Cicero on the “Unforgettable Ides of March”

Cicero, Letters to Atticus (14.4) 10 April 44

“But should all these things befall us, the Ides of March may console. Our heroes too accomplished most gloriously and magnificently everything it was in their power to do. For the rest, we need money and troops, neither of which we have.”

Sed omnia licet concurrant, Idus Martiae consolantur. nostri autem ἥρωες quod per ipsos confici potuit gloriosissime et magnificentissime confecerunt; reliquae res opes et copias desiderant, quas nullas habemus

 

Cicero, Letters to Brutus  I.15 (23) 14 July 43

“Therefore, come here, by the gods, as fast as possible; Convince yourself that it would do your country no greater good if you come quickly than you did on the Ides of March when you freed your fellow citizens from slavery.”

subveni igitur, per deos, idque quam primum, tibique persuade non te Idibus Martiis, quibus servitutem a tuis civibus depulisti, plus profuisse patriae quam, si mature veneris, profuturum.

 

Cicero, Letters to Brutus, 1.15 (23) July 43

“After the death of Caesar and your unforgettable Ides of March, Brutus, you will not have lost sight of the the fact that I said that one thing was overlooked by you—how much a storm loomed over the Republic. The greatest disease was warded off thanks to you—a great blight was cleansed from the Roman people—and you won immortal fame for your part. But the mechanism of monarchy fell then to Lepidus and Antonius—one of whom is more erratic, while the other is rather unclean—both fearing peace and ill-fit to idle time.”

Post interitum Caesaris et vestras memorabilis Idus Martias, Brute, quid ego praetermissum a vobis quantamque impendere rei publicae tempestatem dixerim non es oblitus. magna pestis erat depulsa per vos, magna populi Romani macula deleta, vobis vero parta divina gloria, sed instrumentum regni delatum ad Lepidum et Antonium, quorum alter inconstantior, alter impurior, uterque pacem metuens, inimicus otio.

Image result for Ancient Roman death of caesar
The death of Julius Caesar in the Roman Senate by Vincenzo Camuccini

 

Populist Politics and Savage Consensus

During the Peloponnesian War, the Athenian Democracy deliberated on and voted for the killing of men and the enslavement of women and children. To ask why is not an idle historical musing.

Thucydides, 5.116.4

“The [Athenians] killed however many of the Melian men were adults, and made the women and children slaves. Then they settled the land themselves and later on sent five hundred colonists.”

οἱ δὲ ἀπέκτειναν Μηλίων ὅσους ἡβῶντας ἔλαβον, παῖδας δὲ καὶ γυναῖκας ἠνδραπόδισαν. τὸ δὲ χωρίον αὐτοὶ ᾤκισαν, ἀποίκους ὕστερον πεντακοσίους πέμψαντες.

5.32

“Around the same period of time in that summer, the Athenians set siege to the Scionaeans and after killing all the adult men, made the women and childen into slaves and gave the land to the Plataeans.”

Περὶ δὲ τοὺς αὐτοὺς χρόνους τοῦ θέρους τούτου Σκιωναίους μὲν Ἀθηναῖοι ἐκπολιορκήσαντες ἀπέκτειναν τοὺς ἡβῶντας, παῖδας δὲ καὶ γυναῖκας ἠνδραπόδισαν καὶ τὴν γῆν Πλαταιεῦσιν ἔδοσαν νέμεσθαι·

This was done by vote of the Athenian democracy led by Cleon: Thucydides 4.122.6. A similar solution was proposed during the Mytilenean debate. Cleon is described by Thucydides as “in addition the most violent of the citizens who also was the most persuasive at that time by far to the people.” (ὢν καὶ ἐς τὰ ἄλλα βιαιότατος τῶν πολιτῶν τῷ τε δήμῳ παρὰ πολὺ ἐν τῷ τότε πιθανώτατος, 3.36.6)

3.36

“They were making a judgment about the men there and in their anger it seemed right to them not only to kill those who were present but to slay all the Mytileneans who were adults and to enslave the children and women.”

περὶ δὲ τῶν ἀνδρῶν γνώμας ἐποιοῦντο, καὶ ὑπὸ ὀργῆς ἔδοξεν αὐτοῖς οὐ τοὺς παρόντας μόνον ἀποκτεῖναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἅπαντας Μυτιληναίους ὅσοι ἡβῶσι, παῖδας δὲ καὶ γυναῖκας ἀνδραποδίσαι.

In his speech in defense of this policy, Cleon reflects on the nature of imperialism and obedience. Although he eventually failed to gain approval for this vote which was overturned, his arguments seem to have worked on later occasions.

Thucydides, 3.37

“The truth is that because you live without fear day-to-day and there is no conspiring against one another, you think imagine your ‘allies’ to live the same way. Because you are deluded by whatever is presented in speeches you are mistaken in these matters or because you yield to pity, you do not not realize you are being dangerously weak for yourselves and for some favor to your allies.

You do not examine the fact that the power you hold is a tyranny and that those who are dominated by you are conspiring against you and are ruled unwillingly and that these people obey you not because they might please you by being harmed but because you are superior to them by strength rather than because of their goodwill.

The most terrible thing of all is  if nothing which seems right to us is established firmly—if we will not acknowledge that a state which has worse laws which are unbendable is stronger than a state with noble laws which are weakly administered, that ignorance accompanied by discipline is more effective than cleverness with liberality, and that lesser people can inhabit states much more efficiently than intelligent ones.

Smart people always want to show they are wiser than the laws and to be preeminent in discussions about the public good, as if there are no more important things where they could clarify their opinions—and because of this they most often ruin their states. The other group of people, on the other hand, because they distrust their own intelligence, think that it is acceptable to be less learned than the laws and less capable to criticize an argument than the one who speaks well. But because they are more fair and balanced judges, instead of prosecutors, they do well in most cases. For this reason, then, it is right that we too, when we are not carried away by the cleverness and the contest of intelligence, do not act to advise our majority against our own opinion.”

διὰ γὰρ τὸ καθ᾿ ἡμέραν ἀδεὲς καὶ ἀνεπιβούλευτον πρὸς ἀλλήλους καὶ ἐς τοὺς ξυμμάχους τὸ αὐτὸ ἔχετε, καὶ ὅ τι ἂν ἢ λόγῳ πεισθέντες ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἁμάρτητε ἢ οἴκτῳ ἐνδῶτε, οὐκ ἐπικινδύνως ἡγεῖσθε ἐς ὑμᾶς καὶ οὐκ ἐς τὴν τῶν ξυμμάχων χάριν μαλακίζεσθαι, οὐ σκοποῦντες ὅτι τυραννίδα ἔχετε τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ πρὸς ἐπιβουλεύοντας αὐτοὺς καὶ ἄκοντας ἀρχομένους, οἳ οὐκ ἐξ ὧν ἂν χαρίζησθε βλαπτόμενοι αὐτοὶ ἀκροῶνται ὑμῶν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐξ ὧν ἂν ἰσχύι μᾶλλον ἢ τῇ ἐκείνων εὐνοίᾳ περιγένησθε.

πάντων δὲ δεινότατον εἰ βέβαιον ἡμῖν μηδὲν καθεστήξει ὧν ἂν δόξῃ πέρι, μηδὲ γνωσόμεθα ὅτι χείροσι νόμοις ἀκινήτοις χρωμένη πόλις κρείσσων ἐστὶν ἢ καλῶς ἔχουσιν ἀκύροις, ἀμαθία τε μετὰ σωφροσύνης ὠφελιμώτερον ἢ δεξιότης μετὰ ἀκολασίας, οἵ τε φαυλότεροι τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τοὺς ξυνετωτέρους ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλέον ἄμεινον οἰκοῦσι τὰς πόλεις.

οἱ μὲν γὰρ τῶν τε νόμων σοφώτεροι βούλονται φαίνεσθαι τῶν τε αἰεὶ λεγομένων ἐς τὸ κοινὸν περιγίγνεσθαι, ὡς ἐν ἄλλοις μείζοσιν οὐκ ἂν δηλώσαντες τὴν γνώμην, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ τοιούτου τὰ πολλὰ σφάλλουσι τὰς πόλεις· οἱ δ᾿ ἀπιστοῦντες τῇ ἐξ ἑαυτῶν ξυνέσει ἀμαθέστεροι μὲν τῶν νόμων ἀξιοῦσιν εἶναι, ἀδυνατώτεροι δὲ τὸν1 τοῦ καλῶς εἰπόντος μέμψασθαι λόγον, κριταὶ δὲ ὄντες ἀπὸ τοῦ ἴσου μάλλον ἢ ἀγωνισταὶ ὀρθοῦνται τὰ πλείω. ὣς οὖν χρὴ καὶ ἡμᾶς ποιοῦντας μὴ δεινότητι καὶ ξυνέσεως ἀγῶνι ἐπαιρομένους παρὰ δόξαν τῷ ὑμετέρῳ πλήθει παραινεῖν.

description: father Amphiaraos (bearded man in mantle) standing, leaning on his stick, mother Eriphyle sitting in a chair, suckling her baby son Alkmaion, their elder daughter Domonassa spinning wool from a baske
ca. 450-440 BC – material: pottery (clay) – height: 27 cm – findspot: Attica – museum / inventory number: Berlin, Altes Museum (Antikensammlung) F 2395

Marcus Aurelius Would Have Done Better to Have Had No Sons

Historia Augusta, Marc. Aur. 18-19

“Such a great man [Marcus Aurelius], joined to the gods in life as well as death, left behind his son Commodus—if he had been truly blessed, he would have not left a son. So it was not enough that people of all ages, gender, social position, and condition gave him honors, but a man would be declared sacrilegious if he did not have his image in his own home, should he be able to do so thanks to fortune.

Indeed, even today status of Marcus Antoninus [Aurelius] remain in many homes among the household gods. There was no lack of men who claimed that he predicted many things in dreams that they foretold future events in truth. Hence, , a temple was constructed in his honor, and there were priests dedicated to the service of the Antonines, along with Flaminess and Sodales, all those things which tradition has established for sacred rites.

“Some men report a thing which seems likely, that Commodus Antoninus, his son and successor, was born not from him but from adultery and they support such a tale with a common rumor. There was a time when Faustina, Pius’ daughter and Marcus’ wife, saw some gladiators pass and was set afire with love for one of them. Later, when she was suffering from a long sickness, she told her husband about this. When Marcus relayed this to the Chaldaeans, their advice was that he should have Faustina bathe herself in the blood of the killed gladiator and then lie with her husband.

When this act was complete, the passion was quenched, though their son Commodus was as a result born to be a gladiator not a princeps. This tale is treated as likely since there was never a son of a prince so virtuous with ways worse than a gladiator master, a street-actor or some arena-fighter, a man who could summon up a trophy of crimes from a surfeit of blessings.

Many others, however, claim that Commodus was really conceived through adultery because it is known that when Faustina was at Caieta she would choose lovers from the sailors and the gladiators. When this was mentioned to Marcus Aurelius so that he would reject her or kill her, he is reported to have replied, “If I divorce my wife, I must return her dowry.” And what did he consider her dowry but the empire which he had received when he was adopted by his father-in-law at Hadrian’s urging.”

Hic sane vir tantus et talis ac diis vita et morte coniunctus filium Commodum dereliquit: qui si felix fuisset, filium non reliquisset. 5 Et parum sane fuit, quod illi honores divinos omnis aetas, omnis sexus, omnis conditio ac dignitas dedit, nisi quod etiam sacrilegus iudicatus est, qui eius imaginem in sua domo non habuit, qui per fortunam vel potuit habere vel debuit. 6 Denique hodieque in multis domibus Marci Antonini statuae consistunt inter deos penates. 7 Nec defuerunt homines qui somniis eum multa praedixisse augurantes futura et vera concinuerunt. 8 Unde etiam templum ei constitutum, dati sacerdotes Antoniniani et sodales et flamines et omnia, quae de sacratis decrevit antiquitas.

Aiunt quidam, quod et verisimile videtur, Commodum Antoninum, successorem illius ac filium, non esse de eo natum sed de adulterio, ac talem fabellam vulgari sermone contexunt. 2 Faustinam quondam, Pii filiam, Marci uxorem, cum gladiatores transire vidisset, unius ex his amore succensam, cum longa aegritudine laboraret, viro de amore confessam. 3 Quod cum ad Chaldaeos Marcus rettulisset, illorum fuisse consilium, ut occiso gladiatore sanguine illius sese Faustina sublavaret atque ita cum viro concumberet. 4 Quod cum esset factum, solutum quidem amorem, natum vero Commodum gladiatorem esse, non principem, 5 qui mille prope pugnas publice populo inspectante gladiatorias imperator exhibuit, ut in vita eius docebitur. 6 Quod quidem verisimile ex eo habetur, quod tam sancti principis filius his moribus fuit, quibus nullus lanista, nullus scaenicus, nullus arenarius, nullus postremo ex omnium decorum ac scelerum conluvione concretus. 7 Multi autem ferunt Commodum omnino ex adultero natum, si quidem Faustinam satis constet apud Caietam condiciones sibi et nauticas et gladiatorias elegisse. 8 De qua cum diceretur Antonino Marco, ut eam repudiaret, si non occideret, dixisse fertur : “Si uxorem dimittimus, reddamus et dotem.” 9 Dos autem quid habebatur [nisi] imperium, quod ille ab socero volente Hadriano adoptatus acceperat?


Statue of Marcus Aurelius in Musei Capitolini

Banning Even the Freedom of the Eyes: The Moral Tale of the Tyrant of Troezen

Aelian Varia Historia 14.22

“There’s a story of the tyrant of Troezen. Because he wanted to get rid of any plots and conspiracies against him, he ordered that no one could talk to anyone else in public or private. This was an impossible and harsh matter. But the people circumvented the tyrant’s command: they were nodding to each other and using hand gestures too. They also used angry, calm, or bright facial expressions. Each person was clear to all in his emotions, showing the suffering in his spirit on his face by grimacing at bad news or implacable conditions.

These actions caused the tyrant annoyance too—for he was believing that even silence accompanied by plentiful gestures was contriving something bad for him. So, he stopped this too.

One of those who was burdened and troubled by this absurdity was longing to end the monarchy. A group rose up with him and stood together sharing their tears. A report came to the tyrant that no one was using gestures any longer, because, instead, they were trafficking in tears. Because he was eager to stop this, he was proclaiming not only slavery of the tongue and gestures, but he was even trying to ban the freedom of the eyes we get from nature. So he went there without delay with his bodyguards to stop the tears. But as soon as the people saw him they took away his bodyguards’ weapons and killed the tyrant.”

Ὅτι Τροιζήνιός τις τύραννος βουλόμενος ἐξελεῖν τὰς συνωμοσίας καὶ τὰς κατ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐπιβουλὰς ἔταξε τοῖς ἐπιχωρίοις μηδένα μηδενὶ διαλέγεσθαι μήτε κοινῇ μήτε ἰδίᾳ. καὶ ἦν τὸ πρᾶγμα ἀμήχανον καὶ χαλεπόν. ἐσοφίσαντο οὖν τὸ τοῦ τυράννου πρόσταγμα, καὶ ἀλλήλοις ἔνευον καὶ ἐχειρονόμουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, καὶ ἐνεώρων δριμὺ καὶ αὖ πάλιν γαληναῖον καὶ βλέμμα φαιδρόν· καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς σκυθρωποῖς καὶ ἀνηκέστοις ἕκαστος αὐτῶν συνωφρυωμένος ἦν δῆλος, τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς πάθος ἐκ τοῦ προσώπου τῷ πλησίον διαδεικνύς. ἐλύπει τὸν τύραννον καὶ ταῦτα, καὶ ἐπίστευε τέξεσθαί τι αὐτῷ πάντως κακὸν καὶ τὴν σιωπὴν διὰ τὸ τῶν σχημάτων ποικίλον. ἀλλ᾿ οὖν ἐκεῖνος καὶ τοῦτο κατέπαυσε. τῶν τις οὖν ἀχθομένων τῇ ἀμηχανίᾳ καὶ δυσφορούντων καὶ τὴν μοναρχίαν καταλῦσαι διψώντων. περιέστησαν οὖν αὐτὸν καὶ περιῆλθον τὸ πλῆθος καὶ ὀδυρμῷ κἀκεῖνοι συνείχοντο. ἧκεν ἀγγελία παρὰ τὸν τύραννον ὡς οὐδεὶς αὐτῶν χρῆται νεύματι οὐκέτι, δάκρυα δὲ αὐτοῖς ἐπιχωριάζει. ὁ δὲ ἐπειγόμενος καὶ τοῦτο παῦσαι, μὴ μόνον τῆς γλώττης καταγινώσκων δουλείαν μηδὲ μόνον τῶν νευμάτων ἀλλ᾿ ἤδη καὶ τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς τὴν ἐκ φύσεως ἀποκλείων ἐλευθερίαν, ᾗ ποδῶν εἶχεν ἀφίκετο σὺν τοῖς δορυφόροις, ἵνα ἀναστείλῃ τὰ δάκρυα. οἱ δὲ οὐκ ἔφθασαν ἰδόντες αὐτὸν καὶ τὰ ὅπλα τῶν δορυφόρων ἁρπάσαντες τὸν τύραννον ἀπέκτειναν.

John Lydgate, Life of St Edmund and St Fremund, England (Bury St Edmunds?), 1461-c. 1475, Yates Thompson MS 47, f. 54r

color photograph of oil painting showing a woman half skeleton but half clothed
Life and Death, Wellcome Trust https://wellcomecollection.org/search/images?query=life%20and%20death

Nothing Colonialist About the Classics….

Plutarch, On the Fortune of Alexander (Moralia 328d-f)

“When Alexander the great was taming Asia, Homer was being read and the children of the Persians, Susianans, and Gedrosians learned to sing the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles. Shoot, even though Socrates, when he was prosecuted for bringing a foreign god to the Athenains, lost his case to those Athenian sycophants, Baktria and the Caucasus learned to kneel before Greek gods.

While Plato wrote a book about a single constitution, he persuaded no one to use it because of its severity; but Alexander created more than seventy cities among barbarian tribes and plated Greek institutions all over Asia and conquered their harsh and uncivilized ways. Few of us have even read Plato’s Laws, but countless thousands have followed Alexander’s and still used them.

Really, those who were conquered by Alexander are luckier than those who resisted him—they had no one who could help them change their pathetic lives; but the champion taught those conquered how to be happy.”

ἀλλ᾿ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὴν Ἀσίαν ἐξημεροῦντος Ὅμηρος ἦν ἀνάγνωσμα, καὶ Περσῶν καὶ Σουσιανῶν καὶ Γεδρωσίων παῖδες τὰς Εὐριπίδου καὶ Σοφοκλέους τραγῳδίας ᾖδον. καὶ Σωκράτης ὡςμὲν ξένα παρεισάγων δαιμόνια δίκην τοῖς Ἀθήνησιν ὠφλίσκανε συκοφάνταις· διὰ δ᾿ Ἀλέξανδρον τοὺς Ἑλλήνων θεοὺς Βάκτρα καὶ Καύκασος προσεκύνησε. Πλάτων μὲν γὰρ μίαν Eγράψας πολιτείαν οὐδένα πέπεικεν αὐτῇ χρῆσθαι διὰ τὸ αὐστηρόν· Ἀλέξανδρος δ᾿ ὑπὲρ ἑβδομήκοντα πόλεις βαρβάροις ἔθνεσιν ἐγκτίσας καὶ κατασπείρας τὴν Ἀσίαν Ἑλληνικοῖς τέλεσι, τῆς ἀνημέρου καὶ θηριώδους ἐκράτησε διαίτης. καὶ τοὺς μὲν Πλάτωνος ὀλίγοι νόμους ἀναγιγνώσκομεν, τοῖς δ᾿ Ἀλεξάνδρου μυριάδες ἀνθρώπων ἐχρήσαντο καὶ χρῶνται· μακαριώτεροι τῶν διαφυγόντων Ἀλέξανδρον οἱ κρατηθέντες γενόμενοι· τοὺς μὲν γὰρ οὐδεὶς ἔπαυσεν ἀθλίως ζῶντας, τοὺς δ᾿ ἠνάγκασεν εὐδαιμονεῖν ὁ νικήσας.

Color photograph of oil painting showing a Roman styled alexander pointing out the building of the city of alexandria
http://art.thewalters.org/detail/30203/alexander-the-great-founding-alexandria/

What is amazing about this passage is the quick but clear elision between culture as a marker of value and brute force to impose cultural supremacy. Similar themes are common in European treatises from Plutarch to today.

I mean, if Homer is so great, why does he need Alexander to take him to Asia?

Populist Politics and Killing Children at the Border

In more horrifying news from the border, Texas troopers have been told to push children back into the Rio Grande. Here’s a reminder that state sanctioned violence against children is an ancient practice of imperial states, whether they are dictatorships or democracies

 

Velleius Paterculus 2.28

“The evils of the civil war seemed to have ended when they were rekindled by Sulla’s cruelty. Once he was made dictator—and this honor had been avoided for a hundred and twenty years since the last time it had been used was one year after Hannibal quit Italy—and it is obvious that the fear which prompted the Roman people to want a dictator was less than how much they feared his power. As dictator, Sulla applied the power which earlier dictators had used only to save the country from the greatest dangers with unmeasured degrees of savagery.

He was the first—and I wish he had been the last—to discover the model of proscription with the result that in the same state in which legal recourse is available to an actor booed from the stage, in that state a price was set for the murder of a Roman citizen: he would have the most who killed the most! The reward for the killing of an enemy would be no greater than for the murder of a citizen.

In essence, each man was valued for the price of his own death. Such savagery was applied not only to those who had carried arms against them, but against many innocents too. In addition to this, the goods of the proscribed were offered for sale: children already deprived of their father’s goods were also prohibited from the right of seeking public office and, the most unjust thing of all, they had to maintain the standards of their social rank without recourse to the rights.”

Videbantur finita belli civilis mala, cum Sullae crudelitate aucta sunt. Quippe dictator creatus (cuius honoris usurpatio per annos centum et viginti intermissa; nam proximus post annum quam Hannibal Italia excesserat, uti adpareat populum Romanum usum dictatoris haud metu desiderasse tali quo timuisset potestatem) imperio, quo priores ad vindicandam maximis periculis rem publicam olim usi erant, eo in inmodicae crudelitatis licentiam usus est.3 Primus ille, et utinam ultimus, exemplum proscriptionis invenit, ut in qua civitate petularitis convicii iudicium histrioni ex albo redditur, in ea iugulati civis Romani publice constitueretur auctoramentum, plurimumque haberet, qui plurimos interemisset, neque occisi hostis quam civis uberius foret praemium Geretque quisque merces mortis suae.4 Nec tantum in eos, qui contra arma tulerant, sed in multos insontis saevitum. Adiectum etiam, ut bona proscriptorum venirent exclusique paternis opibus liberi etiam petendorum honorum iure prohiberentur simulque, quod indignissimum est, senatorum filii et onera ordinis sustinerent et iura perderent.

During the Peloponnesian War, the Athenian Democracy deliberated on and voted for the killing of men and the enslavement of women and children. To ask why is not an idle historical musing.

Thucydides, 5.116.4

“The [Athenians] killed however many of the Melian men were adults, and made the women and children slaves. Then they settled the land themselves and later on sent five hundred colonists.”

οἱ δὲ ἀπέκτειναν Μηλίων ὅσους ἡβῶντας ἔλαβον, παῖδας δὲ καὶ γυναῖκας ἠνδραπόδισαν. τὸ δὲ χωρίον αὐτοὶ ᾤκισαν, ἀποίκους ὕστερον πεντακοσίους πέμψαντες.

5.32

“Around the same period of time in that summer, the Athenians set siege to the Scionaeans and after killing all the adult men, made the women and childen into slaves and gave the land to the Plataeans.”

Περὶ δὲ τοὺς αὐτοὺς χρόνους τοῦ θέρους τούτου Σκιωναίους μὲν Ἀθηναῖοι ἐκπολιορκήσαντες ἀπέκτειναν τοὺς ἡβῶντας, παῖδας δὲ καὶ γυναῖκας ἠνδραπόδισαν καὶ τὴν γῆν Πλαταιεῦσιν ἔδοσαν νέμεσθαι·

This was done by vote of the Athenian democracy led by Cleon: Thucydides 4.122.6. A similar solution was proposed during the Mytilenean debate. Cleon is described by Thucydides as “in addition the most violent of the citizens who also was the most persuasive at that time by far to the people.” (ὢν καὶ ἐς τὰ ἄλλα βιαιότατος τῶν πολιτῶν τῷ τε δήμῳ παρὰ πολὺ ἐν τῷ τότε πιθανώτατος, 3.36.6)

3.36

“They were making a judgment about the men there and in their anger it seemed right to them not only to kill those who were present but to slay all the Mytileneans who were adults and to enslave the children and women.”

περὶ δὲ τῶν ἀνδρῶν γνώμας ἐποιοῦντο, καὶ ὑπὸ ὀργῆς ἔδοξεν αὐτοῖς οὐ τοὺς παρόντας μόνον ἀποκτεῖναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἅπαντας Μυτιληναίους ὅσοι ἡβῶσι, παῖδας δὲ καὶ γυναῖκας ἀνδραποδίσαι.

In his speech in defense of this policy, Cleon reflects on the nature of imperialism and obedience. Although he eventually failed to gain approval for this vote which was overturned, his arguments seem to have worked on later occasions.

Thucydides, 3.37

“The truth is that because you live without fear day-to-day and there is no conspiring against one another, you think imagine your ‘allies’ to live the same way. Because you are deluded by whatever is presented in speeches you are mistaken in these matters or because you yield to pity, you do not not realize you are being dangerously weak for yourselves and for some favor to your allies.

You do not examine the fact that the power you hold is a tyranny and that those who are dominated by you are conspiring against you and are ruled unwillingly and that these people obey you not because they might please you by being harmed but because you are superior to them by strength rather than because of their goodwill.

The most terrible thing of all is  if nothing which seems right to us is established firmly—if we will not acknowledge that a state which has worse laws which are unbendable is stronger than a state with noble laws which are weakly administered, that ignorance accompanied by discipline is more effective than cleverness with liberality, and that lesser people can inhabit states much more efficiently than intelligent ones.

Smart people always want to show they are wiser than the laws and to be preeminent in discussions about the public good, as if there are no more important things where they could clarify their opinions—and because of this they most often ruin their states. The other group of people, on the other hand, because they distrust their own intelligence, think that it is acceptable to be less learned than the laws and less capable to criticize an argument than the one who speaks well. But because they are more fair and balanced judges, instead of prosecutors, they do well in most cases. For this reason, then, it is right that we too, when we are not carried away by the cleverness and the contest of intelligence, do not act to advise our majority against our own opinion.”

διὰ γὰρ τὸ καθ᾿ ἡμέραν ἀδεὲς καὶ ἀνεπιβούλευτον πρὸς ἀλλήλους καὶ ἐς τοὺς ξυμμάχους τὸ αὐτὸ ἔχετε, καὶ ὅ τι ἂν ἢ λόγῳ πεισθέντες ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἁμάρτητε ἢ οἴκτῳ ἐνδῶτε, οὐκ ἐπικινδύνως ἡγεῖσθε ἐς ὑμᾶς καὶ οὐκ ἐς τὴν τῶν ξυμμάχων χάριν μαλακίζεσθαι, οὐ σκοποῦντες ὅτι τυραννίδα ἔχετε τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ πρὸς ἐπιβουλεύοντας αὐτοὺς καὶ ἄκοντας ἀρχομένους, οἳ οὐκ ἐξ ὧν ἂν χαρίζησθε βλαπτόμενοι αὐτοὶ ἀκροῶνται ὑμῶν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐξ ὧν ἂν ἰσχύι μᾶλλον ἢ τῇ ἐκείνων εὐνοίᾳ περιγένησθε.

πάντων δὲ δεινότατον εἰ βέβαιον ἡμῖν μηδὲν καθεστήξει ὧν ἂν δόξῃ πέρι, μηδὲ γνωσόμεθα ὅτι χείροσι νόμοις ἀκινήτοις χρωμένη πόλις κρείσσων ἐστὶν ἢ καλῶς ἔχουσιν ἀκύροις, ἀμαθία τε μετὰ σωφροσύνης ὠφελιμώτερον ἢ δεξιότης μετὰ ἀκολασίας, οἵ τε φαυλότεροι τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τοὺς ξυνετωτέρους ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλέον ἄμεινον οἰκοῦσι τὰς πόλεις.

οἱ μὲν γὰρ τῶν τε νόμων σοφώτεροι βούλονται φαίνεσθαι τῶν τε αἰεὶ λεγομένων ἐς τὸ κοινὸν περιγίγνεσθαι, ὡς ἐν ἄλλοις μείζοσιν οὐκ ἂν δηλώσαντες τὴν γνώμην, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ τοιούτου τὰ πολλὰ σφάλλουσι τὰς πόλεις· οἱ δ᾿ ἀπιστοῦντες τῇ ἐξ ἑαυτῶν ξυνέσει ἀμαθέστεροι μὲν τῶν νόμων ἀξιοῦσιν εἶναι, ἀδυνατώτεροι δὲ τὸν1 τοῦ καλῶς εἰπόντος μέμψασθαι λόγον, κριταὶ δὲ ὄντες ἀπὸ τοῦ ἴσου μάλλον ἢ ἀγωνισταὶ ὀρθοῦνται τὰ πλείω. ὣς οὖν χρὴ καὶ ἡμᾶς ποιοῦντας μὴ δεινότητι καὶ ξυνέσεως ἀγῶνι ἐπαιρομένους παρὰ δόξαν τῷ ὑμετέρῳ πλήθει παραινεῖν.

color photograph of migrants in a river through razor wire

Calgacus and Agricola Prepare for Battle

Two excerpts taken from opposing generals preparing to lead their men into battle against one another: Calgacus from Britain, Agricola from Rome. 

Top 12 of Rome's Greatest Battles - Ancient History Lists

The Agricola, Chapters 30-32, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Calgacus’ Speech To His Men

“The first battles, during which it was certain that the Romans were against us by varied fortune, were holding hope and help in our men, because the most noble of all of Britain, situated in the inner most shrines, were seeing no banks of servitude, we also were having eyes unviolated by the touch of tyranny. Our isolation and bend of rumor defended our remote places of the world and of liberty on that day: now the border of Britain is open, and everything unknown is magnified; but now there is no further tribe, nothing except rivers and rocks, and hostile Romans, of which you escape pride in vain through obedience and submission. The plunderers of the world, after they lack everything from laying waste to the world, search the sea: if the enemy is rich, they exact taxes, if poor, they exact homage, whom neither the East nor West will have glutted: these men alone out of everyone yearn for power and poverty equally out of affection. They call robbery, massacre, and plunder power under a false name, and where they make solitudes, they call peace … unless if you think that the Gauls and Germans and, it shames me to say, the majority of the Brits are held by faith and affection, although they shed blood for a foreign tyranny, nevertheless are longer enemies than slaves. There is fear and terror, weak chains of affection; which when you remove them, those who will cease to fear will begin to hate.”

“Priōrēs pugnae, quibus adversus Rōmānōs variā fortūnā certātum est, spem ac subsidium in nostrīs manibus habēbant, quia nōbilissimī tōtīus Britanniae eōque in ipsīs penetrālibus sitī nec ūlla servientium lītora aspicientēs, oculōs quoque ā contāctū dominātiōnis inviolātōs habēbāmus. Nōs terrārum ac lībertātis extrēmōs recessus ipse ac sinus fāmae in hunc diem dēfendit: nunc terminus Britanniae patet, atque omne ignōtum prō magnificō est; sed nūlla iam ultrā gēns, nihil nisi flūctūs ac saxa, et īnfēstiōrēs Rōmānī, quōrum superbiam frūstrā per obsequium ac modestiam effugiās. Raptōrēs orbis, postquam cūncta vastantibus dēfuēre terrae, mare scrūtantur: sī locuplēs hostis est, avārī, sī pauper, ambitiōsī, quōs nōn Oriēns, nōn Occidēns satiāverit: sōlī omnium opēs atque inopiam parī adfectū concupīscunt. Auferre trucīdāre rapere falsīs nōminibus imperium, atque ubi sōlitūdinem faciunt, pācem appellant … nisi sī Gallōs et Germānōs et (pudet dictū) Britannōrum plērōsque, licet dominātiōnī aliēnae sanguinem commodent, diūtius tamen hostēs quam servōs, fide et adfectū tenērī putātis. Metus ac terror est, īnfirma vincla cāritātis; quae ubi remōverīs, quī timēre dēsierint, ōdisse incipient.”

 

Publius Cornelius Tacitus, The Agricola, Chapter 33,  Agricola’s Speech To His Men

“It is the seventh year, comrades, under the virtue and auspices of the Roman people, you all conquer Britain by our faith and duty. With so many expeditions, with so many battles, whether the enemies are adverse by fortitude or hardly adverse by patience and work, it is necessary to that nature of things, neither I regret the soldiers nor you regret your leader … For so that to have surpassed so much of the journey, to have escaped the forests, to have crossed the estuaries when the foe is ahead is beautiful and honorable, thus the most dangerous things for the fleeing men are most prosperous today: indeed a similar knowledge of the places or similar abundance of resources was for our men, but there are men and weapons and everything in these places. That which pertains to me, now it is my long standing conviction that flight is safe for neither the army nor the leader. Accordingly as a honorable death is more preferable than a shameful death, thus safety and glory are allowed in this place; it would not be indignified to have fallen at the limit of the land and of the world.”

septimus annus est, commīlitōnēs, ex quō virtūte et auspiciīs populī Rōmānī, fide atque operā nostrā Britanniam vīcistis. Tot expedītiōnibus, tot proeliīs, seu fortitūdine adversus hostēs seu patientiā ac labōre paene adversus ipsam rērum nātūram opus fuit, neque mē mīlitum neque vōs ducis paenituit … Nam ut superāsse tantum itineris, ēvāsisse silvās, trānsīsse aestuāria pulchrum ac decōrum in frontem, ita fugientibus perīculōsissima quae hodiē prosperrima sunt; neque enim nōbīs aut locōrum eadem nōtitia aut commeātuum eadem abundantia, sed manūs et arma et in hīs omnia. [33.6] Quod ad mē attinet, iam prīdem mihi dēcrētum est neque exercitūs neque ducis terga tūta esse. Proinde ut honesta mors turpī vītā potior, ita incolumitās ac decus eōdem locō sita sunt; nec inglōrium fuerit in ipsō terrārum ac nātūrae fīne cecidisse.

 

Throughout Calgacus’ and Agricola’s speeches, Tacitus communicates to the reader both an outsider’s criticisms of the Roman empire and a Roman leader’s perspective on the empire’s conquest. In presenting these two perspectives, Tacitus is able to critique the Roman rule he lives under and accomplish his goal of paying tribute to Agricola, whom Tacitus portrays as the perfect Roman.

In his speech, Calgacus frequently refers to the Romans as an evil and dishonorable empire that has oppressed generations of tribes throughout Europe, and will do the same to the Brits if they don’t fight back against the Romans. In detailing Calgacus’ speech over the course of three chapters, Tacitus himself is able to critique the cruelty of the Roman empire. In chapter 30, Calgacus introduces the Romans to his listeners as the “plunderers of the world” (raptores orbis), immediately displaying the different perspective he and the Brits have on Rome and its conquests.

Calgacus also refers to the Roman “tyranny” (dominatio) twice in his speech; such a choice not only compares the Romans to tyrants, but also reminds the reader of the reign of Domitian. With Domitian’s violent years as emperor occurring just a few years before the Agricola was published, Tacitus uses this diction to give a more concrete example of when the Roman empire was just as cruel as Calgacus claims them to be. Calgacus then uses rhetorical devices to highlight the malignant deeds of the Roman empire. When he writes “si locuples hostis est, avari, si pauper, ambitiosi,” Calgacus employs an anaphora, whose repetition further emphasizes Rome’s need to always demand some form of retribution from their enemies: when Rome is rich, it demands tributes, when poor it demands homage.

Similarly, Calgacus uses asyndeton when he writes “auferre trucidare rapere.” By placing three infinitives one after another without any conjunctions, Calgacus calls attention to the multitude of Rome’s crimes and shows that the army is forever robbing, massacring, and plundering their enemies. Furthermore, throughout Calgacus’ speech, yet particularly in chapter 31, he refers to the Brits and those under Roman rule as slaves, even comparing the Brits to the newest, mocked slave in a family (ac sicut … petimur). This word choice provides a stark contrast to the Roman empire’s perception of those they conquered, as they believe peace results from their conquest while the conquered consider themselves no more than slaves. While these criticisms come from Calgacus, the multiple references to Domitian suggest that Tacitus may be injecting some of his own opinions about the empire and agree with some or many of the claims Calgacus puts forth. 

Calgacus also highlights the division among and weakness of the Roman army in his speech. Across our readings throughout the year, the Roman army has always been portrayed as a formidable force that can conquer anything in its path; however, similar to the different perspective Calgacus offered on the Roman empire’s cruelty, he also offers a new angle on its weaknesses. He begins by explaining that Rome’s perceived strength in numbers is a fallacy, as the army is composed of many foreign tribes who are not truly loyal to Rome. When Calgacus notes that the Gauls, Germans, and Brits “spill blood for a foreign tyranny” (dominationi … commodent), he emphasizes the lack of loyalty that the tribes feel towards Rome, which is merely a foreign tyranny, rather than an illustrious empire. He builds on this claim when he later argues that the tribes are held by fear and terror (metus ac terror) rather than affection of the Roman empire. As a result, Calgacus states that those same tribes “will cease to fear and begin to hate” (timere … incipient) the Romans; in this clause, Calgacus uses parallel structure to highlight the contrast between the fear that the tribes used to endure, and the hatred they will experience. Throughout Calgacus’ extended speech, Tacitus presents to the reader the outsider’s perspective of the Roman empire: that the empire savagely makes slaves out of its subjects, controls them with fear, and, despite its appearance of strength, at its core lacks loyalty and unity. However, Tacitus then provides Agricola’s speech as rebuttal to the negative, foreign perceptions of the empire. 

As a contrast to Calgacus’ speech and the criticisms he voiced against the Roman empire, Tacitus presents Agricola’s speech to give an example of the benevolent, honorable leaders that make Rome far greater than what Calgacus depicted them as. Tacitus first shows Agricola’s honorable nature when Agricola refers to all the Roman soldiers as “commilitones,” or fellow soldiers. This word choice suggests that Agricola inspires great faith and unity in his men, as calling them “fellow soldiers” implies that Agricola, too, is a dutiful member and active participant in the army, rather than someone who merely gives orders. Such an implication also responds to Calgacus’ claim that the Roman army lacks loyalty and unity: while the entire Roman empire may not showcase similar valor, Agricola certainly does. In addition, Agricola employs rhetorical devices to emphasize his arguments, with the first of which building his claim that loyalty is robust in the Roman army.

When Agricola states that “neque me militum neque vos ducis paenituit,” he uses an anaphora to liken himself to his men. The goal of this phrase, literally, is to remark that he trusts his army, and his army trusts him, and the identical word positioning in the phrase further reveals the similarities and trust between Agricola and the army. Agricola also uses another anaphora when he states “tot expeditionibus, tot proeliis” in order to highlight the previous experience and success the Roman army had in battles like the one they are about to enter. The repetition of “tot” calls the reader’s attention to this phrase and heightens Agricola’s point about Rome’s history of many victorious battles. Finally, towards the end of chapter 33, Agricola yet again reinforces the necessity of loyalty and valor to his men and all readers: he claims that “an honorable death is preferable to a life of shame” (honesta … potior). Such a remark reiterates Agricola’s steadfast devotion to valor and adds to Tacitus’ narrative that Agricola is one of the most honorable men Rome has ever seen.

Throughout Calgacus and Agricola’s speeches, Tacitus compares the barbarian perception of the Roman empire’s cruelty and disloyalty to the Roman perception of the empire’s honor and strength. By detailing Calgacus’ speech for three chapters, Tacitus explains with incredible detail all the empire’s flaws. While these flaws are highlighted through the voice of Calgacus, Tacitus seems to share many of Calgacus’ beliefs, in particular those about the empire’s cruel history. Agricola rarely addresses the Roman empire’s barbaric nature in his speech, and Tacitus even includes subtle references to Domitian, the most apt example of such cruelty. However, in presenting Agricola’s speech, Tacitus dispels many of Calgacus’ claims that the Roman army lacks loyalty and unity, largely because Agricola himself shows such great valor that inspires loyalty. This intentional structure reveals to the reader that Tacitus admits to some of Calgacus’ criticisms of the empire being true, yet still believes in Agricola’s spectacular nature as a leader who unifies his men. As a result, Tacitus is able to use these speeches to both acknowledge the shortcoming of the Roman empire, with its history of violence, and praise Agricola as one of the few truly good influences on the empire.

 

Matthew Abati is a rising high school senior at Milton Academy just outside of Boston. He has been a Classics lover since middle school.

Milking the He-Goat: The Only Proverb You Need for a Thursday

Polybius, Book 33 16a fragmenta incertae sedis

“20. As soon as the masses are compelled to love or hate people excessively, every excuse is sufficient for them to complete their plans.

21 But I worry that I might overlook the fact that the oft-cited saying applies to me: “who is the greater fool, the one who milks a male-goat or the one who holds the bucket* to catch it?”

For, I also seem, in reporting what is agreed upon as a lie and in dragging out the process to do something very similar. For this reason, it is pointless to talk about these things, unless someone also wants to write down dreams and examine the fantasies of someone who is awake.”

*koskinos here actually means “sieve”, which makes the whole process even more futile. I simplified to “bucket” to make it easier to understand…

20. Ὅτι ὅταν ἅπαξ οἱ πολλοὶ σχῶσιν ὁρμὴν πρὸς τὸ φιλεῖν ἢ μισεῖν τινας ὑπερβαλλόντως, πᾶσα πρόφασις ἱκανὴ γίνεται πρὸς τὸ συντελεῖν τὰς αὑτῶν προθέσεις.

21. Ἀλλὰ γὰρ ὀκνῶ μή ποτ᾿ εἰς τὸ περιφερόμενον ἐμπεσὼν λάθω, πότερον ὁ τὸν τράγον ἀμέλγων ἀφρονέστερος ἢ ὁ τὸ κόσκινον ὑπέχων· δοκῶ γὰρ δὴ κἀγὼ πρὸς ὁμολογουμένην ψευδολογίαν ἀκριβολογούμενος καὶ τὸν ἐπιμετροῦντα λόγον εἰσφέρων παραπλήσιόν τι ποιεῖν. διὸ καὶ μάτην τελέως περὶ τούτων λέγειν, εἰ μή τις καὶ γράφειν ἐνύπνια βούλεται καὶ θεωρεῖν ἐγρηγορότος ἐνύπνια.

Diogenianus writes on this proverb (Centuria 95.3; Cf. Mantissa Proverb., 2.68)

“Who is the greater fool, the one who milks a male-goat or the one who holds the bucket to catch it? You should say the [one who milks] the male-goat”

Πότερον ὁ τὸν τράγον ἀμέλγων ἀφρονέστερος, ἢ ὁ τὸ κόσκινον ὑποτιθείς; εἴποις, ὁ τὸν τράγον:

Arsenius, Centuria 17 41a7

“To milk a he-goat”: this is applied to those who do something incongruous and ignorant. From this we also get the saying from Diogenianus: “Who is the greater fool, the one who milks a male-goat or the one who holds the bucket to catch it?”

“Τράγον ἀμέλγειν: ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνάρμοστόν τι ποιούντων καὶ ἀνόητον. ὅθεν καὶ Διογενιανός· πότερον ὁ τὸν τράγον ἀμέλγων ἢ ὁ τὸ κόσκινον ὑποτιθεὶς ἀφρονέστερος;

Mountain goat with impressive horns standing and looking out at the viewer. A color photograph
Do what?

Livy and Ennius on the Founding of Rome

Two excerpts detailing how Romulus defeated his brother, Remus, and became the founder of Rome.  

Ab Urbe Condita, Chapter 7.1-7.3, Titus Livius:

It is reported that the omen first came to Remus, six vultures; and now with the omen having been delivered when double the number showed itself to Romulus, and his own multitude greeted each as king: those (lay claim to the kingship) because of time in advance, and these men by the number of birds. With an altercation having been gathered by a contest of angers they turned to murder; there Remus, having been hit, died in the crowd. The more well known story crossed over the new walls in mockery of the brother; from which by the anger of Romulus, when he added these words while also chiding, “then thus, should anyone cross over my walls,” he killed Remus.

priōrī Remō augurium vēnisse fertur, sex volturēs; iamque nuntiātō auguriō cum duplex numerus Rōmulō sē ostendisset, utrumque rēgem sua multitūdō cōnsalūtāverat: tempore illī praeceptō, at hī numerō avium rēgnum trahēbant. inde cum altercātiōne congressī certāmine īrārum ad caedem vertuntur; ibi in turbā ictus Remus cecidit. volgātior fāma est lūdibriō frātris Rēmum novōs trānsiluisse mūrōs; inde ab īrātō Rōmulō, cum verbīs quoque increpitāns adiēcisset, ‘sīc deinde, quīcumque alius trānsiliet moenia mea,’ interfectum.

Book 1 of the Annals, Lines 81-100, Quintus Ennius:

Caring with great care and then desiring

The kingdom, they give their attention at the same time with auspiciousness and augury.

[Here] Remus devotes himself to the auspices and
alone saves the second bird. but Romulus seeks the fair on the high
Aventine, and preserves the high-flying race.
They contested whether they should call the city Rome Remoram.
All men were concerned as to which one was the most impudent.
They wait or use, when the consul sends the signal
Volt, all eagerly look at the edges of the prison,
As soon as the painted from the jaws of the chariot will issue:
Thus the people waited and the edge held
Rebus, which great victory was given to the kingdom.
In the meantime the white sun had retreated into the inferno of the night.
From the outside, the white light gave itself to the rays.
And at the same time, from afar, the most beautiful bar
The bird flew to the left: at the same time the golden sun rose.
Three or four holy bodies of birds descend from heaven
, and give themselves to precipices and beautiful places.
From this he sees that Romulus was given to him as the prior, and
the throne was established under the auspices of the kingdom.

Curantes magna cum cura tum cupientes Regni dant operam simul auspicio augurioque. [Hinc] Remus auspicio se devovet atque secundam
Solus avem servat. at Romulus pulcher in alto
Quaerit Aventino, servat genus altivolantum.
Certabant urbem Romam Remoramne vocarent.
Omnibus cura viris uter esset induperator.
Expectant vel uti, consul cum mittere signum
Volt, omnes avidi spectant ad carceris oras,
Quam mox emittat pictis e faucibus currus:
Sic expectabat populus atque ora tenebat
Rebus, utri magni victoria sit data regni.
Interea sol albus recessit in infera noctis.
Exin candida se radiis dedit icta foras lux.
Et simul ex alto longe pulcherruma praepes
Laeva volavit avis: simul aureus exoritur sol.
Cedunt de caelo ter quattor corpora sancta
Avium, praepetibus sese pulchrisque locis dant.
Conspicit inde sibi data Romulus esse priora,
Auspicio regni stabilita scamna locumque

Livy and Ennius both describe similar events in Romulus’ and Remus’ augury contest. The two authors agree that Romulus and Remus vied for their own name to be used as the name of the new city, and relied in some way on omens to determine this. However, the accounts differ in the way in which the story is told, as Livy emphasizes the crucial role the two brothers played in this contest while Ennius focuses on the role of the fates, rendering the two brothers as merely agents of the gods’ wills. 

Livy begins by detailing how six vultures showed themselves to Remus first as an omen (priori … voltures), and later 12 vultures showed themselves to Romulus as an omen as well (iamque … ostendisset). These omens made both brothers, and their followers, believe that they each should be considered king of their new city: Remus and his crowd believed the omens pointed favorably to him because he saw the birds first, while Romulus and his crowd believed the greater number of birds seen by Romulus outweighed the timing (tempore … trahebant). However, the true naming process transpired completely independently from these omens. According to Livy, the story goes that Remus was mocking Romulus by crossing over the line where Romulus’ city walls would stand, breaching into his territory (volgatior … muros). This mockery angered Romulus so greatly that he killed Remus (interfectum) and stated that anyone else who also crossed into over his city walls would receive the same fate (sic … moenia mea), an act that gave him sole power. Despite Livy’s brief discussion of the omens, Remus’ murder, and the city then being named after Romulus, occurred “from the anger of Romulus” (ab … Romulo), confirming that the contest between the brothers was decided entirely by the brothers. 

Ennius similarly leads with discussion of the omens, yet, in contrast to Livy, continues using those omens to prove why the city was named after Romulus. Both brothers look out for omens (simul … augurioque) to win the “contest” and the right to name the city after themself. Ennius further states that each brother so diligently looks for omens because that alone is how they will decide who the city is named after (certabant … vocarent). After repeated descriptions of the birds, namely the 12 that Romulus sees (cedunt … avium), Ennius writes that Romulus will be given the throne, which was established by an omen (data … stabilita). Throughout the story, Ennius barely even mentions Romulus and Remus, instead focusing entirely on the nature and beauty of the birds. He even takes time to describe the setting and rising of the sun (sol albus … lux), further emphasizing his writing flourishes over the fundamental facts of the story and differentiating himself from the fact-driven style of Livy’s writing that relies on more simple sentence structure. 

watercolor of two men looking at birds with hills in the background
Romulus and Remus – Crystalinks

My name is Matthew Abati, and I am a rising high school senior at Milton Academy just outside of Boston. I have been a Classics lover since middle school and am very excited to share some of my thoughts on the Classics here on Sententiae Antiquae! When I’m not in school, I love to read all types of books and play all types of sports.

History, Stranger than Fiction

Pseudo-Cicero, Letter to Octavian 7

“What a pitiful overthrow of the state–so fast and twisted, so rushed! Who will have the ability to entrust these events to words in a way that they seem facts instead of fiction? Who will have the ease of mind to read them as something other than fantastic, even when they have been faithfully recorded in time?”

o miseram et in brevi tam celerem et tam variam rei publicae commutationem! quisnam tali futurus ingenio est, qui possit haec ita mandare litteris ut facta, non ficta videantur [esse]? quis erit tanta animi facilitate qui quae verissime memoria propagata fuerint non fabulae similia sit existimaturus?

A Pensioner of the Revolution, by John Neagle, The American Revolution Institute collection Note: The portrait depicts Joseph Winter, a homeless veteran living on the street in Philadelphia.