Litigation in Roman Law

Front Cover
Oxford University Press, 2005 - Law - 213 pages
0 Reviews
Modern accounts of how the classical Romans sued each other tend to show the opponents willingly working together under the guidance of a magistrate, until their case was ready for trial. The parties found a convenient time to make their first appearance, at which time they decided on the details of their case, selected a judge, and received permission to go to trial. If any delay were necessary, the magistrate helped the parties in their arrangements to return. This picture is unrealistic: it presumes a high degree of cooperation between the parties, the personal stewardship of a magistrate, and the ready availability of a judge. This accepted picture emerged over time from a tiny amount of evidence. Justinian had no interest in preserving evidence on classical procedure, and subsequent generations of jurists often did not regard rules of procedure as worthy of interest. Recent years, however, have brought a flood of new evidence on classical Roman legal procedure.Metzger examines this evidence, painting a picture of litigation that is far less polite and far less orderly. He examines how the rules of procedure coped with the typical pretrial delays that the Roman system, and indeed any legal system, faces.

From inside the book

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.


Bail in Cicero

10 other sections not shown

Common terms and phrases

References to this book

About the author (2005)

Ernest Metzger is a frequent writer on Roman law and legal history. He has taught at University College London and University of Aberdeen, where he is presently Senior Lecturer in Law. He was formerly a judicial clerk to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and is a member of the Louisiana State Bar Association and the State Bar of Texas. He is editor of

Bibliographic information