Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 2nd, 2012, 03:44 PM   #1

Tlacaelel's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Tenochtitlán
Posts: 56
Twelve Tables, destroyed by the Romans?


In my recent studies of Roman Law, I found that the XII Tables were the product of an ongoing conflict between plebeians and patricians.

I found a nice source about the early development of the Romans
depicting from Brutus´s rebellion against the monarchy to the inheritance of the Kingdom of Pergamum to the Roman Republic.

Summarizing, the plebeians demanded a better status to the patricians, and exerted pression to the old class so they would recognize them better rights and status... They wanted protection from the abuses that the patricians were prone to.

We all know that this class struggle dramatically shaped the face of Roman society in the Archaic Epoch of Roman Law, with the patricians trying to resist the demands of more legal and social equality and even trying to reverse some given concessions.

Now, here comes my question and an idea I have been playing for a while, the Romans had the tendency to place their written laws in perdurable material (like bronze plates). Tradition says us that the XII Tables were lost in the Gaul´s sack of Rome (390/387), but, how could they have been lost, didn´t they have copies of it or in any other town? Why would the Gauls destroy something they didn´t regard as something valuable?

Could some patricians seize the oportunity to destroy or hide the XII Tables, given the logic in the context of the Struggle of the Orders?

Last edited by Tlacaelel; December 2nd, 2012 at 03:45 PM. Reason: Syntax
Tlacaelel is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 2nd, 2012, 11:52 PM   #2

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 12,774

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tlacaelel View Post
In my recent studies of Roman Law, I found that the XII Tables were the product of an ongoing conflict between plebeians and patricians.

I found a nice source about the early development of the Romans
depicting from Brutus´s rebellion against the monarchy to the inheritance of the Kingdom of Pergamum to the Roman Republic.

Summarizing, the plebeians demanded a better status to the patricians, and exerted pression to the old class so they would recognize them better rights and status... They wanted protection from the abuses that the patricians were prone to.

We all know that this class struggle dramatically shaped the face of Roman society in the Archaic Epoch of Roman Law, with the patricians trying to resist the demands of more legal and social equality and even trying to reverse some given concessions.

Now, here comes my question and an idea I have been playing for a while, the Romans had the tendency to place their written laws in perdurable material (like bronze plates). Tradition says us that the XII Tables were lost in the Gaul´s sack of Rome (390/387), but, how could they have been lost, didn´t they have copies of it or in any other town? Why would the Gauls destroy something they didn´t regard as something valuable?

Could some patricians seize the oportunity to destroy or hide the XII Tables, given the logic in the context of the Struggle of the Orders?
Let me ask you, do you know the 12TL?
It is said, that ten tables were made first, but that then another two tables were made. The law shall be a product of the social conflicts, especially the last two tables.
The table 11 contained the prohibition of marriages between patricii and plebeii. It contained as well regulations for intercalary days.
All together one could summarize the 11th table under the headline "cultural custom".
But the prohibition of marriages between the classes is disputed, as well the rescission by the tribune of the plebs Gaius canuleius. These tribune from 445, shall have abolished the prohibition against the resistance of the consules and the senate. But here are contradictions.

Forst of all the office of canuleius. The tribuni plebis evolved first after 367 into the later tribunes of the plebs. Before this the tribuni plebis were just military leader of the infantry, chosen by the plebs. The rescission could not have faced the resistance of the consules, because their office was created first n 367 as well.
The plebs got the right to abolish current laws with the Lex Hortensia in 287. In this year the dictator Quintius Hortensius obtained that plebis scita will have the same rang as leges. First in 300 by the lex ogulnia the plebeii were allowed to become augures and pontifices. ill that time these offices were prohibited for them. The only exception here was the office of the tribuni militum. The first plebeian got these office around 400.

So if the prohibition of marriages between patricii and plebeii was installed to exclude the plebs from the offices of the military leader, augures or pontifices, then the prohibition of marriages was obsolete already in 400. The permission to become priest was in 300. So this shows, that it was possible to forbid the plebs offices even without the prohibition of marriages. Therefor it is doubtful that such prohibition of marriages has ever exist.

Well, I said it above. the 12TL and especially the last two table shall be evidence for the social conflict in Rome, cos these two last tables were installed by the 2nd decemviri, the bad ones.
I said it above as well, the most of the last two tables was cultural common law and in 12 actio noxalis and there were procedure for the unfounded taking of pledges. that is not really evidence for a relation with social conflicts between plebeii and patricii.
So it is doubtful, whether the 12TL is really linked with these social conflict. The 12TL just wrote down the common laws of the rural world of Rome in the 5th century.
Therefor it is questionable that the patricii should have destroyed it. there was no need too.
beorna is offline  
Old December 3rd, 2012, 01:23 AM   #3

Lucius Vorenus's Avatar
Boss(ma)niac.
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Dalmatia Interior
Posts: 2,694
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
So if the prohibition of marriages between patricii and plebeii was installed to exclude the plebs from the offices of the military leader, augures or pontifices, then the prohibition of marriages was obsolete already in 400. The permission to become priest was in 300. So this shows, that it was possible to forbid the plebs offices even without the prohibition of marriages. Therefor it is doubtful that such prohibition of marriages has ever exist.

Well, I said it above. the 12TL and especially the last two table shall be evidence for the social conflict in Rome, cos these two last tables were installed by the 2nd decemviri, the bad ones.
I said it above as well, the most of the last two tables was cultural common law and in 12 actio noxalis and there were procedure for the unfounded taking of pledges. that is not really evidence for a relation with social conflicts between plebeii and patricii.
So it is doubtful, whether the 12TL is really linked with these social conflict. The 12TL just wrote down the common laws of the rural world of Rome in the 5th century.
Therefor it is questionable that the patricii should have destroyed it. there was no need too.

I'd challenge your idea about obsolete prohibition of marriages and Therefor it is doubtful that such prohibition of marriages has ever exist.

As I mentioned few times before things related to this topic, I'll probably repeat it there is no harm in that:

Liv, 10, XXIII, 4 – 10: Verginiam, Auli filiam, patriciam plebeio nuptam, L. Volumnio consuli, matronae, quod e patribus enupsisset, sacris arcuerant. brevis altercatio inde ex iracundia muliebri in contentionem animorum exarsit, cum se Verginia et patriciam et pudicam in Patriciae Pudicitiae templum ingressam et uni nuptam ad quem virgo deducta sit, nec se viri honorumve eius ac rerum gestarum paenitere, ex vero gloriaretur. Facto deinde egregio magnifica verba adauxit: in vico Longo, ubi habitabat, ex parte aedium quod satis esset loci modico sacello exclusit, aramque ibi posuit et convocatis plebeiis matronis conquesta iniuriam patriciarum “hanc ego aram” inquit “Pudicitiae Plebeiae dedico vosque hortor, ut quod certamen virtutis viros in hac civitate tenet, hoc pudicitiae inter matronas sit detisque operam ut haec ara quam illa, si quid potest, sanctius et a castioribus coli dicatur.” Eodem ferme ritu et haec ara quo illa antiquior culta est, ut nulla nisi spectatae pudicitiae matrona et quae uni viro nupta fuisset ius sacrificandi haberet.

Of course it's about Volumnius and his wife, consul for 296. If there was such revolt against marriage of patrician woman and plebeian consul in 296, we could assume that there was indeed some sort of prohibition before this date.
Lucius Vorenus is offline  
Old December 3rd, 2012, 01:53 AM   #4

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 12,774

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Vorenus View Post
I'd challenge your idea about obsolete prohibition of marriages and Therefor it is doubtful that such prohibition of marriages has ever exist.

As I mentioned few times before things related to this topic, I'll probably repeat it there is no harm in that:

Liv, 10, XXIII, 4 – 10: Verginiam, Auli filiam, patriciam plebeio nuptam, L. Volumnio consuli, matronae, quod e patribus enupsisset, sacris arcuerant. brevis altercatio inde ex iracundia muliebri in contentionem animorum exarsit, cum se Verginia et patriciam et pudicam in Patriciae Pudicitiae templum ingressam et uni nuptam ad quem virgo deducta sit, nec se viri honorumve eius ac rerum gestarum paenitere, ex vero gloriaretur. Facto deinde egregio magnifica verba adauxit: in vico Longo, ubi habitabat, ex parte aedium quod satis esset loci modico sacello exclusit, aramque ibi posuit et convocatis plebeiis matronis conquesta iniuriam patriciarum “hanc ego aram” inquit “Pudicitiae Plebeiae dedico vosque hortor, ut quod certamen virtutis viros in hac civitate tenet, hoc pudicitiae inter matronas sit detisque operam ut haec ara quam illa, si quid potest, sanctius et a castioribus coli dicatur.” Eodem ferme ritu et haec ara quo illa antiquior culta est, ut nulla nisi spectatae pudicitiae matrona et quae uni viro nupta fuisset ius sacrificandi haberet.

Of course it's about Volumnius and his wife, consul for 296. If there was such revolt against marriage of patrician woman and plebeian consul in 296, we could assume that there was indeed some sort of prohibition before this date.
well, first of all Livius wrote nearly 300 years later. I think it is questionable if he knew all the reasons for this trouble if this trouble ever existed.
These incident, was, if it was, in 296, so just 4 years after the lex ogulnia. The trouble arose, because virginia wanted to use the same temple as her patrician ladies, allthough she had married a homo novus.
So is this evidence for a prohibition of marriages between patricii and plebeii? Her husband was plebeian and the first know plebeian consul. So we have here evidence for pride of place, not for a law.
beorna is offline  
Old December 3rd, 2012, 01:56 AM   #5

Lucius Vorenus's Avatar
Boss(ma)niac.
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Dalmatia Interior
Posts: 2,694
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
well, first of all Livius wrote nearly 300 years later. I think it is questionable if he knew all the reasons for this trouble if this trouble ever existed.
These incident, was, if it was, in 296, so just 4 years after the lex ogulnia. The trouble arose, because virginia wanted to use the same temple as her patrician ladies, allthough she had married a homo novus.
So is this evidence for a prohibition of marriages between patricii and plebeii? Her husband was plebeian and the first know plebeian consul. So we have here evidence for pride of place, not for a law.
I'm actually not trying to prove anything. Keep up the debate on 12T
Lucius Vorenus is offline  
Old December 3rd, 2012, 09:49 PM   #6

Tlacaelel's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Tenochtitlán
Posts: 56

But the XIIT held many protections and was written. This may seem non important but written laws were a strong point in the demands of the secessio plebis in 449, because originally laws were secret and only known and usable by the priests (which obviously non was plebeian).

Also in the XIIT many of its laws set a basic legal frame of rights and protections to the Roman public, including plebeians. It was thus, not unconcievable that in judgments/trials under patrician law, patrician iudex and a patrician social preeminence that subjectivity and injustice could exist and even be common in conflicts between plebeians and patricians in a trial.

The patrician class vehemently opposed the idea of the XIIT because it meant a legal minimum status by which the plebeians could resist any patrician intention in a fair trial, but were forced



It is then not unthinkable that the patricians scorned the laws that begun the adquisition of plebeian equality upon patricians.

PS.: and answering your question, I do not know them becaue they are lost...duh....being serious, ahem, I have studied a somewhat brief explanation of what each tabulla had. The real problem for the patricians wasn´t if they could marry or not with the plebeians, but it was that they were losing their privileges in the utmost important fields for a Roman citizen, which were the legal and social fields IMHO.
Tlacaelel is offline  
Old December 4th, 2012, 12:02 AM   #7

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 12,774

I can quote it on Latin. if somebody has problems with the translation, I can translate it for you.

Tabula I
Si in ius vocat, ito. Ni it, antestamino. Igitur em capito. Si calvitur pedemve striut, mandum endo iacito. Si morbus aevitasve vitium escit, iumentum dato. Si nolet, arceram ne sternito. Adsiduo vindex adsiduus esto. Proletario iam civi quis volet vindex esto. Nexi mancipiive faciundi....idem forcti sanatique ius esto



Rem ubi pa****, orato. Ni ita pa****, in comitio aut in forno ante meridiem caussam cuoicito. Ctum peroranto ambo praesentes. Post meridiem praesenti litem addicito. Si ambo praesentes, solis occasus suprema tempestas esto.



tabula II

[…] sonticus morbus[…] aut status dies cum hoste […] quid horum fuit unum iudici arbitrove reove, eo dies diffissus esto. Cui testimonium defuerit, is tertiis diebus ob portum obvagulatum ito.

tabula III

Aeris confessi rebusque iure iudicatis triginta dies iusti sunto. Post deinde manus iniectio esto. In ius ducito. Ni iudicatum facit aut quis endo eo in iure vindicit, secum ducito, vincito aut nervo aut compedibus XV pondo, ne maiore aut si volet minore vincito. Si volet suo vivito, ni suo vivit, qui eum vinctum habebit, libram faris endo dies dato. Si volet, plus dato. Tertiis nundinis partis secanto. Si plus minusve secuerunt, se fraude esto. Adversus hostem aeterna auctoritas esto.

tabula IV

Cito necatus insignis ad deformitatem puer esto. Si pater filium ter venum dabit, filius a patre liber esto. tabula V
Uti legassit super pecunia tutelave suae rei, ita ius esto. Si intestato moritur, cui suus heres nec escit, adgnatus proximus familiam habeto. Si adgnatus nec escit, gentiles familiam habento. Si adgnatus nec escit, gentiles familiam habento.

Si furiosus escit, adgnatum gentiliumque in eo pecuniaque eius potestas esto. Item prodigo adgnatus proximus curator esto, ast ei custos nec

escit.



tabula VI

Cum nexum faciet mancipiumque, uti lingua nuncupassit, ita ius esto. Usus auctoritas fundi biennum ....adversus hostem aeterna

auctoritas.

Tignum iunctum aedibus vineave sei concapis ne solvito. Pedamenta, vine quandoque sarpta, donec dempta erunt, ne

vindicito.



tabula VII

Vias muniunto: ni sam delapidassint, qua volet iumento agito. tabula VIII

Qui malum carmen incantassit […] Si membrum rupsit, ni cum eo pacit, talio esto. Manu fustive si os fregit libero, CCC, si servo, CL poenam subito. Si iniuriam faxsit, viginti quinque poenae sunto. Qui fruges excantassit […] 〈carmi〉neve alienam segetem pellexerit […] Si nox furtum faxsit, si occisit, iure caesus esto. Luci […] si se telo defendit, […] endoque plorato. Si adorat furto, quod nec manifestum erit […], 〈duplione damnum decidito〉. Patronus si clienti fraudem fecerit, sacer esto. Qui se sierit testarier libripensve fuerit, ni testimonium fatiatur, inprobus intestabilisque esto. Si telum manu fugit magis quam iecit, arietem subicito.

tabula IX



Privilegia ne inroganto


De capite civis nisi per maximum comitiatum ollosque, quos

censores in partibus populi locassint, ne ferunto.



tabula X

Hominem mortuum in urbe ne sepelito neve urito. […] hoc plus ne facito: rogum ascea ne polito. Mulieres genas ne radunto neve lessum funeris ergo habento. Homini mortuo ne ossa legito, quo post funus faciat. Qui coronam parit ipse pecuniave eius honoris virtutisve ergo adduitor ei […] […] neve aurum addito. At cui auro dentes iuncti es****, ast in cum illo sepeliet uretve, se fraude esto.

tabula XI


no direct quote existing

tabula XII

Pecuniam quis nacitor, habeto. Si quid pignoris nanciscituor, sibi habeto.
Si servo furtum faxit noxiamve no〈x〉it […] Si vindiciam falsam tulit, si velit is […] 〈prae〉tor arbitros tris dato, eorum arbitrio […] fructus duplione damnum decidito.
beorna is offline  
Old December 4th, 2012, 12:06 AM   #8

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 12,774

What a nonsense, these anglo-american phobia on insults

The part in tabula I

Rem ubi pa****, orato. Ni ita pa****, in comitio aut in forno ante meridiem caussam cuoicito. Ctum peroranto ambo praesentes. Post meridiem praesenti litem addicito. Si ambo praesentes, solis occasus suprema tempestas esto,

means Rem ubi paC-U-N-T orato. Ni ita paC-U-N-T.
beorna is offline  
Old December 4th, 2012, 11:28 AM   #9

Tlacaelel's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Tenochtitlán
Posts: 56

And....excuse my apparent uncapacity to understand your point, which is...?
Tlacaelel is offline  
Old December 4th, 2012, 12:07 PM   #10

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 12,774

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tlacaelel View Post
And....excuse my apparent uncapacity to understand your point, which is...?
My point? well, show me where we have class fighting and social conflict in these law!
beorna is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
rome gauls orders law xii


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Most often destroyed city AlexanderB General History 33 February 17th, 2014 08:33 AM
Olympic medal tables since 1896: superpowers Maia General History 193 August 29th, 2012 02:34 AM
Themes in Suetonius' "The Twelve Caesars" emknight History Help 5 December 6th, 2010 07:44 PM
12 Tables / Hammurabi's Code CJ74 Ancient History 0 October 29th, 2009 09:49 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.