The Impact of Juristic Writings on the Intellectual Development of Roman Law and Their Place as a Source of Law

Abstract

Until the 3rd century BC, pontiffs (a form of priest) were the only people learned in and able to interpret the law. They wielded control by withholding what the law was. However, in 312 BC, Appius Claudius’ actions-at-law were publicised, instigating the new convention of those with legal knowledge to give public, legal opinions, and birthing the profession of a ‘jurist’ (although there is a great likelihood of this being a mythical story). The first jurist to do this was Tiberius Coruncanius, and from then on, jurists were generally aristocratic men who advised, commented, and essentially wrote law. The main juristic period was from 150 BC to 250 AD, during which the nature of jurists and their influence continued to fluctuate. Most academic scholarship agrees that the jurists were a source of law, since the assertions of Cicero, Gaius, and Justinian that juristic writings were a Roman source of law are incontrovertible. However, there is a continuing debate as to whether these writings enhanced the intellectual development of Roman law. This essay will contend that juristic literature was both a significant source of law and a pivotal component in the intellectual development of Roman law. This will be demonstrated by the direct impact juristic writings, like the responsa, had on the Roman legal system; the indirect influence the jurists had on the law through the praetorian edict and interpretation of the imperial decrees; and the legacy of this juristic literature in later Roman times.