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 Lucia Horatia Adamas » Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:01 am



C. Florio Lupo C. Curtio Philoni collegiariisque omnibus S.P.D. L. Horatia Adamas

Tully, being good at oratory, did not always use the same word for the same thing.

'Collegiarius' is listed in the OLD as being a masculine noun, defined as 'a fellow member of a collegium.' Citing CIL and apparently L'Année Epigraphique, it quotes COLEGIARIS DONAVERVNT. L&S list it as an adjective, but although I am not a thoroughly Modern Millie, I like to consider the results of modern research. The OLD is much newer than L&S, and should be consulted--and respected--when it differs from older lexica.

The spelling of words, and readings of manuscripts, often seems to reside in the hands of the editors. In a text of the BG from which I have taken examination passages for my students, I found 'quid sui consili' (genitive singular) in Book I, 21.

Those who wish are free to prefer much older dictionaries to the OLD, or to ignore the testimony of the grammarians, albeit at their peril, but spellings in texts may simply be a matter of editorial preference. If the MSS show one form or another, then we may make decisions. Otherwise we should follow the grammarians, and use a single i for the genitive singular of the second declension unless one is imitating post-Augustan usage. That is not necessarily archaic (if we wanted to go archaic, we could write the likes of 'Gnaivod' for the ablative of 'Gnaeus,' and 'oinos' for 'unus,' inter alia). Hmmm…'Oinos a Gnaivód laudarier debet…' Maybe the pontifices would like this, as the RR prayers seem to prefer the most archaic vocabulary possible.

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

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

Postby Publius Sextius Laevus » Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:06 am

Salvete Omnes

My Desktop OLD did not have 'collegarius', but Forcellini does. However, there are more text passage references for 'collega': http://linguax.com/lexica/forc.php?searchedLG=collegarius

And to proffer yet another version of III & X:

III. Omnes cives Romani volentes collegas fieri ei petitiones Collegio Philosophico faciendae sunt. [All Roman citizens wishing to become members shall make application to the Collegium Philosophicum.]

X. Liceto unicuique collegae collegium convocare nisi utri magistro displiceat.
[It shall be permitted to each and every member to summon the collegium unless this does not suit either magister.]

We can provide a link and directions for joining later.

Valete
Laevus
'Fiat Lux! Fiat Vita!'
User avatar
Publius Sextius Laevus
Senator
Senator
Consul
Consul
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:12 am

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

Postby Lucia Horatia Adamas » Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:59 am



L. Horatia Adamas P. Sextio Laevo omnibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.

I'm not surprised that the smaller OLD does not contain this word. My unabridged one does, however, and lists it as I noted. There is a sneaky little letter i there, which you did not copy (collegiarius), which I may also have missed in some earlier posts, but this word is not all that frequent anyway, so is not included in lexica other than those which are fully unabridged. Hapax legomena and other comparatively rare words live among us only in the realm of the 20 pound dictionary and their original MS or inscription. L&S was published in 1879, and the full OLD in 1982, so should be preferred in case of discrepancy with other lexica, especially with regard to the classical period, which it covers very thoroughly. L&S covers a longer expanse of time, but gives far fewer examples of ancient and other texts. I use both of them, but as Avitus said, the OLD is better.

Lupus will not like any further emendations, but item III needs some additional fixing, partly because passive verbs have their subjects in the nominative: "III. Omnes cives Romani volentes collegiarii Collegi Philosophici ascribi societatem ejus petere debent." There are other ways of doing this, grammatically speaking, but I found that 'ascribo' is a regular term for being enrolled in such a group, and members are called 'sodales' or 'socii.'

Yes, we can certainly provide a link later, and it would be nice if the magistri could ask the prospective member why he or she is interested in the group rather than merely approving anyone who appears on the doorstep.

Dixi.

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

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:57 am

I think we can agree that it is immensly more difficult to find examples for collegiarius than collega. I do not doubt the OLD, but the word was rare. Collegia on the lther hand were a common thing. So the word mostly used was "collega". This is why we should use it

Horatia, you might very well beright that Caesar wrote in his original script auxili and that it was changed to auxilii by an editor. But why was this done? Why do almost all modern editions have the -ii instead of the -i?
It is because of later standardization. It is for the same reasons, why punctuation was added and linebreaks, which were also not in Caesar's original manuscript. A student of Latin would habe problems to read classical Latin handwriting or a text without punctuation. The same is true for a single -i genitive. It is confusing and wluld by most readers be understood as a genitive of auxilum, a non-existing word. In the case of collegi, any modern reader would think that it is the perfect tense of the verb collego.
If modern editors do not use the single -i genitive, then neither should we and for the exact same reasons.

You are right that the approval mechanism of new members should be changed. Collegia need a control panel, not just a link for approval in an e-mail. I wrote this in another thread to the Consul. How collegia are currently managed is a mess. I hope it will be improved soon.
This is why it would be better not to specify the exact way, how new members are approved. This might change very soon anyway, and then we would have to rewrite the bylaws. The old version made the basics clear, but left the details open. This was much better.
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Africa Magna

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

Postby Publius Sextius Laevus » Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:48 pm

Salvete Omnes

Cicero's use of 'collega' appears to be for the two persons that hold the same office in the same year, co-office holder, not members of an institution, e.g. 'The Aediles'.

It is true that the instance of 'collegiarius' is as an inscription and the use of 'collega' is in many of the works from the Republic. Considering how few of these Classical Period Latin works there are (even compared to the Greek works of the same period) and that they all come to us through many copiers hands, it does not completely testify that 'collega' was used for members of an institution. The inscription does come to us directly, unedited, and it follows Latin word morphing conventions and is in context as 'members of' an institution.

In this case, it seems to me, an inscription in stone carries more wieght than the surviving edited texts. And besides, it 'sounds cooler man', in the phraseology of a bygone era.

See the lower right hand side of http://linguax.com/lexica/forc.php?searchedLG=collegiarius for other references to the use of 'collegiarius'.

Valete
P. Sextius Laevus
'Fiat Lux! Fiat Vita!'
User avatar
Publius Sextius Laevus
Senator
Senator
Consul
Consul
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:12 am

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:53 am

Sorry, I can only see the use as an adjective here.

If you look up the context of Cicero's speech, you will see that he referred to members of collegia and sodalitates, not collegues as magistrati.
The use of "colega" is essential for the concept of a collegium.
But this brings us back to the question I asked at the very beginning of this thread: Are we a collegium? Is the discussion not open to everyone? Should we not better call ourselves "Circulus Philosophicus" or "Sodalitas Philosophica" or something like that, since Horatia is right that we are no guild?
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Africa Magna

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

Postby Gaius Curtius Philo » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:39 pm

Might be a good idea actually. Or maybe even Academia, I don't know, a place where people learn, debate and teach philosophy.
"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 Publius Sextius Laevus » Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:11 pm

Salve Lupe

Could you please provide specific references to the speeches you mentioned?

In a way this subforum is just a corner of the main forum, a place to have discussions on philosophy away from the general conversations. If this is all it is to be, then specific bylaws or moderators for the subforum are not needed. Anyone can respond to a thread or start their own. Anyone can take the lead, inspire and gather a following. The ambience of the forum set by those who post frequently.

The proposed bylaws state "Let the motive and purpose of this Collegium be that it provide a place for discussing philosophical questions and an institution for teaching about the schools of Plato, Epicurus, and the Stoic system."

The bylaws are ment to provide a foundation upon which to build this institution. The above stated purpose is that which we want to accomplish. After the bylaws are settled we will need to form a plan to build this institution so we don't have to continue to 'live in the basement'.

The Collegium Latinum proposed purpose is to guide & arbitrate the use of Latin in the Republic, such as the discussion on the use of 'collegiarus' vs. 'collega' in the Collegium Philosophicum bylaws. The development of these two bylaws has been an example of that Collegium Latinum purpose in action.

Vale
P. Sextius Laevus
'Fiat Lux! Fiat Vita!'
User avatar
Publius Sextius Laevus
Senator
Senator
Consul
Consul
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:12 am

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

Postby Lucia Horatia Adamas » Sun Jun 11, 2017 6:58 am

L. Horatia Adamas C. Florio Lupo P. Sextio Lævo C. Curtio Philoni omnibusque bonæ voluntatis S.P.D.

Forcellini does seem to list 'collegiarius' solely as an adjective, as do L&S. However, the more modern OLD, which has the advantage of more recent discoveries and newer interpretations of older ones, lists this word as a masculine noun. Smith's Smaller notes that 'to become a member' is 'sodalis seu socius ascribi,' so I have no problem using either sodalis or socius for a member of this or any similar group. However, 'collegiarius' is somewhat more precise, and Smith further observes that 'socius' usually refers to a member of a learnèd society. Too, as a late word, the double-i genitive may well be the appropriate one for 'collegiarius'--but no, Lupe, no Latinist will confuse the single -i form with the passive infinitive or much of anything else. Give them credit for understanding the language and its permutations.

It seems that the ability to post and membership per se must be distinguished; perhaps we should specify that all cives may post. We already state that only members can vote. Too, there are some nail-on-the-blackboard errors in the text; these should be fixed. There should be 'magistri,' not 'magisters.' (Oh, my ears! Ouch!!!)

Personally I don't care if this group wants to style itself an academy or a collegium or a circulus, though so far as I am aware, 'circuli' are groups of people who meet over lunch or dinner to chat in Latin. In this RP, SIGs are termed 'collegia,' so that seems more appropriate, however. What is clear to me is that 'collega' is not the only, or even the normal, term for a member of a collegium, and that Romans, somewhat like Anglicéloquentes, like to vary their vocabulary now and again. The OLD even states that 'socius' is 'associated in a collegium or sim.'

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

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:20 am

So why not chamging our status from collegium to societas, if this describes better what we are? Then "socius" for a member is okay.

There is no "magisters" in the Latin text. What other errors are supposed to be there?

Especially in this "collegium" we have to argue evidence-based. Logic is central for philosophy. I see no evidence in the OLD mentioning "collegiarius" as a noun in some newer editions. It was never the question whether or not the word existed. The question was, whether ot not it was the normal, the common, the official word to members of tje collegia.
Evidence for its widespread use was not provided, but there was evidence shown that "collega" was used by a well-known classical author. And this addresses the actual question. Was it the normal word for members of the collegia?
The use of rare words was a trademark of Renaissance Latin to show off one's own knowledge rather than to to be easily understood. We should not give in to this temptation and use instead standard Latin with standard vocabulary (and declensions) as it is taught in schools.
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Africa Magna

PreviousNext

Return to Collegium Philosophicum

cron