| Subject: |
[Fwd: [novaroma] Materfamilias?] |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:47:36 -0700 |
|
Oops that reply feature!
SF
Lucius Cornelius Sulla wrote:
> Caius Fabius wrote:
>
> > I am wondering ...
> >
> > "Pater/Materfamilias"
> >
> > Is this another "politically correct Nova Roma thing"?
>
> Essentially, yes. It would be.
>
> >
> > As a university trained, classical historian, I have some questions... I
> > have already been castigated for mentioning the Roman "empire" although
> > ancient writers before the first emperor of Roma used the term.
> >
>
> You have? Why? I am curious.... :)
>
> >
> > Obviously Materfamilias has no legal usage in historical Roma, for purposes
> > of being responsible for anything except the running of a household. I
> > realise that Nova Roma allows females to hold "office" and such, so is this
> > the Nova Roma term? What does it mean?
> >
>
> It would have essentially the same exact meaning as a Paterfamilias. Execpt for
> the fact that the head of the family is a female. Which, if my recollection is
> correct, that was not the case in ancient Rome.
>
> >
> > How can you be true to a Roman religion if you aren't true to the way people
> > believed?
>
> Well maybe someone who practices the Religio might be able to answer this. :)
>
> > Can the Worship of the Great Mother be attended by functional
> > males? Next thing you know, women will want to be initiated into the rites
> > of Mithras! Or it the gender barrier only lowered for politics?
>
> It is my belief that the gender barrier is lowered for politics. For example we
> have two female Senators. :) As per the religious question, maybe one of our
> Pontiffs might be able to answer your question.
>
> >
> >
> > I guess I am too much of a conservative... no wait, that was an actual part
> > of historical Roma, as well.
> >
>
> No its a good question. I hope my answers helped a bit. :)
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> >
> > confused...
> > C. Fabius Varus
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
> >
> > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> > http://profiles.msn.com.
> >
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972089182/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Materfamilias? |
| From: |
"Catja " <ponton.3@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 21 Oct 2000 03:57:05 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "Caius Fabius" <SPQR_HQ@h...> wrote:
> I am wondering ...
>
> "Pater/Materfamilias"
>
> Is this another "politically correct Nova Roma thing"?
> As a university trained, classical historian, I have some
questions... I
> Obviously Materfamilias has no legal usage in historical Roma, for
purposes
> of being responsible for anything except the running of a
household. I
> realise that Nova Roma allows females to hold "office" and such, so
is this
> the Nova Roma term? What does it mean?
>
> How can you be true to a Roman religion if you aren't true to the
way people
> believed? Can the Worship of the Great Mother be attended by
functional
> males? Next thing you know, women will want to be initiated into
the rites
> of Mithras! Or it the gender barrier only lowered for politics?
>
> I guess I am too much of a conservative... no wait, that was an
actual part
> of historical Roma, as well.
Salve, C Fabius Varius!
I'm new here, so my answers will not be as informed about NR views as
those of the other members, but I feel compelled to put in my two
cents. As a Neo-Pagan, I've heard this question before, and it's
certainly a valid one. All the following is meant with the utmost
respect, both for the question and for you personally.
The title of this organization is "NOVA Roma." Most of us, I think,
became involved with NR because we were fascinated with the Roman way
of life, and held deep admiration for the society, and wanted to
participate in a re-creation of that society. Whether that calling
sprang from a Pagan or Christian religious impulse, a love of
philosophy, an interest in military tactics, or anything else, we all
wanted to infuse our lives with the culture and spirit of ancient
Rome.
However, we are living in the year 2000. It is simply not feasible
for us to conduct a vast military campaign to conquer Europe or
compel everyone to wear togas. Therefore, modifications have been
made to the governing of New Rome to take into account these
political realities.
Similarly, in the West in the year 2000, it is both illegal and
unethical to keep slaves. New Romans, as products of the twentieth
century, tend to agree. Therefore, like all societies, NR has taken
into account that things are different now than they were 1600 years
ago, and in reconstructing the society, has done away with slavery.
Historically inaccurate? Yes, indeed. "Politically correct"? Of
course. But, by the moral and ethical standards of our own time,
which many of us hold to very firmly, this is the only option.
Slavery is wrong by our lights, and therefore has no place in the New
Rome. Virtue and dignitas were things the ancient Romans firmly
approved of; we just define the terms a bit differently, and extend
that dignitas to all members of the human race, not just certain
classes or nationalities. Besides, who would ever agree to be our
slaves? :)
Also by our standards, the ancient Roman practice of excluding women
is unjust and unethical today. Returning to the topic of
feasibility, in the year 2000, there is no good reason to exclude
women from the political process. Most of us find the idea that
women are somehow intellectually/morally inferior, and therefore not
fit for public service, or fit only for certain duties delineated by
the perceived capabilities of their gender, to be not only repulsive,
but just plain wrong. Many brave women(and men)have dedicated their
lives to overturning the results of centuries of bigotry, and NR, to
survive as a society that has some relevance to us in our daily
lives, must take that into account. Yes, it's not the "Old Roman
Way," in literal terms; but again I give the same answer as to the
slavery question: justice and dignity were values prized by the
Romans, and NR interprets them as applying to all people, regardless
of class, ethnic group, nationality, or gender.
The religion question is a bit tougher. In Neo-Pagan groups,
primarily Wiccan, there is a bit of a controversy over so-
called "Dianic" groups, that are composed only of women, and worship
the Goddess alone. Their argument is that after centuries of focus
on an exclusively male god, a polar shift is needed to redress the
imbalance. Most Neo-Pagans have no problem with that stance, even if
they disagree; they just worship differently, and everyone is happy.
The idea is that whatever works for you personally is correct, and if
you want to connect with the Goddess, and you connect to her best
when you're in a women-only group, that's cool. The same goes for
men. Neo-Pagans are committed to the idea that everyone has the right
to worship however they see fit. I think the rule at NR is that
official religious organizations try to stick to the historical
model, but everyone is free to worship privately in whatever manner
they choose. The religious issue is rather different from the
political one, as Old Rome offered both men and women opportunities
to participate in religious life; there were all-male, all-female,
and mixed groups. As this was one arena where women could
participate on an equal level in Old Rome, NR has integrated the
religious practices with few problems, gender-wise, as far as I
know. But the founders of NR didn't feel that it would be fair to
confine women to that arena. But, as L. Cornelius Sulla said, you'd
have to ask people from the religio to get a better picture.
Neo-Paganism in general deals with issues of historical accuracy vs.
our present-day moral codes, and not only about gender. Just about
every Neo-Pagan I know considers actual blood sacrifice, whether
animal or human, to be immoral, disgusting, and spiritually
unnecessary. Religion, in the ancient societies that practiced blood
sacrifice, was a state- or tribal-wide affair; the values of the
religion were those of the society at large. Now, however, we
consider religion to be a private affair, and have to follow our own
standars, as well as those of the society at large, though the two
may differ. To the Aztecs, human sacrifice was an integral part of
their religion, and the idea that it might be wrong or immoral was
not built into their ethical system, either statewide or among
individuals (well, we can't be certain about the latter, but you know
what I mean). However, in our society, we do consider it wrong; Neo-
Pagans, many of whom came to the religion from the environmental
movement, will happily sacrifice strict historical accuracy in
accordance with their values. After all, simply because ancient and
medieval Christians thought it was perfectly okay to slaughter
everyone who wasn't a Christian (or the same kind of Christian)
doesn't mean that a modern-day Christian would be required to accept
that view(though the gods know, some certainly do).
Anyway, what I have been trying to say in an incredibly long-winded
fashion is that Old Rome and New Rome are two different, though
related, entities, the latter being, in effect, an "update" of the
former. Admiring a society does not require that you admire every
single aspect of that society; in re-creating Roma, NR has done it in
such a way for it to have relevance to those of us in the year 2000.
A society today that believes only men are fit to govern, or to head
a family, or to participate fully in public life, is simply not
workable or justifiable in the contemporary Western world. NR has
interpreted Roman values in a way that will be viable for its
participants -- all its participants, male and female, black and
white, Christian and Pagan, European and American -- in short,
everyone who loves and admires Rome.
Yours respectfully,
Camilla Iulia Circe
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972100639/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Materfamilias? correction |
| From: |
"Catja " <ponton.3@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 21 Oct 2000 04:11:03 -0000 |
|
If this shows up twice, sorry -- my computer is being fussy tonight.
Argh, it's C. Fabius VARUS -- sorry for the typo!
Vale bene,
Camilla Iulia Circe
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972101502/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Materfamilias? |
| From: |
Ira Adams <iadams@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 21 Oct 2000 11:31:21 -0500 |
|
Salve Camilla Iulia
Excellent position statement - clear, accurate, well-organized, covering
the entire territory without even giving anyone an excuse to take
offense. I'm impressed. I hope you'll run for office in the near future,
or offer your cognitive/verbal skills for service in some capacity.
Vale,
L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
On 10/20/00 10:57 PM Catja (ponton.3@--------) wrote:
[a long, excellent discourse]....
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972145907/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Digest Number 1049 Materfamilias? |
| From: |
"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 21 Oct 2000 16:34:47 -0400 |
|
Lucius Equitius Quiritibus SPD
A few questions were raised and I would like to give my views.
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:34:33 GMT
> From: "Caius Fabius" <SPQR_HQ@-------->
> Subject: Materfamilias?
>
> I am wondering ...
>
> "Pater/Materfamilias"
>
> Is this another "politically correct Nova Roma thing"?
Depends on many things, but most importantly how one defines terms.
> Obviously Materfamilias has no legal usage in historical Roma, for
purposes
> of being responsible for anything except the running of a household. I
> realise that Nova Roma allows females to hold "office" and such, so is
this
> the Nova Roma term? What does it mean?
Materfamilias means the same thing as Paterfamilias only the head of a Gens
is a female.
The Nova Roma constitution gives everyone the same rights and
responsibilities regardless of sex.
> How can you be true to a Roman religion if you aren't true to the way
people
> believed?
Good question, but how can we be sure we know way they believed one way or
another? All we have are those thing they left behind that were not
destroyed by time and barbarians.
>Can the Worship of the Great Mother be attended by functional
> males?
I don't know, I'm not involved in that cult (please note the proper
definition is the worship of a single deity. I make no value judgment on
this or any of the other cults. I myself am devoted to Mars as the Flamen
Martialis)
Perhaps the Sacerdotes Magnae Matris Vopisca Iulia Cocceia
cybele@--------
will answer that for you.
>Next thing you know, women will want to be initiated into the rites
> of Mithras! Or it the gender barrier only lowered for politics?
Again that would be up to those involved in that cult.
I do want to point out a difference (another one) between Nova Roma and
Ancient Roma. Since Nova Roma has a State Religion AND we give the same
rights to man and women alike, we have women magistrates and Senatores (I
call them Senatrix), So we also have female Pontificies which is appropriate
since the College Pontificium is the arbiter of the state religion and the
advisors to the Senate on religious matters.
"VI. Public Religious Institutions"
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/constitution_new2.html
BTW We do need at least one Vestal, not to mention the fact that there are
many unfilled "priesthoods".
If we are ever going to have the 'Pax deorum' we need to do our part. See:
http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/priests_and_priesthoods.html
> I guess I am too much of a conservative... no wait, that was an actual
part
> of historical Roma, as well.
>
> confused... C. Fabius Varus
You are certainly entitled to feel the way you do and express yourself too.
Just as 'liberals' feel they have the right to express their opinions and
feel the way they do.
I do want to make a suggestion, when people today use terms like 'slavery'
they ought to remember that the way we view things like slavery is not the
same as it was viewed in ancient times. For example, in Rome a slave had
rights and was considered a part of the family. She was brought in to the
worship of the family, very often given money and could buy her freedom, was
often freed but still obligated to her 'patron'. In short considered human.
Whereas the 'slave' of the 'new world', not an indentured servant, was
considered property, as an animal or a wagon. In Rome it was a legal and
social distinction. There were many who 'sold themselves' to be tutors
(especially Greeks) and gladiators (pay debts or to be famous). I guess I'm
just tired of hearing about those "brutal Romans".
See "Slavery and Society at Rome" by Keith Bradley
Cambridge University Press 1994
ISBN 0-521-37887-7
and
"The Ancient City" by Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges
Johns Hopkins 1980
ISBN 0-8018-2304-8
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972160295/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Digest Number 1049 Materfamilias? |
| From: |
"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 21 Oct 2000 16:34:55 -0400 |
|
Lucius Equitius Quiritibus SPD
A few questions were raised and I would like to give my views.
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:34:33 GMT
> From: "Caius Fabius" <SPQR_HQ@-------->
> Subject: Materfamilias?
>
> I am wondering ...
>
> "Pater/Materfamilias"
>
> Is this another "politically correct Nova Roma thing"?
Depends on many things, but most importantly how one defines terms.
> Obviously Materfamilias has no legal usage in historical Roma, for
purposes
> of being responsible for anything except the running of a household. I
> realise that Nova Roma allows females to hold "office" and such, so is
this
> the Nova Roma term? What does it mean?
Materfamilias means the same thing as Paterfamilias only the head of a Gens
is a female.
The Nova Roma constitution gives everyone the same rights and
responsibilities regardless of sex.
> How can you be true to a Roman religion if you aren't true to the way
people
> believed?
Good question, but how can we be sure we know way they believed one way or
another? All we have are those thing they left behind that were not
destroyed by time and barbarians.
>Can the Worship of the Great Mother be attended by functional
> males?
I don't know, I'm not involved in that cult (please note the proper
definition is the worship of a single deity. I make no value judgment on
this or any of the other cults. I myself am devoted to Mars as the Flamen
Martialis)
Perhaps the Sacerdotes Magnae Matris Vopisca Iulia Cocceia
cybele@--------
will answer that for you.
>Next thing you know, women will want to be initiated into the rites
> of Mithras! Or it the gender barrier only lowered for politics?
Again that would be up to those involved in that cult.
I do want to point out a difference (another one) between Nova Roma and
Ancient Roma. Since Nova Roma has a State Religion AND we give the same
rights to man and women alike, we have women magistrates and Senatores (I
call them Senatrix), So we also have female Pontificies which is appropriate
since the College Pontificium is the arbiter of the state religion and the
advisors to the Senate on religious matters.
"VI. Public Religious Institutions"
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/constitution_new2.html
BTW We do need at least one Vestal, not to mention the fact that there are
many unfilled "priesthoods".
If we are ever going to have the 'Pax deorum' we need to do our part. See:
http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/priests_and_priesthoods.html
> I guess I am too much of a conservative... no wait, that was an actual
part
> of historical Roma, as well.
>
> confused... C. Fabius Varus
You are certainly entitled to feel the way you do and express yourself too.
Just as 'liberals' feel they have the right to express their opinions and
feel the way they do.
I do want to make a suggestion, when people today use terms like 'slavery'
they ought to remember that the way we view things like slavery is not the
same as it was viewed in ancient times. For example, in Rome a slave had
rights and was considered a part of the family. She was brought in to the
worship of the family, very often given money and could buy her freedom, was
often freed but still obligated to her 'patron'. In short considered human.
Whereas the 'slave' of the 'new world', not an indentured servant, was
considered property, as an animal or a wagon. In Rome it was a legal and
social distinction. There were many who 'sold themselves' to be tutors
(especially Greeks) and gladiators (pay debts or to be famous). I guess I'm
just tired of hearing about those "brutal Romans".
See "Slavery and Society at Rome" by Keith Bradley
Cambridge University Press 1994
ISBN 0-521-37887-7
and
"The Ancient City" by Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges
Johns Hopkins 1980
ISBN 0-8018-2304-8
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972160302/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Digest Number 1049 Materfamilias? |
| From: |
"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 21 Oct 2000 16:35:11 -0400 |
|
Lucius Equitius Quiritibus SPD
A few questions were raised and I would like to give my views.
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:34:33 GMT
> From: "Caius Fabius" <SPQR_HQ@-------->
> Subject: Materfamilias?
>
> I am wondering ...
>
> "Pater/Materfamilias"
>
> Is this another "politically correct Nova Roma thing"?
Depends on many things, but most importantly how one defines terms.
> Obviously Materfamilias has no legal usage in historical Roma, for
purposes
> of being responsible for anything except the running of a household. I
> realise that Nova Roma allows females to hold "office" and such, so is
this
> the Nova Roma term? What does it mean?
Materfamilias means the same thing as Paterfamilias only the head of a Gens
is a female.
The Nova Roma constitution gives everyone the same rights and
responsibilities regardless of sex.
> How can you be true to a Roman religion if you aren't true to the way
people
> believed?
Good question, but how can we be sure we know way they believed one way or
another? All we have are those thing they left behind that were not
destroyed by time and barbarians.
>Can the Worship of the Great Mother be attended by functional
> males?
I don't know, I'm not involved in that cult (please note the proper
definition is the worship of a single deity. I make no value judgment on
this or any of the other cults. I myself am devoted to Mars as the Flamen
Martialis)
Perhaps the Sacerdotes Magnae Matris Vopisca Iulia Cocceia
cybele@--------
will answer that for you.
>Next thing you know, women will want to be initiated into the rites
> of Mithras! Or it the gender barrier only lowered for politics?
Again that would be up to those involved in that cult.
I do want to point out a difference (another one) between Nova Roma and
Ancient Roma. Since Nova Roma has a State Religion AND we give the same
rights to man and women alike, we have women magistrates and Senatores (I
call them Senatrix), So we also have female Pontificies which is appropriate
since the College Pontificium is the arbiter of the state religion and the
advisors to the Senate on religious matters.
"VI. Public Religious Institutions"
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/constitution_new2.html
BTW We do need at least one Vestal, not to mention the fact that there are
many unfilled "priesthoods".
If we are ever going to have the 'Pax deorum' we need to do our part. See:
http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/priests_and_priesthoods.html
> I guess I am too much of a conservative... no wait, that was an actual
part
> of historical Roma, as well.
>
> confused... C. Fabius Varus
You are certainly entitled to feel the way you do and express yourself too.
Just as 'liberals' feel they have the right to express their opinions and
feel the way they do.
I do want to make a suggestion, when people today use terms like 'slavery'
they ought to remember that the way we view things like slavery is not the
same as it was viewed in ancient times. For example, in Rome a slave had
rights and was considered a part of the family. She was brought in to the
worship of the family, very often given money and could buy her freedom, was
often freed but still obligated to her 'patron'. In short considered human.
Whereas the 'slave' of the 'new world', not an indentured servant, was
considered property, as an animal or a wagon. In Rome it was a legal and
social distinction. There were many who 'sold themselves' to be tutors
(especially Greeks) and gladiators (pay debts or to be famous). I guess I'm
just tired of hearing about those "brutal Romans".
See "Slavery and Society at Rome" by Keith Bradley
Cambridge University Press 1994
ISBN 0-521-37887-7
and
"The Ancient City" by Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges
Johns Hopkins 1980
ISBN 0-8018-2304-8
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972160318/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Digest Number 1049 Materfamilias? |
| From: |
"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 21 Oct 2000 16:35:27 -0400 |
|
Lucius Equitius Quiritibus SPD
A few questions were raised and I would like to give my views.
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:34:33 GMT
> From: "Caius Fabius" <SPQR_HQ@-------->
> Subject: Materfamilias?
>
> I am wondering ...
>
> "Pater/Materfamilias"
>
> Is this another "politically correct Nova Roma thing"?
Depends on many things, but most importantly how one defines terms.
> Obviously Materfamilias has no legal usage in historical Roma, for
purposes
> of being responsible for anything except the running of a household. I
> realise that Nova Roma allows females to hold "office" and such, so is
this
> the Nova Roma term? What does it mean?
Materfamilias means the same thing as Paterfamilias only the head of a Gens
is a female.
The Nova Roma constitution gives everyone the same rights and
responsibilities regardless of sex.
> How can you be true to a Roman religion if you aren't true to the way
people
> believed?
Good question, but how can we be sure we know way they believed one way or
another? All we have are those thing they left behind that were not
destroyed by time and barbarians.
>Can the Worship of the Great Mother be attended by functional
> males?
I don't know, I'm not involved in that cult (please note the proper
definition is the worship of a single deity. I make no value judgment on
this or any of the other cults. I myself am devoted to Mars as the Flamen
Martialis)
Perhaps the Sacerdotes Magnae Matris Vopisca Iulia Cocceia
cybele@--------
will answer that for you.
>Next thing you know, women will want to be initiated into the rites
> of Mithras! Or it the gender barrier only lowered for politics?
Again that would be up to those involved in that cult.
I do want to point out a difference (another one) between Nova Roma and
Ancient Roma. Since Nova Roma has a State Religion AND we give the same
rights to man and women alike, we have women magistrates and Senatores (I
call them Senatrix), So we also have female Pontificies which is appropriate
since the College Pontificium is the arbiter of the state religion and the
advisors to the Senate on religious matters.
"VI. Public Religious Institutions"
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/constitution_new2.html
BTW We do need at least one Vestal, not to mention the fact that there are
many unfilled "priesthoods".
If we are ever going to have the 'Pax deorum' we need to do our part. See:
http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/priests_and_priesthoods.html
> I guess I am too much of a conservative... no wait, that was an actual
part
> of historical Roma, as well.
>
> confused... C. Fabius Varus
You are certainly entitled to feel the way you do and express yourself too.
Just as 'liberals' feel they have the right to express their opinions and
feel the way they do.
I do want to make a suggestion, when people today use terms like 'slavery'
they ought to remember that the way we view things like slavery is not the
same as it was viewed in ancient times. For example, in Rome a slave had
rights and was considered a part of the family. She was brought in to the
worship of the family, very often given money and could buy her freedom, was
often freed but still obligated to her 'patron'. In short considered human.
Whereas the 'slave' of the 'new world', not an indentured servant, was
considered property, as an animal or a wagon. In Rome it was a legal and
social distinction. There were many who 'sold themselves' to be tutors
(especially Greeks) and gladiators (pay debts or to be famous). I guess I'm
just tired of hearing about those "brutal Romans".
See "Slavery and Society at Rome" by Keith Bradley
Cambridge University Press 1994
ISBN 0-521-37887-7
and
"The Ancient City" by Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges
Johns Hopkins 1980
ISBN 0-8018-2304-8
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972160334/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Digest Number 1049 Materfamilias? |
| From: |
"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 21 Oct 2000 16:35:39 -0400 |
|
Lucius Equitius Quiritibus SPD
A few questions were raised and I would like to give my views.
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:34:33 GMT
> From: "Caius Fabius" <SPQR_HQ@-------->
> Subject: Materfamilias?
>
> I am wondering ...
>
> "Pater/Materfamilias"
>
> Is this another "politically correct Nova Roma thing"?
Depends on many things, but most importantly how one defines terms.
> Obviously Materfamilias has no legal usage in historical Roma, for
purposes
> of being responsible for anything except the running of a household. I
> realise that Nova Roma allows females to hold "office" and such, so is
this
> the Nova Roma term? What does it mean?
Materfamilias means the same thing as Paterfamilias only the head of a Gens
is a female.
The Nova Roma constitution gives everyone the same rights and
responsibilities regardless of sex.
> How can you be true to a Roman religion if you aren't true to the way
people
> believed?
Good question, but how can we be sure we know way they believed one way or
another? All we have are those thing they left behind that were not
destroyed by time and barbarians.
>Can the Worship of the Great Mother be attended by functional
> males?
I don't know, I'm not involved in that cult (please note the proper
definition is the worship of a single deity. I make no value judgment on
this or any of the other cults. I myself am devoted to Mars as the Flamen
Martialis)
Perhaps the Sacerdotes Magnae Matris Vopisca Iulia Cocceia
cybele@--------
will answer that for you.
>Next thing you know, women will want to be initiated into the rites
> of Mithras! Or it the gender barrier only lowered for politics?
Again that would be up to those involved in that cult.
I do want to point out a difference (another one) between Nova Roma and
Ancient Roma. Since Nova Roma has a State Religion AND we give the same
rights to man and women alike, we have women magistrates and Senatores (I
call them Senatrix), So we also have female Pontificies which is appropriate
since the College Pontificium is the arbiter of the state religion and the
advisors to the Senate on religious matters.
"VI. Public Religious Institutions"
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/constitution_new2.html
BTW We do need at least one Vestal, not to mention the fact that there are
many unfilled "priesthoods".
If we are ever going to have the 'Pax deorum' we need to do our part. See:
http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/priests_and_priesthoods.html
> I guess I am too much of a conservative... no wait, that was an actual
part
> of historical Roma, as well.
>
> confused... C. Fabius Varus
You are certainly entitled to feel the way you do and express yourself too.
Just as 'liberals' feel they have the right to express their opinions and
feel the way they do.
I do want to make a suggestion, when people today use terms like 'slavery'
they ought to remember that the way we view things like slavery is not the
same as it was viewed in ancient times. For example, in Rome a slave had
rights and was considered a part of the family. She was brought in to the
worship of the family, very often given money and could buy her freedom, was
often freed but still obligated to her 'patron'. In short considered human.
Whereas the 'slave' of the 'new world', not an indentured servant, was
considered property, as an animal or a wagon. In Rome it was a legal and
social distinction. There were many who 'sold themselves' to be tutors
(especially Greeks) and gladiators (pay debts or to be famous). I guess I'm
just tired of hearing about those "brutal Romans".
See "Slavery and Society at Rome" by Keith Bradley
Cambridge University Press 1994
ISBN 0-521-37887-7
and
"The Ancient City" by Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges
Johns Hopkins 1980
ISBN 0-8018-2304-8
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972160346/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Excuse me |
| From: |
"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 21 Oct 2000 16:38:31 -0400 |
|
Salvete, Omnes
Sorry for the multiple post.
Valete, L Equitius
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972160518/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Digest Number 1049 Materfamilias? |
| From: |
"Catja " <ponton.3@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:52:29 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@v...> wrote:
> Lucius Equitius Quiritibus SPD
> I do want to make a suggestion, when people today use terms
like 'slavery'
> they ought to remember that the way we view things like slavery is
not the
> same as it was viewed in ancient times. For example, in Rome a
slave had
> rights and was considered a part of the family. She was brought in
to the
> worship of the family, very often given money and could buy her
freedom, was
> often freed but still obligated to her 'patron'. In short
considered human.
> Whereas the 'slave' of the 'new world', not an indentured servant,
was
> considered property, as an animal or a wagon. In Rome it was a
legal and
> social distinction. There were many who 'sold themselves' to be
tutors
> (especially Greeks) and gladiators (pay debts or to be famous). I
guess I'm
> just tired of hearing about those "brutal Romans".
>
> See "Slavery and Society at Rome" by Keith Bradley
> Cambridge University Press 1994
> ISBN 0-521-37887-7
> and
> "The Ancient City" by Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges
> Johns Hopkins 1980
> ISBN 0-8018-2304-8
Salve, Lucius Equitius Quritibus!
Thank you for pointing out the difference between Old World and New
World slavery; you're absolutely right. Also, thank you for the book
recommendations. I was using the term "slavery" to make a rhetorical
point, namely, that in NR, there is no class of people whose sole
duty is to serve or entertain those perceived to be higher on the
social ladder. My point was that slaveowners (in both the Old World
and the New World) exerted an amount of control over another adult
human being, to an extent that is at odds with the values of freedom
and individual autonomy as they are understood today.
As for "brutality," Rome certainly had its "brutal" side -- as has
every culture that has ever existed, before or since. The definition
of "brutal," though, varies from society to society -- how you define
it is based primarily on where you're standing, both historically and
culturally. I realize that may sound hopelessly relativistic to
some; my own stance is partially dictated by the fact that I'm a
folklorist. In my discipline, the position of the academic
folklorist in relation to the "folk" she studies is interrogated in
more depth than just about any other discipline, except perhaps
anthropology. Any time we interpret a custom, unpack the meaning(s)
of a tale, or or find ourselves being morally attracted/repulsed,
it's always with the knowledge that our views are in part shaped by
our historical period, social class, locale, education, upbringing,
etc. Therefore, we have two responsibilities: to
interpret/analyze/explain that custom/story/song in light of our own
scholarly knowledge and experience; but also to faithfully represent
how the people of that culture understand the custom/story/song.
Henry Glassie, one of the greatest folklore scholars working today,
discusses this issue in the article "Night Train to Selma."
I didn't mean to drift off the topic of ancient Rome in that last
paragraph; I just wanted to clarify my intellectual stance, out of
which my arguments, in this post and my first "Materfamilias" post,
sprang.
Vale bene,
Camilla Iulia Circe
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972165151/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Materfamilias |
| From: |
"pjane@-------- " <pjane@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:30:40 -0000 |
|
I just wanted to add a couple of points to back up Camilla Iulia's
excellent post. (But first, Caius Fabius, I'd like to mention that
you're perfectly welcome to be a conservative. Rome wouldn't have
been
the same without Cato, after all.)
In ancient Rome, as Caius Fabius points out, a woman could not be
called mater familias unless her husband was pater familias, nor
could
more than one woman in the family hold this title. In the Republican
era, she had a distinctive hairstyle called the tutulus, in which
sections of hair were drawn up to the top of the head and fastened
with
woolen bands in a semi-conical shape.
When Nova Roma was no more than an idea being crafted by Marcus
Cassius
Julianus and Flavius Vedius Germanicus, the subject of women's roles
came up, and the decision was made that if NR stuck too closely to
ancient gender roles, the organization would lose the support, energy
and ideas of many modern women. Thus, the option of starting and
administering gentes was opened to women. (It is possible that the
views of myself and Priscilla Vedia Serena were influential here.)
Some of Nova Roma's most intelligent and productive people are
Matresfamilias, and I honor their contributions along with those of
all
other deserving persons.
One point which has not been clarified is whether the title
Materfamilias should indicate only the founder of a gens, or whether
it
can also be used for the wife of a Paterfamilias. If so, I am
materfamilias of Gens Cassia, and in any case am proud of its women
and
men.
Patricia Cassia
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972167447/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
