The Half Blooded

[CiceroD]

I know that Roman Law didn't recognise marriage between a Roman and a foreigner but where did the Child of a Patrician father and a Native Consort stand?

 

Were Bastard sons still considered sons? (and therefore Citizens?)

Of course this wasn't likely to come about since a Roman had all the slaves of his household.

Still it must have happened at some point.

Edited March 20, 2007 by CiceroD

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Mi Cicero-

 

A lot of our understaning of the Roman father/non-Roman mother came from the Roman Jurist Gaius I think, but I don't have any references in front of me. I had researched this earlier and I believe this was the breakdown.

 

Roman Father + Non-Roman Mother (Even Latins) = non-Roman Child.

 

Basically, if there was connubium (the right to marry which only existed between citizens) then the child took on the status of the father. If there was no connubium then the child took the status of the mother. This would have applied equally to patricians and plebeians (but for a long time intermarriage between patricians and plebeians was illegal as well!).

 

If I also remember correctly there were some stipulations that if the mother was a Latin and the father thought she was Roman he could later request that the oversight be overlooked and both the mother and child could gain citizenship. Interesting stuff, nonne?

[Andrew Dalby]

Mi Cicero-

 

A lot of our understaning of the Roman father/non-Roman mother came from the Roman Jurist Gaius I think, but I don't have any references in front of me. I had researched this earlier and I believe this was the breakdown.

 

Roman Father + Non-Roman Mother (Even Latins) = non-Roman Child.

 

Basically, if there was connubium (the right to marry which only existed between citizens) then the child took on the status of the father. If there was no connubium then the child took the status of the mother. This would have applied equally to patricians and plebeians (but for a long time intermarriage between patricians and plebeians was illegal as well!).

 

If I also remember correctly there were some stipulations that if the mother was a Latin and the father thought she was Roman he could later request that the oversight be overlooked and both the mother and child could gain citizenship. Interesting stuff, nonne?

 

Under the Empire it was less and less a question of "blood". More and more provincials were becoming citizens -- until, eventually, under Caracalla, the citizenship was extended to all free inhabitants.

 

In my opinion, this is one way in which Rome was far more advanced than any Greek city (and perhaps one reason why Rome so easily annexed all the Greek cities). In the typical Greek city, to be a citizen, you were supposed to be able to prove your descent from citizens, and very few outsiders were made "honorary citizens". Over time, the citizen body of a Greek city would tend to get smaller. Roman citizenship was far more inclusive -- and Rome built an empire on it.

[Gaius Octavius]

I think that it was forbidden for a Roman master to have intercourse with a slave. In the 'Code of Justinian', it is codified.

[Publius Nonius Severus]

I think that it was forbidden for a Roman master to have intercourse with a slave. In the 'Code of Justinian', it is codified.

 

There were very few restraints placed on masters during the Republic but there were several constitutiones during the principate that placed some restrictions upon masters in dealing with their slaves. I could find none that dealt with intercourse, most of them had to do with improperly putting slaves to death.

 

I have not read the 'Code of Justinian" but I am sure you are correct. He was quite the champion for slaves' rights.

 

Edit: Added an omitted "few " before "restraints".

Edited March 20, 2007 by Publius Nonius Severus

[M. Porcius Cato]

AD makes an important point, but I think it's vitally important to distinguish between cultural openness to outsiders and legal openness to outsiders.

 

Culturally, the Romans--though they never ceased to celebrate invented stories of Hellenic origins, whether singing of Trojan and Arcadian progenitors, of Numa studying at the feet of Pythagoras, or of the Sabine harsh spirit deriving from its alleged Spartan origins--also traded in the crudest stereotypes of non-Romans.

Looking eastward, the invective became progressively more caustic. "The words of Greeks issue from their lips; those of Romans from their heart" (Plut. Cat. Mai., 12.5). Phrygians, Cicero tells us, are best improved by whipping; 'worst of the Mysians' was the ultimate insult; Carians were so worthless as to be fit only for human experiments; Cappadocians were paragons of stupidity, tastelessness, and beastliness (Cic. Flac. 65; Cic., Red. Sen., 14). Finally, Asiatic Greeks, Syrians, and Jews were born for servitude (Cic. Flac. 67, Livy 35.49.8, 36.17.4-5). Looking southward, the Punica were considered paragons of treachery, with Sardinians being so rotten that they were abandoned even by the Punica (Cic., Scaur. 42). Egyptians, of course, were animal-worshipping degenerates (Cic. Tusc. 5.78, Nat. D. 1.16.43). Looking westward, the Romans saw nothing but barbarism: Gauls and Spaniards were hairy, cruel, ferocious monsters (Cic. Font 31, 33, 41, 43-4; Cic Q Fr 1.1.27), and Spaniards brushed their teeth in piss (Catull. 37.20, 39.17-21).

 

Legally, all of these peoples could be admitted as citizens, it is true. However, the only gateway to citizenship was slavery. Moreover, the passage from foreign slave to free Roman--with all the rights attendant thereto--was often purchased by the slave himself, who then lived in perpetual obligation to his former master. It was a good system for Rome (until Augustus put the brakes on it), and--to return to AD's comparison with the Greeks--even the Greeks admired it: Phillip V himself commended it in a letter to the Larissans (Syll. 3, 543: 29 - 34).

 

I think the bottom-line is that the Romans, though inclusive politically, still never doubted their superiority of other peoples, whom they showered with slurs, stereotypes, and slavery. I wonder, can you think of another republic with the same history?

[Gaius Octavius]

Culturally, the Romans--though they never ceased to celebrate invented stories of Hellenic origins, whether singing of Trojan and Arcadian progenitors, of Numa studying at the feet of Pythagoras, or of the Sabine harsh spirit deriving from its alleged Spartan origins--also traded in the crudest stereotypes of non-Romans.

Looking eastward, the invective bee progressively more caustic.

 

I think that the Romans thought of themselves as being the descendants of horsemen who left the Caucasus Mountains and founded Troy, and thus Trojans and not Greeks. If they thought themselves Greek, why would they heap insults on themselves?

 

I think the bottom-line is that the Romans, though inclusive politically, still never doubted their superiority of other peoples, whom they showered with slurs, stereotypes, and slavery. I wonder, can you think of another republic with the same history?

 

Do you imply the USA? Perhaps the Brits?

 

 

There were very (Is there a word missing here?) retstraints placed on masters during the Republic but there were several constitutiones during the principate that placed some restrictions upon masters in dealing with their slaves. I could find none that dealt with intercourse, most of them had to do with improperly putting slaves to death.

 

I have not read the 'Code of Justinian" but I am sure you are correct. He was quite the champion for slaves' rights.

[Publius Nonius Severus]

There were very (Is there a word missing here?) retstraints placed on masters during the Republic but there were several constitutiones during the principate that placed some restrictions upon masters in dealing with their slaves. I could find none that dealt with intercourse, most of them had to do with improperly putting slaves to death.

 

I have not read the 'Code of Justinian" but I am sure you are correct. He was quite the champion for slaves' rights.

 

Aye, the missing word should be few

Edited March 20, 2007 by Publius Nonius Severus

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think that the Romans thought of themselves as being the descendants of horsemen who left the Caucasus Mountains and founded Troy, and thus Trojans and not Greeks.

 

First, there were several competing traditions regarding the origins of the Romans, including Roman origins from the Achaeans returning after the fall of Troy, descending from Odysseus or his sons, being descendents of Heracles or the Arcadian hero Evander, or a Trojan captive name Rhome. All these strands were freely combined to create new stories as well, including the idea that Romulus and Remus were distant descendants of Aeneas. Moreover, these weren't just tales spun by Greeks. Rome's first historian, Fabius Pictor, had the colony on the Palatine Hill founded by the Arcadian Evander. Also, even the most ferocious anti-Hellenic like Cato the Censor, endorsed the idea of Greek origins in his Origines. Indeed, Cato himself was of Sabine origins, and he traced their lineage back to the Spartans, implying that Roman ruggedness came from the one group of Greeks who weren't soft.

 

Second, the Trojan/Greek dichotomy is meaningless with respect to the Roman origins stories. According to Varro (Serv. Ad Aen. 3.167, 7.207) and others, Aeneas' ancestors (Dardanus et al) came from Arcadia, which is Greek. Thus, Aeneas was a Greek ex-pat living in Troy.