Vox Populi 2023

systems is that the case could occasionally
be resolved in the preliminary hearing via
the taking of oaths. Taking an oath to the
gods was seen as a deeply serious matter
and very few people would be willing to
perjure themselves (the penalty for perjury
was grave in both the eyes of the law
and the gods). The plaintiff could throw
the gauntlet to the defendant by making
him swear an oath – if the defendant was
willing to take this oath, then he won, but
if he did not, then he lost. This could be
reversed for the plaintiff where the same
rules would apply.
If the trial progressed beyond the
preliminary hearing, it would play out in
the same way as under the ‘legis actionis’
system. In the case of the debt, a new
procedure of holding a public auction
of the possessions of the debtor’s estate
would help the creditor to be reimbursed.
The third and final major development
in the procedure of the Roman judicial
process was the introduction of the
‘cognitio extraordinaria’ system. This
system was introduced after the Roman
Empire succeeded the Republic and bears
the most similarity with modern justice
structures. For the first time, defendants
were summoned to the court by the court
instead of the plaintiff having to summon
them; plaintiffs had to file a statement of
claim. If either one of the parties failed to
show at court on the date three separate
times then the party which turned up
won by default. The other major change
that the cognito system brought was the
process of appeals – the case could in
theory progress up through higher courts
and potentially reach the emperor.
Although law predates Rome by
thousands of years through social
convention and speech, Romans
revolutionised the way in which the rule
of law was implemented. It created a
blueprint for the societies that followed
through its systematic and impartial
process; while none of the punishment
have stood the test of time, the way in
which the law is applied remains largely
the same.
Below: Roman Law
Xenophanes
Jonathan, Lower Sixth
In the Autumn term Dr Shaul Tor, Senior
Lecturer in Ancient Philosophy at King’s
College London, delivered an insightful
lecture on the philosophy of Xenophanes
to the Hylocomian Society. His theme
was: What if cows could draw Gods?
And what do we see in a rainbow? Some
philosophical questions in Xenophanes.
Dr Tor began with an exploration of
Xenophanes’ biography. The Presocratic
philosopher was active in Colophon
(in Ionia) at the end of the sixth and
beginning of the fifth century BCE. He
travelled widely around Greece and
wrote in verse, using both the hexameter
and elegiac form. Xenophanes’ interests
lay in theology, knowledge and belief,
natural philosophy, ethics and politics.
His work remains either in fragmentary
form or preserved in the works of other
writers such as Aristotle and Plutarch.
Dr Tor then proceeded to reveal how
the fragmentary evidence we have for
Xenophanes’ work can be worked into a
coherent picture of his stated perspective
on the nature of the gods. By way of
context it is important to consider the
fact that the ancient Greek literary canon
drew heavily on Homer’s epics, The
Iliad and The Odyssey, and Hesiod’s
poetry about the origins of the gods,
Theogony. Both writers feature multiple,
anthropomorphic, imperfect deities.
However, fragments of Xenophanes’
work show him noting mortal belief that
gods are born and have bodily form and
clothing similar to their own.
He further notes that the poets portray
the gods as committing acts which are
reprehensible for mortals, for example
theft, adultery and deceit. Aristotle’s
18 19
capture of Xenophanes’ philosophy
suggests that he considered it to be
impious to suggest that gods came into
being or die. Furthermore, Xenophanes’
fragments draw out his suggestion that
all people create god in their own image;
he suggests that the Thracians and
Ethiopians, who tend to look physically
very different, say that their gods look
like them and, if they could draw, horses
would render images of their gods to look
like horse and oxen to look like oxen.
What is particularly interesting in the
further fragments is the similarity
of Xenophanes’ philosophy to a
monotheistic system. Although his
assertion of “One god, greatest among
gods and men,” does not exclude
polytheism, his assertion of this being
as “not at all like mortals either in frame
or cognition” implies an unknowable
quality in a supreme god. Moreover,
he also alludes to an omniscience and
omnipotence in this supreme god. This
being is further located as unchangeable
in space and time. These fragments have
remarkable resonance in modern religion.
Xenophanes is no less critical of the minor
deities, often deployed by ancient writers
to explain natural phenomena. In a further
fragment, he critiques the goddess Iris,
who manifests as a rainbow, believing her
to be “by nature cloud, purple, and red,
and greenish-yellow to behold.” This is
a marked step away from the Olympian
pantheon and their attendant demi-gods
and goddesses, who cause thunder,
storms, and the changing of the seasons.
In short, Dr Tor left us with the impression
of a very modern mind forged in an
ancient context and much to consider
to explore further the philosophy of the
Presocratics.