Attitudes toward illness

[Lost_Warrior]

(As I'm finishing my second day in a row of working with the newest flubug that's going around)

 

How did Romans deal with illness? Was it 'business as usual' so long as you could work? Or were they far more interested than modern people seem to be in taking time to take care of themselves?

 

I assume that plebs would have worked if at all possible because they had to. But what about those who had the luxury of taking time off? Did they?

[Nephele]

(As I'm finishing my second day in a row of working with the newest flubug that's going around)

 

How did Romans deal with illness? Was it 'business as usual' so long as you could work? Or were they far more interested than modern people seem to be in taking time to take care of themselves?

 

I assume that plebs would have worked if at all possible because they had to. But what about those who had the luxury of taking time off? Did they?

 

 

I believe that those ancient Romans who subscribed to the philosophy of stoicism probably took illness (and a whole lot of other things) in their stride. But not all of the ancient Romans were stoics, so I imagine that those (especially if they happened to be of the wealthier classes and could afford self-indulgence) would have been less likely to suffer illness gracefully. Of course, the stoics were more concerned with mental, emotional, and ethical strength, than physical strength, I believe. But the term "stoic" today is generally applied to someone who toughs it out, and I can picture stoic Romans toughing out a flu bug.

 

Hope you're feeling better, LW.

 

-- Nephele

[M. Porcius Cato]

Best I can tell, the Romans were firm believers in prevention, esp. in clean water and regular bathing. Beyond that, they certainly believed in vigorous exercise: "A person should put aside some part of the day for the care of his body. He should always make sure that he gets enough exercise especially before a meal" (Celsus).

[caldrail]

There must have been as wide a range of approaches as we get today. Sure, there was a trwend toward the 'body beautiful' especially by imperial times, but I imagine some people paid lip service to the idea of looking after their bodies and you got those who abused it terribly. I'm thinking in terms of the excessive behaviour of roman socialising in some circles, and I also suspect that for many poorer romans, the caring of the body was not a priority compared to ensuring food, drink, and a roof over their heads.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

The Romans believed that Prevention of illness was more important than cure of illness. Roman Philosophy was based along the lines of searching for a reason then establishing preventive measures to minimise the risk. As a practical people they used observations of the environment to determine what was causing ill health. This form of observation led the Romans to realise that death rates were higher in and around marshes and swamps.

 

The cure would then be based upon logic. As the Romans believed that Gods held the key to a long and healthy life they initially built Temples to the gods near large swamps to pacify them and reduce the deaths. Alternatives to this were the drainage of swamps and they also ensured that the army and important people lived away from these areas.

 

Such observations led the Romans to believe that ill health could be associated with, amongst other things, bad air, bad water, swamps, sewage, debris and lack of personal cleanliness. So by providing clean water, sewers and public latrines the Romans went as far as they possibly could to prevent illness. But even after all these preventive measures people will still get poorly so I guess they'd just deal with it pretty much how we do today, they'll either stop indoors and feel sorry for themselves because they can afford to, or they just get up and get on with things because they have to.

[guy]

M. Porcius Cato said:

Best I can tell, the Romans were firm believers in prevention, esp. in clean water and regular bathing. Beyond that, they certainly believed in vigorous exercise: "A person should put aside some part of the day for the care of his body. He should always make sure that he gets enough exercise especially before a meal" (Celsus).

 

Cato: I'm surprised you didn't take the opportunity to extoll the virtues of cabbage, a traditional Roman treatment for most everything, as did your namesake:

 

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roma...cultura/K*.html

 

Those Romans sure loved their cabbage.

 

 

Edited June 24, 2022 by guy

[ASCLEPIADES]

(As I'm finishing my second day in a row of working with the newest flubug that's going around)

 

How did Romans deal with illness? Was it 'business as usual' so long as you could work? Or were they far more interested than modern people seem to be in taking time to take care of themselves?

 

I assume that plebs would have worked if at all possible because they had to. But what about those who had the luxury of taking time off? Did they?

As usual, ad hoc Roman legislation can give us some idea of their attitudes.

Here comes XII Tabularum Leges:

 

I.3. If illness or old age is the hindrance, let the summoner (before the magistrate) provide a team. He need not provide a covered carriage with a pallet unless he chooses.

 

IV.1. A dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed.

 

V.7. If one is mad but has no guardian, the power over him and his money shall belong to his agnates and the members of his gens.

 

VIII.2. If one has maimed a limb and does not compromise with the injured person, let there be retaliation. If one has broken a bone of a freeman with his hand or with a cudgel, let him pay a penalty of three hundred coins If he has broken the bone of a slave, let him have one hundred and fifty coins. If one is guilty of insult, the penalty shall be twenty-five coins.

[Antiochus III]

(As I'm finishing my second day in a row of working with the newest flubug that's going around)

 

How did Romans deal with illness? Was it 'business as usual' so long as you could work? Or were they far more interested than modern people seem to be in taking time to take care of themselves?

 

I assume that plebs would have worked if at all possible because they had to. But what about those who had the luxury of taking time off? Did they?

As usual, ad hoc Roman legislation can give us some idea of their attitudes.

Here comes XII Tabularum Leges:

 

I.3. If illness or old age is the hindrance, let the summoner (before the magistrate) provide a team. He need not provide a covered carriage with a pallet unless he chooses.

 

IV.1. A dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed.

 

V.7. If one is mad but has no guardian, the power over him and his money shall belong to his agnates and the members of his gens.

 

VIII.2. If one has maimed a limb and does not compromise with the injured person, let there be retaliation. If one has broken a bone of a freeman with his hand or with a cudgel, let him pay a penalty of three hundred coins If he has broken the bone of a slave, let him have one hundred and fifty coins. If one is guilty of insult, the penalty shall be twenty-five coins.

 

I have a question about the "let there be retaliation" part of the last law you mentioned. The other conseqences seem to be relatively straight forward, but that is SO ambiguous. Could someone explain the reason for this to me?

 

Antiochus III the Great

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, AIII

I have a question about the "let there be retaliation" part of the last law you mentioned. The other conseqences seem to be relatively straight forward, but that is SO ambiguous. Could someone explain the reason for this to me?

 

Antiochus III the Great

I would say the first line of the II Law of the VIII table (your question)...

"VIII.2.

If one has maimed a limb and does not compromise with the injured person, let there be retaliation.

 

...was an introduction for the retaliation detailed by the subsequent lines regarding each specific maimed limb category:

"If one has broken a bone of a freeman with his hand or with a cudgel, let him pay a penalty of three hundred coins.

If he has broken the bone of a slave, let him have one hundred and fifty coins.

If one is guilty of insult, the penalty shall be twenty-five coins".

[Nephele]

Salve, AIII

I have a question about the "let there be retaliation" part of the last law you mentioned. The other conseqences seem to be relatively straight forward, but that is SO ambiguous. Could someone explain the reason for this to me?

 

Antiochus III the Great

I would say the first line of the II Law of the VIII table (your question)...

"VIII.2.

If one has maimed a limb and does not compromise with the injured person, let there be retaliation.

 

...was an introduction for the retaliation detailed by the subsequent lines regarding each specific maimed limb category:

"If one has broken a bone of a freeman with his hand or with a cudgel, let him pay a penalty of three hundred coins.

If he has broken the bone of a slave, let him have one hundred and fifty coins.

If one is guilty of insult, the penalty shall be twenty-five coins".

 

Pardon, but I think those lines dealing with compensatory payment in coin constitute restitution, as opposed to retaliation.

 

Perhaps the retaliation (returning like for like) might have encompassed legally permitted, physical response for injuries, on a par with "an eye for an eye"? Do you (or anyone else here) know whether Roman law ever defined such retaliation?

 

-- Nephele

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Lady N

Pardon, but I think those lines dealing with compensatory payment in coin constitute restitution, as opposed to retaliation.

Probably in modern English; maybe not so in decemviral (preclassical) Latin.

 

Si membrum rup<s>it, ni cum eo pacit, talio esto.