#the addition of physical abuse in relation to roman is... well. personal
Text
The Volturi Princess - A Felix Volturi x fem!Reader Story (part 1)
A/N: This is the first Volturi- and Twilight-related story I ever started writing and it is quite long and elaborated/complex, as I tend to overanalyze in many parts. I have wrote a few parts until now and I'll be uploading them in the future. I have been quite emotional throughout writing it, trying to understand the reader's point of view.
A/N 2: I'm sorry if something doesn't make sense. English is not my first language. I also include Italian through the story, with translation, but I'm not a native or a speaker, so I'd like to apologize in advance to those who speak Italian. Enjoy :)
A/N 3: According to "The Amagi" on Youtube, Felix was born in 250 BC (their thumbnail), so I used that in my story.
No of Words: about 5347
Mentions of: Abandonment, Abortion, Anxiety, Blood, Bruises, Coma/Comatosed State, Death Emotional Abuse, Emotional and Physical Pain, Gaslighting, Greece/Greek Language - with translation, Heartbreak, Italian Language - with translation, Manipulation, Murder, Pain, Panic Attacks, Pregnancy, Suffering, Suicide/Suicidal Thoughts, Swear Language, Throwing Up/Puking, Witches/Wizards/Witchcraft
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
My heart felt heavy. I may have just escaped the cruelest vampire of all, but I also ran away from the love of my life, my mate, the only person who could fully understand me in this world. I asked him to run away with me, but, although our bond was strong, he felt obliged to stay loyal to his master, his creator. I drove as fast as I could, away from the sunny Volterra, and away from him.
-------------------------------------------------------
(Y/N) grew up quite privileged, in Vampire terms. Being born into the Volturi coven was something many vampires could only dream about. (Y/N) was abandoned by her parents when she was a baby, but Aro, one of the three Volturi leaders, took her under his protection, and offered her more things than she could ever have imagined. After all, she was his only biological granddaughter, the “Volturi princess”, an heiress to the throne; her mother lost that “privilege” when she met and fell in love with a wizard.
(Y/N)’s mother soon got pregnant with her, and then later turned her husband into a vampire to help her with her pregnancy, and stay together forever. However, (Y/N)’s parents couldn’t raise her because they wanted to run free and careless, not commit to anything permanent, so Aro took over and raised his granddaughter with the highest honors and privileges, “as a princess should be raised”.
(Y/N) was a mix of Vampire, Witch and Human, due to the grandmother, Sulpicia, being human when Aro found her; Sulpicia later fell pregnant with (Y/N)’s mother, and Aro transformed her to vampire, as he had planned all along. Aro raised (Y/N) according to his own rules and morals, teaching her how to kill humans to feed from, how to attack and slip away from her opponents, how to lead other vampires, and most importantly, how to keep her identity and existence a secret, not only to humans, but other non-Volturi vampires as well. No one could know that there was a possibility of a vampire having a child with a human, and that the child could be effectively controlled and raised as a regular vampire.
As (Y/N) grew older and older, reaching the human age of 25 within 7 years of her birth, Aro would spend more and more time with her, examining and studying her possibilities and her potential powers’ development. (Y/N) grew up to be extremely strong and fast, an excellent tracker with great intelligence and understanding of the world around her. However, Aro could not risk sending her to “Volturi duties”. She was his hope for a stronger coven; with (Y/N) in the throne, Aro felt like he could conquer the vampire world with ease.
That’s why he was always searching for the best guards he could find, to protect the coven and do his work instead of himself, Caius, or (Y/N). He couldn’t rely on Marcus, as he proved to be too emotional since Didyme died, but was still valuable for his plan. Caius, on the other hand, although powerless, was far more sadistic and “diligent” in following vampire rules, and (Y/N)... (Y/N) was just too obedient, following every order Aro gave her - a strong asset for the Volturi.
Aro was changing guards and trackers quite easily, disposing them when they were no longer needed or when he found better ones. He needed talented and strong vampires to serve the coven and do their work.
Chelsea was the very first vampire Aro created solely to serve the Volturi, after recognizing her potential when she was human. Chelsea’s gift of relationship manipulation was truly useful in bringing new vampires into the coven and was used thousands of times during Volturi's reign. It could also easily dispose of them, making their bonds with other vampires break at will; those vampires were isolated by the other vampires and then killed - Aro couldn’t risk letting them get away knowing the Volturi’s secrets and life.
About 100 years later, Corin joined the Volturi, just a couple decades after (Y/N)’s birth. Corin’s gift of addictive contentment was the one which kept Marcus in the Volturi after Didyme’s death - along with Chelsea’s to make him committed to Aro’s greater plans, and was also used on Sulpicia, Athenadora and any other vampire in the Volturi guard to keep them satisfied being in the Volturi. Under Aro’s instructions, Corin was keeping Chelsea content with being in the Volturi, and Chelsea was keeping Corin loyal to them, each of them using their gifts against each other, without their knowledge.
Sometime between 230 and 220 BC, while travelling in Rome, searching for additional vampires to add to the coven, Aro supposedly met a young, strong and ambitious fighter, who wished to become a gladiator one day, named Felix. Felix did not only look, but also was physically capable of fighting even with beasts, during his short time as a fighter, way before the Colosseum was built. Born into a poor family, his strength was his only way of making money, and becoming a gladiator was his only way out of poverty, a way to provide for both his family and himself.
When his family was almost imprisoned by Roman army officers for outstanding debts, Felix was forced to make a deal with them to fight, in whatever they ordered him to. Fighting turned out to be the only way for Felix to deal with his emotions and rage towards people in power. When Aro approached Felix, he was promised a good life, where he wouldn’t have to worry about surviving another day. Felix did not seem willing enough, not being fond of the idea of serving people in power, who he so despised.
Luckily for Aro, Chelsea was the one who “convinced” Felix to join the Volturi guard, with Aro changing him afterwards. Unlike previous guards, Felix showed impeccable strength, speed and talent towards both dodging and initiating attacks, eventually making him a permanent member in the Volturi Guard, along with Chelsea and Corin.
Felix was assigned as the leading guard for the three kings’ protection, this role extending to the protection of their two wives and (Y/N); though Aro knew that, if it came to anyone attacking his granddaughter, she would be able to handle it by herself. However, he still wanted to make sure that she was safe and that Aro would do anything to protect her.
For about a couple millennias, (Y/N) was content with her situation, being the “Volturi princess” and all that. Besides, having Felix in the Volturi was another reason to stay in the coven, apart from staying loyal and true to Aro for taking her in, when she was abandoned.
Every time Felix looked into her eyes, she felt her whole body burn - though, it wasn’t a feeling of suffering, rather a feeling of longing, waiting for something to happen so badly that her body couldn’t control itself. Although she was partially a vampire, (Y/N) would feel like she couldn’t breathe, like her legs were ready to give up on her, like she wanted to grab Felix and never let go.
Felix, although not admitting it even to himself, would feel the same way, but he knew that his position would not allow him to approach (Y/N) in such a way. He was just a guard - although he was the strongest of them all, and she was the Volturi princess, one of his masters, whom he was only allowed to approach in order to protect. He didn’t want Aro to know he saw his granddaughter like that; it could cost him his position in the guard, or even his life. So, he kept these feelings deep within him, not allowing them to resurface, or act upon them.
However, every time these two existed at the same place, the invisible sparks between them would fly left and right. And only one vampire was able to see them. One who hadn’t felt these sparks in centuries.
--------------------------------------------------------
(Y/N)’s POV:
I yawned loudly as I woke from a long, much needed sleep. I was the only vampire around who was able to sleep, mostly due to my non-vampire natures. I didn't really need to sleep on a regular basis, but when I did, I could literally sleep 3 days straight and nobody would be able to wake me up. “For my own protection”, as Aro said, I would always have at least two guards outside of my room’s door, in case anything happened while I was sleeping. Like what could even happen? My room was at the furthest side of this huge castle. I’m pretty sure that if there ever was an attack against the Volturi, it would most probably have been dealt with immediately, and the attacker wouldn’t make it anywhere near my room.
I felt the warm sun on my skin, slightly glowing and sparkling beautifully. My eyes, mostly (Y/E/C) with a golden ring around the pupil, could easily adjust to the light. Unlike the other vampires, I could easily live among humans; I could sleep, eat human food, my skin not being as sparkly as others, and I could control my thirst far better than others.
Since Jane and Alec joined the coven, Aro would show an immense interest in them and their skills, helping them train daily and develop their powers further, eventually forgetting about me. I would spend more and more days away from the castle, “protected” by my anonymity, getting to know humans more and more. The longer I was observing them, the more they would trigger my interest in them. They could feel true emotions, real pain, real hurt, real love. They had their families, they received an unconditional love that I could never have.
Unbeknownst to Aro or anyone else for that matter, I have started developing new powers, similar to the other vampires in the Volturi coven or anyone else outside of it. I have also started noticing that I may have an immunity towards others’ talents, feeling that neither Corin’s addictive contentment made me satisfied with being in the Volturi, nor Chelsea’s relationship manipulation could keep me loyal to Aro anymore. If it weren’t for Felix, or Demetri and the Twins, who have all become my best friends by now, I would have probably left.
A vampire named Carlisle Cullen had visited the Volturi and stayed with us for a while, about 100 years ago. He saw the way the Volturi treated humans like they were nothing, and how they were as cruel as to kill other vampires, with the excuse that they were exposing our kind with the way they lived. Entire covens had been wiped out due to such excuses, a way to eliminate potential enemies from becoming too powerful and find as many talented vampires as possible and force them to join the Volturi.
Carlisle was talking about a new way of life, where vampires wouldn’t have to kill humans to survive, a life where vampires and humans could live in peace, without harming each other. He was insisting that vampires could survive on animal blood just as efficiently as with human blood; that animal blood would not make them weaker, and that it would be a much more ethical and sustainable way to feed.
Of course, Aro and Caius were the first ones to mock his proposition, clearly not caring about humans’ feelings and pain. Marcus did not budge at all, his heartache making him indifferent to anything around him. But I was growing more and more interested in this alternative way of life; I was, after all, feeding on human food already, so that I was feeding on human blood as little as I could.
It was a few years after Carlisle left Volterra that Eleazar joined the Volturi. Aro forced him to join after finding out he could detect if someone had any special ability. Aro considered his gift useful in identifying if any of his enemies had any special power when in battles, or when he sent Eleazar around the world to recruit talented vampires.
Eleazar was clearly not liking the way the Volturi forced their ways and wants on others, and how they could take advantage of others for their own benefit. I could just sense that he was displeased and was forcing himself to stay in the coven, one, due to Corin’s and Chelsea’s gifts, and two, out of fear of what could happen to him and his mate, Carmen.
Carmen, a vampire from Spain, like Eleazar, met with Eleazar while he was a guard here, they fell in love, and eventually, Eleazar decided to leave the Volturi and run away with Carmen. Aro decided that he did not care about him and his gift as much as others’, so he let him go unharmed, “blessing” them for safe travels.
Just a few days before he left, I consulted him on my own powers. Though a lower member of the guard, Eleazar had his own room, a decent place to stay, and spend his endless hours in. I knocked slightly on the door.
“Come in”, a calm voice was heard. I opened the door and came into his room. Carmen was sitting on the edge of their bed and Eleazar was reading a book on his desk. They both smiled sweetly. I just felt and knew they were too nice to fit anywhere in here, among the cruel and strict Volturi.
“(Y/N)! So nice to see you!”Carmen exclaimed and stood to hug me. The second we hugged I started seeing parts of her life in Spain, the calm waters of Catalunya, the vast vineyards where she would spend the early years of her life… I quickly detached myself from her embrace. I just couldn’t invade her privacy like that. She and Eleazar both looked at me worried, as if I had offended them.
“I’m sorry. I just can’t let you “show” me your whole life like that!” I looked at Carmen apologetically.
“(Y/N), you saw Carmen’s life?” Eleazar continued, intrigued by my words.
“That’s why I came to talk to you. I..I feel like I’ve been developing a gift, or a few gifts, to be completely honest. And I feel like.. like I have a specific power one day, and another power the next!” I stated frantically.
It was the first time I have openly talked about my powers to anyone, and I was shaking just by the words that came out of my mouth. Eleazar did not say anything, he just stood there for a few minutes, I supposed “examining” me, as if a doctor checking on a patient.
“Remarkable.” He said calmly. He looked at his mate with excitement, as if he just discovered a lost treasure. “(Y/N) has one of the most remarkable gifts I have ever seen.” He then turned to me. “You, (Y/N), are able to copy anyone else’s gifts and keep them as your own. You don’t even have to be in contact with them. Just by meeting someone, you can obtain their powers. I have never met anyone like that. You also seem to have obtained immunity to others’ powers, kind of like a shield. I have met such vampires before. From the stories Aro has been telling, your mother was like that. It is likely that you copied that gift for her. Such vampires are extremely useful to themselves or even others, in battles. Like themselves, you can use your gift to protect others from others’ powers, beside yourself.”
That came too sudden to my ears. I have assumed that I may have at least one power, but I didn’t realise I could copy others’ powers. That is why I was showing signs of Aro’s power!
“How can I train my powers? Eleazar! Carmen! You have to help me!”
“As you know, we will be leaving soon. I don’t know if there will be enough time to train you.”
“It’s okay. We will train as much as you want. Please, Eleazar! Please, Carmen!” I started begging them. As if they were hypnotized, they quickly looked at each other and agreed to help me.
The next few days, before Eleazar and Carmen’s departure, included intense training, far away from Volterra, deep in the woods, where no human could interrupt us. I couldn’t say the same for vampires, but I hoped nobody would cross paths with us. Eleazar and Carmen helped me develop my self-control and self-awareness, concentrating through the deepest parts of my mind, resurfacing my shield and expanding it beyond my existence. I started to have control over it, as if it was an actual solid substance, a veil floating around me towards any direction I ordered it to go.
After Eleazar and Carmen left, I started travelling the world more, trying to copy as many powers as I could come across with, while also training my shield. My excitement for the endless possibilities was what kept me going - kind of when Aro would add another talented vampire to his Guard. His Guard. Felix. I wonder how he was. I hadn’t seen him in a while. I wondered if he thought of me like I thought of him.
After travelling pretty much anywhere I could reach, I eventually went back to where it all started: I went to Greece. Aro met Sulpicia here, apparently my mom met my dad here. Maybe I could find out, understand why they left me. I have never met them, but I felt as if my tracking skills could detect them through my own existence.
I started travelling through the country, hoping that they stayed here or, at least, that they’re alive. I spent about 2 or 3 years in Greece, trying to take in every different place, while also avoiding the battles that seemed to take place in every other corner. I was feeding off animals mainly, mostly when I couldn’t find any other human food. I was washing myself in rivers, streams, whatever I could find.
I was stopping by any village that seemed to be still standing, asking about the current situation. The Greek Revolution, which started a few years ago, seemed to still be going on. The Ottomans, who had been occupying Greece for almost 400 years, could not allow Greeks to turn against them and start claiming their rights within the Ottoman Empire.
Many Greeks I met and talked to, admitted that some of the Ottomans were actually being nice to them; it was only the Ottoman government ordering their armies to execute massive massacres against Greeks, and after all this time, a few Greeks started gathering up and planning a revolution, away from Greece, in fear of being caught. They started getting organized and finding possible allies to help them with the Revolution; they just couldn’t risk getting caught within the country that they were hoping the independent Greece could become. The battles were becoming more and more intense, both on the mainland, as well as on the islands.
I started looking for answers, anything that could suggest that my parents were still alive and somewhere in Greece. To my surprise, I crossed paths with many Greek nomad vampires all over the country. They were also fighting against either Ottoman vampires or each other for territorial claims; however, they all talked me out of travelling north, towards Macedonia. The region had started being reclaimed back by Greek humans, but vampires were also seeing the potential for the area and they fought against each other for the land.
All of the nomads I encountered were talking about some of the most vicious vampires claiming the land, their enemies being literally slaughtered and burned to set an example for other vampires to back off their territory. I was intrigued, and I knew that, most probably, I would be able to deal with them or flee before they got to me.
So, I started travelling north, through the woods and mountains, in order to avoid any possible battle between humans, though many of them seemed to hide in the mountains, preparing for their battles. Macedonia was a quite big and vast region, so I had to travel quite a few days and search every possible corner.
I know I shouldn’t have done this, but I was feeling exhausted from all the searching. I haven’t fed in quite some time, and my throat was burning by the familiar need for blood. I haven’t seen any animals all these days, and I was wondering if they were gone or hiding.
Sadly, I came across a human. He seemed to be wounded, probably during a battle, his blood gushing out of his body. I couldn’t help myself, when I breathed in the smell, the burning sensation becoming unbearable. I thought of approaching him slowly, so as not to scare him, offering to help him, but deep down I just wanted to feed off of him.
“Γειά! Συγνώμη αν σε τρόμαξα. Σε είδα από μακριά. Μπορώ να σε βοηθήσω με κάποιο τρόπο; (Hey! Sorry if I scared you. I saw you from afar. Can I help you in any way?)” I offered calmly.
The man was trying to suppress his growls. I could sense his pain. I tried to help him stand on his feet, and then I saw all of his memories. He was in the army, fighting alongside Greeks against the Ottomans, in Macedonia, just outside of Thessaloniki. I didn’t even know I was so close to a city, let alone Thessaloniki.
He was trying to pass through the woods, when he came across what seemed to be two red-eyed vampires, one male and one female. They tried to attack him, but someone else managed to shoot him first, forcing the two vampires to run away. I don’t know how or why, these two felt familiar to me, I could feel that through his memories.
“Γειά! Μπορείς.. Μπορείς να πας στο κοντινότερο χωριό; Νομίζω.. Νομίζω ότι είδα κάτι στο δάσος, δε νομίζω ότι ήταν κάτι φυσιολογικό! Πρέπει.. Πρέπει να προειδοποιήσω τους άλλους! (Hey! Can.. Can you get me to the nearest village? I think.. I think I saw something in the woods, I don’t think it was something normal! I have.. I have to warn the others!)” He mumbled in between sharp shoots of pain.
“Με συγχωρείς πολύ! (I’m really sorry!)” I plead with guilty eyes. I put my hand in his wound, searching for the bullet, while he was consumed by pain. I took the bullet out of the wound, and quickly attached my lips on his skin, sucking the blood as fast as I could, biting deeply unintentionally. His screams were becoming louder and louder, so I covered his mouth with my hand, while trying to shut him up or break his jaw. A few seconds later, he stopped screaming, and I let his lifeless body fall, completely numb and drained out of blood.
I felt renewed, his blood travelling to every part of my body and giving me a new kind of strength that I haven’t felt in a while. I still felt guilty for killing him, but he was already wounded and I couldn’t risk him exposing our kind to others. I assumed that whoever found him - if anyone found him - would also assume that he died of blood loss, so I tried to position him in a realistic pose for that purpose, as best as I could. I left him there, and continued the search for my parents.
--------------------------------------------------------
I was running through the woods, trying to locate the two vampires from the guy’s memories. My mind was chaotic, I wasn’t thinking about something specific. I stopped in my tracks. What Aro taught me, and what I understood from Demetri’s tracking skills, is that you have to stop, take a breath and realize your position in the world. Then, you would be able to realize everything around you and find your targets. I have successfully found other vampires like that before, vampires who I have either met in person or smelled their scent, but I didn’t know if I could find someone through someone else’s memories of them.
I took a deep breath and tried to concentrate as best as I could, focusing on the smaller details of the guy’s memories of these vampires. I felt two vampires running on my west, about 10 kilometers away, and I ran after them. They were running fast, but I was way faster. Within a minute or two, I was running right behind their tracks. They must have realized that a stranger was following them, but, instead of running, they suddenly stopped. I stopped as well, and we were now facing each other.
The female had long, brunette, curly hair, and the male short, dark brown, straight hair; both of their hair looked shiny, healthy, and rich. They were of average height and their eyes were piercing red, as if they also fed quite recently. The female was exceptionally beautiful and enchanting; I could only compare her to Heidi’s exceptional beauty. The male looked quite stoic and austere, though still beautiful.
Both of them on defensive positions, waiting for me to attack. I wasn’t planning to move any further from my position; I was only waiting for their own reactions. I felt that kind of a burning sensation within me again, like a feeling buried deep inside me, trying to find an escape.
Suddenly, the male growled at me, flames springing out of his hands, and being thrown at me. I felt my heart fall out of my chest, fearing that this would be my end. As if my body reacted on its own, I felt my own shield extending out of my body, building a wall around me and protecting me from the male’s attack. My hands started burning and flames came out, ready to counterattack the male. The male looked at the female, dumbfounded by what he witnessed, still in a defensive position, but ready to attack again.
“I’M NOT HERE TO FIGHT YOU!” I shouted at both of them. “I’M JUST SEARCHING FOR SOMEONE!”
The male shrinked back, the female following close by. “Who are you looking for? We haven’t seen you around. Who are you? Why are you here?” The male requested. His voice serious, but smooth at the same time; a voice I could only describe as the warm earth below their bare feet.
“No, I’m not. I come from Italy, though I think I was born around here. My name is (Y/N), I’m looking for my parents. I don’t quite remember what they look like, but I’m pretty sure that they lived around here. They abandoned me when I was a baby.”
“This has been our territory for almost 3 millennials! We would have known if any humans abandoned their offspring around here!” The female exclaimed, as if she didn’t believe a word I said. I didn’t want to tell them the whole story, but I had to show them that I didn’t mean to fight in any way.
“I never said they were humans. My mother was actually sort of a vampire, like you.”
The female started letting her guards down. “What do you mean sort of? I’ve never heard of a “sort of vampire” before!” She continued doubtfully.
“Believe me or don’t, my mother was born half vampire, half human. My dad wasn’t even a vampire before she met him. He wasn’t even human to be honest.” My eyes started stinging slightly. I could have had a good, happy life if they didn’t abandon me. I wouldn’t have to grow up with Aro.
“You said you were from Italy.” I nodded at the male, as he continued. “You never said where exactly.”
I wasn’t sure if I should tell them my real origin; I wouldn’t like them to know I was a Volturi, but I knew I needed help to find my parents. If they were actually here as long as they say, they might have known or met my parents at some point.
“Volterra. I was born here, in Greece, like my mother, but grew up in Volterra with my grandparents.” I looked down, kind of scared, kind of anxious, waiting for their next move.
The female gasped. “Are you a Volturi?!” I looked at her, straight in the eyes, swallowed, and nodded. “I know the Volturi. Who are your grandparents?”
“Aro and Sulpicia.” I answered so quietly that, if they weren’t vampires, they wouldn’t have heard me, my voice trembling slightly.
The female suddenly fell on her knees, the male wrapping his arms around her, comforting her. I didn’t know what was going on. Did I say something wrong? Were they scared? The sheer mention of the Volturi would scare a lot of vampires, but I thought that maybe these two seemed strong enough to deal with them.
The female started sobbing, no tears coming out of her red eyes, her body shaking. I felt something within me break. I felt that I didn’t want to upset them, that’s why I was hesitant in telling them who I really was. The male looked at me, pain in his eyes. I saw a familiar look. I saw me in his eyes, what I looked at in my mirror anytime I was thinking about my parents, or, sometimes, when I thought of Felix.
“Are you a half witch?” The male asked quietly. Something snapped in me. How would he know that?
“I swear, I didn’t do anything to your mate! I DIDN’T!” I shouted at the male. I didn’t want him to think that I would hurt his mate, or himself.
“I know you wouldn’t. It’s just..” He looked at his mate who had stopped sobbing, but was still down on her knees, unable to stand up. “..my mate is Aro and Sulpicia Volturi’s only daughter.”
My body tensed and shivered. If that woman is the only daughter Aro and Sulpicia ever had...could that mean..?
I took a few steps back. “AM I YOUR DAUGHTER? ARE YOU MY PARENTS?” I looked at them in disbelief.
Those were the people who abandoned me! That let me grow parentless, under Aro’s rules and directions! I was breathing heavily, in between sobs. I didn’t even realize that I set my whole body ablaze, until both vampires looked at me shocked. I didn’t feel any pain, but I couldn’t stop the flames licking my body, and in my frantic state, I started panicking even more.
The male started approaching me slowly, trying to not scare me away. “Shush, shush. You’re okay. You’re doing okay. I know how it feels at first. You’re experiencing some aspects of the life as a witch. It’s okay. Close your eyes and picture the flames in your head.” I closed my eyes and tried concentrating on the flames. “Now, imagine them burning out, becoming smaller and weaker.” I focused on the flames, imagining them weakening. After a few minutes, I felt them getting smaller and smaller, and finally disappearing. I opened my eyes slowly.
The female was standing next to the male, watching me carefully. In a quick motion, she pulled me and embraced me, stroking my hair lightly. I breathed in her scent, a mix of mountain flowers and the saltiness of the sea. Her touch was soft, and filled me up with what felt like a thousand different emotions.
But, I mostly felt safe. It was the first time in my life that I actually felt this safe. And whole. I felt like I actually belonged somewhere. I hugged her back. Tears started spilling from my eyes. That was my mom! That was actually my mom! After all this time, we were finally together. I felt the male, my dad, hugging both of us, and in that moment, I felt my legs giving up on me, and I finally fell into a long sleep.
#felix volturi#felix volturi imagine#felix volturi x reader#volturi#twilight#twilight renessaince#twilight post#demetri volturi#alec volturi#jane volturi#the cullens#the denali coven
206 notes
·
View notes
Text
Kane's Court Analysis #1 - Phule
Author’s Note: I don’t know if I’ll make this a full series or not, but I really just thought that the Armada court, and Phule by that extension, was interesting, especially read from a historical and psychological standpoint. Yes, I'm a nerd.
Word Count: 4,205
Tw: Mentions of Mental Illness
Kane’s Court Analysis - Phule
I. Introduction
A lot can be said about Kane’s court and the machines he built to achieve his grandiose ideas of a perfect world, but more can be said about the cogs in his system. Phule is a broken cog — one that stepped out of line, helped us, and saved the day. He’s someone to be cautious of, love, or fear. There's a certain complexity about him that, when put into perspective, adds a fresh layer to Phule.
II. Behind the Design
When talking about a character in any game, film, or media space, it’s important to tackle the significance of their design. Oftentimes, a person can tell a lot about someone from their looks, which is especially true for the Armada Elites. Phule, for example, is obviously based on a court jester, but it’s not all jokes and laughs.
The Meaning Of The Mask
When talking about Phule’s appearance — or any of the Armada Elite’s — it’s important to understand that they’re mainly based on the Venetian Carnival, the Commedia dell’Arte, and Greek theatre (with hints of Roman influence). Phule’s mask is based on four different masks: The Joker Mask, Comedy & Tragedy, the Pantalone Mask, and the Arlecchino Mask.
The most straight-forward element about Phule is the Jester Mask, seeing as he is a jester. Simply put, "The Joker or Jolly Venetian Masks depict the role of the Jester in the Italian Middle Ages...The Jesters... wore brightly colored clothing in a motley pattern and they were known for their incessant laughter" (Venetian Mask Company). The Jester Mask represents someone who is colorful and entertaining to his audience. It's a universally known mask meant to be taken at face value, just like Phule, until one looks at the other key components of his mask.
When looking at Phule, one sees the famous Comedy & Tragedy Mask associated with theatre and the extremes between euphoria and sorrow. But what most don't know is that the mask has a long, rich history associated with emotions and the human psyche. According to The Greek Designers, "The Comedy mask is known as Thalia, who in Greek mythology is the Muse of Comedy and Idyllic Poetry, portrayed as a happy, cheerful young woman crowned with ivy" (The Greek Designers). The Tragedy mask, in turn, is known as Melpomene, the Muse of Tragedy, who's depicted with the mask in one hand and a knife or club in the other.
The historical significance fails to stop there. "People often relate the masks to Dionysus originally. Dionysus is the Greek God of wine. The masks depict the happy and sad emotions that drinking wine can bring. They have also been linked to the Greek God Janus which is known as the two-faced god of beginnings. It is said Janus lent the name to the masks" (OnStage Blog). This detail is important, because Dionysus and Janus are both significant Gods. Commonly known as the God of wine and ecstasy, Dionysus was the God of madness. And as the God of madness, he was often a symbol of liberation and rebellion for the lower class and marginalized of Greek society — namely slaves. Then, there’s Janus, known as the two-faced Roman God, representing the transition between war and peace, and beginnings and endings.
In addition to this two-faced mask, Phule's mask has hints of the Pantalone Mask. The Pantalone Mask's features include: an exaggerated nose, cheekbones, eyebrows, and a mustache. The Pantalone Mask is the best-known Venetian Masks. It arose from the La Commedia dell’ Arte character, Pantalone, who was one of the most powerful characters. But, the mask itself was created before the Commedia dell’Arte theatre began to use it.
The character of Pantalone is described as “An old Venetian merchant, often very rich and highly esteemed by the nobility, Pantalone is originally known simply by his formal title, Magnifico. A self-made man, he has reached his wealth with ruthless tactics and keeps his money close to him" (The Venetian Mask). He is rich, greedy, lustful, and naïve. Pantalone is, “gullible enough for being taken advantage of from his “servant lovers” or male subordinates: servants, doctors, captains, whoever can get money out of him" (Roberto Delpiano).” His lust also leads to him being rejected by the women he pursues, making him an enemy of the youth.
Applying the Pantalone Mask to Phule, it’s easy to see why he and the Pirate — for the majority of the game — were enemies seeing as Pantalone is a natural enemy to the young. However, it also implies that he was taken advantage of by those around him and was a laughing stock. And, of course, his willingness to save himself and betray his father to save himself is 'selfish' in nature — more on that later.
The last mask, of course, is the Arlecchino Mask (which also inspires Phule's general get-up). More commonly known as the Harlequin Mask, the wearer serves a similar purpose to the Jester, which evolved over time. According to one article:
"As one of the lower ranking, lazier, and stupider servants, he [Arlecchino] is often abused by being yelled at or beaten (with slapstick stage combat) by his masters and others or never paid his wages. Yet he does have a certain luck and can be clever enough to grab hold of any seemingly fortunate situation that happens upon him. He might not think up a plan on his own but he can come up with some amazingly complicated and absurd explanations and rationalizations. Later period harlequins were more prone to become clever tricksters and rascally tramps while still often being foolish or stupid" (Commedia Dell'Arte).
On top of being a tragic figure for the entertainment of others, Arlecchino is said to have demonic origins. “One of the demons in the XXIst, XXIInd and XXIIIrd cantos of Dante’s Inferno is, indeed, called Alichino. The name itself seems to be related to the Old French word for “ghost”, i.e. hellequin, which, in turn, comes from the Germanic root for “hell”. Starting from Dante’s Inferno, this demon would therefore develop into a comic character" (CA’ MACANA). In a way, this gives one some insight into Phule not being a monster, but a tormented soul.
What It Means To Be A Court Jester
One can’t analyze Phule without talking about what he is — a court jester. But his role is no laughing matter. In fact, in a historical context, Kingisle did a decent job in portraying him.
To understand fools, it’s important to understand the three different types of fools: the innocent fool (or natural fool), the amateur fool, and the professional jester (or licensed fool). A natural fool was someone with physical or mental deformities that made it hard for them to receive employment as anything else. Typically, “wealthy or noble families also adopted men and women who had mental illnesses or physical deformities, keeping them almost as pets for their amusement or as an act of ‘Christian charity’”(History extra).
A licensed fool, on the other hand, could best be described as someone hired for their wits and talents, normally wearing regular clothes. Lastly, there were Amatuer fools — they usually wore the jester costume we’re associated with. In any case, “..those with physical deformities, such as extreme hunchback, malformed limbs, particularly ugly visages, etc. were prized, as were dwarves…” (TodayIFoundOut). Taking this into account, and the brazen nature of Valencia, it’s apparent Phule served as both a natural fool and a licensed fool, possibly serving as entertainment for King Casimir. But seeing as court jesters had duties other than entertainment, Phule served Kane very differently.
Although we didn’t see the entertainment-based responsibilities of Phule, we, as players, did see part of his militaristic responsibilities. That’s right — court jesters served important roles to their lord during times of war. In fact, they were political advisors. “Because they had no real fear of reprisal, jesters were able to speak their mind and offer advice when others may have feared to give it” (WeirdHistory). Kings and Queens would often go to them for advice on political matters and choices they’d made. On top of that, Court Jesters were expected to be the bearers of bad news for their lords, having to utilize their wit and comedy to tactfully deliver unsavory messages.
In addition to delivering messages to their lords, jesters would also deliver messages to their enemies during times of war. They were theoretically protected, but there were some that would shoot the messenger — from imprisonment to execution. In addition to their messenger duties, jesters would entertain the King’s troops during times of war to raise their morale.
On top of that, they were also masters of mental warfare as well. Some jesters would ride on the front lines, spewing insults at the enemy. They rode in front of troops to make sure the opponent could hear them. And while this may seem ridiculous, "...the idea was for the jester to provoke those enemies who had explosive tempers into breaking ranks and charging prematurely" (Weird History).
Phule did his job, and did it well, despite his apparent shortcomings. He got under our Pirate’s skin by claiming that he could hear our heartbeat, and lead his own squadron of soldiers. He’s just as threatening when we next see him captured in Fort Elena, albeit much friendlier. And of course, he still manages to affect the Pirate, though he has little time on screen, by causing us a few inconveniences.
He may not have been Spymaster, but he was effective in implanting fear and paranoia in his enemies. Take, for example, the Villa Trigante instance in which the Pirate is — presumably —betrayed and sent to the cellars by Don Giovanni. One of the resistance fighters we face, Beniccio Amati, is quick to say: "You're persistent. I'd expect no less... From Phule's spies…” (P101). And although we aren’t one of Phule’s spies, it makes one wonder: Just how many times has this happened?
In addition to his competence, we can presume Phule is powerful. He’s clearly akin to a Witchdoctor, but we don’t know much else about him. We have, however, seen the results of a battle with him. He cleared a path for the Pirate to enter The Machine, in which, there are plenty of Armada soldiers strewn about. It’s possible that his abilities manifested themselves similarly to Bishop’s use of electricity, that he had some mojo capabilities comparable to Kane (meaning that he could possibly teleport), or that he is wholly chaotic and mojo-based like the Player (if they're a Witchdoctor). If the latter is true, it plays into what Phule said about being destroyed due to being imperfect, especially since the Armada banned hoodoo within their sphere of influence. In any case, it is interesting to see how so much can be told from Phule’s character design alone, but there's still more to explore.
III. Character Analysis
Kingisle put a lot of thought into what type of character Phule would be. According to his Rouge’s Gallery video, Phule “seems to operate purely out of whimsy and caprice” (KI) and “speaks in two different voices, shifting back and forth between twin personalities who are as antagonistic toward each other as they are to any enemy…” (KI). Phule isn’t all there, but make no mistake: he is very capable of doing what he does. The video goes on further to elaborate “that Phule shifts allegiances faster and more often than any other court member”(Ki), which makes sense with how his relationship with the Pirate turns out — which will be touched on later — and gives the player a basic idea of who Phule is, though there is more to analyze.
Our Meetings With Phule
Besides a few outside sources, most of what we know about Phule comes from the three times we see him: Granchia, Fort Elina, and at The Machine (with the exception of the Villa Trigante Cellar), in which a lot more can be observed.
When we first meet Phule in the Granchia Catacombs, the Pirate sees him leading a small squadron of soldiers. It is here that we first meet the two sides of Phule (whom I will refer to as Comedy and Tragedy).
Comedy is a mix between welcoming, eccentric, and mischievous. In one breath he says “Don’t bother trying to hide, I can hear your heartbeat” (P101), yet he also claims to want to let us go. Furthermore, he calls the Pirate resourceful, saying that, “you’d be quite a thorn in the side of Deacon, Bishop, or Kane himself…” (P101). Meanwhile, it is Tragedy that orders his captains to attack us, calling for our surrender.
What's interesting about this first meeting, upon reflection, is that Comedy seems to think about helping us. I’m not suggesting that one side of Phule is ‘good’ and the other is ‘evil’, but that Tragedy seems more inclined to be protective of whatever is in Phule’s best interests. Comedy, on the other hand, is Phule’s desires. This may be why the two sides often disagree. One side thinks we’d be useful in his desired goals while the other does what needs to be done.
When the Pirate discovers Phule in Fort Elena, their interaction is short, but something to note: Phule slightly warms up to the Pirate. Tragedy is still hostile, but comes off as though he was attempting to keep up a facade. Comedy, of course, is the opposite, going so far as to ask us about why we weren’t in Cool Ranch messing with Deacon. In fact, Comedy gives us a well done, because “...[you’ve] become quite the thorn after all” (P101), then tells us to run along with our quest.
And then, there’s the final time we see Phule — right before the machine. Instead of arguing, both sides of Phule are working together for a common goal: to oppose Kane. Both sides of Phule were waiting for us at the machine, both of them told us Kane’s plan, and both agreed to give the Pirate the Key.
And why does he do this? Phule is able to recognize that he isn’t perfect as Kane would say, in his own words. As Comedy it’s, “I've grown fond of this world, and would hate to see it destroyed. I've also grown fond of you. But most of all? I'm just curious to see what will happen" (P101). And after Tragedy sends his regards to Kane, this is the last we see of Phule.
Another thing of note, is when Gazpaccio calls Phule a tormented soul, which begs the question: Does Kane see Phule in the same light he sees Gazpaccio? More than likely, yes, which may have influenced the way he treated the Clockwork. Another thing — how well Gazpaccio and Phule knew each other? Sadly, there’s not much to work with to answer this question.
In any case, these events reveal the type of person Phule is: part of him is chaotic and wants freedom, the other side of him is objective, if not spiteful. Together, the two sides of Phule make a being that is neither wholly good, nor bad, but certainly eccentric, which begs the question: What is Phule to us, the Pirate?
Friend Or Foe?
Although it’s safe to say that Phule is on friendly terms, he and the Pirate aren’t exactly friends. He did betray Kane, but had ulterior motives of his own. And while it appears he’s been contemplating his betrayal for some time, there have also been times when he’s antagonized the Pirate. We also know that he’s a jack-of-all-trades with experience in espionage, being a general, and an admiral. And referring back to the Rouge’s Gallery, “the most paranoid Valencian intriguers wonder if Phule’s antics aren’t just a clever act, hiding a method behind the madness” (KI).
The thing is, we may never truly know if we can or cannot trust Phule. While he may not be our friend per se, our goals aligned, and it's been established that Phule’s alliances don't often last long. He may laugh and revel in the failure of his fellow court members, but he isn't there to like us. In fact, we may serve as a form of entertainment to him, because Phule did watch us instead of fighting by our side (which he clearly showed himself capable of doing). But, it's unlikely he’s going to show up as a foe in the future, and it would be a surprise if that were the case. It’s more likely that Phule simply disappeared somewhere, and the player may never know what happened to him.
The State of Phule’s Mind
Before ending this section, it’s critical to talk about Phule in terms of his light and dark side. While in the game, he is described as eccentric or insane, it’s clear that Phule is mentally ill by our standards. And although it’s hard to judge him by human standards, due to the fact that he's a Clockwork, since Clockworks have shown their ability to showcase complex emotions, they can exhibit mental illnesses.
In Phule’s case, he likely has Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), but here are some important things to understand: you cannot be born with DID, an alter is not necessarily a different personality, and the portrayal of Phule is not wholly accurate. Again, Phule isn’t a human, though his backstory does somewhat align with the development of this disorder.
DID usually occurs in children who have undergone immense stress and trauma for long periods of time, and as a result, were not able to develop a unified sense of identity due to the weight of their memories. Due to this, they develop a system of alters in order to cope with day-to-day life. Similarly, Phule was created to be perfect by a narcissistic father who could never admit to being wrong, and as a result, his mind was ‘off', and he was written as 'insane'.
Phule also has two distinct alters: his light side (Comedy) and his dark side (Tragedy). Comedy is whimsical, friendly, and mischievous and may very well serve as the host, as he seems to front the most, talk the most, and has the most lines out of any of the events. While Tragedy may serve as either a protector, seeing himself as a beacon of logic and strength doing what needs to be done; or a prosecutor, who may have protective goals in an attempt to keep the system from reliving the trauma and abuse they’ve faced, but tend to be harmful and have a distorted view of reality.
In any case, understanding the two sides of Phule is essential to understanding him as a character. He is someone who’s been persecuted due to both his appearance and his mind, which he could not control, and it clearly has had an effect on him.
IV. Phule & Kane’s Court
In analyzing who Phule is as a character, it's just as important to ask why he is the way he is. It’s easy to see how he developed, but, due in part to a lack of backstory, the question of why is somewhat hazy. The player is given a few details in the form of implications about Phule, but also information that was info dumped that leaves behind more questions than answers.
What Was Phule’s Role In The Court
Cannonly, nobody really knows Phule’s role in the court. As said by the Rouge’s Gallery:
“He is neither general nor admiral, though he has captained Armada fleets and armies. He is no spymaster, yet he has performed espionage and been involved in the deepest of Bishop’s intrigues. He is the ultimate wild card, appearing in the most unlikely of places from the Great Halls of the Palaces of the Spiral to the humble backwaters of Skull Island” (KI).
As a character with multiple roles, Phule proves himself to be a valuable player and a jack of all trades. Due to this, one can assume that he would have been more sociable than the rest of the court, or at the very least close to it, due to the fact that it’s established that his allegiances are often fleeting. Though, it can be speculated that his strongest relationship may have been with either Bishop, seeing as he worked for him, or Deacon since both of them seemed to be the most active of Kane’s court.
In relation to the historical context within Pirate101, I could also possibly see Phule being a sort of voice of reason for members of Kane’s court — at least those who would listen. We know what Phule thinks of Kane, but have never actually seen Kane interact with Phule on screen, so the details are murky here. On top of speaking with Kane’s court, it’s possible that Phule entertained and advised King Casimir, in addition to Kane.
Aside from military duties, with how festive Phule is — in concept at least — he may have either planned out various events in Valencia, or at the very least been apart of them. After all, Phule is a court jester, and one of the fundamental jobs that comes with being a court jester is making other people laugh.
Phule’s Relationship With Kane
Another important part of who Phule is is his personal relationship with Kane. Kane is many things: a military genius, a diplomatic wonder, and effective in ruling with an iron fist, but he fails as a father — just as his father failed before him. Kane is a narcissist who expects everything he creates to be unquestionably perfect, which is why he looks at Phule with absolute scorn.
Phule is what he would, likely, consider a worthless child. He wasn’t born right in his eyes, yet Kane continues to use and depend on Phule for his missions. It’s likely that Kane wanted to keep Phule in place, as he did with his other court members, but Phule is the only elite who’s not based on a chess piece.
Phule is a wild card who knew he wouldn’t live up to Kane’s expectations, and he decided to save himself. And although this choice may seem selfish, it’s important to remember that many victims tend to stick around for various reasons — sometimes they aren’t mentally capable or able to leave. We, the player, have seen Phule express himself, and learn kindness. And although he may have hurt people in the past, he was willing to make up for it.
He decided to leave behind a father that never loved him, and never would love him or see him as an equal. He had every right to be scornful and bitter, maybe even take after Kane, but he broke free from the cycle and decided to help the Player because he maybe, genuinely, fell in love with the world that never loved him and all its flaws. That is the beauty of Phule’s character. He’s neither here, nor there, but he’s just as human as you or I — ignoring all the cogs, of course.
V. Conclusion
In terms of character design, personality, and backstory speculation, Phule is a great character despite the little screen time he got. He may be one of the strongest members of Kane’s court, is definitely one of the more mysterious ones, and is an interesting, tormented soul. Whether or not he’s friend or foe, Phule illuminates the environment around him.
Works Cited
CA’ MACANA. “The Arlecchino Mask: a Motley History.” The Best Venetian Carnival Masks in Venice: Ca' Macana, www.camacana.com/en-UK/the-arlecchino-mask.php.
Commedia Dell'Arte. “ARLECCHINO.” Mayhem, Madness, Masks and Mimes - Commedia Dell'Arte, mayhemmadnessmasksandmimes-commediadellarte.weebly.com/arlecchino.html#:~:text=Arlecchino's%20costume%20and%20mask%20are,Arte'%20Character%20Analysis%22).
“Drama Masks: Thalia + Melpomene.” The Greek Designers, 6 Nov. 2018, thegreekdesigners.com/2016/03/07/drama-masks-thalia-melpomene/.
“Jester (Jolly or Joker).” Masquerade Masks & Venetian Masks Company, www.italymask.co.nz/shop/Decorative+Masks/Jester+JollyJoker%3Fcat=01108.html#:~:text=The%20Joker%20or%20Jolly%20Venetian,known%20for%20their%20incessant%20laughter.
KingsIsle, director. Pirate101 Rogue's Gallery: Phule. YouTube, YouTube, 3 June 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VdwBDdeMYo&list=WL&index=69&ab_channel=KingsIsleEntertainment.
“Pantalone Mask.” Kartaruga, 7 Aug. 2017, kartaruga.com/mask/pantalone-the-magnificent/.
“Pantalone Masks.” THE VENETIAN MASKS, 21 Jan. 2021, www.thevenetianmasks.com/pantalone-masks/.
Staff, OnStage Blog. “The Origins of the Comedy and Tragedy Masks of Theatre.” OnStage Blog, OnStage Blog, 21 June 2020, www.onstageblog.com/editorials/comedy-and-tragedy-masks-of-theatre.
TodayIFoundOut, director. What Was It Actually Like to Be a Court Jester in Medieval Times? YouTube, YouTube, 31 Oct. 2019, www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkLZYEIslWM&ab_channel=TodayIFoundOut.
“Welcome to the Pirate101 Wiki.” Pirate101 Wiki :: The Largest and Most Accurate Pirate101 Wiki :: Featuring Guides, Companions, Quests, Pets, Bosses, Creatures, NPCs and Much More!, www.pirate101central.com/wiki/Pirate101_Wiki.
“What Life Was Really Like As A Medieval Jester.” YouTube, YouTube, 3 Apr. 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7F5ioUQLJc&ab_channel=WeirdHistory.
“What Was Life like for a Court Jester?” HistoryExtra, 26 Nov. 2020, www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/what-was-life-like-for-a-court-jester/.
www.delpiano.com, Roberto Delpiano -. “PANTALONE.” Pantalone | Pantalon De' Bisognosi | Grevembroch Watercolor | Traditional Mask of Venice Carnival, www.delpiano.com/carnival/html/pantalone.html.
#pirate101#p101 fandom#p101#Phule#writing#essay#character analysis#character study#Yes I wrote an academic essay on a clown#no i'm not okay thanks for asking#10/10 would do it again tho#Maybe I'll make it into a series since it'd feel wrong not to do the entire court
28 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Ex-Con | ‘Lawrence’ ⌐ LFRP
THE BASICS –––
Name: Roman “Lawrence” Wyld
In-Game: The Outlaw
Age: 25
Nameday: Uncelebrated or unremembered. (29th Sun/4th Umbral Moon.)
Born: The New World (Raised in Garlemald)
Race: Hyur - Whalaqee & Garlean
Gender: Male.
Alignment: Chaotic Good w/occasional deviation towards what feels good.
Marital Status: Easy come, easy go.
Orientation: Poly. Mostly straight.
Server: Balmung
PHYSICAL APPEARANCE –––
Hair: Short to Mid length and unkempt. Dark brown w/ white highlights.
Eyes: Silver. A swirling mix of mercury and ash.
Height: 6′3
Weight: 238 lbs
Distinguishing Marks: A long scar over his left eye reaching brow to cheek. Various other mappings of scars across his body. Particularly stabbings, bullet wounds, and burns.
Build: He’s tall, almost lanky for a normal hyur with strong shoulders that slope downward over a broad chest. His waist is tapered, his legs are long. His hands calloused. Both his weight and musculature are practically built, and his lifestyle keeps him lean like a coyote with a noticeable lack of fat to spare. If he missed a meal he’d surely feel it. He seems the type for dexterous tasks, but carries deceptive strength.
Common Accessories: Two loaded six shooters, a cutlass or his Gunblade. A bowie knife/ hatchet, some lock picking & whittling tools. Paracord or rope. Extra revolver cartridges (regular and aether loaded). A deck of cards numbering 51, or magitek dice for recreation. Magitek gizmos. Peanuts, Cigarettes, a flask of whiskey. A single tarot card (The Star), kept in his left breast pocket. A red bandana. Compass / Pocket Watch. An eagle totem necklace. (2) multitools: one with eating utensils, bottle/wine opener, and knife. The other with Magitek specialty tools. A big, gold belt buckle. A cowboy hat, usually dark. Wolf fang earrings. (1) perfectly weighted coin.
PERSONAL –––-
Profession: Handyman. Gun-for-hire. Gardening & Gravedigging. Naturalist & Survivalist.
Hobbies: Finger dexterity puzzles. Card games. Gambling. Sketching, whittling.
Languages: Common. Garlean. Whalaqee. Some Ishgardian.
Residence(s): Nomadic, favors Wellwick Woods and the Burning Wall. Any wild will do though. Has an unknown location of interest in the deep Shroud.
Religion: His religion has no name.
Patron Diety / Spiritual Guide: The Wanderer | The Eagle
Fears: Cleithrophobia. He’ll get really freaked out if he thinks he’s stuck somewhere.
Distinguishing Traits: A rural drawl that lilts and flows.
Relationships ––– -
Spouse: Never.
Parents: Augustus cen Ferox & Valentina wir Maximian
Siblings: An older half-brother, Leviticus wir Maximian
Other Relatives: Cousins he’s not close to.
Pets: No pets, just all manners of beasts both companionable and not.
• A paint mustang named Trigger
• A multi-colored dog w/ no name yet.
Traits ––– -
*doing something a bit different
5 Positive Traits (Generally beneficial)
Truthful • Hardworking • Easy going • Agreeable • Optimistic
5 Neutral Traits (Can be good or bad)
Lustful • Restless • Pensive • Observant • Trusting
5 Problematic Traits (Generally never good)
Mercurial • Irritable • Reckless • Trigger Happy • Indulgent
RP Hooks ––– –
Past History: Lawrence has had a variety of names and sobriquets he’s gone by. He’s wandered wide and far. Significant history points can be from his growing up in Garlemald, or his crash landing in Eorzea. He’s been imprisoned in several Eorzean Gaols, and has had cellmates. He’s saved and helped commoners and utilizes allies to do that as well. He robs the rich and gives to the poor.
Present Hooks: He can meet people just about anywhere and will generally be found getting up to trouble, or working his way there. Known to be an ex-convict of some caliber. Can more commonly be found out in the wilds, but on occasion hits cities and residential zones. He’s been known to pick fights with bullies, and be fairly helpful. Clever minds and observant eyes can likely piece his bounties together to determine his identity, or recognize him from some old wanted board.
Hiring Hooks: As an ex-convict, he’s in constant need of employment and is more than willing to work. He’s got a wide set of skills that are largely based in that of a naturalist and outdoorsman. He’s also a fine craftsman, and has been known to tend estate gardens and gravedig for local churches. He can be consulted for knowledge on the flora and fauna of the land, as well as knowledge on native beast tribes and their relations with other spoken.
Ally Hooks : He’s in constant need of healing and safe spaces, given his ongoing fugitive status. ‘I need healing’ would be a common phrase from him if he was an NPC. He can always use teachers or mentors to help him learn more - particularly when it comes to magic, aetherology, and demonology/voidsent. Posse members, and people who do crime for good reasons can become fast allies. Closer relationships can be talked down like family, or ex loves, etc.
Friction Hooks: I always welcome friction. Not every interaction is a great one and I like to embrace these ideas on an IC level. He could certainly use some rivals, or people with conflicting mentalities to him such as bounty hunters, corrupt officials (or lawful ones), bullies, villains. People that can challenge him, his morals, his limits, etc. As long as the dynamic isn’t one sided. The goal here isn’t ultimate capture or ultimate defeat to me but rather the growth developed through antagonistic engagements.
Contact Information ––– –
Discord: Message me here first and I’ll pass it.
Additional OOC:
Shipping: I prefer slow burn ships for anything specifically serious and won’t jump into ERP with anyone unless it makes sense story wise. Even then, FTB is a high possibility with strangers. Sorry. Additionally, Roman is poly and will be unlikely to solo-ship.
Will Nots: I don’t engage in explicit self-harm/suicide/extreme depression storylines or scenes of sexual violence/abuse. Vague references or allusions I’ll deal with, but prefer any explicit detail 1000 miles awaaaaaaaaay.
Boundaries: I like making friends and highly value platonic relationships IC and OOC. That said, I am skittish and will cut engagements if I feel discomforted by something. This includes the pushing of character boundaries I’ve established as not possible without my consent. Please, if I have discussed something as a lacking possibility, do not keep suggesting it.
Communication. This is big for me. I will speak up if uncomfortable, and encourage the same! This is a definite requirement if we’re doing deeper plotlines. I don’t need to be talked to every day, just let me know if something’s up so I can adjust. We’re all here to have fun!
Health & Scheduling: I have a pretty shit schedule being an essential worker and all, on top of being PST. 44 hours a week without a phone, no less. Mon-Thur I’m basically non-existent until the weekends and these will be the days I am not as talkative/active. Coupling that with chronic pain and mental health that is also affected by my job, some days I am just not capable of being around. I try to be up front about this. I don’t always have the energy. If I’ve dropped off, there’s a high chance my health took a serious dive and I just can’t bring myself to be about. All I ask is patience. Move on if you need to, but don’t be a jerk!
23 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Dreamer by Whatwashernameagain An Analysis? Chapter 3 Part 1
All portions:
Chapter 1: Part 1 // Part 2 // Part 3 // Part 4
Chapter 2: Part 1 // Part 2 // Part 3 // Part 4
Chapter 3: Part 1 // Part 2 // Part 3 // Part 4
The Dreamer
by @whatwashernameagain
Reminder: Spoilers under cut!
Hello friends!!!
It has been some time since I wrote a literary analysis for The Dreamer, but Chapter 3 was released and I’m back in business!!!
If you have not read the analysis for Chapters 1 and 2 I suggest you do so. (Links above)
As Always if you have not done so please read @whatwashernameagain ‘s The Dreamer Chapter 3 before you continue. This analysis is pretty much a giant spoiler if you haven’t.
Lastly I am going to place all of the same warning as Whatwashernameagain did on the chapter because there is some pretty intense subjects throughout the work that we all need to be aware of. I have also broken my Chapter analysis into four parts as usual to keep it from getting too bulky.
Also, you can find additional links to The Dreamer analysis on AO3 (and other works by me) here on my masterpost.
LETS GET STARTED!!!
Warnings: homophobia, internalized homophobia, republican brainwashing, manipulation, mentioned pedophilia, violence, threatened sexual abuse, injuries, being pressured into sex, nakedness.
Eva opens with Roman making a mistake. He has failed to listen to his handler, Virgil. He had raided an abandoned warehouse, hoping to capture the leader of a human trafficking ring (Whatwashernameagain). This is a subtle reminder of the difference between Logan and Roman. Once again, we see Roman concerning himself with ‘the smaller’ issues. By this I mean, caring for the individual person rather than the world as a whole. Roman is good hearted enough to consider a small human trafficking ring as a very large issue that needs to be address. This also brings attention to just how sensitive Roman can be. Though it may not be apparent here, if we look closely, we can see the same endearing and caring individual that I have been analyzing throughout the first two chapters. Roman’s attention to the crimes that The Utilitarian sees as lessor implies that Roman is far more sensitive as a person than he lets on. An aspect that is even more apparent the further we get into the chapter.
We are informed that the target had gotten away as an explosion occurs, burying Roman in debris and crushing the only contact he has with the outside world. He loses contact with his friend, leaving him along. He passes out and wakes strapped to a chair. That’s when we see another development occur:
“He hadn’t realized how much he relied on the snarky, moody voice in his ear until helplessness flooded him in the silent dark room” (Whatwashernameagain).
First off, Virgil and Roman’s relationship has obviously evolved through the last chapter which we knew, but this also brings a whole new experience to Roman. He has grown accustomed to his friend being there, always guiding him, a voice he could rely and trust on. Now that voice is gone. It’s almost as if the crutch Roman had given himself to help support everything he was doing is now gone. In this instance we can see Virgil as an aspirin. Roman has grown so use to the pain of loneliness being gone because Virgil was always there as a buffer that when he is gone the pain feels as if it is ten times worse. Roman is alone. A feeling he has never really had to face, at least not since he became The Dreamer.
“The young man had grown used to bearing pain in silence, but as his blood dripped to the ground between his knees, coughed up from injured lungs, he barely managed to hold back the whimper of agony and fear” (Whatwashernameagain).
Okay, Eva… I smell what you’re cooking. Was this supposed to hurt? Huh?! Cuz it did!! But not as much as the rest of the chapter. -.- This line sets the new scene quite effectively. First off, Roman is referred to as ‘The young man’. I’ve had the privilege of chit chatting with Eva regularly and she has pointed out that I underestimate her often lol and she’s right. So, I’m fairly convinced that she refers to Roman in this way on purpose.
The Dreamer is a symbol of hope and justice that politicians paint for their own gain. He is strong and mature, a role model to those in need. Here we see the man behind the suit. The young man specifically. With all of his heroic feats it is difficult to remember that Roman is not very old. The reminder of his age is very strategic here when faced with the ‘agony and fear’ of this scene. Eva does a stunning job reminding us of just how fragile these monumental people can be. Behind the cape Roman is just a scared and pained young man trying to do his best, just as we all are. This simple sentence causes the reader to relate even more to the young man as we watch him try and keep himself together.
“By his estimation, he had spent two days in semi-darkness being beaten, dehydrated and humiliated. The worst thing wasn’t the broken ribs and fingers though, it was the things his torturer promised he’d do to him once he’d beaten him into submission and received the information he wanted” (Whatwashernameagain).
I have mentioned before that the best writers coax their readers into asking questions. Here we are, or at least I am, curious about a number of things. Roman has been tortured and beaten for two days. Is the fact that his team hasn’t found him due to their inadequacy without him or their indifference? My money is on the later. Roman is worth a lot of money as a hero, but if someone is sent to save him, he loses face which is bad for business. Perhaps they hope he’ll get himself out of the situation he is in.
The real interesting line from this section however is the line ‘The worst thing wasn’t the broken ribs and fingers though, it was the things his torturer promised he’d do to him once he’d beaten him into submission and received the information he wanted’ (Whatwashernameagain). I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read literature with torture scenes that are nothing but physical. This is fairly sad because a person’s psychological torment can be just as painful as physical. For example, Metin Basoglu of King’s College London, UK and colleagues surveyed 279 survivors of torture from the former Yugoslavia, including both soldiers and civilians from the previously war-torn region (Khamsi, Roxanne). In this study, they discovered that Falaga, the burning of parts of the body, and forced extraction of teeth all scored a 3.6 out of 4 for a pain rating (Khamsi, Roxanne). The same rating was given for Witnessing torture of close ones and threats of rape (Khamsi, Roxanne). This would suggest that Roman’s fear of what is to come can indeed cause more pain than what he is physically experiencing. Not to mention we already know that the hero has an unusually strong tolerance for physical pain if his body alterations is anything to go by. Regardless, Eva obviously can acknowledge that the unknown can be as painful as any injury.
Next, we see Roman falling farther and farther into hopelessness. He knows no one is coming for him. His loneliness is settling in once more. The feeling is no doubt torture in and of itself judging by Roman’s need for approval and the public’s affection. Being alone is not something the man copes with well.
As a reader we can pretty much predict what is about to happen, however. This is not the first time an unexpected hero has emerged. Roman describes a tall slender shape drawing near and the relief from the man is palpable. Once again, Logan is his hope. His enemy becomes his savior. Eva has a tendency to remind her readers that though it is human nature to define things by placing them in a box of our own design, these boxes are often wrong. There is nothing separating one person from another. We are all people. The only divisions anything in this world has is the ones we give. An animal is an animal, not because they are not a person, but because we decided they are. A pen is a pen and not a pencil because we decided it is. If you remove these lines, everything is exactly what it is and there is nothing wrong with that. Without these lines I am still me and you can not define that and yet… I still am. Humanity has this drive that it needs to define every aspect of a being in order to accept it. Once someone accepts that not everything can fit in a box thing get easier… better… peaceful. The Utilitarianist is a villain in the public eye because they have decided that he is, just as they have decided what is good or bad. Roman, however, Roman just sees his savior. In this instance Logan is not good, Logan is not bad… Logan is hope.
“With another blow, he crashed to the ground with a sickening sound. With the usual disregard for the wellbeing of his victims, the Utilitarianist stepped over the unconscious man” (Whatwashernameagain).
Here Eva describes Logan’s attack with ‘a sickening sound’. Then immediately describes the victim as ‘unconscious’. To me, this is a bit contradicting. Firstly, we are still in Roman’s POV. Roman knows that Logan is more than capable of killing individuals, but Logan is the hero at the moment. It is possible that the man is in fact dead (I’m with Lo if this is truly the case. The bastard had it coming for hurting my poor RoRo), however, Roman’s denial and current mental state may have him believing otherwise. There is no real evidence, however, to support that Logan would leave the man alive. In fact, it would be more logical to kill him…. Then again, it’s not very logical for Logan to be saving Roman’s well sculpted ass in the first place.
“He was so relieved to see his nemesis he had to fight back a sob. He had the feeling if he started, he wouldn’t be able to stop crying. The villain felt entirely unthreatening to him as he towered over Roman’s hunched body. He was familiar, like an old friend” (Whatwashernameagain).
Here we see more of Roman’s reaction to Logan’s appearance. But it is a bit more than that. Roman is still stricken with relief and his words are full of contradictions just as they had been before. These contradictions are similar to the ones we saw in Logan during the first chapter. Though some of you might know exactly what I’m referring to I’m going to quote it, just in case. Feel free to skip ahead.
“Logan goes on to talk about the ‘puffing up’ and how ‘unpractical’ The Dreamer’s costume is and his ‘irritating presence’, he talks about grand speeches and attempting to appeal to Logan’s ‘humanity’. The tone of the paragraphs is that of annoyed humor as if it were amusing to think Logan had any humanity at all. That being said… another literary study comes to mind when reading this portion of the work. I will do my best to keep from going too much in depth but basically back in the early EARLY 1900s Sigmund Freud invented psychoanalysis with his publication of The interpretation of Dreams (Rivkin, Julie). Why was it such a big deal? Well, before the publication psychology assumed that what goes on in the mind was limited to the conscious (Rivkin, Julie). What does that have to do with Logan? Well, the revolution was a huge part of history and the strides that were made in psychology didn’t only affect the medical world but the literary one as well. Psychoanalysis wasn’t only limited to a person but the work they created as well; it began to be used as a way of studying literature, analyzing the author through their work. But… I’m veering a bit too far to the left. The reason this is important is because some of Frued’s research was based on the ‘defenses’ that the ego mobilizes against unacceptable libidianal or unconscious material (Rivkin, Julie). I.e. The mind can invert a feeling into its opposite, so that a yearning for contact can become a desire to do violence (Rivkin, Julie). That, of course, is an extreme but we see the same psychological mechanism here for Logan. The Dreamer is a man who represents the very thing Logan is determined to pull down; it would be extremely illogical to have any sort of attraction to the man. There for, to put it simply, he’s in denial” (Sebthesnipe).
‘Denial’ isn’t quite the word I would use for Roman in this particular instance, though the Freudian information is still applicable. Roman refers to Logan as ‘his nemesis’ and yet feels relieved. He calls him villain but sees him as unthreatening. In fact, he ‘feels like an old friend’. Eva is obviously implying that this is a huge turning point for Roman in their relationship. While Roman is still actively rejecting Logan, calling him nemesis and villain, his emotions are betraying him. This is very similar to the issue with Logan that I quoted above. Roman is going through quite a bit of character development in this instance and the subtly that Eva writes it in is beautiful as always.
“As he silently helped him up and wrapped Roman’s shaking arm around his shoulders, the hero felt safe. They needed no words as their eyes met. The older villains were very dark, cat-like, behind the mask, and startlingly warm. The villain had never been this close. He smelled good. Clean, unlike the damp bunker filled with the scent of Roman’s blood. Somehow, the young hero was surprised to actually find himself a bit taller than the other. He’d always seemed sort of inhuman to him. Larger than life” (Whatwashernameagain).
This is a very very important paragraph. Mostly for what is to come but also because I’m Logince trash and I have no shame. Still Roman is beginning to humanize The Utilitarian. We are watching more of Roman’s character development. Roman is starting to see Logan as a person, an individual he can touch or talk to. Roman still calls him ‘villain’ to try and distance himself but his walls are falling. He mentions that Logan had never been so close. I doubt Eva mention to add this for just physical proximity. No, Logan had never been this close to the hero emotionally either. Roman is growing attached to the person behind the mask. We see Roman see through all of his previous perceptions.
He mentions seeing Logan as ‘Larger than Life’ and perhaps this is true. Prior to now Logan had always been the opposition. He had been the accumulation of everything that Roman fought again. He was a set of ideals, not an actual person. Now, thought, now, Logan is a tangible person that is currently helping Roman stagger to safety. He is solid in his arms. He is less of an idea and more of a person with feelings and ambitions, just as Roman is; because if Roman can do anything it is see a person for what they are. He’s proven that every time he has gone after the smaller criminals, the sex traffickers, the muggers, the rapists. Because to Roman, every individual is as important as every group of people.
As always, Eva shows her flawless ability to transition between dark undertones and light humor within the next few lines:
“I would like to say I was surprised you got yourself caught.”
And it was gone as soon as it had appeared.
“Excuse you, I didn’t get myself caught! And I didn’t know you were capable of doing something nice. Does it hurt to go against your nature?”
“You are being irrational.”
“And you are being a villainous menace!” (Whatwashernameagain)
Oh, how I love my bois’ banter. Ugh! So adorable!
Roman and Logan both are bickering, as usual, though perhaps this is just more of that denial I’ve mentioned? My guess is that it is, both men are trying to protect themselves from what they both know they can’t have: each other.
To be continued…
Khamsi, Roxanne. “Psychological Torture 'as Bad as Physical Torture'.” New Scientist, 5 Mar. 2007, www.newscientist.com/article/dn11313-psychological-torture-as-bad-as-physical-torture/.
Rivkin, Julie. Literary Theory: a Practical Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.
Sebthesnipe. “The Dreamer by Whatwashernameagin an Analysis? Part 2.” RAMBLINGS OF A MARRIED FANGIRL, 4 Dec. 2019, sebthesnipe.tumblr.com/post/189470642532/the-dreamer-by-whatwashernameagin-an-analysis.
Whatwashernameagain. “The Dreamer - Chapter 1.” Hello Guys Gals And Non Binary Friends, 8 Sept. 2019, https://whatwashernameagain.tumblr.com/post/187581477262/the-dreamer-chapter-1.
14 notes
·
View notes
Video
youtube
essay writing website
About me
Do My Essay For Me Cheap
Do My Essay For Me Cheap Find a location that doesn’t distract the reader from the content material and move of the paper. When you are sharing additional info that doesn’t quite fit into the scope of the paper, but is useful for the reader. These forms of footnotes and endnotes are helpful when explaining translations, including background data, or sharing counterexamples to research. When you might be referring to a number of various sources, by varied authors, in a bit of your paper. In this situation, it's a good idea to use a footnote or endnote to share info for parenthetical references. This will encourage the reader to remain focused on the text of the analysis paper, as a substitute of having to read by way of all of the reference info. The primary character’s complicated expertise is realized and defined when he states “I didn’t realize it at the time, but a baseball card—for me—may function like a time machine” . Quotes are added into assignments to assist defend an argument, show some extent, add emphasis, or just enliven a project. Like all different sections of the task, paragraphs ought to be double spaced. Read on more particulars on formatting within the Modern Language Association style and an instance paper. Each part offers an in-depth overview of the different parts to remember when growing an MLA paper. You’ll discover in-depth guidelines, examples, and visible samples that will help you easily format your paper. I haven’t written this essay in the hope that anyone will get out a violin for me, not even a teeny-weeny one. I’m extraordinarily lucky; I’m a survivor, certainly not a sufferer. Times New Roman and Arial are beneficial, but many different fonts work as well. A title web page can grace the front of the assignment. If you select to create a title web page, remember that there aren’t any official title page or cowl page pointers. I’ve solely talked about my previous because, like every other human being on this planet, I even have a fancy backstory, which shapes my fears, my pursuits and my opinions. I never forget that inner complexity after I’m creating a fictional character and I certainly always remember it in relation to trans people. To use a really modern word, I was ‘triggered’. That assault happened at a time and in a space the place I was susceptible, and a person capitalised on a possibility. I couldn’t shut out those memories and I was discovering it onerous to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my authorities is enjoying quick and free with womens and women’ safety. Quite often, the operating head begins on the second page, but your instructor could ask you to include the running head on the first web page of the task. As at all times, if your instructor supplies you with specific instructions, follow his or her guidelines. The Modern Language Association recommends any font that is simple to read and has a clear distinction between italics and normal font. However, her career took a similar hit to that suffered by Maya Forstater. Lisa Littman had dared problem one of many central tenets of trans activism, which is that an individual’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans. I’d stepped again from Twitter for many months each earlier than and after tweeting help for Maya, as a result of I knew it was doing nothing good for my mental health. That single ‘like’ was deemed proof of wrongthink, and a persistent low level of harassment began. We are dedicated to ensuring that your info is safe. We have taken reasonable measures to guard details about you from loss, theft, misuse or unauthorised entry, disclosure, alteration and destruction. No physical or digital security system is impenetrable however and you should take your own precautions to guard the safety of any personally identifiable info you transmit. We can't assure that the personal data you supply is not going to be intercepted whereas transmitted to us or our advertising automation service Mailchimp. I only returned as a result of I wished to share a free children’s book during the pandemic. All the time I’ve been researching and studying, accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline. When I started taking an curiosity in gender identification and transgender issues, I started screenshotting comments that interested me, as a method of reminding myself what I may need to analysis later. On one occasion, I absent-mindedly ‘liked’ instead of screenshotting. When it comes to dimension, 8 ½-by-eleven-inch paper is the beneficial measurement. If you’d like to make use of a special measurement, ask your instructor prior to submission. If you select to print your paper, use white paper solely. Do not use ivory, off-white, or another shades or colours. At the identical time, I don't need to make natal girls and women less protected. She was accused of bias and of spreading misinformation about transgender folks, subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work. The journal took the paper offline and re-reviewed it earlier than republishing it.
0 notes
Text
THE ASTEROIDS OF PAIN, LOSS AND ABUSE
- source
◊(5) ASTRAEA
Staying until the bitter end. While this may show someone with perseverance, the asteroid Astraea more often indicates someone who stays in a bad job/relationship/friendship far too long, or doesn’t know when to let go.
◊(6) HEBE
While asteroid Hebe normally indicates service-oriented work, such as clerks, waiters or administrative assistants, I’ve also known Hebe to show up in relationship readings where one of the partners was a slave to the other.
◊(18) MELPOMENE
Grief, loss, mourning. Next to any of the love asteroids (Amor, Eros, Psyche) this can make for disastrous or painful love affairs, and can even indicate death or loss of a partner.
◊(28) BELLONA
Bellona was the Roman Goddess of War. While not necessarily bad (it can stand for an assertive, power-house type of personality, particularly in women), Bellona strongly placed in charts can be extremely confrontational or willing to fight.
◊(55) PANDORA
Pandora is both an asteroid as well as a Moon to Saturn, here we only speak about the asteroid Pandora. Many of are familiar with ‘Pandora’s Box’; this asteroid is named after the very same lady who famously released evil energy into the world by opening a box sent to her by the Gods. Similar to the Christian myth, Pandora was the original woman, fashioned out of water and earth, and of course, everything wrong with humanity is her fault (eye roll).
Pandora’s themes include: curiosity, especially curiosity that ‘kills the cat’, initiating change through curiosity, unintended consequences, caught off-guard, restlessness, rebelliousness, meddling troublemaker.
◊(56) MELETE
Melete is connected to the Greek word for anxiety, and as such, can indicate anxiety disorders, panic attacks and other forms of mental anguish.
◊(60) ECHO
Echo was the fairy-like creäture that fell in love with Narcissus but was ignored and held in disdain by him. Eventually, she became such a shell of a being that all that was left of her was her echo.
When poorly afflicted, Echo individuals do not believe in themselves, copy others, have little original thought, have no self-esteem or self-worth or have a hard time valuing/defending them against narcissistic partners.
◊(71) NIOBE
Grief, sorrows. Niobe loses her entire family.
◊(73) KLYTIA
Jealousy, especially acts driven by jealousy that end poorl, a tattle-tale, a gossip. Desperate, senseless romances. Being in love but being ignored.
Klytia was in love Apollo (or Helios, the Sun God), but he had another lover. Dejected, Klytia told Apollo’s potential father-in-law, who killed his own daughter as a punishment for her actions. With Apollo’s love gone, Klytia hope’s to be snatched up by her paramour – but he once again ignores her, and she withers away on a rock, staring at him, until she dies.
◊(84) KLIO
Asteroid Klio is commonly associated with history, storytelling and writing, so is not a ‘bad’ asteroid per se. However, when asteroid Klio is poorly aspected in the chart, there can be an attachment to ‘history’ or to the story that keeps running in one’s mind, which leads to a type of neuroses about the event, person or situation.
◊(111) ATE
Goddess of blind folly, rashness, infatuation, and mischief. Ate was said to be behind the curse that started the Trojan War. Ate may show where one is likely to respond to real or imagined threats in an exaggerated fashion.
◊(128) NEMESIS
Nemesis, enemy, downfall, revenge.
◊(157) DEJANAIRA
Abuse, violation of physical boundaries, sexual abuse. I have seen asteroid Dejanaira come up time and time again as a reliable indicator of childhood abuse, especially sexual abuse.
See also: Nyctimene (2150)
◊(171) OPHELIA
Although asteroid Ophelia has many themes, many astrologers have noticed a link between this asteroid and accidental drownings.
◊(208) LACRIMOSA
“Weeping”, tears, grief, sadness.
◊(239) ADRASTAEIA
“Who does not flee”; “the inescapable one”. Asteroid Adrastaeia can show those who do not leave abusive situations, or, can show moments and traumas where we were unable to escape, as in the case of abusive childhoods. This asteroid can also talk about areas of wounding we cannot escape, such as alcoholism or drug abuse.
◊(248) LAMEIA
Grief at losing a child, sterility, sleeplessness, trauma, PTSD, intense jealousy from other women, ‘vampires’ (Lameia sucks the ‘lifeblood’ out of young men).
Lameia had affairs with Zeus, and many children from him. Hera killed all of her children as a punishment. She became overcome with grief, unable to sleep, and thereafter alternated between sucking the life out of young men, or murdering other people’s children.
◊(273) ATROPOS
Asteroid Atropos is one part of the “Moira” fates (in addition to Klotho & Lachesis). Atropos as a theme has a relationship to endings of all kinds: relationships, business, death, accidents, and illness.
◊(258) TYCHE
Tyche was the Greek Goddess of Fortune, so when afflicted can show poor fortune or luck.
◊(381) MYRRHA
Can indicate incest, sexual abuse or sexual relationships that go against ‘natural law’ (bestiality, incest, et. al.).
◊(399) PERSEPHONE
Persephone’s story is one of the great myths of Greece. I say great, but as we’ll see, it quickly turns into not so great.
Persephone (aka Proserpina) is attached to her mother Ceres – they are the best of friends and completely inseparable. Persephone is well-known for her beauty, but constantly rebuffs marriage proposals to stay as companion to her mother. One day Persephone is out picking flowers when the God of the Underworld Pluto (aka Hades) kidnaps her; he makes her the Queen of the Underworld. Nice having a title and all, but surely not one’s first choice. To protest, Persephone stopped eating when she was in the Underworld. Eventually, her mother finds her and negotiates a life where she will live above ground 6 months of the year, and below the other 6.
Persephone and Proserpina’s themes are: separation anxiety, separation from the parents, rape, retreating into fantasy after a trauma, loss of innocence, being ‘pulled into the underworld’, PTSD, addictions, abduction, food complexes and/or anorexia, relationships with ‘Plutonian’ partners.
Nota Bene: it’s possible this myth has been twisted, and many people note that in some versions of the myth Persephone willingly went into the Underworld with the dark and sexy Pluto.
Also look at: (26) Proserpina.
◊(407) ARACHNE
Weaving, woven items, weaving things together, jealousy of god-given talents, talents that lead to pain or persecution, arrogance, boastfulness.
Arachne was an incredibly talented weaver, and compared herself to the Gods (and actually, said she was better than them!). She unknowingly challenged a disguised Athena, Goddess of weaving, to a weaving duel. In the end, Arachne can’t go without diminishing the Gods, therefore royally pissing of Athena, who as punishment turns her into a spider.
◊(430) HYBRIS
“Hubris”, excessive pride, arrogance or foolishness that leads to an inevitable downfall. Over-confidence. Any behaviours that challenge the “gods” of your life (parents, partners, bosses).
◊(588) ACHILLES
The asteroid Achilles is one of my key tools, alongside (3811) Karma and (2060) Chiron. Achilles is incredible for highlighting potential areas of deep wounding, or the ‘achilles heel’ of the chart when prominently placed in the natal chart.
◊(638) MOIRA
Moira is derived from the Greek word ‘the fates’. Moira’s location by sign and house can indicate an area of life that is governed by fate or karma. Moira may show ‘negative’ karma in a chart or a very fated life.
◊(849) ARA
Asteroid Ara is only bad, per se, when poorly positioned or afflicted within a natal chart. Normally, asteroid Ara would show where and how one is likely to give aid or be aided by others. When opposed or squared by natal planets, Ara can stand for a lack of aid, care or support.
◊(896) SPHINX
Secrets, hidden things, mysteries. Bill Clinton had the asteroid Sphinx next to the asteroids ‘Paul’ and ‘Monica’. Need I say more?
◊(897) LYSISTRATA
Asteroid Lysistrata refers to the heroine of an infamous Greek comedy of the same name. The women of Greece, led by Lysistrata, led a protest of sexual abstinence against all men until they stopped the perpetual wars.
When badly afflicted, Lysistrata can talk about someone that uses sex as a tool of manipulation or power.
◊(1198) ATLANTIS
Related to the mythical, lost kingdom of Atlantis, asteroid Atlantis can also talk about excessive pride or hubris that leads to a downfall, as well as extinction, cultural snobbery, a sense of imminent doom, expiation; use of karma to rationalize events.
◊(1277) DOLORES
Pains, suffering. Can indicate illness and agony.
◊(1489) ATTILA
Named after Attila the Hun, the famous barbarian warrior. When afflicted, this asteroid can indicate a kind of ruthless, all-or-nothing brutality to winning or victory.
◊(1566) ICARUS
Accidents, excessive risk, gambles that don’t pay off, moving too fast, driving too fast, games of speed/risk. Muhammad Ali had Icarus next to his Sun – talk about speed!
◊(1685) TORO
Aggression, strength and power. Not bad unless afflicted in the chart. I don’t like it when Toro crops up around a personal planet like Venus, as it can sometimes indicate violent or intense and aggressive relationships.
◊(1808) BELLEROPHON
Overreaching, fatal crashes, being disabled or ‘crippled’ in some way.
◊(1866) SISYPHUS
Unending suffering and struggle. Being forced to do the same thing over and over. Draining monotony. Stuck in a vicious cycle of rebuilding.
Sisyphus was punished by being forced to roll a boulder up a mountain every day, only to awaken the next morning and find himself again at the bottom of the mountain. Groundhog Day, for Greeks. He was later freed by Heracles.
◊(1896) BEER
Just like it says on the tin: Beer is commonly found in strong positions in the chart of heavy drinkers, or those who have or have had issues with alcohol.
◊(1912) ANUBIS
Anubis is named after the jackal-headed Egyptian God of the Dead. Often, Anubis strongly placed in a chart means that death is more than a passing issue; death may become the focus or a recurrent theme in the individual’s life.
◊(2102) TANTALUS
‘Tantalus’ is closely related to our modern word, ‘tantalize’. Themes here include: always out of reach, never getting what you want, testing others, taunting others, nearly having it, temptation without satisfaction.
The myth of Tantalus is pretty full-on. Originally known for having stolen ambrosia from Mount Olympus and taking it down to humans (therefore revealing the secrets of the Gods to humans), he then served up his dead son’s body parts to the Gods of Olympus. As punishment, he was kept in a pool of water with branches of fruit above him. Whenever he was thirsty and tried to drink the water, it would evade him; when he felt hungry and reached for a piece of fruit, the branches would lift out of reach.
◊(2060) CHIRON
Chiron was the first centaur discovered and equally the most well-known of the mythical centaurs; arguably Chiron is the most important of all the centaurs. He was the son of Saturn and a sea-nymph. Early on, he is abandoned by his mother (his first ‘wounding’), who is horrified at his half-man, half-human form; he is soon taken to the Sun god Apollo, who teaches Chiron everything he knows about the healing arts. Chiron is later wounded by an arrow from Hercules. The wound never heals despite his healing knowledge, which explains Chiron’s well-known nickname as the “Wounded Healer”.
Chiron’s themes include: the “wounded healer” archetype, learning through suffering, compassion for others’ suffering, resistance to pain, “liminal” reality, pre-birth influences, ancestral influences, exile, healing, transformation.
◊(2150) NYCTIMENE
Nyctimene is a particularly painful asteroid. Nyctimene was the daughter of a prominent man, who is seduced by her father. She hides away in the forest out of shame, and is turned into an owl by Athena (note, that of course, owls are a nocturnal bird).
Nyctimene in a birth chart closely aspecting the Sun, Moon, Venus, or strongly placed in the 5th or 8th Houses has on several occasions indicated issues of incest, rape, and abuse by the father or father figure.
◊(2938) HOPI
This asteroid is named after the Hopi tribe of North America. Hope has astrological significance of ambush, attacks, prejudice, territorial disputes, Native Americans, minority experiences. Ambushes can be psychological as well as physical.
◊(3200) PHAETHON
Phaethon is generally associated with out of control, dangerous behaviour, people that get carried away, car crashes and accidents.
Phaethon was the son of the Sun God, Helios. He asked his father if he could drive the chariot of the sun – but when he took the reigns things span out of control rather quickly. The Sun chariot ended up scorching Africa, accounting for it’s desert areas; eventually Zeus struck him off the chariot to save the world and Phaethon died.
◊(3811) KARMA
Karma, like Achilles and Atropos, is one of my absolute go-to asteroids. Asteroid Karma stands for exactly what it should: Karmic connections, relationships, pain or circumstances that go back lifetimes. Sometimes in life we may feel that certain events were ‘fated’ or pre-told. Asteroid Karma is a great indicator of such energy within a birth chart.
◊(4451) GRIEVE
Grieve, grief, mourning, sorrow.
◊(5335) DAMOCLES
“The sword of Damocles” is quite well known as an expression: in short, it encapsulates the danger that rulers/leaders live with as a by-product of their power. Said another way – with great power comes great responsibility.
Generally in chart readings, I see Damocles in the chart of very powerful and successful people (investment bankers, military generals). On the other hand, their jobs/success/position stifle their ability to have a relationship, spend time with family, or have true friends. This is where asteroid Damocles can come in.
◊(6630) SKEPTICUS
Skepticus means skeptical, skepticism, doubting or discerning. This doesn’t have to be a bad asteroid whatsoever, as I’ve seen it prominently placed in the charts of journalists and researchers, as an example. However, when Skepticus is placed very near to asteroids like the Moon or Venus, the ‘skepticism’ carries over to emotions and/or love, creating an impossible situation.
◊(8690) SWINDLE
Lie, cheat, fraud, steal. Swindle has got it ALL. Would it surprise you if Swindle shows up prominently in the chart of the Donald?
No, no it would not.
◊(26955) LIE
Lies, liars, lying. Not much more to say than that – when you find this little dude in close aspect to someone, run. Especially potent when used to look at charts for business transactions and mergers.
◊(37117) NARCISSUS
I’m sure according to Narcissus, I’ve saved the best for last. Narcissus is naturally named after the infamous Narccissus, who loved himself so much that he became transfixed with his own image and committed suicide when he could not have the object of his desire.
Narcissus obviously talks about grandiose consideration for one’s self, disapproval or disinterest in others, self-obsession and the anger that comes from being spoiled, or not getting what you want.
1K notes
·
View notes
Text
self defense
What is Self Defense? self-defense 1
Self-defense (self-defense in some varieties of English) is a countermeasure that involves defending the health and well-being of oneself from harm. The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions.
Physical physical SD
Physical self-defense is the use of physical force to counter an immediate threat of violence. Such force can be either armed or unarmed. In either case, the chances of success depend on a large number of parameters, related to the severity of the threat on one hand, but also on the mental and physical preparedness of the defender.
Unarmedunarmed SD
Many styles of martial arts are practiced for self-defense or include self-defense techniques. Some styles train primarily for self-defense, while other martial or combat sports can be effectively applied for self-defense. Some martial arts train how to escape from a knife or gun situation, or how to break away from a punch, while others train how to attack. To provide more practical self-defense, many modern martial arts schools now use a combination of martial arts styles and techniques, and will often customize self-defense training to suit individual participants.
Armedarmed SD
Further information: Non-lethal weapon and Melee weapon
A wide variety of weapons can be used for self-defense. The most suitable depends on the threat presented, the victim or victims, and the experience of the defender. Legal restrictions also greatly influence self-defense options.
In many cases, there are also legal restrictions. While in some jurisdictions firearms may be carried openly or concealed expressly for this purpose, many jurisdictions have tight restrictions on who can own firearms, and what types they can own. Knives, especially those categorized as switchblades may also be controlled, as may batons, pepper spray, and personal stun guns and Tasers – although some may be legal to carry with a license or for certain professions.
Non-injurious water-based self-defense indelible dye-marker sprays, or ID-marker or DNA-marker sprays linking a suspect to a crime scene, would in most places be legal to own and carry.
Everyday objects, such as flashlights, baseball bats, newspapers, key rings with keys, kitchen utensils, and other tools, and hair spray aerosol cans in combination with a lighter, can also be used as improvised weapons for self-defense. Tie-wraps double as an effective restraint. Weapons such as the Botany (pocket stick) have been built for ease of carrying and to resemble everyday objects. Ballpoint pen knives, sword sticks, cane guns, and modified umbrellas are similar categories of concealed self-defense weapons that serve a dual purpose.
Other forms
AvoidanceAvoidance SD
Being aware of and avoiding potentially dangerous situations is one useful technique of self-defense. Attackers will typically select victims they feel they have an advantage against, such as greater physical size, numerical superiority or sobriety versus intoxication. Additionally, any ambush situation inherently puts the defender at a large initiative disadvantage. These factors make fighting to defeat an attacker unlikely to succeed. When avoidance is impossible, one often has a better chance of fighting to escape, such methods have been referred to as ‘breakaway’ techniques. Understanding the ‘mindset’ of a potential attacker is essential if we are to avoid or escape a potentially life-threatening situation.
DE-escalationDE-escalation SD
Verbal Self Defense, also known as Verbal Judo or Verbal Hokkaido,[6] is defined as using one’s words to prevent, de-escalate, or end an attempted assault.[7] This kind of ‘conflict management’ is the use of voice, tone, and body language to calm a potentially violent situation before violence actually ensues. This often involves techniques such as deflecting the conversation to individuals who are less passionately involved or simply entering into a protected empathetic position to understand the attacker better. Lowering an attacker’s defense and raising their ego is one way to de-escalate a potentially violent situation.
Personal alarmsPersonal alarms SD
Personal alarms are a way to practice passive self-defense. A personal alarm is a small, hand-held device that emits strong, loud, high-pitched sounds to deter attackers because the noise will sometimes draw the attention of passersby. It must be recognized that for such a device to be effective it must be in the potential “victims” hand before an attempted attack. [8] Child alarms can function as locators or device alarms such as for triggering an alert when a swimming pool is in use to help prevent dangerous situations in addition to being a deterrent against would-be aggressors
Legal aspectsLegal aspects SD
Main articles: Right of self-defense and Self-defence in international law
The self-defense laws of modern legislation build on the Roman Law principle of dominium where any attack on the members of the family or the property it owned was a personal attack on the pater familias. In Leviathan (1651), Hobbes argues that although some may be stronger or more intelligent than others in their natural state, none are so strong as to be beyond a fear of violent death, which justifies self-defense as the highest necessity. In his 1918 speech Politik als Beruf (Politics as a Vocation), Max Weber defined a state as an authority claiming the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within defined territorial boundaries. Modern libertarianism characterizes the majority of laws as intrusive to personal autonomy and, in particular, argues that the right of self-defense from coercion (including violence) is a fundamental human right. In this context, note that Article 12 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Combined with the principle of the state’s monopoly of legitimate force, this means that those authorized by the state to defend the law (in practice, the police) are charged with the use of necessary force to protect such rights. The right to self-defense is limited to situations where the immediate threat of violence cannot be prevented by those authorized to do so (in practice, because no police force is present at the moment of the threat). The right to self-defense granted by law to the private citizen is strictly limited. Use of force that goes beyond what is necessary to dispel the immediate threat of violence is known as excessive self-defense (also self-defense with excessive force). The civil law systems have a theory of “abuse of right” to explain denial of justification in such cases. Thus, in English law, the general common law principle is stated in Beckford v R (1988) 1 AD 130:
“A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable.”
Similar clauses are found in the legislation throughout the western world. They derive historically from article 6 of the French Penal Code of 1791, which ruled that “manslaughter is legitimate if it is indispensably dictated by the present necessity of legitimate defense of oneself or others”.The modern French penal code further specifies that excessive self-defense is punishable due to “disproportion between the means of defense used and the gravity of the attack” defended against.
The British Law Commission Report on Partial Defenses to Murder (2004) Part 4 (pp78/86) recommends a redefinition of provocation to cover situations where a person acts lethally out of fear.
The present view of psychiatrists is that most people act in violent situations with a combination of fear and anger and that separating these two types of affect is not legally constructive. In practice, however, self-defense laws still do make this distinction. German criminal law (§ 33) distinguishes “asthenic affect” (fear) from “sthenic affect” (anger). Excessive self-defense out of asthenic affect is not punishable.
RESOURSE FROM -https://www.somestips.com/self-defense-tips/
0 notes
Text
The Rise of Fiduciary Law
Tamar Frankel is Professor of Law Emerita Boston University School of Law. This post is based on a paper by Professor Frankel.
Introduction
Fiduciary rules appear in family law, surrogate decision-making, laws of agency, employment, pensions, remedies, banking, financial institutions, corporations, charities, not for profit organizations, medical services and international law. Fiduciary concepts guide areas of knowledge: economics, psychology; moral norms; and pluralism. Fiduciary law was recognized in Roman law and the British common law. It was embedded decades ago in religious Jewish, Christian, and Islamic laws. Internationally, fiduciary law appears in European, Chinese, Japanese and Indian laws.
What explains the expansion and predicts the future of fiduciary principles? Part One offers a short description of fiduciary relationships. Part Two describes the growth of expertise in living beings—from genetic to chosen cooperative specialization. Part Three notes the law’s encouragement of the relationships while discouraging its potential abuses. Part Four highlights criticisms of fiduciary law. Part Five speculates about the future of fiduciary law.
Part One: Fiduciary relationships and the conditions under which they arise.
Fiduciary relationships are crucial to individuals and societies’ few individuals are self-sufficient or can live alone. The fiduciary services respond to both individual humans and society’s needs: medical treatment addresses individual sicknesses as well as society-wide epidemics.
Fiduciaries benefit from their contributions. The recipients of fiduciary services cannot acquire the expertise necessary for all the services that all fiduciaries can, and offer. However, with these services come dependence and often an inability to fully evaluate and judge the quality and reliability of services. Thus, fiduciaries acquire power over the service-recipients. This power can be misused, intentionally or negligently.
The best fiduciary services are rendered voluntarily because forced services might be dangerous to recipients, who do not understand or evaluate these services. The purpose of fiduciary law is (i) to encourage the use of expert services, (ii) entice experts to offer their services and (iii) prevent the experts’ abuse of these unequal power-dependent relationships.
Part Two: The evolution of live group to specialization—from genetic to cooperative.
Most living beings cannot live alone. Their survival depends on the support of others. Theirs services and rewards, however, are genetically compulsory. Thus, the lion’s family members live by genetically-fixed duties of functions and rights. Being the physical protector of the group the male receives the “lion’s share.” The female needs less food being the hunter: small, agile, and ferocious. However, animals may habitually cooperate, e.g., in hunting for food. Cooperation may be a genetic tendency yet requires adjustment to others’ intentions and decision-power that is to cooperate in performing functions for a collective purpose.
Human societies are complex, as compared to the animals’ societies. Humans can develop new expertise which can contribute to other humans, their longevity, pleasure, and well-being. Working together, learning from past successes and failures, and noting changes and opportunities, humans develop knowledge, which is useful to their communities, and members of their species. However, humans’ service to others is not genetic and unlike animals human genes allow more freedom and power. Enticing rewards may drive to acquire and develop various new specialties.
The lion’s family which is driven by genetics is likely to change slowly, while humans can learn and acquire their expertise relatively faster by learning. Learning ability may be genetic but much of it can be taught and self-driven. Therefore, unlike most animals, humans may choose to offer or withhold their expertise from others, as well as accept or reject the expertise of others. The source of the expertise may be chosen. Therefore, humans may persuade their experts to provide them with the fruits of their expertise.
Because more expert services appear, no one human can master all available humans’ expertise. The governing gene has become subject to the person who owns it. But the sharing is less genetically inbred. Further, human expertise is more diverse. Therefore, experts in some areas are non-experts in other areas. Finally, as noted below, many, if not all, humans cooperate, thus creating expertise that none of each participant in the group can create alone.
Therefore, human societies develop mechanisms that enable the members to benefit from the expertise of others by negotiation. Human expertise is marketable rather than innate. Givers and receivers must agree or be forced by law to provide expertise. The rewards to each party may differ, and the exchange terms are flexible as compared to genetic ones. Therefore, human expertise is rarely offered free and is often induced by an exchange of a reward. Receiving expertise model has changed from automatic—genetically driven—to an exchange or a gift, depending on both parties’ bargain.
Part Three. The social impacts of fiduciary relations and the law’s response: encourage the relationships while discouraging the abuse they might pose.
Pre-exchange inequality continues after the relationship is established. The recipient of the expertise obtains its benefits, but not its control, and most importantly, not control over its abuse. The experts have the power of knowledge over the recipients. This power is often continuous and could be hidden.
Power can be used to benefit or harm. The recipients’ inability to check the experts’ power and services quality can result in suspicion and withdrawal from the expert. This result conflicts with society’s interests. After all, the financial, health, legal and education systems, to name a few, are built on offer and exchange of expertise.
In response, fiduciary law establishes duty of care ensuring expert services and duty of loyalty prohibiting conflicting interests which undermine trust. Fiduciary law can entice and protect those, who need expert services to rely and trust their experts. The lower the ability to check the experts’ expertise and honesty, the higher the fiduciary duty of experts and their punishment for abuse will be.
Part Four. What are the critics saying about fiduciary law?
Not everyone agreed with this extension of trustworthiness under fiduciary law. One commentator suggests that some breaches of contract are “voluntary but … efficient,” noting “that it is not the policy of the law to compel adherence to contracts, but only to require each party to choose between performing in accordance with the contract and compensating the other party for any injury resulting from a failure to perform.” Yet contracting of a non-expert with an expert can be similar to a contract by a blind person to a party that can see. Freedom to “walk away” by a needy (e.g. for a mortgage) is the freedom to starve. And mortgagors who can walk from their low quality property are just as unfair. Cheating the cheaters is not the solution. Blind who contract with a party that sees should not be defrauded. Contract is biding among equals and inequality in bargain or understanding or driven but fear is not a contract.
A subtle way of undermining fiduciary law is to make the law murky when the duty of care (quality service) and lately (conflicting interests) has been merged into duty to “act in the best interests” of the client or entrustor. This expression merges two different obligations and should be questioned.
Part Five. The future of fiduciary law
Will we need fiduciary law in the future? The impact of fiduciary law is likely to rise. Fiduciary law issues are expanding. Inequality of knowledge and expertise exist and is likely to continue, depending on the degree to which those who rely on the experts can trust the experts, and the degree to which society benefits from this degree of trusting by expanding and exchanging knowledge and helpful services to its members.
Trust is not necessarily emotional. Nor are trusting people foolishly blind. Trust might depend on experience, memory and the level of risk of trusting. If breach of trust brings suspicion if might lead to rejecting reliance on experts, or to additional rules of culture or of law, aimed at maintaining the offering of, and reliance on, the expertise of others.
Alternatively, breach of trust may result in retaliation by the injured people and the withdrawal from experts. That is likely to impoverish the mistrusting societies. Whether experts or the government can revive general trust in experts, may depend on the efforts by the government, the experts, and by their mistrusting, but needy, members of the society. The occasional stock market crashes that this country has experienced need no cited evidence.
Perhaps the success of trusted enterprises and societies, as compared to societies plagued by mistrust and suspicion, may drive to the rise of fiduciary law. Mistrusted people, who benefit from breach of trust, can succeed only in societies, which value the success, no matter how it is achieved, and regardless how short-term it is. Societies that impose a law, which measures and specifies the required level of trust in expert services, are likely to be less successful than societies that impose a law, which requires experts to create and follow a culture of expert’s identification with the people they serve. After all, the test of trustworthiness is not very complicated.
Fiduciary law should be based on one guiding test by a party that offers trusted fiduciary expert: “Would I, the trusted person, like to be treated the way I treat those who trust me? If I do not, then I should not treat others that way. That is, regardless of whether I can blame them or whether they are greedy, foolish, or cruel. Besides, others’ misbehavior does not justify misbehavior. The test: is: Am I abusing the trust put in me. It should be self—imposed, regardless of how others view my behavior, including the law and the government and the victims. I am my own judge and my own potential victim of my own activities.
Fiduciary law has significant influence on society’s culture. Both individuals, and human societies learn, can become wealthier, healthier and flourish by following fiduciary law principles. E.g., exchange is beneficial: to both exchanging parties. Yet, even exchanging products requires a measure of trust and some services are needed more than products. Yet, an exchange may involve unequal knowledge. Also, cooperation is beneficial and often crucial while mistrust destroys it.
Regardless of whether they are enforced by law, by social rules, or by cultural pressures, fiduciary rules are a condition to the long-term well-being of a human society. They induce cooperate-relationships, which require justly rewarded truthful and reliable expert services by humans to other humans. Freedom does not include what fiduciary law prohibits. A society will be wealthier if its fiduciaries self-enforce and follow fiduciary principles. The reverse is likely to be true as well. A society whose fiduciaries do not feel compelled to be trustworthy, will, in the long run, be the poorest.
The complete paper is available for download here.
Source: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/09/10/the-rise-of-fiduciary-law/
0 notes
Text
Re-Attributing the Fundamentals of Sovreignty
This essay was assigned for my Advanced College Essay class. Prompt: Investigate a newsworthy, controversial issue that matters to you, in order to consider the following questions: What larger cultural and philosophical conflicts are driving this controversy? How does your own research, and/or other texts you’ve encountered in other courses, inform and enhance your understanding of the issue and its implications? Finally, what does this controversy tells us about American culture?
“I knew a boy called Ala’a. He was only six years old. He didn’t understand what was happening. I’d say that six-year-old boy was tortured more than anyone else in the room . . . He wasn’t given food or water for three days, and he was so weak he used to faint all the time. He was beaten regularly. I watched him die. He only survived for three days and then he simply died. He was terrified all the time. They treated his body as if he were a dog” (Save the Children). This is the account of a sixteen year old boy named Wael who was a witness to a horrific atrocity in Syria. The Syrian civil war started as pro-democracy protesters demanding President Assad’s resignation. It quickly escalated into a brutal civil war in which all sides have committed horrific war crimes. The BBC estimates that more than 250,000 Syrians have lost their lives as a result of the war (Rodgers, et al). Many countries have intervened on both sides (Russia and Iran back the Syrian government, while the U.S. coalition and Turkey back the rebels), and insurgents such as the Islamic State have invaded, only creating more chaos.
Public opinion is sharply divided on this issue, especially when it comes to U.S. intervention in stopping ISIS. In the Pew Research Center’s survey of Americans on this issue, they reported, “While 49% say their bigger worry about U.S. military action is that it will not go far enough in stopping Islamic militants, nearly as many (46%) say their bigger concern is that the U.S. will go too far in getting involved in the situation” (Pew). The U.S. 2016 presidential election has brought issues of foreign intervention to the forefront, as candidates on both sides of the issue attempt to gain voters. The establishment candidates such as Cruz and Clinton support intervention, while non-establishment candidates like Trump and Sanders would prefer to take a step back. Clearly, intervention is a touchy subject that divides Americans into two camps.
The recent turmoils in the Middle East raise an important question: is the U.S. justified in intervening in sovereign nations in order to stop human rights abuses? Ever since the 1990s, this question has lied at the heart of United States foreign policy. From Bosnia, to the Iraq War, to Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, the U.S. has grappled with these issues. People are now more divided on this issue than ever, due to doubts stemming from the 2008 Great Recession and the rise of third-party non-state groups such as ISIS. Because the U.S. is one of the most important leaders in international relations, the decision by the U.S. to invade sets a precedent that is followed by other nations. Similarly, if the U.S. decides to not invade, this also sets a precedent. Thus, questions of sovereignty and intervention are critical to how the United States will position itself in the future.
Eliav Lieblich, writing for the Boston University International Law Journal, defines intervening in the political process of another nation. His definition starts with the physical process of intervention:
“In the physical sense, intervention takes place whenever party C engages in a conflict between opposing parties A and B. Thus, whenever a state engages parties to an internal armed conflict--using forcible or non-forcible measures, illegally or illegally--it intervenes” (Lieblich 344). Lieblich does not just stop at physical intervention. Rather, he makes the distinction between the physical process of intervention and the symbolic nature inherent in the term: “However, the term intervention encompasses an additional, separate meaning connoting the unlawful, coercive interference or encroachment upon the territorial integrity or internal political affairs of another state.”
This definition describes intervention as being unlawful and coercive. However, much of the current literature on foreign policy actually favors intervention in stopping human rights abuses and genocide. For example, Manuela Aguilar, a scholar writing in the journal Social Alternatives, explains that sovereignty can be used as an excuse by violators of human rights. Aguilar’s perspective is that states have a duty to protect their citizens, and if they do not, they lose their privilege to sovereignty. “Today’s discussion over the concept of sovereignty… makes sovereignty a responsibility, not an impunity” (Aguilar 18). Aguilar argues that governments should not consider sovereignty (freedom from outside intervention) to be a natural right, but rather a privilege. If a state abuses this privilege by harming its own citizens, it then loses its sovereignty and another nation intervenes.
Of course it is important to examine what exactly the nation is intervening for as well. Some say that certain human rights abuses always justify intervention from other nations. Claudia Card, professor of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, explains that genocide always necessitates intervention: “When a group with its own cultural identity is destroyed, its survivors… become… no longer able to pass along and build upon the traditions, cultural developments (including languages), and projects of earlier generations” (Card) Thus, the argument goes that the United States must protect universal human rights and do everything in its power to stop genocide because as Card explains: “The special evil of genocide lies in its infliction of not just physical death but social death, producing a consequent meaninglessness of one’s life and even of its termination.” Genocide is an evil act that results in social death, and because it’s not just individual rights but entire cultures on the line, intervention must always be considered justified.
Opponents of intervention disagree and state that no matter what violation of human rights is performed, sovereignty outweighs the responsibility to protect. Intervention necessarily violates sovereignty, and opponents of intervention, especially Michael Walzer, writing in his article The Politics of Rescue, believe that this is wrong:
“Ever since Roman times, empires have expanded by intervening in civil wars, replacing ‘anarchy’ with law and order, overthrowing supposedly noxious regimes. Conceivably, this expansion has saved lives, but only by creating in the process a ‘prison-house of nations,’ whose subsequent history is a long tale of prison revolts, brutally repressed… people who have lived together in the past and will have to do so in the future should be allowed to work out their difficulties without imperial assistance, among themselves.” (Walzer)
Like Walzer, many believe that intervention robs a state of its natural right to emerge from internal conflict on its own terms. Countless nations, including the U.S., have emerged from internal conflict. The process of resolving conflict is incredibly tricky, and decisions of how to rule, what system of government to use, and who should govern should ultimately be left up to the people who actually have a stake in the outcome. The citizens of those countries that are in conflict ultimately have the most understanding of their own culture and belief systems, thus it would be unfair and condescending for a country with no knowledge to come in and explain how things “really work.”
Besides the problem of sovereignty, non-interventionist scholars have suggested that intervening nations use human rights as a way to exploit non-white nations. In his influential book called The Racial Contract, Charles Mills explains how notions of egalitarian morality have only ever been applied by western nations as a way to assert their dominance over non-western nations:
The Racial Contract is that set of agreements between the members of one subset of humans, henceforth designated as “white,” and coextensive with the class of full persons, to categorize the remaining subset of humans as “nonwhite” and of a different and inferior moral status, subpersons. . . the general purpose of the contract is always the differential privileging of the whites as a group with respect to the nonwhites as a group, the exploitation of their bodies, land, and resources, and the denial of equal socioeconomic opportunities to them. (Mills 11)
According to Mills, the Racial Contract is extremely harmful to non-white nations and embracing this contract in the form of “justified intervention” would actually be unjust. By its nature, the Racial Contract is an exploitative contract, and upholding human rights only entrenches the exploitation of non-whites.
Some scholars argue that the notion of human rights itself was created by imperialist powers as an excuse to meddle in other countries’ affairs. For example, Anthony Pagden recalls the 1947 drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human rights. The Saudi Arabian delegation to the drafting protested that the committee had “for the most part taken into consideration only the standards recognized by Western civilization” and that it was not its task “to proclaim the superiority of one civilization over all others or to establish uniform standards for all the countries of the world” (Pagden 172). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not actually universal; it was drafted by Western nations to have an excuse for invading other poorer, non-Western, non-white countries. Thus, the argument goes that because a truly just nation would not exploit third world countries, the U.S. is never justified in intervening in nations even for the sake of human rights.
However, this argument can be flipped on its head when you consider that human rights themselves, regardless of whoever came up with the concept, are the reason why sovereignty even exists. Anne Peters writes: “It has become clear that the normative status of sovereignty is derived from humanity, understood as the legal principle that human rights, interests, needs, and security must be respected and promoted, and that this humanistic principle is also the telos of the international legal system” (Peters). The very reason why sovereignty is so important is because it is derived from the concept of human rights itself. Thus, no matter who ‘created’ the notion of human rights, human rights are the very reason why sovereignty is important, so ignoring human rights in favor of sovereignty seems counterintuitive.
What both proponents and detractors of intervention don’t seem to understand is that the way that conflict is viewed in terms of good versus bad is ultimately detrimental to our understanding of said conflict. Complexity that is inherent in conflicts on the scale of nations makes effective intervention impossible. As Walzer writes, “We are extraordinarily dependent on the victim/victimizer, good guys/bad guys model. I am not sure that any very forceful intervention is politically possible without it… the politics of rescue is certain to be complex and messy” (Walzer). Humans, by their very nature, often use shortcuts to process information. These shortcuts are called heuristics. It is easy for humans to look at conflict as being a contest between good and evil. This mindset occurs on both sides, with the interventionist side claiming that the nations abusing human rights are evil and the U.S. is good, and the non-interventionist side claiming the opposite.
Proponents of intervention must consider that, as in the case of the Syria, both sides of the intervention may have committed atrocities, from mass killing to other human rights abuses. This may seem like a cynical view of human nature, but when you consider that humans don’t do things without good reason, you end up with a more nuanced (and more accurate) view of conflict. An important concept in psychology is the fundamental attribution error. The fundamental attribution error is basically the idea that human beings tend to attribute their own mistakes to being outside forces, while demonizing other humans for making the same mistakes. Consider this example: Bob is driving on his way to work. As he is about to pass an intersection, a car suddenly cuts in front of him. He gets very angry at this car, complaining about the driver’s poor skills. What Bob fails to consider is that the person driving the car may have a very good reason for cutting in front of him, such as taking a patient to the hospital. The fundamental attribution error is something we all experience, and it turns any conflict, whether it’s as small as a traffic issue to as large as international relations, into a binary conflict: good versus bad.
Proponents of intervention claim that the U.S. is good and that developing nations are bad, while opponents of intervention state the opposite. Both sides are attributing the fault to one specific pinpointed source, which is just not how the world works.
Several researchers, such as Robert Ricigliano (a mediation expert at the University of Wisconsin-Madison), are attempting to break this mold of good/evil: “One of the key lessons of the systems mindset is to stop approaching conflicts as problems that need to be fixed, says Ricigliano, and instead think of them as systems with underlying dynamics that need to shift. “Success doesn’t mean that we’ve ended the conflict,” he says. “It means we’ve engaged a system so that violence declines over time��” (qtd in Jones). Ricigliano believes that by shifting the perspective from good vs. bad to an ever shifting system with multiple parties and grey moralities, conflict can be resolved more easily.
Humans have complex motivations. There’s no one reason why any of us do anything. Extrapolate the complexities of one person’s mind to a whole nation, and you see just how thorny the problem is. Some people advocate for simplifying the problem by using binary thinking and clever rhetoric. Those people only add to the problem, and often have motivations of their own. To reduce a situation with thousands of factors and motives behind it is to disrespect the situation. Only when we look at the world in a complex and nuanced light are we able to truly help solve the problems facing our world.
1 note
·
View note
Text
Richard J. Rosenthal & Suzanne B. Faris, The etymology and early history of ‘addiction’, 5 Addiction Research & Theory 437 (2017)
Abstract
Contemporary usage of addiction is contradictory and confusing; the term is highly stigmatizing but popularly used to describe almost any strong desire, passion or pursuit. Does current usage involve a recent corruption of the term or is there a history of conflicting meanings?
Method:
A diachronic etymological study of the terms ‘addict,’ ‘addicted’ and ‘addiction,’ informed by contemporary linguistic theory and utilizing primary and secondary sources in Archaic and Classical Latin and in English. We examine three periods: Early Roman Republic, Middle and Late Roman Republic, and Early Modern England.
Findings:
‘To speak to,’ its earliest meaning, is explained by legal and augural technical usage (5th cent. BCE). As addicere and addictus evolved in the Middle and Late Roman Republic, the notion of enslavement, a secondary derivation from its legal usage, persisted as descriptive and no longer literal. In the Early Modern period, the verb addict meant simply ‘to attach.’ The object of that attachment could be good or bad, imposed or freely chosen. By the 17th century, addiction was mostly positive in the sense of devoting oneself to another person, cause or pursuit. We found no evidence for an early medical model.
Conclusion:
Gambling appears to be the only behavior that could satisfy both original uses; it had a strongly positive meaning (its association with divination), and an equally negative, stigmatizing one. Historically, addiction is an auto-antonym, a word with opposite, conflicting meanings. Recent applications are not a corruption of the word but are rooted in earliest usage.
Introduction
We present a diachronic, etymological study of addiction to see whether a look at the word’s origins and how its usage has evolved can shed light on the contradictions surrounding the word today. The concept of addiction has been fraught with conflict, so much so that there was an attempt to avoid it entirely by writing it out of the diagnostic manuals and substituting other terms like abuse and dependence. The experiment appears to have failed, and addiction has not only been officially re-introduced but its territory expanded. Our reliance on it seems to have outweighed our frustration with its ambiguity. We’ll begin with an overview of the problem and some examples.
The controversy: ‘addiction’ as a viable diagnostic term?
When the word addiction was deliberately omitted from four consecutive editions of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM-III (APA 1980), DSM-III-R (APA 1987), DSM-IV (APA 1994), and DSM-IV-TR (APA 2000)], it was because it was considered a layman’s rather than a scientific term, pejorative, stigmatizing, and too difficult to define. There were simply ‘too many meanings’ (Alexander & Schweighofer 1988); the term lacked any ‘universally agreed upon definition’ (Buchman et al. 2011); the result of using it was ‘conceptual chaos’ (Shaffer 1986, 1997). The word has recently been reintroduced in DSM-5 (APA 2013), where it appears in the name for a new category, ‘Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders,’ yet the text observes that addiction has been ‘omitted from the official DSM-5 substance use disorder diagnostic terminology because of its uncertain definition and its potentially negative connotation’ (p. 485).
Furthermore, the editors of the DSM-5 have introduced behavioral addiction (p. 481), a term they also do not define, despite their expectation that other non-substance addictions will follow gambling disorder into the official nomenclature. (One such possibility, internet gaming disorder, appears in the appendix.) The section on gambling disorder doesn’t mention addiction or behavioral addiction, and neither term appears in the glossary. In fact, the latter term appears only in the introduction to this one-hundred-page chapter. Inclusion in DSM-5 represents behavioral addiction’s first official recognition as a diagnostic entity. It is therefore especially notable that, in addition to the lack of a definition, there are neither criteria nor guidelines for the assessment of potential disorders.
Thus, there appears to be a strange ambivalence, and not merely in relation to behavioral addiction but with regard to addiction. It’s as if they invited it to the party then refused to acknowledge that it was there. Even the title for the chapter, ‘Substance Related and Addictive Disorders,’ is peculiar; it should be ‘Substance Related and Other Addictive Disorders.’ As written, gambling disorder appears to be the only addictive disorder.1
Of the chapter’s two objections to addiction, the lack of a clear definition is the more compelling; the view of it as pejorative or stigmatizing seems debatable given its current popularity. ‘Addiction,’ as the word appears in popular culture, may indicate impaired control, as in a bad habit or compulsion, but is frequently used to describe almost any strong desire, passion or pursuit. When marketers refer to a game, product or activity as addictive or addicting, they mean that it’s exciting and will sustain consumer interest. The name conveys desirability: it will meet your needs and is habit forming (but in the nicest possible way).
Positive addictions are seemingly everywhere
A surprising number of fitness centers, shoe stores, lingerie shops, hair and beauty salons are named Addiction. One of us (RJR) took photographs of some of these shops and store fronts to use as slides when we presented an earlier version of the paper (16th International Conference on Gambling and Risk-Taking, Las Vegas, June 2016). Examples were found within a few blocks of his Los Angeles office, next door to his hotel in Paris, around the corner from where he was staying in London. Addiction is also a popular brand name, and not just for footwear or hand bags or cosmetics, as you would expect, but also for a line of biker clothing and men’s underwear, a brand of pet food, a media company, an archery range, and a brand of hot sauce.
William Glasser (1976), a psychiatrist, introduced the term ‘positive addiction’ to mean a positive behavior, like running or meditation, that strengthens individual functioning. Engaging in either of those behaviors regularly, according to Glasser, at a dosage of about an hour a day, will produce a non-critical, transcendental state of mind. He identified that pleasurable mental state as the addiction.
Popular usage and meaning of terms such as ‘addiction’ have a way of influencing the medical and scientific literature (Babor & Hall 2007). Although seemingly everything pleasurable has been labelled an addiction, and subjected to a blog or magazine article (e.g. ‘Travel addiction is real’ and ‘Science confirms that you can actually be addicted to travel’),2 some of these have actually been studied. This usually consists of a survey in which criteria for gambling or substance use disorder are applied.
An illustrative example is a study of ‘Argentine tango addiction’ (Targhetta et al. 2013; see also Maraz et al. 2015). Targhetta, himself an avid devotee, conducted a survey of novice and experienced tango dancers. Of the 1,129 dancers whose responses could be included, almost half (45%) met DSM-IV criteria for abuse; seven percent met more conservative criteria for addiction. Based on the overall sample, 34% reported strong cravings, while 20% described symptoms of physical withdrawal. Tolerance was defined by an increase in time dancing or preparing to dance. Notably, the authors found the behavior to be much more of a positive than a negative addiction in that respondents reported positive physical effects, self-confidence, and a sense of well-being. That positive effects greatly outweighed negative effects was true even for those in the addicted group. The primary negative consequence was the spending of money for outfits and shoes.
The study reminded us of an editorial on ‘internet addiction’ (Block 2008; see also Billieux et al. 2015), which proposed as examples of tolerance not only the expenditure of more time but the need for more software or better computer equipment. Articles such as these illustrate the difficulties involved in applying features from substance addiction, such as tolerance and withdrawal, to non-chemical activities, as well as the problem of considering a positive behavior, one whose benefits far out-weigh any negatives, as an addiction.
Is it a recent problem?
Various authors have expressed concern about what Sedgwick (1993) referred to as an ‘epidemic of addiction attribution’ (p. 133) and a ‘crisis of addiction attribution’ (p. 135). White (2004, p. 42) viewed it as ‘a passing phenomenon of American pop culture.’ It is not always clear whether they are referring to the spate of ‘positive addictions’ or the behavioral excesses championed as potential new disorders. In either case, we would be asking whether this is a recent problem, perhaps based on some misunderstanding, misuse or corruption of the term.
Most of the ongoing debates about the meaning of addiction have been framed in binary or dichotomous terms, usually related to the question of personal responsibility (e.g., Leshner 1997; Hickman 2004, 2007; Heyman 2009; Satel & Lilienfeld 2014). The behavior is voluntary (choice) or involuntary (disease); the individual is bad (criminal) or sick (patient); there is a failure or inability to resist the impulse or behavior; it is or isn’t due to a brain disease. Of the various contradictions, the notion of ‘positive addiction’ is arguably the most confounding, and the one least likely to be resolved by further research.
The etymological roots of ‘addiction’: might history provide the key?
The specific application of ‘addiction’ to alcohol and drugs is considered a recent phenomenon (Levine 1978; Berridge & Edwards 1987; Peele 1990), with the medical conception of addiction beginning around the beginning of the 19th century with Benjamin Rush (1784/1805) and Thomas Trotter (1804/1988). Yet addiction is a very old word. We will describe its origins, and then trace its early history up to but not including the medical model of addiction, which has been described by Levine (1978) and more recently by White (2004) and Hickman (2004, 2007).
Our review will focus primarily on three historical periods: The Early Roman Republic, the Middle and Late Roman Republic, and England during the Early Modern period. Of particular interest is not only the resilience of the term despite its limitations and attempts to avoid or replace it, but its current popularity as something desired despite the tradition of stigma associated with it. Is this seeming contradiction a new phenomenon, like the slang reversal of meanings where ‘bad’ is the new good, or does it represent something much older, perhaps a misunderstanding or corruption of the word? Or is there a history of conflicting meanings, and if so how far back does it go? Is there an underlying meaning that has remained constant? A primary or prototypic addiction? Greater awareness of this early history, explored here with the benefit of insights offered by contemporary linguistic theory, will not necessarily resolve our present difficulties with the term, but may contribute to our understanding of its usage.
Origins: Early Roman Republic (5th – mid 3rd cent. BCE)
The legal meaning of addicere in the Early Roman Republic
The English word addiction stems from the same root, dicere, meaning ‘to say’ or ‘to speak,’ as our words dictate, diction, and dictionary. Addicere, a Latin compound of dicere and the proposition ad, from which the English word ‘addiction’ is directly derived, meant literally ‘to speak to,’ and, more loosely, to ‘assent’ or ‘adjudge’ (Oxford Latin Dictionary 2012, vol. 1, p. 40). Addictio, the abstract noun derived from the verb, was the technical Latin term for the judicial act by which a debtor was made the slave of his creditor. The sentence was pronounced, or spoken, by the judge, or praetor, according to the ancient law of the Twelve Tables.3
The Twelve Tables, inscribed on bronze and erected for public view in the city of Rome in the middle of the fifth century BCE, constituted the earliest written record of Roman Civil Law. It was derived from primitive Roman religious law, whose administration was in the hands of a hereditary aristocracy that monopolized both secular and priestly offices. The Twelve Tables recognized a limited number of remedies for asserting property rights or contractual claims. On days when court proceedings were permitted by the Roman religious calendar, the praetor urbanus, the official in charge, would ritually intone a formula that encapsulated his judicial powers: do, dico, addico, which may best be translated as ‘I give, I say, I adjudge’ (Black et al. 1990, p. 37).
This pronouncement was nothing short of a ‘binding spell’ (Linderski 2006, p. 100–101), in that, in the exercise of his judicial duties, the praetor was acting in a quasi-religious capacity; his words were thought to embody the power of Jupiter, the chief Roman god who was responsible for lightning, thunder, and other celestial phenomena (Noailles 1949). As we shall see in the next section, the aristocratic officials of the Roman Republic, like the kings who preceded them, looked to Jupiter for signals of divine approval or support (Humm 2012; Schiavone 2012). Moreover, as a member of Rome’s hereditary aristocracy, the praetor himself was one of the wealthiest and most powerful citizens of the Roman Republic (Dumézil 1966/1988).
Where exactly did this leave the addictus, which in the passive form referred to the hapless individual who was physically handed over to his creditor by the praetor’s authority and physically led off in chains, to be held for sixty days or until the debt was paid? Failure to pay the debt after the lapse of the statutory sixty days rendered the debtor his creditor’s permanent property. He could then, at the creditor’s discretion, be kept, killed or sold as a common slave (Schiavone 2012).
The augural meaning of addicere in the Early Roman Republic
The ‘taking of auspices’ was a public religious ritual whereby the official in charge would formally ‘consult’ the gods, especially Jupiter, by watching the skies for evidence of the god’s favor and support of some course of action (Walters 1997).4 Prior to the founding of the Roman Republic in the late sixth century BCE, these functions would have been performed by kings, who as in many agrarian, pre-modern societies constituted a link between the human and the divine (Dumézil 1966/1988). In the Republic, such rituals were performed by officials, many of whom also served as priests.
The praetor had, in his military capacity, the right to take auspices prior to battle. The sky god Jupiter would through the medium of birds communicate approval (addixerunt) and support for the proposed assault.5 For example, in the Roman historian Livy’s account of Q. Fabius Maximus Cunctator’s campaign against the Carthaginian general Hannibal in the late third century BCE, Maximus duly took the auspices before setting out for the city of Metapontum in southern Italy to negotiate a proposed surrender. The birds did not, however, give him a favorable signal (non addixerunt), so he didn’t go, thereby avoiding the ambush that Hannibal and the city officials had planned for him (Livy, History of Rome from its Foundation 26.16).
Significantly, if the response had been positive, it would have been the birds that would have proclaimed Jupiter’s approval, a belief reflected even in Latin grammar: to wit, in all historical accounts of auspices taken prior to battles and other significant undertakings, the birds appear as the subject of addicere always in the active voice (Linderski 2006). In sum, we may make the following generalization concerning the Latin verb addicere in its technical usages: only the gods, through the medium of birds, or the praetor, in his judicial capacity, might perform the act of ‘speaking to.’ The very act of speaking was imbued with power through its association with the authority of the gods (Linderski 2006). Thus, the word addiction, at its root, is one of the most powerful of words. We may be reminded that another powerful word, fate, at its root means ‘to speak’ (Oxford Latin Dictionary 2012, p. 318).
This earliest meaning of addicere, ‘to speak to,’ is central to both technical uses, the legal and the augural (Oxford Latin Dictionary 2012, p. 40). A second, looser meaning, to ‘sanction’ or ‘confirm,’ applies mostly to its augural usage (Linderski 2006; Oxford Latin Dictionary 2012, p. 40). The most consistent, best known meaning, that of ‘enslavement,’ is a slightly later, secondary elaboration, albeit one based on its earliest legal usage (Oxford Latin Dictionary 2012, p. 40). For the Romans, enslavement became increasingly associated with the passive forms of addicere, which of necessity would take on a very different connotation from the active form. To understand this, one must appreciate the distinction Romans made between active and passive forms of the verb, and in fact between active and passive in all forms of behavior. To be the recipient, to be acted upon, was to be less than. A passive human subject was a defeated individual, the object of someone else’s power. Being sentenced to be another person’s slave would be particularly humiliating. It would mean not only the loss of one’s citizenship but of one’s personhood (Walters 1997).
Who was the original addictus?
Gaming was ubiquitous among all classes, and while we don’t know the percentage of Roman debt slaves who were gamblers, the relationship between gambling and devastating financial problems was well known. The severity of the problem necessitated the enactment of legislation to protect those most affected by it from harsh punishments. In the fourth century BCE, the Lex Poetelia ameliorated conditions for debtors (Testart 2002), while the Lex Alearia, in the third century BCE, effectively rendered all gambling debts legally unenforceable (Faris 2012).
By that time, the association between gambling, indebtedness, and enslavement was firmly established. However, gambling was also closely associated with divination. It therefore appears to be the only behavior to which both technical uses of addicere, the legal and the augural, may be said to apply. Since one meaning is extremely positive, the other extremely negative, we will take them up separately.
Gambling and divination. A close association between gambling and divination exists across almost all cultures and time periods (Kendrall 1961; Reith 1999). The Old Testament, for example, was not against gambling, but against gambling done frivolously (Rosenthal 2015). Lots were cast to choose leaders, settle major disputes, determine guilt or innocence. The winning throw was thought to represent the will of God. The early psychoanalytic literature (Rosenthal 1987, 2015) contained a number of cases in which gambling was viewed as a way to answer important questions about what was permitted, about guilt or innocence, life or death, and whether the gambler was accepted and loved by the all-important other. Stekel (1924/1943) was the first to describe the game as an oracle; if the gambler won, his wish (e.g., for love or power) would be granted, an idea frequently repeated in the literature.
Although there are many similarities, there are also important differences between the appeal to oracles and the taking of auspices. The auspices did not provide answers to open-ended questions, but only indicated whether a particular action, on a given day, would be supported by the gods (Linderski 2006). By contrast, oracles such as that of the Greek Apollo at Delphi provided more of a narrative of one’s future. Whom should I marry? Will I conceive a child? Although oracles’ answers were typically vague or couched as riddles, they offered people insights into their future.
The Romans recognized yet another form of divination, sortition, the drawing of lots, which appears to have been either indigenous to Rome or adopted at least as early as the mid-Republic (Stewart 2010). As with the taking of auspices, the drawing of lots was used for important political purposes such as the determination of provincial governorships. While it had the practical advantage of determining such assignments more or less objectively, there was also a genuine religious-divinatory aspect (Taylor 1966; Rosenstein 1995).
Finally, there was dice. Dice games presumably evolved from dice oracles, evidence for which can be found worldwide, although it is entirely possible that dice were used on different occasions and under different circumstances both for divination and gambling (Ryan 2008). While no evidence exists for dice oracles at Rome, there is substantial evidence for the use of dice oracles in Greece and Asia Minor (modern Turkey), both of which were ultimately subsumed within the Roman Empire. Closer to home, the Etruscans of central Italy used dice for divination as well (Eldridge 1918; Turfa 2011).
The connection between dice and Aphrodite, goddess of love and Venus’ Greek counterpart, is also significant. Modified astragali (sheep or goat ankle bones), the forerunners of the more familiar cubical dice, were consecrated to Aphrodite on an altar dating to c. 500 BCE discovered in Athens (Foster 1984). Not only was Aphrodite closely associated with dice oracles but with dice games as well. In one of the most popular ancient dice games, the forerunner of craps, the winning throw was the ‘Venus throw.’ In addition to the financial reward, winning meant being favored by the goddess of love and beauty.6
Venus/Aphrodite was also closely associated with the goddess of luck, Fortuna (Gr. Tyche). This was the case both in Greece from at least the fourth century BCE, and in Rome where a joint festival of Venus Verticordia and Fortuna Virilis was held as early as the third century BCE (Carter 1900). Two centuries later, the great military dynasts of the first century BCE, Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Julius Caesar, adopted both Fortuna and Venus as divine patronesses.
Sulla, who was ‘Dictator’ of Rome decades before Caesar, established a cult of Felicitas (Gr. Eutychia or ‘Good Fortune’) and formally assumed the honorary cognomen Felix (‘Lucky’ or ‘Fortunate’). He also referred to himself as ‘Epaphroditus’ or ‘Favorite of Aphrodite’ (Arya 2002). This association had the effect of cementing the loyalty of his troops and convincing the public at large of the inevitability of his military success and political supremacy in the Roman Republic (Baldston 1951).
No Roman general, however, claimed such a close relationship with Venus as Sulla’s younger contemporary and future Dictator, Julius Caesar, who claimed direct descent from the goddess. A risk taker, Caesar placed tremendous faith in his luck, which he attributed to his special connection with Venus (Murphy 1986). It was Caesar, who upon crossing the Rubicon to engage his enemies, famously declared: ‘The die is cast’ (Suetonius Divus Julius 33).
In summary, dice and lots were intimately connected with both divination and gambling, as were Greco-Roman deities such as Venus/Aphrodite and Fortuna/Tyche. The fact that Sulla and Caesar built temples to Venus and Fortuna demonstrates how closely risk-taking, luck, and divine favor were associated in the Roman mind (Murphy 1986).
Gambling and enslavement. Dice games had become extremely popular by the end of the third century BCE even though gambling had been made illegal and the courts could no longer be used for the collection of debts (Faris 2012). Even so, the Romans perceived a link between gambling and bondage – both to those who bested them at dice games and to the whims of the gods generally (Harnack 1889/2010). Gambling had the potential to ruin impressionable youths and even adults if they lacked the self-control to resist its lure (Muse 2003).
Combined with excessive drinking and illicit sex, gambling was perceived as part of a ‘trifecta of vice’ that potentially undermined the might of the Republic and its ruling aristocracy (Muse 2003, p. 129). Gambling debts could induce people to forget their duty to their families and the state. Gambling was also associated with criminality (Robinson 1995). Aleator, gambler, was generally a term of abuse, and gamblers from the lower echelons of Roman society were lumped with pimps and prostitutes as a criminal element, and therefore fair game for harassment by officials (Robinson 1995; McGinn 1998). Aristocratic gambler-debtors in the mid-first century BCE felt they had little choice but to join the violent rebellion of the disgraced senator Catiline, a man who promised the cancellation of all debts (Cicero Second Oration against Catiline 2.4; Sallust Catilina 14.2). Cicero, who prosecuted Catiline and successfully suppressed his revolt, subsequently attacked the equally reckless Mark Anthony as a shameless gambler who would grant pardons and political favors in order to satisfy gambling debts (Philippics 2.56).
Traditionally, upper class Roman males prized self-control as a supreme virtue. Inability to control one’s urges – whether for alcohol, food, sex or the excitement of gambling, chariot races and gladiatorial spectacles –was associated with women, slaves and the lower orders (Edwards 1997). Moreover, ‘pushing one’s luck,’ whether by ‘chasing losses’ at dice or ignoring unfavorable omens before a battle, was usually doomed to failure. For most Romans, the gods were capricious and Fortuna was a dangerous force of nature.
Thus, we see that gambling had two sets of associations, one that was extremely positive (divination, divine approval), the other extremely negative (enslavement, shame, disgrace). This coincides with the earliest meaning of addiction in that the verb addicere was rooted in two technical uses, the legal and the augural. Gambling seems to be the only behavior that fits both. One can, therefore, make a case for considering it the primary or prototypic addiction.
Even more important, however, is our recognition that a positive meaning of addiction existed from the earliest usage of the word alongside the negative, stigmatized meaning. In other words, two conflicting meanings existed from the beginning. Ambivalence about gambling, moreover, with its close associations to both divination and enslavement, may have served to reinforce this confusion. We turn now to the later years of the Roman Republic, after which we’ll examine the early modern period. We’ll see how the meaning of addiction evolved, while still holding on to these early influences.
Evolution: Middle (mid 3rd cent. BCE – 133 BCE) and Late (133 BCE – 30 BCE) Roman Republic
The object of the addiction in Roman literature
The verb addicere, in its legal sense, appears humorously in the late third and early second centuries BCE in the comedies of the playwright Plautus. In every instance, the word refers to the handing of a debtor over to a creditor by judicial order of the praetor. For example, the theme of judicial addictio is a running joke in Plautus’ The Little Carthaginian (Act I, Sc.1; see also Act III, Sc.1 and Act V, Sc.6). In one scene, a pimp offers to ‘assign himself’ into the hands of a youth: ‘Who needs the praetor’ he asks, ‘[w]hy don’t I just turn myself (me addicere) over to you?’ (Act V, Sc.6). Since the plays were performed on religious festival days, when social role reversal was the order of the day, we can appreciate the use of humor to help ordinary citizens cope with a legal system that must have seemed arbitrary and oppressive (Segal 1987).
In the first century BCE, a shift occurs and we begin to see the verb used in a less technical sense. Sometimes the verb is used reflexively to describe a self-destructive behavior. For example, a first-century BCE handbook on rhetoric considers whether a woman who had ‘given her body over to base desire,’ might be likely to poison a witness to her sexual indiscretions (Rhetorica ad Herennium 4.16). The unknown author of the manual goes beyond the technical legal usage of addicere to express the idea of someone voluntarily giving herself over to ruinous desires, though it is worth noting that the hypothetical scenario is set in the context of a murder trial, perhaps a nod to the legal roots of the word.
By the first century BCE, the verb addicere also began to be used in a positive sense, to mean ‘devoted to something.’ Just as one could devote places or objects to deities, one could devote one’s time and energy to a particular pursuit or activity. Cicero (106–43 BCE), the famous Roman orator and statesman who had prosecuted the rebel Catiline, in a clever twist on the original legal sense of debt slavery, promised a Roman jury that in return for acquitting a young man named Caelius, his client would forever after be bound and dedicated (addictum deditum) to serve the interests of the Republic (Pro M. Caelio Oratio 80). In another politically-charged speech, Cicero reminded a jury of his peers that he had consistently devoted himself to the interests of the Senate (senatus cui me semper addixi, Pro Plancio 39.93). ‘Addiction’ could be a positive thing if its object was honorable.
Devotion, however, could be a mixed blessing. Cicero affirmed this in one of his philosophical works (Tusculan Disputations 2.5) referring to Greek professional philosophers who were so wedded (addicti et consecrati) to preconceived doctrines and positions that they could not respond to questions or challenges without becoming defensive. While their commitment to the tenets of their particular schools was not harmful per se, it was portrayed as regrettable because it undermined the true purpose of philosophy, namely critical inquiry.
The theme continued to be developed well into the imperial period, as the term addicere, in its various forms, continued to gain traction with Roman speakers and writers outside of its strictly technical usages (Greene 2013). For example, a recurring topic is the error of condemning the mind to serve the interests of the body. In the first century of the Common Era, the Stoic philosopher Seneca (c.3 BCE–64 CE) regularly employed addicere in his moral and philosophical writings. According to Seneca, the vast majority of people were guilty of devoting their minds to earthly pleasures (animum corpori addixit, Letters 90.19). Seneca distinguished between those who relied on their physical senses to set their priorities and those who were sufficiently enlightened to see past the superficial phenomena of the physical world. For instance, in a letter addressed to a promising young imperial official named Lucilius, the philosopher observed that those who were ‘enslaved (addicti) to gluttony and lust’ risked disaster; such folly, he maintained, was the ‘beginning of all evils’ (Seneca Letters 124.3). Likewise, the second-century CE imperial biographer Suetonius characterized the oft-ridiculed Emperor Claudius as so dominated (addictus) by his wives and favorites that he behaved more like a lackey than ruler (Divus Claudius 29).
Indeed, the most striking aspect of the use of addicere in each of these instances is the idea of bondage or enslavement. However, the object of that enslavement had evolved over the course of six centuries. We can recognize several overlapping, not-strictly chronological shifts in meaning. What started as literal, the fate of the debt bondsman (addictus) under the ancient Law of the Twelve Tables, became metaphorical. One could become enslaved by vice (e.g., gambling, drinking, gluttony). A behavior like gambling, which previously might have led to one’s being sentenced into slavery, now was the enslavement. This was then expanded so that it was the pursuit of wealth or fame or even philosophy to which one was enslaved. In some instances, it was the goal that was misguided; in others, it was the excessiveness of the pursuit. The point at which it would be labelled excessive might depend upon the philosophy or moral stance of the writer.
Context, and the use of active or passive voice, were important. Addicere in its active sense implied the subject’s superior or supernatural power, whether it was to change someone else’s legal status or to convey divine approval or support for a course of action. Furthermore, it was possible to be ‘addicted’ to something useful or honorable such as service to the state. In the following section, we will see how the language of addiction, with its fundamental tension between positive and negative connotations, was given a second act in Modern English.
Reception: The Early Modern Period in England (16th – 18th cent.)
The derivatives of addicere in Early Modern English
Although Latin roots first entered English indirectly via French after the Norman conquest of England in 1066, ‘pure’ Latin words, uncorrupted by French pronunciation and usages, were carefully and deliberately adopted by scholars during the Early Modern period as English intellectuals endeavored to keep up with intellectual developments in Renaissance Europe (Ogilvie 1964). Classical translations led to the introduction of many new words into English. These loanwords were thought to add much-needed precision (Barber et al. 1993/2009; Cree 2018). The bold new religious ideas of the sixteenth century were accompanied by a reformation of the language with which those beliefs were expressed.
‘Attachment,’ by contrast, was a semantic innovation upon the English derivative ‘addict’ that clearly dates to the Early Modern period (Lemon 2018, p. 49–51). It is no accident that this change occurred during the turbulent Tudor period, when people were expected to ally or attach themselves by solemn oath to king or other causes, such as religion (Cervone 2011). Whether used reflexively as a verb (i.e., ‘to attach oneself’) or adjectivally in the sense of ‘attached’ (meaning ‘committed to’), this sixteenth-century importation to the Latin loanword enriched its semantic possibilities even further (Willis 2008).
For good or ill: ‘addiction’ and the Protestant Reform movement
The English verb ‘addict’ found particular resonance among the early church reformers. It’s earliest known appearance in English was in a tract by the Protestant reformer John Frith (1529, p. 318), where he is advising his readers to: ‘[j]udge… all these things with a simple eye/be not partially addict to the one nor to the other/But judge them by the scripture.’ It is Cree’s (2018) contention that Frith was using the word here in the augural sense, since it involves the act of choosing between two or more things. If, in fact, Frith was aware of the augural usage of the verb, he apparently understood it as ‘preference’ or ‘choice,’ meaning (in a Christian context) the individual’s preference for a particular doctrine or interpretation of the Bible (Cree, p. 452). Cree supports her argument by noting another passage, presented by Frith (1531, p. 217) just two years later, where ‘addict’ again refers to preference or choice, only this time on the part of God.
Significantly, other English Reformers not only continued this active usage of ‘addict,’ but expanded upon the importance and consequences of an individual’s religious choices. They emphasized the dangers associated with a mistaken choice (Catholicism, the Pope, icons and idols). Most prominent was the danger of grievously offending God or of being led down the wrong path away from God. The Reformers extended their concerns to the physical realm, where one could be addicted to physical pleasures like gluttony and drunkenness. According to Lemon (2018, p. 11), they believed that attachment to physical pleasures led to misguided religious faith, and vice versa. In this sense, they resembled Seneca and the Stoic philosophers, for it was not just the excess of worldly pleasure they condemned, but the mere pursuit thereof, including the theatre, musical instruments, the use of tobacco, and, of course, gaming.
Such ‘choices’ need not be actively chosen, however. The most influential of the Protestant Reformers next to Luther, John Calvin, viewed as unsupportable the belief in man’s active agency (Cree 2018; Lemon 2018). According to Calvin, man was so corrupted and enslaved by sin that he was incapable of choosing correctly (Lemon 2018). One could perhaps prepare oneself, but the act of positive attachment was not a matter of will. It was only through God’s grace that one was turned away from depravity and bad choices. An accomplished Latinist and writing in Latin, Calvin drew upon the legal, rather than the augural, usage of the Latin verb addicere to indicate that it is something done to or for one; it is not voluntary or within one’s control (Lemon 2018). This would be in line with the early legal meaning of addictio in Latin, where one did not act freely but was acted upon by the law, embodied by the praetor, and then, through the latter’s binding pronouncement, made the slave of one’s creditor.
While Cree is almost certainly correct that the frequent use of ‘addict’ and the language of addiction helped cement a sense of community among Protestant Evangelical reformers, an interest in the Latin classics amongst the educated classes also helped fuel the large-scale adoption of Latin derivatives into the English language (Burrow 2013; Lemon 2018). Therefore, during the sixteenth century and into the seventeenth, a variety of religious writers, including not just Calvinists but also Anglicans and Catholics, utilized ‘addict’ to discuss the dangers of misguided attachments. The bad objects singled out for attention included witchcraft, magic, and sin (Willis 2008). Among the first of the Catholic writers was the scholarly St. Thomas More, who described ‘the kinde of man, that was by synne addicted and adjudged to the divel, as his perpetual thrall’ (Treatise on the Passion 1534). In light of his own in-depth classical and legal knowledge, More’s use of the phrase, ‘adjudged to the divel, as his perpetual thrall’ (i.e., judicially handed over to the devil as the latter’s slave or bondsman), was clearly intended to play off the original legal sense of the term.
The language of ‘addiction’ in Elizabethan drama
Meanwhile, Elizabethan playwrights such as Shakespeare and Marlowe were keenly aware of the demand for displays of classical learning as the Renaissance came to England in the latter part of the sixteenth century. Most if not all of them had a solid grounding in Latin, and a few had university degrees (Barber et al. 1993/2009; Burrow 2013). Audiences for their plays, however, included nobility and urban poor, university-educated scholars and the illiterate, and, of course, the sophisticated, aristocratic and royal patrons who financed their productions (Burrow 2013).
In order to adapt the classics for such a diverse audience, Shakespeare strategically deployed Latin derivatives such as ‘addict’ and ‘addiction,’ while rendering them easily recognizable (Lemon 2018). For instance, in Henry IV, few playgoers would fail to notice the crescendo of Falstaff’s highly rhetorical – and humorous – defense of drinking sack (a type of dry white wine), which he admittedly prefers to battle (2 Henry IV, c. 1597, Act IV, Sc. 3), while Olivia’s single-minded ‘addiction’ (as in ‘self-imposed attachment’) to ‘melancholy’ and mourning was one of her defining attributes in Twelfth Night (c. 1601, Act II, Sc. 5; Lemon, p. 52).
Given the power and allure of the theater for Elizabethan audiences, it would be very surprising if attentive playgoers did not ‘pick up on’ such memorable language, even if they had not previously been familiar with it (Burrow 2013). Moreover, given the competitive nature of Elizabethan society, it is also likely that theater-goers integrated it into their own speech, as a means of impressing others with their erudition (Barber et al. 1993/2009).
Normalization: the language of addiction becomes conventional
By the seventeenth century, ‘devotion,’ in a positive sense, emerged as the dominant usage of ‘addict,’ and, in fact, became the convention, utilized regularly for dedications and epistolary sign-offs. The verb ‘addict,’ meaning to ‘attach or devote oneself’ as a “disciple or adherant [sic] to any person, cause or pursuit’ (Oxford English Dictionary 1989, vol. 1, p. 142) appeared frequently, and usually in relation to the most positive of activities. In the following examples, it conveys the sense of a higher purpose, divorced from any association with enslavement or loss of control. In the History of the Cardinals (1670), we read: ‘The greatest part of the day he addicts either to Study, Devotion, or other Spiritual exercise’ (Oxford English Dictionary 1989, vol. 1, p. 142).
Thomas Fuller, in The Church History of Britain (1655), wrote: ‘We sincerely addict ourselves to Almighty God’ (3:208). And Thomas Hearne (1698), in his description of Plato’s education, wrote that, as a young man, ‘He addicted himself to Poetry,’ while later, ‘He addicted himself to the Discipline of Pythagoras’ (III, 414). Meanwhile, the participle ‘addicted’ was used to communicate one’s devotion, and, as such, was employed as a closing to letters and dedications. Milton (1645), in his ‘Dedication to Parlament [sic]’ at the beginning of Tetrachordon, mentions his ‘addicted fidelity.’ The great Elizabethan composer and musician, Thomas Morley (1597/1973, p. 3), concluded his Dedication to his teacher, William Birde, ‘And so I rest, In all love and affection to you, Most addicted, Thomas Morley.’
The expert view: early English lexicographers on the language of addiction
While these have been selective, albeit influential examples, a review of the dictionaries and grammar books produced in the sixteenth century find their authors cognizant of the legal origins of addiction, as well as its contemporary usage. For instance, Sir Thomas Elyot (1538) explained that in Ancient Rome, the verb addicere referred to ‘when the juge in old thyme delyuered the dettour to his credytours, to do with hym what they lyst,’ though he also included other legal definitions such as ‘to saye, to iuge, to appointe, or depute [sic].’7 Likewise, Thomas Cooper would define addicere in his Latin-English dictionary broadly as ‘to say, to deliuer: to sell, or appointe goods to be sold openly; to alienate from him selfe or an other, and permit, graunt, and appoint the same to some other person [sic]’; the passive participle addictus, meanwhile, was glossed in Latin as deditum, obstrictum sibi ac liberis suis aliquem habere (‘to hold someone who had been fettered and awarded to him or his children,’ Thesaurus Linguae Romanae Britannicae, 1565).
Meanwhile in 1552, Richard Huloet defined the Latin addicere as ‘addict or gyve hym selfe to lyue pleasantly’ (Abecedarium Latinum), while Baret (1574/1580) subsequently defined the English verb ‘addict’ in terms of devotion to friendship, study and even upright living (Alvearie or Quadruple Dictionarie, containing four sundrie tongues; namelie English, Latine, Greek, and French). Significantly, Baret’s dictionary entry does not even hint of the possibility of being addicted to anything negative or dangerous (Lemon 2018). In 1616, finally, the lexicographer John Bullokar defined ‘addict’ neutrally as ‘to apply or giue ones selfe [sic] much to anything’ (An English Expositor).
Being well-versed in classical Latin, the scholars who compiled these reference works described the earliest legal (though curiously not augural) meanings, as well as the evolution of addicere and its derivatives up through the writings of Seneca. These lexicographers not only documented how the Latin words had been used historically, but how they had then, in turn, influenced contemporary writers, who introduced new meanings to these Latin derivatives based upon their own socio-cultural experience (Cervone 2011). While there had been an early emphasis on misguided attachments, and the dangers associated with bad choices, according to Bullokar (1616) the object of the attachment could be good, bad, or indeterminate. If there could be said to be a dominant valence, it was positive or at least neutral; the verb ‘addict’ came to be used increasingly in a positive sense to mean commitment or devotion (Willis 2008; Cree 2018).
Assessment: the evolution of the language of ‘addiction’ in Early Modern England
In summary, derivatives of the Latin ‘addicere’ were attractive during the early modern period because of their prestigious classical pedigree (Barber et al. 1993/2009), as well as their semantic flexibility. ‘Addict,’ used as a verb, meant attachment; among its many synonyms were words that conveyed a strong attachment like commitment and devotion, and words connoting a less purposeful attachment, such as inclination, tendency, proneness or preference. There was a choice of objects, but the verb referred to the act of attaching, not the wisdom of one’s attachment or the consequences thereof.
The attachment, and, therefore, the addiction, was primarily positive, although negative addictions could occur if the attachment was to the wrong object. For the early Reformers, this meant Catholicism, the Pope, the icons and idols of the old church, while for those seeking forbidden knowledge or power, this meant an interest in witchcraft, magic, and the dark arts (Lemon 2018). When Falstaff embraces drink and the fellowship of the tavern instead of soldering and service to his king (2 Henry IV, Act IV, Sc. 2; Lemon 2018), it’s a bad choice on his part but not what would be considered an addiction in the modern medical sense.
This focus on individual agency was introduced by Frith and some of the early reformers, only to be contradicted by Calvin (Cree 2018). Well-schooled in classical Latin, the Protestant Reformers’ usage corresponded roughly with the original Latin legal (passive) and augural (active) aspects of addiction, which encapsulated the differences between these obligatory and voluntary interpretations, as well as the more obvious dichotomy of positive and negative (Hickman 2004; Willis 2008; Cree 2018). This tension between obligation and choice ran throughout the early modern period (Hickman 2004; Willis 2008), although the main difference between the derivatives of addicere as they appeared during the classical period, and their subsequent usage in the Early Modern era, was the greater precision in Latin, based, in part, on greater distinctions between active, passive, and reflexive forms of the word in Latin, in comparison with the emphasis on the act of ‘attachment’ in Early Modern English.
Discussion and Conclusions
Moral vice or physical illness: when did the disease model really emerge?
Several authors (Porter 1985; Warner 1994; Willis 2008) have recently disagreed with Levine (1978), who dated the modern medical conception of addiction to the work of Rush and Trotter around the beginning of the nineteenth century. They argue that a disease model of addiction emerged by the seventeenth century or even earlier. We did not find this to be the case. Support for their claim is sometimes due to contextual errors, sometimes an error in translation.
For example, Lemon (2018, p. 26–28) has a section on addiction to study, in which she gives a number of examples of both Cicero and Seneca's evocation of study as a positive pursuit. Both philosophers speak of it fondly, acknowledging the commitment (i.e., sustained attachment) and devotion necessary to do it well. Lemon then produces the following quote from Thomas Lodge’s 1614 translation of Seneca:
For the minde being once mooued and shaken, is addicted to that whereby it is driven. The beginning of some things are in our power, but if they bee increased, they carie us away perforce, and suffer us not to returne backe: even as the bodies that fall headlong downeward, have no power to stay themselves. (Lodge, p. 515)
As presented by Lemon (p. 28), the quote describes the loss of control that can occur when the pursuit of knowledge, being too single-minded, involves sacrificing other aspects of one's life. It is introduced in support of Lemon’s argument about excessive devotion to study, and is an important point, that scholarship, though intrinsically a good thing, can result in helplessness and a progressive loss of control if pursued too enthusiastically. However, the quote actually comes from Seneca’s writings on rage (De Ira), not the study of philosophy. Furthermore, the Latin word addicere was not even used by Seneca in the passage quoted (p. 183, fn.16), and is therefore irrelevant to Lemon’s argument.
That behaviors taken to excess have harmful consequences is not something up for dispute; it’s probably something people have always known, hence the blaming of others, including the Devil. The section just cited on addiction to study was Lemon's lead-in to her discussion of Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus. Cree (2018) has pointed out that both Willis (2008) and Lemon (2018), in their focus on Marlowe’s play, have made a curious choice for their exploration of addiction, in that the word and its derivatives are absent from the text. Willis was aware of this, but thought what was there would ‘invite modern readers to think of Faustus’s attachment to the “damned art” of magic, as a form of addiction.’ There is certainly the idea of enslavement through a pact with the devil, and a progressive worsening that’s perhaps a by-product of too single-minded scholarship, but without ‘addiction,’ we are just left with an ill-considered attachment, not a pathology.
Warner (1964) based her evidence for an early modern model of addiction primarily on the pamphlets and sermons of preachers and 17th century moralists. An excellent example (cited by Willis 2008) was by Increase Mather, an influential spiritual and political leader, whose sermon about the harmful consequences of alcohol actually contained the word ‘addicted’ in its title (but only once in the text). From a reading of the sermon, it is clear that Mather identified drunkenness as a sin, an evil propagated by the Devil, most certainly a bad choice, but not a disease.8
This is not to say that drunkenness wasn’t analogized to a disease, even by physicians. According to Porter (1985), doctors viewed hard-drinking as analogous to disease, and frequently described it as a ‘fever,’ ‘a deadly fever,’ and a ‘poison.’ He notes that ‘the verbal play between “toxin” and “intoxication” readily spawned medical metaphors’ (p. 390). However, physical symptoms and the experience of illness are regularly associated with heavy drinking, so it is not too far-fetched to think of excessive alcohol consumption as a ‘poison,’ or as producing a ‘feverish state,’ or even the sensation of dying.
The extent to which preachers, reformers, and even physicians used medical metaphors is perhaps better illustrated by another excessive behavior, one not so closely associated with physical illness. In 1674, Charles Cotton described gambling as ‘an itching disease that makes some scratch the head; while others, as if bitten by a tarantula, are laughing themselves to death’ (p. 1). He goes on to compare gambling to a ‘paralytical distemper.’ Henry Ward Beecher (1844) wrote how gambling ‘diseases the mind, unfitting it for the duties of life’ (p. 115). He added that gamblers are ‘like plague-patients, infected and diffusing infection; each sick, and all contagious’ (p. 117). Cotton was a gambler, Beecher a minister, and almost two centuries separated them, yet both use the metaphor of gambling as a disease, one that was easily transmitted, progressed rapidly, and was often fatal. The National Anti-Gambling League, which was founded in England toward the end of the 19th century, compared gambling to cancer, leprosy, a deadly virus, and a poison that had infected the populace (Dixon 1980).
These disparate sources were using medical metaphors to convey the seriousness of the problem, and we can't help noting that the language of disease was used both for the individual and for society. Furthermore, it was not addiction itself that was the disease, it was drunkenness or gambling, and when they referred to addiction, it was to convey ‘attachment’ or ‘preference.’ While the word drunkard did exist, there was no catch-all name for the sick gambler. And as a number of authors have noted (White 2004; Hickman 2004, 2007; Willis 2008; Cree 2018), 'addict' was used as either a verb or adjective throughout the early modern period; it was not to be recognized as a noun until approximately the turn of the twentieth century (Berridge & Edwards 1987; White 2004; Hickman 2004, 2007).
Word power: the inherent flexibility and ambiguity of the language of ‘addiction’
So, if there was neither an early medical model for addiction based on progressive loss of control and disregard for the consequences, nor a close, non-metaphorical association with disease emerging in the Early Modern period, what was there? What we found was a tension between the original legal and augural meanings, which meant both a negative and a positive meaning for addiction. This was based primarily on the nature of the object, whether a good or misguided choice, since in the early modern period, addiction meant, essentially, attachment. And as Cree (2018) and others have observed, during the early modern period, the language of addiction was more apt to be positive than negative.
Therefore, today's interest in positive addictions, and even the use of ‘addiction’ to connote keen interest or devotion to something, is not a recent corruption or misuse of the term; it has a long history dating back to the first century BCE, and was then rediscovered and appropriated in the Early Modern period (Willis 2008). We can also appreciate, as a result of our review, that ‘behavioral addictions’ aren’t the ‘new kids on the block,’ but were, in fact, the original settlers, already there to greet the arrival of the substance use disorders (Willis 2008). Furthermore, while evidence for a primary or prototypic addiction may not be strong, gambling is the only activity that fit both early meanings, the legal and augural, and would, therefore, appear to be the only candidate. More importantly, with its strongly positive and negative associations, gambling would have reinforced both desirable and stigmatizing views of addiction.
An auto-antonym (also called a contronym or, after the two-faced Roman god, a Janus word) is a word with multiple meanings, one of which is defined as the reverse of one of its other meanings (Merriam Webster online). To sanction, for example, means both to ‘permit’ and to ‘punish,’ while to bolt means to ‘leave quickly’ and to ‘fix in place.’ To dust can mean adding or removing, depending upon whether one is dusting crops, baking a cake, or cleaning house. To rent can mean ‘to borrow from’ but also ‘to lend to.’ To screen can mean ‘to show’ or ‘to conceal.’
Addiction appears to be such a word. Many auto-antonyms owe their opposing meanings to different countries of origin or their development at different times (Merriam-Webster online); one meaning may be more obscure or archaic (Greene 2013), or different meanings may derive from different forms of a single root word. In the case of ‘addiction’ and its related words, both sets of meanings, positive and negative, developed more or less concurrently from active and passive forms which were morphologically distinct in Latin but not in English. Hence, the confusing co-existence of positive and negative usage in contemporary popular and even medical discourse (Willis 2008).
Further complicating matters, the verb ‘addict’ was effectively a sixteenth century back-formation from the Latin participle addictus used reflexively, but in the twentieth century it came to be widely used as a noun to refer to people who were unable to give up a substance or activity – in other words, who were passively suffering from an ‘addiction’ (White 2004; Cree 2018).9 Finally, the familiar adjective ‘addictive’ (the stem ‘addict-’ here in its active sense, plus the adjectival suffix ‘–ive’) slipped into the Modern English lexicon in the nineteenth century as a technical scientific term, then came into general usage to refer to the appealing or compelling aspect of a particular activity or substance (Oxford English Dictionary, vol. 1, p. 40).
Subsumed in this distinction between active and passive forms of the word is another dichotomy going back to the original technical uses, the legal and augural. It was from the legal that addiction received its earliest meaning of enslavement. What has not been appreciated is that the enslavement exists on no less than three levels. First, the individual's gambling or other difficulties that created the indebtedness that led to his arrest; second, his then being acted upon in court, where he is subjected to the power of the praetor; and third, the content of the sentence, which renders the addictus a virtual slave of his creditor. Everything about this emphasizes its obligatory nature. In the active (and reflexive) usage of addiction, by contrast, the emphasis is on either favor (Roman augury) or, more commonly, attachment (Early Modern English).
The dichotomies mentioned in the introduction, primarily between voluntary and involuntary models of addiction, imply an either-or approach. Thus, the tension between the active and passive meanings, traced from the early Roman Republic up through Early Modern England, suggests that both obligation/compulsion and active choice may be built into the original meaning of the word. The contradictions in the word are therefore inextricably intertwined.
These grammatical and semantic complexities, in fact may have contributed to its resilience. Ambiguity based on elusive and conflicting meanings may be satisfying in the short term, and even add to the popularity of the word. However, in the long term, without a clear way to ‘pin down’ its clinical usage and define it properly, it will continue to hinder our understanding.
Notes
As muddled as this may appear, it is perhaps technically correct. The requirement of only two of eleven criteria for a substance use disorder (SUD) means that one can have a disorder of moderate severity despite the absence of tolerance, withdrawal, or loss of control. In other words, other than distress and harmful consequences, the characteristics of an addiction weren’t thought to be necessary. This was deliberate, in that the editors’ intent was to increase the likelihood of early diagnosis. By thereby casting as wide a net as possible, they opted for a public health rather than an addictions model. A source of confusion is that SUDs, by their presence in DSM-5, are assumed to be addictions, and the terms are used as if they’re synonymous.
These utilize the same interviews, same quotes, same incorrect information. For example, at least a dozen blogs and magazine articles on travel addiction refer to its inclusion in DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association 2000) as an impulse control disorder. This is untrue: it has never been mentioned in the DSM or considered a legitimate disorder.
The verb addicere was also used more generally in Roman law, both with regard to criminals who were being handed over for punishment by an official, and for the public auction or sale of confiscated property. Cic. Pro Quintico 30.92; cf. Ammianus Marcellinus The Later Roman Empire 14.5; Lewis & Short An Elementary Latin Dictionary, p. 17.
There is some debate as to the original Latin meaning of augury (augurium), but it is clear that the term evolved into a general term that embraced Roman divination, including the taking of auspices (Oxford Latin Dictionary, p. 234).
It was considered favorable if the birds flew in from the left side of the auspicant’s field of vision (templum), and alighted in auspicious high branches. Conversely, if the birds flew in from the wrong direction, or low, or landed in an inauspicious location, it would have indicated the god’s disapproval (Linderski 2006, p. 99–101).
Robinson (1946, p. 209) cites several ancient sources mentioning the ‘Venus Throw’ (Venerium), including Cicero’s De Divinatione 1.23, and Suetonius’ Divus Augustus 71. See also Plautus’ Asinaria (Act V, Sc.2). The Venus throw indicated the deity’s guarantee of good fortune and happiness to come. The underlying belief seems to have been that the deity sent auspicious signs by guiding the hand of the thrower in a particular way (Graf 2005, p. 63, 66).
The expansion of the legal definition of addicere in the sixteenth century English dictionaries (e.g., sell, appoint, etc.) was in fact drawn from ancient legal sources, as the harsh debtor seizure remedy of the Twelve Tables was subsequently abrogated by statute, though addicere continued to be used both with reference to the seizure of debtors’ property, as well to the handing over of convicted criminals for punishment (See n. 3 above).
The sin of drunkenness, according to Mather, exists in its excessiveness, and for that reason is paired with gluttony. He observes, as did many others, that habitual drunkenness causes various physical illnesses, as well as mental (emotional, intellectual) and moral problems, but at no point does he suggest that it’s a disease. Furthermore, he makes no attempt to relate addiction to the choice or consequences of the drinking. His use of the word is strictly in the sense of attachment.
For the linguistic phenomenon of ‘back-formation,’ generally, see English Language and Linguistics Online (or ‘ELLO’) available at http://www.ello.uos.de/field.php/Morphology/Backformation
References
Alexander BK, Schweighofer ARF. 1988. Defining ‘addiction.’ Can Psychol. 29(2):151–162. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
[APA] American Psychiatric Association. 1980. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Author. [Google Scholar]
[APA] American Psychiatric Association. 1987. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 3rd ed. revised. Washington, DC: Author. [Google Scholar]
[APA] American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: Author. [Google Scholar]
[APA] American Psychiatric Association. 2000. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. text revision. Washington, DC: Author. [Google Scholar]
[APA] American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: Author. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
Ammianus Marcellinus. The Later Roman Empire (AD 354–378). Hamilton W, translator. London & New York: Penguin Books. [Google Scholar]
Arya D. 2002. The goddess Fortuna in Imperial Rome: cult, art, text. Austin. Texas: University of Texas [Diss.]. [Google Scholar]
Babor TF, Hall W. 2007. Standardizing terminology in addiction science: to achieve the impossible dream. Addiction. 102:1015–1018. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Baldston JBVD. 1951. Sulla felix [Sulla the fortunate]. J Roman Stud. 41:1–10. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
Barber C, Beal JC, Shaw PA. 1993. The English language: a historical introduction. 2nd ed. 2009. Cambridge, UK & New York: Cambridge University Press. paperback 2012. [Google Scholar]
Baret J. 1574. Alvearie or Quadruple Dictionarie, containing foure sundrie tongues, namlie English, Latine, Greeke, and French. 2nd ed. In: Fleming A, editor. 1580. https://issuu.com/sbeehive/docs/_110-170/1?ff=true&e=10900963/7229193 [Google Scholar]
Beecher HW. 1844. Seven lectures to young men, on various important subjects; delivered before the young men of Indianapolis, Indiana, during the winter of 1843-4. Indianapolis: Thomas B. Cutler. [Google Scholar]
Berridge V, Edwards G. 1987. Opium and the people: opiate use in nineteenth-century England. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
Billieux J, Schimmenti A, Khazaal Y, Maurage P, Heeren A. 2015. Are we overpathologizing everyday life? A tenable blueprint for behavioral research. J Behav Addict. 4(3):119–123. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Black HC, Nolan JR, Nolan-Haley JM. 1990. Black’s law dictionary: definitions of the terms and phrases of American and English jurisprudence, ancient and modern. 6th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co. [Google Scholar]
Block JJ. 2008. Issues for DSM-V. Internet addiction. Am J Psychiat. 165:306–307. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Buchman DZ, Illes J, Reiner PB. 2011. The paradox of addiction neuroscience. Neuroethics. 4(2):65–77. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Bullokar J. 1616. An English expositor: teaching the interpretation of the hardest words used in our language. With sundry explications, descriptions, and discourses. London: John Legatt. Rpt. facsimile. Anglistica & Americana series no. 71. Hildersheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1971. [Google Scholar]
Burrow C. 2013. Shakespeare and classical antiquity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
Carter JB. 1900. The cognomina of the goddess ‘Fortuna.’ T Am Philol Assoc. 31:60–68. [Google Scholar]
Cervone T. 2011. Sworn bond in Tudor England: oaths, vows and covenants in civil life and literature. Jefferson, NC & London: McFarland & Co, Publ. [Google Scholar]
Cicero. De Divinatione. 2014. In: Schultz CE, editor. Commentary on Cicero De Divinatione 1. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar]
Cicero. Philippics I & II. Denniston JD, editor. 1926. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, Rpt. Bristol Classical Press. London, UK: Gerard Duckworth & Co., 1998. [Google Scholar]
Cicero. Pro M. 1988. Caelio oratio 80 [Defense of Marcus Caelius]. In: Austin RG, editor. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. [Google Scholar]
Cicero. Pro Plancio [Defense of Gnaeus Plancius]. www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0015 [Google Scholar]
Cicero. Pro Quinctio [Defense of Publius Quinctius]. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Quinct. [Google Scholar]
Cicero. Second oration against Catiline. In M. Tulli Ciceronis orationes in Catilinam. www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/cat.shtml [Google Scholar]
Cicero. 1866. Tusculan disputations: the dream of Scipio. In: Chase T, editor. Cambridge, UK: Sever & Francis. [Google Scholar]
Cooper, Thomas. 1558. Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae. http://archimedes.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgibin/archim/dict/hw?col=a&id=d002&max=100&pos=7&step=list [Google Scholar]
Cotton C. 1674. Games and gamesters of the Restoration: the complete gamester. London: G. Routledge & Sons, 1930. [Google Scholar]
Cree JM. 2018. Protestant evangelicals and addiction in early modern English. Renaissance Stud. 32:446–462. [Google Scholar]
Dixon D. 1980. The discovery of the compulsive gambler. In: Bankowski Z, Mungham G, editors. Essays in law and society. London, Boston, & Henley: Routledge & Egan Paul; p. 157–179. [Google Scholar]
Dumézil G. 1966. Archaic Roman religion, Vol. 1. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. Rpt. 1988. [Google Scholar]
Edwards C. 1997. Unspeakable professions: public performance and prostitution in ancient Rome. In: Hallett JP, Skinner MB, editors. Roman sexualities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; p. 66–97. [Google Scholar]
Eldridge LG. 1918. A third century Etruscan tomb. Am J Archeol. 22(3):251–292. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
Elyot T. 1538. The Dictionary of syr Thomas Eliot knight. London: Thomas Berthelet. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A21313.0001.001/1:7.184?rgn=div2;view=fulltext [Google Scholar]
Faris S. 2012. Changing public policy and the evolution of Roman civil and criminal law on gambling. UNLV Gaming Law J. 3(2):199–219. [Google Scholar]
Foster G. 1984. The bones from the altar west of the painted stoa. Hesperia. 53(1): 73–82. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Frith J. 1529. An antithesis between Christ and the Pope. In: Russell T, editor. The works of the English Reformers: William Tyndale and John Frith, Vol. 3. London: Printed for Ebenezer Palmer, 1831; p. 297–318. https://archive.org/details/theworksoftheeng03tynduoft/page/n9 [Google Scholar]
Frith J. 1531. Another book against Rastell: named the subsidy, or bulwark to his first book. In: Russell T, editor. The works of the English Reformers: William Tyndale and John Frith, Vol. 3. London: Printed for Ebenezer Palmer, 1831; p. 205–241. https://archive.org/details/theworksoftheeng03tynduoft/page/n9 [Google Scholar]
Fuller T. 1655. The church history of Britain; from the birth of Jesus Christ until the year MDCXLVIII. New ed., 1842. London, UK: James Nichols. [Google Scholar]
Glasser W. 1976. Positive addiction. New York, NY: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
Graf F. 2005. Rolling the dice for an answer. In: Johnson SI, Struck P, editors. Mantike: studies in ancient divination. Leiden & Boston: Brill; p. 51–97. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
Greene R. 2013. Critical semantics in the age of Shakespeare and Cervantes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
Harnack A., editor. 1889. Der pseudocyprianische tractat de aleatoribus: die alteste lateinische-christliche schrift, ein werk des romischen bischofs Victor II (seeculum) II. [The pseudo-cyprianic treatise on gamblers; the oldest Christian-Latin written work, by Victor II, 2nd cent. Bishop of Rome.] Leipzig, 1889. Rpt., 2010. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. [German]. [Google Scholar]
Hearne T. 1698. Ductor historicus [A guide to history]: or, a short system of universal history, and an introduction to the study of it. 3rd ed. London, UK: H. Clark for Tim. Childe, p. 1714. [Google Scholar]
Heyman GM. 2009. Addiction: a disorder of choice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
Hickman TA. 2004. The double meaning of addiction: habitual narcotic use and the logic of professionalizing medical authority in the United States, 1900-1920. In: Tracy SW, Acker CJ, editors. Altering American consciousness: the history of alcohol and drug use in the United States, 1800-2000. Amherst & Boston: University of Massachusetts Press; p. 182–202. [Google Scholar]
Hickman TA. 2007. The secret leprosy of modern days: narcotic addiction and cultural crisis in the United States, 1870-1920. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. [Google Scholar]
Huloet R. 1552. Abecedarium Anglo-Latinum. London: Gulielmi Riddel. Rpt in LEME. In: Lancashire I, editor. Toronto: University of Toronto. http://www.leme.library.utoronto.ca/lexicon/text.cfm [Google Scholar]
Humm M. 2012. Curiate law, religion and the Roman magistrates. In: Tellegen-Cooperus O, editor. Law and religion in the Roman Republic. London & Amsterdam: Brill; p. 57–84. [Google Scholar]
Kendrall MG. 1961. Studies in the history of probability and statistics. XII. The book of fate. Biometrika. 48(1/2):220–222. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Lemon R. 2018. Addiction and devotion in early modern England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
Leshner AI. 1997. Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters. Science. 278:45. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Levine HG. 1978. The discovery of addiction: changing conceptions of habitual drunkenness in America. J Stud Alcohol. 39(1):143–174. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Lewis CT, Short C. 1879. An elementary Latin dictionary. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Rpt. 1969, 1997. [Google Scholar]
Linderski J. 2006. Founding the city. In: Faris S, Lundeen L, editors. Ten years of the Agnes Kirsopp Michels lecture at Bryn Mawr College. Bryn Mawr commentaries. p. 88–107. [Google Scholar]
Livy. Ab urbe condita. 1935. [History of Rome from its foundation.] Book 26. Rpt. in: Johnson SK, Conway RS, editors. Vols. III-IV. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press [Latin]. [Google Scholar]
Lodge T. 1614. The workes of Lucius Annaeus Seneca, both morrall and naturall. London: William Stanby. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A11899.0001 [Google Scholar]
Maraz A, Urban R, Griffiths MD, Demetrovics Z. 2015. An empirical investigation of dance addiction. PLOS One. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125988. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
Mather I. 1673. Wo to drunkards. Two sermons testifying against the sin of drunkenness: wherein the wofulness of that evil, and the misery of all that are addicted to it, is discovered from the word of God. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Printed by Marmaduke Johnson. And sold by Edmund Ranger Bookbinder in Boston; p. 1712. [Google Scholar]
McGinn T. 1998. Prostitution, sexuality, and the law in ancient Rome. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
Milton. 1645. Tetrachordon: expositions upon the foure chief places in scripture which treat of mariage, or nullities of mariage. London, UK: Publisher unknown. Rpt. in: Sirluck E, editor. Complete prose works of John Milton, Vol. 2: 1643–1648. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. [Google Scholar]
More T. 1534. Treatise on the Passion. https://www.thomasmorestudies.org/Passion_Concordance/framconc.htm. [Google Scholar]
Morley T. 1597. A plaine and easie introduction to practicall musicke, set down in forme of a dialogue. 1st ed. London, UK: Peter Short. Rpt. in: Harman, A, editor. A plain and easy introduction to practical music. New York: Norton Library. 2nd ed. 1973. [Google Scholar]
Murphy P. 1986. Caesars’ continuators and Caesar’s ‘felicitas’. Classical World. 79(5):307–317. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Muse KB. 2003. Worthless wastrels: prodigals and prodigality in classical antiquity. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina [Diss.]. [Google Scholar]
Nevalainen T. 2006. An introduction to early modern English. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. [Google Scholar]
Noailles P. 1949. Du droit sacre’ au droit civile: cours de droit romain approfondi, 1941-1942 [From sacred law to civil law: an in-depth course]. Paris: Receuil Sirey. [French]. [Google Scholar]
Ogilvie RM. 1964. Latin and Greek: a history of the influence of the classics on English life from 1600 to 1918. London, UK: Routledge & Paul. [Google Scholar]
Oxford English dictionary. 1989. In: Simpson JA, Weiner ESC, editors. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. 20 volumes. [Google Scholar]
Oxford Latin dictionary. 2012. In: Glare PGW, editor. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
Peele S. 1990. Addiction as a cultural concept. Ann NY Acad Sci. 602: 205–220. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Plautus. Asinaria. http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/plautus/asinaria.shtml [Google Scholar]
Plautus. Poenulus (or The little Carthaginian). In Plautus Vol. IV: The little Carthaginian. Pseudolus. The rope. DeMelo W, editor & translator. Loeb classical library 260. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012. [Google Scholar]
Porter R. 1985. The drinking man’s disease: the ‘pre-history’ of alcoholism in Georgian Britain. Brit J Addict. 80:385–396. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Google Scholar]
Reith G. 1999. The age of chance: gambling in Western Culture. London & New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
Rhetorica ad Herennium [A rhetorical guidebook for Herennius]. In: Caplan H, editor & translator. Loeb classical library 403. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954. [Latin, English]. [Google Scholar]
Robinson DM. 1946. The wheel of fortune. Classical Philol. 41(4): 207–216. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
Robinson OF. 1995. The criminal law of ancient Rome. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. [Google Scholar]
Rosenstein N. 1995. Sorting out the lot in Republican Rome. Am J Philol. 116(1):43–75. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Rosenthal RJ. 1987. The psychodynamics of pathological gambling: a review of the literature. In: Galski T, editor. The handbook of pathological gambling. p. 41–70. Springfield, Il: Charles C. Thomas. Rpt. in: Yalisove DL, editor. Essential papers on addiction. p. 184–212, 1997. New York, NY: New York University Press. [Google Scholar]
Rosenthal RJ. 2015. Masochism and pathological gambling. Psychodynamic Psychiat. 43(1):1–26. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Google Scholar]
Rush B. 1784. An enquiry into the effects of spirituous liquors upon the human body, and their influence upon the happiness of society. Philadelphia: Thomas Bradford. Rpt. as: An inquiry into the effects of ardent spirits upon the human body and mind: with an account of the means of preventing and of the remedies for curing them. Philadelphia: Dobson, 1805. [Google Scholar]
Ryan WF. 2008. Games, pastimes and magic in Russia. Folklore. 119:1–13. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Sallust. Catilina. In: Reynolds LD, editor. C. Sallusti Crispi: Catilina, Iugurtha historiarum fragmenta selecta, appendix sallustiana. [Sallust: Catiline, Iugurtha selected fragments of the histories; sullan appendix.] Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1991. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
Satel S, Lilienfeld SO. 2014. Addiction and the brain-disease fallacy. Front Psychiatr. 4:141. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Schiavone A. 2012. The invention of law in the west. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
Sedgwick EK. 1993. Epidemics of the will. In: Barale MA, Goldberg J, Moon M, Sedgwick EK, editors. Tendencies. Durham: Duke University Press; p. 130–142. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
Segal E. 1987. Roman laughter: the comedy of Plautus. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
Seneca. Letters. Ad lucilium epistulae morales [Letters on morals to Lucillius]. In: Reynolds LD, editor. Vol. I: Books I-XIII. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1965. [Latin]. [Google Scholar]
Shaffer HJ.1986. Conceptual crises and the addictions: a philosophy of science perspective. J Subst Abuse Treat. 3:285–296. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Google Scholar]
Shaffer HJ. 1997. The most important unresolved issue in the addictions: conceptual chaos. Subst Use Misuse. 32(11):1573–1580. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Shakespeare W. c. 1597. King Henry IV, part two. In: Alexander P, editor. William Shakespeare: the complete works. London & Glasgow: Collins, 1951. Rpt. 1975, p. 514–550. [Google Scholar]
Shakespeare W. c. 1601. Twelfth night, or what you will. In: Alexander P, editor. William Shakespeare: the complete works. London & Glasgow: Collins, 1951. Rpt. 1975, p. 349–376. [Google Scholar]
Stekel W. 1924. The gambler. In: Van Teslaar JS, editor & translator. Peculiarities of behavior, Vol. 2. New York: Liveright, 1943; p. 233–255. [Google Scholar]
Stewart R. 2010. Public office in Early Rome. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. [Google Scholar]
Suetonius. Divus Augustus. 1993. [The deified Augustus]. In: Ihm M, editor. De vita Caesarum librum. Stuttgart & Leipzig: Teubner. [Latin]. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
Suetonius. Divus Claudius. 1993. [The deified Claudius]. In: Ihm M, editor. De vita Caesarum librum. Stuttgart & Leipzig: Teubner. [Latin]. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
Suetonius. Divus Julius. 1993. [The deified Julius]. In: Ihm M, editor. De vita Caesarum librum. Stuttgart & Leipzig: Teubner. [Latin]. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
Targhetta R, Nalpas B, Perney P. 2013. Argentine tango: another behavioral addiction? J Behav Addict. 2:179–186. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Taylor LR. 1966. Roman voting assemblies from the Hannibalic War to the dictatorship of Caesar. Rpt. 1991. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar]
Testart A. 2002. The extent and significance of debt slavery. Revue Francaise de Sociologie. 43(Suppl.):173–203. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
Trotter T. 1804. An essay, medical, philosophical, and chemical, on drunkenness and its effects on the human body. London, UK: TN Longman & O Rees. Rpt. by Tavistock classics in the history of psychiatry. London, UK: Routledge, 1988. [Google Scholar]
Turfa JM. 2011. Catalogue of the Etruscan gallery of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archeology and Anthropology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. [Google Scholar]
Walters J. 1997. Invading the Roman body: manliness and impenetrability in Roman thought. In: Hallett JP, Skinner MB, editors. Roman sexualities. Princeton: Princeton University Press; p. 66–97. [Google Scholar]
Warner J 1994. ‘Resolved to drink no more’: addiction as a preindustrial construct. J Stud Alcohol. 55:685–691. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
White WL. 2004. The lessons of language: historical perspectives on the rhetoric of addiction. In: SW Tracy, CJ Acker, editors. Altering American consciousness: the history of alcohol and drug use in the United States, 1800-2000. Amherst & Boston: University of Massachusetts Press; p. 33–60. [Google Scholar]
Willis D. 2008. Dr. Faustus and the early modern language of addiction. In: Deats SM, Logan RA, editors. Placing the plays of Christopher Marlowe: fresh cultural contexts. London: Ashgate Publishing; p. 214–235. Rpt. Routledge 2016. [Google Scholar]
#addiction#drugs#drug abuse#meaning of addiction#biological model of addiction#social model of addiction#choice#behavior#psychology#enslavement#gambling#DSM-5#stigma#behavioral addiction#human nature#history#antiquity#language#linguistics#ancient rome#roman literature#early modern period#substance abuse
1 note
·
View note
Text
SELF DEFENSE TIPS
SELF DEFENSE TIPS
What is Self Defense?
Self-defense (self-defense in some varieties of English) is a countermeasure that involves defending the health and well-being of oneself from harm. The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions.
Physical
Physical self-defense is the use of physical force to counter an immediate threat of violence. Such force can be either armed or unarmed. In either case, the chances of success depend on a large number of parameters, related to the severity of the threat on one hand, but also on the mental and physical preparedness of the defender.
Unarmed
Many styles of martial arts are practiced for self-defense or include self-defense techniques. Some styles train primarily for self-defense, while other martial or combat sports can be effectively applied for self-defense. Some martial arts train how to escape from a knife or gun situation, or how to break away from a punch, while others train how to attack. To provide more practical self-defense, many modern martial arts schools now use a combination of martial arts styles and techniques, and will often customize self-defense training to suit individual participants.
Armed
Further information: Non-lethal weapon and Melee weapon
A wide variety of weapons can be used for self-defense. The most suitable depends on the threat presented, the victim or victims, and the experience of the defender. Legal restrictions also greatly influence self-defense options.
In many cases there are also legal restrictions. While in some jurisdictions firearms may be carried openly or concealed expressly for this purpose, many jurisdictions have tight restrictions on who can own firearms, and what types they can own. Knives, especially those categorized as switchblades may also be controlled, as may batons, pepper spray and personal stun guns and Tasers – although some may be legal to carry with a license or for certain professions.
Non-injurious water-based self-defense indelible dye-marker sprays, or ID-marker or DNA-marker sprays linking a suspect to a crime scene, would in most places be legal to own and carry.
Everyday objects, such as flashlights, baseball bats, newspapers, key rings with keys, kitchen utensils and other tools, and hair spray aerosol cans in combination with a lighter, can also be used as improvised weapons for self-defense. Tie-wraps double as an effective restraint. Weapons such as the Botany (pocket stick) have been built for ease of carry and to resemble everyday objects. Ballpoint pen knives, sword sticks, cane guns and modified umbrellas are similar categories of concealed self-defense weapons that serve a dual purpose.
Other forms
Avoidance
Being aware of and avoiding potentially dangerous situations is one useful technique of self-defense. Attackers will typically select victims they feel they have an advantage against, such as greater physical size, numerical superiority or sobriety versus intoxication. Additionally, any ambush situation inherently puts the defender at a large initiative disadvantage. These factors make fighting to defeat an attacker unlikely to succeed. When avoidance is impossible, one often has a better chance at fighting to escape, such methods have been referred to as ‘break away’ techniques. Understanding the ‘mindset’ of a potential attacker is essential if we are to avoid or escape a potentially life-threatening situation.
DE-escalation
Verbal Self Defense, also known as Verbal Judo or Verbal Hokkaido,[6] is defined as using one’s words to prevent, de-escalate, or end an attempted assault.[7] This kind of ‘conflict management’ is the use of voice, tone, and body language to calm a potentially violent situation before violence actually ensues. This often involves techniques such as deflecting the conversation to individuals who are less passionately involved, or simply entering into a protected empathetic position to understand the attacker better. Lowering an attacker’s defense and raising their ego is one way to de-escalate a potentially violent situation.
Personal alarms
Personal alarms are a way to practice passive self-defense. A personal alarm is a small, hand-held device that emits strong, loud, high-pitched sounds to deter attackers because the noise will sometimes draw the attention of passersby. It must be recognised that in order for such a device to be effective it must be in the potential “victims” hand prior to an attempted attack. [8] Child alarms can function as locators or device alarms such as for triggering an alert when a swimming pool is in use to help prevent dangerous situations in addition to being a deterrent against would-be aggressors
Legal aspects
Main articles: Right of self-defense and Self-defence in international law
The self-defense laws of modern legislation build on the Roman Law principle of dominium where any attack on the members of the family or the property it owned was a personal attack on the pater familias. In Leviathan (1651), Hobbes argues that although some may be stronger or more intelligent than others in their natural state, none are so strong as to be beyond a fear of violent death, which justifies self-defense as the highest necessity. In his 1918 speech Politik als Beruf (Politics as a Vocation), Max Weber defined a state as an authority claiming the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within defined territorial boundaries. Modern libertarianism characterizes the majority of laws as intrusive to personal autonomy and, in particular, argues that the right of self-defense from coercion (including violence) is a fundamental human right. In this context, note that Article 12 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Combined with the principle of the state’s monopoly of legitimate force, this means that those authorized by the state to defend the law (in practice, the police) are charged with the use of necessary force to protect such rights. The right to self-defense is limited to situations where the immediate threat of violence cannot be prevented by those authorized to do so (in practice, because no police force is present at the moment of the threat). The right to self-defense granted by law to the private citizen is strictly limited. Use of force that goes beyond what is necessary to dispel the immediate threat of violence is known as excessive self-defense (also self-defense with excessive force). The civil law systems have a theory of “abuse of right” to explain denial of justification in such cases. Thus, in English law, the general common law principle is stated in Beckford v R (1988) 1 AD 130:
“A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable.”
Similar clauses are found in the legislation throughout the western world. They derive historically from article 6 of the French Penal Code of 1791, which ruled that “manslaughter is legitimate if it is indispensably dictated by the present necessity of legitimate defense of oneself or others”.The modern French penal code further specifies that excessive self-defense is punishable due to “disproportion between the means of defense used and the gravity of the attack” defended against.
The British Law Commission Report on Partial Defenses to Murder (2004) Part 4 (pp78/86) recommends a redefinition of provocation to cover situations where a person acts lethally out of fear.
The present view of psychiatrists is that most people act in violent situations with a combination of fear and anger and that separating these two types of affect is not legally constructive. In practice, however, self-defense laws still do make this distinction. German criminal law (§ 33) distinguishes “asthenic affect” (fear) from “sthenic affect” (anger). Excessive self-defense out of asthenic affect is not punishable.
resource from-https://www.somestips.com/self-defense-tips/
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
boofolk
B O O f o l k
superfooltv
superfool Goes...
jdmmonteneo
Untitled
cherrythestripperclown
Cherry The Stripper/Clown
cherrythestripperclown
Cherry The Stripper/Clown