Law School

The article presents an attempt to comprehend the ἀποκρίματα within the system of Roman imperial constitutions. Whereas it is generally assumed, that the ἀποκρίματα were identical with the subscripts, it is argued that they constituted a kind of imperial enactment sui generis, which cannot be identified with any of the known types of constitutions. We find the term ἀπόκριμα, which had no technical meaning until the end of the second century, being used with a consistent connotation only after the visit of Septimius Severus and Caracalla to Egypt. Furthermore, it refers specifically to the group of decisions, which the both emperors have issued in Alexandria during that visit.

The material form of a legal text—nowadays regulated in details and the conformity with established rules, which define: author, form and place of publication—is a condition of its legal validity. In analyzing Roman sources of law we often transpose this modern perspective, expecting that their validity also depends on a set of rules defining their linguistic form, issuing body and publication method. According to a generally accepted view of romanistic doctrine which originates in the late 19th century, the period of great codifications of law, the Roman imperial constitutions are divided into four categories, which embrace: edicts (edicta), instructions for imperial administration (mandata), sentences issued in the extra ordinem process (decreta) and written opinions in respond to a legal question (rescripta).1 The latter were subsequently divided by Wilcken in letters (epistulae) and subscripts (subscriptiones).2 The modern authors define for each of the types its issuing office,...