Talk:Jus trium liberorum

Contradiction?
The article says that the right "was part of the Lex Papia Poppaea of AD 9", but then it mentions that it was granted to Livia in 9 BCE. I read the first sentence as implying that the right didn't exist before that date; if that's not what it means, then I think it should be rewritten to be more clear about what it does mean. —Ruakh TALK 22:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Outdated notice
The user "S.finny", who has no user page, added a handwritten outdated notice to the bibliography section in April 17, 2019. I was going to replace it with the Template:Outdated_as_of, but then decided to simply remove it. The article has very little information and is very basic, so I don't think the latest scholarship has made it outdated. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Field (1945)
Field's 1945 article is a rather peculiar choice as the most-cited source. For example, it seems to be the primary basis for the eugenic interpretation, and Field in his own voice lauds this legislation as a "valiant attempt … to maintain the racial purity of the senatorial order." Valiant? Ick. There is something in Suetonius about foreign blood, but that may say more about Suetonius than the legislation itself, which applied to all citizens, including the formerly enslaved, and the rewards for procreating more citizens seem to have most benefitted (and not always inadvertently) freedpersons. Where, for instance, are Beryl Rawson, Susan Treggiari, and Jane Gardner as midcentury experts on the Roman family and related legislation?

And yes—I too dislike it when somebody drops an "I'm so knowing" blob of criticism and then doesn't actually do anything useful. So this is just a caveat on the distortions present in the current version of the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)