Cornelia, Mother of the Gracchi

Cornelia, the Mother of the Gracchi, was a real woman who lived in Rome during the 1st Century B.C.E. She was admired during her life, and for centuries after (right up until the Victorian era), as the perfect example of Roman motherhood. Here’s a good description of her early life, from a website devoted to famous Roman women:

Perhaps no woman better represented the paradigm of the ideal Roman matrona (wife) than Cornelia, forever known as “mother of the Gracchi.” Born in the late Republic, in her own and later times she was held up as a supreme exemplar of Roman feminine virtues by men and women. True to the low profile for which she was universally admired, no statue has survived of the mother of the Gracchi (although a famous one was set up in Rome after her death, perhaps the first statue of a non-legendary woman).

Cornelia was the daughter of legendary warrior-hero Publius Scipio Africanus (who defeated Hannibal in the second Punic War). Both the dates of her birth and death can only be inferred. She married well (to patrician cousin Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus) and bore him twelve children. Only three lived to adulthood: a daughter, Sempronia, and two sons, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus.

 

The Roman Model

” In the old days, every child born to a respectable mother was brought up not in the room of a bought nurse but at his mother’s knee. It was her particular honor to care for the home and serve her children.and no one dared do or say anything improper in front of her. She supervised not only the boys’ studies but also their recreation and games with piety and modesty. Thus, tradition has it, Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, Aurelia, mother of Julius Caesar, and Atia, mother of Augustus, brought up their sons and produced princes. “

Tacitus, Dialogue 28, quoted in Women’s Life in Greece and Rome, Lefkowitz,Fant, 191.

After her husband’s death, Cornelia devoted herself to raising her three young children in the highest patrician traditions of service to the state. Allegedly, soon after her husband left her a young widow, the Egyptian king Ptolemy VIII proposed marriage and she refused him, thus embodying the Roman ideal of the univira, a widow who survives her first husband and loyally never remarries.

At a time when Rome’s increasing overseas empire meant a flood of wealth and ostentatious display, Cornelia was said to have lived with modesty and thrift. A legend preserved by Valerius Maximus claims that, when another woman who was a guest in her house “…showed her jewelry, the finest in existence at that period, Cornelia kept her in talk until her children came home from school, and then said ‘These are my jewels.’” Valerius Maximus, IV.4. A highly educated woman, Plutarch described her care for the boys’ education and wrote,

 

“”These boys Cornelia brought up with such care and such ambitious hopes that, although by common consent no Romans have ever been more naturally gifted, they were considered to owe their virtues even more to their education than to their heredity.” “

Plutarch, Life of G. Gracchus, 1.

Her influence on both her sons was considerable even after their political careers made them the lightning rods of reform in the late Republic. She would survive the tragedy of losing first her eldest, then her youngest, son to political murder.

In other words, Cornelia’s story demonstrates that, during historical times when “gently born” women were not allowed to leave the home and work at paying jobs of their choice, their default role as mother was itself elevated to a career, with honors and acclaim going to those who did well after this lifetime role was thrust upon them.

I was thinking of that because of a career bio I read while I was looking for more information about the two border guards tried down in Texas (about which I blogged here and here). That little internet journey landed me on the bio page for the U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Texas, the federal judicial district in which those guards were tried. Johnny Sutton is the U.S. Attorney there, and his is an impressive bio for a lawyer who went into public service:

Prior to becoming United States Attorney, Mr. Sutton served as an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and as a Policy Coordinator for the Bush-Cheney Transition Team assigned to the Department of Justice.

Mr. Sutton served as the Criminal Justice Policy Director for then-Governor George W. Bush from 1995-2000, advising the Governor on all criminal justice issues, with specific oversight in the areas of criminal law, prison capacity and management, parole operations and legislative initiatives.

Prior to his service in the Governor’s office, Mr. Sutton worked as a criminal trial prosecutor in the Harris County District Attorney’s Office (Houston, Texas) for eight years. As a prosecutor, he was lead trial counsel in over sixty felony cases, including numerous capital murder, aggravated robbery, and sexual assault cases. He is fluent in Spanish, having appeared as a television commentator for the Spanish language network Univision during the Selena homicide trial.

Mr. Sutton is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in International Business in 1983, and the University of Texas School of Law, where he earned his Juris Doctor degree in 1987. As an undergraduate, he played baseball for the Longhorns and was the starting left-fielder on the 1983 National Championship team.

It’s a pretty good resume, isn’t it? He’s got an international business degree and a law degree from a very prestigious law school; he’s bilingual; and professionally, he has extensive courtroom experience directed at taking bad guys off the street, doing government work aimed at controlling crime in Texas, and is now a U.S. Attorney. Heck, he even played a superior game of baseball. Add to that the fact that he’s a nice looking guy (his picture is on his web page), and you’ll appreciate that this is a man whose made good with his career. In other words, given the choices that Warren Farrell, described in his book Why Men Earn More : The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap — And What Women Can Do About It, which I discuss here, Sutton took the career ball and ran with it. He now has an impressive resume that should make many attorneys fairly jealous.

The thing is that, in theory, I too could have had that resume. I got a nice undergraduate degree from an impressive university, then went on to get a law degree from a prestigious law school, and entered the private sector at an equally prestigious law firm. And then I made the feminine decision to blow it all away. I decided that this was not the life I wanted, and that spending all my waking hours toiling for others on cases that didn’t hold my interest wasn’t worth even the nicely large amounts of money they were paying me. Instead, I made the feminine career choice of subordinating my educational and professional accomplishments to becoming a mother.

This is where I wrap back to Cornelia. In today’s world, where women theoretically have available to them all of the career opportunities available to men, if they decide not to take that path, the women lose something: applause. They don’t get either the applause our modern world accords to those who do well in their careers (such as a glowing web page bio), nor do they get the huzzah’s lavished on Cornelia who, scorning her husband’s wealth as the measure of her accomplishments, pointed to her children and said “These are my jewels.” Not only did she say it, she was remembered for more than 2000 years for having done so. That’s some professional award.

I don’t regret my career choice at all. I knew when I walked away that I’d broken the golden handcuffs and found a wonderful freedom. Nevertheless, sometimes, I do miss the huzzahs. That is, I miss living in a culture where motherhood is actually celebrated, rather than considered either as a retreat from a more visible paying profession or as a neutral career choice with no special value and no special honors.

UPDATE: With perfect timing, the New York Times ran yesterday an op-ed by Linda Hirshman taking to task those women who have opted to make motherhood their career. For Moms who believe, as Cornelia did, that raising successful children (by whatever yardstick you measure success), is a high accomplishment, this article is one of those anti-hurrahs that they routinely find themselves facing.

20 Responses

  1. This is a special topic of note to me, Book. Because it is Roman history after all, and not only, but Roman history during the time of Julius Caesar. The deaths of so many reformers and plebeian supporters, forever changed the fate of Rome itself. It did not stop the creation of Empire, Augustus. It only made it predestined in a way, predestined to fail because of a lack of reform and adaptation, regardless of the debate over latter day Western Roman Empire history.

    When the best of your civilization is driven out of politics and replaced with the worst, bad things will happen. Not soon, perhaps, but eventually.

    75% mortality rate for young children even in the time of the Ancients. The question seems to me to be, has motherhood been viewed as less valuable because technology has made raising children easier? Both economically and mortality wise. Is lack of hardship and trying times, do they just create the reverse effect upon virtue? It is an age old question. Once the frontiersman achieves stability and order amongst the frontier, by fighting tooth and blood for it, then what need will there be for the frontiersman?

    It is a philosophical question, and thus has little chance of ever being solved, because in this case we’re talking about the fate of humanity itself.

    I did not know that she was the daughter of Scipio. Scipio himself was somebody the Senate tried to eliminate. Much as our Senate currently tries to eliminate the President from power.

    That in itself shows another strain. Which is the virtue held by those who fight for their civilization’s right to exist. Hardship and challenges remove traces of weakness and doubt, replacing it with fine temper and razor edges.

    There’s a certain inevitability, doubt, but also strength in the knowledge that throughout mankind’s history, there have been tragedies and bumbling mistakes. From JFK’s assassination to the betrayal at Vietnam, to the 2nd Punic Wars and Scipio Africanus.

    especially Cato the Elder, who accused the Scipio family of receiving bribes in the campaign against Antiochus III in which Scipio had accompanied (190) his brother. It was only through the influence of his son-in-law, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, that Scipio was saved from ruin. He retired into the country and ordered that his body might not be buried in his ungrateful city. Later he revealed his great magnanimity by his attempt to prevent the ruin of the exiled Hannibal by Rome.

    Doubt, because of the question of where we are going as a species, as a civilization, and as a people. Strength because of the knowledge of what those that have gone before have done and sacrificed, for us to be where we are today. Inevitability because it will happen again and again. In one iteration or another, with no doubt about it. 5,000 years in the future or 50,000 years, assuming humanity is still around, there will still be incidents like this. Although perhaps in a form so alien that we might not even recognize it, just as Rome would not be able to recognize the United States of today as being an descendent of theirs.

    It seems most of my archived research links on this subject have… mysteriously disappeared. The sites that is, not the links. Oh well, I’ll just use my memory. Or wikipedia.

    From the date of his censorship (184) to his death in 149 BC, Cato held no public office, but continued to distinguish himself in the senate as the persistent opponent of the new ideas. He was struck with horror, along with many other Romans of the graver stamp, at the licence of the Bacchanalian mysteries, which he attributed to the influence of Greek manners; and he vehemently urged the dismissal of the philosophers (Carneades, Diogenes, and Critolaus), who came as ambassadors from Athens, on account of the dangerous nature of the views expressed by them.

    He had a horror of physicians, who were chiefly Greeks. He procured the release of Polybius, the historian, and his fellow prisoners, contemptuously asking whether the senate had nothing more important to do than discuss whether a few Greeks should die at Rome or in their own land. It was not till his eightieth year that he made his first acquaintance with Greek literature, though some think after examining his writings that he may have had a knowledge of Greek works for much of his life.

    In his last years he was known for strenuously urging his countrymen to the Third Punic War and the destruction of Carthage. In 157 BC he was one of the deputies sent to Carthage to arbitrate between the Carthaginians and Massinissa, king of Numidia. The mission was unsuccessful and the commissioners returned home. But Cato was so struck by the evidences of Carthaginian prosperity that he was convinced that the security of Rome depended on the annihilation of Carthage. From this time, in season and out of season, he kept repeating the cry: “Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.” (Moreover, I advise that Carthage must be destroyed.[30]) He was known for saying this at the conclusion of each of his speeches, no matter what he had previously been talking about.

    Cato, the enemy of Scipio, was a total reactionary. Conservative to the point where he is anti-technological and afraid of new ideas.
    Many Roman aristocrats, especially Cato, expected Scipio to raze that city to the ground after his victory. However, Scipio dictated extremely moderate terms in contrast to an immoderate Roman Senate. With Scipio’s consent, Hannibal was allowed to become the civic leader of Carthage, which the Cato family did not forget. In contrast to his moderation towards the Carthaginians, he was cruel towards Roman and Latin deserters: the Latins were beheaded and the Romans crucified.
    Another example of Scipio’s cosmopolitanism as contrasted to his enemies.
    When Scipio, acting on the consent which, after much opposition, he had obtained from the senate, transported the armed forces from Sicily into Africa, Cato and Gaius Laelius were appointed to escort the baggage ships. There was not that friendliness of cooperation between Cato and Scipio which ought to exist between a quaestor and his proconsul. Fabius had opposed the permission given to Scipio to carry out the attack into the enemy’s home, and Cato, whose appointment was intended to monitor Scipio’s behavior, adopted the views of his friend. It is reported by Plutarch, that the lenient discipline of the troops under Scipio’s command, and the exaggerated expense incurred by the general, provoked the protest of Cato; that Scipio immediately afterwards replied angrily, saying he would give an account of victories, not of money; that Cato left his place of duty after the dispute with Scipio about his alleged extravagance, and returning to Rome, condemned the uneconomical activities of his general to the senate; and that, at the joint request of Cato and Fabius, a commission of tribunes was sent to Sicily to examine the behavior of Scipio, who was found not guilty upon the view of his extensive and careful arrangements for the transport of the troops.

    The point to all this is rather simple. It doesn’t matter what beliefs people held. Whether conservative, Roman traditional, Greek, or whatever. All that mattered is the goodness, strength of character, and the correctness of the people themselves. Cato was also thought of as a model of Roman tradition, as with Cornelia and Scipio. But the difference in character and wisdom, in Goodness, made all the difference.

    In modern terms, this really means that good people will make the right decisions, because of what political faction they belong to. It is the people that matter, it is the people that run your institutions, and it is the people that one should count upon in trying times.

    Some people have said that one needs to consider more things than the simple facets of evil and good. But what else are we supposed to consider? Whether they are Sunni or Shia? None of that even matters, what matters is which side that person has chosen to fight for and how he has chosen to fight. Has he made the right decision and chosen the forces of good, or has he made the wrong choice and chosen the forces of darkness.

    I wonder if Cato knew how much of a fool he made himself out to be throughout the millenias, when he was doing what he was doing. But then again, Harry Reid doesn’t know, so why should Cato have?

  2. That should be regardless of what political faction they belong to.

  3. Bookie,
    Outstanding post. Mrs. Salamander is (no shocker) smarter than I am (SAT, ACT, AP, M-o-u-s-e, etc) and has a more prestegious advanced degree from a better university than I do – and if she wanted could make probably triple what I am right now working full time. But, she instead invests her efforts in our kids – our jewels.

    We drive older cars, have not as much square feet – but our girls are worth it. I work hard enough – and with what she invests in our kids – she does too.

  4. BW,
    My bride left a promising audio-visual career to hang out with me and raise our jewels. They are both well on their way to lives in theoretical physics and equine therapy for the handicapped. I have patients who live in trailers with “stay at home moms” (hate that phrase)(how about “nurturing moms”?, any other suggestions?)who are clean, polite, well spoken, and don’t appear on police blotters.
    Your reward won’t only be in Heaven.
    Al

  5. My mom stayed home to raise my sister and me. My dad is a farmer and Lord knows we could have used the income. But now that I’m way into my 30s and have had time to look around and see, as an adult, how others live, I realize that we were very, very lucky.

    With regard to stay at home moms not being valued – did anyone out there see the 60 minute segment maybe 2 years ago on the growing numbers of professional, well educated women who stopped work to have children? Leslie Stahl was the interviewer. They highlighted 3 women in their late 20s, early 30s – all super-achievers. They went to the best schools, had the best internships, worked in the most prestigious professions, and were well-compensated. One had clerked for Justice Ginsberg for a couple of years. But they quit to have children and raise them themselves – they just did not want some stranger to be the one who cared for them, loved them, and taught them what they need to know to succeed in life.

    The whole segment was interesting for so many reasons but it was the reactions of other women who were interviewed and asked to comment on what these 3 women had done that was most fascinating. The SCORN that was heaped on these women from feminists in their 50s and 60s AND the “objective” Leslie Stahl was unbelievable. These 3 women were accused of:

    - wasting their lives;
    - setting a bad example for their children and others;
    - promoting the idea that women are dependent on men (God help us!), and
    - (my personal favorite) laying the ground work for graduate and professional schools and businesses to deny opportunities for women because, as one woman said, in effect, “Why would they want to give any woman an opportunity when there is the possibility that she is just going to turn around in a couple of years and walk away? What these women are doing is hurting the chances for other women.”

    But that wasn’t really their real concern. Their real concern was never voiced but it was as clear as if they had written it on their foreheads. Their biggest beef was that these 3 women (and others like them) were not sufficiently grateful for what they had done for them. All of that bra-burning, sleeping around with whomever they wanted, and “earning the right” to have as an abortion whenever they wanted was just going down the tubes. Fallopian tubes, that is. How could they throw it all away just to go home and have children????

    Well, all of these three women said that once their children got older, they would certainly go back to work in some capacity. But that wasn’t enough to appease those who were enraged. It would be too little, too late.

    In the end, I got the distinct impression that the radical “feminists” (and I call them that because in my mind the 3 women who chose to raise their children were doing something that was, at its core, the most feminine thing possible) wanted these three women to work full-time in very demanding careers to support the cause of women. Yes, it would be difficult and tiring but sometimes, you just have to take it on the chin for the “sisterhood.”

    The problem was that in reality, it wouldn’t be just the mother who would have to sacrifice in order to support womanhood, as defined by a very vocal and radical minority of women. The children would be the ones who also would pay a price. And what do they get in return?

    It’s not that I’m anti-feminist. I love knowing that I can work and be paid fairly for what I do. I am grateful for the right to vote, own property, and so on. But in a country in which we are told everyday that it all boils down to having the “right to choose” – everything is up for choice, regardless of the issue – I find it amusing that in this instance, women who DO choose to stay home are often forgotten about or even derided.

    Deana

  6. Very nice BW. This resonates with me as it does with many other of your readers.

    Although my wife was an honors graduate and embarked on a career, she became a full-time mother when our first was born. As we moved from coast to coast over a long Navy career she devoted herself to providing a loving home for the children and me. She was fulfilled and we were fortunate.

    Both of our daughters are Professional Women. Although they have tried very hard to balance Motherhood with their outside responsibilities, their families pay a high price; and so do they. While I am proud of their accomplishments, I also grieve for that which was sacrificed. It is a muddled world for women.

  7. I got the distinct impression that the radical “feminists” (and I call them that because in my mind the 3 women who chose to raise their children were doing something that was, at its core, the most feminine thing possible) wanted these three women to work full-time in very demanding careers to support the cause of women.

    I get the distinct impression that they wanted a slave class to make sure they get all their social security and welfare perks, Deana

    everything is up for choice, regardless of the issue

    Some choices are more equal than others.

    John Ross wrote about the same subject awhile ago.

    Note: I’ve been exchanging emails and participating in discussions about marriage a lot lately. The columns on guns and politics will be back soon, but this one needs to get out there.

    There’s been a fair amount of discussion on “career women,” and the value of educating our daughters so that they can succeed in the fields that were once populated only by men. I don’t fall into the “Women should just stay home and have babies” camp, because a woman shouldn’t do that if she doesn’t want to. I have no problem at all with women who want to climb the corporate ladder, pursue careers in traditionally male fields, etc.

    I also agree with something a woman friend said in a discussion of men and women, that an intelligent and educated woman is a better choice for a wife, both for the genes that she splits with her husband and passes along to their children, as well as being a more interesting mate to talk to and be with.

    What I see as the fundamental problem with women pursuing careers is the near-universal assumption these women make: That they will be able to “pencil in” a suitable husband at whatever point that they decide it’s time to marry and have kids. That is a very dangerous assumption, because it’s seldom true, and I’ll explain why.

    Some time ago (15 years?) the Wall Street Journal had one of those human interest stories they run regularly. I wish I could dig it up to get the details exactly right, but I well remember the salient points:

    The story was about a woman, never married, who had risen to the top of some fairly big company. As I recall, it wasn’t Fortune 500 size, but it was big and she had done a great job at directing the company’s growth and making it successful. In the process, she herself had amassed a seven-figure net worth, with an annual income of a half-million or so.

    She was 46, as I recall, and couldn’t find a suitable man to date and marry. The article chronicled her attempts to rectify this situation, including her hiring an expensive service in NYC that specialized in matching up busy executives with suitable mates.

    The service matched her up with some men, but none were much interested. This woman seemed amazed (and despondent) that the male executives the service fixed her up with (and that she was attracted to) weren’t much interested in seeing her a second time. There had been a couple of men that wanted to see her again, but their incomes were a small fraction of hers and she didn’t want much to do with them as she viewed them as not being successful.

    The lady theorized that the men who weren’t interested were “intimidated by a strong woman,” and lamented that male executives had fragile egos, and needed doormats for mates, etc. It was a fairly detailed article.

    Shortly thereafter, the letters section printed reader’s responses to this article, and one guy nailed the situation dead-center.

    He said the woman was failing to see the basic economic principle of comparative advantage, on which all successful trade, commerce, and business is based. He wrote that he was surprised such a financially savvy person was apparently oblivious to what was so obvious to him.

    Comparative advantage means you are most valuable to someone who needs what you have, because without you, they can’t have it. Florida can sell oranges and orange juice at a profit to people here in Missouri, even after paying shipping costs, because orange trees won’t grow here, and so if we want orange juice with breakfast, we have to get it from them.

    Comparative advantage also says that you should concentrate your time and energy on that which rewards you the most highly, to the point of hiring others to do work that you may even be better at than they are.

    Example: A neurosurgeon who happens to be a world-record typist that can type 200 words per minute is still better off hiring a 60 wpm stenographer to transcribe his notes, because there are lots of stenographers who’ll work for less than $20 an hour, and his time is better spent doing more neurosurgeries which pay hundreds of times that rate.

    The letter-writer’s point was that the woman executive in the article was failing to grasp this economic fact. The male executives weren’t “afraid of strong women,” they weren’t interested because this woman didn’t offer them anything they didn’t already have. They already had lots of money. They already had financial and business success.

    The letter-writer pointed out that the men who had shown interest were the ones that were younger and hadn’t had the business success that she had. They were attracted to her because she offered what they didn’t have. Unfortunately, the woman executive didn’t grasp this, and for some reason didn’t see that her situation made her much more attractive to pool boys than to Lee Iacocca.

    This is the great tragedy of feminism: The so-called women’s movement has encouraged women to get specialized education and pursue careers right out of school. Feminists have said over and over that women can succeed at any business endeavor a man can. THIS IS TRUE. But what makes this message so damaging: Saying it over and over to young women has distracted them from remembering (or realizing) that they have a tremendous comparative advantage over men. This comparative advantage is their ability to have children, and it exists for only part of their lives.

    If a woman doesn’t particularly want to bear children, fine. But almost all of the young women I meet do have a strong maternal instinct and say they definitely want kids. Why don’t they realize that their youth and ability to bear children are expiring assets? Why are they doing what you can do at any time (work in a business) during the only time they possess those valuable assets?

    What if a recent college graduate who was the star pitcher for his college baseball team told you that he intended to play Major League professional baseball, but not until after he’d gotten his law degree and had established a successful law practice? You’d think he was crazy, yet women do the equivalent every day.

    Here’s a radical idea for the women who want to “have it all”: Do it in the logical order, which is the reverse of what you’ve been doing.

    http://john-ross.net/feminism.htm

  8. Excellent point, Y, about the marketplace aspect of marriage.

  9. I saw a bit on TV the other day about a designer who was recycling clothes. As I watched I thought of the women in my family who altered and sewed clothes for their kids. They also did prom dresses and halloween costumes. No one put them on TV. My Mom and aunts also knew about growing, preserving and cooking food; they knew the best type of apple for each dish, made pickles, and could deal with a slaughtered pig. Once again, no TV. They could make rugs, quilts, and curtains. They also nursed sick family members and served as grief counsellors before this job description was invented. They organized community functions and raised money for good causes. Sure they were limited in their ability to travel and they certainly had little money, but they felt competent and they were. More importantly, they were recognized as competent. I find it so strange that people are celebrated today for doing only one of the many things that this generation did as part of their job.

    I learned some of these skills from them, but they most important things I learned were the satisfaction of feeling competent and the willingness to tackle whatever needs to be done. I don’t like to be pigeonholed. BTW, I don’t have kids, but I think mothers who stay home contribute far more than they get credit for.

  10. Expat – We must have grown up in the same area. You described most of the women I was surrounded by for so many years.

    Ymarsakar – Thank you for posting John Ross’ post. What really drives the point home, though, is his analogy about the baseball pitcher. It just distills things to the most simple level.

    Radical feminists often make things so difficult, so complicated. So when common sense shows up, you take notice. It’s refreshing.

    Deana

  11. GREAT post, BW…..and best that *I* am writing, rather than my wife, since this is a “family site” and her scorn and disdain for the whole Leslie Stahl approach to women who make a home and raise the next generation sometimes leads to a certain loss of control.

    There is definitely a price to be paid when family is placed ahead of a high-powered career and a big paycheck…we are 60 and still driving a Civic (GREAT car, by the way). But our daughter is raising our grandchild, and both she and our son are people we love to be with and are eager to see when they come home (to visit).

    Finally, it took me a while, but I’ve finally come to the place that the opinions of people for whom I have little or no respect do not affect my mood, my outlook, or my actions in any way whatever. It’s a decision. Give it a try! Just spit on the ground and continue on with all the more important activities that you have available to do.

  12. I’m glad you two liked his piece.

  13. [...] Bookworm Room, “Cornelia, Mother of the Gracchi” [...]

  14. [...] its picks for the most outstanding posts of the preceding week. The winning Council post was Bookworm Room’s post, “Cornelia, Mother of the Gracchi” (for which I voted). Second place honors went to Done [...]

  15. [...] just goes to show that you never know I liked my post Cornelia, Mother of the Gracchi, which is why I submitted it to the Watcher of Weasels for the weekly council vote.  Despite [...]

  16. [...] Council and the winner in the Council category is “Cornelia, Mother of the Gracchi” by Bookworm Room. Finishing second was “After Iraq” by Done With [...]

  17. [...] virtuous Roman Senate. There was actually a very positive post about Cornelia, the mother of the Grachii by [...]

  18. Adding to my bookmarks cheers, definitely consider a follow up post.

  19. Доброго утра, я хотел бы поделиться c вами о недавним восхитительном информативном ресурсе Поисковые системы.
    Здесь вы просмотрите много полезной и красочной записей об бирже, банках и банках. Ты можете так же просмотреть поучительные видео ролики, которые успростят тебе изучение материала в таких понятиях как экономический кризис и инвистиции.

    Одной из особенностей этого информационного ресурса есть необычная способ подачи текста для новых учеников, которая состоит в неспешном ознакомлению с теоретической частью курса. С комментариями касательно этого ресурса ты можете увидеть на форуме. Освоенные навыки помогут лучше понимать с текущими экономическими ситуациями делами в стране. Схожие темы

  20. lil wayne new face tattoo,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: