| Subject: |
Joanne |
| From: |
"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 08:07:04 -0500 |
|
On 17 Sep 99, at 7:14, <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> wrote:
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 21:11:33 +0200
> From: "Joanne Agate" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=060017221106171167073016064076057064095159081196010130152150" >PAGANFEDBELGIUM@--------</a>
> Subject: ramblings and Roman in Belgium
>
> Dear Crys,
>
> >My veil covers my head and extends down my back
> > about to my waist. My face > remains uncovered -- as does my mouth >
> Should a matron in NR wear a veil
>
> I am also one of those women who some people wish that I kept my
> mouth covered too :-)
> Anyway, just curious: Are you a Roman Pagan and does the veil have
> something
> to do with worshiping the Gods? And is there an historical reason for you
> wearing your veil?
>
OH YES!! I AM a Roman Pagan. Have been for ever, but got into
it when I was 13. Before I got into Nova Roma, I kept my head
covered because of the Mennonite church (and was the only female
int he church to do so). Once in NR, I read about the practice of
married women to wear veils. I adopted it immediately and it felt
perfectly natural, and so I just do it <G>. In this day and age I
think it is simply a symbol of the much needed respect of wives for
their husbands, which is sorely lacking, IMO. Too many women
don't wear wedding bands, or don't eve take their husbands names.
Seems like people want us to all be one big happy sex, not male
and not female, but something in the middle. Sounds like a great
way to rid the planet of ourselves.
> And 2 sentences about me: I am the Pagan Federation National Coordinator
> for
> Belgium, the editor of its
> European newsletter, etc etc. I keep busy for the cause of Paganism to
> be accepted as a valid spiritual path (which isn't easy in an extremely
> Catholic country like Belgium).
>
> I found your website because I am a Roman Pagan (the only one that I
> know) and I was searching the internet because I wanted to see if there
> was anyone else interested in Roman Paganism. I was extremely pleasantly
> surprised to find Nova Roma. And what an excellent website! I had been
> putting together a calendar of Roman festival days and Roman rituals and
> well, now I don't have to--you've already done it for me! I tried to
> apply for citizenship but got the automated message that you
> were
> not taking new members until after the elections. Until then, I will be
> quite busy reading everything on your excellent website.
>
There are plenty of Roman Pagans here!! NR is mostly Pagan, for
that matter. Not always Roman, but many incorporate the Roman
with something else (like Wicca). Dex springs to mind <G>. He is
another many would like to see with a veil stuffed in his mouth I
dare say. <G>
> bright blessings,
> Joanne
>
>
Pax
Amethystia Iunia Crystallina
|
| Subject: |
Re: Historical question for SPI |
| From: |
JSA varromurena@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 10:45:51 -0700 (PDT) |
|
--- "M. Pap--------s Justus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=197166104009127132130232203026129208071" >pap--------s@--------</a> wrote:
> Qu.
> Did it matter which kind of Roman marriage was used
> (was there a special kind of marriage for
> Legionaries,
> or am I perhaps thinking of special rules for
> testament and inheritance for the soldiers?)?
>
> Res.
> No ... Roman marriage was a matter of consent
> between the two parties;
> there didn't even have to be a ceremony (although
> there likely was one of
> some sort; probably at least a deduction in domum or
> something) ...
I thought there were several different forms of
marriage: Usus, confarreatione, and coemptione, and,
of course, marriage without manus. How do all these
affect the matter at issue?
>
> Qu.
> Finally, when a child and his mother, non-citizens
> because Papa has not come to the end of his
> enlistment
> and attained citizenship, dwell in a town, for
> example, or even a provincia, that has been granted
> citizenship, is this the one case where the kid gets
> citizenship before the father, or is law wholly
> personal and the kid has to wait for papa's
> enlistment
> to run out?
>
> Res.
> No, if we're imagining a situation where a non
> citizen male marries a
> citizen female, the children will be Roman citizens
> but technically they
> will not be in the father's potestas ...
>
Is it certain that non-Romans who enlisted received
citizenship upon either enlistment or at the end of
their term?
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: |
"Lucius" vergil@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:20:28 -0400 |
|
Salvete, Omnes
Thank you both for an interesting discourse. I believe that it is incorrect to judge ancient peoples by modern standards.
For those interested in this subject I recommend "Crime & Punishment in Ancient Rome" by Richard A. Bauman ISBN- 0-415-11375-X
While it mostly deals with the principate there is also a good deal of material from earlier times.
Also, "The State, Law and Religion: Pagan Rome" by Alan Watson
ISBN- 0-8203-1387-4
Bonam Fortunam Omnibus
Valete, L Equitius Cincinnatus
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 06:06:53 -0400
From: "M. Pap--------s Justus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=197166104009127132130232203026129208071" >pap--------s@--------</a>
Subject: Re: Roman Values
At 01:56 AM 16/09/1999 -0700, you wrote:
Then, again, VM drew upon various sources, many of
which we do not have, and he clearly states, without
using any modern theory to understand him (other than
simple empiricism), that, in the case of Egnatius
Metellus "Everyone considered this an excellent
example of one who had justly paid the penalty for
violating the laws of sobriety..."
Res.
And what, exactly, does 'everyone' mean in context...
<snip> Scr.
No, but then I am not using any particular theory
here,...
Res.
But when you bring up the notion of misogyny, by that very fact you are
using feminist theory ...
Scr.
Well, let us see. Aulus Gellius reports various
speeches of Cato in which the husband is allowed to
kill the wife caught in adultery, but not vice-versa.
Res.
And in Roman law, as later modifed by Augustus, a paterfamilias could kill
his daughter *and* her paramour if caught in flagrante delicto (could a
hubby with manus do the same? I'm not sure...
Scr.
Women were never allowed to vote, nor to hold office.
Res.
So? Neither were slaves, or peregrini, or various other folks. ...
Scr.
The ideal Roman woman is the Matron (such as Cornelia,
Mother of the Gracchi), ...
Res.
And the ideal Roman man was the farmer-senator (such as Cincinnatus) who
lived in a small shack, ....
Scr.
Power in the familias is in the hands of a Paterfamilias, not a Materfamilias...
Res.
So? Along with the power of the paterfamilias goes quite a bit of
responsibility was well (in terms of preserving the familia);
Scr.
Table V.1 of the 12 Tables
states females shall remain in guardianship even when
they have attained their majority.
Res.
And what, exactly did 'guardianship' and the attendant auctoritas tutorum
entail? (cave: I am setting you up with this one)
Scr.
If I had more time I could cite other examples, but if you need some I
suggest you look online, for example, at either the
Ancient History Sourcebook or Diotima, or consult the
works of Lefkowitz and Fant.
Res.
Thanks, but I've spent the last decade or more researching precisely this
thing and I suspect I'm one of the few folks in North America who has
intimate familiarity with such texts as Justinian's Digest *and* Codex,
I'm sorry, but this whole notion of misogyny in ancient times is a modern
construct imposed on a society which is *not* just like ours ...
Scr.
True, but as I pointed out above, there is in law no
Materfamilias, ...
Res.
No, if you're a female in our society, where females can exercise power 'in
front of the scenes', it might seem sexist...
Scr.
No, most of what we perceive as sexist has its roots
in the changeover from a Forager to a wholly
agricultural society, as Margaret Ehrenberg
demonstrated in her ground-breaking study.
Res.
You misunderstood me. What I was trying to say was that Rome was an
agricultural society and its societal structures (even into the empire)
were largely those of an agricultural society...
Scr.
So, you're saying that the United States today is NOT a sexist society?
Res.
No, what I'm saying is that just as I would not make any value judgement on
the totality of American society from the parade of painted and pierced
profligates on Springer, I would not judge the totality of Roman society
from a handful of anecdotes from VM.
mpj
]|[ M. Papirius Justus ]|[ <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a> ]|[
|
| Subject: |
Re: Roman Values |
| From: |
SDmtwi@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 14:37:42 EDT |
|
Salve Venator. Si vales, valeo.
> For one looking to understand Roman philosophy in a general sense, would
> Cicero's "The Nature of the Gods" be a good starting point? I have a copy,
> it was in a small box of Penguin Classic editions I picked up at a rummage
> sale. (Mostly Norse Sagas though!)
In your search for an overview of the philosophies popular in Rome at the end of the Republic, you could do much worse than _The_Nature_of_Gods_. It provides well-argued examples of Academic, Epicurean, and Stoic thought upon the nature of divinity and whether or not the Gods exist.
My only warning is that philosophical prose, especially ancient sources in translation, can be inordinately dense at times. Cicero's works are usually better than most, but I occasionally suspected that something had been lost in the translation when I read the book.
Vale,
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
Re: Roman Values |
| From: |
Mike Macnair MikeMacnair@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 14:40:39 -0400 |
|
Salvete!
Scripsit L. Equitius:
>I believe that it is incorrect to judge ancient peoples by modern
standards.
This is entirely true; but the question is, which parts of the ancient
system we seek to reconstruct, and which we decide to discard as
inconsistent with modern circumstances and changed understandings.
In my opinion patria potestas is plainly a part of the roman system we
should discard.
I think that M. Papirius Justus has among other things (and perhaps not his
main point) provided some of the evidence that the romans themselves
gradually watered it down and found ways out of it - and we could add the
practices of emancipation (by repeated sale of the filiusfamilias to the
same buyer, a transparent legal fiction) and the rule that a wife prevented
her husband obtaining manus over her by sleeping in a different house one
day in the year. The legal sources make it pretty evident that the romans
of the late republic and early empire found patria potestas over adult male
descendants archaic and bloody inconvenient and put pressure on their
lawyers to mitigate its effects.
On the gender issues a good source is Jane Gardner, Women in Roman Law and
Society.
Valete,
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
|
| Subject: |
Re: Roman Values |
| From: |
JSA varromurena@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:10:48 -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 01:56 AM 16/09/1999 -0700, you wrote:
> Then, again, VM drew upon various sources, many of
> which we do not have, and he clearly states, without
> using any modern theory to understand him (other
> than
> simple empiricism), that, in the case of Egnatius
> Metellus "Everyone considered this an excellent
> example of one who had justly paid the penalty for
> violating the laws of sobriety..."
>
> Res.
>
> And what, exactly, does 'everyone' mean in context
> (and what word is used
> for it in the Latin ... sorry, VM is one of those
> texts which I do not have
> handy)? Is 'everyone' the sum of his sources? Is
> everyone Roman society in
> general? Is everyone the Roman equivalent of
> teenspeak (aw mom, everyone's
> going to the mall) ...
Yes, I see your point, and I don't have the Teubner
readily at hand either.
>
> <snip> Scr.
> No, but then I am not using any particular theory
> here, nor do I in my own work on Medieval English
> lawbooks, other than Maitlandian empiricism.
>
> Res.
> But when you bring up the notion of misogyny, by
> that very fact you are
> using feminist theory ...
No, "misogyny" is a word that predates feminist
theory. All I'm doing is trying to see the world, and
especially the past, not from that of the privileged
male, but from that of those who do not have the same
privileges and power, and understand how the lack of
same affects them. Further, I have not read any
feminist theory, and, indeed, my attitude toward
pre-set theories in history is quite "misologous."
>
> Scr.
> Well, let us see. Aulus Gellius reports various
> speeches of Cato in which the husband is allowed to
> kill the wife caught in adultery, but not
> vice-versa.
>
> Res.
> And in Roman law, as later modifed by Augustus, a
> paterfamilias could kill
> his daughter *and* her paramour if caught in
> flagrante delicto
Why is this power not given to the materfamilias?
(could a
> hubby with manus do the same? I'm not sure).
Could a wife who caught her husband in flagrante do
the same to her husband?
Is
> misogyny the only
> explanation? (it is if you're approaching things
> through modern eyes). But
> what if you're essentially an agricultural society
> which has as the central
> focus of its existence the maintenance of property
> within a gens and
> indeed, it is a societal goal to pass on the family
> property to one's
> children in a better condition (financially) than
> one had received it?
Yes, but why must it be, largely, passed on to the
sons? Other agricultural societies have been
matrilineal, if not matrifocal, but Rome was not.
The
> danger of adultery as regards females is, of course,
> the risk of pregnancy
> and if a woman did become pregnant by a paramour
> (and the hubby didn't
> know), one would be 'taking away' from the gens when
> it came to inheritance
But aren't they essentially doing this through Dos?
> -- it might be 'unknown', but the various divinities
> associated with the
> gens would know and, I strongly believe, in the
> Roman scheme of things
> would be considered a bad thing. I'm not trying to
> be an apologist, here,
> but rather, am trying to demonstrate how thinking
> the 'romans were just
> like us' can impose an interpretation which is not
> necessarily applicable
> (especially with that buzz word misogyny).
I well understand that the Romans either individually
or as a society were not like us. The point I'm trying
to make is that the Roman gens was male-centered, and
the entire structure reflects that. I'm not entirely
sure that this was due to some "conspiracy" by men to
control women, though that is the effect. Through
reading all sorts of sources from the ancient world,
the Roman men, like other men from other societies,
seem to regard women as wanting to do nothing all day
but have sex, almost like the poor men are put upon
and have all their various plans go awry because of
these sexual demands. And, of course, these poor women
on the whole aren't very bright, so we have to control
them in various ways. So the family is centered around
the Pater, who has near-absolute power, the women are
conveyed into marriage via manus, women are legally
always under guardianship, they can't vote, hold
office, serve in the army, command an army, serve as
iudex, take any part in public life (not originally,
anyway), wear a veil (well, I'm not sure if this veil
was originally much like that of the Islamic
veil--does anybody know anything about this in its
earliest appearance?), take up dwelling in the house
of the husband, etc. etc. Even the Roman naming system
for women shows the disregard they had for women: 1st,
2d, 3d? They're not persons, just numbers? Admittedly
practice is sometimes divorced from law; still, the
legal restrictions are real, and only a few
exceptional women (mostly aristocratic) could escape,
and they never entirely.
Even
> without that, however, and
> without getting into the problem of whether Cato was
> 'typical', the mere
> existence of the provision for killing does not mean
> it was used
> frequently, if at all (I know of only one 2nd
> century A.D. example and a
> governor actually had to write for advice on how to
> handle the case)
Yes, I understand a Paterfamilias who abused his power
could be registered as such with the Censors--though
what the latter then did I do not know.
>
> Scr.
> Women were never allowed to vote, nor to hold
> office.
>
> Res.
> So? Neither were slaves, or peregrini, or various
> other folks. But this
> 'equal voting rights' thing is largely a modern
> phenomenon. I know of know
> evidence which suggests that such groups (including
> women) ever desired the
> vote. They had other ways of exercising their power
> ...
Oh please! The same argument was made against the 19th
Amendment (and in similar terms to the various Voting
Rights provisions of the last 40 years), yet,
amazingly, women, and minorities, still wanted the
vote. If you're brought up from birth to believe the
prevailing ideology, and you see it in effect
everywhere, only an exceptional few will protest. If
voting rights was not a big issue to the Romans, then
they would have allowed Latins, socii, peregrini, and
slave males, and women, to vote as well. Besides, what
was that whole thing with Hortensia all about?
>
> Scr.
> The ideal Roman woman is the Matron (such as
> Cornelia,
> Mother of the Gracchi), keeping the hearth-fire
> burning, and running things while her man if off
> doing
> Jupiter-knows-what (admittedly, the woman runs the
> household, but until the late Republic, the ideal
> Roman woman is not off doing Juno-knows-what while
> her
> husband runs things at home).
>
> Res.
> And the ideal Roman man was the farmer-senator (such
> as Cincinnatus) who
> lived in a small shack, worked alongside his slaves
> and left the plough to
> defend the Republic. But ideals are just that
> *ideals* and, by definition,
> exceptions. They are hardly indicative of the
> realities of Roman society as
> a whole.
No doubt why Sempronia, Fulvia, and perhaps even
Hortensia were regarded as less-than-ideal models.
>
> Scr.
> Power in the familias is
> in the hands of a Paterfamilias, not a Materfamilias
> (admittedly, in some families the real power may
> have
> been wielded by the Mater, though legal power
> continues to reside in the hands of the Pater), and
> he
> has Patria potestas, there is no Matria potestas in
> law with the same powers.
>
> Res.
> So? Along with the power of the paterfamilias goes
> quite a bit of
> responsibility was well (in terms of preserving the
> familia); you neglect
> to mention, however, that a wife in that familia
> might very well be sui
> iuris, own her own property, etc. etc.
>
>
So? You haven't met my objection, you've merely
sidestepped the question. And, as I understand it,
wives even in liberum matrimonium and sui iuris still
had (with one or two exceptions) to be in tutela, and,
of course, that was always held by a male.
> Scr.
> Table V.1 of the 12 Tables
> states females shall remain in guardianship even
> when
> they have attained their majority.
>
> Res.
> And what, exactly did 'guardianship' and the
> attendant auctoritas tutorum
> entail? (cave: I am setting you up with this one)
As I understand it, tutela mulierum consisted of a
general duty to act to protect the women's interests,
his consent was required for her to contract manus
marriage, to promise a dowry, to make a binding
stipulatio, to make a mancipatio, to make a
manumittio, to make a will, and, probably (I can't
recall offhand), to bring an actio.
>
> Scr.
> If I had more time
> I could cite other examples, but if you need some I
> suggest you look online, for example, at either the
> Ancient History Sourcebook or Diotima, or consult
> the
> works of Lefkowitz and Fant.
>
> Res.
> Thanks, but I've spent the last decade or more
> researching precisely this
> thing and I suspect I'm one of the few folks in
> North America who has
> intimate familiarity with such texts as Justinian's
> Digest *and* Codex,
> without which doing Roman social history is
> impossible ...
Which edition are you using? I've read a great many of
the constitutiones in the codex, along with those in
Gregorianus and Hermogenianus and Theodosianus in
connection with a long-term project. So, are you
preparing a new translation of the Codex, and, if not,
why not?
I encourage you
> to look up the transactions which were regulated by
> 'guardianship' (tutela
> mulierum) and how it differed from e.g. tutela
> minorum. You might also want
> to look into the notion of curator minorum and
> everything assocated with
> the lex Laetoria (not Plaetoria).
Thank you, but all this just reinforces my thesis.
>
> I'm sorry, but this whole notion of misogyny in
> ancient times is a modern
> construct imposed on a society which is *not* just
> like ours ...
No, it is not just like ours, but in many ways it is.
Humans have a tendency to pick similar solutions to
similar problems, and if you can get beyond the
obfuscating details, you will see that at heart there
are very many similarities (the whole idea of
"constructs" being one of those obfuscational details,
as just about anything, including "society" and
"history" and "law" can be a construct).
>
> Scr.
> True, but as I pointed out above, there is in law no
> Materfamilias, and while women have rights and
> duties
> too, they only way they can truly exercise power is
> behind the scenes. If you're a male, you may
> consider
> this a non-sexist society, but if you're a female,
> the
> view (except for those who have internalized the
> male
> view) will be quite different.
>
> Res.
> No, if you're a female in our society, where females
> can exercise power 'in
> front of the scenes', it might seem sexist. If
> you're living in that sort
> of society and know your role and how to get things
> done (i.e. exercise
> power), it's just the way it is.
Ah, the old "just the way it is" argument. We can
argue similarly, I suppose, about the evils of Roman
slavery. Yes, in our society, where slavery is
considered a bad thing, Roman slavery too can be
considered a bad thing. But if you're a slave living
in that sort of society and know your role and how to
get things done (i.e., exercise power), it's just the
way it is. No doubt all the slaves who actively or
passively resisted felt the same way.
A Roman female
> looking at our society
> might very well consider the power relationships of
> our society primitive
> and inefficient. Indeed, considering the Roman
> predeliction for laws
> against secret meetings (i.e. the male method of
> behind the scenes power),
> one could argue sexism the other way (but of course,
> I would not press that)
>
> Scr.
> No, most of what we perceive as sexist has its roots
> in the changeover from a Forager to a wholly
> agricultural society, as Margaret Ehrenberg
> demonstrated in her ground-breaking study. Note, of
> course, that gens preservation occurs only through
> male succession. A non-sexist society would allow it
> to continue through either male or female
> succession.
>
> Res.
> You misunderstood me. What I was trying to say was
> that Rome was an
> agricultural society and its societal structures
> (even into the empire)
> were largely those of an agricultural society... I
> don't care about
> changeovers.
But you should, as this determined how these
agricultural societies came to be patriarchal.
Yes, gens preservation occurs only
> through the male line, but
> that does not preclude a woman from leaving *her*
> property to whomever she
> wants (indeed, a woman had rather more freedom to
> dispose of her property
> ... a paterfamilias would always be in danger of a
> 'undutiful will'
> charge).
Assuming her tutor approved. Admittedly, many tutors
may not care, but just the fact that the woman had to
get consent, even if pro forma, proves my point.
It's rather more complex, in other words,
> than simply being able
> to vaguely label something as 'sexist'.
No, it really is that simple.
>
> Scr.
> So, you're saying that the United States today is
> NOT
> a sexist society?
>
> Res.
> No, what I'm saying is that just as I would not make
> any value judgement on
> the totality of American society from the parade of
> painted and pierced
> profligates on Springer, I would not judge the
> totality of Roman society
> from a handful of anecdotes from VM.
Agreed, but we have more evidence than just that of
Valerius Maximus.
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: |
Returned |
| From: |
"RCW" alexious@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:58:20 -0700 |
|
Salvete Omnes...
Helena Equitia Ovidia and I have returned. Just wanted to drop a note to let everyone know. So if anyone needs to get a hold of me, or Helena we are available and will respond as quickly as we can.
Valete!
L. Cornelius Sulla
|
| Subject: |
Miletes |
| From: |
Razenna razenna@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 18:42:35 -0700 |
|
No. They're not mine, but they are pretty.
<a href="http://pease1.sr.unh.edu/conspiracy/painting/Cesario/Romans/" target="_top" >http://pease1.sr.unh.edu/conspiracy/painting/Cesario/Romans/</a>
|
| Subject: |
Re: Historical question for SPI |
| From: |
"M. Papirius Justus" papirius@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 19:42:06 -0400 |
|
At 10:45 AM 17/09/1999 -0700, you wrote:
From: JSA <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=081166091180193192130061163101147165026048139046" >varromurena@--------</a>
I thought there were several different forms of
marriage: Usus, confarreatione, and coemptione, and,
of course, marriage without manus. How do all these
affect the matter at issue?
Respondeo:
There were several types of marriage; manus marriage would appear to have
disappeared by ca. the first century AD (or at least no one mentions it
after that) ... after that sine manu marriages seem to have been the norm.
How does this affect the matter at issue? It doesn't. For Roman law, what
mattered primarily was that the two folks involved wanted to be married and
that it was for the sake of creating children. A soldier who 'married' a
peregrina would not have a marriage that was recognized in Roman law, no
matter what the method of marriage. Only when they received their diploma
that granted them citizenship and conubium with the wives that they had at
the time or would in the future (usually limited to one) would it become a
valid, legally recognized marriage in Roman law.
Qu.
Is it certain that non-Romans who enlisted received
citizenship upon either enlistment or at the end of
their term?
Res.
It does appear to have been a regular practice from at least the time of
Claudius, if not before ...
mpj
]|[ M. Papirius Justus ]|[ <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a> ]|[
|
| Subject: |
Re: Re: Roman Values |
| From: |
"M. Papirius Justus" papirius@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 20:04:45 -0400 |
|
At 02:40 PM 17/09/1999 -0400, you wrote:
I think that M. Papirius Justus has among other things (and perhaps not his
main point) provided some of the evidence that the romans themselves
gradually watered it down and found ways out of it
Respondeo:
I don't recall doing any such thing; if anything, patria potestas was very
much preserved throughout the time of the empire
Scr.
- and we could add the
practices of emancipation (by repeated sale of the filiusfamilias to the
same buyer, a transparent legal fiction)
Res.
Keep in mind that this isn't an example 'watering down'; emancipation in
its original form was a *punishment*; it was essentially the cutting off of
ties to the family and gens. In its later incarnation, however, the motives
did change, but we really can't be sure how it changed (e.g. outside of
provisions in wills which made inheritance of a legacy conditional on
emancipation (that's another way a female might exercise *her* power, by
the way) so it would not be absorbed into the property of the
paterfamilias, it might be speculated that -- in the eastern parts of the
empire especially -- it was customary to emancipate a child when they
reached a certain age or when they married (keep in mind, e.g., that when
Antoninus made citizens of everyone he also imposed patria potestas on
erstwhile non-Roman peoples. In the Greek east, the tradition was for
children to leave paternal control when they were 18 or so; if they wanted
to continue such traditions, they would have to formally emancipate them).
Whatever the situation, it wasn't a 'watering down' of p.p. -- I don't
think I need point out that it could not be done without the paterfamilias'
consent.
Scr.
and the rule that a wife prevented
her husband obtaining manus over her by sleeping in a different house one
day in the year.
Res.
This really has nothing to do with patria potestas ... keep in mind that a
paterfamilias would prefer not to have a daughter in a manus marriage
because he would lose control of her dowry should the marriage end in her
death or divorce.
Scr.
The legal sources make it pretty evident that the romans
of the late republic and early empire found patria potestas over adult male
descendants archaic and bloody inconvenient and put pressure on their
lawyers to mitigate its effects.
Res.
I'm going to have to ask you what sources these are; I know of no real
mitigation of most of the *real* (as opposed to sensational) aspects of
p.p. (and yes, I know I'm going against folks like Kaser here. In fact,
most of the arguments about the supposed 'humanization' of p.p. are based
on the erroneous belief that the vitae necisque potestas was the "core" of
patria potestas. As a couple of decades of scholarship has demonstrated,
however, the vast majority of examples of wielding of the vitae necisque
potestas are more magisterial than paternal in origin (I've already
mentioned the oen case mentionedby Dio; there's one other) ... as such, I
think it is silly to imagine that a Roman would see the vitae necisque
potestas as the 'core'. Heck, even the ius vendendi (the right to sell a
child) is not a clear case ... a series of rescripta (replies of emperors
on legal matters) from Diocletian's time indicate an attempt to clarify the
issue and claim that one could not sell one's own child, but the series
ends with another rescript from Constantine which suggests such sales were
valid.
The real core of patria potestas was, in fact, his property rights and the
fact that no one in his familia could own private property (this is where
we get into the notion of preservation of property that I've mentioned a
couple of times). It was his job to preserve and, ideally, augment that
property so he could pass it on to his children in greater quantity than he
received it. To that end, the idea of peculium for children in ptestas was
also created for two reasons: to allow a child in power the means to be an
agent for his father in business transactions and to allow the child to
learn how to handle money without real risk to his/her own fortune.
The only exmple of genuine 'watering' down that I have been able to find is
in regards to the paterfamilias' right to consent to marriage ... if a
father refused, he could be forced to consent by a magistrate.
Scr.
On the gender issues a good source is Jane Gardner, Women in Roman Law and
Society.
Res.
Yes it is ...
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: |
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 21:23:21 -0400 |
|
At 12:10 PM 17/09/1999 -0700, you wrote:
No, "misogyny" is a word that predates feminist
theory. All I'm doing is trying to see the world, and
especially the past, not from that of the privileged
male, but from that of those who do not have the same
privileges and power, and understand how the lack of
same affects them. Further, I have not read any
feminist theory, and, indeed, my attitude toward
pre-set theories in history is quite "misologous."
Res.
I'm not going to quibble about the idea of misogyny; the fact is, as you
are well aware, that it is a central feature of all feminist
interpretations. That said, if your attitude is 'misologous', you wouldn't
be concerned with power relationships at all, which is largely a 20th
century concern. All I'm trying to do is demonstrate that to understand the
*past*, you have to deal with it on its own terms. You are right to not
approach it from the point of the 'privileged male'; at the same time,
however, you should not automatically assume that lack of privileges and
power in one sector might not be compensated for elsewhere. We think in
terms of equality for all and see injustice where there isn't the same. The
Romans (and Greeks, to a large extent) thought in terms of spheres of
influence and recognition of roles within society. To impose modern notions
of what comprises a 'lack of privilege' on an ancient society is just plain
bad scholarship.
Scr. (in two places)
Why is this power not given to the materfamilias?
Could a wife who caught her husband in flagrante do
the same to her husband?
Res.
No, but then again a husband was not in danger of giving birth to a baby
which might be later diminish the familia's property either ... remember,
I'm talking about a different way of looking at Roman familial
relationships which are based on notions of preservation and augmentation
of family property.
Scr.
Yes, but why must it be, largely, passed on to the
sons? Other agricultural societies have been
matrilineal, if not matrifocal, but Rome was not.
Res.
It wasn't 'largely passed onto the sons'. Indeed, in the case of
inheritance without a will (which was surely the most common method of
inheritance) all children, no matter what their gender, inherited equally.
In the upper classes, a daughter might get her dowry as her share of the
inheritance (maybe ... it's a bit more complicated than that).
Scr.
But aren't they essentially doing this through Dos?
Res.
No ... and this is where it's a bit more complicated. For as long as the
father were alive (assuming a non-manus marriage, which was likely the most
common among the propertied clases), that dowry remained legally his,
although the hubby would have use of it. But when the father died, it seems
to have been rather common to give the woman the dowry as her share of the
inheritance (or perhaps augment it a bit); so we're not dealing with a
diminishing of family property via dos.
Scr.
I well understand that the Romans either individually
or as a society were not like us. The point I'm trying
to make is that the Roman gens was male-centered, and
the entire structure reflects that. I'm not entirely
sure that this was due to some "conspiracy" by men to
control women, though that is the effect.
Res.
I'm not disagreeing that it was male-centered; what I'm saying is that the
reasons for it are not necessarily due to some need to control women. I'm
trying to suggest that preservation of property was important and was the
central feature of Roman familial and societal relationships (and indeed,
your 'basic' roman divinities of Lares and Penates are excellent evidence
of that, along with such numina as the genius and juno ...)
Scr.
Through
reading all sorts of sources from the ancient world,
the Roman men, like other men from other societies,
seem to regard women as wanting to do nothing all day
but have sex, almost like the poor men are put upon
and have all their various plans go awry because of
these sexual demands. And, of course, these poor women
on the whole aren't very bright, so we have to control
them in various ways.
Res.
No, the women aren't well-educated but it's not that we have to control
them, but to protect them (and we do the same with minors ... a minor being
anyone under 25 years old!). And what are we protecting them from?
Transactions which affect their property which might be at risk because of
their very inexperience in such matters.
Scr.
So the family is centered around
the Pater, who has near-absolute power, the women are
conveyed into marriage via manus, women are legally
always under guardianship,
Res.
More on this below
Scr.
they can't vote,
Res.
And by the time of the empire, there weren't a lot of folks who voted at
all; in the earlier periods, we don't really hear that they wanted to vote
(need I mention that voting in Roman times was hardly as 'democratic' as we
automatically think? need I mention the major role of clientela and family
relationships in Roman voting assemblies?)
s.
hold
office,
r.
Did they ever want to?
s.
serve in the army, command an army, serve as
iudex, take any part in public life (not originally,
anyway),
r.
ditto
s.
wear a veil (well, I'm not sure if this veil
was originally much like that of the Islamic
veil--does anybody know anything about this in its
earliest appearance?),
r.
You're confusing Romans with Greeks here ...
s.
take up dwelling in the house
of the husband, etc. etc.
r.
what's necessarily wrong with that? in fact, it was more likely the house
of the husband's father
s
Even the Roman naming system
for women shows the disregard they had for women: 1st,
2d, 3d? They're not persons, just numbers? Admittedly
practice is sometimes divorced from law; still, the
legal restrictions are real, and only a few
exceptional women (mostly aristocratic) could escape,
and they never entirely.
r.
If you look through inscriptions and various other sources, you really
won't see a heck of a lot of Secunda's Tertia's etc. and Roman female names
do, in fact, show rather more variation than is often suggested by
ideologically-slanted modern texts. That said, however, how come no one
seems to complain that there were only a dozen or so male names? What we're
dealing with is not something to do with 'persons' but rather a naming
practice from a culture which is, in fact, different from ours (actually,
from what I've been able to discern, it's not much unlike that which is
practiced in rural Italy/Sicily up to about a generation ago).
<snip>
s.
Oh please! The same argument was made against the 19th
Amendment (and in similar terms to the various Voting
Rights provisions of the last 40 years), yet,
amazingly, women, and minorities, still wanted the
vote. If you're brought up from birth to believe the
prevailing ideology, and you see it in effect
everywhere, only an exceptional few will protest. If
voting rights was not a big issue to the Romans, then
they would have allowed Latins, socii, peregrini, and
slave males, and women, to vote as well. Besides, what
was that whole thing with Hortensia all about?
r.
Well, no; they did eventually allow Latins and socii to vote; but remember
that those people gained the right to vote because they were fighting
alongside Roman citizens armies etc. The ability to vote was tied to
military participation. Again, that's simply a different way of conceiving
what who gets to vote than what we think of.
Hortensia was about taxation ... I don't see any evidence that she and her
pals would have gladly given up their wealth in exchange for the chance to
vote during the tumultuous times of the late Republic ...
S.
No doubt why Sempronia, Fulvia, and perhaps even
Hortensia were regarded as less-than-ideal models.
R.
By whom? Sempronia was the mother of two guys who tried to overthrow the
Republic. Fulvia was on the wrong side of the civil war. Hortensia was the
daughter of darling Cicero's chief rival. Do you think any of the sources
that have come down to us will give them positive press? At the same time,
however, do you neglect to remember that Sempronia was the recipient of a
statue in the forum because she *was* mother of the Gracchi? Again, the
paucity of our sources prevents us from making anything but vague
speculations in this regard.
S.
So? You haven't met my objection, you've merely
sidestepped the question. And, as I understand it,
wives even in liberum matrimonium and sui iuris still
had (with one or two exceptions) to be in tutela, and,
of course, that was always held by a male.
R.
More on this below ...
S.
As I understand it, tutela mulierum consisted of a
general duty to act to protect the women's interests,
his consent was required for her to contract manus
marriage, to promise a dowry, to make a binding
stipulatio, to make a mancipatio, to make a
manumittio, to make a will, and, probably (I can't
recall offhand), to bring an actio.
R.
That's close enough. The first thing that is worth noting is that tutela
mulierum differed from other types of tutela in that the tutor did not have
any administratio; i.e. his only duty was to give his auctoritas to any of
the above transactions. Now look at what he is giving his approval to:
manus marriage: something which would take property away from the familia
promise a dowry: something which would take property away from the familia
(esp. in the situation of a divorce)
stipulatio: something which potentially could take property away from the
familia
mancipatio: ditto
manumittio: ditto
bring an actio: women were not generally knowledgeable about law and so it
makes sense to have someone give her some advice whether her suit has
merit, no?
That said, the only time this becomes a problem is if one assumes that such
auctoritas was normally withheld; the fact that even by Claudius' time, if
not before, the granting of such auctoritas was so automatic that tutela
mulierum was considered an archaic holdover ... but because it was designed
to protect family property, it never was eliminated.
It is worth noting, of course, that there is plenty of evidence for the
financial lives of women ... the necessity of having a tutor does not seem
to have really been an impediment.
Sc (in regards to the Codex)
Which edition are you using? I've read a great many of
the constitutiones in the codex, along with those in
Gregorianus and Hermogenianus and Theodosianus in
connection with a long-term project. So, are you
preparing a new translation of the Codex, and, if not,
why not?
Res.
I could, I suppose (I have translated most of the rescripta to private
individuals in the Codex and various other collections ) ... maybe someday
I'll put them up on the web. Right now, however, I don't have time for such
things
Scr (in regards to the difference)
Thank you, but all this just reinforces my thesis.
Res.
Actually, no, it doesn't at all. A tutor impuberum had the duty of
management of the ward's property ... that's rather more direct control
than one gets with tutela mulierum. Heck, after tutela impuberum expired,
it was not uncommon, apparently, for a ward to get a curator minorum to
manage his/her affairs (and indeed, the lines between tutores impuberum and
curatores minorum are increasingly blurred as the empire proceeds). In
regards to the Lex Laetoria (not Plaetoria), it is worth noting that
anyone, male or female, who was under 25, could essentially cancel any
financial transaction which did not work out for them (a return to the
status quo ante). When you look at the totality of all these tutores,
curatores, leges (there are others), it seems glaringly obvious that they
have as their goal protection of family property rather than control over
members within it ... heck, as you well know, Roman law is essentially
property law.
Scr.
No, it is not just like ours, but in many ways it is.
Humans have a tendency to pick similar solutions to
similar problems, and if you can get beyond the
obfuscating details, you will see that at heart there
are very many similarities (the whole idea of
"constructs" being one of those obfuscational details,
as just about anything, including "society" and
"history" and "law" can be a construct).
Res.
And it is important to note that in many ways *it isn't* and this is one of
those ways. I would never generalize that humans have a tendency to pick
similar solutions etc. ... much of Roman Law's uniqueness is that it
represents a solution that is markedly *not* similar to that of other
cultures of the time (or veyr many before). It is also clear that even the
Greeks were well aware of the Romans (and Etruscans') different treatment
of women and their general 'differentness' from them. In my mind the
biggest obfuscation was, is and always shall be the tendency of many
historians -- many of whom I would call colleagues -- to look at the
ancient world through modern eyes. I will go to my grave saying it can't be
done and doesn't tell us anything about the ancients; it tells about *us*.
Res.
Ah, the old "just the way it is" argument. We can
argue similarly, I suppose, about the evils of Roman
slavery. Yes, in our society, where slavery is
considered a bad thing, Roman slavery too can be
considered a bad thing. But if you're a slave living
in that sort of society and know your role and how to
get things done (i.e., exercise power), it's just the
way it is. No doubt all the slaves who actively or
passively resisted felt the same way.
Scr.
Slavery was a reality, pure and simple. It's evil in our eyes; it was
probably evil in some Roman eyes. But I don't hear of any movements (not
even the Stoics) to abolish it in Roman times. Yes there was resistance,
and yes there were also those slaves who were treated quite well? So what?
That is the way it was. No imposition of a modern value judgement upon it
will change it for the Romans. Through our modern eyes it appears evil.
Through the eyes of someone three centuries ago, the Romans might have been
model slave owners. As mentioned above, it doesn't say as much about the
Romans as it does about the culture trying to interpret them ...
<snip>
s.
Yes, gens preservation occurs only
> through the male line, but
> that does not preclude a woman from leaving *her*
> property to whomever she
> wants (indeed, a woman had rather more freedom to
> dispose of her property
> ... a paterfamilias would always be in danger of a
> 'undutiful will'
> charge).
Assuming her tutor approved. Admittedly, many tutors
may not care, but just the fact that the woman had to
get consent, even if pro forma, proves my point.
res.
Why do you assume that the tutor would necessarily withhold consent (all
the evidence that is available suggests otherwise)? And what was he
consenting to? It's always assumed (it seems) that the tutor was approving
the 'contents' of the will ... considering the various complexities
involved in writing a will, it seems far more likely that his role was in
regards to the 'form' of the will. In any event, it proves my ongoing point
about 'protection' rather more acutely than vague notions of misogyny.
s. (in regards to 'sexist')
No, it really is that simple.
r.
No, it is rather more complex. It's sexist if you just focus solely on
gender. If you focus on the bigger picture and the various notions of
tutela which apply to people of various ages and genders, you see that
gender is only one small part of it.
s.
Agreed, but we have more evidence than just that of
Valerius Maximus.
r.
And we have far, far, far more evidence of what I'm talking about from far
more numerous sources, legal, literary, epigraphical etc.
mpj
]|[ M. Papirius Justus ]|[ <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a> ]|[
|
