ASCLEPIADES

Salve, F! MPC does a lot of research and analysis for his posts. The least we can do is read them carefully. Love is blind, and you don

Salve! Here comes Sagalassos in Psidia.. I hope you find this link useful.

Salve, Lady A! I guess it was Julia.

Let see now a new advice from the prudent Columella for the right care of your vineyard: ( "De Re Rustica", Book I, Ch. 9): "Vineyards require not so much tall men as those who are broad-shouldered and brawny, for this type is better suited to digging and pruning other forms of viticulture. In this department husbandry is less exacting in the matter of honesty than in the others, for the reason that the vine-dresser should do his work in company with others and under supervision, and because the unruly are for the most part possessed of quicker understanding, which is what the nature of the work requires. For it demands of the helper that he be not merely strong but also quick-witted; and on this account vineyards are commonly tended by slaves in fetters." Emphasis is mine. Nuff' said.

Salve! That's right, caesarophiles. Today, V Idus Sextilis, is the MMXLIVth anniversary of the famous ultimate Caesar vs. Pompey encounter, considered by many the end of the Roman Republic, at DCCVI AUC, during the 182nd Olympiad. Here, the winner give us some of his typical figures for this battle (a bit unreliable for my taste): (CJ Caesar, "De Bello Civili", Book III): Ch. 88: "Pompey ...had 110 complete cohorts; these amounted to 45,000 men. He had besides two cohorts of volunteers" Ch. 89: " Caesar... drew up on the field eighty cohorts, making a total of 22,000 men, and left two cohorts to guard the camp" Ch. 99: "In that battle, no more than 200 privates were missing, but Caesar lost about 30 centurions, valiant officers... Of Pompey's army, there fell about 15,000; but upwards of 24,000 were made prisoners". Here is an illustrative map from Livius.org. And this is the UNRV page for this battle.

Salve, guys & Ladies. Novinite, Sofia News Agency. 7 August 2007, Tuesday "Archaeologists from the Bulgaria's National History Museum have unearthed a tomb of a citizen, who lived in the ancient city of Apollonia, which is today's Black Sea town of Sozopol. The team of Krastina Panayotova is working on the Harmani beach of Sozopol, a site which archaeologist have been exploring for many years now. During regular excavations Panayotova's team stumbled upon the tomb. When the scientist opened it they found many pottery, the skeleton of a man, who lived some 2,500 years ago and a huge ceramic bowl with an inscription in ancient Greek. The bowl has been already taken for a thorough expertise and a team of linguists was called to decipher the inscription. When this is done, the Head of the Museum Bozhidar Dimitrov hopes the scientists will get a further understanding of Apollonia Pontica - the first democratic state in the lands of today's Bulgaria. The interesting thing for this artefact is that it was unearthed in the family part of the necropolis, where Histiyani, the tyrant of Milet, was buried." SEE MORE HERE.

Salve, guys & Ladies. Published Date: 08 August 2007 on Northampton Chronicle & Echo, By Nicola Shaw A new dig at an ancient archaeological site has found Roman artefacts and musket balls fired during the English Civil War Archaeologists began work excavating the site at Bury Mount in Towcester on July 17 and an initial metal scan of one part of the area has already uncovered a number of Roman pieces, including an unusual carved disc believed to have been used in a board game similar to draughts. Jim Brown, project officer for Northamptonshire Archaeology, said: "We haven't even started excavating the front section yet but we have carried out a metal scan and retrieved a number of Roman artefacts including some lead cloth seals, a fourth century Roman coin and a small gaming piece. "The gaming piece is like a draught piece, and it is quite unusual, whereas you can expect to find musket balls all over the place. "We are going to get an expert to examine it and give us an idea of what period it is from." During a previous dig in October 2006, archaeologists found that there was more to the Mount than they had previously thought when they located a ditch, thought to be a moat, around the castle motte. The second phase of the dig is to find out more about how the area was used, before work to regenerate the site begins. Mr Brown said: "Ideally, we would really like to find remnants of any structure that was on top of the motte, get a good secure date on the ditch and work out what was going on in the civil war, but it is still early days." %5burl="http://www.archaeologynews.org/story.asp?ID=223115&Title=Archaeological%20dig%20finds%20Roman%20coins%20and%20games" target="_blank">SEE MORE HERE.

Salve, M! Well, maybe it's good time for some clues, don't you think so?

Salve, Lady N! Of course you're right. The name of the aforementioned character was Quintus Justus. Cheers & have fun!

No, it sounds totally absurd. Urban cattle are not treated better than rural cattle--if anything, the reverse would be true. Also, why a free person submit to being milked along with his cattle (or being similarly used as cattle)? It makes no sense. Yet the reality was that--unlike humans and cattle--free labor and slave labor typically shared the same tasks. Yes, there is an analogy to be made between slavery and animal husbandry, but an analogy is not an identity OK, let's see. Instead of "Urban cattle" try related terms as "Urban pets" (maybe a house piggy; they are cute). Believe me, life is better for them than for their relatives.. If you have been recently in any 3rd World country (and not only there) you could see a lot of people working literally side-by-side with beasts of burden on a daily basis. It makes all the sense of the world for them. As slaves and free men are both humans, it's no surprise they can do the same tasks. I think Columella was considered a respected authority on his area of expertise. He clearly saw an strong analogy between slaves and cattle as he put both in the same chapters of De Re Rustica, but certainly not identical, as he never advised to chain cattle in underground prisons, as far as I have read him.

Here comes a pretty pearl from Columella to begin with: (De Re Rustica, Book I, Ch.6): "It will be best that cubicles for unfettered slaves be built to admit the midday sun at the equinox; for those who are in chains there should be an underground prison, as wholesome as possible, receiving light through a number of narrow windows built so high from the ground that they cannot be reached with the hand." Emphasis is mine. This treatise is like a manual. Here, the author is advising us about the disposition of our farm.

MPC, an experiment. Change the word "slave" for the word "cattle" and related terms whenever you read Cato or Columella (or for "pet" if you read Plautus). For example, we can try with your last post: "This discussion has become completely unhinged from the documentary evidence about the lives of cattle. Although the legal status made no distinction between urban and rural cattle, the experience of being cattle varied tremendously. Indeed, even in the countryside, free workers (including Cato himself!) shared in the toil of beasts of burden, who were valuable to their masters and often worked side-by-side with free citizens. The notion that rural cattle, mining cattle, and urban cattle were all equally downtrodden by free citizens is simply not supported by the evidence." Sounds pretty modern, doesn't it? BTW: Slaves and cattle of any time and place haven't been downtrodden by free citizens; it is only their owners who have had that chance at will. I don't think all slave and cattle categories were equally downtrodden. I would think that the evidence would suggest some ranking like: Mining > rural > urban. But that's only an educated guess; to state that firmly, I will have to look in the sources.

Unfortunately, Claudius has largely been ignored by recent biographers, but Barbara Levick provides a reasonably acceptable bio. Claudius This book apparently shows a constant and even rising conflict between this Emperor and the Senate, especially the old Patrician families, even if it was more or less a common tendency to all this Dynasty.

Salve, C! Once again, I perceive some contradiction among your posts; I would agree more with the opening one. Anyway, if you are right, one can only hope we shall never have to endure any extended period of peace.

Salve, SF! If you are talking about domestic slaves (and if they were lucky), we (and maybe their owners) may considere them as pets. But as it seems that Cato was talking about rustical slaves, then you're right indeed; they weren't pets. They were cattle. Never been convinced about this urban slave/pet thing myself. OK there were some faitful old retainer types but in general although the duties were lighter the legal position remained the same, as did the attiutude. Classical, especially Roman slavery was absolutely brutal. I personally think far too many modern classicists have tried to put a decent gloss on it. You only have to look at things like the fact that no slave's evidence in court was admissable unless they had previously been tortured. Varro's description of rural slaves as tools with voice pretty much covers the country slave poor sods! Salve, SF! We couldn't agree more. That's why I was talking about domestic, not urban slaves; and that's also why I noted "and if they were lucky".

Here comes one of the first references of the Sacramentum (not Sacrumentum) and of the related Juris Jurandi, according to Livy: (Ab Urbe Condita, Book XX, Ch. 38) "The levy completed, the consuls waited a few days, till the allies of the Latin confederacy arrived. At this time the soldiers were bound by an oath, which had never before been the case, dictated by the military tribunes, that they would assemble at the command of the consuls, and not depart without orders; for up to that time the military oath only had been employed; and further, when the soldiers met to divide into decuries or centuries, the cavalry being formed into decuries and the infantry into centuries, all swore together, amongst themselves, of their own accord, that they would not depart or quit their ranks for flight or fear, except for the purpose of taking up or fetching a weapon, and either striking an enemy or saving a countryman. This, from being a voluntary compact among the soldiers themselves, was converted into the legal compulsion of an oath by the tribunes. Dilectu perfecto consules paucos morati dies dum ab sociis ac nomine Latino uenirent milites. Tum, quod nunquam antea factum erat, iure iurando ab tribunis militum adacti milites; nam ad eam diem nihil praeter sacramentum fuerat iussu consulum conuenturos neque iniussu abituros; et ubi ad decuriandum aut centuriandum conuenissent, sua uoluntate ipsi inter sese decuriati equites, centuriati pedites coniurabant sese fugae atque formidinis ergo non abituros neque ex ordine recessuros nisi teli sumendi aut petendi et aut hostis feriendi aut ciuis seruandi causa. Id ex uoluntario inter ipsos foedere ad tribunos ac legitimam iuris iurandi adactionem translatum." Emphasis is mine.

Salve, DN! I guess that would be Narcissus.

Salve, F! Emphasis is mine. It's clear that Mommsen blindly idolized Caesar and anachronistically considered him something like a heroic liberal leader of the late XIX Century.

Finally, I found a Primary source for the Lex Iulia agraria Campania (under the denomination Lex Campana): Here comes Cicero, Letter II Ad Atticus, ch. 18: "I have received several letters from you, which showed me with what eagerness and anxiety you desired to know the news. We are bound hard and fast on every side, and are no longer making any difficulty as to being slaves, but fearing death and exile as though greater evils, though they are in fact much smaller ones. Well, this is the position-one unanimously groaned over, but not relieved by a word from anyone. The object, I surmise, of the men in power is to leave nothing for anyone to lavish. The only man who opens his mouth and openly disapproves is the young Curio. He is loudly cheered, and greeted in the forum in the most complimentary manner, and many other tokens of goodwill are bestowed on him by the loyalists; while Fufius is pursued with shouts, jeers, and hisses. From such circumstances it is not hope but indignation that is increased, for you see the citizens allowed to express their sentiments, but debarred from carrying them out with any vigour. And to omit details, the upshot is that there is now no hope, I don't say of private persons, but even of the magistrates being ever free again. Nevertheless, in spite of this policy of repression, conversation, at least in society and at dinner tables, is freer than it was. Indignation is beginning to get the better of fear, though that does not prevent a universal feeling of despair. For this Campanian law contains a cause imposing an oath to be taken by candidates in public meeting, that they will not suggest any tenure of public land other than that provided in the Julian laws. All the others take the oath without hesitation: Laterensis is considered to have shown extraordinary virtue in retiring from his canvass for the tribuneship to avoid the oath. But I don't care to write any more about politics. I am dissatisfied with myself, and cannot write without the greatest pain. I hold my own position with some dignity, considering the general repression, but considering my achievements in the past, with less courage than I should like. I am invited by Caesar in a very gentlemanly manner to accept a legation, to act as legatus to himself, and even an "open votive legation" is offered me. But the latter does not give sufficient security, since it depends too much on the scrupulousness of Pulchellus and removes me just when my brother is returning ; the former offers better security and does not prevent my returning when I please. I am retaining the latter, but do not think I shall use it. However, nobody knows about it. I don't like running away; I am itching to fight. There is great warmth of feeling for me. But I don't say anything positive: you will please not to mention it. I am, in fact, very anxious about the manumission of Statius and some other things, but I have become hardened by this time. I could wish, or rather ardently desire, that you were here: then I should not want advice or consolation. But anyhow, be ready to fly hither directly I call for you." Emphasis is mine.

Gratiam Habeo, MPC & PP, for your patience. Excuse me for being so slooow. Now I can understand the alegory of the free lunch and the wife, BTW very illustrative. And there was no such thing like a free lunch, indeed. Beyond the petty skirmishes of Roman politics, the land for Pompey's veterans was not free in any sense of the word, as for getting them in, you have to get the previous owners out, who were the effective payers of the bill. In Stephenson's words: "Did it pay to send out a swarm of 100,000 idle paupers who, for two generations, had been fed at the public charge from the corn-bins of Rome, simply in order that a like number of honest peasants, who had been not only self-supporting but had paid a large part of the Roman revenue, should be compelled to sacrifice their goods in a glutted market and become debauched and idle?" Definitively no, except if the lucky "idle paupers" happen to be my clients and private soldiers.

Salve, Lady A! Scylla the whore. Cheers and have fun!

Gratiam habeo, PP. Relevant indeed, especially the first half of this section, I would say. Here it comes: "LEX JULIA AGRARIA. During the first consulship of Caius Julius Caesar, he brought forward an agrarian[1] bill at the instigation of his confederates. The main object of this bill was to furnish land to the Asiatic army[2] of Pompey, In fine, this bill was little more than a renewal of a bill presented by Pompey the previous year (58), but rejected. Appian gives the following account of this bill: "As soon as Caesar and Bibulus[3] (his colleague) entered on the consulship, they began to quarrel and to make preparation to support their parties by force. But Caesar who possessed great powers of dissimulation, addressed Bibulus in the senate and urged him to unanimity on the ground that their disputes would damage the public interests. Having in this way obtained credit for peaceable intentions, he threw Bibulus off his guard, who had no suspicion of what was going on, while Caesar, meanwhile, was marshalling a strong force, and introducing into the senate laws for favoring the poor, under which he proposed to distribute land among them and the best land in Italy, that about[4] Capua which at the present time was let on public account.[5] He proposed to distribute this land among heads of families who had three children, by which measure he could gain the good will of a large multitude, for the number of those who had three children was 20,000. This proposal met with opposition from many of the senators, and Caesar, pretending to be much vexed at their unfair behavior, left the house and never called the senate together again during the remainder of his consulship, but addressed the people from the rostra. He, in the presence of the assembly, asked the opinion of Pompeius and Crassus, both of them approving, and the people came to vote on them (the bills), with concealed daggers. Now as the senate[6] was not convened, for one consul could not summon the senate without the consent of the other consul, the senators used to meet at the house of Bibulus, but they could make no real opposition to Caesar's power.... Now Caesar secured the enactment of the laws, and bound the people by an oath to the perpetual observance of them, and he required the same oath from the senate. As many of the senators opposed him, and among them Cato, Caesar proposed death as a penalty for not taking the oath and the assembly ratified this proposal. Upon this all took the oath immediately because of fear, and the tribunes also took it, for there was no longer any use in making opposition after the proposal was ratified." Emphasis is mine. Anyone can identify a coup d'etat when you see it so clear. The call for the "People's will" has always been tyrants and demagogues last resource. Anyway, it seems fair to ask why the Senate have still not settled Pompey's veterans in the first place, with the added consideration of the vast wealth their campaigns had given to Rome. PS: Not to sound ungrateful, but I haven't been able to find quotations about the Lex Agraria Iulia Campania yet. One more time, gratiam habeo.

Some excerpts from my re-reading of an X-tensive MPC post: I simply can't find any results under that specific entry. Any alternative sugestions? I don't think Goldsworthy is quoting the tortuous legal prose itself here, not even in an indirect way. In this moment, I have no access to paperware and I haven't find any text from "Life of a Colossus" online. Can anyone post an explicit quotation? BTW, does anybody know the primary source of Goldsworthy? Or is he taking this from G. Long? Once again, I don't find explicit references of this law in this quotation. In fact, it's not stated the quoted book; I infer it might be "The Decline of the Roman Republic", but so far I haven't found any reference to this law in this text. Are we talking about other Long's book? Thanks in advance.

Re-read my post. I already listed two secondary sources--Goldsworthy and Long. Thanks. And, BTW, any primary sources? Thanks in advance.

Disobedience to authority is a death sentence. There was no greater threat to their families than that. Here, by authority you mean their general or the Senate (or both)?