Torture and Slaves in Courts of Law

[Formosus Viriustus]

Lost in translation ?

 

I am reading Tacitus' Annals at the moment. And I came across another curious passage involving slaves : the trial of Gn. Calpurnius Piso on suspicion of having poisoned Germanicus - III, 14 , 2-3

I am reading it in a Dutch translation and here's the text :

 

'De beklaagde bood zijn eigen slaven voor verhoor aan en vroeg met klem het bedienend personeel op de pijnbank te ondervragen. Maar de rechters waren daar om uiteenlopende redenen niet toe te bewegen, Caesar [Tiberius] niet omdat Piso de vrede in de provincie verstoord had, de senaat niet omdat men eenvoudig niet kon geloven dat de dood van Germanicus niet aan kwade opzet te wijten was.'

Dutch translation by M.A. Wes, edition Voltaire, The Netherlands, 1999 ISBN 90 5848 001 1

 

And then I looked it up on the net and this is what I found :

 

'And, besides, the defendant offered his slaves to the torture, and insisted on its application to the attendants on that occasion. But the judges for different reasons were merciless, the emperor, because war had been made on a province, the Senate because they could not be sufficiently convinced that there had been no treachery about the death of Germanicus.'

English translation by A.J. Church & W.J. Brodribb

http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.3.iii.html

 

Now there seems to me to be quite some difference between the two translations, particularly where the fate of those slaves involved is concerned : the Dutch translation leaves no doubt whatsoever concerning that : neither the emperor, nor the senate were interested in torturing them, since they were convinced of Piso's guilt anyway. But the English translation is much more ambiguous : it even seems to suggest that those slaves were indeed tortured.

The Dutch expression ''niet toe te bewegen'' means ''not willing to''. That's something totally different from ''merciless''.

Can anyone help me out here ?

 

Formosus

[Nephele]

I think the judges' mercilessness, in this case, was directed towards the defendant -- Piso -- and not the slaves. In that the judges were unwilling to accept the defendant's offer to have the slaves tortured for evidence that might possibly support his case.

 

But here is a link to the original Latin (with English translation), if anyone here would care to do his or her own translation:

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a03010.htm

 

-- Nephele

[Formosus Viriustus]

I think the judges' mercilessness, in this case, was directed towards the defendant -- Piso -- and not the slaves. In that the judges were unwilling to accept the defendant's offer to have the slaves tortured for evidence that might possibly support his case.

 

But here is a link to the original Latin (with English translation), if anyone here would care to do his or her own translation:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a03010.htm

 

-- Nephele

 

I don't think so, Nephele, I am sure it is so. That is exactly my point : the Dutch translation leaves no doubt about that, but, unless it is me, I think the English one could at least be misleading to less attentive readers.

 

On reading the Latin text, I am even more mystified : the Latin word used is 'implacabiles'. Now, we don't use that word in Dutch, so you'll have to translate it into a similar one or an equivalent expression. The one used in the Dutch translation to me seems to be pretty correct. ('Onverzettelijk' would also be a correct word here.)

 

But in English you do have the word 'implacable'. So why change it into 'merciless' ?

(That last word I would translate into the Dutch word 'genadeloos' which really is something completely different from 'onverzettelijk' or 'niet toe te bewegen'.)

 

I'm sorry, I am not a scholar at all, but I'll venture to say I find that rather sloppy translating : you have the exact word that is used in the original text in you own language, yet you exchange it for one which is maybe somewhat similar in meaning, but nonetheless has a very different connotation. What's the use of that ?

 

Formosus

 

PS - Edit : this does not reflect my opinion about the quality of English translations in general.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Formosus Viriustus

[Formosus Viriustus]

)( )(

Before we got lost in linguistics :

 

The point I actually wanted to make was that although Piso was found as good as guilty by both the emperor and the senate, they didn't consider it worthwhile to have his slaves tortured, even though they were just the slaves of an as good as convicted man who made the offer himself. And those slaves might well have had some valuable information, relating or not to the accusation in question. But the Romans were probably as aware as anybody that evidence given under torture is not very reliable.

 

On consideration, Piso's offer seems pretty absurd to me : did he really expect those slaves to maintain his innocence under torture even though he had offered them up for that himself spontaneously ?

 

Formosus

[Ludovicus]

)( )(

But the Romans were probably as aware as anybody that evidence given under torture is not very reliable.

 

Formosus

 

 

Yes, even 2000 years ago Roman government officials seem to have known that. Would that all governments had the same intelligence the Romans had then.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Ludovicus

[Nephele]

I don't think so, Nephele, I am sure it is so. That is exactly my point : the Dutch translation leaves no doubt about that, but, unless it is me, I think the English one could at least be misleading to less attentive readers.

 

The link I provided is to the same English Church & Brodribb translation (the translation that I'm familiar with when accessing Tacitus online) and honestly, Formosus, I didn't find that bit misleading. I did get the impression (that I described above) from that same translation.

 

The point I actually wanted to make was that although Piso was found as good as guilty by both the emperor and the senate, they didn't consider it worthwhile to have his slaves tortured, even though they were just the slaves of an as good as convicted man who made the offer himself. And those slaves might well have had some valuable information, relating or not to the accusation in question. But the Romans were probably as aware as anybody that evidence given under torture is not very reliable.

 

I'm not sure I agree with you about the Romans being "as aware as anybody that evidence given under torture is not very reliable." That seems a modern concept, to me.

 

It seems that the torture of slaves in court cases was fairly common. In fact, it's my understanding that quite often the torture of slaves for testimony was required by a Roman court of law. The testimony of a slave otherwise wasn't considered reliable, unless given under torture.

 

Which, again, explains why the judges in Piso's case were so "merciless" -- because they were so unmovably intent on seeing Piso convicted, that they were unwilling to pursue the customary avenue of gathering any evidence (from his slaves) that might aid in Piso's acquittal.

 

On consideration, Piso's offer seems pretty absurd to me : did he really expect those slaves to maintain his innocence under torture even though he had offered them up for that himself spontaneously ?

 

I should think that if the slave didn't show a reasonably expected amount of loyalty to his master, there might be worse tortures awaiting him after the court case, regardless of whether his master was convicted or acquitted. I believe the Romans were harsh with slaves who betrayed their masters, regardless of who those masters might have been.

 

-- Nephele

[Formosus Viriustus]

Ave Nephele,

 

It is very presumptious of me perhaps to correct other people on their own language, but the Latin word used is 'implacabiles'. The only reasonable translation for that term in English seems to me pretty self-evidently 'implacable', not 'merciless'. To me that last word means a completely different thing. So I can see no justification for it whatsoever. The least I could say is that if that English translation is acceptable and not misleading to people who have English as their first language

[Nephele]

It is very presumptious of me perhaps to correct other people on their own language, but the Latin word used is 'implacabiles'. The only reasonable translation for that term in English seems to me pretty self-evidently 'implacable', not 'merciless'.

 

I agree with you that "implacable" would have been a better choice. I often find terms used in pre-20th century texts that seem awkward. Unfortunately, our 19th century translators Church and Brodribb are long dead and gone, and incapable of benefiting from your editorial expertise, Formosus.

 

That has nothing to do with modern concepts, in my opinion. It is as plain now as it was many thousands of years before the Romans.

 

If it was so plain that torture is ineffective, then why do you suppose it was employed for so many centuries?

 

I'm not making a case for torture here -- I, too, don't believe that torture is effective in getting the tortured to tell you anything other than what the tortured believes you want to hear.

 

Nevertheless, there are still many people today (as in the past) who think otherwise. I'm not just talking about people in the government or military, either. There are an awful lot of Jack Bauer fans to be found in the living rooms of John Q. Public and Family.

 

-- Nephele

[Formosus Viriustus]

I agree with you that "implacable" would have been a better choice. I often find terms used in pre-20th century texts that seem awkward. Unfortunately, our 19th century translators Church and Brodribb are long dead and gone, and incapable of benefiting from your editorial expertise, Formosus.

 

Too bad I wasn't arouind yet at the time to help those guys out.

But if it is a 19

Edited June 1, 2009 by Formosus Viriustus

[Formosus Viriustus]

It seems that the torture of slaves in court cases was fairly common. In fact, it's my understanding that quite often the torture of slaves for testimony was required by a Roman court of law. The testimony of a slave otherwise wasn't considered reliable, unless given under torture.

 

-- Nephele

 

Is there any real evidence for that ? Gratuitous torture, or applied as punishment is almost omnipresent in the classical histories, but I can't remember ever having read anything of that kind. In fact, the two passages concerning slaves involved as witnesses in court cases, that have recently come to attention here, seem to indicate the opposite.

I'm not questioning the fact that there were plenty of laws on the subject. But we all know that the law and it's application are two entirely different things. Is there evidence that those laws were ever actually applied and if so, when and how frequently ?

 

I came across this piece in wikipedia about the Lex Sempronia Agraria :

 

The 500 iugera limit was a reiteration of previous land laws, such as the Licinian Laws passed in 367 B.C., which had been enacted but never enforced. As it stood in Ti. Gracchus's time, a good deal of this land was held in farms far in excess of 500 iugera by large landholders who had settled or rented the property in much earlier time periods, even several generations back. Sometimes it had been leased, rented, or resold to other holders after the initial sale or rental.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Gracchus

 

Note that there is reference to previous laws, plural, which were never enforced. Yet land reform laws can hardly be regarded as trivial. And this passage seems to me much more a reflection of reality, than the supposition that we, because we can find Roman legislation on the subject, can assume that those laws were indeed applied at the time concerned, were even ever applied, let alone consequently.

 

Formosus

 

[Nephele]

It seems that the torture of slaves in court cases was fairly common. In fact, it's my understanding that quite often the torture of slaves for testimony was required by a Roman court of law. The testimony of a slave otherwise wasn't considered reliable, unless given under torture.

 

-- Nephele

 

Is there any real evidence for that ? Gratuitous torture, or applied as punishment is almost omnipresent in the classical histories, but I can't remember ever having read anything of that kind.

 

Well, we could go back to Tacitus to find some examples of this evidence you requested.

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a02030.htm

When the accused denied this, it was decided that his slaves who recognised the writing should be examined by torture. (2.30)

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a03060.htm

His slaves too were sold by auction to the state-agent, to be examined by torture. (3.67)

 

These two references apply to the modification of the law, in which slaves (who were customarily tortured in court cases could, nevertheless, not be tortured to prove the guilt of their own masters) were compulsorily sold to the State so that torture could thereby be applied legally in cases against their now former masters.

 

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (3rd edition, J. Murray: 1891) offers a comprehensive article on the subject, under the the first entry titled "Tormentum," providing additional primary sources for the following: "The rule as to slaves' evidence was the same at Rome as in Greece; their voluntary statements were not received except under special circumstances, as when they gave information of conspiracies against the state; they were tortured to make them confess what it was sought to prove."

 

For both ancient Greeks and ancient Romans: "It was in taking the evidence of slaves, whose willing testimony was not accepted, that the torture was most commonly employed..." (Again, Smith provides primary sources for this statement.)

 

-- Nephele

[Ingsoc]

Ave Nephele,

 

It is very presumptious of me perhaps to correct other people on their own language, but the Latin word used is 'implacabiles'. The only reasonable translation for that term in English seems to me pretty self-evidently 'implacable', not 'merciless'. To me that last word means a completely different thing. So I can see no justification for it whatsoever. The least I could say is that if that English translation is acceptable and not misleading to people who have English as their first language

[Formosus Viriustus]

Well, we could go back to Tacitus to find some examples of this evidence you requested.

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a02030.htm

When the accused denied this, it was decided that his slaves who recognised the writing should be examined by torture. (2.30)

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a03060.htm

His slaves too were sold by auction to the state-agent, to be examined by torture. (3.67)

 

These two references apply to the modification of the law, in which slaves (who were customarily tortured in court cases could, nevertheless, not be tortured to prove the guilt of their own masters) were compulsorily sold to the State so that torture could thereby be applied legally in cases against their now former masters.

 

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (3rd edition, J. Murray: 1891) offers a comprehensive article on the subject, under the the first entry titled "Tormentum," providing additional primary sources for the following: "The rule as to slaves' evidence was the same at Rome as in Greece; their voluntary statements were not received except under special circumstances, as when they gave information of conspiracies against the state; they were tortured to make them confess what it was sought to prove."

 

For both ancient Greeks and ancient Romans: "It was in taking the evidence of slaves, whose willing testimony was not accepted, that the torture was most commonly employed..." (Again, Smith provides primary sources for this statement.)

 

-- Nephele

 

Thanks for putting me right on that one, Nephe.

I hadn't gotten as far yet as Annals, III, 67, 3 - I'm still at III, 17.

 

But how did I miss II, 30, 3 ???? I've only read that a few days ago !

Shows what a scholar I am.

I shall strew my head with ashes and deny myself fire and water for 10 minutes.

 

F rmosus

[Formosus Viriustus]

According to The Pocket Oxford Latin Dictionary "implacabilis" is translated as relentless or irreconcilable. I have the Hebrew translation by Sarah Dvoretzky and she also translated the word as merciless.

 

I also don't think that it's refer to the slaves but to the negative sentiments of Tiberius and the senate toward Piso actions in Syria and the manner they intention to conduct his trial and punishment.

 

Yes, I think that last point is quite clear. I only wanted to point out originally that that came across much clearer in the Dutch than in the English translation. But let's forget about it. I promise I won't nit pick anymore.

By the way : I didn't know you had the word '' merciless '' in Hebrew.

 

F

[Ingsoc]

Yes, I think that last point is quite clear. I only wanted to point out originally that that came across much clearer in the Dutch than in the English translation. But let's forget about it. I promise I won't nit pick anymore.

By the way : I didn't know you had the word '' merciless '' in Hebrew.

 

F

 

You nit picking again of course the word "merciless" doesn't exist in Hebrew but if I would write "חסרי רחמים" which is it's Hebrew equivalent nobody on this board would understand.