Editing Twelve Tables (section)

==Modern reconstructions==

In Roman historical and legal sources, ancient writers referenced and discussed the laws of the Twelve Tables in numerous fragments. However, during the Early Middle Ages the knowledge of the Twelve Tables was lost. The reconstruction of the text started with the rediscovery of '' [[Corpus Juris Civilis|Corpus Iuris]]'' in the Late Middle Ages.<ref>Oliviero Diliberto, “Umanesimo giuridico-antiquario e palingenesi delle XII Tavole,” in Annali del Dipartimento di Storia del Diritto della Università degli Studi di Palermo 50 (2005): 1–23; Diliberto, “La palingenesi decemvirale,” 481–501; Pierfranceso Arces, “Apuntti per una storia dei tentativi di palingenesi della legge delle XII Tavole,” Rivista di Diritto Romano 8 (2008): 1–15; and Jean-Lois Ferrary, “Saggio di storia della palingenesi delle Dodici Tavole,” in Le dodici tavole. Dai decemviri agli umanisti, ed. Michel Humbert (Pavia: Iuss Press, 2005), 503–556.</ref> The first attempt of the recovery of the laws was made by the French legal historian [[Aymar du Rivail]] in his ''[[Libri de Historia Juris Civilis et Pontificii]]'' (1515).<ref>Crawford, Michael H., ''Roman Statutes'', vol. 2 (London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1996), 564.</ref> His work was followed by more publications on the Twelve Tables by [[Alessandro d'Alessandro]] (1522) and [[Johannes Tacuinus]] (1525). <ref>Crawford, Michael H., ''Roman Statutes'', vol. 2 (London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1996), 564.</ref> 

[[File:Jacques-Godefroy-De-imperio-maris MG 1188.tif|right|thumb|Jacques Godefroy]] The fundamental work of the reconstruction of the Twelve Tables appeared in [[Jacques Godefroy|Jacques Godefroy's]] publication of the law of the Twelve Tables in 1616. Godefroy's reconstruction was based on the order of [[Gaius (jurist)|Gaius']] ''Ad legem XII tabularum'' (''On the Law of the Twelve Tables''), compiled in the ''[[Digest (Roman law)|Digest]]'', from which many of the provisions of the Twelve Tables came to us. Godefroy believed that Gaius in his work followed the original order of the Twelve Tables. Since Gaius' work was divided into six books, Godefroy assumed that each book covered two tables and that each table focused on a certain matter. 

The most important modern reconstruction of the Twelve Tables was published by the German legal historian [[Heinrich Eduard Dirksen]] in his work of ''A Review of the attempts hitherto made at the criticism and restoration of the text of the fragments of the Twelve Tables'' (Leipzig, 1824).<ref>Original title in German: ''Uebersicht der bisherigen Versuche zur Kritik und Hestellung des Textes der Zwölf-Tafel-Fragmente''. More in Crawford, Michael H., ''Roman Statutes'', vol. 2 (London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1996), 564.</ref> Dirksen's work, based on the principles and discoveries of Godefroy, is now considered to be the most authoritative reconstructions of the Twelve Tables. In 1866 [[Rudolf Schöll’s|Rudolf Schöll]] reconstruction in ''[[Legis Duodecim Tabularum Reliquiae]]'' followed Dirksen's model.<ref>Schöll, Rudolf, ''Legis Duodecim Tabularum Reliquiae'' (Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1866).</ref> The first full English publication of the Dirksen's reconstruction was prepared and translated by [[E. H. Warmington|Eric Herbert Warmington]] in the ''Remains of Old Latin, Volume III: Lucilius. The Twelve Tables'' in 1938 (No. 329 edition in the [[Loeb Classical Library]]).<ref>Warmington, Eric Herbert, 1938,''Remains of Old Latin, Volume III: Lucilius. The Twelve Tables'', No.329 edition, Loeb Classical Library, London & Cambridge, 424-515.</ref>

In the last couple of decades, one of the most prominent reconstructions of the law of the Twelve Tables was [[Michael Crawford (historian)|Michael H. Crawford's]] work of ''Roman Statutes'', vol. 2 (London, 1996). In this new version, Crawford and the team of specialists reconsidered the conventional arrangement of the laws based on Dirksen and his followers. They concluded that this conventional grouping of the rules was wrong and offered their new arrangement. For instance, the laws relating to ''[[iniuria]] '' and ''[[furtum]]'' were moved from the eighth table (''Tabula'' VIII) to the first table (''Tabula'' I). Similarly, the law on the conditionally freed slaves was moved from ''Tabula'' IV to ''Tabula'' VI.<ref>Crawford, Michael H., ''Roman Statutes'', vol. 2 (London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1996), 564, 568.</ref>

===List of modern reconstructions===

*Godefroy, Jacques, 1616, ''Fragmenta XII. Tabularum, suis nunc primum tabulis restituta: probationibus, notis, & indice munita / Iacobo Gothofredo in Parlamento Parisiensi advocato auctore'', Heidelbergae: Typis Johannis Lancelloti. 
*Dirksen, Heinrich Eduard, 1824, ''Übersicht der bisherigen Versuche zur Kritik und Herstellung des Textes der. Zwölf-Tafel-Fragmente'', Leipzig, Duncker & Humblot. 
*Schöll, Rudolf, 1868, ''Leges XII tabularum reliquiae'', Leipzig, Duncker & Humblot. 
*Voigt, Moritz, 1883, ''Die XII Tafeln: Geschichte und System des Civil-und Criminal-Rechtes, wie-Processes der XII Tafeln nebst deren Fragmenten'', Leipzig: A.G. Liebeskind. 
*Riccobono, Salvatore, 1941, ''Fontes iuris romani antejustiniani'' I, Florence, 21-75.
*Girard, Paul Frédéric et Senn, Félix, 1977, ''Les lois des Romains'', septiéme édition par un groupe de romanistes, Paris and Naples: Jovene Editore, 25-73. 
*Crawford, Michael H. (ed.), 1996, ''Roman Statutes'', vol. 2, London: Institute of Classical Studies, 555-722.
*Flach, Dieter, 2004, ''Das Zwölftafelgesetz. Leges XII tabularum. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft'', (Texte zur Forschung. Band 83), Darmstadt, ISBN 3-534-15983-7.