Talk:Siete Partidas

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Siete Partidas: plural or singluar?[edit]

Should the Siete Partidas have singular or plural agreement? The English article assumes first person right now (...the Siete Partidas is...), but I think it should be plural like the Spanish article has it (...the Siete Partidas are...). - Draeco 18:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I started translating it as plural, that quickly started to feel pedantic, so I switched to singular. Since the parts were commissioned and later published as a unit, I have no problem with maintaining the singular. But I also don't feel strongly enough about this, to, say, revert a global change to the plural. :-) Rodney Boyd 18:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article or Title?[edit]

Should título be translated as "article" or "title"? Here, most seem to be using "article", but I'm not sure if this is best. The US Code is organized into Titles (eg. the controversial Title IX). Every translation of the Partidas into English I've ever seen uses Partidas, Titles, and Laws. Similarly organized works of jurisprudence are also referred to as having titles instead of articles. Here's an example from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire via the OED: 1781 GIBBON Decl. & F. xvii. II. 62 note, The first twenty-eight titles of the eleventh book of the Theodosian Code are filled with the circumstantial regulations on the important subject of tributes. Any thoughts? --Smarcus 22:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the United States Code is divided into titles, many legal codes use articles, which are further divided into sections (which is what the symbol § stands for in legal writing). I think articles is used significantly more often than titles. For an example, the Constitution of the United States is divided into articles, as are most of the laws in New York (where I practice). Thus, I think more laypeople are familiar with articles than titles. On the other hand, using titles may be more in keeping with text's treatment in Spanish countries, where it is far better known than here. Of course, you can't translate many words directly, but where there is ambiguity as to the words to use...okay I've come full circle, talked myself into and out of a recommendation. Final result: Not sure (damn). --Fuhghettaboutit 23:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US Constitution is indeed divided into articles. However, in Spanish, these are referred to as artículos [1]. One would expect the US Constitution and the laws of New York to be organized differently than the Siete Partidas because they are based on English law rather than Roman or Continental law. I think the more relevant state legal system to examine would be that of Louisiana, since Louisiana law is based on the Code Napoléon. And, the Louisiana Administrative Code is divided into titles [2]. However, its Constitution is divided into articles....which is confusing. Anyway, now look the Digest of Justinian, a work on which the Partidas relies heavily. It is also divided into titles [3]. So, I think "title" is probably the more precise term. That being said, you're certainly correct that "articles" is used much more often in English, and people will more readily know what it means. So, I think it comes down to a trade-off between accuracy and accessibility. I'm not sure how that should be resolved. --Smarcus 23:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm certainly no legal scholar/translator, but it sounds to me that we should use "title" consistently, with maybe a little parenthetical blurb when it crops up the first time...like "the first partida contains 24 titles (or 'articles') and..." - Draeco 03:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent change, correct?[edit]

In a recent edit, the text I translated beginning: "The most ancient Partidas Codex is thought to have been written...." was changed to "According to one of the oldest manuscripts of the Partidas, it was written..." This is a very different meaning. My question is, was this an information correction, or a stylistic change? If the former, good, although this doesn't seem to square with later text--if it states within the codex itself when it was written, wouldn't the debate be different? If it's the latter, a stylistic change, please note the vast change in meaning it effects. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that was my edit. I have no new information, but I think this version more accurately captures what is written in the original article. I agree with you that this makes the subsequent text more perplexing. Rodney Boyd 16:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While we cannot slavishly follow the original if research can illuminate errors, I imagine our resources are more limited than many of the Spanish language article's writers. There's the rub—we are second hand relying on that the original is correct (not that I can think of a good way to avoid this). Hopefully, even if true, the "Wikipedia effect" will shake out the problems in this and all articles eventually. Also, it may be that in two years, the Spanish article will be more highly polished and vetted and future editors of this article can compare the texts and make appropriate corrections and additions.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Castilian acrostic[edit]

fizo I'm guessing became hizo in modern Spanish

onras sennaladas == honras señaladas ?? which could be 'special rites' or perhaps even 'holy sacraments' Rodney Boyd 04:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I would guess. It would be nice to have a reference for that, though -- especially if we eventually hope to make this a featured article. (With some inline citations, it should be very possible.) -- bcasterline • talk 03:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Fizo" is definitely "hizo" [4]. I can't find anything as conclusive for "onras sennaladas". [5] -- bcasterline • talk 04:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the ñ page, it mentions that it was shorthand for double n, so the second looks likely too. Estrellador*

Exaggerated _direct_ influence of the Partidas[edit]

The Spanish article translated here is mistaken in talking about the influence of the Partidas after the medieval period. It was all indirect. The _Nueva recopilación_ was the official law collection starting in the sixteenth century (and even it was not based _directly_ on the Partidas). See the Talk page of the Spanish article. deisenbe (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance to Slavery?[edit]

In James Walvin's A Short History of Slavery he says that as a consequence of the Siete Partidas 'slavery was given a legal structure: it was no longer merely a haphazard economic phenomenon...It ensured that a legal code existed for the treatment of slaves, and it was this code that shaped the early Spanish involvement with slave colonies in the Americas.'

There is no reference to slaves in the article, so perhaps someone that knows more about the subject could add something. LastDodo (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]