Bylaws of the Collegium

The purpose of this collegium is to establish a group for those interested in ancient philosophy and a place where philosophical discussion and study may take place. Join at: http://romanrepublic.org/civitas/joint_ ... sophiae/42

Moderators: Marca Marcia, Gaius Flavius Aetius, Paullus Aemilius Gallus, Aula Flavia Philippa

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

Postby Publius Sextius Laevus » Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:46 pm

UTI ROGAS - in favour of Seneca's form of the bylaws.

P. Sextius Laevus
'Fiat Lux! Fiat Vita!'
User avatar
Publius Sextius Laevus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:12 am

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

Postby Lucia Horatia Adamas » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:38 pm



L. Horatia Adamas C. Curtio Philoni P. Sextio Laevo, L. Livio Senecae C. Florio Lupo omnibusque S.P.D.

Philo, does that mean that no one may vote 'abstineo?' Obiter, strictly speaking, 'antiquo' does not mean 'no,' which normally would negate the verb, or possibly use a negative alone. 'Antiquo' means, in effect, 'leave it the old way,' which often was the Roman preference. Correspondingly, 'Uti rogas' means 'as you ask,' not 'yes.' 'Abstineo' means what it looks like in English: 'I abstain.'

Please note that this proposal is not Seneca's alone; Laevus did much of the grunt work; I improved the Latin and translated it, and we consulted with Seneca. There were several private exchanges concerning some of the vocabulary, notably about the term for 'member,' given that the Latin ones do not fully correspond with English on this, and that the most suitable one, 'collegiarius,' is rare in our existing body of Latin works, comprising both manuscripts and inscriptions. We then agreed on the next-best term, the very common 'socius,' which (inter alia) may signify 'a member of a learnèd society.' We also discussed the spelling of the genitive singular case of certain Latin words, for it is best to use the forms of the finest period of Latin, Ciceronian and other Republican Latin, which used a single-i in the genitive of -ius and -ium nouns, rather than the later double-i genitive found during the imperial period. Note, too, that in Roman religious usage, the older a word or form is, the better; archaic vocabulary and forms are often deemed best for religious purposes. Overall, in a text such as this regula, we cannot use archaic forms throughout as few would understand them (special instruction is necessary on this point), but the high classical ones, such as the single-i genitive, are widely understood, though many Latin textbooks seem to prefer imperial orthography and other Latinists here seem to be unfamiliar with the true classical form.

Overall, a better outline format would use Roman numerals for the headings in boldface type, and capital letters for their subheadings, with Arabic numerals for the subheadings of subheadings, followed by lower-case letters for further subheadings, but we can change that later. I can live with the existing format, but would prefer that the lower-case letters in one heading (I cannot call this up as I write, so am not sure which one has the small letters directly following the Roman numerals) would be changed to capitals.

Pro tempore quidem, discedo in approbatores, significans 'uti rogas.'

Valete!
Lucia Horatia Adamas
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:20 am

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

Postby Lucius Livius Seneca » Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:45 am

L. Livius Horatiae Adamanti aliisque sociis sal.

I too, naturally, support the most recent recension of the proposed bylaws, thankful for the opportunity to ponder certain questions of Latinity with my fellow socii philosophici. As Horatia Adamas has rightly pointed out, most of this text is the work of P. Laevus and herself, and their labours are to be commended.

As for the enumeration of clauses, it is a technical detail that I leave to the magistri philosophici, but I would note that the enumeration of mere headings would be excessive, as they are never cited on their own, and are not formally considered part of the legislation, but rather, guides for readers. Captial letters, nevertheless, are more Roman, so I have edited the above post accordingly.

Haec dicta ... VTI ROGAS.

Valete!
L. LIVIVS ANI. SENECA
V. C. ET INL. PR. VR.MAG. COLL. L.
User avatar
Lucius Livius Seneca
Senator
Senator
Lictor Curiatus
Lictor Curiatus
Praetor Urbanus
Praetor Urbanus
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:10 am
Location: Transborealis Silva

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:18 pm

VTI ROGAS

I think the numbering is okay. Headers do not require a number, they are a modern concept and do not include a statement, and therefore will not be referred to, as Seneca has already mentioned.
The double -ii genitive, as it is now, is preferable. It is even used in most versions of Caesar's writings available today, as I have shown. We would need an original manuscript of Caesar to see, which genitive he actually used. But there must be good reasons for all modern editions of Caesar's works to use -ii. If we wanted to be consistent in rejecting all standardization, we could not use punctuation either and had to write everything in capital letters with interpunct. Furthermore we could not use "ut", but had to use " uti" like in "uti rogas" or even the older "utei". To write everything in this archaic style would be counter-productive and make it hard to read. Just imagine, we had to write " soci" instead of "socii" in the genitive. This would look really awfull.
I think the text is okay as it is.
Valete!
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Africa Magna

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

Postby Gaius Curtius Philo » Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:24 am

Salve Horatia!

Im sorry for forgetting the Abstineo option. You are free to vote to abstain, of course!

Regarding the authorship, I am sorry if it sounded like I was attributing all credits to Seneca. That was not my intention in the slightest. I meant only to reference Seneca's most latest rendition of the text. I fully acknowledge and thank all of you for your hand in its composition!
"Ignis aurum probat" - Seneca
C. Curtius L. f. Vot. Philo Aurelianus
User avatar
Gaius Curtius Philo
 
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:56 pm
Location: Praia Grande, São Paulo, Brazil

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

Postby Mania Aurelia Apollonia » Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:39 am

VTI ROGAS.
Know thyself - Γνῶθι σεαυτόν - Nosce te ipsum
User avatar
Mania Aurelia Apollonia
Apollinis Sacerdos
Apollinis Sacerdos
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:21 am
Location: Eria

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

Postby Lucia Horatia Adamas » Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:39 am

L. Horatia Adamas C. Curtio Philoni C. Florio Lupo L. Livio Senecae P. Sextio Laevo omnibusque S.P.D.

Philo, I was being a bit facetious about 'abstineo,' but we should always have that option. It is also good to remember exactly what these terms we use in senatorial and other voting actually mean: 'antiquo' is not the Latin word for 'no!'

Indeed, this was a group project, and it seems to have turned out quite well. With a few changes to reflect the foci of other collegia, it might work as a template for their regulae.

Lupe, the single -i genitive was not archaic, unless you consider Cicero an archaic writer. I don't. Now, Plautus and Terentius were archaic writers, and their texts have many intriguing archaic forms, such as 'servos,' nominative singular, 'laudarier,' present passive infinitive, etc., etc. As for Caesar, mine eyes have just lit upon 'vir consili magni et virtutis,' in B.G. III, 5, l. 12. If C. Julius had used the double-i form, that would have been spelled 'vir consilii magni.' This text lists the variant MS readings, and there is no 'consilii' listed in the margin as such a v.l. Logically speaking, too, given that my edition has the single-i genitive throughout, your statement that "all" modern editions of Caesar have the double-i genitive is logically invalid, nonne? Moreover, I suspect that I have other texts of Caesar which use the same classical (NOT archaic) orthography. Right now I don't have the time to check all of my Latin II books as well as any additional texts of C. Julius Caesar.

I also suspect that at least some classical authors used 'uti' when it sounded better to them, as they did in the case of other words which had such variants, e.g., 'abs / ab / á.' All are phonological variants, and the first is somewhat uncommon, and perhaps archaic, but if a writer wanted to vary the forms, or make meter, then 'abs' would come in handy. 'Aps' is also known, and even 'af,' the latter of which I have never seen, but evidently Mr Glare has.

Valete!
Lucia Horatia Adamas
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:20 am

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:43 am

Salvete, socii!

One week has passed since C. Curtius Philo Aurelianus called for a vote. We can close the voting period now and announce the result.
Six members have unanimously approved the last published version. The motion is carried. The approved version will now be forwarded to the Aediles for their final word.

We can close this thread now.

Valete!
C. Florius Lupus
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Africa Magna

Previous

Return to Collegium Philosophicum

cron