Furtum and the repression of theft and robbery offences in the reconstructions of the Law of the Twelve Tables

Abstract

Many attempts were made in antiquity to reconstruct the original text of the Law of the Twelve Tables, but sources from this period have hardly survived. In the works of Rivalius and Alexander de Alexandro, who cited the text of the Decemvirs, the provisions on theft (furtum) are to be found in various pleyses, with no apparent systematisation. It was only in Oldendorp's palingenesia, that the repression of theft and robbery offences was placed in a separate title, at the end of the ius privatum section. The same regards Hotomanus' palingenesia, in which the provisions on theft are to be found after the discussion on the delict of injury (iniuria) and before the part of his reconstruction regarding the rules of judicial procedure. Gothofredus, on the other hand, combined furtum with the provisions on judicial procedure in the second table of his reconstruction of the Law of the Twelve Tables. In the nineteenth- and twentieth-century palingenesis, from Scholl's reconstruction onwards, all delicts started to be usually placed in the eighth table. Crawford, on the other hand, in part referring to Gothofredus palingenesia regarding furtum, placed all delicts in the first table.