Forms of verbal address between officers and soldiers.

[Tarbicus]

Then how do we explain the case of one prefect addressing another of the same rank as domine and not just frater? Were there more senior prefects?

In the "pre-Marian"/"pre-standing army"/"citizen militia" Republican period the centurio was elected, thought by some to have usually been a man of importance from the community. If a lowly miles couldn't expect to work his way up through merit or mortality rate until the standing army came into being then I'd say it was very non-egalitarian the earlier we go back into the Republican period, not vice-versa.

The class system was, at its most basic, made of five distinctive classes throughout most of Roman history before the Imperial period:

Senators > Equestrians > Commons > Freedpeople > Slaves

When we get to the time of Augustus we then have another top tier taking the classes up to six. And we have the census, which divided those classes into sub-classes according to property.

Then in actual practice we have the client system. At the head was the patronus who had his own clients who formed what was as good as a clan, with its own tiers of clients, etc, etc. Was this only restricted to civilians? Take the example of Titus Labienus who had successfully fought for Caesar in Gaul. However, when the civil war broke out he fought for Pompey for the very simple reason that he was from Picenum, a client city of Pompey's. Not only was the client system and fides endemic to Roman life, it could affect entire military allegiances. The client system was a way of surviving and acted as an unofficial welfare system; when you really needed money someone in the 'clan' would see you got it, etc, etc. I see no reason why this cultural given and norm would suddenly disappear when a citizen donned armour.

As an aside, the word patronus is said to have become padrino in Italian, which is used to describe a mafia godfather.

[Tarbicus]

Aha, and the meaning of the word "domine" is...lord or master.

It's not just those, it's also commander as I pointed out in an earlier post.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Missed that one. I am wondering if "commander" is rather a contextual meaning of the word "dominus."

[Tarbicus]

It's in Lewis. It's gonna take a lot for me to start messing with that one :wink:

[Maiorianus]

As an aside, the word patronus is said to have become padrino in Italian, which is used to describe a mafia godfather.

I agree with the relevance of the client system in the Roman Army, as well as what you say about the social classes in Rome. I still think that the class difference between a centurion and a soldier was largely non-existant, especially in the Republican period, so the use of a word like dominus strikes me as too strong. Especially for the Republican Romans who, with their founding myths about killing kings and tyrants, were quite restrained in open displays of power until late in the Republic.


As an aside, padrino comes from the late Latin patrinus (small father), which was (and still is) the proper term for the godfather at a baptism, long before Mafia was around...

[Tarbicus]

As an aside, padrino comes from the late Latin patrinus (small father), which was (and still is) the proper term for the godfather at a baptism, long before Mafia was around...

That definitely shows a continuation in the idea of a pecking order within clans, and I see no reason why the 'alternative' father (pater, patron) wouldn't also be accompanied by the dynamics of a mafia clan. I wouldn't be at all surprised that the whole capo and lieutenant system, etc, etc, is a direct and illustrative descendant of the Roman client system. One of my favourite ways of imagining the social dynamics in a century or cohort is by imagining them as a modern football firm in tunics. It's difficult to explain, but if you were to watch films on the subject, especially when going to "battle" and also when interacting socially (in the pub usually), I can see a correlation. I recommend you watch 'Green Street' and 'The Football Factory'. The law in Rome only went so far and an individual was still vulnerable to attack, disposession, robbery, without a secure route of compensation or justice (especially in the Republic - just look what happened to smallhoders pre-Gracchii). The client system, tribes, (civil) centuries, all suggest the importance of group protection, and one thing that happens is a pecking order will always be present, along with the usual deference and respect to those most important within the group. I see no reason why this wouldn't apply within military units, and how a man of more important status would not be recognised by the term 'dominus', simply because he would dominate the group through his ability to profer favours and make things happen for other individuals via his authority.

[Salvianus]

I already gave my tuppence on the other thread, but it's hard to argue with the Latin of the day, which was very varied. More examples from Jerome's Vulgate:

Exodus 6:10
at ille iuxta verbum inquit tuum
But he said: I will do according to thy word

Matthew 9:28
creditis quia possum hoc facere vobis dicunt ei utique domine
Do you believe, that I can do this unto you? They say to him, Yea, Lord.

Matthew 15:27
at illa dixit etiam Domine
But she said: Yea, Lord;

Mark 7:28
at illa respondit et dicit ei utique Domine
But she answered and said to him: Yea, Lord;

John 11:27
ait illi utique Domine
She saith to him: Yea, Lord,

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

One has to be careful with ancient translations, since they tend to follow the language of the original and thus deviate from the conventions of the target language. I.e, in the Latin translation from Hebrew or from the Greek of the Septuagint, which in turn was a translation from Hebrew, we might be getting Hebrew expressions in Latin, rather than normal Latin. Also, the New Testament texts, the Gospel of Matthew in particular, at times imitate the language of the Hebrew Bible/the Septuagint, hence, for instance, unnatural for Greek and Latin, but natural for Hebrew expression "he answered and said," like in one of the above examples.

[Salvianus]

I agree completely, Alexander. One has to be careful with the Vindolanda tablets, too, as they might easily be more formal than speech, ditto poetry, plays, edicts, inscriptions etc. I don't know if much confidence is possible in any reconstructed speech patterns before recordings. When I see the level of analysis that poetry like Beowulf and the Battle of Maldon are subjected to, I raise an eyebrow too :wink:

Perhaps a more serious flaw with my quotes re. the current discussion is that only one is a response to an instruction & none of them report the speech of a soldiers to a superior! However, I think that the argument that these phrases were meant to be intelligable to the Latin speakers of the day means they can still be useful pointers to the variety of positive statements and they do seem to match up with the use of 'domine' to an authority figure in the tablets.

Are there any better sources of reported speech from the period?

[Maiorianus]

As an aside, padrino comes from the late Latin patrinus (small father), which was (and still is) the proper term for the godfather at a baptism, long before Mafia was around...

That definitely shows a continuation in the idea of a pecking order within clans, and I see no reason why the 'alternative' father (pater, patron) wouldn't also be accompanied by the dynamics of a mafia clan. I wouldn't be at all surprised that the whole capo and lieutenant system, etc, etc, is a direct and illustrative descendant of the Roman client system. One of my favourite ways of imagining the social dynamics in a century or cohort is by imagining them as a modern football firm in tunics. It's difficult to explain, but if you were to watch films on the subject, especially when going to "battle" and also when interacting socially (in the pub usually), I can see a correlation. I recommend you watch 'Green Street' and 'The Football Factory'. The law in Rome only went so far and an individual was still vulnerable to attack, disposession, robbery, without a secure route of compensation or justice (especially in the Republic - just look what happened to smallhoders pre-Gracchii). The client system, tribes, (civil) centuries, all suggest the importance of group protection, and one thing that happens is a pecking order will always be present, along with the usual deference and respect to those most important within the group. I see no reason why this wouldn't apply within military units, and how a man of more important status would not be recognised by the term 'dominus', simply because he would dominate the group through his ability to profer favours and make things happen for other individuals via his authority.

I saw Green Street and I understand exactly what you mean. I actually see why soldiers could look at the centurion as the guy who "could make things happen" for them both in their military and civilian life and why they would therefore be induced to treat him with deference and respect even if no clear class differentiation existed between a legionary and a centurion. To sum up again my thought:

1. I do not deny that "domine" was the appropriate way to address a superior in Roman society, nor I would ever try to deny the class differentiation in the Roman society;

2. My only doubts are "is there an evolution in the use of dominus as a mark of deference?" and "would domine be an appropriate address for a centurion?". All of this considering that centurions normally did not belong to a higher class and that the social history of Rome tends to show that, at least in the early centuries, class differentiation existed, but the open display of power, wealth and higher status was hardly appreciated.

3. To take a modern example (and thinking of something that I watched firsthand and then saw confirmed in an interesting remark by John Keegan), Britain is generally considered (or was considered) a country where class differences are quite significant, for example when compared with the American society (I know these are semplifications, let me just use them for the sake of reasoning). Still, in the British Army you have much less "sirring" (ie, calling your boss "sir") than in the US Army. Seniority, rank, etc. are recognised, accepted and enforced with surprisingly little recourse to the formal exhibition of them (although, even as an officer, I would have hardly tried to treat a RSM - probably the closest modern equivalent to a primus pilus - with less than utmost respect )

4. Going back to the Romans, the impression I derived from what I read (especially primary sources) was that they were close to the British example, ie although classes existed and mattered, part of the founding myths of the Roman society was to consider cives as a privileged elite from the rest of the world and reduce the open (I stress the word again) marks of internal differentiation inside the privileged group. This of course changes through centuries, with the growing inclusion in the Republic and then the Empire of Eastern provinces (where power only exists if accompanied by the display of it and leaders belong to a separate race from common mortals) and by progressive extensions of citizenship which largely reduced the relevance of being a civis romanus.

5. As for the evidence, we unfortunately do not have much: what we have must always been taken into account as referring to a specific time, possibly location and surely literary code (ie written and oral language are always quite different). We have very little left showing how Romans addressed each other in daily circumstances. We have speeches (which in the original text are often in indirect form - so of little help - although they are often rendered in the direct form in many translations), we have comedies, like those of Plautus and Terentius (which often are not set in a Roman environment and are more concerned to adhere to the specific literary codes of their Greek models than to the reality of the day) and we have some dialogues, often from works of poetry.

6. In this respect, one example that comes to my mind (and I admit, I had no time to check it all ) is Virgil's Aeneid. If memory serves me well (and I spent one long year on it, but it was almost 30 years ago) in the dialogues of the Aeneid "domine" or "domina" are hardly used. People of respect are normally addressed by their rank ("king", queen") when they have one or by name or by other words of respect such as optime ("best") - ie Turnus addressing king Latin in the last book. Please note that, in the same dialogue, Latin calls Turnus iuvenis (young one), which clearly marks the king's seniority and authority - so why not call him domine?

7. So my impression is that, especially in Republican times, "domine" was used with moderation and in relationships (such as master-slave) where a significant gap in status existed between the two sides. If I only could remember where I read that dominus was also used to translate the Greek word tyrannos (tyrant), I think this could also support what I'm saying, and that two cives would have not lightly addressed each other as "domine". With the passing of time clearly the use may have become more relaxed and more of a standard mark of deference and respect.

8. I therefore (and taking into account your very valid points about the social role of a centurion) agree that in imperial times "domine" could be the right way to address a centurion, but I retain my reservations for the Republican times.

On your point about the mafia it is not the relations between the two systems that I disagree with, but your stress on a direct. descendancy. This is because the Roman society and system are no longer relevant, at latest, with the Arab conquest in 9th century AD, while the first reliable information about the Mafia (not its legendary origins) dates from the mid 19th century and, in the meantime, Sicily has been exposed to other patronus-client (or grandee-commoner) relationships during the Arab, Norman, French, Aragonese and Spanish dominations. So, the idea of the direct derivation seems a bit overstretched to me, with so many other examples from which to pick in the meantime...

[Tarbicus]

(although, even as an officer, I would have hardly tried to treat a RSM - probably the closest modern equivalent to a primus pilus -

Just a really quick note on that, and might tell us why we can't seem to agree on this :wink: A primus pilus was more akin to a colonel IMO and IIRC. The idea of centurions being NCOs is a red herring.

Sicily has been exposed to other patronus-client (or grandee-commoner) relationships during the Arab, Norman, French, Aragonese and Spanish dominations

Aside from Arabic and Norman, weren't the others of directly Roman cultural heritage in the 9th-C anyway? If the Norman conquerors of Britain are anything to go by, would they be changing much of society's fabric or language during their stay? There is a suggestion out there that the word mafia has its roots in Arabic:
"Another theory of the origin of "mafia" begins as early as the 9th century. During that period, Sicily was ruled by Arab forces. The original inhabitants were oppressed, and desperately tried to escape and find refuge. In Arabic, the word "mafia" means, "refuge." Sicily was invaded by the Normans in the 11th century and its people were forced into labor and oppression once again. Every invasion of Sicily, thereafter, (French invasion in the 12th century, Spanish in the 13th century, then Germans, Austrians, and Greeks) resulted in native tribes seeking refuge in the hills of the island. The refugees eventually developed a secret society of unification intended to create a sense of family, based on Sicilian heritage. The structure of the organization was built on the idea of family and had a strong hierarchical make up. The "dons" were the family heads, in charge of the mafia in every village. They had to report to the "don of dons", who lived in Palermo, the capital of Sicily."
http://da_wizeguy.tripod.com/omerta/id1.html
But I'd be remiss not to point out this: http://www.sicilianculture.com/mafia/mafiawords.htm

[Triarius]

Gabriel, I disagree slightly with your point No. 3: Modern British practice does not reflect (indeed may be a reaction to) historical behavior. The British Army has been around a long time, and the way officers, non-coms, and enlisted men behaved toward one another has changed drastically over time.

Which actually supports your idea that the behavior of the Romans over time probably changed, as well.

[Maiorianus]

Gabriel, I disagree slightly with your point No. 3: Modern British practice does not reflect (indeed may be a reaction to) historical behavior. The British Army has been around a long time, and the way officers, non-coms, and enlisted men behaved toward one another has changed drastically over time.

Which actually supports your idea that the behavior of the Romans over time probably changed, as well.

You're absolutely right. I just wanted to underline that, even where class differences are important, they are not always prominently displayed in public behaviour, because some societies privilege other values (understatement, restraint, etc.) which act as a counterbalance. Roman republican society, with its stress on exactly those values, would seem to me one where use of seniority/rank titles would have been quite limited. The Empire, again, is a different story....