> It should be remembered that the ancient familia was a corporate entity, not a nuclear, emotionally intimate family in the modern sense.
In this sense the Romans were more clear-eyed than moderns, because families really are corporations. We pretend that husband and wife can own things, but really the family owns them. When the family breaks up, the divorce courts will divvy the loot as it pleases with little regard to the notional prior ownership.
That's why it's not so shocking married British women in the 19th century couldn't own property. Married people in general can't. What the old law really did was make the husband a CEO of tiny corporation, modern law gives the wife more power. A real change, but not an earth-shattering one.
> Employers sacking employees for their views is not a problem of libertas or civitas but familia. It’s also a reminder to be wary of modern corporate entities that claim to treat their staff “like family.”
So that's the converse, I say "families are corporations" but worker protection laws etc are partially enacting an intuition that "corporations are families". They don't make sense in terms of liberal commercial notions but do make sense in terms of this hybrid Roman _familia_.
> Sometimes people accuse the Romans of developing the first welfare state. Almost inevitably, they forget to note the welfare in question was only ever for citizens.
That's not enough to exonerate them.
A community of happy hobbits deciding to pool resources and look after the need is one thing. But a legalistic state where leaders can buy popularity using other people's money is a welfare state. Rome, both in the late republic and the empire seems to count.
The reading recommendation is a nice touch, very useful. Excellent piece, I hadn't heard much about the familia/civitas/libertas concepts before, but that was a nice introduction to them.
"the past does not belong to the present, but to itself, and should be addressed on its own terms. If we don’t do that, we lose imaginative access to it. "
Thankyou. This is a great one liner for the deranged that believe a utopia built out of nothing
but ' other ways of knowing ' will be a great success ( I wonder what they forsee happening after deconstruction of everything occurs)
Unfortunately their dream will result in nothing-besides returning to a beastial or barbaric time.
I wonder if you would mind compressing this sentence into a word or two without losing any meaning. Thankyou and kind regards, Justin.
'..the past does not belong to the present, but to itself, and should be addressed on its own terms. If we don’t do that, we lose imaginative access to it.' A very good aphorism.
- Speaking as a Roman Citizen (I am not a lawyer, but if you want olive oil or garum we can supply)
The link between the status of slaves in Southern America and their origins in Sub Saharan Africa and thus the point about the past vs the present is that their enslavement began as a purely commercial transaction, mediated by other Africans in places such a Benin. The Antebellum South had to struggle - and to some extent undergo a good deal of doublethink - in order to rationalise their use of slaves. Their African counterparts did not. What I can take away from this is that at any point in history the concept of the value of life is frangible. We can see this in the current war against Ukraine. This value is also affected by pragmatism and economics and this has been the case throughout history among diverse communities. But even an ideology, applied to the subjugation of a race or group has the same result, which renders it something of a moot point to the person on the receiving end of it.
Excellent, rewarding to read and I shall be buying the Stein book. Than you.
Simply outstanding!
> It should be remembered that the ancient familia was a corporate entity, not a nuclear, emotionally intimate family in the modern sense.
In this sense the Romans were more clear-eyed than moderns, because families really are corporations. We pretend that husband and wife can own things, but really the family owns them. When the family breaks up, the divorce courts will divvy the loot as it pleases with little regard to the notional prior ownership.
That's why it's not so shocking married British women in the 19th century couldn't own property. Married people in general can't. What the old law really did was make the husband a CEO of tiny corporation, modern law gives the wife more power. A real change, but not an earth-shattering one.
> Employers sacking employees for their views is not a problem of libertas or civitas but familia. It’s also a reminder to be wary of modern corporate entities that claim to treat their staff “like family.”
So that's the converse, I say "families are corporations" but worker protection laws etc are partially enacting an intuition that "corporations are families". They don't make sense in terms of liberal commercial notions but do make sense in terms of this hybrid Roman _familia_.
> Sometimes people accuse the Romans of developing the first welfare state. Almost inevitably, they forget to note the welfare in question was only ever for citizens.
That's not enough to exonerate them.
A community of happy hobbits deciding to pool resources and look after the need is one thing. But a legalistic state where leaders can buy popularity using other people's money is a welfare state. Rome, both in the late republic and the empire seems to count.
The reading recommendation is a nice touch, very useful. Excellent piece, I hadn't heard much about the familia/civitas/libertas concepts before, but that was a nice introduction to them.
Looks like I will be busy for awhile! Appreciated. Excellent.
"the past does not belong to the present, but to itself, and should be addressed on its own terms. If we don’t do that, we lose imaginative access to it. "
Thankyou. This is a great one liner for the deranged that believe a utopia built out of nothing
but ' other ways of knowing ' will be a great success ( I wonder what they forsee happening after deconstruction of everything occurs)
Unfortunately their dream will result in nothing-besides returning to a beastial or barbaric time.
I wonder if you would mind compressing this sentence into a word or two without losing any meaning. Thankyou and kind regards, Justin.
P.s. I jest.
'..the past does not belong to the present, but to itself, and should be addressed on its own terms. If we don’t do that, we lose imaginative access to it.' A very good aphorism.
- Speaking as a Roman Citizen (I am not a lawyer, but if you want olive oil or garum we can supply)
The link between the status of slaves in Southern America and their origins in Sub Saharan Africa and thus the point about the past vs the present is that their enslavement began as a purely commercial transaction, mediated by other Africans in places such a Benin. The Antebellum South had to struggle - and to some extent undergo a good deal of doublethink - in order to rationalise their use of slaves. Their African counterparts did not. What I can take away from this is that at any point in history the concept of the value of life is frangible. We can see this in the current war against Ukraine. This value is also affected by pragmatism and economics and this has been the case throughout history among diverse communities. But even an ideology, applied to the subjugation of a race or group has the same result, which renders it something of a moot point to the person on the receiving end of it.