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.
Sunday, August 27, 2023
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm thoroughly impressed at how complex this law code was. For that time period it was very extensive and hit on the basis of everything a good society should really focus on. The law code did however have some gruesome punishments and most of the law code if broken at all had punishments. The Romans had no time for people getting away Scott free from any crimes either small or large. A lot of the law also revolved around property and people. This might mean that people and property were highly favored in the Roman society. Overall, The Twelve Tables provided an early understanding of some key concepts such as justice, equality, and punishment. The Twelve Tables provided social protection and civil rights for both the patricians and plebeians.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite law that the Twelve Tables gives is number twenty six on table eight on the website. It states that no person shall hold meetings by night in the city. Meetings at night could hold for negative purposes. Rarely anything good happens after midnight. Night meetings could be lead for secret purposes in trying to kill the king or raise a coup to take over. Night meetings could be held for robbing a store or killing soldiers. I would say this law would help strengthen Rome for having those kind of meetings during the day will be far more riskier and will lead to less people trying to cause mischief during the night. I'm sure people still did night meetings but with this law in place I'm sure less people did night meetings for the punishments that the Romans had toward law breakers were harsh. Overall, the night meetings would probably most definitely lead to more mischief for the Roman Republic and nipping that in the butt would allow for less trouble for the Roman Republic.
I was quite surprised with how detailed and complex the Twelve Tables were, especially for being Rome's first written laws. I think their take on the Court was pretty good for the time. Most of their laws regarding the defendant and plaintiff made sense, and I like that they mention that the defendant can receive a vehicle even if sickness or age is a problem (Table 1, Number 3). It is also good that they forbid putting someone to death without a trial or conviction (Table 9, Number 6), but I think some of their punishments are quite harsh. Receiving capital punishment for reciting an evil incantation seems a little overboard, especially because of how vague the description is (Table 8, Number 1b). We are lucky to have freedom of speech in America today, and I'm sure many people take it for granted, but in the Roman Republic, people might be put to death just for badmouthing the emperor. I won't go to far into politics, but I know people are not just speaking good about our current and former presidents in our time today. I think this law would probably have weakened the Roman government. Although only good things could be said about an individual, expression would be extremely restricted. The Roman government may have also had a more difficult time deciphering whether or not people liked their current leaders, as only good things could be said due to fear of punishment. Having this law seems to be a double-edged sword, but may have hurt the government more.
ReplyDeleteI was actually fairly impressed by the law code. I thought for the most part, it reflected the time period that the Roman Empire was in (including things like women’s rights, and transfers of power), and I even saw some similarities to governments in today’s society. I thought it was quite simple, which sometimes is the hardest part of law codes, not being able to understand them fully. I think this law code serves as a foundational piece to why the Roman Empire was able to hold for a good period of time, and not fall as other empires did. A good law that I decided to go with was the law under Table IX - “5. Treason: he who shall have roused up a public enemy or handed over a citizen to a public enemy must suffer capital punishment.” This one is important for multiple reasons. I want first to point out that in a lot of nations in today’s society, this is prevalent all across the board, in hopes of maintaining peace amongst the people, but to make sure the government or whoever is in charge isn’t jeopardised. It’s the responsibility to protect the people, and any person who violates this or retaliates against a form of government as in treason, shall be punished. This was a good law in the Roman Empire, as it is a good law in some places today. Preserving the Roman Empire was the foremost responsibility, and so any action or any people that were against this Empire should be punished to retain the integrity of the Empire and to continue to have it move forward. This would strengthen the Roman Empire for multiple reasons, the most important being to continue to hold firm on the Empire, and not let anyone people(s) jeopardize the lead. In other words, keeping the people out or getting rid of the people who threaten the Empire’s existence, hence strengthening it. One that I believe is a bad law is under Table XII which states, “If a slave shall have committed theft or done damage with his master's knowledge, the action for damages is in the slave's name.” It’s bad for multiple reasons; although slaves were basically shown to not be humans, but rather a piece of property, it doesn’t have an immediate effect per say on society as a whole, the thing that scares me is if certain behaviours are presented against the Roman Empire by the same individuals, the Empire could be at risk. For example, if someone destroys something of importance to the Empire in the form of retaliation or displeasurement, it could be a form of defiance, and trying to overthrow one government. Although the individual might not do it themselves, they could order their slave(s) to do it, forcing them to do otherwise there’s a chance of punishment or quite frankly death. This could build up over time, and if the right people aren’t held responsible, then it opens the door for the Empire to be taken over, or overthrown, because the situation wasn’t handled correctly, and the wrong person (or slave) was punished, compared to the “traitor” who had been doing it for a period of time. This example would show the Roman Empire. - Nile Hesson
ReplyDeleteThe Twelve Tables law code appears to be shaped by experience and well-thought course of actions. Some laws are to the point whereas others have numerous steps and based on possibilities. The laws also seem to be quite fitting according to the offense; such as... the penalty of burning at the stake for one who destroys by fire (Table VIII, #10). A couple laws that I don't agree with would be the one which gives allowance for a man to remove the tree of his neighbor if it bends into his lawn, even if by wind (Table VII,#9), or the one that says there shall be no meetings held at night within the city, although, it does make some sense (Table VIII, #26). The couple that I do like would be the one that talks about a man being slain rightfully if he is a thief in the night, I think we need that one (Table VIII, #3), or where nobody is permitted to bury a corpse in the city, this one is great for keeping a check on diseases being spread among the population, may we should implement this one as well (Table X, #1).
ReplyDeleteI am very impressed by the Roman Republic's code of law. It is very in-depth and complex for its time period. They are also a very good representation of Roman beliefs and culture. It is quite clear that many later governments were influenced heavily by The Twelve Tables definition of justice and criminal proceedings. There are many similarities between the Twelve Tables code and that of modern day US legal codes. One particular law I was intrigued by was Table I. The table states the laws pertaining to legal proceedings, much of which is quite similar to current laws. I think that they are quite good laws that would strengthen the Roman Republic. The law states clear and concise laws for being present at legal proceedings if involved in the case. I think that it would help to strengthen the Roman Republic because it helps order be held, by setting a strict code for attendance when called on for a legal proceeding. Legal cases are used to issue justice according to crimes committed, which is essential to keeping order in a large society.
ReplyDeleteFor the first written laws of a republic, they are rather impressive. They seem to be well thought out (for the most part) and detailed. One thing I found interesting was the amount of laws relating to "summons." Clearly that was a major part of Roman history, and it is obvious that they did not take a missing summons lightly. One law I found to be a bit alarming was the first law in table IV--"A dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed." I seemed to have forgotten that this was written over 1000 years ago. When reading this in the present day, it is rather shocking to consider a law where a deformed child would be quickly killed just because of its deformities. Also, you have to think about what the Romans considered a "dreadful" deformity. You can imagine the reactions of people when seeing a cleft palate or clubbed foot for the first time--probably not very encouraging. As for the mothers, how did they feel about it? I wonder if they anxiously lived while being pregnant in fear that their child would be killed if something didn't look right. But alas, people thought quite differently back then, so maybe the mothers didn't care at all. If the Roman Republic's goal was to increase the population, maybe they should reconsider this particular law and define "dreadful deformities" in the margins.
ReplyDelete-Lauren Bland
I find this law code very impressive, seeing that it is one of the first official law codes of the time. Most are very specific and thorough, which is important so both the plebians and the patricians would fully understand the laws.
ReplyDeleteOne of the laws that I thought was a good and fair law was the first law in table VII, which stated that " Let them keep the road in order. If they have not paved it, a man may drive his team where he likes." I believe that this is a good law to have because it incentivizes the ruling class to provide paved roads for the people, to avoid people chaotically driving their horse teams around, which led to safer road conditions.
One law that I thought was an unjust law was the 26th law from table VIII, which states "No person shall hold meetings by night in the city." This is an unjust law because it prevents people from conversing with other people who share their opinions on the government. Maybe it's because I grew up in a country that protects freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, but I think that this law stifles any expression towards the government/ruling class, whether that be good or bad expression.
- Haylee Bohnet
These twelve tables were very interesting to read, although some of them were a little bit confusing to understand.
ReplyDeleteOne of the laws that I thought would make the Roman Republic stronger is the law that reads, "A horribly deformed child shall be quickly killed." This proves that Rome wanted all of it's citizens to be strong and to not allow for deformities since that would just hold the Roman Republic back.
One law that I thought would weaken the Roman Republic is the one that says if a man refuses to come when summons, people are allowed to go to his house and call him every third day. This seems like a great waste of time for not only ordinary people, but also the senate and the governing powers.
I was impressed and intrigued by these laws and I can see how many of them could be used to solve common disputes that they had.
ReplyDeleteHowever, while I found these laws to be interesting I did not agree with all of them or think that an actual problem was being solved or that the law did any good. The laws I have issues with in particular are:
IV.1 - A dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed.
VI.6 - Any woman who does not wish to be subjected in this manner to the hand of her
husband should be absent three nights in succession every year, and so interrupt the usucapio of each year.
VIII.13 - It is unlawful for a thief to be killed by day....unless he defends himself with a weapon; even though he has come with a weapon, unless he shall use the weapon and fight back, you shall not kill him. And even if he resists, first call out so that someone may hear and come up.
VIII.23 - A person who had been found guilty of giving false witness shall be hurled down from the Tarpeian Rock.
X.3 - The women shall not tear their faces nor wail on account of the funeral.
XI.1 - Marriages should not take place between plebeians and patricians.
To be more in depth about my issues with a few of these I will talk first about IV.1 which is about killing a deformed child. I have issues with this law in regards to it back in ancient Rome, all throughout history, and even up to our society today with abortion. I disagree with the killing of all children: born, unborn, “perfectly” formed, or deformed. We are all made perfect in God’s image and even those born deformed have been so for a reason according to God’s will. To actively murder innocents simply because they are born different will scar not only that family but that community and society. I believe that this law ultimately was a hindrance to ancient Roman civilization.
The second law I will talk about is XI.1 which speaks of prohibiting marriage between a plebeian and a patrician. I believe that this law hurts them because people innately seem to want what they can not have especially after you tell them that they can not have it. The law of saying who can and can not marry each other is also very controlling and domineering. It is inspiring and glorifying the segregation of social classes/people which instills fear, anger, and a sense of unfairness in everyone.