Labeo

• a surname: labra, a quibus Brocchi Labeones dicti, Plin. 11, 37, 60, § 159.—Esp. a surname of the Antistii, Atinii, Fabii, and other Roman families; so, Antistius Labeo, a celebrated teacher of law in the time of Augustus, Gell. 13, 10, 1; Dig. 1, 2, 2, § 44; 47; Gai. Inst. 1, 188.

a Roman jurist, one of those disciples of Servius Sulpicius, who are stated by Pomponius (Dig. 1. tit. 2. s. 2.44) to have written books which were digested by Aufidius Namusa. He was the father of the more eminent jurist of the same name, who lived under Augustus. In his attachment to the ancient republican liberty, he joined the conspiracy of Brutus and was one of the murderers of Julius Caesar. Constant to the party he had espoused, he was present at the battle of Pharsalia, and, after the defeat, was unwilling to survive Brutus, who, he was told, had pronounced his name with a sigh before his death. Having dug in his tent a hole of the length of his body, he settled his worldly affairs, and sent messages to his wife and children. Then, taking the hand of his most faithful slave, he turned him round (as was usual in the ceremony of manumission), and, giving him his sword, presented his throat to be stabbed, and was buried in his tent in the hole which he had dug. (Schol. ad Horat. Sat. 1.3. 83 ; Plut. Brut. 12; Appian, App. BC 4.135.) [J.T.G]

the son of the subject of the preceding article, adopted the republican opinions of his father, and finally eclipsed him in reputation as a jurist. His praenomen is uncertain. The Scholiast on Horace (Sat. 1.3. 83) calls him Marcus, and Gellius (20.1) calls him Quintus. In his youth he was prompted by his active intellect to cultivate philosophy, and to apply himself to various branches of learning. He became a proficient in logic, philosophy, and archaeology, and turned these acquirements to profit in the cultivation of law. In tracing the origin and signification of Latin words he was peculiarly skilful, and by this kind of knowledge he was able to unravel many legal knots. He received the elements of his legal education from Trebatius, but he also listened to the instruction of Tubero and Ofilius. Pomponius states that he was a legal innovator (plurima innovate instituit, Dig. 1. tit. 2. s. 2.47), whereas, the letter of Capito, cited by Gellius, makes him out to be a strict adherent to ancient usages (ratum tamen nil haberet, nisi quod justum sanctumque esse in Romanis antiquitatibus legisset, Gel. 13.12). Under the article Capito [Vol. I. p. 600], we have mentioned the manner in which it has been attempted to reconcile these testimonies. Though in private law Labeo was an innovator, he held fast to the ancient forms of the constitution. The anecdote of his refusing to obey the summons of a tribune, while he admitted the right of a tribune to arrest (Gell. l.c.), is an instance of his pertinacity in matters of public right. On the other hand, his resort in his own case to codicilli (a word used in very different senses in Roman and in English law) instead of a formal testament, proves that he was not averse to every kind of legal novelty. (Inst. tit. 25, pr.) It is also a proof of the great authority he possessed, that codicilli were universally recognised as admissible, after the precedent which Labeo had afforded in his own case. If Labeo, our jurist, be referred to in Dig. 34. tit. 2. s. 32.6, we are in possession of a clause of his will, containing a bequest to his wife Neratia.

The rugged republicanism of Labeo (libertas quaedam nimia atque vecors) was not pleasing to Augustus, and it has been supposed by many that the Labcone insanior of Horace (Sat. 1.3. 80) was a stroke levelled against the jurist, in order to please the emperor; though Wieland has suggested that, at the time when Horace wrote his first book of Satires, Labeo the jurist was probably too young and undistinguished to provoke such sarcasm.

In the year B. C. 18 Labeo was one of those who were appointed by Augustus to nominate senators, and, in the exercise of his power, he nominated M. Lepidus, who was disliked by the emperor. On being threatened with punishment by Augustus, for selecting an unfit person, he answered, " Each of us has a right to exercise his own discretion, and what harm have I done in admitting into the senate one whom you allow to be pontiff?" The answer was clever, and not unacceptable to the emperor, who wished to be pontiff himself, but could not make up his mind to go to the length of depriving Lepidus of that dignity. A proposal was made in the senate, that the senators should guard Augustus by turns, by passing the night in his ante-chamber. Labeo, not liking the plan, but not wishing openly to oppose it, excused himself by saying, " I am a snorer, and not fit to sleep near the emperor." (D. C. 54.15; Suet. Aug. 54.)

We have already [Capito] fully adverted to the contrast between Labeo and Capito, and have given an account of the different legal sects which they founded. Tacitus (Tac. Ann. 3.75) calls these two great rival jurists of the age of Augustus duo decor pacis. The statement of Pomponius (l.c.), that Labeo refused the consulship, seems to be inconsistent with the statement of Tacitus (l.c.), that Labeo became popular from the wrong he suffered in not rising above the praetorship. The following is the most plausible explanation of the apparent inconsistency :--Labeo was of an older and far more distinguished family than Capito, whose ancestors first came into notice in the time of Sulla, whereas the Antistii are heard of in the earliest period of Roman history, and by reference to Eckhel it will be found that there are still many subsisting medals of the gens Antestia or Antistia, but none of the gens Atteia. In age, too, it is probable that Labeo was senior to Capito. The wrong spoken of by Tacitus may, therefore, have consisted in allowing Labeo to remain praetor at a time when regularly he might have expected the consulship, and in promoting Capito, out of the ordinary course, over his head. This wrong would not have been purged by a subsequent offer on the part of the emperor to make Labeo consul suffectus.

Perhaps the desire of leisure to pursue his studies may have been the real cause, or may have contributed, along with the feeling of having suffered a slight, as a cause of Labeo's refusal to accept political power, offered in such a way, and at such a time, that it possessed little value. Works

He devoted himself to reading and literature, and the study of his profession. Half of every year he spent at Rome in giving instruction to his pupils, and answering in public the questions of those who consulted him on legal points; and six months he passed in the country in writing books. Of these he left no fewer than four hundred behind him, a number at which we need not be surprised, when we consider how small in general were the ancient libri and volumina. His works were more in request in subsequent ages than those of most of the veteres. By Gains he is cited several times, and his name appears more than once in the Institutes. The extracts from Labeo in the Digest occupy about twelve pages in Hommel's Palingenesia Pandectarum. They are sixty-one in number, but the name of Labeo occurs in other passages of the Digest no fewer than five hundred and forty-one times. He wrote commentaries on the laws of the twelve tables (Gel. 1.12; ib. 7.15, where the second book is cited; ib. 20.1) and upon the Praetor's Edict, in at least four books (Gel. 13.10; Dig. 11. tit. 4. s. 1.5). Ulpian cites Labeo libro primo praetoris vrbani (Dig. 50. tit. 16. s. 19), and refers to his thirtieth book praetoris peregrini (Dig. 4. tit. 3. s. 9.4). The books so cited by Ulpian may form part of the general work on the Praetor's Edict. (Wieling, de Labeonis ad Edict. Libris, 4to. Franeq. 1731.) Πειθανῶν βιβλία ὀκτώ, and Posteriorumn βιβλία δέκα

Of his works, the Florentine Index mentions only Πειθανῶν βιβλία ὀκτώ, and Posteriorum βιβλία δέκα, and these are the works from which the greater number of passages from Labeo that occur in the Digest are taken. The Peithanon or Probabilium are cited sometimes simply (as in Dig. 19. tit. 1. s. 53), and sometimes with the addition a Paulo Epitomatorum (as in Dig. 28. tit. 1. s. 2). Labeo probably quoted fro remodelled editions of subsequent commentators

It is doubtful whether any of the remains of Labeo given in the Digest, even those which appear to be cited from his original writings, were not taken by the compilers from his works as they appeared in the remodelled editions of subsequent commentators. (Von Regius, Ἐναντιοφανῶν, 1.25, in Otto, Thes. vol. ii. p. 1493; Blume, in Savigny's Zeitschrift, vol. iv. p. 317, &c.) Assessement

The Peithanon of Labeo treated of general rules of law which, though probabilities, were sometimes fallacious; and Paulus, in his notes, directed attention chiefly to the particular cases which formed exceptions to the rule. (Bynkershoeck, Obs. 3.16.) Of the Libri Posteriorum of Labeo, and the Epitome of that work made by Javolenus, we have already treated under the article Javolenus. The Libri (qu. Liber) Epistolarum and Libri Responsorum of Labeo, are referred to under Labeo, Domitius, while his Commentarii de Jure Pontificio and his other theological works, are mentioned under Labeo, Cornelius. In ancient times, not only were commentaries written upon him by Paulus and Javolenus, but we read of the Notae upon Labeo of Proculus (Dig. 3. tit. 5. s. 10.1; Dig. 35. tit. 1. s. 69 ; Dig. 17. tit. 2. s. 65.5), and of a certain Quintus (Dig. 4. tit. 3. s. 7.7); and we find from Dig. 28. tit. 5. s. 17.5, that his Posteriorum Libri were annotated by Aristo and by Aulus (probably Aulus Cascellius). In modern times, according to Maiansius (Ad XXX. Ictorum Frag. Comment. vol. i. praef.), Sebastian Ortega commented specially on his remains; but such a work (like the works of many other Spanish jurists) is unknown to the legal bibliographers. Further Information

Bach. Hist. Jur. Rom. 3.1.10; Zimmern. R. R. G. vol. 1.82, 83; Chr. Thomasius, Comparatio Antistii Labeonis et Ateii Capitonis, 4to. Lips. 1683; Chr Thomasius, Comparatio Labeonis et Trebatii, 4to Lips. 1684; Corn. van Eck, De Vita, Moribus a Studiis M. Antistii Labeonis et C. Ateii Capitonis 8vo. Franeq. 1692, reprinted in Oelrich's Thesaurus Novus Dissertationum Juridicarum, vol. ii. tom. 2, p. 821-856; A. N. Moller, Selecta Quaedam, 4to. Traj. ad Rhen. 1763, reprinted in Oelrich's Thes. Nov. Dis. Jur. vol. ii. tom. 2, pp. 107-154; Neuber, Die juristische Klassiker, pp. 77-92, and pp. 209-216; P. Ph. Wolffhardt, De Posterioribus Labeonis, 4to. Rentel. 1751; Chr. Glob. Biener, Antistius Labeo, Juris Civilis Novator, 4to. Lips. 1786, reprinted (vol. i. No. 9) in Chr. Glob. Biener's Opuscula Academica, 2 vols. 4to. Lips. 1830; Oteyza et Olano, Paralipomenon et Electorum Juris Civilis, vol. i. in Meerman's Thesaurus, vol. i. pp. 619-622. [J.T.G]

a contemporary of Pliny, who mentions his fancy for small pictures (H. N. 35.4). Bertrandus (de Jurisp. 1.7.4) would read Antistius for Ateius, and, unmindful of chronology, would confound the picture-fancier with the celebrated jurist of the time of Augustus. But we ought probably to read Titidius instead of Atcius. See below, p. 695a. [J.T.G]

1. Tribune of the plebs in B. C. 197, and praetor peregrines in 195. (Liv. 33.22, 25, 42, 43.)

2. Praetor in B. C. 190. He received Sicily as his province. (Liv. 36.45. 37.2.) [C.P.M]

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]

a Batavian, was prefect of the Batavian ala, 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 he carried on an irregular warfare against the insurgents. He was defeated by Civilis, who, however, tried in vain to crush him. [Civilis.] (Tac. Hist. 4.18, 56, 66, 70.) [P.S]

a writer cited by Macrobius. He wrote books de Fastis (Saturn. 1.16), and de Oraculo Apollinis Clarii (1.18). From the former work are probably extracted the passages cited in Saturn. 1.12. He evidently went deep into mythological speculations. That he wrote a treatise entitled De Diis Penatibus cannot fairly be inferred from Saturn. 3.4, though it is clear that he treated of the Penates. In Saturn. 3.10, 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. 3.4. Hence, there appears to be some ground for suspecting that Macrobius intends to designate the celebrated jurist Antistius Labeo, the contemporary of Capitol, 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 antiquiores altioresque penetraverat, Gel. 13.10). Servius (ad Vig.. Aen. 3.168) cites a work of Labeo de Diis Animalibus, and Fulgentius (de Prisco Sermone, § 4. s. v. Manales) gives a fragment from the work of Labeo de Disciplinis Hetruscis Tagetis et Bacchetidis. There are several passages relating to ancient Roman mythology, cited from Labeo by St. Augustin (De CIV. Dei, 2.11 (compare 8.13), 2.14, 3.25, 9.19, 22.28).

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. 3.10), 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 Oficio 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. Polpularia Sacra, Puilia Saxa), by Pliny (Plin. Nat. 10.15), and by Aulus Gellius (15.27), 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. 100.46), 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 identity of the jurist with the writer whom he calls Cornelius Labeo. (Heinec. Hist. Jur. Rom. § 182 ; Bach. List. Jur. Rom. 3.1.10; Bynkershoeck, Praetermissa ad Pomponium, § 47; Dirksen, Bruchstücke aus den Schriften der Römischen Juristen, p. 74-83.) [J.T.G]

In Dig. 28. tit. 1. s. 27, is contained an epistle of Domitius Labeo to Juvcntius 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 Epistolarum, 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 ἅπαξ λεγόμενον.

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. 12.7. 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. 1.10.9), 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 Ictorum, 100.60) 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. Ict. 2.4.8; Ménage, Amoen. Jur. 100.20; Alphen, de Javoleno, 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. Kämmerer (Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theorie des Römischen 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 where there ought to be testes rogati, one who was accidentally present alterius rei causa could not be a witness. Ulpian qualifies the rule, by saying that a person, though asked to come for another purpose, might be a witness, if specially informed before the attestation that he was wanted as such. The question of Domitius Labeo may mean to ask whether a person, invited to write the will, and not specially to witness it, was a good witness, if he signed without further intimation that his testimony was required. [J.T.G]

was quaestor urbanus in B. C. 196. The augurs and priests had for some years resisted the payment of the tributum; but, after a stout contest, Labeo and his colleague L. Aurelius compelled them to yield the point, and pay up all arrears. (Liv. 33.42.) In B. C. 189 he was elected praetor, and was appointed by lot to the command of the fleet. Eager for some opportunity of distinguishing himself, he sailed from Ephesus to Crete, where it was reported that a large number of Roman citizens were in a state of slavery. None but the Gortynii heeded his demand that they should be surrendered; but from them he obtained a considerable number (4000 according to Valerius Antias), which afforded him a pretext for demanding a triumph. He then sent three ships to Macedonia, to demand the withdrawment of the garrisons of Antiochus from Aenus and Maronia. The treaty with Antiochus had just been concluded by Cn. Manlius, and in accordance with the terms of it Labeo was despatched to Patara, to destroy the ships of the king which were there. He afterwards got possession of Telmissus, and then conducted the fleet back to Italy. The triumph which he demanded was accorded to him, notwithstanding the opposition of the tribunes. (Liv. 37.47, 50, 60, 38.39, 47). In B. C. 185 he became a candidate for the consulship; but App. Claudius succeeded in getting his brother Publius elected in his stead. This was the second repulse of the kind which he had received. (Liv. 39.32). In the following year he was appointed one of the triumvirs for planting colonies at Potentia and Pisaurum. (Id. 44). In B. C. 183 he was elected consul with M. Claudius Marcellus. Liguria was assigned to the consuls as their province. (Id. 45.) He was created pontifex in B. C. 180. (40.42.) Cicero (De Off. 1.10) has a story of a trick by which either Labeo, or somebody else, having been appointed arbitrator between the towns of Nola and Neapolis, respecting some disputed land, obtained a tract of territory for the Romans. [C.P.M]

governor of the province of Moesia for eight years, in the reign of Tiberius. The emperor, in a letter to the senate, denounced him as guilty of maladministration and other offences. Labeo by a voluntary death anticipated the threatened execution. (A. D. 34.) His wife Paxaea imitated his example. (Tac. Ann. 4.47, 6.29; D. C. 58.24). [C.P.M]

a Roman painter, celebrated for small panel pictures. He was of praetorian rank, and was at one time proconsul of Gallia Narbonensis, in which office he made himself contemptible. He died at a great age, shortly before the time when Pliny the Elder wrote. (Plin. Nat. 35.4. s. 7.) The common reading is Ateius Labeo. Jan (Schulzeit. 1833, p. 723) suggested Titidius, which is adopted by Sillig, in his edition of Pliny. The MSS. are corrupt. [P.S]

(1) A Roman jurist, one of the murderers of Iulius Caesar. He put an end to his life after the battle of Philippi, B.C. 42.

(2) A son of the preceding, and a still more eminent jurist. He adopted the republican opinions of his father, and was in consequence disliked by Augustus. It is probable that the Labeone insanior of Horace was a stroke levelled against the jurist in order to please the emperor. Labeo wrote a large number of works, which are cited in the Digest. He was the founder of one of the two great legal schools spoken of under iurisprudentia. He died A.D. 17.