7 ms·

What the article glosses over is that Roman lawyers were nothing at all like today's lawyers. "Lawyers" in Ancient Rome were generally patricians who owed assi

What the article glosses over is that Roman lawyers were nothing at all like today's lawyers. "Lawyers" in Ancient Rome were generally patricians who owed assistance to their cliens. There were no formal schools of law, and the law in Republican Rome was a changeable and largely customary thing, with a considerable religious component. What's more, from 204 BC onwards, these "lawyers" were legally barred from charging for their services, thanks to the Lex Cincia -- but even before, and well after, the passing of that law, it was considered beneath one's dignity to charge for legal counsel and advice. In short, it wasn't a profession. Roman patricians generally knew the customs of Rome, and were capable of advising their vassals, retainers, and various plebians on points of law which reflected those customs. (Where the law was codified, it was extremely clear.) Some of these patrician-lawyers were orators and made pleadings before the court -- most did not, and in most cases pleadings were made directly by the parties involved. Also: In Republican Rome, Judges (judex) were private arbitrators. They were not officials. So it was what we'd call a customary and amateur legal system.

throwawaylinux 3y ago
Private legal system with non-profit counsel. Would be interesting to try it again, but no state would ever revert that kind of power to its citizens.
- HeckFeck 3y ago
  Quite. There is something deeply appealing in making the law much more immediate and accessible to the commons. The labyrinthine system we have today makes me wonder how many people don't bother even when there are genuine disputes and injustices everywhere.
- SanderNL 3y ago
  I think this is romanticizing the past a bit. I'd hesitate to call it real power as well. You could not just go against someone of let's say senatorial class or god forbid, the Emperor himself, without substantial (military) backing and/or being an untouchable demi-god yourself. Today you can take the government itself to court and actually win. There is to my knowledge no historical precedent for the amount of practical power the common citizenry has over the powerful classes today.
  - throwawaylinux 3y ago
    I think you're romanticizing the present. There is no law that results in monotonic increase in "goodness" of social systems over time. It can appear that way if you look at the past few hundred or thousand years because incredible technological advances do tend to result in more, but that can also mask inequality and injustice on the fringes. Would I prefer to live now than 2000 years ago? Certainly. Is that because of today's systems of governance, rather than today's technology? No. It's a fantasy to believe the ruling class are not in an eternal struggle to take more, or that they have ever only restrained themselves due to the threat of revolt. > I'd hesitate to call it real power as well. You could not just go against someone of let's say senatorial class or god forbid, the Emperor himself, without substantial (military) backing and/or being an untouchable demi-god yourself. I wouldn't hesitate to call it real power. You're trying to make it an all or nothing thing, but it's not. There's a lot of power between cockroach and omnipotent. > Today you can take the government itself to court and actually win. And what does "winning" mean? It means the government decides that it must take some money from other citizens and give it to you.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      "And what does "winning" mean? It means the government decides that it must take some money from other citizens and give it to you. " It can also mean countless other things. Like that government has to stop excessive surveillance. Cannot take your home away to build a road. Or has to lift a regulation for your buisness, ... Not every government activity is money redistribution.
      - throwawaylinux 3y ago
        Sounds like the kind of "win" where the government tells the government that the government has to stop excessive surveillance and the government promises the government it will and then it doesn't, and it also starts spying on the parts of the government that tried to stop it so it can bring them to heel. You can change a few roads around from time to time, resulting in the government taking more of your money to build road that takes a longer route so you and your fellow plebs have to commute 10 minutes longer. That's not the "real" power previous poster was talking about, going up against the ruling class.
consilient 3y ago
> What's more, from 204 BC onwards, these "lawyers" were legally barred from charging for their services, thanks to the Lex Cincia Officially, yes. In practice orators were often rewarded with bequests, political favors, or "loans" that would never be called in (Cicero received one from Sulla, for instance).
- bobboies 3y ago
  Sounds like they were more like modern lobbyists.
  - consilient 3y ago
    Not really; no modern profession is a close analogue, because Roman lawyers of this era weren't professionals. They were first and foremost aristocrats, trading favors and running patronage networks.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      >They were first and foremost aristocrats, trading favors and running patronage networks. Sounds like the modern upper middle class nepo parents...
      - matthewowen 3y ago
        It’s tempting to think that if you just look and think hard enough you can find perfect analogs between the past and the present. But when you do that, you don’t engage with the past on it’s own terms and your understanding of it is fundamentally weakened. It’s best not to do that.
        pc86 3y ago
        I don't think either of the two "sounds like ..." comments above are interested in any sort of understanding about the past (or present), fundamental or otherwise. It sounds like they're more interested in making cheap political / social commentary.
oersted 3y ago
That is interesting. Do you mean that the judges like hired mediators? Was this only for civil disputes or in general? Who held the authority to enforce the judge's decision?
- A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
  In civil disputes, both parties agree to have their case heard by a prominent member of Rome's upper classes. When this judex makes his decision, he has no power to carry it out -- but if his decision is ignored, the guilty party can be brought by force to a magistrate and made to answer for his dishonorable conduct. (Despite the name, the magistrate is also not a judge, but an elected administrator of the Republic with various executive functions at his disposal.) See: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-legal-procedure https://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-legal-procedure > After the issues were delineated and sureties set, both parties agreed upon a judex, who was neither a lawyer nor a magistrate but a prominent layman, to try the case. The proceedings before the judex were more informal: advocates spoke and gave evidence, and witnesses often appeared. The judex made a decision but had no power to execute it. If the defendant refused to pay the fine or make restitution within a certain period of time, he could be brought by force to the magistrate. Then his property could be seized, or he could be made slave to the plaintiff to work off the debt or property claim.
- consilient 3y ago
  > Was this only for civil disputes or in general? ius privatum, which includes all of what we would call civil law but also most crimes against individuals. The ius publicum mostly concerned crimes against the state: counterfeiting, embezzlement, treason, etc.
rsynnott 3y ago
> "Lawyers" in Ancient Rome were generally patricians who owed assistance to their cliens. Certainly by the late republic I'm not sure that it's true they were generally patricians? They were generally upper-class, certainly, often senatorial-class, but by then a lot of them (Cicero, say) would have been plebeians.
- consilient 3y ago
  Yes, after the Lex Hortensia in 287 the patrician-plebeian distinction is basically meaningless.
cma 3y ago
According to wikipedia: > [gifts to] blood relatives, up to the fifth degree, were excepted, Did that include for lawyers or only the other part of the law? Relatives to the 5th degree could be a lot of paying people per lawyer.
qwytw 3y ago
I'm not sure using the word "Patrician" in this case (when talking about the late republic) is accurate. By that point almost all legal privileges patrician had were abolished and plebeians aspiring for a public career generally actually had more opportunities (you had to be one to stand for election as a people's tribune and at least one consul legally had to be a plebian). By that point Rome was a full on plutocracy and most senators/nobles weren't patricians. Probably one the most famous Roman "lawyer" Cicero was not only a plebian but a complete no-name from a provincial town (and most famous Romans from his time like Cato, Pompey, Brutus, Mark Anthony, Octavian were all plebian while Ceasar, Lepidus and Metellus Scipio were patrician) .
- User23 3y ago
  It was possible to switch from patrician to plebeian and vice versa by adoption. Clodius is the best known example of the former and Octavian of the latter.

throwawaylinux 3y ago

Private legal system with non-profit counsel. Would be interesting to try it again, but no state would ever revert that kind of power to its citizens.

HeckFeck 3y ago
Quite. There is something deeply appealing in making the law much more immediate and accessible to the commons. The labyrinthine system we have today makes me wonder how many people don't bother even when there are genuine disputes and injustices everywhere.
SanderNL 3y ago
I think this is romanticizing the past a bit. I'd hesitate to call it real power as well. You could not just go against someone of let's say senatorial class or god forbid, the Emperor himself, without substantial (military) backing and/or being an untouchable demi-god yourself. Today you can take the government itself to court and actually win. There is to my knowledge no historical precedent for the amount of practical power the common citizenry has over the powerful classes today.
- throwawaylinux 3y ago
  I think you're romanticizing the present. There is no law that results in monotonic increase in "goodness" of social systems over time. It can appear that way if you look at the past few hundred or thousand years because incredible technological advances do tend to result in more, but that can also mask inequality and injustice on the fringes. Would I prefer to live now than 2000 years ago? Certainly. Is that because of today's systems of governance, rather than today's technology? No. It's a fantasy to believe the ruling class are not in an eternal struggle to take more, or that they have ever only restrained themselves due to the threat of revolt. > I'd hesitate to call it real power as well. You could not just go against someone of let's say senatorial class or god forbid, the Emperor himself, without substantial (military) backing and/or being an untouchable demi-god yourself. I wouldn't hesitate to call it real power. You're trying to make it an all or nothing thing, but it's not. There's a lot of power between cockroach and omnipotent. > Today you can take the government itself to court and actually win. And what does "winning" mean? It means the government decides that it must take some money from other citizens and give it to you.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "And what does "winning" mean? It means the government decides that it must take some money from other citizens and give it to you. " It can also mean countless other things. Like that government has to stop excessive surveillance. Cannot take your home away to build a road. Or has to lift a regulation for your buisness, ... Not every government activity is money redistribution.
    - throwawaylinux 3y ago
      Sounds like the kind of "win" where the government tells the government that the government has to stop excessive surveillance and the government promises the government it will and then it doesn't, and it also starts spying on the parts of the government that tried to stop it so it can bring them to heel. You can change a few roads around from time to time, resulting in the government taking more of your money to build road that takes a longer route so you and your fellow plebs have to commute 10 minutes longer. That's not the "real" power previous poster was talking about, going up against the ruling class.

consilient 3y ago

> What's more, from 204 BC onwards, these "lawyers" were legally barred from charging for their services, thanks to the Lex Cincia Officially, yes. In practice orators were often rewarded with bequests, political favors, or "loans" that would never be called in (Cicero received one from Sulla, for instance).

bobboies 3y ago
Sounds like they were more like modern lobbyists.
- consilient 3y ago
  Not really; no modern profession is a close analogue, because Roman lawyers of this era weren't professionals. They were first and foremost aristocrats, trading favors and running patronage networks.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >They were first and foremost aristocrats, trading favors and running patronage networks. Sounds like the modern upper middle class nepo parents...
    - matthewowen 3y ago
      It’s tempting to think that if you just look and think hard enough you can find perfect analogs between the past and the present. But when you do that, you don’t engage with the past on it’s own terms and your understanding of it is fundamentally weakened. It’s best not to do that.
      - pc86 3y ago
        I don't think either of the two "sounds like ..." comments above are interested in any sort of understanding about the past (or present), fundamental or otherwise. It sounds like they're more interested in making cheap political / social commentary.

oersted 3y ago

That is interesting. Do you mean that the judges like hired mediators? Was this only for civil disputes or in general? Who held the authority to enforce the judge's decision?

A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
In civil disputes, both parties agree to have their case heard by a prominent member of Rome's upper classes. When this judex makes his decision, he has no power to carry it out -- but if his decision is ignored, the guilty party can be brought by force to a magistrate and made to answer for his dishonorable conduct. (Despite the name, the magistrate is also not a judge, but an elected administrator of the Republic with various executive functions at his disposal.) See: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-legal-procedure https://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-legal-procedure > After the issues were delineated and sureties set, both parties agreed upon a judex, who was neither a lawyer nor a magistrate but a prominent layman, to try the case. The proceedings before the judex were more informal: advocates spoke and gave evidence, and witnesses often appeared. The judex made a decision but had no power to execute it. If the defendant refused to pay the fine or make restitution within a certain period of time, he could be brought by force to the magistrate. Then his property could be seized, or he could be made slave to the plaintiff to work off the debt or property claim.
consilient 3y ago
> Was this only for civil disputes or in general? ius privatum, which includes all of what we would call civil law but also most crimes against individuals. The ius publicum mostly concerned crimes against the state: counterfeiting, embezzlement, treason, etc.

rsynnott 3y ago

> "Lawyers" in Ancient Rome were generally patricians who owed assistance to their cliens. Certainly by the late republic I'm not sure that it's true they were generally patricians? They were generally upper-class, certainly, often senatorial-class, but by then a lot of them (Cicero, say) would have been plebeians.

consilient 3y ago
Yes, after the Lex Hortensia in 287 the patrician-plebeian distinction is basically meaningless.

cma 3y ago

According to wikipedia: > [gifts to] blood relatives, up to the fifth degree, were excepted, Did that include for lawyers or only the other part of the law? Relatives to the 5th degree could be a lot of paying people per lawyer.

qwytw 3y ago

I'm not sure using the word "Patrician" in this case (when talking about the late republic) is accurate. By that point almost all legal privileges patrician had were abolished and plebeians aspiring for a public career generally actually had more opportunities (you had to be one to stand for election as a people's tribune and at least one consul legally had to be a plebian). By that point Rome was a full on plutocracy and most senators/nobles weren't patricians. Probably one the most famous Roman "lawyer" Cicero was not only a plebian but a complete no-name from a provincial town (and most famous Romans from his time like Cato, Pompey, Brutus, Mark Anthony, Octavian were all plebian while Ceasar, Lepidus and Metellus Scipio were patrician) .

User23 3y ago
It was possible to switch from patrician to plebeian and vice versa by adoption. Clodius is the best known example of the former and Octavian of the latter.