Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

6.;54 JU RISCONSULTI. JURISCONSULTI..no writings. It must not, however, be assumed a jurist. This privilege gave to a jurist the conthat Coruncanius was a professor of law in the dition of a Juris auctor, and to his writings legal
nmodern sense of the term; nor anly other of the authority, neither of which belonged to a jurist
jurists alter him who are enumerated by Pomponius. who had not received the privilege. Accordingly,
Before the time of Cicero the study of the law the writings of such privileged jurists received the
had becolne a distinct branch from the study of same authority as their responsa,; and if the
oratory, and a man might raise himself to eminence opinions of the Juris auctores, as expressed in
in the state by his reputation as a lawyer, as well their writings, did not agree, the Judex was left
as by his oratorical power or military skill. There to decide as he best could. This explanation of
were mnany distinguished jurists in the last two the nature of the Jus Respondendi, which is by
centuries of the republican period, amlong whom Puchta (Instit. i. ~ 11 7), is applied by him to the
are M'. Manilius; P. Mucius Scaevola, Pontifex elucidation of the passage in Gaius (i. 7. Responsa
Maximus (B. c. 131); Q. Mucius ScaevoIla, the prudentium sunt sententiae et opiniones, &c.). lie
alugur; and Q. Muoius Scaevola, the son of Publius, supposes that this interpretation of the passage is
who was consul a. c. 95, and afterwards Pontifex strictly conformable to what has been said of the anMaximus, and one of the masters of Cicero (jsr'is- thority of the writings of the jurists. If we leave
peritormin eloquentoissi-ses, eloqentium iorispelitiss8- out of consideration the technical expression Res7LUS, Cic. de Or. i. 39, Brutus, c. 89). This Scae- ponsa, with which the passage begins, there is no
vola the Pontifex, was considered to have been the difficulty at all in applying the words of Gaius to the
first who gave the Jus Civile a systematic form, by writings of the jurists; and, in fact, it is most colla treatise in eighteen books. (Dig. 1. tit. 2. s. 2. sistent to take responsa in this passage in a wider
~ 41.) There are four excerpts in the Digest from sense, and as equivalent to auctoritas. The term
a work of his in one book, on Definitions. Servius Responsa originated at a time when responsa, in
Sulpicius Rufus, the friend and contemporary of the simple sense of the terni, were the only form
Cicero, and consul B. c. 51 (Beut. 7, 40), was as in which the auctoritas of a jurist was manifested;
greast an orator as the Pontifex Scaevola, and more whereas in the time of Gains, the writings of the
distinguished as a jurist. Many persons, both his jurists had become a very important legal authority,
predecessors and contemporaries, had a good prac- and consequently they must be included by Gaius
tical knowledge of the law, but he was the first in the term Responsa Prudentium, for otherwise
who handled it in a scientific manner, and as he he would not have mentioned at all the Auctoritas
had both numerous hearers and was a voluminous Prudentium, to which he so often refers in various'writer, we may view him as the founder of that parts of his work. Puchta's explanation of this
methodical treatment of the matter of law which passage, which bears the stamp of great probability,
characterised the subsequent Roman jurists (Cic. may be compared with that of Savigny (ystem,
Borut. 41; Dig. 1. tit. 2. s. 2. ~ 43), and in which &c. vol. i. p. 155).
they have been seldom surpassed. In the time of Anugstus there arose two schools
The jurists of the imperial times are distin- (scelolae) of Jurists, the heads of which were reguished from those of the republican period by two spectively Ateius Capito and Antistius Labeo. The
circumstances, the Jus Respondendi, and the rise followers of Labeo, whom we know with certainty
of two Schools of Law. to have been such, were Nerva, Proculus, Nerva
It is said that Augustus determined that the the son, Pegasus, Celsus, Celsus the son, and
Jurisconsulti should give their responsa under his Neratius Priscus. The followers of Capito were
sanction (ex auctoritate ejus respondetrenr). The Massurius Sabinus, C. Cassius Longinus, Coelius
jurists who had not received this mask of imperial Sabinus, Priscns Javolenus, Aburnus Valens Tusfavour, were not excluded from giving opinions; cianus, G-aius, and probably Pomponius. But the
but the opinions of such jurists would have little schools did not take their namnes from Labeo and
weight in comparison with those of the privileged Capito. The followers cf Labeo were named Proclass. Those who obtained the Jus Respondendi culiani, from Proculus. The followers of Capito
from the Princeps, would from this circumstance derived their name of Sabiniani from Massurius
alone have a greater authority, for formally their Sabintss who lived under Tiberius, and as late as
Responsa were founded on the authority of the the reign of Nero: they were sometimes also called
Princeps. These responsa were given sealed (sig- Cassiani, from C. Cassius Longinus. It is not
nata), apparently to prevent falsification. The easy to state with precision the differences which
matter proposed for the opinion of the Jtursconsuiti characterised the two schools. Whatever may
was sometimes stated in the Responsum, either have been the origin of these differences, ewhich
fully or briefly; and the Responssm itself was may perhaps be partly referred to the personal
sometimes short, sometimes long sometimes it character of Capito an-d Labeo, the schools were
contained the grounds of the opinion, and some- subsequently distinguished by a difference in their
times it did not. (Brisson, de Fibrom. iii. c, 85- manner of handling the matter of the law. The
87.) school of Capito adhered more closely to what was
The responsa of a privileged jurisconsultus would established, and to the letter of what was written.
be an authority for the decision of a j uidex; if Labeo was a man of greater acquirements than
there were conflicting responda givenj the jiudex Capito, and his school looked more to the internal
would of course decide as he best cotild. But, meaningl than to the external form, and thus, while
besides the direct responsa, which were given in apparently deviating from the letter, they apparticular cases, there was the authority of the proached nearer to true results; though the strict
writings of the privileged jurists. As before the logic of this school might sometimes produce a retime of Augustus, public opinion only gave autho- sult less adapted to general convenience than the
rity to a jurist's responsa and writings, so from the conclusions of the Sabiniani, which were based on
time of Augustus this authority was given by the the prevailing notions of equity. Much has been
Jus Respondendi to the responsa and writings of written on the characteristics of the two schools,