Talk:Leges regiae

[Untitled]

The article is too long to finish, please keep it undisplayed.Aldrasto (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have almost finished. I shall add the citations shortly. I think it should be of interest to people who want to know better the legal background of Roman history, customs and religion. The article is not my own work, but the translation of a (linguistically speaking) much worse article of the Italian Wikipedia written by somebody who is certainly not Italian.Aldrasto (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is now completed. It may still need some minor revisions. I welcome comments and suggestions on the subject and on improving the article.Aldrasto (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A few suggestions

Aldrasto invited me to comment on the new article he's posted, which he tells me has been translated from the Italian Wiki. (I believe that's supposed to be noted somewhere.)

• When articles have been translated from another language, it's to be expected that the language will need some smoothing out, and that's the case here.
• In general I think it's better not to have long passages of untranslated foreign languages; if these may be thought useful to the kind of readers likely to visit the article, as the Latin passages are here, I still think they should be relegated to footnotes. Single words or phrases that are hard to translate because technical or culture-specific are fine. If the English translations come via Italian, published English translations of the Latin should be found.
• The list of ancient sources toward the end is pretty useless without book and line numbers. Either delete it, or supply more specific references.
• Secondary sources from English-language sources should be incorporated.

I'm willing to help with these tasks, but am not sure when I can get to it. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Having glanced over potential English-language sources on Google Books, I'd also say that the concept of lex regia also seems to have been more important in the history of medieval law and politics — that is, the proper relation of a monarch to a body of law — and through the Reformation. (This is only a guess or intuition based on a quick survey.) The article thus becomes more important and of broader interest. For example: [1] Cynwolfe (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I am revising the language and have shifted the long list to a footnote. I have also added some bibliography, one source is in English. For more English bibliography I shall look the links here below given by Haploidavey.Aldrasto (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldrasto (talk • contribs) 05:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

English language source and links

I just linked here from an Imperial cult (ancient Rome) footnote - currently numbered at 82 in that article. I'll copy and paste the whole thing here - it might be useful. The source is English-language and makes interesting connections between the Lex Regia (and Justinian's Byzantine interpretation of the same), the Republican Lex curiata de imperio, the Imperial Lex de imperio and the very important Lex de imperio Vespasiani of 69-70 CE. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Well into the third century CE, the merit of each imperial candidate would be debated as basis for a new lex de imperio. In most cases this simply confirmed possession of imperial power; this might be acquired through dynastic inheritance or acclamation by the soldiers but its legality was Republican in form, "probably a continuation of the old Republican tradition, of the Lex Curiata de Imperio which conferred imperium on the higher Roman magistrates." Much later, Justinian describes this as a Lex Regia; which seems consistent with Byzantine conceptions of Imperial power as "kingship". This same association is precisely avoided under the Lex de imperio Vespasiani of 69-70 CE. See Berger, A., Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, Philadelphia: (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society; New Series, Volume 43, Part 2, 1953, p551). Reprint, The Lawbook Exchange Ltd., 2002. ISBN 1584771429. Preview from googlebooks; [2]"

Thank you for the comment. Ishall add your bibliographic info and try and find further English sources. The article though is pretty comprehensive and does not only bear on the topic of the lex de imperio, however this might be of major interest to some readers. It is a big chunck of primordial Roman and Latin culture presented here, with bearings on religion, general culture, costums etc.Aldrasto (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a hefty topic, and I look forward to its development. Thanks for the acknowledgement - if I find any more English sources that might be useful, I'll post them here. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Would I be right in thinking that lex regia is a term with much broader application than lex curiata de imperio? (A little article on which I just posted without realizing it was under discussion here.) It seems that the concept of lex regia in Roman law may be a bit of a phantom, or rather justification after the fact, but that the Justinian or Byzantine interpretation influenced later law in Europe, because of the importance of kingship. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've a similar (actually quite strong) impression. Monarchy can be abolished, disguised as Imperial and later "reborn" but the traditional "laws of good kings" remain. The article hints at this early on but doesn't follow through as yet. Haploidavey (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you both are right. The leges regiae were of course in essence nothing else than the official sanction of ancient tribal practices of the Latins. And these reflected their peculiar culture ie their ideas about religion, morals and law. For Latins and perhaps other Italics religion and ritual formalism were undistiguishable and this idea was passed down onto law too. I just revised the article on mos maiorum and the same idea is presented there.Aldrasto (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My last comment is certainly wrong. I have realised that the leges regiae cannot be seen just as the regal sanction of existing mores. They often introduced changes and this is valid not only for Numa but also for Romulus and almost all kings. We always can see a personal will and a political judgement expressed through them. I found particularly interesting Kofanov's analysis, though not completely appropriate. Unfortunately I could just read the recension of the article. The article is in Russian , but perhaps it has a translation tool.

Google provides also a page by the Un. of Grenoble with Riccobono's collection of fragments that provides an English translation. Interested readers may refer there.Aldrasto (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Another very good article available through google: Zika Bukalic "Leges regiae pro and contra" Beograd.Aldrasto (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)