Here I was responding to Kenneth Pennington’s criticism:102 Professor Pennington is no Romanist, and I stick to my opinion which is much less extreme than he implies. Indeed, the purpose of the article with El Fadl was to show that armchair jurists, remote in thought from practice, were not unique to Rome, and that a similar approach is to be found in rabbinic and Islamic Law. Here I want to take the argument further, concentrating on the approach in ancient times to one statute, the Roman lex Aquilia, whose final version is to be dated around B.C. Indeed, I will concentrate on chapter which, unlike chapter , had so far as we know no forerunners. I will strive to show at times that the approach to the lex Aquilia was on a level with the approach to other early Roman laws. important mark of a gentleman. Skill in interpretation by the rules they themselves developed brought the approbation of their fellows, and social prestige. For the Roman jurist, skill in interpretation was what counted. They were otherwise not much interested in law; not in winning court battles, not in devising court tricks and dodges, not in systematizing the law, not in law reform, not even in making the law the most practical and suitable for the society as a whole or for their section of it. For them there was no honor in that. 102 ‘The Spirit of Legal History’ 64University of Chicago Law Review(1997), pp. 1097 ff. At p. 1112. Watson argues in his book that jurists can create a sophisticated legal system without looking beyond their own law. Law, he seems to argue, can be created by generations of subtle minds working out legal problems by using logic and elegant arguments that convince the profession. I do not believe that Roman jurists resembled Watson’s, although I would concede that brilliant law can sometimes evolve in splendid isolation, cut off from outside influences and even separated from the needs and norms of society. But only occasionally. Most often law evolves under the sway of a myriad of influences. This truth is the best argument for studying legal history. II
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=