Decreta Frontiana


Some observations on D. 29,2,99 and the ‘law reports’ of Titius Aristo


in Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'Histoire du Droit / The Legal History Review
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

This article is about Roman ‘law reports’ in general, and particularly about the so-called decreta frontiana mentioned in D. 29,2,99 and not infrequently attributed to Titius Aristo. It is contended that Aristo was indeed the author of a great number of notae, responsa and epistulae, compiled by Sextus Pomponius a generation after Aristo’s death, but that he was not the author of ‘law reports’ entitled decreta Frontoniana or Frontiniana. All he did, was compose an observation (nota) on an appeal case decided by one of six possible consuls, called either Fronto, or Frontonianus, or even Frontinus, that Aristo had found in the consular commentarii. There is only one genuine Roman ‘law report’, and that isthe collection of cases decided by Septimius Severus and Caracalla as compiled by Julius Paulus. In the history of Roman legal literature, it is only in the Byzantine period that anything similar appears again.


Decreta Frontiana


Some observations on D. 29,2,99 and the ‘law reports’ of Titius Aristo


in Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'Histoire du Droit / The Legal History Review

Sections

References

  • 2

     See for example F. SchulzRoman legal scienceOxford 1946 p. 154 and more recently J.-P. Coriat Le prince législateur Rome 1997 p. 95 and especially M. Rizzi Imperator cognoscens decrevit Profili e contenuti dell’attività giudizaria imperiale in età classica Milaan 2012 p. 132–133 (Rizzi).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

     F. SchulzGeschichte der römischen RechtswissenschaftWeimar 1961 p. 181 following Th. Mommsen Juristische Schriften II Berlin 1905 p. 22 (= Sextus Pomponius in: Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte 7 (1868) p. 475–476; further cited as Mommsen JS/ZfR); P. Krüger Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des römischen Rechts 2nd ed. Munich–Leipzig 1912 p. 179; F. Wieacker Römische Rechtsgeschichte II Munich 2006 p. 59 (‘möglicherweise’); Rizzi (supra n. 2) p. 132–133 and especially Fr. Tamburi I decreta Frontiana di Aristone in: Studi in onore di Remo Martini III Milano 2010 p. 713–758.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 66

     Frontoad M. Caes. 162. Fronto’s case illustrates that an appellatio ad principem did not yet in his own time presuppose a preceding decision a quo: everyone could still ‘call on’ (appellare) the emperor whenever he needed help even when there was no preceding verdict against him: think of the apostle Paul. Appellatio (ad principem) only obtained the technical meaning we attach to it after the Roman emperors perceived that the normal ordo iudiciorum would be subverted if everyone were allowed to bring his case directly before the emperor rather than the normal courts of first instance. Fronto’s case bears witness to this development. See Orestano (supra n. 59) p. 196 ff.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 71

     See on this point also KaserDas Urteil (supra n. 52) p. 122.

  • 122

     TalbertThe Senate of Imperial Rome (supra n. 84) p. 464–466; 473–477.

  • 130

     M. RizziImperator cognoscens decrevit (supra n. 2) p. 132–133 n. 96 does not seem to have an opinion on the nature of the decreta Frontiana but merely refers to the opposing views of Mommsen and Karlowa without taking sides.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 40 38 0
Full Text Views 174 174 0
PDF Downloads 7 7 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0