The Twelve Tables
Please read through this translation of the the Twelve Tables, Rome's first written laws (also available in an abridged version here). How impressed are you with this law code? Cite an example of what you consider to be a particularly good law or a particularly bad law from this code. Explain how the law you cite would have tended to either strengthen or weaken the Roman Republic.
posted by Ancient Art at 9:28 AM
15 Comments:
1. – When anyone contracts a legal obligation with reference to his property, or sells it, by making a verbal statement or agreement concerning the same, this shall have the force and effect of law. If the party should afterwards deny his statements, and legal proceedings are instituted, he shall, by way of penalty, pay double the value of the property in question ( Cic., de off., 3, 16, 65 )
This law provides for the enforcement of verbal agreements. If one would make such an agreement and then attempt to go back on his word.. the original agreement would have the force of law behind it. this is a very good thing, because in modern times.. many people would give their word and then try to modify the agreement at a later time. one could say that it is a devolution of society in the acceptance of the word one would give.
1. – When anyone contracts a legal obligation with reference to his property, or sells it, by making a verbal statement or agreement concerning the same, this shall have the force and effect of law. If the party should afterwards deny his statements, and legal proceedings are instituted, he shall, by way of penalty, pay double the value of the property in question ( Cic., de off., 3, 16, 65 )
This law provides for the enforcement of verbal agreements. If one would make such an agreement and then attempt to go back on his word.. the original agreement would have the force of law behind it. this is a very good thing, because in modern times.. many people would give their word and then try to modify the agreement at a later time. one could say that it is a devolution of society in the acceptance of the word one would give.
table 6.1 "When anyone contracts a legal obligation with reference to his property, or sells it, by making a verbal statement or agreement concerning the same, this shall have the force and effect of law. If the party should afterwards deny his statements, and legal proceedings are instituted, he shall, by way of penalty, pay double the value of the property in question ( Cic., de off., 3, 16, 6"
This law is one of the better ones in the 12 tables. In a society people should be held to there word when dealing with others. You would have understandings man to man with no contract. This way all of your dealings could be done in a more personal way and it make the entire population more acountable for being trust worthy.
table 9.1 "If anyone should cause nocturnal assemblies in the City, he shall be put to death"
I guess this law could be good to stop rebelions against rome. on the other hand i would say there are plenty of other reasons to gather at night. So it should not be punishable by death.
Obviously, the law that jumps out is Table XI law 1. It is here that the Romans truly define themselves and why so many look to Rome for guidance and inspiration. It states, "Affairs of great importance shall not be transacted without the vote of the people, with whom rests the power to appoint magistrates, to condemn citizens, and to enact laws. Laws subsequently passed always take preference over former ones." Essentially, this is the model for our government today. The idea that the power belongs to all citizens and not just a certain privileged few. This law strengthens Rome because it is the foundation that everything else is built on.
One law that I found to be very advantageous for the Roman people was Table 6.2 "Where a slave is ordered to be free by a will, upon his compliance with a certain condition, and he complies with the condition ; or if, after having paid his price to the purchaser, he claims his liberty, he shall be free". This is a great law because it allows slaves to become freemen. This gives slaves the chance to obtain a better life. This law is also great for Rome as it allows for new citizens to join its ranks as a great city and empire.
One law that I thought hurt Rome was Table 1.10. This law states that judges have only one day to render a decision. Some of the more complicated cases may not have been easily decided and the judge was more than likely rushed into decisions. This fast-pace decision making may have hindered his judgement in some cases.
It did not surprise me that several (if not all) of the laws on theft, murder, and whathaveyou were based on the 'eye for an eye' system. If you catch someone stealing from you, it is quite all right to kill said thief.
The law which made me a little uneasy- ok, quite uneasy- was this:
Table IV 3. – A father shall immediately put to death a son recently born, who is a monster, or has a form different from that of members of the human race ( Cic., de leg., 3, 8, 19 ).
As someone who works with adults who are living with disabilities, I find the simple fact of 'doing away' with someone because they are not of the exact form atrocious. If the US followed in suit with this Roman law, I am quite sure that a great many people (including FDR, Helen Keller, Lord Byron and Sudha Chandran)would have been killed off shortly after birth. What a great loss to the world if everyone followed out and exterminated someone because he/she wasn't molded into a 'normal' body. How terribly sad.
Another interesting thing is how many laws revolve around possesions. Stealing, borrowing, ownership, inheritance... it is unusual that a law would have to be made for such a thing as borrowing from a neighbor, but apparently it is quite an itch in ancient Rome. One such unusual law is found in Table VII.
3. – Anyone who, by means of incantations and magic arts, prevents grain or crops of any kind belonging to another from growing, shall be sacrificed to Ceres ( Plin., N.H., 28, 2, 10-17 ).
It sounds to be a pretty serious nature if the logical answer to mystical crop prevention is sacrificial offering of oneself.
I am impressed with most of these laws. Most of them solve or guide problems that we have even in today's society. I particularly enjoyed the laws concerning real property. They manage to be simple and yet keep the people most likely to have disputes, neighbors, in line. The laws like keeping two feet between houses and five feet between fields are simple but very effective in seperating property and eliminated boundary disputes. However, I did find the seventh law in that table to be a too simple. It discusses what happens when too much rain falls on one man property and runs onto another's, flooding it. It does not state if the land is improperly irrigated or precautions were not used to stop the flooding. I say it is a bad law because it is laying blame to the landowner because it rained too much too fast.
I thought most of the laws in the Tables were good and helped solve or guide problems that we today have in our own society. I really enjoyed the laws on real property. They were simple and were able to deal with problems that most likely would arise between neighbors. The laws about keeping two feet between buildings or homes and five feet between fields are perfect examples. They see how property boundaries cause problems and appropriate the dimensions, much like building and zoning codes are used today for much of the same reason. However, the one law I did not like in this Table was that of flooding a neighbors yard. I did not think this was a good law because it did not explain what caused the flooding other than rain. It should include something the "at fault" farmer could control like irrigation and not that it rained too hard too fast. However, it does not say that due to poor upkeep his neighbor's property was damaged. It simply says it rained.
You know, I thought most of these laws were very helpful, even the simple ones like, "Should a tree on a neighbor's farm be bend crooked by the wind and lean over your farm, you may take legal action for removal of that tree." Even small matters need to be addressed. However, the law that really impressed me was, "A person who had been found guilty of giving false witness shall be hurled down from the Tarpeian Rock." Though this sentence is very extreme, it shows home much truth and honesty was held in such high regard. Yet, some rules seemed . . . harsh or unjust such as, "Marriages should not take place between plebeians and patricians". This rule reminded me of some of the laws Americans took up, and were later found unjust, such as the Jim Crow Laws. A law like a marriage band on marrying certain people might appear to strengthen the Roman Republic, yet over time a law like this could cause unhappiness and struggle in the Republic.
I never realized that the Romans had an idea of what individual liberty is. Law IX.1 basically says that all Roman citizens have equal rights and no one has more individual rights than another. The next law mentions that any who become citizens have the same rights, and it goes on from there. The laws do not seem to say what the rights are, just that every citizen has them. I think this is important. It sets the standard that all are equal, but also these laws might help to encourage people from the lands that the Romans conquered to become Roman citizens and accept Roman rule. Becoming a Roman citizen gives you the same rights as the Romans and puts you on an equal plane with those who conquered you.
I find it interesting that the Romans had a law against night time assemblies and perpetrators were put to death. The Romans must have been deathly afraid of people meeting in dark corners and makeing plots to kill the emporer, or people of importance, or planning a revolution of some kind. I guess they wanted everything to be out in the open so that those in charge knew what the common people were planning. I'm guessing that the Romans did not want busy little bees in their country, but orderly people who followed the laws and didn't breed assassins. Guess I can't blame them.
There is a similarity between the Roman laws and the Code of Hammurabi. It appears that the Romans continued the glorious tradition of "see a problem and make a law to fix it". I wonder if it worked. Either way, I'm glad I wasn't a lawyer in Roman times, or any time for that matter, because the Romans had way too many laws to memorize. I wonder how many loop holes they had. Just a thought.
The Laws of Rome covered almost every aspect of life in their jurisdiction. It looks like they try to regulate everywhere they could, like what we do in America today.
An interesting law from Table XI Section 2 states that, "Those who belong to the Senatorial Order and are styled Fathers, shall not contract marriage with plebeians." In other words, the elites are not to marry the common people. Rome enforced a strict class system and did not want different classes marrying each other. It is a good law because it promotes stability but it limits the choices for those trying to get married.
Another odd set of laws can be found in Table VII. Section 3 deals with magic and the punishment for the person using it "shall be sacrificed to Ceres." Another one is in Table VII, Section 4, where if a client is defrauded, the patron shall be "dedicated to the infernal gods." Sounds like Rome had their versions of Ken Lay in their time and wanted to send them to their version of the Devil for punishment.
Table XI.
1. Marriages should not take place between plebeians and patricians.
I find this Law interesting. In their society, a Plebeian, (being one of the common people), can not marry a Patrician, (being an aristocrat or a class of the privileged minority).
I understand why this type of union could not be allowed in their society, I just think that the blood-line would become weak in the aristocracy, which it probably was. I also think that it's interesting how in our society, we have this privilege, however I doubt anyone would want to marry someone less prestigious.
-Nate Mills
This first Roman legal code is, for the most part, good. It adresses the problems that early Romans faced.
One law that did disturb me (by modern standards) was TableIV, 3. "A father shall immediately put to death a son recently born, who is a monster..." This implies that if a child has any sort of physical handicap, you have to kill it. A bit barbaric if you ask any modern person.
We use one of Table VI's codes in our current legal code. "If a husband desires to divorce his wife, he must give reason for doing so..." We still use this today, although most people cite "irreconciable differences".
There are many things of the twelve tables I do not like. For example: A dreadfully deformed child shall be killed IV. 1. One I kind of like is VIII. 21, If a patron shall defraud his client,he will be killed. That is bad business. Another one I like is if any man is put to death without being convicted of the crime, is forbidden. Some of these laws are alright but most of them are so messed up, you wonder where they are trying to go with it. It is a good thing we have these writings of history or some politician may just repeat the past.
5.7 "A spendthrift is forbidden to exercise administration over his own goods.
I believe this law exhibits the community type of living that the Romans established. I believe a law like this was created to watch over citizens that had problems with money and spending. A law like this not only protected the spendthrift buit it also protected others from the consequences of the spendthrifts negligence. Furthermore, this law probably prevented many issues, such as debt, by stricting the spendthrift. With a like law this the Romans could be viewedas a compassionate nation very concerned with the well being of its citizens. However, laws like 4.1 - "A dreadfully deformed child shall be killed" - made the Roman society appear just the opposite. This is a rather cruel law that could have been very controversial. Who is to say what child is deformed enought to die or even that a child should die at all? This law just seems to me to be rather cold and heartless.
Post a Comment
<< Home