Definition
An interdictum (plural: interdicta) is a provisional order issued by a Roman praetor — or, in the provinces, a proconsul — commanding a person either to do something or to refrain from doing something. It was not a judgment on the underlying right but a preliminary procedural remedy, most commonly deployed in disputes over possession of property or personal status. The interdictum functioned as an instrument of praetorian equity, allowing the praetor to intervene rapidly where the ordinary formulary process would be too slow or where a recognized legal right had not yet been established.
Three operational categories governed most interdicta in practice: those commanding a party to produce or restore something (restitutory interdicta), those commanding a party to exhibit a person or thing (exhibitory interdicta), and those prohibiting a party from taking or continuing an action (prohibitory interdicta). The prohibitory form was the most common and gave rise to the term's general meaning as a prohibition.
---
Common Language
Wiktionary: "A prohibition: a legal order issued by a praetor (or, in the provinces, a proconsul) at the request of a claimant and addressed to another person, imposing a requirement either to do something or to abstain from doing something."
The Wiktionary definition captures the prohibitory form accurately but underrepresents the full scope of the interdictum as a Roman procedural category. The legal term encompasses restitutory and exhibitory commands as well — an interdictum could compel affirmative action, not merely prohibit conduct. Researchers encountering the term in civil law sources should not assume prohibition is the only operative mode.
---
Common Confusion
INTERDICTUM vs. INTERDICT: In Law Mind sources, these terms are used interchangeably, with "interdict" serving as the anglicized equivalent for general reference. However, precision matters in historical context: interdictum is the Latin technical term drawn directly from Roman procedural law, while "interdict" in later canon law and Scots law carries distinct meanings — particularly the ecclesiastical interdict (a suspension of sacramental rites) and the Scottish civil remedy analogous to an injunction. A researcher encountering "interdict" in a medieval ecclesiastical source is reading about something categorically different from the Roman interdictum. Burrill's cross-reference to "Interdict" is therefore best followed with attention to which body of law is under examination.
INTERDICTUM vs. ACTIO: Burrill describes the interdictum as "a species of action," reflecting a Roman procedural debate. Strictly speaking, an interdictum was not an actio — it bypassed the ordinary formulary procedure and issued directly from praetorian authority. The confusion arises because in some later proceedings, interdicta were litigated through a formulary structure after the initial praetorian order, blurring the boundary between the two. Researchers should not treat the interdictum as simply a variant form of the actio.
---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Prohibitory interdicta: Commanded a party to refrain from an act. The most common form; the source of the term's ordinary meaning as "prohibition." Applied frequently to protect possession of land against disturbance.
Restitutory interdicta: Commanded restoration of a person or thing to a prior state. Used to recover possession unlawfully disturbed, most famously in the interdictum unde vi, which addressed forcible dispossession from land.
Exhibitory interdicta: Commanded production of a person or thing before the praetor. Used in cases involving personal liberty, including freedom claims.
Simple interdicta: Addressed to one party only.
Double interdicta: Addressed to both parties simultaneously, as each party claimed the other was in the wrong. The interdictum uti possidetis — governing possession of immovable property between two contending possessors — was the paradigm case.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The interdictum is the conceptual ancestor of the modern injunction and, in civilian systems, of the possessory action. Researchers working in comparative law, civil law history, or the development of equity will encounter interdicta as a recurring reference point. Understanding the distinction between possessory interdicta (protecting current possession regardless of underlying title) and petitory actions (litigating title directly) is essential for tracing how possession doctrine developed from Roman law through the Digest into later civilian and mixed-jurisdiction systems.
Burrill's cross-reference to Dig. 44.7.37 is a real location in the Corpus Juris Civilis and provides a useful anchor, though the primary treatment of interdicta in the Digest appears in Book 43. Researchers consulting Burrill should follow the cross-reference to his entry for "Interdict," where the fuller treatment appears.
Historical dictionaries in the Law Mind corpus typically handle interdictum briefly, treating it as a Latin form pointing back to the substantive entry under the anglicized "interdict." This means that keyword searches on the Latin form alone may return thin results; searching "interdict" will surface the richer doctrinal material.
For researchers in Scottish law: the Scots interdict is a living remedy and should be researched through separate channels, as it evolved from the Roman model but operates under distinct procedural rules. Do not assume Roman-law commentary on the interdictum translates directly to Scots interdict practice.
The term also appears in canon law contexts, where it refers to the ecclesiastical penalty suspending religious services in a territory or for a person — a usage entirely unrelated to the Roman procedural instrument. Sources must be identified by legal tradition before the term's meaning can be assumed.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's entry is minimal: "In the civil law. An interdict; a species of action. Dig. 44.7.37, pr. See Interdict." This is a referral entry only. The characterization of the interdictum as "a species of action" reflects a longstanding descriptive convention in common law legal dictionaries that analogized Roman procedural categories to the English forms of action — a useful bridge for readers trained in common law, but technically imprecise. The Digest itself distinguishes interdicta from actiones, and Gaius in his Institutes (Book 4) addresses interdicta as a distinct procedural category alongside actiones and exceptiones.
The Latin dictionary entry adds context Burrill omits: the Plautine usage confirms that interdictum carried the sense of "prohibition" in ordinary Latin usage well before it became a formal legal term, and the connection to interdicere (to speak between, to prohibit by speech) roots the procedural concept in the praetor's spoken command — the oral nature of early praetorian intervention being constitutive of the remedy's character.
What historical dictionaries in this corpus generally miss: the dual-stage procedure in many interdicta, where the initial praetorian order was followed by a formulary proceeding to assess whether it had been obeyed and to award damages if not. This two-stage structure is important for understanding why the interdictum could function both as a summary remedy and as the beginning of extended litigation.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The interdictum is a term of Roman law with no direct modern equivalent in common law jurisdictions. Its closest functional analogs are the injunction (common law equity), the référé (French law), and the Scots interdict. Researchers working in mixed jurisdictions such as Louisiana, Quebec, or South Africa may encounter the term in civilian doctrinal sources discussing the historical foundations of possessory remedies, where it retains analytical relevance.
---