Talk:Roman law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roman law article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

I fixed some vandalism, please do not revert my edit. 72.95.12.29 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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....

[edit] 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.


[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)