Q. ANTISTIIIS LABFO, the son, was a pupil of C. Trebatius; but contrary to the practice of that time, instead of devoting himself exclu sively to one master, he attended several. He lived in the time of Augustus. Labeo was distinguished for his knowledge of Roman law and Roman usages. and also for the freedom with which he expressed his opinions to Augustus (Suetonius, Octavianue Caesar.' o. 54), to whose measures he set himself in opposition. Some critics suppose that he is alluded to by Horace (1 'Sat' 3. 82); but there might be other persons of the name of Labeca Ateius Capito, his rival in legal knowledge, was raised to the consulship by Augustus in order that he might have that superiority in rank which his talents alone could not give him. Labeo never enjoyed any higher honour than the printer ship. (Tecitue, iii. 75.) The character of Labeo is given by Gellius (xiii. 10) : "Labeo Antistius principally applied himself to the study of the civil law, and publicly gave his opinions to those who consulted him. He was also not unacquainted with other liberal pursuits, and he deeply studied grammar, dialectic, and ancient learning; he was also well acquainted with the origins and principles of Latin words, aud be availed himself of that kind of knowledge espe cially to clear up most legal difficulties." He was confident in his abilities and acquirements, and bold enough to advance many new opinions. He was a copious writer, and is said to have produced four hundred different treatises, from which there are sixty-three excerpts in the Digest, and he is very often cited by the other jurists. Labeo wrote commentaries on the Twelve Tables, fifteen books at least on Pontifical Law, and fifteen De Disciplinis Etrnscis. His works which are mentioned in the Digest are, eight books of neleavcf, of which Paulus made an epitome with notes ; and ten books of Posteriora, so called from having beeu published after his death, of which Javolenue made an epitome ; but Gellius refers to the fortieth book of Poeteriora. He also wrote Libri ad Edictum, Libri Prmtoris Urbani, and thirty Libri Preatoris Peregrini.
A brief notice of C. Arxins CAP= may be appropriately intro duced here, for he was the rival of Labeo, and founded a sect or school which was opposed to that of Labeo. The father of Capito attained the rank of prtetor; his grandfather was a centurion who served under L Cornelius Salle. Capito was made Consul Suffectus by Augustus A.u.c. 758, and it was during his term of office that he decided that a patron could nut take hie freedwoman to wife against her coneeot, a decision perfectly consistent with Roman principles. Capito was a flatterer; Labeo was an independent man and said what he thought. Instances of Capito's adulation are recorded by Tacitus (' Anual.' iii. 70) and Suetonius. He died in the time of Tiberius, A. D. 22.
('Annals iii. 75.) Capito is often cited by other jurists, Proculus, Javolenus, Paulus, and once by Labeo: they always call him Ateiva Capite'a reputation as a lawyer was very great. Ile wrote on Pontificia] Law at least five books, as appears from Gellius (Iv. 6), and numerous books of Conjec tanea(Gcllius, xx. 2; xiv. 7). He also wrote a single book De Officio Senatorio, from which Genius gives an extract (iv. 10), and a book De Jure Sacrificiorum (Macrobitis, Saturu.' iii. 10). Gellius (xiii. 12) also quotes a letter of Capito, in which he speaks highly of Labeo's legal knowledge. There are no excerpts from Capito in the Digest.
From the time of Labeo and Capito we date the formation of two opposed sects or schools of law among the Romans. The nature of this opposition is collected from the words of Pomponiue (` Dig.' i. tit. 2). Labco was a man of greater acquirements than Capito and of a bolder temper. He applied to his legal studies the stores of know ledge that were open to him, and thus was led to many new views. Capito stuck close to what had been transmitted by his predecessors: he was one of those who appealed to authority. So far as concerns general principles, we cannot condemn the method of either of these great jurists. Each has its merit, but either of them, if carried too far, may be injurious to jurisprudence. He who handles the matters of law in an eularged and comprehensive manner may improve juris prudence; but if he does not well know what the law is, and if he is more eager to change what is established than to maintain its stability, he may destroy the edifice on which he is labouring. He who merely studies the laws of his country as they exist, and is satisfied if he can find authority for anything, however inconsistent with fair dealing and the general interests of society, may be a good lawyer of a kind, but he is a bad citizen. The Roman jurisconsulti were mainly engaged in writing on law and giving their opinions (response) to all persons who consulted them. Their business was not that of the modern advocate, who has to make the best of his client's case. The opposi tion then between Labeo and Capito, between him whoso method, if judiciously practised, would lead to a progressive improvement of law, and him whose method would stop all such improvement, if strictly adhered to, hardly constitutes a ground of like comparison between lawyers in this country.
The followers of Labeo were called Proculiani, from Proculus, one of the successors of Labeo. Those who attached themselves to the school of Capito were called Sabiniani, or sometimes &hole Cassiana, from Maesurius Sabina.] and C. Cassius Longinus. For further remarks on the subject of the two schools the reader may consult Pucbta, 'Curses der Inetit.,' i. 93.