Re: OT civitas (was: OT Roman names)
|From:||Michael Adams <abrigon@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, June 13, 2006, 10:45|
I know Burh, which was founded as a way to deal with Danes and I
others I suspect, later became Bourough, which was a
incorporated city, with all or most rights and power of a
Count/Earl or like, to include their own law enforcement,
collect taxe and pass to the exchequer and not to the local
Sheriff (Shire Reeve), to hold court for local justice, as well
as raise a militia/fyrd or like unit for service with the King.
Much like the earlier Civites of Roman Times. Count comes from
Comitates, a Roman Official who had mostly civil powers, to
include bringing people to justice/raising forces and like?
Count in England often called a Earl. Earl/Duke was Barons or of
the Baronial class for lack of a better word?
But under a Comitates aka Count was a Duc, who originally was
more military in nature, but later became civil as well and even
over took the Count, even if the Duc/Duke was originally under
the local Count/Earl.
----- Original Message -----
From: "R A Brown" <ray@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:07 AM
Subject: OT civitas (was: OT Roman names)
> Michael Adams wrote:
> > I had thougth Civites was more in line with civil.. Such asyour
> > obligations to the civil authority?
> The Latin word _ciuitas_ had two distinct meanings:
> 1. It is, of course, derived from _ciuis_ = citizen. Thus itsoriginal
> meaning, which it always kept, was "citizenship" or "rights &privilege
> of citizenship". It was this _ciuitas_ that got St Paul out ofmore
> trouble than he would otherwise have faced, and ensured he hadthe
> 'humane' execution of beheading.
> 2. The whole body of citizens united in one place with one (ormore)
> city (cities) and the surrounding territory. This was anadministrative
> division. In this sense, Paul's 'civitas' was Tarsus in AsiaMinor. This
> is where he could vote, if he so chose, for city council & its
> magistrates. But, as a citizen, he was protected by _ciuitas_in sense
> (1) throughout the Empire.
> It is in meaning (2) that I wrote about the civitas (plural:civitates)
> of the Atrebates & the Regni/Regnenses in Britain.
> > Or is Civites as suggested more related in theory to theTuatha
> > of Ireland or like concept,
> As far as I understand it, túatha ranged from being sovereign,
> autonomous "kingdoms" to states comprising a much largersovereign
> kingdom, such as Connacht or Ulaid. The meaning seems to havevaried at
> different stages of Irish history; but I leave it our Irishmembers to
> The Roman _civitates_ were not sovereign, autonomous"kingdoms" to
> larger states. They did not have kings, but were governed byan elected
> city council & magistrates; they had some local autonomy,subject to
> overall Roman law. The were analogous to states in the US, thosmaller
> in size.
> Strictly speaking the Regni/Regnenses were not a civitasduring
> Cogidubnus' reign - they formed a nominally independentkingdom. But
> they had the same sort of "independent" government that VichyFrance had
> during WWII, while Germans occupied the northern part ofFrance.
> Cogidubnus, like a good client king everywhere, would leavehis kingdom
> to the Emperor & people of Rome, and the Regni then became aregular
> civitas with its administrative city of Noviomagus(Chichester).
> > much like the later Anglo-Saxon Burh
> > later known as a Borough, but more based on the idea ofdefense,
> > namely against the invading Danes?
> No - nothing defensive about them. Just political &administrative
> In later times, _ciuitas_ came to denote the capital city ofthe
> civitas, hence it came to mean just "city". Indeed, it is fromthe Latin
> _cuitate-_ that we derive the word 'city' through French cité,as is
> also the Italian _città_, Catalan _ciutat_, Spanish _ciudad_,Portuguese
> _cidade_, Romanian _cetate_.
> "A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
> interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760