Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Analysis Of Roman Epitaphs Alters Concept Of 'Family'
University Of Calgary ^ | 2-11-2004 | Dr Hanne Sigismund

Posted on 02/29/2004 4:36:28 PM PST by blam

Analysis of Roman epitaphs alters concept of 'family'

February 11, 2004

If ancient Romans observed Family Day, their celebrations would have included wet nurses, slaves and possibly many others who had no blood relationship, according to new University of Calgary research.

A landmark analysis by classicist Dr. Hanne Sigismund Nielsen of more than 4,500 inscriptions on Roman tombstones shows that our concept of the Roman family needs to be broadened to include much more than just parents, grandparents and children.

"Roman families did not at all look like our family structure today," says Nielsen, who spent more than 10 years examining the Latin inscriptions. "Quite a few family relationships existed by choice and were not at all contained in the biological family." For example, slaves were often related to their masters by choice, families frequently included foster parents or children, and wet nurses were especially honoured.

"Whereas we might say, 'He has a face only a mother could love,' the Romans would have said, 'He has a face only his wet nurse could love'," Nielsen says. The bond was so strong with wet nurses because mothers surrendered their children to them for the first three years of a child's life.

Nielsen has written a book about her research titled Roman Relationships: The Evidence of the Epitaphs, which is currently under review for publication. Although the epitaphs have been documented and compiled in reference books, until now nobody has comprehensively described and analyzed them. Nielsen assembled a database of 4,500 complete inscriptions out of a total of 40,000 epitaphs, many of which are only fragmentary.

"It's not just accidental that you put up a tombstone for someone," she points out. "These people weren't millionaires and the stonecutter charged for each letter. I think it reflects real emotions and real attachment." The reason Roman families probably included so many individuals who were unrelated by birth was because the mortality rate was extremely high. With a life expectancy of not much beyond 45, a small family unit could not have survived.

"If you were a woman and you were 15 years old, you would be married to a man who was 10-15 years older than you. Then, because you had actually succeeded in living that long, you stood a good chance of living until you were 45. In that period you would give birth to five or six children, and half of them would die."

Nielsen says the most affecting inscriptions were always related to young children. "The grief is tangible: 'Here lies So-and-so, He was such a sweet little boy.' The proximity of death was so close in those times and these families probably had other children who died - it is always very touching."

Although it's expected Nielsen's book will have a major impact within the discipline by dispelling commonly held assumptions about the epitaphs, her research also tells us something about who we are now." Because our way of understanding the world is in many ways derived from the Romans, it's important that we know something about their culture. Even if we don't care about history, we can learn something about ourselves by looking at a culture where they did some things differently."

There are comparatively few researchers specializing in Roman social history, and even fewer who work with the epitaphs. One of the assumptions that Nielsen's research dispels relates to women and marriage. "Most of the textbooks we have on Roman social history will say it was normal to demand chastity from wives and that it was generally praised everywhere in the epitaphs. But the evidence points to a different conclusion."

It wasn't until about 300 CE when Christianity began to dominate that the idea of chasteness was cited in the inscriptions. Although Roman marriages before that time were monogamous, it wasn't something that was memorialized. Before then, up to about the middle of the 3rd century, wives tended to be described as 'very dear'.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: analysis; ancientrome; archaeology; art; britain; christian; christianity; christians; concept; epigraphyandlanguage; epitaphs; family; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; history; italy; religion; roman; romanempire; romans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-108 next last

1 posted on 02/29/2004 4:36:30 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
GGG ping.
2 posted on 02/29/2004 4:37:15 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
***"It wasn't until about 300 CE ...."***

Has anyone else noticed academia's shift away from the B.C. / A.D. designation? I've seen it once or twice before and suspect it's intentional- the agenda being to eliminate all Christian references from our daily lives.
3 posted on 02/29/2004 4:42:33 PM PST by SolutionsOnly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
It's called an extended family.
4 posted on 02/29/2004 4:47:45 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian (Shake Hands with the Serpent: Poetry by Charles Lipsig aka Celtjew http://books.lulu.com/lipsig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Homo-propaganda.

They are seeking a secular excuse to justify their marriage re-definition.

Propaganda is in overdrive.

This is to define opposition to homosexual marraige as a religion thing. This is not true.

It is also true this is not a ban on homosexual marriage. This is codifying WHAT MARRIAGE IS. the FMA also precludes pedofilia marriage, incest marriage, and polygamy. not just homosexual marriage.

as to the CE and and BCE. That PC cr*p has been going on in Universities for some time. From the same people who want to outlaw all Christ in Christmas.
5 posted on 02/29/2004 4:50:28 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolutionsOnly
Has anyone else noticed academia's shift away from the B.C. / A.D. designation? I've seen it once or twice before and suspect it's intentional- the agenda being to eliminate all Christian references from our daily lives.

It's been going on for quite a few years now and is pretty much complete. It's rare now to find a historian or archaeologist who refers to "BC" or "AD" times. The kids do not learn that nomenclature in school anymore, as far as I know.

It comes from the bigoted belief that using Christian-centric language excludes other traditions and is unscientific.

6 posted on 02/29/2004 4:51:25 PM PST by irv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blam
Yes, it is to eliminate 'Before Christ' but actually 'Before Common Era' STILL means 'Before Christ'. The dimwits.

Only rich families could afford wet-nurses.

Social life in Roman times is very well documented by a famous book called Daily Life In Ancient Rome, a marvelous work, written in the '30's. Jerome Carcapaccio or something like that. I have it in my bookshelf and am too lazy to get up and look. A whole chapter on the insanity of the Roman Games and why no politician could stop them even though they knew they were deeply wrong.

Wives were not called 'chaste' on their tombstones because it was expected. Would you put on YOUR spouse's tombstone 'S/He didn't have sex with that or any other woman/man"? Stupid kind of epitaph.

The idea of 'family' was also different in Elizabethan and American Colonial times, it included apprentices, orphans, servants, farm hands, all referred to by the head of the household as 'my family', or 'my people'.

I think this woman has an agenda or hasn't read very widely. She looks thick.

7 posted on 02/29/2004 4:52:59 PM PST by squarebarb ('The stars put out their pale opinions, one by one...' Thomas Merton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolutionsOnly
"Has anyone else noticed academia's shift away from the B.C. / A.D. designation? I've seen it once or twice before and suspect it's intentional- the agenda being to eliminate all Christian references from our daily lives."

Yup. Just ignore it like I do and continue using BC/AD. (Screw'em!)

8 posted on 02/29/2004 4:53:50 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
How many of us actuall remember living in a home with three blood generations?

Has anyone done a study on the broken family rate among democrats vs republicans?
9 posted on 02/29/2004 4:55:33 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blam
The bond was so strong with wet nurses because mothers surrendered their children to them for the first three years of a child's life.

Cause of fall of Roman Empire now satisfactorily identified.

10 posted on 02/29/2004 4:56:50 PM PST by 537 Votes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: irv
It is also very 1984. Children have no reason to believe why it was year zero. There is no subtle reminder of "Christ". They eliminate the word and thus the thought.


(s)Fight terrorism, outlaw the NEA.(/s)
11 posted on 02/29/2004 4:58:48 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: squarebarb
I think she backed into this by way of archaeology. The excavation guys have become more and more divorced from the classicists, ever since they put classical archaeology over in the art department. I had to hike all the way across campus to take those courses!

Seriously, this lady has obviously never read any of the many available texts on Roman family life, and she hasn't read the Latin authors, because you can glean a lot of this from just what Cicero and Tacitus and the rest of them let drop in passing. I thought everybody knew that a Roman of good family (senators and knights and any wealthy freedmen or merchants who could aspire) lived in an extended household where the father, wife and children simply formed the core.

This is no big deal anyhow. An awful lot of southern families have had widowed granny and a housekeeper and/or nanny living in - we certainly did.

12 posted on 02/29/2004 5:03:18 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . sed, ut scis, quis homines huiusmodi intellegere potest?. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
Agreed. It was current up to recent times in South France, Italy etc.
13 posted on 02/29/2004 5:06:16 PM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (Further, the statement assumed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I don't see anything in regard to homosexuality or homosexual marriage in this article. Did I overlook something?

This sort of extended family is certainly more common in rural than urban households, but it has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. A certain segment of Roman society, aping the upper class Greeks, did countenance relationships with a catamite, but a casual reading of, say, Suetonius, will demonstrate that the Romans did NOT look on it kindly and would never have permitted marriage. I faintly remember a scandalous story (and it may have been in Suetonius) about some extremely femme Roman young buck going through the form of marriage with his boy toy, but it wasn't valid and it was held up as an example of how low the morals of the upper class had sunk . . .

14 posted on 02/29/2004 5:06:48 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . sed, ut scis, quis homines huiusmodi intellegere potest?. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: blam
I'm reading Colleen McCullough's The First Man In Rome. Good book. Anyway, she has quite a lot of detail about family life among the patricians of Rome in the first century BC. Good balance w/ the political & military intrigue. I'd highly recommend the book to anyone interested in ancient Rome. It's the first book in a series.
15 posted on 02/29/2004 5:07:17 PM PST by elli1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Societies consisting mostly of nuclear families of a husband, wife and kids is a fairly new social convention. People seemed to do well living in clans and extended families for thousands of years. Many Hispanic and immigrant groups still adhere to the older social traditions of extended families and that may indeed be a more natural order of things and may again be the norm some day.
16 posted on 02/29/2004 5:13:27 PM PST by Eternal_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: squarebarb
Jerome Carcopino.
17 posted on 02/29/2004 5:20:11 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
I just found it odd how in this period when the left is trying to breakdown the definition what is marriage and what is family.

It is just beyond coincidence that the Mass. opinion adopts a concept of law that excludes children as the basis of marraige. The American Law Institute model divorce code project (ABA division) has portions in which a non-blood person could claim rights to a child (ie homosexual lover). This is not exended family but jut affiliation by non-blood reasons. (ie sexual gratification)

conspiracy no, but definitly all pushing in the same direction.
18 posted on 02/29/2004 5:24:18 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
It is hardly "Homo propaganda." Roman families often contained non biological members through the very common insitution of adoption due to high mortality rates. Even adults were adopted into other families. The Patron- client system of Roman life also fed this notion of a greater family- the number of "clients" a family had was a measure of it's power and prestiege. Many such "clients" were adopted. And this bond was just as real as blood relations to the Romans. Often- heirs of a family fortune were not blood related but an adoptee.

Gauis Octavius- better known as Emporer Augustus was the adopted son and heir of Julius Ceaser.

As for the CE and BCE PC idiocy- they tried to pull that off for a while but I don't see it used much anymore.
19 posted on 02/29/2004 5:25:02 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
How much of this justification will we have to put up with.....
20 posted on 02/29/2004 5:27:08 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
But indirectly it is propaganda, since the Left has a major campaign to "redefine" the family to include all kinds of variable forms of living arrangements.
21 posted on 02/29/2004 5:27:13 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SolutionsOnly
It's been that way for the last forty years or so.
22 posted on 02/29/2004 5:27:39 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Homo-propaganda.

Beat me to it.

23 posted on 02/29/2004 5:27:55 PM PST by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
How many of us actuall remember living in a home with three blood generations?

My wife's parents live a mile down the road from us -- my daughter stays there as much as she's at our house. My parents just retired and are five miles away. Not to mention that two of my wife's 3 sisters live in town. Not exactly the same thing, but pretty close.

24 posted on 02/29/2004 5:29:53 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian (Shake Hands with the Serpent: Poetry by Charles Lipsig aka Celtjew http://books.lulu.com/lipsig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SolutionsOnly
I've seen it once or twice before and suspect it's intentional- the agenda being to eliminate all Christian references from our daily lives.

I like to define it as:

CE = Christian Era
BCE = Before the Christian Era

It's fun to exasperate the enemy.

25 posted on 02/29/2004 5:32:04 PM PST by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Eternal_Bear
By extended family are talking about grandparents and inlaws in the same house?

It is not just hispanics.

(not exactly on point, but My Big Fat Greek Wedding did display the truth of the grandmother living in the house)
26 posted on 02/29/2004 5:33:10 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
I don't think so- it is just history- if anything family bonds were far tighter in Roman times and loyatly to the family was seen as a primary virtue. The core of a Roman family was the "nuclear" unit obviously- but in order to survive families had to include as many "supporters" as they could. Life was short and brutal and the bigger the family- the more protection you enjoyed. This is a far cry from accepting "Gay marriage" which Romans would have thought preposterous.
27 posted on 02/29/2004 5:33:23 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: blam
Odd spin on this. I know something about the previous ideas about the Roman family, and this fits easily within. Sure it may provide some more solid evidence to support it. And it may elevate the importance of certain relationships. But it's definitely not a major change.

Methinks I sense the hand of the "progressives" cooking up something related to this.

28 posted on 02/29/2004 5:33:51 PM PST by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Not at the universities I atttended
29 posted on 02/29/2004 5:36:10 PM PST by SolutionsOnly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
I know of one Greek father who gave his blessing to a marrige based on the fact the future son in law was going to be living close.

I think newlyweds need a liiiitle distance in the begining.
30 posted on 02/29/2004 5:36:30 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
There is no year Zero. The year of the supposed birth was the year 1CE. the year before that was 1 BCE.

Part of the reason why one doesnt use BC and AD is because the monk who did the calculation made a mistake. It was a tough piece of work because he was after the fact trying to make sense of all the partial years where the end of one emperors life was the same year as the first year of the next emperor. We are still finding out emperors who ruled briefly, or ruled while another emperor ruled.

By using BCE and CE you date it back to the Herod the Great. The gospel record relates the birth to Herod the great (4 BC) in Matthew, to the great census (6AD) with Mark and John not taking a position.
31 posted on 02/29/2004 5:40:17 PM PST by donmeaker (Duty is the most sublime word in the English language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; irv; blam
Actually, the origins of CE/BCE are Jewish scholarship with its use started at least in the 19th Century. Since Jews consider Jesus neither "the anointed one" or "Our Lord," it is considered inappropriate to use those terms. The use spread through academia, particularly through Jewish scholars in it.

It may be P.C. now, but it wasn't a recently invented academic term.
32 posted on 02/29/2004 5:40:25 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian (Shake Hands with the Serpent: Poetry by Charles Lipsig aka Celtjew http://books.lulu.com/lipsig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: elli1
I'm reading Colleen McCullough's The First Man In Rome. Good book.

An understatement. It's an amazing book. And astonishingly faithful to history (allowing for the fact that a lot of the action takes place in areas where we have no direct historical ecords). Every time I thought I found a historical error in it, I went back to historical sources and found she was right and my own recollection was faulty.

Read the whole series.

33 posted on 02/29/2004 5:40:31 PM PST by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tbpiper
***" CE = Christian Era
BCE = Before the Christian Era"**

Very good! I'm with you on that!

34 posted on 02/29/2004 5:42:45 PM PST by SolutionsOnly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
You talk about the lifestyle of 0.1% of a civilization that was decadent on the verge of collapse as if it were the norm of the day, or any other day. And this article talks as if we could draw some generalizations from that.

Pah! ~

35 posted on 02/29/2004 5:43:00 PM PST by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
I am a practicing Roman pagan, and live with my exwife, her husband, and two children with one on the way. We do not practice polyandry/polygamy, but family chores are split. It is practical, and I recommend it.
36 posted on 02/29/2004 5:43:04 PM PST by donmeaker (Duty is the most sublime word in the English language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: SolutionsOnly
See #32. It has been the case in Britian for as long as I can remember.
38 posted on 02/29/2004 5:48:17 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Yeti
"Decadent"? Get over the Caligula movies and the lifestyles of the Emporers you see on the History Channel- the men who built the Roman Empire were not perfect but neither were they wine slushing hedonists. And it was hardly .01 percent of the population. Roman Soldiers were free Citizens at the time of Ceaser and that was a heck of a lot of families. This was the system- and it is hardly unique to Roman civiliazation- the greater or extended family- was the norm for most of human history. Our little families now- in which it is a miracle if we know our paternal Great Grandmother's maiden name have not even a tenth of the strength of a middle class ancient Roman family in which every member of the family could trace back their line for hundreds of years and worshipped and respected their ancestors.

Ask an ancient Roman if two "gays" could bet married and he wouldn't even know what the heck you were talking about as "Gay" wasn't even a concept. Two men "marrying"? He wouldn't even understand you and think you were crazy.

It is our time in which we entertain this idiocy- not theirs.
39 posted on 02/29/2004 5:55:22 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I don't see the connection from extended family to gay marriage, but I hardly call this discovery groundbreaking. It is well known that the Roman family included adopted slaves and other domestic help. Also Roman concepts of marriage were remarkably similar to ours, including such customs as the wedding ring worn on the middle finger of the left hand and carrying the bride over the threshold.
40 posted on 02/29/2004 6:03:47 PM PST by ffusco (Maecilius Fuscus,Governor of Longovicium , Manchester, England. 238-244 AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Snuffington
I would suspect someone trying to "build a case" here - definitely, they aren't just giving us a history report, they are up to something - and that would be control of the children - plain and simple. Who gets to decide what the children learn? Mom and dad, uncles, grandparents, the neighbors across the street, Hillary, the leaders at present, or JUST the parents. They have been working on this "case building" for awhile, making parents feel guilt for imposing their private views on their children. Those phrases like, "our children don't belong to us, they belong to the future" etc. Daytime soaps have been preaching this community village stuff for 30 years or so, everyone on the darn soap takes care of the children, they are never with their parents, their moms have remarried 3 or 4 times, have 86 step dads and 92 steps sisters and brothers, all one big global community, and the mom and dad don't seem to believe they have the ultimate say on what happens in that child's life, or they bring it up for a vote at a town meeting or something, sort of communist.
41 posted on 02/29/2004 6:06:08 PM PST by Esther Ruth ( We like the children all pink you know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

In my father I observed mildness of temper, and unchangeable resolution in the things which he had determined after due deliberation; and no vainglory in those things which men call honours; and a love of labour and perseverance; and a readiness to listen to those who had anything to propose for the common weal; and undeviating firmness in giving to every man according to his deserts; and a knowledge derived from experience of the occasions for vigorous action and for remission. And I observed that he had overcome all passion for boys; ...

-- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book I

Just regular folks, those latter Imperial Roman ruling class families.
42 posted on 02/29/2004 6:12:54 PM PST by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: blam
Scholars have known this for a long time.
43 posted on 02/29/2004 6:13:23 PM PST by reed_inthe_wind (Vienna said the middlemen come from Ger, Nether,Belg, S Af, Jap,Dub, Mal,USA,Rus,Chin,and Pak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yeti
You seem fixated on the Emporers and their truly decadent lifestyles. We know about these rather torrid stories of total depravity because that is what survives and what most people were writing about. They were not writing about the regualr Pedestrian citizen in the street. But we do have every day records which paint a far more conservative picture of the average Roman Citizens life. Mr. Average Roman citizen was not having orgies with boys- far from it. He most likely wasn't even aware (much less cared) what the emperor did. There was no CNN and no printing press even.

Just as Bill Clinton is not a proper indicator of our nation's morality - by no means were the actions of the "God kings" of Rome that most of the Roman world would never hear about.

44 posted on 02/29/2004 6:28:36 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
But we do have every day records which paint a far more conservative picture of the average Roman Citizens life. Mr. Average Roman citizen was not having orgies with boys- far from it.

And Mom was the wet nurse.

45 posted on 02/29/2004 6:34:13 PM PST by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
I am a practicing Roman pagan, and live with my exwife, her husband, and two children with one on the way. We do not practice polyandry/polygamy, but family chores are split. It is practical, and I recommend it.

Does anyone else find this quite strange?

46 posted on 02/29/2004 6:39:30 PM PST by sirchtruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
very strange, but how is it Roman?
47 posted on 02/29/2004 6:42:21 PM PST by ffusco (Maecilius Fuscus,Governor of Longovicium , Manchester, England. 238-244 AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
(/s)?
48 posted on 02/29/2004 6:43:21 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Yeti
Do you have any concept on what life was like for people 2000 years ago? Half of all children born died before their 3rd birthday. A women stood about a ten percent chance of dying every time she gave birth.

Cicero- Great Roman statesman grew up in a small town outside of Rome and his family were the local laundry mat- that is they washed clothes with coal pitch and goat urine. But as humble as his family was-his dad had "Clients" that followed him. Cicero was lucky enough to be taken aboard to a higher family in Rome as a "client". But Cicero is truly a "self made man" in Roman Times.

Sorry- did I interupt your viewing of "Spartacus?"
49 posted on 02/29/2004 6:54:38 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
I am a practicing Roman pagan

Practice makes perfect : )

50 posted on 02/29/2004 6:54:57 PM PST by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-108 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson