Well, good
Submitted by Heather on April 14 1999 at 16:23:42
In reply to I'm not talking about today Submitted by Triple Q on April 14 1999 at 15:17:11
|
You had me worried there for a moment - I thought your brain matter was disappearing in your old age. :) "Even after the Bar Mitzvah at 12, boys were still subject to their parents then. Why the difference?" I'm afraid you know more than I do about this subject. "Your own post says that they (the Roman boys) weren't given property rights until 'later', presumably at 16 or older. Why were they not considered adult enough to assume the same adult responsibilities that girls were able/permitted to?" Oh, lord, I'd have to look up the exact law to tell (1) whether Roman women could own property (I think they could), and (2) whether they could own property only at age 21, like Roman men. If your question is, "Why did Roman men come of age at fourteen and Roman women come of age at twelve?" the answer, quite simply, is that puberty for boys comes later than puberty for girls. As far as I know, fourteen-year-old Roman men were regarded as adults in the same way as twelve-year-old Roman women were (leaving aside the lesser rights that all women had at the time). As for the property rights, the idea that certain adult responsibilities come later than others - an idea preserved in the present chaotic age of consent laws - was obviously held by the Romans, but at least the Romans made things simple by having the age of consent coincide with the age of marriagability, which in turn coincided with the age of majority (not like the present awful situation in some places where the above three ages are all different). Incidentally, you are keeping in mind, I hope, that the moment a Roman boy came to manhood, it would be considered extremely shameful for him to be someone's loved boy. :) Heather |