| Subject: |
crash |
| From: |
Mike Macnair MikeMacnair@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 02:10:58 -0400 |
|
Salvete!
Owing to a computer crash just now I have lost in transit all messages
since yesterday. If anyone has posted anything I ought to read (quite
possible since I posted something myself yesterday on the gens issue &
would be happy to be corrected as necessary!) could you mail it to me
direct? Thanks,
Valete,
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
|
| Subject: |
Re: Gentes |
| From: |
"Nicolaus Moravius" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=091089014007127031215056228219114187071048139" >n_moravius@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 06:28:22 PDT |
|
Salvete!
M.Mucius Scaevola Magister scripsit:
>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<AMPUTATIO>
- I would add this: that a citizen's enforced resignation of his/her
citizenship, in order to leave a gens, and a subsequent obligation to apply
for re-admission to Nova Roma, amounts to the infliction of a penalty of
temporary exile (and possible disenfranchisement), and with which in some
future cases an innocent citizen may be punished.
Clearly this aspect will be open to abuse and I would urge our Censors and
Magistrates to bear this in mind when making legal/constitutional policy
relating to gens membership.
Valete,
Vado.
Quod prudentis opus? Cum possis, nolle nocere.
Quid stulti propriam? Non posse et velle nocere.
(What is the work of the wise? Not to injure, though he can.
What is the property of a fool? To wish to injure, though he cannot).
- Ausonius.
|
| Subject: |
Re: Personal Issues in NR |
| From: |
Dexippus@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 09:32:02 EDT |
|
In a message dated 9/14/99 6:45:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=173075066165082194184241189100114253071048139" >JusticeCMO@--------</--------; writes:
<< Read the whole post/thread Dex. My *point* is that personal comments or
milestones (as someone else put it) have always been warmly received. >>
Ah...mea culpa. Pardone moi.
--Dexippus
|
| Subject: |
Re: Latin Humour |
| From: |
"Nicolaus Moravius" n_moravius@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 06:40:10 PDT |
|
Iterum Salutem!
Sic Magister:
>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.
- Pax!
Vado (STILL giggling over 'Brutus sic inat')
(and resolved to order a 'Martinus' at the evry next opportunity).
|
| Subject: |
Re: Re: Gentes |
| From: |
"RMerullo" rmerullo@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 10:39:42 -0400 |
|
Salvete Nicolaue Moravi et alii
>From: "Nicolaus Moravius" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=091089014007127031215056228219114187071048139" >n_moravius@--------</a>
>
>- I would add this: that a citizen's enforced resignation of his/her
>citizenship, in order to leave a gens, and a subsequent obligation to apply
>for re-admission to Nova Roma, amounts to the infliction of a penalty of
>temporary exile (and possible disenfranchisement), and with which in some
>future cases an innocent citizen may be punished.
A pater/materfamilias' expulsion of a citizen from a gens does not mean
disenfranchisement as I see it. It means that the expelled citizen loses
his/her Roman name and must apply to a different gens or apply directly to
the censors as a new gens. The process of gens affiliation need have no
impact on his/her voting rights (any voter code issued can still be valid, a
new one can be created and sent to the nameless citizen, since the censors
have the person's legal name and contact information).
Of course it's not up to me to decide how this will be done in an
institutional way, but, for the time being, in the absence of specific legal
mandates, that is how I am proceeding.
Valete
Gaius Marius Merullus
rogator
>
>Valete,
>
>Vado.
|
| Subject: |
Re: Historical question for SPI |
| From: |
JSA varromurena@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:44:02 -0700 (PDT) |
|
--
> 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).
>
A few queries (bearing in mind changes over the course
of a 1000 or so years). Does what you say above apply
to the various auxiliary legions that went on campaign
as well? What happens to children of non-Romans in the
legions (under the Empire, for example), who did not
receive citizenship until their retirement? So, for
example, Child Ignotus is fathered by non-citizen
legionary Nemo in the latter's first year in the army.
Nemo does not, however, receive citizenship until his
retirement 25 years later. What is the status of
Ignotus until that time?
__________________________________________________
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: |
JusticeCMO@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:45:10 EDT |
|
In --------ss--------d-------- 9/15/99 9:32:23 AM E--------rn D--------ght Time, <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=132056131009152219130232203140129208071" >Dexippus@--------</--------;
writes:
<< Ah...mea culpa. Pardone moi.
--Dexippus >>
::smile:: No big thang......:)
Serena
|
| Subject: |
Re: Roman Values |
| From: |
JSA varromurena@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:48:00 -0700 (PDT) |
|
--- "M. Pap--------s Justus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=197166104009127132130232203026129208071" >pap--------s@--------</a> wrote:
> From: "M. Pap--------s Justus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=197166104009127132130232203026129208071" >pap--------s@--------</a>
>
> 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.
I disagree in part. Clearly, these instances and
others were unusual, but Valerius points out that
other Romans of the time, while they too thought it
was unusual, did not think there was anything per se
wrong with the behavior of these men.
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.
No, nothing in history is ever so simple as made it to
be--we simplify in order to make a valid point shortly
(otherwise it might take a semester of lectures to get
to the point), or for teaching purposes.
My point was that classical Roman society, certainly
in the Early and Middle Republic, the eras that NR
draws upon for its Roman values, was highly sexist and
misogynistic--perhaps not as much so as that of Hellas
of the same periods, but far from the equality touted
as a goal on the NR website. I cited two examples,
perhaps extreme, to make a point, being which that
though Classic Roman values have much to commend them
to people nowadays, there are plenty of values which
we, hopefully, would not wish to follow today--though
the attitude of some citizens on this list
occasionally make one wonder about this.
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: |
Soldiers, Children, Slaves, Patresfamilias |
| From: |
"Nicolaus Moravius" n_moravius@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 13:27:17 PDT |
|
Salutem!
Querit Crys:
>Did a Roman Solder ever
>recognize any children he may have had while abroad (or away)? If
>he did, how?
- Sources: 1)Allason-Jones, L: 'Women in Roman Britain' (British Museum
Publications, 1989)2) Lewis, N., & Reinhold M: 'Roman Civilization:
Sourcebook II: The Empire' (Harper 1966 (Revised Edition) 3) Gardner, J F &
Wiedemann, T: 'The Roman Household: A Sourcebook' (Routledge, 1996)
A legal opinion as early as the reign of Hadrian presumed soldiers would be
married, although until the edict of Septimius Severus in 197 CE this was
technically illegal for soldiers below the rank of centurion (1, pp. 56-7).
Non-Roman marriage of soldiers to local women was presumably normal (the
in-laws would probably have insisted on a marriage-rite if they were in a
position to do so), although local marriage ceremonies were not recognised
as legal under Roman law (ibid.).
The legal status of children born to serving soldiers were illegitimate
(until Severus' edict allowed all ranks to conduct legal, Roman marriage). A
soldier could provide for any such children in a will (2, pp.518-9), but
could not legally register their births. A marriage contracted legally
(i.e., Roman, between Roman citizens) was deemed to be annulled if the
husband enlisted, and any subsequent children of that marriage would be
classified as illegitimate (1, p.58).
However, a soldier could find himself a paterfamilias on the death of his
father, and therefore responsible for all his unmarried female relatives
(including children): these children would, of course, have Roman legal
rights. They would also, therefore, have a legal claim on his estate if he
died intestate (1, p.60).
Discharge diplomas, issued on completion of military service, included
formal, official recognition of any heirs and children acquired in service,
as subsequently legitimate (providing the soldier claimed only one wife -
Roman law recognised only monogamy, though some societies in the Empire were
polygamous)(1, p.61).
Under Augustan law the father of a child of a legal marriage between Roman
citizens(or his representative)was required to register the birth of the
child within 30 days. Until the reign of Marcus Aurelius, illegitimate
children were not enrolled on the public register, so parents of children
born during the father's military service often drew up unofficial
attestations of illegitimate births, signed and witnessed, to provide prima
facie ('first case') evidence for establishing the civic status of the child
following the father's discharge and enfranchisement (2, pp.520-1, 524,
526). This also applied to those serving in the Navy (2, pp.522-3) and to
the Praetorian Guard (2, p.523).
>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?
Ordinary soldiers could, and did, have slaves (1, p.62): these could,
therefore, easily include children (cheaper than adults, more slave for your
pay).
>
>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?).
I'd like to share this anecdote on the consequences of abuse of patria
potestas ('paternal power') with you. It's from Seneca's 'De Clementia' ('On
Clemency')(1.15)(quoted in 3, p.15):
"I can myself remember how the people stabbed a Roman equestrian called
Trichowith their pens in the forum because he had beaten his son to death.
The authority of Augustus Caesar onlyjust managed to save him from the
assault,at the hands of fathers as much as sons."
>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.
- I disagree, Crys: we were all children once. Well, nearly all of us...
Valete bene,
Vado.
Quod prudentis opus? Cum possis, nolle nocere.
Quid stulti propriam? Non posse et velle nocere.
(What is the work of the wise? Not to injure, though he can.
What is the property of a fool? To wish to injure, though he cannot).
- Ausonius.
|
| Subject: |
EDICT: Vote extended |
| From: |
Decius Iunius Palladius amcgrath@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 17:20:09 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Salvete!
Today was to be the official end of voting. Due to the time constraints of
all the magistrates involved (rogatores et censores), I extend the voting
by by two days. The last day to vote in the Comitia Centuriata is now
Friday the 17--the results will be announced Saturday.
Valete,
Decius Iunius Palladius,
Consul
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Quis ita familiaris est barbaris,
ut aram Victoriae non requirat!"
Quintus Aurelius Symmachus
|
| Subject: |
Re: Roman Values |
| From: |
"Martins-Esteves" esteves@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 19:50:48 -0300 |
|
Avete Quirites
(...)
>My point was that classical Roman society, certainly
>in the Early and Middle Republic, the eras that NR
>draws upon for its Roman values, was highly sexist and
>misogynistic--perhaps not as much so as that of Hellas
>of the same periods, but far from the equality touted
>as a goal on the NR website. I cited two examples,
>perhaps extreme, to make a point, being which that
>though Classic Roman values have much to commend them
>to people nowadays, there are plenty of values which
>we, hopefully, would not wish to follow today--though
>the attitude of some citizens on this list
>occasionally make one wonder about this.
>
>L. Licinius Varro Murena
Perfect!
Ok, I am not trying to lecture, I am just organizing my thoughts. One can
easily notice the mutation of the moral in Rome, so that in the Late
Republic and in the early Principate the old Moral from Cato was gradually
being replaced for the new hellenistic Moral -- the stoicism (stronger than
the epicureanism, I believe). It is this second system of values (the stoic
values, in their Roman expression) that serves generally as a model for NR.
I mean implicitly. Am I right about that?
The modern human rights we must observe in our new Nation (such as freedom,
equality etc.) are the ones preconized by the stoics, although these have
never made (nor wanted to make) an attempt to publicize their personal moral
goals as general rights. The Christianity absorved, very roughly said, the
stoic moral and finally in the 18th century the human rights came out . I
am not saying that the Declaration Universelle des Droits d'Homme ist an
expression of stoicism, but that the values that inform the Declaration are
part of the stoic-christian moral tradition. As this tradition formed what
we nowadays know as human rights, and these are part of the values of NR, I
can suspect that NR is mostly stoic, in what relates to moral (not theology
or methaphisics included).
Tending more to epicureanism, I would like to hear an stoic on this subject.
Valete
Atticus
|
| Subject: |
Re: Historical question for SPI |
| From: |
"M. Papirius Justus" papirius@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 19:55:15 -0400 |
|
At 11:44 AM 15/09/1999 -0700, you wrote:
A few queries (bearing in mind changes over the course
of a 1000 or so years). Does what you say above apply
to the various auxiliary legions that went on campaign
as well? What happens to children of non-Romans in the
legions (under the Empire, for example), who did not
receive citizenship until their retirement? So, for
example, Child Ignotus is fathered by non-citizen
legionary Nemo in the latter's first year in the army.
Nemo does not, however, receive citizenship until his
retirement 25 years later. What is the status of
Ignotus until that time?
Respondeo:
Assuming we're talking prior to the Constitutio Antoniniana (when Caracalla
gave universal citizenship) and we're not dealing with Egypt/Alexandria
(which has citizenship rules of its own which I'm not quite confident in
regurgitating) and we're speaking generally, the status of a child which
was the product of a non-Roman marriage was non-Roman; when citizenship was
granted on retirement, it usually included a recognition of whatever
marriage (i.e. conubium) the soldier had contracted and the children were
sort of retroactively created citizens as if they were originally borne of
two Roman citizens.
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: |
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 20:09:43 -0400 |
|
At 12:48 PM 15/09/1999 -0700, you wrote:
From: JSA <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=081166091180193192130061163101147165026048139046" >varromurena@--------</a>
I disagree in part. Clearly, these instances and
others were unusual, but Valerius points out that
other Romans of the time, while they too thought it
was unusual, did not think there was anything per se
wrong with the behavior of these men.
Respondeo:
I think that's reading an awful lot into VM; I don't think he really was in
a position to know what 'other Romans' thought about such things
(especially in regards to things that happened centuries before he wrote).
We have to be extremely wary of looking at the past the modern eyes and
imposing modern values on a society which did not perceive the world in the
same way we did, for various reasons.
Scr.
No, nothing in history is ever so simple as made it to
be--we simplify in order to make a valid point shortly
(otherwise it might take a semester of lectures to get
to the point), or for teaching purposes.
Respondeo:
At the same time, however, nothing is history is as necessarily complex as
modern theoretical interpretations like to make it. We can read VM and
respond to it from our point of view, we can try and fit it into some sort
of ideological theory (while ignoring other things which might contradict
that theory), but such approaches do not make it more valid by any means ...
Scr.
My point was that classical Roman society, certainly
in the Early and Middle Republic, the eras that NR
draws upon for its Roman values, was highly sexist and
misogynistic--
Res.
I think you have to provide some solid evidence that in Rome there was
'hatred' of women (which is what misogyny is); I think you also have to
look at the big picture and put gender relations in a historical context
and then decide whether it was, in fact, sexist ... one of the big problems
I have had with numerous studies is that they look at Roman society almost
as if it were a modern one ... the key to Roman society is the
paterfamilias, of course, and while he has 'rights', he also had duties.
Much of what we perceive as 'sexist' is largely the response of an
agricultural society to the necessities of gens preservation
Scr.
perhaps not as much so as that of Hellas
of the same periods, but far from the equality touted
as a goal on the NR website. I cited two examples,
perhaps extreme, to make a point, being which that
though Classic Roman values have much to commend them
to people nowadays, there are plenty of values which
we, hopefully, would not wish to follow today--though
the attitude of some citizens on this list
occasionally make one wonder about this.
Res.
It is worth reiterating, of course, that your examples were, in fact
singular ... if you could provide numerous examples of hubbies beating
their wives to death for drinking wine, the point might be valid .. But
that leads to my point ... your examples were extreme, just as examples in
numerous courses at universities are based on extreme, devoid of context
examples. I don't think it would be fair to judge all of U.S. society from
the parade of folks on the Jerry Springer show; so too we should be rather
more global when we talk about Roman society.
.
mpj
]|[ M. Papirius Justus ]|[ <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a> ]|[
|
| Subject: |
Job Opening: Censorial Scribus |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 20:13:39 -0400 |
|
Salvete!
I am hereby calling for applications from those citizens interested in
taking on the role of censorial scribus. The job is essentially an assistant
to myself as censor, and will entail sending out welcoming emails to new
citizens and data entry of new citizen information. Successful applicants
will have a working knowledge of MS Excel (and hopefully a copy of the
program itself), a reliable connection to the internet (with the ability to
check and reply to email on a daily basis), and the ability to handle
sensitive information with discretion.
This is an excellent opportunity for those citizens who aspire to the
position of censor one day; on-the-job training will be cheerfully provided.
Please email letters of interest (along with relevant qualifications) to
myself at <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>. Please do _-------- post letters of i--------est
to the email list.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Censor
|
| Subject: |
Re: Gens |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 20:45:22 -0400 |
|
Salve,
Don Meaker <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=230166014180193192112218004036129208" >famromo@--------</a> whine--------
>
> And the new Senate is all male. Surely just coincidence.
Actually, I think that Minervina Iucundia Flavia might have something to say
about that, being a woman and a member of the Senate. Plus, at least one
other woman was invited to serve, and decided not to for her own reasons.
Guess you'll have to find something else to complain about. Or maybe you'll
threaten to leave Nova Roma over this, too?
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus
|
