Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jaguar
...I seem to remember there was evidence that Roman law was descended from the code of Hammurabi...
|
No one can say for sure. But many have compared the two and some reasonable conclusions suggest the answer is yes while others suggest perhaps not.
Hammurabi's Code had 281 provisions - most of which were extremely specific (e.g., the eye for an eye as well as one for a bone for a bone) where as The Twelve Tables (Roman) are very brief and very general with few specificly outlined offenses. The Tables are half procedural and half actual laws. The Code tried to anticipate every wrong that might be done and specifically outlaw it whereas the Tables (with remarkable forsight) instead created a structure for resolving wrongs between citizens and actual criminal activity and, therefore, basically created the explicit distinction betwen criminal and civil law. You could essentially sue someone in ancient Rome. Another interesting thing about the Tables is that they were originally Ten. Two were later added: one for prohibiting marriage between the classes (codifying a 200 year old class struggle) and one that said essentially: "the laws and judges verdicts that preceded the Tables are still in effect". Such a provision is, one could say, the origin of common law - the notion that the collective decisions of judges actually becomes incorporated into subsequent interpretations of the law.
Since the Code predated the Tables by over 1,000 years, its hard to imagine that the Romans were not at least aware of it although they certainly did not simply adopt a marked-up version of it. They really started from scratch and created an entire legal system whereas the Code was really a comprehensive set of rules. Hammurabi indicated that he wrote the Code so that "men might know what is expected of them." The Romans, I think, were more concerned with coming up with a consistent and systemitized way of dealing with criminal and tortuous behavior over the entire Empire.
Good question, though.