The most famous document in Roman law is the Twelve Tables, similar to how the most famous document in American law is the Constitution. Both are important because they are in many ways founding documents: the Romans supposedly drafted the Twelve Tables after they had overthrown their king. However, imagine that you wanted to study the Constitution, but rather than being able to read it directly, you instead had to rely on how comedians, historians and lawyers from the 21st century talk about the Constitution. You could probably reconstruct some things quite easily (most of the Bill of Rights for example). Other parts, such as Article 5, which explains how to amend the Constitution, you would probably not find much about. This is pretty much the problem that Roman historians have when they talk about the Twelve Tables.
This is because while historians such as Livy, lawyers such as Cicero and comedians such as Horace will occasionally reference the Twelve Tables, our main source of information about it is the Justinian Codex, which is a massive work of law from the Byzantine Empire. This codex frequently references Roman jurists who lived during the Roman Empire. Those jurists in turn, occasionally quote from the Twelve Tables. As a result, modern scholars can read through texts like the Justinian Codex and find parts where a jurist such as Ulpian is quoted. When someone like Ulpian then quotes from the Twelve Tables, you can add that to a list of things that were likely mentioned in the Twelve Tables.
The important word there is “likely”. Scholars love to argue and apparently one of the things that is contentious is whether or not the Twelve Tables mentioned manumission. I am in the midst of trying to figure out this problem so I’m going to explain how I stumbled into it. In 1908 Buckland published the book on Roman slave law, called, rather unimaginatively, The Roman Law of Slavery. In the section on manumission, he explains that one form of manumission, manumission by testament, goes all the way back to the Twelve Tables. He cites as his source the jurist Ulpian. Here is that passage: “Ut testamento manumissi liberi sint, lex Duodecim Tabularum facit, quae confirmat.” (He confirms these things, that freedmen were manumittted by testament, as according to the Twelve Tables).
However, this Ulpian is not the Ulpian of the Justinian Codex. This Ulpian is the supposed author behind a rather mysterious text called Tituli ex Corpore Ulpiani, or “Titles from the Works of Ulpian”. This book was written in the 4th century CE by somebody who was copying, or abridging, some other work. Many scholars have argued that author behind the original work was Ulpian, who is generally a good source for the Twelve Tables.
Crawford appears to have disagreed however. In 1997, Crawford published the massive two-volume work Roman Statutes, which contains a reconstruction of the Twelve Tables. This reconstruction includes all the passages in Greek and Roman literature that allude to the Twelve Tables. However, missing from this reconstruction is the line mentioned by Buckland. That Crawford chose to omit this line means that he doesn’t think that the Tituli has authority on its own to justify inclusion (Crawford does use the Tituli, but only when other sources point to a similar idea or law in the Twelve Tables).
This is because while historians such as Livy, lawyers such as Cicero and comedians such as Horace will occasionally reference the Twelve Tables, our main source of information about it is the Justinian Codex, which is a massive work of law from the Byzantine Empire. This codex frequently references Roman jurists who lived during the Roman Empire. Those jurists in turn, occasionally quote from the Twelve Tables. As a result, modern scholars can read through texts like the Justinian Codex and find parts where a jurist such as Ulpian is quoted. When someone like Ulpian then quotes from the Twelve Tables, you can add that to a list of things that were likely mentioned in the Twelve Tables.
The important word there is “likely”. Scholars love to argue and apparently one of the things that is contentious is whether or not the Twelve Tables mentioned manumission. I am in the midst of trying to figure out this problem so I’m going to explain how I stumbled into it. In 1908 Buckland published the book on Roman slave law, called, rather unimaginatively, The Roman Law of Slavery. In the section on manumission, he explains that one form of manumission, manumission by testament, goes all the way back to the Twelve Tables. He cites as his source the jurist Ulpian. Here is that passage: “Ut testamento manumissi liberi sint, lex Duodecim Tabularum facit, quae confirmat.” (He confirms these things, that freedmen were manumittted by testament, as according to the Twelve Tables).
However, this Ulpian is not the Ulpian of the Justinian Codex. This Ulpian is the supposed author behind a rather mysterious text called Tituli ex Corpore Ulpiani, or “Titles from the Works of Ulpian”. This book was written in the 4th century CE by somebody who was copying, or abridging, some other work. Many scholars have argued that author behind the original work was Ulpian, who is generally a good source for the Twelve Tables.
Crawford appears to have disagreed however. In 1997, Crawford published the massive two-volume work Roman Statutes, which contains a reconstruction of the Twelve Tables. This reconstruction includes all the passages in Greek and Roman literature that allude to the Twelve Tables. However, missing from this reconstruction is the line mentioned by Buckland. That Crawford chose to omit this line means that he doesn’t think that the Tituli has authority on its own to justify inclusion (Crawford does use the Tituli, but only when other sources point to a similar idea or law in the Twelve Tables).