A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

146 FEROX FEROX.
was the precise subject of his works has not been part of the extract which appears' to be the text
recorded,'although it might perhaps be collected upon which Julianus comments. To this it may
from an attentive examination of the extracts from be answered, but without much plausibility, that
Julianus ad Urseium, in the Digest. In Dig. 9. Julianus took Urseius with the notes of Cassius and
tit. 2. s. 27. ~ 1, Urseius is quoted by Ulpian as -Proewlus as the subject of his commentary.
reporting an opinion of Proculus (et ita Proculumn It is singular that the meaning of the word apud
existimasse Urseius refert), and hence it has been in such connection, if it be not used in different
inferred that Urseius was a Proculian. In a frag- meanings,-important though it appears to be at
ment of Paulus (Dig. 39. tit. 3. s. 11. ~ 2) occurs first view, for the sake of legal biography and
the controverted expression, apud Ferocem Procu- chronology, to determine what that meaning is, —
lus ait. Conversely, in Dig. 44. tit. 5. s. 1. ~ 10, is still a matter of undecided controversy. On the
Cassius (i.e. C. Cassius Longinus) is quoted by one hand we have in an extract from Paulus (Dig.
Ulpian as reporting an opinion of Urseius (et Cas- 17. tit. 2. s. 65. ~ 8), Servius apud Alfenum notat;
sius existimasse Urseium refert); and, in Dig. 7. tit. in another extract from Paulus (Dig. 50. tit. 16.
4. s. 10. ~ 5, again occurs, in a fragment of Ulpian, s. 77), Servius apud Alfenum putat; and, in an
the controverted expression, Cassius apud Urseiumer extract from Marcellus (Dig. 46. tit. 3. s. 67), apud
scribit. Does the expression, apud Ferocel_ Pro- Alfenum Servius respondet. In these cases Servius,
culus ait, mean that Proculus is represented by Cicero's contemporary, who was the preceptor of
Ferox as saying what follows, or does it mean that Alfenus Varus (Dig. 1. tit. 2. s. 2. ~ 44), can
Proculus, in his notes upon Ferox, says? Is it scarcely be understood as commenting upon his
parallel to the expression, in the mouth of an junior. So we have Seruius apud Melam scribit,
English lawyer, Littleton says, in Coke? or *to the in an -extract from Ulpian (Dig. 33. tit. 9. s. 3.
expression, Coke on Littleton, says? The former ~ 10). Now Mela, though he may have been born
interpretation seems more probable, if we merely before Servius died, was probably a generation later
consider that in Dig. 9. tit. 2. s. 27. ~ I, Urseius is than Servius. On the other hand, we have (U1represented as quoting Proculus, for the latter in- pian in Dig. 7. tit. 1. s. 17. ~ 1) Aristo apud
terpretation would require us to suppose that each Cassium notat. Now Cassius was an elder concited the other, and it is not thought likely that a temporary of Aristo, who seems to have been a
senior and more distinguished jurist would cite or pupil of Cassius (Dig. 4. tit. 8. s. 40), and to recomment upon a'junior contemporary. But this ar- port his responsa (Dig. 17. tit. 2. s. 29. ~ 2), and
gument is reversed in the case of Urseius and Cas- we have evidence that Aristo wrote notes on Cassius. If we admit that Cassius cites Urseius, sius. (Ulpian in Dig. 7. tit. 1. s. 7. ~ 3.) If the
according to the present reading in Dig. 7. tit. 4. priority of date be allowed to determine the sense
s. 10. ~5, itseems natural to interpret Cassius apud of apud, the expression Cassius apud Vitellium
Urseiunz scribit, as showing that Cassius wrote upon notat (Ulpian in Dig. 33. tit. 9. s. 3. pr.) would
Urseius. There is less improbability that Cassius indicate that Cassius wrote notes upon Vitellius,
should have written upon Urseius than that Pro- for Vitellius was probably rather older than Casculus should'have done so, for Cassius was probably sius, having been commented upon by Masurius
younger than Proculus, and, though older than Sabinus, a contemporary of Tiberius. If it were
Urseius, he may have thought fit to criticise the not for the objection that Africanus was probably
writings of a young follower of the opposite school. a junior contemporary of Julianus, the much conWhat are we to conclude? Are the expressions troverted passage (Ulpian in Dig. 30. s. 39. pr.)
Cassius apud Urseium scribit, and apud Ferocem Africanus, in libro 20. Epistolarum, apud Julianumn
Proculus ait, to be understood in different senses, quaerit, putatque, Wc. might be interpreted to imply
-meaning in the first that Cassius annotated Fe- that a work of Julian contained an extract from the
rox,- in the second, that Ferox annotated Pro- 20th book of the Epistles of Africanus, in which
culus? Is it not more natural to suppose that' Africanus proposes a question and gives an opinion
Ferox annotated both, especially if there be inde- upon it. (See, for other interpretations of this pas.
pendent grounds for:supposing that he was later sage, the article AFRICANUS). The expressions
than both, and cited both in his writings? To Scaevola apud Julianum lib. 22. Diyestorum notat
this hypothesis the chief objection seems to be the (Dig. 2. tit. 14. s. 54), and in libro septimo Digespassage in Dig. 44. tit. 5.5s. 1. ~ 10; but such dif- torum Juliani Scaevola notat (Ulpian in Dig. 18.
ficulty, if it were of importance, ought to be got tit. 6. s. 10), have been generally thought to indiover by altering the reading (in accordance'with cate that Cervidius Scaevola commented upon Juthe more usual Latin order of object and subject) lianus, although this interpretation would seem to
to "et Cassium existimasse Urseius refert." By require in librum septimum, instead of in libro septhis simple change, we get rid of any supposition timo. With similar ambiguity we read Scaevola
as to two jurists citing each other, and are able to apud Marcellum notat (Ulpian in Dig. 24. tit. i.
suppose Ferox to have been the annotator and citer s. 11. ~ 6). In Dig. 35. tit. 2. s. 56. ~ 2, is a
both of Proculus and Cassius. This is likely on fragment which piuports to be an extract from
independent grounds. In'Dig. 30. s. 104, there is Marcellus, and contains a note of Scaevola. Is the
an extract from the work of Julianus upon Urseius extract given as it appeared in the original work of
Ferox, in which, apparently in the text of Urseius Marcellus, or is it taken from an edition of Marcommented upon by Julianus, is given a responsum cellus, to the original text of which were subseof Cassius. It is also by Urseius that Cassius quently'appended notes by Scaevola? From ~ 82
seems to be cited in Dig. 23. tit. 3.'s. 48. ~ 1, of the Fragmenta Vaticana, it is difficult to avoid
taken from the same'work of Julianus, for'the part concluding that the notes of Scaevola were written
of this extract which contains the note of Julianus upon the text of Marcellus, instead of supposing
follows the mention of Cassius. Again, in Dig. 23. that the text of Marcellus consists of cases with the
tit. 3. s.:48. ~ I (from Julianus in libro 2, ad Ur- remarks of Scaevola. What else can we conclude
seinm Farocem),'Proculus is mentioned in that from the expressions Julianus lib. xxe. Dig. scribit,