Andrew Dalby

Well, thanks, PP. I flipped through Suetonius but missed that. It's interesting that the accusations come from Mark Antony and his brother (and Mark Antony's letters are used elsewhere in Suetonius's life of Augustus as a source of gossip). We are, of course, very lucky that Suetonius had access to this stuff at all. But Mark Antony had no reason to love Octavian and every reason to blacken his name, so, I still agree with GO that this scarcely counts as real evidence for a sexual relationship -- it's simply evidence that it's rather easy to start a smear campaign. As already said above, if Cicero says something about it, that might be more significant. If there had really been rumours of such a thing, I can't believe Cicero wouldn't have latched on to them.

Hold on, where did this start? "Damns" them for what exactly? I've searched on "catamite" on this site and not found anything. Be more explicit, mi Octavi. EDIT -- Oh, I see now. It's the ex-Caesar thread, which hadn't monopolized my attention I'm sorry to say. Well, I agree with you, Octavius. I know of no evidence of Caesar-Octavian sexual abuse. Suetonius doesn't suggest it, does he? He would have, surely, if there had been any such rumours.

I've been at a conference in Greece with Valamoti. She's a very innovative researcher. If anyone can find a means of proving that this discovery is evidence of winemaking (which already seems probable), she can, I think.

Never thought of that. As regards a gradual change in the makeup of the population of England it sounds quite convincing to me. On the other hand, when you speak of emigration to USA, Australia, etc., there has been a lot of emigration from Celtic regions of the British Isles too (remember the Irish famine, Scottish land clearances ...).

There's evidence on this in Cato's On Farming (not OUR Cato, the 2nd century BC Cato!) First, he is talking about when the owner visits a farm that is managed by his slaves. Each time as master you visit the farm, you must first greet the Lar of the Household. Then go round the property – that day, if you can; if not that day, the next. As soon as you are clear how the business stands, what tasks are done and still to do, next day you should send for the manager [vilicus] ... etc. So, there's your Lar, the god of the household. And the Lar wasn't only to be worshipped by free people because at another point, talking about the duties of the manageress [vilica], Cato says: She must have the hearth ready swept all round each day before she goes to bed. On the Calends, the Ides, the Nones, and on a feast day, she must place a wreath at the hearth, and on those days she must make offering to the Lar of the Household according to her means. She won't have much to offer, of course, but the Lar doesn't object to that: according to her means is the rule So, anyway, that is definitely the name of one of those figurines: Lar Familiaris, "Lar of the Household".

I heartily agree with sentence 1. As for sentence 2: yes, surely, although the evidence is weak and the numbers cannot be known. It's what happens, in the 21st century as in the 5th: if there's trouble from the east, some refugees will flee west. We happen to know that some fled SOUTHWEST to Brittany, because that's recorded in Breton saints' lives (edit -- and it is confirmed linguistically); we happen to know that a lot were killed, because that's in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle and in Welsh sources; we must think it likely that some others fled westwards into Wales, where kingdoms remained into medieval times speaking their own language; and, certainly, some blended (or were forcibly blended, or subjugated) with the new people of lowland England, where the newcomers' language prevailed. The DNA testers seem to want to reach too-neat conclusions. What DNA testing might eventually show, I suppose, is what proportion of the Celtic population of lowland England had one fate rather than another. Wouldn't it be good if that became possible? But it would surely require larger-scale sampling.

I haven't ever read much discussion of this point. It seems a very interesting one to me. There are certainly differences in the written Koine when it's written by non-literary types; for example, you can pick out influences from Semitic languages (Aramaic, no doubt Biblical Hebrew too) in New Testament authors such as Matthew and Mark (less so Luke and Paul, since they were probably better educated and more 'literary'). Not just borrowed words (such as Amen!) but also the way that sentences are formed. Originally, those influences would have to be specific to people who wrote Greek in Syria and Palestine, or to people who had a Jewish or Semitic-speaking background. I think, in a similar way, you can pick out influences from Egyptian/Coptic in the Greek of the non-literary Egyptian papyri, letters, business documents, etc. The trouble with the Greek West (Sicily, South Italy, Massilia, etc.) is that there's very little evidence of that kind. The other problem is that, in any case, part of your full Greek education was learning to write just like all other Greeks did. So how would we know if the Greek of Sicily or Massilia, under the Roman Empire, sounded different from the Greek of Greece, Anatolia, Syria, Egypt? I can't think of any source of information on this.

Yeah, but many in rural China (and, through migration, much of eastern Asia) also have some sort of bean curd to add to the protein level in their diet. If I recall, lentils are high on protein, and I would guess other legumes would be, too, but what else would supplement their protein needs? There is a tendency, among us luxury-loving fat people who eat far too much fresh meat, to forget that meat is available in other forms. Sausages. Ham and bacon. Tripes

That's right, but these aren't the same pumpkins that we know in the New World, just as the "corn" that is often referred to isn't the "maize" of the New World. Pliny used the word pepo, and I believe it is being translated here as "pumpkin" (my Cassell's Latin dictionary also translates it thus), even though this vegetable or fruit was more likely a variety of squash or a large melon. EDIT: I should add that A Day in Old Rome was first published in 1925. Perhaps if William Stearns Davis, Professor of Ancient History at the University of Minnesota, had written the book today (if he were still alive), he might have chosen another word for pumpkin in his book. Nevertheless, I highly recommend this book for a brilliant peek into the everyday world of the Romans, circa 134 C.E. -- Nephele Yes, it's true, pumpkins are a common mistake among writers and translators dealing with ancient Rome. It's interesting to see that even Cassell's dictionary makes this mistake -- but very often you can't trust dictionaries on the identification of foods. People who write dictionaries just aren't that interested in food ... You meet kidney beans in translations of Roman texts too. These also are transatlantic imports, only available in Europe some while after Columbus. And it's true that when people in Britain say 'corn' we usually mean wheat, not maize. (Hence most British people probably believe that corn flakes are made with wheat ...) Latin 'pepo' is a melon. Melons and watermelons were available in the ancient Mediterranean, having been transplanted from further south in prehistoric times.

Never mind, Octavius - I will toast you in your absence with a glass or three of Jim Beam! Octavius deserves better. I vote for Jack Daniel's. [Edit -- Especially if Viggen's buying the round]

No bears, I can tell you that. And not many tigers! As for the camping business, others had better answer that question because I'm not much of a camper. Since Hadrian's Wall is a popular, organized kind of route, there are probably rules. Maybe even notice-boards. (See Jerome K. Jerome, Three Men in a Boat on what to do about notice-boards.) Like you, I enjoy following ancient routes. Sometimes it's more complicated than it will be with Hadrian's Wall. There are farmers who don't mind and farmers who do ... My grandfather's rule was, if you meet a farmer who says you are on private land, apologise and offer him sixpence. If he accepts the apology (or the sixpence), it's OK. If not, move away very quickly. I expect prices have risen now.

As I recall, there's a nasality in the vowels, as well as a contouring of the vowels...I'll have to dig up the linguistic atlas for the US to give a better answer. And, hey, I always thought that us Californians didn't have an accent...until I went to Texas and got told! EDIT: Click here for the atlas projects done at UPenn, home of Prof. Wm. Labov, a big name in the world of (American) sociolinguistics. You're all wrong. It's the English that don't have an accent. In 1968, when I was introduced as a British kid to an old lady who ran a hotel in Colo Spgs (I know that's the name of the place because that's what it said on the signs at the city boundary) she said "he talks better'n some that come over here". Or words to that effect. I took it as a compliment, anyway. It was probably because I have (or had) a West Country accent, which may be not so many million miles from Midwestern as the dear old Queen's English is. There was a sign that said "no women in the rooms". Does it still say that in hotel rooms in Colo Spgs?

Yes, agreed in both cases. Admittedly there was quite a bit of killing -- recorded in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle and in Welsh sources -- and there's little doubt that quite a few Britons, perhaps mainly from the south-west, didn't stay put but fled to "Armorica". I doubt if anyone has much idea of the numbers, but it was sufficient to implant the Breton language there and it led to a new alternative name for the region, "Britannia (Minor)".

It's fun to question received knowledge. And of course lots of people all over Britain are of Celtic descent, no question about that at all. But when it comes to languages, there's no doubt among serious linguists that English and Frisian together form a branch of the Germanic (and specifically, nearly all agree, of the West Germanic) languages. The link between them is quite difficult to explain, and the only adequate explanation has to relate to the Germanic invasions of Britain in the 5th century and after. If 'proto-English' was already spoken in Britain under the Romans, why does Anglo-Saxon contain so very few Latin words? Welsh and Breton contain far more, naturally, because Welsh and Breton really do descend from the language spoken in Roman Britain.

Yes, it can be true. It depends. I haven't time to study the whole letter in depth, or to read up about Symmachus and his circle or about the way cases were handled in the late Roman empire. But IF Victor, as an appellate judge, had researched or already tried this case, and would be the right person to explain it, or write a report about it, or even to set it out formally on appeal before Symmachus's brother (three possibilities), then in that case my translation is right, and PLRE is right (which it probably is) and everyone is happy. IF that is so, it would probably be truer to say that the whole letter proves Victor's position, but these words were still the right ones for PLRE to quote: they clinch it because they show that he was fully apprised of the case and was in a position to write, had perhaps already written, a report about it. Especially in highly literary texts like this one you have to be prepared to read between the lines (and I'm sure the editors of PLRE know this very well). There is no noun 'judge' in this text, but it may still help to prove, in context, that Victor was iudex sacrarum cognitionum. That's what PLRE thinks, and, as I say, it is probably right. I have edited this reply to add a third possibility. Just possibly, one of the researchers for PLRE misunderstood the letter to prove that Victor was an appellate judge when he wasn't. I think PLRE is pretty trustworthy, but such mistakes can happen. To verify that, you would have quite a lot more reading to do. All I can do is tell you what this text means, and that's what I've done.

Thanks for the link to the whole text -- it's really not a good idea to try this kind of thing without having the full context, which is why I didn't touch it yesterday! You didn't give us the whole clause: three words were missing at the beginning. ut ipse etiam comperto ex relatione Victoris spectabilis viri negotio judicabis Now, here's a translation: ... as you yourself will also determine (ut ipse etiam iudicabis) when you understand the business fully (comperto negotio, ablative absolute) from the report/statement of Victor vir spectabilis (ex relatione Victoris spectabilis viri). ... as you yourself will also determine when you understand the business fully from the statement of Victor. The sentence is addressed to Symmachus's brother. Symmachus is saying "you'll think so, too, when you hear the full story". There's no mention of a judge. That's how I see it, anyway.

And a side effect would be that it would make the children happy and keep them quiet. As Gripe Water used to do. Even modern parents occasionally look for treatments that have this useful side effect. For those who don't know, Gripe Water is (or was) a cure for stomach-ache in children. It contained fennel or aniseed (which are widely accepted to be useful digestives), plus a proportion of sugar, plus a proportion of alcohol. It tasted very good indeed: in fact, you would be inclined to claim that you had stomach-ache just to be given a spoonful of Gripe Water. Oh, yes, there was a big problem with adulteration of expensive spices. If you read what Pliny has to say about them (in Natural History), he gives careful instructions for how to tell if they have been mixed with undesirable additives. I don't often get the chance to buy honey in the comb. But when I help to organize a Roman banquet I always try to serve it like that if I can. It really tastes good, I think.

A fascinating piece of history, Caldrail. Thank you very much for all that work. The implication of your last few paragraphs is that, at this period, Jews and Christians were not so easily distinguished, and that 'activists' or 'extremists' might well have links to both. It's an attractive new perspective (at least, new to me).

Yes, you can get a syrup from carob beans. That isn't what I meant, though. In ancient and medieval Europe cane sugar was a valued spice, extremely expensive like other spices because it had to be imported across the Indian Ocean. The ancient Greek word is sakkharon and the Latin saccharum. These words come from Pali (a classical Indian language) sakkhara, naturally, because India was the source. In medieval Europe the most familiar form was in solid cakes -- the original meaning of the term 'sugar candy'; candy, too, comes from an ancient Indian word. I don't know if there is clear evidence what form the sugar took in the ancient Roman spice trade; probably the same. But the first description in the world of granulated sugar is in a work by an ancient Greek writer (it may be Dioscorides, I'd have to check) which shows that granulated sugar had been invented, in India, by the 1st century AD, and was known to Romans too. The technology for making granulated sugar was taken by Buddhist monks from India to China round about the 6th century AD ... but that's getting off topic. I believe that sugar was treated as a medicine mainly because it was expensive. It was in the spice (i.e. drugs) trade. Honey, raisins, grape syrup, dried figs and dates were the cheap sweeteners. In just the same way, my mother believed that sugar was bad and honey was good for me -- a medicine -- because honey was expensive. I believe, in dietary terms, honey and sugar can be good for you. They really do give energy. The problem is, we get too much of them and we don't need that much energy! But I await Pertinax's correction on this. A further note: the locusts that John the Baptist ate were really locusts. You can eat locusts, cicadas, etc. and ancient people did. And I don't think there is any link between locusts and carobs in ancient languages. Carobs would not have been prescribed for hermits if avoidable, according to Galen at least -- they cause terrible constipation ...

Holy Cow, Andrew...I believe you are correct! When I look back on all of the other potables that Isidore describes in that chapter, almost all of them are only one sentence where mine was two. I am incredibly embarrassed. I didn't recognize saccatum as a proper noun, instead I recognized it as the past participle/adjective "strained" (which is a correct form) which seemed to make perfect sense to me at the time. With your revelation it is clear that that saccatum has nothing to do with Hyrdomelum and that saccatum is water mixed with wine-lees and squeezed from a bang. Mea magna culpa!. Sorry all! No problem. It just takes a fresh pair of eyes sometimes (if my eyes were fresh yesterday evening ...) I have never heard of saccatum in any context, it just suddenly appeared that the two sentences had a parallel structure.

So what is this circumstantial evidence?

Thanks very much for the reference, but actually, puzzling over the text, I think there are two definitions here: hydromelum is one thing, and saccatum is another. If I'm right, all we know about hydromelum was that it was made with water and Matian apples. Matian was a well known variety in earlier times (I think Pliny mentions them?) so it's interesting that they are apparently still known in Isidore's time. Well, now, if you have an effective method of crushing apples, you don't need water; the juice will ferment and make you a good cider all by itself. But if you want to make the apples stretch further (as I suspect some commercial producers do), yes, you can add water. The Romans could certainly have crushed apples if they wanted to: an olive crushing mill was surely powerful enough. Or you can crush them (less efficiently) by bashing them with a block of wood, as the Romans used to do to husk emmer. After crushing them you have to press them, which can be done in a wine-press. It's interesting that the evidence on this comes from Spain, which is one of the regions where good cider is made now (but it's northern Spain, the Basque country and Asturias, nowhere near Isidore's city of Seville). I quite agree, anyway, that this Roman cider must have fermented: there would be no way of stopping it!

The dialects are probably not quite as different as that. I imagine it as something like a Scot negotiating with an Alabaman ...

It's an important question and I haven't ever seen much discussion of it -- in the earlier Greek period at any rate. The dialects were very different from one another, as anyone knows who has tried to read Sappho and Alcaeus (who wrote in the Aeolic dialect of Lesbos). Even the dialect of Herodotus and 'Hippocrates' (Ionic) is significantly different from that of Athenian writers (Attic). And when you look at local inscriptions (official ones, that is -- laws etc.) the differences seem greater still. I suspect that Greeks got more used to dealing with variant dialects that some other peoples because, as a seagoing nation, they have always done a lot of 'long distance' travel. Cross the Aegean in any direction and you would soon come to very different dialects, and that sort of journey was commonplace for lots of people even in ancient times. In addition to this, it became standard to connect different dialects with different genres of literature, and everyone had to go on understanding the Homeric epics, whose dialect was rather special too. Now, eventually, out of this melting-pot of dialects and large scale migrations, a lingua franca -- the 'koine' -- did emerge. It was the usual everyday Greek in Hellenistic and Roman-Empire times, even though many prose writers went on writing what they thought of as 'proper Attic'. The New Testament is written in a form of the 'koine' -- the form that was no doubt typical of Palestine and Syria. The koine is very definitely based on a toned-down kind of Attic (the dialect of Athens). Why, exactly? Athens was not the most important colonising city, not specially influential in Hellenistic or Roman times (except as a cultural centre), and not a major source of mercenary soldiers or migrants. If you find a book or website that discusses convincingly the question why the koine is so much closer to Attic than to other dialects, let me know. It's quite an important question, because the answer will tell us when, and among whom, the koine first began to develop.