Judgments

Revision as of 01:24, 31 August 2024 by Themi (talk | contribs) (Created page with "'''''Judgments''''' () is a collection of Themiclesian documents dating to the Archaic Period that appear to be judicial proceedings of various kinds. There is considerable debate about the provenance of this document as it was not quoted by the early historical authors and appears only in a catalogue dating to the 4th century, at least two centuries after its presumed date of compilation. ==Content== The collect...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Judgments () is a collection of Themiclesian documents dating to the Archaic Period that appear to be judicial proceedings of various kinds. There is considerable debate about the provenance of this document as it was not quoted by the early historical authors and appears only in a catalogue dating to the 4th century, at least two centuries after its presumed date of compilation.

Content

The collection comprises of 57 short texts that all begin with the set phrase qweng-ghwat (公曰), translated as "the elder said". In most cases, such an incipit is unnaturalistic because what follows is a description of the "facts of the case"; when the actual judgment is given, it is headed by another qweng-ghwat.

All the cases reported in Judgments would fall into the remit of civil disputes in modern terms: they concern land, property, and marriage.

Analysis

The collection Judgments has interested scholars because it bears witness to the developing institution of monarchy in Themiclesia. The elder's words in the collection varies between functioning as judgment and as advocacy. From the 1700s, assuming a linear and gradual development from limited to unlimited royal authority, it was assumed that the elder acting as advocate is a sign of early dating. But in 1889, the historian Rem Mak discovered that, the advocacy pieces cannot as a rule be shown to have early linguistic characteristics that would corroborate their hitherto accepted early dating. A lively academic debate has ensued in the wake of Rem's discover over how the collection challenges notions about the development of monarchy proposed by earlier historians.

  • Some propose that only in certain kinds of cases the elder was entitled to give a final judgment, and in others he is restricted to acting as an advocate or mediator.
  • Some propose the difference is in the identity of the litigants: with some litigants the elder may act as judge, but not with others.
  • Some propose the difference is the location of the dispute, and the elder may only act as judge on his own territories.