Talk:Roman law

K.I.S.S

I am not a law student and I am not a lawer, I just want a very simple explanation of what Roman law meens. As I understand it it goes something like this: If it is not legalised then it is illegal. Am I right? Please keep your answers free of legal jargon I really do not understand it. Thanks.

Short answer: No, you're not right. Simple explanation of what 'Roman law' means: It's the laws that the Romans had. It developed a lot over the 1000 years or so that Rome was in existence. It started out as the 12 tables, and was added to from time to time, but was not re-codified until the time of the Eastern Emperors. Extra simple answer: Read the Article (RTA) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Style and detail

Roman law is a huge subject (as I'm finding out, as a law student) and although an article shouldn't necessarily be a full treatise on the subject, there is a lot more that could be explained here. I am thinking of refactoring the style a bit and explaining about procedural issues, the actions of the law, praetorian jurisdiction, all that kind of stuff which I think is not in the article in sufficient detail. Eulen 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

yeah good idea...i think someone should make a template just for roman law and remove this one about roman state in general (or incorporate it in somehow?). It should go something like: origines of r. law/ family law/ rights in rem (or however u call it in english?)/ law of obligations etc....

what about the neo-roman law?

what about the neo roman, witch is the sistem still in use in several countries, such as Mexico and most Latin America. Perhaps the term is not commonly used in English,but, for example, in Mexico the sistem is called as "Derecho neo-romano" or neo roman law.

• Hmmm, possibly what you mean is what English and Americans call civil law (legal system). Martg76 21:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I have added a link to civil law (legal system) at the top of the article, as there are numerous Wikipedia articles linking to Roman law which should be linked to civil law (legal system). --Chewy m (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

translation

can someone translate this form latin: "Textus digestorum cum glossis et notis iuris consultorum medii aevi" so that we can put a photo from latin wiki here.

I think it means: "Text of the digest with glosses and notes by medieval legal advisors." Martg76 23:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

cool, tnx

Litigation

There doesn't seem to be much here about Roman litigation. I'll add some stuff. --David.Mestel 21:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I know quite a lot about Roman litigation, so I'll write an article about it, but I've got to go now, so I can't until to-morrow morning. --David.Mestel 21:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Help

Someone please help me. What is this Praetor's Edict nautis cauponibus et stabulariis? A fully explanation with example based on its application in the South African system will help me so much

It's not the right place to ask about this, but I'd point you to Google. Basically the edict establishes responsibility for sailors, owners of stables, and hospitality establishments. In so far as sailors are concerned, they have responsibility for the goods in their care from the time when they are given them to the time when they are given back for any damages (except vis maior). Eulen 00:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Roman law in the East

Miskin added:

"When the centre of the empire was moved to the Greek East in the 4th century, many legal concepts of Greek origin appeared in the official Roman legislation[2]. The influence is visible even in the law of persons or of the family, which is traditionally the part of the law that changes least. For example Constantine started putting restrictions on the ancient Roman concept of patria potestas, by acknowledging that persons in potestate could have proprietary rights. He was apparently making concessions to the much stricter concept of paternal authority under Greek-Hellenistic law.[2] Later emperors went even further, until Justinian finally decreed that a child in potestate became owner of everything it acquired, except when it acquired something from its father.[2]"

Whereas the influence of Greek philosophical thought on Roman law is widely acknowledged, these assertions seem rather bold. According to Kunkel (1966):

"The question often posed from different points of view, to what extent the post-classical jurists imported non-Roman notions into the classical heritage, is still disputed. Even if one regards it as not impossible for influences in particular from the Greek-oriental sphere to have operated, one must be careful not to over-estimate the possible effect of these influences."
(Wolfgang Kunkel, An Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History, transl. into English by J.M. Kelly, Oxford 1966, p. 143)

The information you provided seems debatable, at least. Please provide a citation to show that this is indeed the consensus, or otherwise change the wording of your text accordingly. Iblardi 00:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't understand how removing an entire section is equivalent to improvement. Secondly your own 1966 source seems to be misinterpreted. The "post-Classical" notion normally refers to the Western Roman Empire, there's no implication from this citation that the author is referring to the Justinian code. Secondly, your source _does_ take for granted that a Greek influence did exist (regardless of the period he's referring to), but he only questions "the extent". So by blanking out mainstream information instead of editing, you're obviously damaging the article. This means that no matter what period he refers to, the reference on the Greek-Hellenistic element on the Byzantine code is correct. But first things first, how can you prove that the author is referring to the Justinian code? The edit in question was specifically about the law of Constantinople, and not "post-classical" law in general. Miskin 00:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Stepwise then:

First of all, I don't understand how removing an entire section is equivalent to improvement. Secondly your own 1966 source seems to be misinterpreted. The "post-Classical" notion normally refers to the Western Roman Empire

This does not involve an entire section, although I am sure some positive examples could be found. Anyway, I cited part of the paragraph "The legislation of the late Empire", with special reference to the eastern law schools, under the general section "Legal development in the late Empire up to Justinian". It seems to have some relevancy.

there's no implication from this citation that the author is referring to the Justinian code.

Please read back, I didn't argue that. Your edit speaks of a continuous development that was already manifest under Constantine.

Secondly, your source _does_ take for granted that a Greek influence did exist (regardless of the period he's referring to), but he only questions "the extent".

Where does it say so? I cite:

"Even if one regards it as not impossible for influences in particular from the Greek-oriental sphere to have operated, one must be careful not to over-estimate the possible effect of these influences."

Note the "even if" at the beginning of the sentence.

So by blanking out mainstream information instead of editing, you're obviously damaging the article.

Then give a reliable source that states it is "mainstream information". If not, rephrase your text. I showed you it is contentious. At best, you are representing a one-sided point of view, and your contribution as it is now seems to rely heavily on "for example"s, "apparently"s, and "even"s in order to make its point. Iblardi 03:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you prove that the citation talks about the Justinian code, then you may add to the section that "the extent of this influence is disputed" or something along those lines. There is no basis on removing the edits. That is iff the 1966 author is talking about the same thing. Miskin 01:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you do the rephrasing. Iblardi 03:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I checked your source, and it appears that I was wrong after all. The text you provided seemed to fly in the face of what I had been reading lately, but this is indeed what the source says. The problem is that you took over Tellegen-Couperus' text almost verbatim, including the use of arguments and examples, making it sound as if you were setting up your own argument. The original passage runs:

"However, local laws remained in force. As a result Roman law began to influence local laws and in the long run local laws also influenced Roman law. When in the fourth century the intellectual centre of the empire shifted from Rome to Constantinople, all kinds of legal concepts particularly of Greek origin appeared in the official Roman legislation. This influence is even visible in the law of persons and in family law, although traditionally that is the part of the law that changes the least. For instance, Constantine began to put restrictions no the typical Roman concept of patria potestas by acknowledging that in one case persons in potestate could have proprietary rights: when a mother had bequeathed something to her children who were still under the potestas of their father, the father would no longer automatically become the owner but the children would get it (C. 6.60.1). Constantine was apparently making concessions to the much more restricted concept of paternal authority under Greek-Hellenistic law. Later emperors went even further. Justinian finally decreed that a child in potestate became owner of everything it acquired except when it acquired something from its father (C. 6.61.1)." (Tellegen-Couperus, p. 127)

Also notice that the original text is preceded by the comment "Roman law began to influence local laws and in the long run local laws also influenced Roman law" and note the use of the word "particularly" in the second sentence; both add a nuance that is absent from your text. But anyway, although I'm still not entirely convinced on the consensus issue, I am not above admitting a mistake. Iblardi 12:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

This paragraph was just removed from the introduction. I've restored it to the article, but any concerns should be discussed here. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Roman law

Just curious. Has no-one ever made the connection between the ten Roman tablets 'copied' from Solon's writings c. 638 BC–558 BCE and the Israelite Torah with it's core of Ten Commandments that had been around since 1280 BCE? By the time Solon was around, the Jewish Oral Law had been known widely because it was used in all dealings within and outside of the Jewish society, including the Greeks.--Mrg3105 08:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Torah is not nearly as old as Mrg3105 states. The oldest manuscripts of the Torah are believed to have been written some time in the 10th century BCE while the final version of the Torah may be as recent as the 6th century BCE. Nobody knows when the Ten Commandments were originally compiled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.5.34 (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian and Babylonian law are much older. The code of Hammurabi is dated between 1727 BCE, and 1780 BCE. Babylonian law has been extensively studied because a lot of written contracts have survived. Some scholars believe that substantial portions of the Hebrew Bible were written down at the time of the Persian captivity and were much influenced by Persian notions of law and religion -- "the law of the Medes and the Persians which altereth not". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.11.47 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Check all dates

A friend of mine is doing a Law degree at Cambridge and she was recently told by one of her Roman law lecturers that he frequently changes dates on wikipedia by a year or two, in an attempt to 'catch' students who use wikipedia. So someone might want to check all dates on here relating to Roman law because apparently his edits rarely get noticed. Will Bradshaw (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Stoicism

         Stoicism: A divire intellgegce ruled Nature. The one good thing in life was having a good chariter. "Living Nightly" neant agreing with nature. Sticism also was a greek school of thougts. Upper class Roman's adopted this Philosophy.71.59.144.105 (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Help me with reflists

I am new to the editing part of wikipedia. I just do not understand how to add a reference source to an article that is using reflist. I have searched many places and have not found anything to help me. I am not understanding something and would love some help. (Markusjca (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

I got my answer and thank you for the quick, excellent help. (Markusjca (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

Roman Law Today

Today, Roman law is no longer applied in legal practice What is this meant to mean? If it means that Roman Law isn't cited in court, it's wrong, as in Scotland Roman law is not infrequently cited to this day; eg Zahnrad Fabrik v Terex 1985 SC 364, Marandi v Bon Accord Glass 2007 (unreported), Moncrieff v Jamieson 2008SC (HL) 1, and so on... 83.217.173.196 (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing Roman law with Civil law. Roman law is the father -- or grandfather -- of Civil law. -- llywrch (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm most certainly not confusing them. Did you look at the case reports cited? Roman law, as in the Justinian Codes, is indeed cited in Scottish courts . And is, in want of other law, is an authoritative source - where Civilian law (eg the French of Germans codes) would only be persuasive. This is why a university level qualification in Roman Law is required to be called to the Scots bar as an advocates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.173.196 (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"Presumed guilty?" "Must prove innocence?"

I have found a lot of references, written by people with an axe to grind, that refers to the modern versions of the Napoleonic Code as deriving from Roman Law which presumes guilt - the accused must prove that they are innocent. Some sort of statement about this needs to be made someplace. As I recall (sorry, haven't read the article), the actual law of downtown Ancient Rome consisted of what we would call "torts" where the defendant might be on trial for his life, with the prosecution brought by just about anybody. Nobles were somewhat exempt from this. (For that matter, Socrates was tried in Athens, under Greek law, that way, so maybe prevalent in the ancient world). Anyway... Student7 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. I wouldn't assume anything about Roman law based on Greek law. Nobles weren't exempt from prosecution at all; they were more vulnerable to politically motivated prosecutions and calumnia, for the very reason that Rome lacked state prosecutors and anyone could bring a case if he (and in some periods she) had the legal knowledge and speaking ability to do so. The patron-client relationship meant that an ordinary person accused of a crime would probably be able to obtain an advocate, but the quality of your defense would depend on your connections. Cicero leaves the impression that character witnesses (which would again depend on your connections) mattered much more than they do now. In other words, I don't know the answer to your question, but the threat of calumnia hanging over a prosecutor may suggest that the Romans presumed neither guilt or innocence; they just expected that a reasonable case could be made without malice, and that the character of the accused as demonstrated would matter to the outcome. It's an interesting question that I'm not finding immediately answered in the sources I have at hand on Roman law, and that's reinforcing my impression that this just may not be the way the Romans conceive of it. If you find an answer, I hope you'll post it here. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right.

Info in Presumption_of_innocence#Roman_law. A bit late in the "Roman" day, but sounds about right. Supposedly from Roman jurist "Paul." (link to him given in article. Probably should have something here someplace. Student7 (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Article needs total rewrite

The article is a poor one. It does not reflect any deep or sophisticated knowledge of the subject. It should be rewritten, or replaced, by someone more knowledgeable. 173.21.54.229 (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

possible addition on a woman's legal independence in marriage

Some of the following, maybe all of it, or something like it, may belong in this article and/or in the manus marriage article (I'm posting to both talk pages) or perhaps elsewhere:

A woman in manu had little independent legal standing, but a freeborn Roman woman was regarded as a citizen,<ref>Frier, Bruce W., & Thomas A.J. McGinn, A Casebook on Roman Family Law (Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 31–32 & 457 & passim.<br />  Sherwin-White, A.N., Roman Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 1979), pp. 211 & 268.</ref> and not as property with a transferrable right of ownership; the essential distinction in the Roman "law of persons"{{Efn|[[Legal personality]], a person's capacity to have legal rights and obligations under a given system of law}}{{Efn|[[Roman law]], the legal system of ancient Rome, including personal law}} was that all human beings were either free (liberi) or slaves (servi).<ref>Frier, Bruce W., and Thomas A.J. McGinn, A Casebook on Roman Family Law, op. cit., p. 14, citing Gaius, Institutiones 1.9 = Digest 1.5.3.</ref> Only free people in good legal standing could contract a lawful marriage, and men were often prohibited by law from marrying women of markedly lower social status.<ref>Millar, Fergus, Empire and City, Augustus to Julian: Obligations, Excuses and Status, in Journal of Roman Studies, 73 (1983), p. 88.</ref> In the better-documented historical period, and certainly by the time of Cicero and Caesar, manus marriage had become virtually obsolete; a woman remained legally part of her birth family and was never placed under the authority of her husband.<ref>Frier, Bruce W., and Thomas A.J. McGinn, A Casebook on Roman Family Law, op. cit., pp. 19–20.<br/>  Rawson, Beryl, The Roman Family, in The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives (Cornell University Press, 1986), p. 15.</ref>

It's from a recent revision of the wife selling article (not the first appearance of similar content), with a little editing; it didn't belong there. I'd rather that someone else made the judgment for this article, as I haven't gotten the source.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC) (Clarified link's relevance: 19:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC))

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS!

I am a law student in Spain and I am reading the article and the comments. A1 quality. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.87.76 (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Changes to be made

Hello people,

There need to be better citations at the end with the publisher and the date of the release of the book, not just the title, author and page number. Also I think that the first part could be streamlined and made more clear. I don't know if I feel qualified yet to do this sort of editing. I also think there need to be more citations in general.

Cheers.

Herstory1 (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

More Depth

As a student of the Roman Republic I feel as though the laws are a very important aspect of understanding their sociopolitical environment. I think that the section on classical roman laws should be expanded upon and could potentially be an interesting topic to further research and provide examples for. My professor asked that we answer one of her evaluating questions, so I will be answering the question "Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?" I think that this article under-represents the importance of the specific laws and briefly goes over them instead of highlighting their importance on Roman society. The article could definitely go more in depth in regards to the twelve tables and classical roman laws. While I think the writers in the article do a great job of speaking directly about facts, I do not think that there is enough detail and I think that topics are glazed over instead of explained more fully. Fyoliveira1 (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Twelve Tables Revision

Near the end of the first paragraph under the heading "The Twelve Tables", I find this excerpt: "In 450 BC, the decemviri produced the laws on ten tablets (tabulae), but these laws were regarded as unsatisfactory by the plebeians. A second decemvirate is said to have added two further tablets in 449 BC. The new Law of the Twelve Tables was approved by the people's assembly."

This representation of the revision of the twelve tables implies that the addition of the final two "tables" was an action incited by the plebeians. According to Livy in Book III.33, he notes that it was in fact the first decemvirate that opened critique up to the masses and encouraged a review of their ten "tables". Livy suggests that this revision was encouraged by the decemvirate and not a correction demanded by the plebeians and their dissatisfaction as (I feel) the passage from the current page represents.

-Trinity2017 (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Just plain unclear

The last piece of text in the section on ius publicum and ius privatum reads "and they are not used when party shares something and are in contrary." This is either dense technical jargon or the editor fell asleep half way through. Could someone please fix it? Shannock9 (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

DITTO

I (glanced through / read) the first 50 years of (University Law) just before Justinian. It's a book of law, coherent and in order, just like today's law books are. (it contains regulations as well as law, such as road construction regulations)

This article links only to Roman Laws that were CORRUPT and later REPEALED. Furthermore: the page doesn't link to any "FULL TEXT" - it links only to a few laws and even these are not given: instead, some wikipedia idiot's idea of what the law meant without ever citing the original text

THIS ARTICLE IN THE PAST WAS GOOD. IT HAS BEEN HACKED. IT HAS ZERO VALUE.

it has many references to germany and england which have perfectly NOTHING to do with Greek colleges, Roman study of that and thier additions, and the rise of "fairness" in Roman law that became "University law" (around the time of Justinia, though justinian wrote many religious laws which were repealed as "good but not legal material")

the article is a piece of liberal counter intelligence, it's that simple — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:400:4EF0:1D17:9294:6680:E568 (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2019

Change: They also found the distinction between contract and tort as sources of legal obligations. To: They also established the distinction between contract and tort as sources of legal obligations.

The use of "found" does not make sense in that sentence. Kurt.thomas (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Roman Law and Canon Law

I'm surprised that hardly anything is mentioned about canon law, given that both Roman law and canon law were studied together for centuries, beginning at Bologna. The study of Roman law is required as part of a JCL or JCD in canon law today. A lot of procedure as well as language in canon law comes from Roman law. (Heck, canon law is also still in Latin!) Gratian, the father of canon law, borrowed heavily from the corpus iuris civilis in his Decretum. Perhaps a mention alongside civil law in the introduction or in the Today section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.227.61.186 (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

'Stricter'?

'For example, Constantine started putting restrictions on the ancient Roman concept of patria potestas, the power held by the male head of a family over his descendants, by acknowledging that persons in potestate, the descendants, could have proprietary rights. He was apparently making concessions to the much stricter concept of paternal authority under Greek-Hellenistic law.'

'Stricter' seems a bit ambiguous to me - the main point is obviously that the paternal authority was less encompassing. Wouldn't a clearer phrasing be 'the more limited concept of paternal authority'? 62.73.69.121 (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)