How Truth and Prestige plays a significant role in the Roman Court — An Examination from Elizabeth Meyer’s Readings
The relationship between prestige and the truth in the Roman court system is of high importance, as the foundation of the courts system is meant to achieve truth (Meyer, 270). However, this notion is challenged, due to a response in the agonistic reputation and place of the defendant against each other and allowing the juries to reward victory regardless of the evidence or conclusions (Meyer. 270).
So regardless of the facts or rationale, prestige is an important factor that determines whether or not truth is achieved and justice is served (Meyer, 270).
Prestige and Truth in Roman Courts: Elizabeth Meyer’s Reading on “Evidence and Argument: The Truth of Prestige and its Performance”
The relationship between prestige and truth in Roman courts can correlate with the evidence that is needed to win in the system. Witnesses are an important piece of evidence that could help with the case. The more witnesses the greater the weighting of the case that favors' the individual (Meyer, 271). Personal bias or experiences in the court has to be recognized. Thus, the witness has to be chosen carefully. Good witness, that is prestigious, has a higher significance in the court, thus making it more believable or truthful (Meyer, 276).
Truth and prestige are related to the point where it can shape the quality of the court or verdict in Roman society. In fact, the prestige related qualities both internal and external are part of Roman society and it combines itself with truth. Overall, to find the truth in the Roman legality it has to be constructed or found through valid arguments and evidence acted by the prestige (Meyer, 272).
Prestige comes into play in the Roman court as evidence, and a factor that could change the verdict of a case (Meyer, 271). In the Roman legal system there are various forms of evidence that allow prestige to play a factor such as witness, Tabulae, or dialogue. All of these factors of evidence must be expressed by a highly valuable individual who has great prestige in the Roman community. Materialistic evidence that is proved or signed or written to be used as evidence in the near future is a concept called Tabulae (Meyer, 271). Prestige, status or value of pieces of the Tabulae are based on the prestige of the person bringing them to the court or case (Meyer, 271).
Another important notice is that prestige can determine the favorability of the Roman court. Certain Romans’ prestige needs to be shown or advertised to make it more weighty, truthful or believable (Meyer, 277). To make the testimony concrete and universally objective it is necessary for the prestige individual to showcase the status they carry in the court (Meyer, 277). Roman culture believes in dialogue as a main tool to gain honor, gain prestige or exact revenge.
When one advertises their prestige it is important that they do it mostly through speech, and talk honorably (Meyer, 279). The Romans expect a prestigious individual to demonstrate their prestige with, presentable, and deliverable speech that depicts the traditions of the Roman legality (Meyer, 279). This expectation relates to the power of prestige and is a playable variable in the Roman court system.
In the Roman court system there are many ways to boost someone’s prestige and this connects with the different types of evidence and how they are advertised or presented (Meyer, 277). The First way to boost someone’s prestige is through boosting their prestige or value as a witness. In order to do this, they have to be present in the court case and participate in the dialogue (Meyer, 277). By being present in the court, the witnesses are allowed to increase their prestige through discussing positive traits that relate to the individual’s characters and impact in Roman society (Meyer, 278).
It’s important that to boost one’s own prestige they have to make relevant connections with Roman sovereignty, power, and law, which can advertise to the opposition and the court that the individual is in fact prestigious and contributes to Roman tradition (Meyer, 279).
Furthermore, by making valuable connections to the case and the judge it will also boost a Romans prestige and be advantageous in the case (Meyer, 278). The last way to make the prestige of a Roman or if the Roman is a witness in the court, is to take credibility or make the court believe in the individual. That way the court can believe in the client and trust that the client is telling the truth and that the verdict must be beneficial towards them (Meyer, 275).
One thing to consider in Roman society is that prestige can be boosted easily and effectively if the status is derived from bloodline, financial resources, legal status, magistracies achievements, cultural importance, or political authority (Meyer, 272). In each significance of different forms of prestige the level of boosting such status can vary, and it is largely dependent on the needs of the Roman court (Meyer, 272).
What undermines Roman prestige is irrationality and emotional outbursts which lowers someone’s prestige and are a clear sign of someone having low prestige in society (Meyer, 280). Moreover prestige is undermined through the poor advertisement of someone’s status.
Prestige is credibility in a Roman court system, and the application of convincing the truth is achieved by someone who is prestigious (Meyer, 276). Thus, when someone’s witness is weighty or upstanding their words or testimony are more convincing and truthful (Meyer, 271).
Failure to convince the truth, results in undermining prestige and devaluing the overall case (Meyer, 280). Failure to convince the truth will make the person who was prestigious lose their status and lose their value to Roman sovereignty, power, and legality.
Social media
https://www.instagram.com/harrishphilosophy.medium/
Bibliography
Meyer, Elizabeth. “Evidence and Argument: The Truth of Prestige and its Performance.” The Oxford Handbook of Roman Law and Society, edited by P. J. du Plessis, C. Ando, K. Tuori, New York, NY, Oxford UP, 2016, 270–282.
