servi

Last Sunday marked 200 years since the British parliament, after almost twenty years campaigning by William Wilberforce and John Newton (amongst of course many others) passed an act to abolish slavery.

Here are six things you might not have known about slavery in Roman times:

• In the early Roman Empire, at a time when the population of the city of Rome alone was approximately one million, slaves made up approximately 15-20% of the population - and no one is quite sure where the Romans got them all.


• There were many ways to become a slave- you could be born into slavery, taken prisoner in battle, or kidnapped by pirates. Babies who had been abandoned by their parents were also often brought up as slaves, or you could sell yourself into slavery to pay a debt.


• Slaves had no rights under Roman law, and were treated as property rather than as people. They could not own property, they could not marry, and they could be put to death by their master without trial. If a slave had a child, the child would belong to the slave’s master.


• At the same time, many slaves were given positions of power and responsibility in their masters’ homes. For example, Cicero owned a slave called Tiro, who acted as his secretary, editor and publisher. Their relationship seems to have been one even of friendship. Seneca also records for us that masters who were cruel to their slaves were often publicly insulted.


• There were three main ways to free a slave. Firstly a master could simply list his slave as a person (rather than as property) in the census that came around every five years. Secondly, he could go to court and declare that the slave did not belong to him. If no-one objected the slave was free. Thirdly, he could set a slave free in his will.


• There was little stigma attached to being an ex-slave (libertus). Liberti could not run for public office themselves, nor join the army, but they were allowed to vote in the public assemblies, and their children were permitted the full rights of a civis Romanus. Horace was the son of a libertus, as was Publius Helvius Pertinax, who succeeded Commodus as Emperor. Masters would often help to set up their freedmen in business, and were obliged to maintain a patron-client relationship with them. Some liberti, with the help of their former masters, were even able to become very successful and wealthy.

This site has more, and much better, information.

Roman First XI

With the cricket world cup in full swing, Mark Waugh has put together his "best Australian team ever". I'd like to know how they would have fared against this team, combining the best players from that powerhouse of World Cricket, the mighty Roman Empire.

1. Livy- Often unfairly typecast as a plodder, Livy was a powerful right-hander who terrorised opening bowlers on pitches around the empire, overwhelming them with the sheer force of his strokes. He could drive with enormous power, though was capable of finer touches as well. With Cicero was among Rome's most prodigous scorers, with a truly amazing output.

2. Virgil (vc)- For fluidity and style it is hard to go past the dashing left-hander from Mantua. He impressed from an early age, and comparisons with the legendary Greek batsman Homer were inevitable. He had the rare ability to score runs quickly and with minimum of effort. His timing was impeccable and he was able to guide the ball through the gaps in the field with unerring precision. He and Livy formed a formidable partnership at the top of the order with their contrasting styles.

3. Tacitus- A truly complete player, Tacitus had great variation of shots and could score fluently on both sides of the wicket, off pace or spin. Coming in at first drop he had the ability to steady the team when an early wicket had fallen, or to score quickly when a more aggressive approach was needed.

4. Juvenal- One of the greatest players of spin Rome has ever seen, Juvenal was known in particular for his elegant strokemaking square of the wicket and through the covers. He also played well off his pads, and was lightening-quick between the wickets. In the field he was an athletic fieldsman within the circle, capable of creating spectacular run-outs, and a part-time finger-spinner.

5. Cicero (c)- Cicero's early career showed him to be a daring stroke-maker with command over a wide range of shots, but when he was dropped, he removed the hook shot from his repertoire and reinvented himself as a determined and tenacious middle-order batsman, often scoring runs through sheer force of will. As captain Cicero was famous for his composure under pressure (who could forget his famous sledge against Catiline in the 63BC world cup semi final "You just dropped control over the republic, mate."- before going on to score a century), and was a handy off spin-bowler through the middle overs, until a shoulder injury cut short his career.

6. Horace- Rome's greatest finisher- and some would say her greatest ever player. Horace had a habit of coming in late in the order, under pressure, and getting the job done. Was a master of batting with the tail, and producing the best out of them. A lively infielder and useful medium-pacer, Horace was also the ultimate team man and on one occasion played through the pain of a broken thumb to secure a century for himself and victory for Rome, practising what he preached- dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

7. Martial (wk)- Though often criticised for his unconventional technique by wicket-keeping purists, Martial brought far more to the game than simply his skill with gloves. Behind the stumps he was a master of sledging, and could put opposition batsmen off their games with a single barbed, yet elegant, elegaic couplet. He was also a powerful lower order hitter, and often came to Rome's aid in the final overs.

8. Catullus- The cheeky leg-spinner was often in trouble off the field and developed a love-hate relationship with the media, but on the field he let the ball do the talking and mystified batsmen with his stunning array of deliveries and magical control of his craft.

9. Ovid- A master of the mysterious art of swing-bowling, Ovid was lethal swinging the new ball away from right handers. A genuine pace bowler with a great yorker and deceptive slower ball, Ovid was also a handy lower order batsmen.

10. Plautus- Every team needs a prankster, and Plautus fits the bill nicely. His larrikin on-field persona and habit of tongue kissing team-mates in the ear belied a keen cricketing brain, fiercesome pace, and a ferocious bouncer.

11. Caesar- A line-and-length bowler with uncanny accuracy, Caesar had a phenomenal economy rate. He might not always take wickets, but he could tie up an end, making it hard for batsmen to score and building up the pressure in such a way that batsmen would be forced to take risks of his bowling partners. Caesar also had an annoying habit of talking about himself in the first person at post-match conferences.

Coach: Seneca- The moral philosopher was an inspiration as coach, and particularly encouraging in defeat, with his Stoic 'take-it-on-the-chin, stiff-upper-lip' attitude.

Beware the Ides of March!

Yesterday was of course the Ides of March- 2051 years since the assassination of Julius Caesar. Here are five things you may not have known about J.C.

• Caesar’s family claimed that they were descended from the goddess Venus, through the Trojan hero Aeneas and his son Iulus (from whom their family derived their name).


• The name Caesar has a number of possible derivations. Probably the most well known is that the first Caesar was born by Caesarean section (Latin caedo, caedere, caesi- to cut). Other suggestions include that the first Caesar killed an elephant (caesai in Moorish) in battle; that he had a thick head of hair (Latin caesaries); that he had bright grey eyes (Latin oculis caesiis).


• He may have had epilepsy. Suetonius and Plutarch both record seizures, and Shakespeare mentions it in his tragedy Julius Caesar.


• Caesar was once kidnapped by pirates, who demanded a ransom of 20 talents of gold. Caesar was insulted by such a small sum, and demanded that the pirates raise their price to fifty talents.


• During the Catilinarian conspiracy, Caesar argued that the conspirators should be imprisoned rather than executed. During the senate’s deliberations, a slave brought came in with a note for Caesar. Cato, Caesar’s great adversary, accused him of being in league with the conspirators, and demanded that the note be read aloud. The note turned out to be a love-letter from Cato’s half-sister.

And three things Caesar (is supposed to have) said:

alea iacta est- the die is cast.

Caesar is supposed to have said this when he crossed the Rubicon with his army, initiating civil war with Rome. He meant that he had passed a point of no return- he had thrown the dice and now had to wait and see what the consequences would be. It’s unclear whether Caesar actually said this, or whether Suetonius made it up to add a bit of drama. If he did say it he probably said it in Greek anyway, as it’s a reference to a play by Menander.

veni vidi vici- I came, I saw, I conquered.

Apparantly Caesar said this to the senate after putting down a rebellion in Pontus (near the black sea). At the time Caesar was in the middle of a civil war, and so his nonchalance was calculated to remind the senate of his military strength.

et tu Brute?- not you too, Brutus?

Caesar’s final words (as his friend Brutus stuck the knife in) according to Shakespeare- but what would he know? Suetonius reports Caesar’s words (still addressed to Brutus) as ‘You too, my child?’ (in Greek), while Plutarch says that Caesar simply pulled his toga over his head in grief at seeing Brutus among the conspirators.

detur gloria soli deo

One of the many excellent things about being a Latin teacher is the time I get to devote myself to questions of absolutely no importance or relevance to the wider world. These include such things as 'Why is this noun ablative?', 'Why is this verb subjunctive?' and 'What on earth is Lucretius talking about?'.

The other day I was pondering my old school motto: Detur Gloria Soli Deo- 'Let Glory be given to God alone.' It's an interesting motto from a grammatical point of view- Detur is a iussive subjunctive ('let...'), and it's passive as well ('...be given'), and soli...

Hang on a second, surely solus, -a, -um is a 1st/2nd declension adjective? Surely if it were to agree with deo, the ending should be solo? Could it be there was a grammar mistake in my old school motto? Or did it perhaps mean something else? Perhaps soli was not from solus, -a, -um (alone) after all, but perhaps from sol, -is (the sun) and in apposition to deo- in which case the motto would mean something like 'let glory be given to the sun as god'. Or perhaps it was from solum, -i (the ground, earth, soil), and was not dative, but genitive, meaning 'let glory be given to the god of the soil.'

As all this and more raced through my mind, I reached for my trusty Lewis and Short, and read the following:

solus, -a, -um, gen. solius; dat. soli

So soli is an irregular form, but does in fact mean what I thought it did. I could sleep easy once more, with the words of Socrates ringing in my ears: 'The unexamined motto is not worth having.'

The Dream of Scipio

Hic ego quaesivi tamen, viveretne ipse et Paulus pater et alii, quos nos exstinctos arbitraremur. 'Immo vero', inquit, 'hi vivunt, qui e corporum vinculis tamquam e carcere evolaverunt, vestra vero, quae dicitur, vita mors est. Quin tu aspicis ad te venientem Paulum patrem?' Quem ut vidi, equidem vim lacrimarum profudi, ille autem me complexus atque osculans flere prohibebat.

Atque ut ego primum fletu represso loqui posse coepi: 'Quaeso', inquam, 'pater sanctissime atque optime, quoniam haec est vita, ut Africanum audio dicere, quid moror in terris? Quin huc ad vos venire propero?' 'Non est ita,' inquit ille. 'Nisi enim deus is, cuius hoc templum est omne, quod conspicis, istis te corporis custodiis liberaverit, huc tibi aditus patere non potest.

Cicero, De Re Publica, VI.14-15

At this point I asked, if he and my father Paulus and others, whom we judge to be dead, were still alive. 'Yes indeed' he said 'those who have fled from the chains of their bodies, as if from prison, are alive. Indeed your life (as it is called) is really death. But do you see your father Paulus coming towards you?' When I saw him, indeed I burst into tears. He however put his arms around me, kissed me, and told me not to weep.

And when I had stopped crying, and was able to speak again, I said 'Most holy and excellent father, since this is life, as I hear Africanus say, why am I delayed on this earth? Why do I not hurry here to join you?' 'Things are not like that,' he said. 'There is no possible way for you to come here, unless the god, whose temple is this whole visible universe, releases you from the bonds of the body.'

I read this passage with my year 12 class (who have been studying the philosophy of Cicero) the other day. It's from the 'Dream of Scipio', in which Cicero imagines the young Scipio Aemilianus being visited by his father and grandfather, who tell him about god, the universe, life after death, and the future that awaits Scipio himself. I find this a particularly interesting passage because of what Africanus has to say about life after death; for Stoics (at least as represented in this passage) to die was to be set free from the corruption of the physical body, and to be reunited with god as pure spirit. This idea (that the body/matter is bad and the soul/spirit is good) comes from Plato, and is sometimes called Platonic Dualism.