| Subject: |
Re: Gens |
| From: |
Decius Iunius Palladius amcgrath@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 00:45:26 -0400 (EDT) |
|
On Mon, 13 Sep 1999, Don and Crys Meaker wrote:
> From: "Don an--------ys Meaker" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=230166014180193192112218004036129208" >famromo@--------</a>
Salve,
> I quote from the constitution of Nova Roma.....
>
> "Each gens shall, through whatever means it may determine
> appropriate, have a paterfamilias (fem. materfamilias) who shall act
> as the leader of the gens and speak for it when necessary. The
> holder of this position must be registered as such with the
> censors. The paterfamilias may, at his or her discretion, expel
> members of their gens, or accept new members into it."
>
> The reason for this quote will soon be clear.
>
> If the provisions of the Constitution has meaning, the naming of
> specific powers must have meaning, and the actual powers of the
> paterfamilias are limited to those powers and those necessary and
> proper to those powers that are specifically named. The very fact
> that the powers of the paterfamilias is limited to speaking for the
> gens is an implicit recognition that the powers are limited to that
> single power. Necessary and proper to that power is the power to
> expel those for whom the Paterfamilias does not speak, or to
> accept those for whom the Paterfamilias does speak. In particular,
> the word "accept" implies a willingness to on both parties to be in
> that gens, just as the word "expel" implies an unwillingness on one
> party to leave.
Your interpretation is, to be quite frank, wrong. A paterfamilias has the
power to accept and expel members into a gens and is the leader of a
gens. (both of which you quite thoughtfully quote above for me) The
power to expel and accept (accept implies mutual consent, as you
point out, while expel clearly is one sided) grants another power--that of
a paterfamilias to compel a member not leave a gens. Once a person is
accepted into a gens, he or she falls under the power of the leader of
the gens as far as that power extends. The power of a paterfamilias or a
materfamilias is absolute when it comes to the names of members of his
gens or whether they will or will not remain a member. (the choice belongs
to the pater/materfamilias) A paterfamilias has little other power since,
as in everything else in Nova Roma, we are a virtual community with little
power over anything in the lives of our members.
> The presence of the power to accept and expel does not imply the
> power to retain a citizen against his will.
To accept and expel absolutely grants that power, as you know.
> Nor is it proper for a
> paterfamilias to speak for anyone who can not be well represented
> by that paterfamilias.
That is solely up to the paterfamilias or a materfamilias of a gens to
decide, no one else. If a member feels otherwise, then he or she should
ask to leave a gens. You were, until last night, denied that right by your
paterfamilias and you were told by the censors in several legal
opinions that he was completely within his rights to do this. I understand
that you disagree with that legal interpretation. However, this "parting
shot" after you are no longer part of a gens merely confirms your
understandable bitterness over having a legal decision that
was not in your favor. Your comment is a personal opinion, however, it is
not an actual statement on the powers granted to a paterfamilias or
materfamilias by the Constitution.
> Accordingly I hereby declare that I am no longer a member of Gens
> Cornelia. I most willingly separate myself from that gens and deny
> that the Paterfamilias of that gens speaks for me.
This statement, if you were still a member of the gens Cornelia, would be
disregarded as understandable though ill-informed frustration. However,
you were expelled from the gens Cornelia Sunday night at 2130 (9:30 PM)
Pacific Time, Monday morning 0030 (12:30 AM) EST, according to a message
sent to the censors by Lucius Cornelius Sulla and received last night. No
doubt you knew this, which makes this parting shot rather odd. Or were you
told you were expelled?
Vale,
Decius Iunius Palladius,
Censor
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Quis ita familiaris est barbaris,
ut aram Victoriae non requirat!"
Quintus Aurelius Symmachus
|
| Subject: |
Re: Gens |
| From: |
SFP55@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 05:14:50 EDT |
|
In a message dated 9/13/1999 9:45:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=243232219108127031050199203252129208071" >amcgrath@--------</a> writes:
<< Your interpretation is, to be quite frank, wrong. >>
Salvete!
This is exactly what I attempted to explain to Mamertinus last night. Since
NR (and Rome) are both built on the Gentes, the power of the Paterfamilias
must be absolute. Once you join a Gens you are a member of that Gens, and
you will be expected to support it. If you are unwilling to support your
Paterfamilias I'd suggest you don't join a Gens, or start your own. However
this freewheeling
Gens development will one day come to a close. We need to populate our
existing Gens, not keep adding more.
As for Mamertinus', quite public attacks on his former Paterfamilias, it
showed a lack of dignatias as well as an inability to be Roman. I believe
you are correct Decius Iunius, when you say that this was a parting shot. I
see no other reason for it.
Valete!
Q. Fabius Maximus, Paterfamilias
|
| Subject: |
Re: Roman Cults (An answer) |
| From: |
"Antonio Grilo" amg@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 10:53:53 +0100 |
|
Salve amice Aedilisque Curulis Fabi
Bene dictae sunt sententiae tuae. Tempus dicet quos sunt Novos Romanos quod
Novi Romani veri sunt Novi Romani ad mortem. Non parvas sed magnam picturam
recordemur.
English Translation:
Your thoughts are very well said. Time dictates those who are Nova Romans
because true Nova Romans are Nova Romans to death. Remember the big picture,
not the little ones.
Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Tribunus Plebis et coetera
|
| Subject: |
Re: Gens |
| From: |
dean6886@--------) |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 05:22:01 -0500 (CDT) |
|
I'm not quite certain that at any certain point new Gens can't be added.
Some people may like the idea of keeping family among real family-- by
blood lines and traditioal marraige.
Gaius Drusus Domitianus
|
| Subject: |
Re: Roman Cults |
| From: |
"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 07:53:16 -0500 |
|
On 14 Sep 99, at 7:16, <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> wrote:
> Salvete
> NR is not a cult. There may be several cults contained in NR itself, but
> it is not a cult. NR could best be described as an organization dedicated
> to the revival of Republic of Rome. This includes all the important
> organs of the republic, as well as the belief system of the Romans of the
> period. Many people seem to have problems grasping this concept. If you
> do, then I would have to say NR is not for you. Just because you have an
> interest in Roman history or culture, that does not make you a good Nova
> Roman. Nova Romans not only know or study these things but ARE Nova
> Romans. Even if we are not Italian, Lombard, Sicilian, but German, French
> Spanish Portuguese et al. What makes us Nova Romans is not where we came
> from, but where we are going. It seems, based on the pervious threads,
> that many of you still have problems "getting" this. We need to educate
> people better about what we are and where we are going.
>
As you have told me more than once I am hysterical, I will assume
that you understood that this "threat" was NOT coming from
someone in Nova Roma. This is coming from a sick woman who is
desperate to ruin her husbands image. Upon reflection and council
(with an attorney and everything) the decision has been made to let
her do whatever she wants. *I* know Nova Roma is no cult. And I
will not leave it. I may not be *your* idea of the perfect Roman, but
Nova Roma has been my home for over a year. While it has done
some things to me which have been "not so good" it is still my
home.
We need to stay focused on what is ahead,
> not were we come from, or how racist we are, or if we like our
> Paterfamilias or not. Keep your eyes on the big picture, not the little
> ones. Valete! Q. Fabius
Fortunately we have been informed that my husband is now free,
no longer a prisoner. We were not informed until after my husband
posted his note and then not by him, but by MY Paterfamilias.
Crys (the hysterical Roman)
|
| Subject: |
Re: Roman Cults |
| From: |
Dexippus@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 09:13:03 EDT |
|
Crys,
I don't think you have anything to worry about. It is a stretch to call Nova
Roma a cult. But I would keep the "Sulla won't let us out of his gens"
debate away from the ex-wife. That little issue between you and Sulla could
be exploited as "control" and thus an argument for cult status.
--Dexippus
|
| Subject: |
Re: Roman Cults |
| From: |
"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 09:15:14 -0500 |
|
On 14 Sep 99, --------:13, <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=132056131009152219130232203140129208071" >Dexippus@--------</--------; wrote:
>
> Crys,
>
> I don't think you have anything to worry about. It is a stretch to call
> Nova Roma a cult. But I would keep the "Sulla won't let us out of his
> gens" debate away from the ex-wife. That little issue between you and
> Sulla could be exploited as "control" and thus an argument for cult
> status.
>
> --Dexippus
Dex,
I thank you very much for the concern. Fortunately Sulla has
thrown Don out of his gens. We are happy for it now. I know how
Don's ex could have used it. Again *we* know NR is no cult.
Perhaps I was fool to mention it. Once again I am being called
hysterical. Oh well. If that is the price to be paid for caring about
my husband and NR, then I will pay it.
Crys
|
| Subject: |
Re: Roman Cults |
| From: |
"Antonio Grilo" amg@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 15:20:25 +0100 |
|
Salvete
I don't know if I understand what's going on, but could you please avoid to
post personal issues on this list? Everytime I read a posting there are one
or more EXs. I just don't understand who s the EX of who anymore... And I
simply don't care, neither does the people of Nova Roma. If there is a
violation of the laws, please present charge to the legal institutions of
Nova Roma, not to the public opinion.
Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Senator et magistratus
|
| Subject: |
Personal Issues in NR |
| From: |
"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 09:41:42 -0500 |
|
On 14 Sep 99, at 15:20, Antonio Grilo wrote:
> Salvete
>
> I don't know if I understand what's going on, but could you please avoid
> to post personal issues on this list? Everytime I read a posting there are
> one or more EXs. I just don't understand who s the EX of who anymore...
> And I simply don't care, neither does the people of Nova Roma. If there is
> a violation of the laws, please present charge to the legal institutions
> of Nova Roma, not to the public opinion.
>
> Valete
>
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus
> Senator et magistratus
I keep forgetting that this is the main list. Personal issues are not
welcome here. My children, Fimbras posts about her dog (the one
that died and the one she asked for help naming), the birth of the
3rd born Nova Roman, even the posts about your marriage,
Senator. NONE of that belongs here. My bad.
Crys
|
| Subject: |
Re: Personal Issues in NR |
| From: |
"Antonio Grilo" amg@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:00:06 +0100 |
|
Salve Crys
>even the posts about your marriage, Senator. NONE of that belongs here.
My bad.
I've sent only one posting about my marriage with the sole intent of warning
the people of Nova Roma that I would be out for holidays, and that as the
duty of a magistrate of this nation. You have surely not read a single
posting with the description of my marriage, not even one about my loving
wife.
Vale
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Senator et magistratus
|
| Subject: |
Re: Personal Issues in NR |
| From: |
"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 10:38:45 -0500 |
|
On 14 Sep 99, at 16:00, Antonio Grilo wrote:
> I've sent only one posting about my marriage with the sole intent of
> warning the people of Nova Roma that I would be out for holidays, and that
> as the duty of a magistrate of this nation.
Then should not your post have simply read "I will be unavailable for
the duration of a holiday"?
We really should keep these things as cold and clinical as
possible. I know that now.
Crys
|
| Subject: |
Historical question for SPI |
| From: |
"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 10:57:04 -0500 |
|
Salvete,
In an attempt to provide more information for the Sodalis Pro
Infantia I wish to put the following questions before our Historians.
While I know that there were no "galley slaves" in the Ancient
Roman Militia (Navy anyway), I am seeking information about the
children that may have come from "conquests" (not unlike the
"AmerAsians" of todays world). Did a Roman Solder ever
recognize any children he may have had while abroad (or away)? If
he did, how?
What would happen to a child who was left an "orphan"? Not only
because of war, but also because of disease (I know about giving
children away and about selling them and about exposing them).
Did the Ancient Romans take the children into slavery as they did
the adults? If they did was it only the children who could work? In
other words, did they kill infants as useless?
Were there any protection for children against "abuse"? Could
parents not only sell their children, but beat them (close to death
beating, not the beating for real or imagined "infractions"). I know a
Paterfamilias had the power over his children to kill them if that was
his wish. Was that always the case, or did it change with time?
IOW, I am assuming there were no "child abuse" laws and IF a
Paterfamilias felt slighted he could simply kill the offending child,
be the offense intended or not (being born was not always healthy
for Roman children, was it?).
Would anyone have a picture of a cradle or mother with child or a
picture of a Roman child alone or even some family portrait? I am
thinking of creating a mirror gallery. The pictures of SPI children
and pictures of real Roman children (busts or whatever passed).
It would be my preference that answers be posted privately and not
to the list. There are few people here who are interested in children.
Thank you
Pax
Amethystia Iunia Crystallina
(Sodalis Pro Infantia -- <a href="http://famromo.wiccan.net/" target="_top" >http://famromo.wiccan.net/</a>)
|
| Subject: |
Re: Historical question for SPI |
| From: |
"Antonio Grilo" amg@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:16:10 +0100 |
|
Salve Crys
See? Here is a posting whose answer everyone is eager to read!!! =)
Vale
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
-----Original Message-----
From: Don an--------ys Meaker <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=230166014180193192112218004036129208" >famromo@--------</a>
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Date: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 4:51 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Historical question for SPI
>From: "Don an--------ys Meaker" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=230166014180193192112218004036129208" >famromo@--------</a>
>
>Salvete,
>
>In an attempt to provide more information for the Sodalis Pro
>Infantia I wish to put the following questions before our Historians.
>
>While I know that there were no "galley slaves" in the Ancient
>Roman Militia (Navy anyway), I am seeking information about the
>children that may have come from "conquests" (not unlike the
>"AmerAsians" of todays world). Did a Roman Solder ever
>recognize any children he may have had while abroad (or away)? If
>he did, how?
>
>What would happen to a child who was left an "orphan"? Not only
>because of war, but also because of disease (I know about giving
>children away and about selling them and about exposing them).
>Did the Ancient Romans take the children into slavery as they did
>the adults? If they did was it only the children who could work? In
>other words, did they kill infants as useless?
>
>Were there any protection for children against "abuse"? Could
>parents not only sell their children, but beat them (close to death
>beating, not the beating for real or imagined "infractions"). I know a
>Paterfamilias had the power over his children to kill them if that was
>his wish. Was that always the case, or did it change with time?
>IOW, I am assuming there were no "child abuse" laws and IF a
>Paterfamilias felt slighted he could simply kill the offending child,
>be the offense intended or not (being born was not always healthy
>for Roman children, was it?).
>
>Would anyone have a picture of a cradle or mother with child or a
>picture of a Roman child alone or even some family portrait? I am
>thinking of creating a mirror gallery. The pictures of SPI children
>and pictures of real Roman children (busts or whatever passed).
>
>It would be my preference that answers be posted privately and not
>to the list. There are few people here who are interested in children.
>
>Thank you
>Pax
>Amethystia Iunia Crystallina
>(Sodalis Pro Infantia -- <a href="http://famromo.wiccan.net/" target="_top" >http://famromo.wiccan.net/</a>)
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>Announcing the ONElist Hawaiian Sweepstakes!
>Enter to win a trip for two to Hawaii! Click here:
><a href=" <a href="http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/hawaii3" target="_top" >http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/hawaii3</a> ">Click Here</a>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
|
| Subject: |
Re: Historical question for SPI |
| From: |
"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:49:18 -0500 |
|
On 14 Sep 99, at 17:16, Antonio Grilo wrote:
> Salve Crys
>
> See? Here is a posting whose answer everyone is eager to read!!! =)
>
> Vale
>
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Salve,
Just proving to the masses I can be as cold and calculating as the
rest. <G> My interest in Nova Roma was personal. I mistakenly
thought you people family. I now know better. I will be the cold
ancient Roman children's historian. Makes my stomach lurch, but
I'll get over that soon enough <G>.
Amethystia Iunia Crystallina
Historian of Ancient Roman Children
|
| Subject: |
Re: Gens |
| From: |
Mike Macnair MikeMacnair@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 12:49:06 -0400 |
|
Salvete omnes!
I am happy that Sulla's expulsion of Mamertinus makes it possible to
discuss the issue of the powers of the paterfamilias without the discussion
turning into one of the merits of the dispute between Sulla and Crystallina
and Mamertinus. However, I regret to say that I disagree with the Censors'
interpretation of the Constitution on this point and think it is unwise for
the future. We have had some earlier exchanges of email off-list about this
matter.
1. Palladius writes:
>The power to expel and accept (accept implies mutual consent, as you
>point out, while expel clearly is one sided) grants another power--that of
>a paterfamilias to compel a member not leave a gens.
I do not think that the ordinary natural meaning of the words used implies
the power to compel a member not to leave the gens. Powers to accept into
membership and to expel are very commonly granted to various bodies by the
Constitutions of voluntary organisations, and it is inconceivable that any
court would hold that such powers impliedly contain the power to force a
person to retain membership. (This is a matter of modern legal
interpretation rather than of roman law).
2. Palladius writes (next sentence)
>Once a person is accepted into a gens, he or she falls under the power of
the leader of
>the gens as far as that power extends.
The Constitution of Nova Roma does not expressly adopt the doctrine of
patria potestas from Roman family law, and to adopt the whole of this
doctrine would be inconsistent with the guarantees of citizens' rights
earlier in the Constitution and with the obligations of NR as an
international voluntary organisation under the modern laws of at least one
state where citizens are resident; since the doctrine in its full form is
sex-discriminatory and inconsistent with international human rights
guarantees and antislavery treaties and legislation.
If any part of the doctrine is to be impliedly adopted, it is hard to see
where the boundary should be drawn. Palladius limits it by practical
enforceability (the final sentence of the paragraph: "A paterfamilias has
little other power since, as in everything else in Nova Roma, we are a
virtual community with little power over anything in the lives of our
members. "). I do not think that this is an acceptable mode of
interpretation of a law.
On the contrary, the Constitution draws the line, by EXPRESSLY stating the
powers of the p.f.: to accept, and to expel. Expressio unius, exclusio
alterius: by expressing limited powers, other powers are excluded. This
rule of statutory interpretation is roman in origin, but is routinely
applied in modern courts.
3.
The instant case (Sulla vs Mamertinus) is about the breakdown of a
friendship. Future cases, however, may be about marriage breakdowns. If the
only option of the non-paterfamilias in this situation is to resign from NR
and reapply for membership, the Censors will be forced to adjudicate on the
merits in the marriage breakdown. This is highly undesirable, since it is
exceptionally difficult (and messy) to decide such cases. It is also
possible that the Censors' decision in such a case would be subject to be
brought into the divorce proceedings in the courts of the state where the
parties live. An interpretation which does NOT allow the paterfamilias to
bar members from leaving his gens is therefore preferable, as a matter of
legislative or judicial policy, as less likely to cause messy disputes in
future.
Valete,
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
Praetor
|
| Subject: |
Re: Latin Humour |
| From: |
Mike Macnair MikeMacnair@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 12:50:57 -0400 |
|
Salvete,
I wrote,
>>Vado's latest reminds me of something from my schooldays (we started
latin
>>at age 9, so were about at this humour-level, <AMPUTATIO>
Vado responded,
> So what you're saying, is, Magister, that I've got the mental attributes
>of a nine-year-old?! ):-(
No, that was meant to be a deprecatory comment on the piece of doggerel
which I submitted myself, not on your sophisticated literary joke. It was
just iam/ jam which brought the doggerel back to my mind.
MMSM
|
| Subject: |
My "expulsion" |
| From: |
"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 12:13:48 -0500 |
|
On 14 Sep 99, at 7:16, <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> wrote:
> This statement, if you were still a member of the gens Cornelia, would be
> disregarded as understandable though ill-informed frustration. However,
> you were expelled from the gens Cornelia Sunday night at 2130 (9:30 PM)
> Pacific Time, Monday morning 0030 (12:30 AM) EST, according to a message
> sent to the censors by Lucius Cornelius Sulla and received last night. No
> doubt you knew this, which makes this parting shot rather odd. Or were you
> told you were expelled?
>
>
> Vale,
>
>
> Decius Iunius Palladius,
> Censor
I was told nothing. As you know I am not a censor and so not privy
to emails addressed solely to them. I am pleased with the
outcome. At least I am free now, and this may be debated in a
less personal matter. As far as the precedent, I hope laws will be
passed to improved as flaws are further revealed.
My final words on this matter.
Don Meaker
Gaius Mamertinus
|
| Subject: |
Re: Personal Issues in NR |
| From: |
Marius Fimbria legion6@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 12:46:18 -0500 (CDT) |
|
Salvete omnes!
>I keep forgetting that this is the main list. Personal issues are not
>welcome here.
[chuckles] I think this whole thread is a pretty good demo of what I
*will* allow on the List... >({|;-)
But seriously, folks. If you're not flaming (posting personal insults
under the guise of 'debate') or trolling (dropping us a known hot issue
such as racism just to see how big a fuss you can raise) or dumping
National Enquirer/soap-opera-type stuff on us, and if you are staying
reasonably civil and on-topic, chances are you are not trespassing the
bounds of good taste on this List.
>Fimbria's posts about her dog (the one
>that died and the one she asked for help naming),
A lot of people knew about Pepper from the chats, so I figured they'd
want to know (indeed, had the right to be told) what happened to him.
As for the naming of the new fella, the public response to that kinda
took me by surprise! I'd been thinking the List was going to pounce
all over the part about 'attack poodles', and that any name suggestions
would have come to me in private... *MY* bad, but I ain't complainin';
just goes to show that you never know for sure what people are gonna
do! >({|:-D
BTW, his name is Maynard. Dunno why I didn't think of it before; I've
been using it as a dog-nickname for years...[g]
>NONE of that belongs here. My bad.
I think a distinction can be made between 'Hey, I'm a real person
behind this keyboard and these are the milestones in my life' and the
soap-opera stuff about everybody else's former whoevers that are doing
this-and-that Rotten Thing. Graecus *does* have a point. Those
situations tend to be ongoing, frustrating, and *completely* off-topic;
I mean, what can anybody on this List really DO about them, and what
does any of it have to do with Nova Roma?
A birth, a wedding, graduations, a death in the family--these are
milestones, community events as much as personal ones. The dog (or the
infant) drooling on somebody's keyboard is not. If you cannot make
that distinction, or if you are incapable of posting anything without
making little 'digs' at other people, then perhaps you're right and
it's best not to post here.
'Nuff said?
[Personally, I very much enjoyed your series on Terrelina's Saturnalia
celebration.]
************************************************************
Lucius Marius Fimbria |>[SPQR]<|
mka Märia Villarroel |\=/|
<a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=034056178009193116148218000036129208" >legion6@--------</a> ( ~ 6 )~~~----...,,__
Roman Historical Re-Creationist `\*/, ``}`^~``,,, \ \
and Citizen of Nova Roma ``=.\ (__==\_ /\ }
'Just a-hangin' around the Universe, | | / )\ \| /
bein' a Roman... It's hard work, _|_| / _/_| /`(
but SOMEbody's gotta do it!!' /./..=' /./..'
|
| Subject: |
Re: Latin Humour |
| From: |
Marius Fimbria legion6@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 13:08:28 -0500 (CDT) |
|
Salvete amici...!
'Caesar sic in omnibus', eh? I found one like that in a little book
called 'ShrinkLits' by Maurice Sagoff, which consists of
*extremely*-compressed versions of literary classics; here's Caesar's
Gallic Wars:
Caesar cari dona militari orgi versus Belgae, Helvetii, Germani,
Venetii, Britanni--iunemit.
'Romis glorius,' sed Caesar, 'nomen mei impunit!'
Meni tridit--Vercingetorix, forin stans; Caesar noctim sili fors
ticinis nec aut.
Ab ludi nervi felo, Caius Iulius, iubet.
(Hint: This looks like Latin, but read it in English; for example, that
last line is 'A bloody, nervy fellow, Caius Iulius, you bet.')
Enjoy!
************************************************************
Lucius Marius Fimbria |>[SPQR]<|
mka Märia Villarroel |\=/|
<a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=034056178009193116148218000036129208" >legion6@--------</a> ( ~ 6 )~~~----...,,__
Roman Historical Re-Creationist `\*/, ``}`^~``,,, \ \
and Citizen of Nova Roma ``=.\ (__==\_ /\ }
'Just a-hangin' around the Universe, | | / )\ \| /
bein' a Roman... It's hard work, _|_| / _/_| /`(
but SOMEbody's gotta do it!!' /./..=' /./..'
|
| Subject: |
Roman Values |
| From: |
JSA varromurena@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 12:54:11 -0700 (PDT) |
|
as well as the belief
> system of the Romans of the
> > period. Many people seem to have problems
> grasping this concept. If you
> > do, then I would have to say NR is not for you.
> Just because you have an
> > interest in Roman history or culture, that does
> not make you a good Nova
> > Roman. Nova Romans not only know or study these
> things but ARE Nova
> > Romans.
<snip>
It seems, based on
> the pervious [sic] threads,
> > that many of you still have problems "getting"
> this. We need to educate
> > people better about what we are and where we are
> going.
> >
>
I'd like a point of clarification here. When you say
the "belief system of the Roman Republic" here, does
this include the sexism and misogyny of ancient Rome?
So, do we endorse the actions of Egnatius Metellus of
old who, when his wife had drunk a bit of wine, he
beat her to death and "everyone" approved his actions?
Or when G. Sulpicius Gallus (Cos., 166 BC) caught his
wife outdoors without a veil, divorced her on the spot
because she was inviting the looks of other males? [as
found, with other examples, in Valerius Maximus]
Curious,
L. Licinius Varro Murena
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at <a href="http://auctions.yahoo.com" target="_top" >http://auctions.yahoo.com</a>
|
| Subject: |
re: Roman Values |
| From: |
"Gnaeus Tarquinius Caesar" caesar@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 13:14:21 -0700 |
|
<<When you say
the "belief system of the Roman Republic" here, does
this include the sexism and misogyny of ancient Rome?>>
Have you, by chance, happened to read the website?
"NOVA ROMA is more than a historical recreation society, although we are that. We are more than a pagan religious organization, although we are that, too. We are more than a classical studies group, but that falls within our purview as well. We are nothing less than a sovereign nation; an attempt to re-create THE BEST of classical pagan Rome (with a few compromises to modern times), "
I would venture to assume the simple words 'the best' would be enough to inform you that the extreme examples you citied are in no way shape or form condoned by the Roman Values...well, that and common sense. Try reading the Via Romana section of the webpage, it may clarify things still further.
Hope I could help,
Caesar
------------------------------------------
"Ipsa quidem pretium virtus sibi"
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
FREE - <a href="/--------/novaroma?--------ectID=160233044180078031072038203176129208071" >yourname@--------</a> - Visit <a href="htt--------www.--------oso--------s.net" target="_to--------gt;htt--------www.--------oso--------s.net</a>
|
| Subject: |
Re: Personal Issues in NR |
| From: |
JSA varromurena@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 13:17:03 -0700 (PDT) |
|
--- Don an--------ys Meaker <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=230166014180193192112218004036129208" >famromo@--------</a> wrote:
> From: "Don an--------ys Meaker" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=230166014180193192112218004036129208" >famromo@--------</a>
>
> On 14 Sep 99, at 15:20, Antonio Grilo wrote:
>
> > Salvete
> >
> > I don't know if I understand what's going on, but
> could you please avoid
> > to post personal issues on this list? Everytime I
> read a posting there are
> > one or more EXs. I just don't understand who s the
> EX of who anymore...
> > And I simply don't care, neither does the people
> of Nova Roma. If there is
> > a violation of the laws, please present charge to
> the legal institutions
> > of Nova Roma, not to the public opinion.
> >
> > Valete
> >
> > Antonius Gryllus Graecus
> > Senator et magistratus
>
>
> I keep forgetting that this is the main list.
> Personal issues are not
> welcome here. My children, Fimbras posts about her
> dog (the one
> that died and the one she asked for help naming),
> the birth of the
> 3rd born Nova Roman, even the posts about your
> marriage,
> Senator. NONE of that belongs here. My bad.
>
> Crys
>
Actually, since the mainlist is the virtual equivalent
of life in the ancient Forum, I don't have a problem
with personal issues and announcements being brought
up. We ARE, after all, trying to build a real
community, and we cannot do that if we limit the
mainlist to mere political announcements and issues of
concern to the Senators. The latter, after all, do not
constituted the bulk of the Roman citizenry--as was
decided in the ancient Struggle of the Orders.
Personal announcements and concerns SHOULD be
allowable on this list; my only problem is that, for
us newer citizens, this all appears mysterious to us.
If we wish NR to grow, and not be merely an East Coast
clique, then we need to allow all of us to get to know
each other, and what better way then to do so on the
list, especially considering our various geographical
and financial situations?
Vale.
L. Licinius Varro Murena
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at <a href="http://auctions.yahoo.com" target="_top" >http://auctions.yahoo.com</a>
|
| Subject: |
Re: Personal Issues in NR |
| From: |
"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 15:34:26 -0500 |
|
On 14 Sep 99, at 13:17, JSA wrote:
> Actually, since the mainlist is the virtual equivalent
> of life in the ancient Forum, I don't have a problem
> with personal issues and announcements being brought
> up. We ARE, after all, trying to build a real
> community, and we cannot do that if we limit the
> mainlist to mere political announcements and issues of
> concern to the Senators.
I invite you to join the Via Trames mailing list. This list (the Via
Trames) is where personal announcements may be made. Try a
search on the onelist site (ViaTrames) and if that does not work,
please contact me and I will be happy to add you.
Crys
|
| Subject: |
Re: Personal Issues in NR |
| From: |
JusticeCMO@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:28:39 EDT |
|
In a message dated 9/14/99 11:32:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=230166014180193192112218004036129208" >famromo@--------</a> writes:
<< We really should keep these things as cold and clinical as
possible. I know that now.
Crys >>
No one has ever said we wanted a cold and clinical list..devoid of all
personality or warmth. However, in all things there must be moderation.
I would remind you that it was actually *your* seemingly unending posts of a
nature *purely* personal that originally led to the desire to keep personal
events off of the list.
Had you simply announced your pregnancy, as opposed to feeling the need for
the nation to know each and every detail of your experiences (and then some),
the very issue of personal things on this list would likely never have come
up.
You, of all people, should see this. In the meantime, you have the Via
Trames to speak on as often and in as much detail as you choose.
Priscilla Vedia Serena
|
| Subject: |
Re: Latin Humour |
| From: |
"RMerullo" rmerullo@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:41:54 -0400 |
|
Salvete Fimbria et alii
So Vado isn't the only nerd around here. Wow, this is great. Ha ha, my
smug sense of normalcy grows with each passing day.
It's one thing to pass along a terrible joke, but utterly nerdy to annotate
it with hints and explanations!
How about this: the other night I was looking for a Latin equivalent of
"nerd". I came up with bibliophilus, -i. What do you people think?
Ecce vah Et ego bibliophilus factus sum
Valete
Gaius Marius Merullus
>From: Mariu--------mbria <a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=034056178009193116148218000036129208" >legion6@--------</a>
>
.
>
>(Hint: This looks like Latin, but read it in English; for example, that
>last line is 'A bloody, nervy fellow, Caius Iulius, you bet.')
>
|
| Subject: |
POSTED IN THE FORUM CHARIOT RACE |
| From: |
SFP55@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:45:12 EDT |
|
OBSERVO!
IN HONOR OF THE LAST DAY OF GREAT GOD IVPPITER OPTIMUS MAXIMUS HOLIDAY
THE CURULE AEDILE Q. FABIUS MAXIMUS WILL SPONSOR THE FOLLOWING AT THE NOVA
ROMA ARENA:
<a href="http://venus.beseen.com/chat/rooms/u/440638" target="_top" >http://venus.beseen.com/chat/rooms/u/440638</a>
Chariot Race: Blues, Reds, Greens, Whites, Wed. 15. AT 10 AM PDT 1 EDT.
Since the race is virtual, I will post a downloadable diagram of the track so
observers can make notes and follow the action.
Q. Fabius Maximus
Curulis Aedilis
|
| Subject: |
Re: Personal Issues in NR |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:50:46 EDT |
|
In a message dated 9/14/99 4:18:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=081166091180193192130061163101147165026048139046" >varromurena@--------</a> writes:
<< Actually, since the mainlist is the virtual equivalent
of life in the ancient Forum, I don't have a problem
with personal issues and announcements being brought
up. We ARE, after all, trying to build a real
community, and we cannot do that if we limit the
mainlist to mere political announcements and issues of
concern to the Senators. >> etc.
I second that. That is why my dear friends, Romans, and country-men you have
a DELETE button! If you don't want to read it, pass it up.
--Dexippus
|
| Subject: |
re: Roman Values |
| From: |
JSA varromurena@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 13:54:25 -0700 (PDT) |
|
--- Gnaeus Tarquinius Caesar <a href="/--------/novaroma?--------ectID=219166192112158209015147190036129" >caesar@--------</a>
wrote:
> From: "Gnaeus Tarquinius Caesar"
> <a href="/--------/novaroma?--------ectID=219166192112158209015147190036129" >caesar@--------</a>
>
> <<When you say
> the "belief system of the Roman Republic" here, does
> this include the sexism and misogyny of ancient
> Rome?>>
>
> Have you, by chance, happened to read the website?
Oh, yes, I have. Indeed, I read it before I decided to
join, thinking perhaps that this was no more than
another white supremacist organization.
>
> "NOVA ROMA is more than a historical recreation
> society, although we are that. We are more than a
> pagan religious organization, although we are that,
> too. We are more than a classical studies group, but
> that falls within our purview as well. We are
> nothing less than a sovereign nation; an attempt to
> re-create THE BEST of classical pagan Rome (with a
> few compromises to modern times), "
>
> I would venture to assume the simple words 'the
> best' would be enough to inform you that the extreme
> examples you citied are in no way shape or form
> condoned by the Roman Values...well, that and common
> sense.
Well, "THE BEST" depends on one's point of view.
Certainly THE BEST meant one thing to the Optimates,
another to the Populares.
Try reading the Via Romana section of the
> webpage, it may clarify things still further.
>
> Hope I could help,
>
> Caesar
Thank you Caesar. However, the emphasis on recreating
THE FAMILY remains troublesome, because what that
exactly means has usually been defined by men, and in
such a way as to be an instrument of oppression for
women. Even if we could assume that the members of NR
have put a more enlightened spin upon that term, I
note that many of those who post on this list, for
one, do not seem quite so enlightened.
Vale.
L. Licinius Varro Murena
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at <a href="http://auctions.yahoo.com" target="_top" >http://auctions.yahoo.com</a>
|
| Subject: |
Re: Personal Issues in NR |
| From: |
Dexippus@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:52:07 EDT |
|
In a message dated 9/14/99 4:29:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=173075066165082194184241189100114253071048139" >JusticeCMO@--------</--------; writes:
<< Had you simply announced your pregnancy, as opposed to feeling the need
for
the nation to know each and every detail of your experiences (and then
some),
the very issue of personal things on this list would likely never have come
up. >>
But expressing your feeling about Crys doing so seems to be ok here?
Ya can't have it both ways people! And like I just said in another
post...HIT YOUR DELETE BUTTON! It's a miracle of modern invention!
--Dexippus
|
| Subject: |
Re: Latin Humour |
| From: |
Marius Fimbria legion6@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 15:58:35 -0500 (CDT) |
|
Pater Merulle scripsit:
>So Vado isn't the only nerd around here. Wow, this is great.
ROTFL...Aww, c'mon, guys! You *know* I do computer tech support;
that's why I'm so hard to get a hold of in the chats (I have to wait
for between customer calls); how much more nerdy can one get?? >({|;-P
>It's one thing to pass along a terrible joke, but utterly nerdy to
>annotate it with hints and explanations!
Hey...what can I say? Not everyone has ever encountered that
particular brand of humor; I thought some processing instructions or a
user's manual might come in handy... [g]!
Bein' a silly...
************************************************************
Lucius Marius Fimbria |>[SPQR]<|
mka Märia Villarroel |\=/|
<a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=034056178009193116148218000036129208" >legion6@--------</a> ( ~ 6 )~~~----...,,__
Roman Historical Re-Creationist `\*/, ``}`^~``,,, \ \
and Citizen of Nova Roma ``=.\ (__==\_ /\ }
'Silly Roman-- | | / )\ \| /
Trix are for Kids!!' _|_| / _/_| /`(
/./..=' /./..'
|
| Subject: |
Back On List |
| From: |
jmath669642reng@--------) |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:49:35 -0400 (EDT) |
|
It appears that I am back on the list with the purchase of a new remote
keyboard. My new computer is still not up to the things that I wish to
do, and I have not yet received the instruction books, that I need,
For the forseeable future, I will be using the above E-Mail address as
before. I thank you very much for your kind patience in this matter.
M.M. Audens
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
|
| Subject: |
Re: Roman Values |
| From: |
"RMerullo" rmerullo@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 18:02:48 -0400 |
|
Salvete Luci Licini et alii
>From: JSA <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=081166091180193192130061163101147165026048139046" >varromurena@--------</a>
>
>
>I'd like a point of clarification here. When you say
>the "belief system of the Roman Republic" here, does
>this include the sexism and misogyny of ancient Rome?
I can't speak for Fabius, but in my experience in Nova Roma, no, we do not
adopt the entire value system of Roma Antiqua. From the beginning of this
year until the Impeachment/Interregnum, we had a female senator, and have
other women serving in official capacities. One of our declarations rejects
the institution of slavery, doesn't it? No, we're not Romans of Roma
Antiqua.
>So, do we endorse the actions of Egnatius Metellus of
>old who, when his wife had drunk a bit of wine, he
>beat her to death and "everyone" approved his actions?
>Or when G. Sulpicius Gallus (Cos., 166 BC) caught his
>wife outdoors without a veil, divorced her on the spot
>because she was inviting the looks of other males? [as
>found, with other examples, in Valerius Maximus]
I don't think you'd find a single Novoromanus who would commit such acts, or
approve of them in a modern context. At the same time, I don't consider
myself an appropriate judge of Metellus or Gallus in those acts, since they
did indeed live in an entirely different value system. I would hate to see
veils come back into widespread use around me, because then I would never
see all the beautiful women's faces, wich is all that keeps me going on some
days.
>
>Curious,
>L. Licinius Varro Murena
Valete
Gaius Marius Merullus
|
| Subject: |
Re: Personal Issues in NR |
| From: |
dean6886@--------) |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:05:56 -0500 (CDT) |
|
Let's keep the list here impersonal and stay to the Back Alley or
whatever else we invent. It keeps the traffic down and there are other
places we ALL have the opportunity to go to to talk about private
issues.
Gaius Drusus Domitianus
|
| Subject: |
The difference between the Back Alley and the ViaTrames |
| From: |
"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:43:55 -0500 |
|
Salvete,
Since we have been discussing these three lists, I think this is a
good time to note the differences between them.
The Back Alley is completely private. You must ask me for
permission to join and you can rest assured that NO ONE will ever
know you are on the list, without your permission. At one point I
offered to sign Cassius up so that he could see that it was no
threat to him --- he declined. This was done because some people
had some things to talk about that they were afraid would be taken
incorrectly or something. Basically it was born of personal posting
issues.
The ViaTrames is a PUBLIC list. Anyone can join, anyone can
read the archives and anyone can say anything they want. You
are warned that it is a public place. Germanicus' wife (the one who
so dislikes private posts on the main list) is on the ViaTrames. Do
I like that? Doesn't matter .. it's a free list. She and I snipe at
each other quite often on the Via Trames .. no harm on foul (at
least not from this end).
You will get a warning (from what I understand) on this list before
you are placed under "moderated" status. There IS no moderated
status on the Via Trames nor the Back Alley. They are basically
the same list with the exception of the privacy level. Any putz can
get on the Via Trames. I pick and choose very carefully the putzes
on the Back Alley <G>.
To join the Via Trames, you go to the OneList site and do a search
under ViaTrames (I think that's enough). To get on the Back Alley,
you have to ask me (doesn't even have to be nice <G>. You'll get
on whether I like you or not, provided I trust you to keep what you
see and hear on the Back Alley secret -- very covert huh? <G>)
That's all folks.
Crys (who BTW wears a veil that shows her whole face <G>, but
other than that is not always the ideal Roman Matron)
|
| Subject: |
Re: Personal Issues in NR |
| From: |
"RMerullo" rmerullo@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 18:41:10 -0400 |
|
Salvete Luci Licini et alii
>From: JSA <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=081166091180193192130061163101147165026048139046" >varromurena@--------</a>
>
>
>Actually, since the mainlist is the virtual equivalent
>of life in the ancient Forum, I don't have a problem
>with personal issues and announcements being brought
>up.
Good point. But there are a few things to keep in mind:
- You couldn't well stand up in the ancient Forum and shout loud enough that
EVERY SINGLE ROMAN CITIZEN, plus an unknown number of non-citizens perhaps
hoping to become citizens, would hear your voice.
- My guess is, if a high magistrate was conducting some business in the
Forum, and someone decided to try to project his/her voice across the entire
orbis terrarum to describe a family scandal/dispute/neighbor's misdeed et
cetera, a few lictors' rods would probably be quickly and unceremoniously
employed.
- Given the above, no single person's scandals/accusations/whatever could
drown out business in the Forum to any significant extent, nor become
ubiquitously representative of the nature of the state or nation. Here in
Nova Roma, such drowning and misrepresentation can be done. You surely can
appreciate that our Forum has different properties from the ancient
original.
We ARE, after all, trying to build a real
>community, and we cannot do that if we limit the
>mainlist to mere political announcements and issues of
>concern to the Senators.
You're very right. That sounds pretty stifling -- "mere political
announcements and issues of concern to senators". I hope to continue to
read about religious perspectives here, Domitianus' brainstorming on what to
do with Nova Roma next, Audens' military engineering pieces, Dexippus' Divus
Extremus stuff, what foods Ericius has tried with Thai fish sauce (garum
substitute with which he and I have been conducting experiments
independently of each other) and more, including stuff from new people like
you. Along with mere political announcements and issues of concern to
senators, which we also need if we're building a nation.
The latter, after all, do not
>constituted the bulk of the Roman citizenry--as was
>decided in the ancient Struggle of the Orders.
>Personal announcements and concerns SHOULD be
>allowable on this list; my only problem is that, for
>us newer citizens, this all appears mysterious to us.
What appears mysterious to you? You mean the details of one particular
scandal or another? I'm certain that you're not the only one mystified.
>If we wish NR to grow, and not be merely an East Coast
>clique,
Nova Roma is not an East Coast clique. Sulla, Fabius, Ericius, are all, I
believe, firmly established on the US West Coast. Scaevola is in Britannia.
Graecus is in Lusitania. And there are lots of plain citizens scattered in
between and further afield than that.
Now, there may be some tension between some of the senators/magistrates on
the US East Coast, and some of those on the West Coast. Now that I mention
it, this looks kind of plausible looking at the Impeachment/Interregnum
history. But, if that's true, then we have at least two cliques, not one.
Also, it's perfectly natural for people who are fortunate enough to be
within realistic travelling distance of each other to have more contact and
communication. There's nothing negative in that, is there? Or should I be
concerned that the praetor of Britannia recently appointed several other
cives in Britannia legates? Should I assume that the forces of the
Britannia clique are mobilizing against one of the US cliques :)? Sounds
like a good sequel to Fabius' and Sulla's Social War :).
Anyway, let's not have any cliques. Who cares where the other guy/girl
lives, so long as we love Roma and want to build Nova Roma? Those nearby,
we'll meet soon; those further away, we'll try to meet in our lifetimes.
then we need to allow all of us to get to know
>each other, and what better way then to do so on the
>list, especially considering our various geographical
>and financial situations?
Absolutely.
>
>Vale.
>L. Licinius Varro Murena
Valete
Gaius Marius Merullus
|
| Subject: |
Re: Personal Issues in NR |
| From: |
JusticeCMO@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 18:44:56 EDT |
|
In --------ss--------d-------- 9/14/99 4:52:24 PM E--------rn D--------ght Time, <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=132056131009152219130232203140129208071" >Dexippus@--------</--------;
writes:
<< But expressing your feeling about Crys doing so seems to be ok here?>>
Read the whole post/thread Dex. My *point* is that personal comments or
milestones (as someone else put it) have always been warmly received.
It was the flood of personal postings (one example was Crys in the past) that
led to the cries to quell such things (in volume at least) on this list. It
had become commonplace to find between 5 and 15 messages a day at one point.
It was interfering with communications for those who were not interested.
*That* was the point if you read back over things. :)
<<Ya can't have it both ways people! And like I just said in another
post...HIT YOUR DELETE BUTTON! It's a miracle of modern invention!>>
On this we are in total agreement. I use mine quite frequently not just here
but on other lists as well. Clever thing that. ;P
Priscilla Vedia Serena
|
| Subject: |
Re: Historical question for SPI |
| From: |
"M. Papirius Justus" papirius@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 19:13:29 -0400 |
|
Salvete,
You have consulted me on the matter of recognition of children and other
matters, which happens to be one of my numerous specialties (or at least is
a chapter of the diss.)
Quaeris:
While I know that there were no "galley slaves" in the Ancient
Roman Militia (Navy anyway), I am seeking information about the
children that may have come from "conquests" (not unlike the
"AmerAsians" of todays world). Did a Roman Solder ever
recognize any children he may have had while abroad (or away)? If
he did, how?
Respondeo:
Roman soldiers (and members of the fleet) fathered plenty of children
abroad. In Roman law, whether the child did come into patria potestas or
not depended on a number of things, one of which was whether the union of
the woman was legally recognized (i.e. whether there was conubium with the
woman -- to oversimplify, if the soldier was a citizen and the woman was a
non citizen, the union was not recognized in Roman law and any children
would be considered illegitimi). If it was (i.e. Roman citizen marrying
roman citizen) the children were in his potestas. If not, it would appear
that it was a regular practice of the soldier to formally register the
child as being his and upon retirement from the army, his union was legally
recognized and the children legally recognized as legitimi (there's a
formula in the military diplomata which makes this clear; it changes
slightly around the time of Antoninus Pius, but amounts to pretty much the
same thing).
Quaeris:
What would happen to a child who was left an "orphan"? Not only
because of war, but also because of disease (I know about giving
children away and about selling them and about exposing them).
Respondeo:
It's difficult to think of true 'orphans' in our sense of the word; if a
paterfamilias died, his children became sui iuris and, if underage, were
placed in tutela (usually in the will of the paterfamilias, but there were
other methods of getting a tutor appointed; in the Greek east, it would
appear that women often enjoyed de facto, if not legal tutela over their
minor children).
Quaeris:
Did the Ancient Romans take the children into slavery as they did
the adults? If they did was it only the children who could work? In
other words, did they kill infants as useless?
Respondeo:
Yes, they took children into slavery; they also bred slaves at home and the
children who resulted were often raised side by side the master's children;
no one was 'killed as useless' as far as I'm aware ... they were part of
the spoils of war.
Quaeris:
Were there any protection for children against "abuse"? Could
parents not only sell their children, but beat them (close to death
beating, not the beating for real or imagined "infractions"). I know a
Paterfamilias had the power over his children to kill them if that was
his wish. Was that always the case, or did it change with time?
IOW, I am assuming there were no "child abuse" laws and IF a
Paterfamilias felt slighted he could simply kill the offending child,
be the offense intended or not (being born was not always healthy
for Roman children, was it?).
Respondeo:
The vitae necisque potestas (the power of life and death) is one of the
most oveblown aspects of patria potestas. In my research (and that of
numerous other scholars), the various historical examples of fathers
actually exercising this 'right' are not very clear; many of the examples
are actually examples of magisterial authority being exercised against a
family member (e.g. a son of a general broke ranks on the battle field, and
so was executed ... the son was executed not because he was a son, but
because he was a soldier). It is worth noting that the historian Dio,
writing in the third century A.D., believed there to be only one example of
a father who was a private citizen actually executing his son (the son was
involved with Catiline). There are a couple of examples where daughters
were killed during the Republic for sexual indiscretions (these are really
vague) and, of course, during the empire, Augustus' marriage laws allowed
the killing of a daughter in potestas if she was caught in adultery by her
paterfamilias.
Child 'abuse' is a touchy subject because it is so vaguely defined; heck,
the practice of Romans of the upper classes to marry girls of 14 or 15
would constitute 'abuse' of some sort today; on the other hand there were
laws against stuprum, which would cover most of what we would call sexual
exploitation of children (freeborn, of course). In terms of beating and the
like, there do appear to have been 'community standards' and the standard
appears to have been whether a whip or other weapon was used -- the whip
was associated with slavery and a father who used one against his son would
have to face the umbrage of the community (as happened in one case ... the
community came to protect the son).
Quaeris:
Would anyone have a picture of a cradle or mother with child or a
picture of a Roman child alone or even some family portrait? I am
thinking of creating a mirror gallery. The pictures of SPI children
and pictures of real Roman children (busts or whatever passed).
Respondeo:
There are plenty of such things; funerary monuments abound with such
images. The image of Tellus nursing kiddies on the Ara Pacis also leaps
immediately to mind
Scripsisti:
It would be my preference that answers be posted privately and not
to the list. There are few people here who are interested in children.
Respondeo:
I suspect there are more people here who are interested in Roman children
than there are people interested in what to name someone's dog ...
mpj
]|[ M. Papirius Justus ]|[ <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a> ]|[
|
| Subject: |
Re: Gens |
| From: |
"M. Papirius Justus" papirius@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 19:20:35 -0400 |
|
At 12:49 PM 14/09/1999 -0400, you wrote:
The Constitution of Nova Roma does not expressly adopt the doctrine of
patria potestas from Roman family law, and to adopt the whole of this
doctrine would be inconsistent with the guarantees of citizens' rights
earlier in the Constitution and with the obligations of NR as an
international voluntary organisation under the modern laws of at least one
state where citizens are resident; since the doctrine in its full form is
sex-discriminatory and inconsistent with international human rights
guarantees and antislavery treaties and legislation.
Respondeo:
I respectfully disagree on this point to a certain degree. What NovaRoma
has created is a world where a gens can be led by a materfamilias or a
paterfamilias; yes, people within that gens are subject to his or her
control, but at the same time it is the officium of the pater/materfamilias
to ensure that the rights of the citizens within their gens are protected.
It is the pater/materfamilias who ensures human rights etc.. There is
nothing inconsistent with antislavery treaties and legislation to it at all
... (i.e. being in potestate is *not* the same as being a slave)
As for the larger question of whether being accepted into a gens involves
something 'voluntary', unless there was some sort of oath of adoption
formally subjecting the new person to the potestas of the
pater/materfamilias of the gens (an oath which has to be sworn before one
of the comitia), the relationship created is more akin to clientela than
any real 'family' relationship ...
mpj
]|[ M. Papirius Justus ]|[ <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a> ]|[
|
| Subject: |
Re: Roman Values |
| From: |
"M. Papirius Justus" papirius@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 19:30:06 -0400 |
|
At 12:54 PM 14/09/1999 -0700, you wrote:
I'd like a point of clarification here. When you say
the "belief system of the Roman Republic" here, does
this include the sexism and misogyny of ancient Rome?
So, do we endorse the actions of Egnatius Metellus of
old who, when his wife had drunk a bit of wine, he
beat her to death and "everyone" approved his actions?
Or when G. Sulpicius Gallus (Cos., 166 BC) caught his
wife outdoors without a veil, divorced her on the spot
because she was inviting the looks of other males? [as
found, with other examples, in Valerius Maximus]
Respondeo:
And why do you suppose Valerius Maximus (and others) mentioned such things?
It was precisely because they were the *exceptions*. And while they might
have been passed off by some as good examples of the Mos Maiorum, the fact
that such things were deemed worthy of mention was precisely because they
were exceptional. There were jerks in Roman times just as there are jerks
now. There were heroes in Roman times just as there were heroes now. Our
problem is that we sometimes believe we are reading about a 'hero' (in
Roman eyes) when we aren't (and I won't go into the diatribe of the spin
various modern ideologies impose on such stories).
Simply put: they aren't illustrative of *real* Roman values. It's also very
noteworthy that when one does read of real values, they tend to have words
like gravitas, dignitas, pietas, etc. associated with them ... the
incidents described above have no such 'tas' words (as I refer to them).
I could go on, but its just not as 'simple' as Varro Murena might have us
believe.
mpj
(spending far too much time here tonight)
]|[ M. Papirius Justus ]|[ <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a> ]|[
|
| Subject: |
Cults, an old issue |
| From: |
Razenna razenna@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 18:00:33 -0700 |
|
Actually the question of cults has been brought up through NR very
short, and tempestuous, history. Here is the link to a "Cult Watch
Group"s web page. It has a check list for judging if "X" is a cult.
It also has a semi-humourous look at whether the United States Marine
Corps qualifies as a cult. This site might be a helpful tool in
dealing with this question, and the outside world, I repeat, this last
go around was not the first time the subject has come up in NR's
history.
The "Check List" url:
<a href="http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm" target="_top" >http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm</a>
The page that leads to the look at "The Corps":
<a href="http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/cult101.htm" target="_top" >http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/cult101.htm</a>
Semper Fidelis.
C. Aelius Ericius.
Roman,
Citizen of Nova Roma,
Propraetor of California Provincia,
Senator,
Pontifex,
Augur
et
Sepia Senes.
|
| Subject: |
Re: Gens |
| From: |
"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 19:53:16 -0500 |
|
Rather interesting that according to the old and superseded NR
constitution changing gens was not a big deal. In fact one would
automatically change gens if a paterfamilias adopted one as an
heir. In Rome the heir had to agree... And in the late republican
period it was not that big a deal either. I recall Cicero wondering if
his son(?) should change his gens in response to being named in a
will, but figured there was time enough to decide when it was
determined what a third of a third (his son's share) was worth.
And the new Senate is all male. Surely just coincidence.
Gaius Mamertinus
Don Meaker
On 14 Sep 99, at 19:20, M. Papirius Justus wrote:
> From: "M. Pap--------s Justus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=197166104009127132130232203026129208071" >pap--------s@--------</a>
>
> At 12:49 PM 14/09/1999 -0400, you wrote:
> The Constitution of Nova Roma does not expressly adopt the doctrine of
> patria potestas from Roman family law, and to adopt the whole of this
> doctrine would be inconsistent with the guarantees of citizens' rights
> earlier in the Constitution and with the obligations of NR as an
> international voluntary organisation under the modern laws of at least one
> state where citizens are resident; since the doctrine in its full form is
> sex-discriminatory and inconsistent with international human rights
> guarantees and antislavery treaties and legislation.
>
> Respondeo:
> I respectfully disagree on this point to a certain degree. What NovaRoma
> has created is a world where a gens can be led by a materfamilias or a
> paterfamilias; yes, people within that gens are subject to his or her
> control, but at the same time it is the officium of the
> pater/materfamilias to ensure that the rights of the citizens within their
> gens are protected. It is the pater/materfamilias who ensures human rights
> etc.. There is nothing inconsistent with antislavery treaties and
> legislation to it at all ... (i.e. being in potestate is *not* the same as
> being a slave)
>
> As for the larger question of whether being accepted into a gens involves
> something 'voluntary', unless there was some sort of oath of adoption
> formally subjecting the new person to the potestas of the
> pater/materfamilias of the gens (an oath which has to be sworn before one
> of the comitia), the relationship created is more akin to clientela than
> any real 'family' relationship ...
>
> mpj
> ]|[ M. Papirius Justus ]|[ <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a> ]|[
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> ONElist: your connection to people who share your interests.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: Gens |
| From: |
Daniel Dreesbach dreesbach@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 20:44:29 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Are you going to create your own gens
--- Don an--------ys Meaker <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=230166014180193192112218004036129208" >famromo@--------</a> wrote:
> From: "Don an--------ys Meaker" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=230166014180193192112218004036129208" >famromo@--------</a>
>
> Rather interesting that according to the old and
> superseded NR
> constitution changing gens was not a big deal. In
> fact one would
> automatically change gens if a paterfamilias adopted
> one as an
> heir. In Rome the heir had to agree... And in the
> late republican
> period it was not that big a deal either. I recall
> Cicero wondering if
> his son(?) should change his gens in response to
> being named in a
> will, but figured there was time enough to decide
> when it was
> determined what a third of a third (his son's share)
> was worth.
>
> And the new Senate is all male. Surely just
> coincidence.
>
> Gaius Mamertinus
> Don Meaker
>
>
> On 14 Sep 99, at 19:20, M. Papirius Justus wrote:
>
> > From: "M. Pap--------s Justus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=197166104009127132130232203026129208071" >pap--------s@--------</a>
> >
> > At 12:49 PM 14/09/1999 -0400, you wrote:
> > The Constitution of Nova Roma does not expressly
> adopt the doctrine of
> > patria potestas from Roman family law, and to
> adopt the whole of this
> > doctrine would be inconsistent with the guarantees
> of citizens' rights
> > earlier in the Constitution and with the
> obligations of NR as an
> > international voluntary organisation under the
> modern laws of at least one
> > state where citizens are resident; since the
> doctrine in its full form is
> > sex-discriminatory and inconsistent with
> international human rights
> > guarantees and antislavery treaties and
> legislation.
> >
> > Respondeo:
> > I respectfully disagree on this point to a certain
> degree. What NovaRoma
> > has created is a world where a gens can be led by
> a materfamilias or a
> > paterfamilias; yes, people within that gens are
> subject to his or her
> > control, but at the same time it is the officium
> of the
> > pater/materfamilias to ensure that the rights of
> the citizens within their
> > gens are protected. It is the pater/materfamilias
> who ensures human rights
> > etc.. There is nothing inconsistent with
> antislavery treaties and
> > legislation to it at all ... (i.e. being in
> potestate is *not* the same as
> > being a slave)
> >
> > As for the larger question of whether being
> accepted into a gens involves
> > something 'voluntary', unless there was some sort
> of oath of adoption
> > formally subjecting the new person to the potestas
> of the
> > pater/materfamilias of the gens (an oath which has
> to be sworn before one
> > of the comitia), the relationship created is more
> akin to clientela than
> > any real 'family' relationship ...
> >
> > mpj
> > ]|[ M. Papirius Justus ]|[
> <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a> ]|[
> >
> > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> ----------------------------
> >
> > ONElist: your connection to people who share your
> interests.
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> ----------------------------
>
> GET WHAT YOU DESERVE! A NextCard Platinum VISA:
> DOUBLE Rewards points,
> NO annual fee & rates as low as 9.9 percent FIXED
> APR. Apply online today!
> <a href="
> <a href="http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/nextcard5" target="_top" >http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/nextcard5</a> ">Click
> Here</a>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at <a href="http://auctions.yahoo.com" target="_top" >http://auctions.yahoo.com</a>
|
| Subject: |
Re: Gens |
| From: |
Decius Iunius Palladius amcgrath@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:55:05 -0400 (EDT) |
|
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Don and Crys Meaker wrote:
> From: "Don an--------ys Meaker" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=230166014180193192112218004036129208" >famromo@--------</a>
>
> Rather interesting that according to the old and superseded NR
> constitution changing gens was not a big deal. In fact one would
> automatically change gens if a paterfamilias adopted one as an
> heir.
It's not that there is a difference between the old system and the new
system on this point (though the old constitution did specify religious
duties of a pater/materfamilias) it's just that this issue has never come
up since the Founding of Nova Roma. Ever. You were a first. Probably not
a distinction you wanted but nevertheless... :)
> And the new Senate is all male. Surely just coincidence.
Not all male--Minervina Iucundia Flavia is a female. Flavia Claudia was a
female senator as well. Many, no most, or our most active members are
males. Few females have run for office or hold office in Nova Roma. As
more do, more will enter the senate.
Vale,
Decius Iunius Palladius,
Consul etc.
|
