[
    {
        "id": 210553,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1985",
        "page_number": 160,
        "title": "RAS-1985",
        "content_text": "141\n\nemancipation is at the very least one of the sources of the malevolent behavior that Romans sometimes attributed to their ancestors. The jurist Gaius observed that \"the children whom we beget in civil marriage are also in our authority (potestas). This right is peculiar to Roman citizens; for scarcely any other men have over their sons a power such as we have” (Inst. 1.55). It would be difficult to exaggerate the extent of this paternal authority, the notorious patria potestas. In theory, at least, the head of the Roman family enjoyed absolute control of its property, and possessed the power of life and death over all of his unemancipated children (who were said to be in potestate). He could at his discretion order the exposure of a new-born child, sell his children into slavery, transfer the labour of a son now fully grown to a third party in payment of a debt, or compel his son to divorce his wife, even after children had been born to the union. Until the father was dead, a mature Roman citizen still in potestate did not have a legal personality, and could neither establish an independent household nor accumulate property in his own name, unless his father agreed to emancipate him through a cumbersome procedure of fictive sale.\" Roman literature is replete with morally uplifting stories of fathers who put their sons to death for breaches of discipline (cf., inter alia, Livy 8.7), but there is nothing imaginary about Aulus Fulvius, a senator executed out of hand by his father in 63 B.C. (Sall. Cat. 39.5; Dio Cass. 37.36.4). Under such circumstances, it would be surprising indeed if the Romans did not harbour ambivalent feelings when their fathers died.*\n\nDuring the middle and late Republic, however, this authoritarian family structure began to dissolve, and in the first and second centuries A.D. it came under systematic legal assault. During the reign of Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161), for example, fathers were stripped of their authority to compel their children to divorce against their will (Paulus, Sent. 5.16.5). We have already seen that in this period the bond between kinship and property was also slowly breaking down. The latter had a significant impact on the cult of the dead we have noted the shift from personal to corporate worship exempli gratia. Hence it might be expected that a son who was emancipated from his father's jural authority and who could not realistically expect to",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1985.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gt54s866x",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 214994,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-2000",
        "page_number": 90,
        "title": "RAS-2000",
        "content_text": "46\n\nfence at the proceedings were men with Chinese features. [see photograph] Were they of the Chinese Labour Corps and did they assist in digging his grave? Just a conjecture.\n\nThe labourers celebrated their holidays by decorating their huts, making paper lanterns, staging operas or shows and with special meals. Time off was given for these.\n\nThe Young Men's Christian Association [YMCA] sent men and women to France to provide recreation, talks, rest facilities and entertainment, including cinemas. Members of the YMCA also assisted some of the illiterate Labourers in writing letters to their relatives for them. By February 1919 the YMCA maintained in France a staff of 1024 men and 735 women, representing a major increase over early 1917 when only 641 workers of both sexes were active, largely necessitated by the ministry to the Chinese. Some of them, all too few, could speak Chinese.\n\nDiscipline\n\nDiscipline among the labourers was generally good. The Chinese were predominantly engaged in carrying out, initially, unskilled labouring work. They were commanded by white officers and NCOs and having, in their midst, some literate and articulate men who could organise and represent their fellow countrymen who had no experience of bargaining, they collectively went on strike for better conditions and more food. Labourers were also subordinated to the equivalent of foremen, fellow countrymen known as Gangers, who exercised informal authority.\n\nBecause of the strict censorship, members of the Labour Companies were not allowed to mix with others outside their camps. This, in part, can be explained that some nationalities held animosity against others, e.g. the Indian Labour Corps was made up of many tribal groups; the Basutos and Zulus of the South African Native Labour Contingent [SANLC] were mutually hostile and the Chinese and the SANLC were cool towards each other.\n\nIt appeared that the Chinese and other foreign Labour Corps members, were, at that time, of unknown characteristics and were\n\nPage 90\n\nPage 91",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2000.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/nk328168n",
        "rank": 0
    }
]