had a brother, Numius Albinus, and from an inscription in Gruter (Inscr. p. 459, 2), it has been thought that Numius Albinus was the son of a Vibia Sal via Varia. Hence Reinesius conjectures that the Vibia of the inscription and the Aemilia Clara of Spartianus are the same person, while Heineccius supposes that Numius Albinus was called the brother of the emperor, though he had neither the same father nor the same mother, as being the son by a former husband of a former wife of the emperor's father. According to Heineccius, one Numius and Vibia were the parents of Numius Albinus ; then, after the death of Numius the father, Petronius Didius and Vibia were the parents of Didius Proculus; then, after the death of Vibia, Petronius Didius and Aemilia Clara were the parents of the emperor.
Julianus was born about the year A. D. 100, after Trajan had become emperor. This is inferred from the date of his labours on the Edict, which, according to Eusebius, were undertaken about A. d. 132, when he was probably praetor. At this period the leges annales were strictly observed, and the regular age for the praetorship was about thirty. (Plin. Ep. vii. 30 ; Dion Cass. lii. p. 479.) He is the first jurist named in the Florentine Index to the Digest, though there are fragments in that work from nine jurists of earlier date, and, though he was not the last of the Sabinians, he is the last jurist named by his contemporary Pomponius in the fragment De Origine Juris (Dig. 1. tit. 2. s. 2). That he flourished under Antoninus Pius, and survived that emperor, may be collected from several passages in the Digest. (Dig. 4. tit. 2. s. 18; Dig. 3. tit. 5. s. 6.) In Dig. 37. tit. 14. s. 17, the Divi Fratres, Antoninus Marcus and Lucius Verus, call him their friend, a designation ordinarily given by the emperors to living members of their council. By many it has been supposed that he lived to a great age, from a misunderstanding of Dig. 40. tit. 5. s. 19. In that passage, the person who speaks of having attained his 78th year, and of being desirous to gain information, though he had one foot in the grave, is not Julianus, but the client who seeks his opinion.
In Dig. 40. tit. 2. s. 5, he speaks of Javolenus as his praeceptor. It was usual to manumit slaves before praetors and consuls, when they held their levees. Whether the magistrate could manumit his own slaves at his own levee was doubted. Julianus says that he remembered Javolenus having done so in Africa and Syria, that he followed his praeceptor's example in his own praetorship and consulship, and recommended other praetors who consulted him to act in the same manner. It thus appears that he was consul, and Spartianus says that he was prae-fectus urbi, and twice consul, but his name does not appear in the Fasti among the consules ordinarii. He was in Egypt when Serapias, the Alexandrian woman who produced five children at a birth, was in Rome. (Dig. 46. tit. 3. s. 46.) Pancirolus and others, from supposing the jurist to be referred to in passages of the Digest (e. g. Dig. 48. tit. 3. s. 12) which probably relate to other Sal vii, have conferred upon him various provincial governments. The time of his death is uncertain, but it appears that he was buried in the Via Lavicana, for Spartianus (Julian, c. «#.) says that the body of the emperor was deposited in the monument of his proavus.
It was under Hadrian that he chiefly signalised himself. That emperor was accustomed, when he presided at trials, to have the advice and assistance not only of his friends and officers of state, but of jurists approved by the senate. Among the most eminent of this legal council were Juventius Celsus, Salvius Julianus, and Neratius Priscus. (Spart. Hadr.) By the order of Hadrian, he collected and arranged the clauses which the praetors were accustomed to insert in their annual edict, and appears to have condensed his materials, and to have omitted antiquated provisions. The exact nature and extent of this reformation of the Edict is one of the most obscure and disputed questions in the history of the Roman law. Some legal historians look upon it as a most important change, and suppose that the power of departing from the Edict by additions or modified clauses was now taken away