them, and to have been buried in the forum near
the rostra, were a stone figure of a lion marked his
tomb. Others, however, believed that Romulus
was buried there. (Festus, s. v. Niger Lapis;
Dionys. i. 87; Hartung, Die Relig. d. Röm. vol. ii.
p. 190.)
[L. S.]

FAUSTUS, a tragic poet of the time of Juvenal (vii. 12).

Admonitio and exhortations, all addressed to the monks of Lerins, while he presided over their community. (Martene et Durand, Scriptor. d Monumentor, ampliss. Collectio, vol. ix. p. 142. fol. Paris, 1733; Brockie, Codex Regularum, &c. Append. p. 469, fol. Aug. Vind. 1759; Bibl. Max. Patr. Lugdun. 1677. vol. viii. p. 545, 547; Basnage, Thesaurus Monumentor. &c. vol. i. p. 350. fol. Amst. 1725.)

5. Homilia de S. Maximi Laudibus, erroneously included among the homilies ascribed to Eusebius Emesenus, who flourished under Constantius before the establishment of a monastery at Lerins. (Bibl. Magna Patr. Colon. Agripp. fol. 1618, vol. v. p. 1. No. 12.)

6. Epistolae. Nineteen are to be found in the third part of the fifth volume of the Bibl. Mag. Patr. Colon. Agripp. fol. 1618, and the most interesting are contained in Bibl. Max. Patr. Lugdun. vol. viii. p. 524, 548-554. See also Basnage, Thes. Mon. vol. i. p. 343. These letters are addressed to different persons, and treat of various points connected with speculative theology, and the heresies prevalent at that epoch. (Sidon. Apollin. Carm. Euchar. ad Faustum; Gennad. de Viris Ill. 85; Baronius, Annal. vol. vi. ad ann. 490; Tillemont, vol. xvi. p. 433; Wiggers, de Joanne Cassiano, &c. Rostoch. 1824, 1825, and other historians of semipelagianism enumerated at the end of the article CASSIANUS.) [W. R.]

FAUSTUS, an African bishop of the Manichaeans, who, according to St. Augustin, was a man of great natural shrewdness and persuasive eloquence, but altogether destitute of cultivation or learning. He published about A. D. 400 an attack upon the Catholic faith, a work known to us from the elaborate reply by the bishop of Hippo, Contra Faustum Manichaeum," extending to thirtyfive books, arranged in such a manner that the arguments of the heretic are first stated in his own words, and then confuted. (See vol. viii. of the Benedictine edition of St. Augustine.) [W. R.] FAUSTUS, surnamed REIENSIS (otherwise Regensis, or Regiensis) from the episcopal see over which he presided, was a native of Brittany, the contemporary and friend of Sidonius Apollinaris. Having passed his youth in the seclusion of a cloister, he succeeded Maximus, first as abbot of Lerins, afterwards in A. D. 472, as bishop of Riez, in Provence, and died about A. D. 490, or, according to Tillemont, some years later. For a considerable period he was regarded as the head of the Semipelagians [CASSIANUS], and, in conse FAUSTUS, A'NNIUS, a man of equestrian quence of the earnestness and success with which rank, and one of the informers (delatores) in the he advocated the doctrines of that sect, was stig-reign of Nero, was condemned by the senate in matised as a heretic by the Catholic followers of A. D. 69, on the accusation of Vibius Crispus. St. Augustin, while his zeal against the Arians (Tac. Hist. ii. 10.) excited the enmity of Euric, king of the Visigoths, by whom he was driven into exile about A. D. 481, and did not return until A. D. 484, after the death of his persecutor. Notwithstanding the heavy charges preferred against the orthodoxy of this prelate, it is certain that he enjoyed a wide reputation, and possessed great influence, while alive, and was worshipped as a saint after death, by the citizens of Riez, who erected a basilica to his memory, and long celebrated his festival on the 18th of January.

The works of Faustus have never been collected and edited with care, and hence the accounts given by different authorities vary considerably. The following list, if not absolutely complete, embraces every thing of importance :

1. Professio Fidei, contra eos, qui per solam Dei Voluntatem alios dicunt ad Vitam attrahi, alios in Mortem deprimi. (Bibl. Max. Patr. Lugdun. 1677, vol. viii. p. 523.)

2. De Gratia Dei et Humanae Mentis libero Arbitrio Libri II. (Bibl. Max. Patr. Lugdun. vol. viii. p. 525.)

These two treatises, composed about A. D. 475, present a full and distinct developement of the sentiments of the author with regard to original sin, predestination, free will, election, and grace, and demonstrate that his views corresponded closely with those entertained by Cassianus.

3. Responsio ad Objecta quaedam de Ratione Fidei Catholicae ; an essay, as the title implies, on -some points connected with the Arian controversy. It is included in the collection of ancient French ecclesiastical writers published by P. Pithou, 4to. 1586.

4. Sermones Sea ad Monachos, together with an

FAUSTUS CORNELIUS SULLA. [SULLA.] FEBRIS, the goddess of fever, or rather the averter of fever. She had three sanctuaries at Rome, the most ancient and celebrated of which was on the Palatine; the second was on the area, which was adorned with the monuments of Marius, and the third in the upper part of the vicus longus. In these sanctuaries amulets were dedicated which people had worn during a fever. (Val. Max. ii. 5. § 6; Cic. de Leg. ii. 11; de Nat. Deor. iii. 25; Aelian, V. H. xii. 11). The worship of this divinity at Rome is sufficiently accounted for by the fact, that in ancient times the place was visited by fevers as much as at the present day. [L. S.]

FE BRUUS, an ancient Italian divinity, to whom the month of February was sacred, for in the latter half of that month great and general purifications and lustrations were celebrated, which were at the same time considered to produce fertility among men as well as beasts. Hence the month of February was also sacred to Juno, the goddess of marriage, and she was therefore surnamed Februata, or Februtis. (Fest. s. v. Februarius; Arnob. iii. 30.) The name Februus is connected with februare (to purify), and februae (purifications). (Varro, de L.L. vi. 13; Ov. Fast. ii. 31, &c.) Another feature in the character of this god, which is however intimately connected with the idea of purification, is, that he was also regarded as a god of the lower world, for the festival of the dead (Feralia) was likewise celebrated in February (Macrob. Sat. 4, 13; Ov. Fast. ii. 535, &c.); and Anysius (ap. J. Lydum, de Mens. i. p. 68) states, that Februus in Etruscan signified the god of the lower world (xaтax@óvios). Hence Februus was identified with Pluto. When the

expiatory sacrifices were burnt, the people threw the ashes backwards over their heads into the water. (Serv. ad Virg. Georg. i. 43; Isidor. Orig. v. 33; Voss. in Virg. Eclog. viii. 101.) [L. S.] FELICITAS, the personification of happiness, to whom a temple was erected by Lucullus in B. c. 76, which, however, was burnt down in the reign of Claudius. (Plin. H. N. xxxiv. 8; Augustin. de Civ. Dei, iv. 18, 23; comp. Cic. in Verr. iv. 2, 57.) Felicitas is frequently seen on Roman medals, in the form of a matron, with the staff of Mercury (caduceus) and a cornucopia. Sometimes also she has other attributes, according to the kind of happiness she represents. (Lindner, de Felicitate Dea ex Numis illustrata, Arnstadt, 1770; Rasche, Lex Num. ii. 1, p. 956.) The Greeks worshipped the same personification, under the name of EuTuxla, who is frequently represented in works of

Hist. Eccl. ii. 20.) His government, however, though cruel and oppressive, was strong. Disturbances were vigorously suppressed, the country was cleared of the robbers who infested it, and the seditions raised by the false prophets and other impostors, who availed themselves of the fanaticism of the people, were effectually quelled. (Joseph. Ant. xx. 8, Bell. Jud. ii. 13; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 21; comp. Acts, xxi. 38, xxiv. 2.) He was recalled in A. D. 62, and succeeded by Porcius Festus; and the chief Jews of Caesareia (the seat of his government) having lodged accusations against him at Rome, he was saved from condign punishment only by the influence of his brother Pallas with Nero (Joseph. Ant. xx. 8. § 9; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 22; Acts, xxiv. 27). For the account which Tacitus (Hist. v. 9) gives of his marriage with one Drusilla, clearly a different person from the Jewess already mentioned, and a grand-daughter of Antony and Cleopatra, see Vol. I. p. 1075, b, and comp. Casaub. ad Sueton. Claud. 28. [E. E.]

FELIX, BULLA, a celebrated robber chief, who, having collected a band of 600 followers, ravaged Italy for the space of two years, during the reign of Septimius Severus, setting at defiance all the efforts of the imperial officers to effect his capture, till at length he was betrayed by a mistress, taken prisoner, and thrown to wild beasts. Dion Cassius (lxxvi. 21) has preserved several curious anecdotes of his exploits, which were characterised by a combination of reckless daring and consummate prudence. [W. R.]

FELIX, CA'SSIUS.
PHISTA.]

FELIX CLAUDIUS.

[CASSIUS IATROSO

[FELIX, ANTONIUS.]

to Victorianus, the chief secretary of the Vandal monarch. (Anthol. Lat. iii. 34-37, vi. 86, ed. Burmann, or n. 291-295, ed. Meyer.) [W. R.]

FELIX, ANTO'NIUS, procurator of Judaea, was a brother of the freedman Pallas, and was himself a freedman of the emperor Claudius I. Suidas (s. v. Kaúdios) calls him Claudius Felix; and it is probable that he was known by his patron's name as well as by that which marked his relation to the empress's mother, Antonia, by whom he may have been manumitted. The date of his appointment by Claudius to the government of Judaea is uncertain. It would seem from the account of Tacitus (Ann. xii. 54), that he and FELIX, FLA'VIUS, an African who flourished Ventidius Cumanus were for some time joint pro- towards the close of the fifth century, the author of curators, Galilee being held by Cumanus, and five short pieces in the Latin Anthology. Of these Samaria by Felix; that both of them connived at the first four celebrate the magnificence and utility the acts of violence and robbery mutually committed of the "Thermae Alianae," constructed in the by their respective subjects, and enriched them- vicinity of Carthage by King Thrasimund, within selves by the spoils which each party brought back the space of a single year; the fifth is a whining from their incursions; that Quadratus, who competition for an ecclesiastical appointment, addressed manded in Syria, was commissioned to take cognizance of these proceedings, and to try both the provincials and their governors; and that, while he condemned Cumanus, he saved Felix by placing him openly among the judges and thus deterring his accusers. But, if we follow Josephus, we must believe that Cumanus was sole procurator during the disturbances in question, and that, when he was condemned and deposed, Felix was sent from Rome as his successor, probably about A. D. 51, and with an authority extending over Judaea, Samaria, Galilee, and Petraea (Joseph. Ant. xx. 5—7, Bell. Jud. ii. 12; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 19; Vales. ad loc.). In his private and his public character alike Felix was unscrupulous and profligate, nor is he unjustly described in the killing words of Tacitus (Hist. v. 9), "per omnem saevitiam et libidinem jus regium servili ingenio exercuit." Having fallen in love with Drusilla, daughter of Agrippa I., and wife of Azizus, king of Emesa, he induced her to leave her husband; and she was still living with him in A. D. 60, when St. Paul preached before him "of righteousness, temper ance, and judgment to come." (Joseph. Ant. xx. 7. §2; Acts, xxiv. 25.) Jonathan, the high priest, having become obnoxious to him by unpalatable advice he procured his assassination. (Joseph. Ant. xx. 8. § 5. Bell. Jud. ii. 13. § 3; Euseb.

FELIX, LAE'LIUS. A jurist, named Laelius, flourished in the time of Hadrian; for it appears from a fragment of Paulus, in Dig. 5. tit. 4. s 3, that Laelius, in one of his works, mentions having seen in the palace a free woman, who was brought trom Alexandria, in Egypt, in order to be exhibited to Hadrian, with five children, four of whom were brought into the world at one birth, and the fifth. forty days afterwards. Gaius (Dig. 34. tit. 5. s. 7) tells the same story, without mentioning the interval of forty days; and we find from him that the name of the woman was Serapia. (Compare also Julianus, in Dig. 46. tit. 3. s. 36; Capitolin. Anton. Pius, 9; Phlegon, de Rebus Mirab. 29.) Indeed, the learned Ant. Augustinus, without sufficient reason, suspects that Gaius was no other than Laelius, designated by his praenomen. Laelius is cited by Paulus in another passage (Dig. 5. tit. 3. s. 43), which also relates to the law of he reditas.

The Laelius of the Digest is, by most writers upon the subject (e. g. Guil. Grotius, Heineccius, and Bach), identified with Laelius Felix, who wrote notes upon Q. Mucius Scaevola (librum ad Q. Mucium), from which Gellius (xv. 27) makes

some interesting extracts, explaining the distinctions | value in a theological point of view is not very between the different kinds of comitia. In this great, since the various topics are touched upor work Felix cites Labeo. Zimmern (R. R. G. i. lightly, the end in view being evidently to furnish § 89), after Conradi and Bynkerschoek, moved by a ready reply to the most common popular objecthe archaic style of the extracts in Gellius, thinks tions. The censure of Dupin, who imagined that it not improbable that the Laelius Felix of that he could detect a tendency to materialism, seems author was more ancient than the Laelius of the to have been founded upon a misapprehension of Digest, and that he may even be the same person the real import of the passages whose orthodoxy he with the preceptor of Varro. If this be the case, impugns. the Labeo he cites must be Q. Antistius Labeo, the father. The preceptor of Varro, however, who is stated by Gellius (xvi. 8) to have written an essay on oratorical introductions (Commentarium de Proloquiis), is, according to a different reading, not Laelius, but L. Aelius, and was perhaps the grammarian, L. Aelius Stilo. In Pliny (H. N. xiv. 13) it is doubtful whether the name mentioned in connection with Scaevola and Capito should be read Laelius, or L. Aelius. (Dirksen, Bruchstücke aus den Schriften der Römischen Juristen, p. 101; Maiansius, ad XXX. Ictorum Fragm. Comment. vol. ii. p. 208-217.) [J. T. G.]

FELIX MAGNUS, a fellow-student and correspondent of Sidonius Apollinaris, and consequently lived between A. D. 430-480. Felix was of the family of the Philagrii (Sidon. Propempt. ad Libell. 90, Ep. ii. 3), and was raised to the rank of patrician (Ep. ii. 3). The letters of Sidonius to Felix are curiously illustrative of the distress and dismemberment of the Roman provinces north of the Alps in the fifth century, A. D.

A poem (Carm. ix.) and five letters (ii. 3, iii. 4, 7, iv. 5, 10) are addressed by Sidonius to Felix.

[W. B. D.]

FELIX, M. MINU'CIUS, a distinguished Roman lawyer, the author of a dialogue entitled Octavius, which occupies a conspicuous place among the early Apologies for Christianity. The speakers are Caecilius Natalis, a Pagan, and Octavius Januarius, a true believer, who, while rambling along the shore near Ostia during the holidays of the vintage with their common friend Minucius, are led into a discussion in consequence of an act of homage paid by Caecilius to a statue of Serapis, a proceeding which calls forth severe, although indirect animadversions from Octavius. Irritated by these remarks, Caecilius commences a lengthened discourse, in which he combines a formal defence of his own practice with an attack upon the principles of his companion. His arguments are of a twofold character. On the one hand he assails revealed religion in general, and on the other the Christian religion specially. Octavius replies to all his objections with great force and eloquence; and when he concludes, Caecilius, feeling himself defeated, freely acknowledges his errors, and declares himself a convert to the truth.

The tone of this production is throughout earnest and impressive; the arguments are well selected, and stated with precision; the style is for the most part terse and pregnant, and the diction is extremely pure; but it frequently wears the aspect of a cento in which a number of choice phrases have been culled from various sources. There is, moreover, occasionally a want of simplicity, and some of the sentiments are expressed in language which borders upon declamatory inflation. But these blemishes are not so numerous as to affect seriously our favourable estimate of the work as a whole, which, in the opinion of many, entitles the author to rank not muca below Lactantius. Its

It is remarkable that the Octavius was for a long period believed to belong to Arnobius, and was printed repeatedly as the eighth book of his treatise Adversus Gentes, notwithstanding the express testimony of St. Jerome, whose words (de Viris Ill. 58) are so clear as to leave no room for hesitation.

The time, however, at which Minucius Felix lived is very uncertain. By some he is placed as early as the reign of M. Aurelius; by some as low as Diocletian; while others have fixed upon various points intermediate between these two extremes. The critics who, with Van Hoven, carry him back as far as the middle of the second century, rest their opinion chiefly on the purity of his diction, upon the indications afforded by allusions to the state of the Church, both as to its internal constitution, and to the attention which it attracted from without, upon the strong resemblance which the piece bears to those Apologies which confessedly belong to the period in question, and upon the probability that the Fronto twice named in the course of the colloquy is the same with the rhetorician, M. Cornelius Fronto, so celebrated under the Antonines. But this position, although defended with great learning, can scarcely be maintained against the positive evidence afforded- by St. Jerome, who, in his account of illustrious men, where the individuals mentioned succeed each other in regular chronological order, sets down Minucius Felix after Tertullian and before Cyprian, an arrangement confirmed by a paragraph in the Epistola ad Magnum, and not contradicted by another in the Apologia ad Pammachium, where Tertullian, Cyprian, and Felix, are grouped together in the same clause. The cir cumstance that certain sentences in the Octavius and in the De Idolorum Vanitate are word for word the same, although it proves that one writer copied from the other, leads to no inference as to which was the original. We may therefore acquiesce in the conclusion that our author flourished about A. D. 230. That he was a lawyer, and attained to eminence in pleading, is distinctly asserted both by St. Jerome and Lactantius; but beyond this we know nothing of his personal history, except in so far as we are led by his own words to believe that he was by birth a Gentile, and that his conversion did not take place until he had attained to manhood. We are further told (Hieron. l. c.) that a book entitled De Fato, or Contra Mathematicos, was circulated under his name, but that, although evidently the work of an accomplished man, it was so different in style and general character from the Octavius, that they could scarcely have proceeded from the same pen.

It has already been remarked that this dialogue was long supposed to form a part of the treatise of Arnobius, Adversus Gentes. It was first assigned to its rightful owner, and printed in an independent form, by Balduinus (Heidelberg. 1560), who prefixed a dissertation, in which he proved his

point so indisputably, that we are surprised that | such an error should have escaped the keen eyes of Erasmus and other great scholars. Since that time a vast number of editions have been published, a full account of which will be found in Funccius, Schönemann, and Bähr. For general purposes, that of Jac. Gronovius (8vo. Lug. Bat. 1707) forming one of the series of Variorum Classics; that of Lindner (8vo. Longosal. 1760) reprinted, with a preface by Ernesti (ibid. 1773); and that of Muralto, with a preface, by Orelli (8vo. Turic. 1836), will be found the most useful. The German translations by J. G. Russwurm (4to. Hamb. 1824), and by J. H. B. Lübkert (8vo. Leip. 1836), may be consulted with advantage.

In illustration, we may read the essay of Balduinus, which is appended to the edition of Gronovius; J. D. Van Hoven, Epistola ad Gerh. Meermann, 4to. Camp. 1766, reprinted in Lindner's edition of 1773; H. Meier, Comment. de Minucio Felice (8vo. Turic. 1824); and the remarks prefixed to the translation of Russwurm. (Hieronym. de Viris Ill. 58, Ep. ad Magnum, Apolog. ad Pammach., Epitaph. Nepot.; Lactant. Div. Instit. i. 9, v. 1.; Dupin, Bibl. Eccles. vol. i. p. 117; Funccius, de L. L. Vegeta Senectute, x. § 1016; Le Nourry, Apparat. ad Bibl. Patr. vol. ii. diss. i.; Schröck, Kirchengescht. vol. iii. p. 417; Schönemann, Bibl. Patr. Lat. iii. § 2; Bähr, Gesch. der Römisch. Litt. Suppl. Band ii. Abtheil. § 1821.)

part of the extract which appears to be the text
upon which Julianus comments.
To this it may
be answered, but without much plausibility, that
Julianus took Urseius with the notes of Cassius and
Proculus as the subject of his commentary.

was the precise subject of his works has not been recorded, although it might perhaps be collected from an attentive examination of the extracts from Julianus ad Urseium, in the Digest. In Dig. 9. tit. 2. s. 27. § 1, Urseius is quoted by Ulpian as reporting an opinion of Proculus (et ita Proculum 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 Urseium extract from Marcellus (Dig. 46. tit. 3. s. 67), apud scribit. Does the expression, apud Ferocem 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 Servius 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. § 1, Urseius is than Servius. On the other hand, we have (Ulrepresented as quoting Proculus, for the latter in- pian in Dig. 7. tit. 1. 8. 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, it seems natural to interpret Cassius apud of apud, the expression Cassius apud Vitellium Urseium 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 Julianum Proculus ait, to be understood in different senses, quaerit, putatque, &c. 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. Digestorum_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. s. 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. 1. suppose Ferox to have been the annotator and citer 8. 11. § 6). In Dig. 35. tit. 2. s. 56. § 2, is a both of Proculus and Cassius. This is likely on fragment which purports 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 follow's the mention of Cassius. Again, in Dig. 23. that the text of Marcellus consists of cases with the tit. 3. s. 48. § 1 (from Julianus in libro 2, ad Ur- remarks of Scaevola. What else can we conclude seium Ferocem), Proculus is mentioned in that from the expressions Julianus lib. xxx. Dig. scribit,