690. De Imperio Cn. Pompei by Cicero. Background. The more success the Republic had, the more demands increased for involvement over seas. Leaders of the Republic saw the need to become more and more involved in matters beyond Italy, sometimes due to pressure from those who sought fame, but also due to a genuine desire to protect Italy and allies of the Republic. Political infighting and reluctance also caused the Republic to neglect the interests and needs of those who appealed to the Republic for help. Pirates, in the absence of Republic involvement, had come to control large portions of the Mediterranean Sea. In fact at times food was scarce. The Republic faced a crisis. Pompeius was selected to clear the seas of Pirates. He did this in 45 days. A feat which surely would rival modern capacity. Another long standing crisis persisted in the east (modern day Turkey and beyond). Three commanders had already been sent against Mithridates. He had maneuvered for years to place himself at the head of a powerful state in opposition to the Republic. The Republic's problems with the Social Wars, Sulla's civil wars, and political conflict had allowed Mithridates to recover and flourish, in spite of the fact that three commanders had been sent against him. A Tribune, Manilius, put forth a bill to appoint Pompeius as commander to set things right in the east. The Roman people had endured Social Wars, Civil War and intense political contests, and the cost in lives and money to deal with Mithridates. It appears that they were not interested in another war.
The speech. So when Cicero gives this speech to the Romans assembled, it is not pro forma in the sense that he talks, the law is passed and a general is sent. That modern view has done much to distort the accomplishments of the Senate and Romans/Italians.
Cicero makes the point that the Republic had defended her allies against Carthage, Philip, Antiochus and others. Cicero makes an interesting point when he says that the taxes collected from most allies barely cover the cost of protection but Asia (Turkey and beyond) is the source of wealth needed to defend the empire. It seems that many citizens had little interest in the fate or needs of those people and companies who collected the taxes. Cicero carefully explains business men have invested large sums in setting up offices, staff, networks to do this work. They collect the revenue. That revenue is sent to Rome. That is the money used to fund, among other things, the defense of the empire. Cicero explains that if turmoil occurs in Asia, farmers in the area plant less due to fear of loss, business people there cut back for the same reasons, Republican investors will not put money into a losing project. Then those taxes are not collected. Money does not come to Rome. Investment locally in Italy falls because money becomes tight and interest rates increase. Cicero points out that the finances in the Forum depend on tranquillity in Asia. Cicero connects the security of Asia to the security of Italy. In fact he makes the case that citizens have the obligation to defend their honor, their allies and revenue and those citizens who risk their lives for the Republic. All of these are bound together, one is not separate from the other. (14,15,16,17)
Cicero throughout gives a tutorial on proper conduct in governing the empire and in the process gives the purpose of empire:
A leader must practice restraint, pursue moderation, be accessible, open to complaints, possess a sense of humanity, practice that war ceases when weapons are dropped, display courage, be persistent. These qualities create prestige which will restrain those who would do damage to the Republic. These qualities create prosperity.
The law passed. Pompeius brought an end to Mithridates.
Two things struck me about this speech. One- his honesty in assessing the situation, two- his constant reference to operate under high standards at all times.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
#3. KIDS ARE IN THEIR SEATS- WHAT TO DO?
#3. After seating, after handing out books (on the same day) I would pick up flash cards with Latin vocabulary on each. Each word was shown to the students and they were asked to imitate my pronunciation of that word. I would go through 7 to 8 cards, both sides.
Then I would say, "Take out a half sheet of paper and number 1 to 6. Put your name at the top."
Now most teachers do nothing on the first day, I learned long ago. Kids by the time they arrived in my class were tired and bored with rules and regulations and threats. So in they come, are seated, books are handed out, we go through some cards and then- take out a sheet of paper and number one to six. Some will not have paper, pencil. I always purchased pencils, sharpened those and had on hand. So now everyone has pencil and paper. They are worried, maybe even scared. I always stood on a box a student once made.
I ask "Are you ready for a quiz?" Some will look concerned. I ask "Would you like to review those words for the quiz?" In 30 years that I did this it never failed "yeh, yoh, ok". I would ask "What do you suppose the magic word is?" Finally someone would say "please."
I rarely asked individual students for an answer. Each class answered as a mob. If they were not loud enough, I would say "I can not hear you!" (In a loud voice). Then we would go through the 6 to 8 words, slowly at first and then faster and faster.
Then I would ask, "Are you ready?" "Yes" came the reply. Then I would go through the cards one more time and then give the quiz.
What is the point here? By doing this, students separate your class from most if not all of the others. They have already learned that courtesy is important- both ways. They know that you know who they are. And in spite of what they have heard from other sources, they realize that Latin can be easy and fun.
This first test always told me a great deal. Most students scored very high, very high. But those who struggled let me know who needed more push or maybe who was lazy, or scared. Or lacked ability. Either way this technique puts the teacher in charge on the very first day.
Then I would say, "Take out a half sheet of paper and number 1 to 6. Put your name at the top."
Now most teachers do nothing on the first day, I learned long ago. Kids by the time they arrived in my class were tired and bored with rules and regulations and threats. So in they come, are seated, books are handed out, we go through some cards and then- take out a sheet of paper and number one to six. Some will not have paper, pencil. I always purchased pencils, sharpened those and had on hand. So now everyone has pencil and paper. They are worried, maybe even scared. I always stood on a box a student once made.
I ask "Are you ready for a quiz?" Some will look concerned. I ask "Would you like to review those words for the quiz?" In 30 years that I did this it never failed "yeh, yoh, ok". I would ask "What do you suppose the magic word is?" Finally someone would say "please."
I rarely asked individual students for an answer. Each class answered as a mob. If they were not loud enough, I would say "I can not hear you!" (In a loud voice). Then we would go through the 6 to 8 words, slowly at first and then faster and faster.
Then I would ask, "Are you ready?" "Yes" came the reply. Then I would go through the cards one more time and then give the quiz.
What is the point here? By doing this, students separate your class from most if not all of the others. They have already learned that courtesy is important- both ways. They know that you know who they are. And in spite of what they have heard from other sources, they realize that Latin can be easy and fun.
This first test always told me a great deal. Most students scored very high, very high. But those who struggled let me know who needed more push or maybe who was lazy, or scared. Or lacked ability. Either way this technique puts the teacher in charge on the very first day.
#2. HOW TO HAND OUT BOOKS!
#2. On the first day after seats have been assigned, hand out the books/texts for class. Hand a book to a student, pause and wait for that student to say something before moving on to the next. Think about it, what do we say when someone hands us something? We say- thank you. So pause, wait for the student to respond. If they do not respond, do not lecture (kids hate that), remove the book and move on to the next student. Place the book in front of the next student. If still no response, ask what a person says when they are given something. That student will say thank you. Then hand a book to the next student and pause. After they say thank you, each time you can say- welcome. What do we achieve with this? Without lecture, blah, blah, blah, the students know that courtesy is important. I did the same with tests or anything I handed out. There are some students, more than I would like, who live in a home where thank you, please are nonexistent. Teaching courtesy makes a classroom friendly and pleasant. Trust me it worked for 30 years. Oh, of course there were some students who tested the system each year. I would hand out tests, pause and wait for a thank you. If none came, I removed the test and went to the next student. Passing out the tests puts the teacher in the mix, allows a view of each desk and personal contact with the student.
Of course it is essential for the teacher to say thank you when students hand in something. The purpose of this is not to dominate the students but instead create a somewhat paternal relationship. After all the law says teachers are in loco parentis= in place of a parent.
The benefits increase a thousand times come February when other teachers are endlessly complaining about students. However, in your class courtesy reigns and you are happy to see students come through the door. In fact many times Guidance would mention to me how courteous "my" students were. I taught in high school. My students? Yet, students in my class gained a reputation for courtesy. Go figure.
This, also, just as rule #1 creates a pleasant atmosphere for both the student and the teacher. Believe me discipline is much easier when names are known, relationships are based on courtesy and students want to enter.
Of course it is essential for the teacher to say thank you when students hand in something. The purpose of this is not to dominate the students but instead create a somewhat paternal relationship. After all the law says teachers are in loco parentis= in place of a parent.
The benefits increase a thousand times come February when other teachers are endlessly complaining about students. However, in your class courtesy reigns and you are happy to see students come through the door. In fact many times Guidance would mention to me how courteous "my" students were. I taught in high school. My students? Yet, students in my class gained a reputation for courtesy. Go figure.
This, also, just as rule #1 creates a pleasant atmosphere for both the student and the teacher. Believe me discipline is much easier when names are known, relationships are based on courtesy and students want to enter.
#1. HOW TO GET KIDS TO LIKE YOU!
#1. On the first day after seats have been assigned, take the time to memorize the name of each student. I always learned their names row by row in order. Then I would practice diagonally, from front to back and back to front. It does not take very long and then the next day as the students walk through the door, address each kid by name. They love it. After a while they will tell you that this or that teacher after 5 weeks, ten weeks, 13 weeks still does not know their name. Students hate that. Students/kids will respect you for the effort and the care. Teaching is subject oriented BUT it is almost essential to form a relationship of respect, consideration and paternal affection. This is also a big step toward quality discipline.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Lucius Marcius Philippus and President Obama
Lucius Marcius Philippus and President Obama
President Obama at his State of the Union, January 27, 2010, made a strongly worded remark about the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had recently handed down a decision allowing corporations to contribute money to election campaigns. When the President's remark was made, numerous supporters stood around and behind the seated Supreme Court members and screamed and cheered. By protocol members of the Court are expected to remain nonpartisan. Chief Justice Roberts on March 9, 2010, while talking to law students at University of Alabama expressed concern about such a remark in a setting which is supposed to have dignity and decorum.
It occurred to me that Chief Justice Roberts, within bounds of Supreme Court etiquette, was making a defense of the Court's dignity. As the Chief Justice, he felt in his opinion that there was a need, in the face of, what he considered, blatant outright denigration of the Court's standing, to come to its defense.
As I read this incident, something came to me which I have read several times in Marcus Tullius Cicero's De Oratore. The story concerns Lucius Marcius Philippus, one of the consuls at the time (91 B.C.) and Lucius Licinius Cassus, a former consul and teacher for whom Cicero had undying respect. The time is different, the situation is different but there is a connection concerning the protection of dignity and proper protocol. So here is Cicero's account of the incident (De Oratore III. 2-5):
The Consul, Philippus, was not happy with the Senate's stand on matters before the house. He was meeting with serious resistance. The Senate, apparently, adjourned without resolution. Senators went home. Philippus, irate, delivered a speech, laying out his anger and complaints not to the Senate but to the public in a public assembly. He did not simply criticize the Senate but belittled its standing.
In public assembly Philippus said among other things that he must look elsewhere for an advisory body, for with this Senate he could not carry on the government. When Crassus heard of the speech, he returned to Rome. On the morning of September 13, Marcus Livius Drusus, as Tribune, called a meeting of the Senate. Crassus came, Philippus came and soon the Senate house was stuffed to overflowing. Drusus listed his complaints about Philippus and then made a motion for a vote concerning the violent attack which Philippus had made publicly against the Senate on the previous day.
Crassus, Cicero reports, was astonished that a Consul, in public, made a vicious attack on the Senate. Crassus was further angered that a Consul, who ought to be a faithful parent and guardian of the Senate, plundered the cherished dignity of the Senate like some looter. "There must be no surprise", said Crassus, "when this consul has damaged the Republic with his policies, if he should reject the Senate as an advisory body" (since it no longer suits his purpose).
With this, says Cicero, Crassus had enraged Philippus ,a man impetuous, bold and learned, too. Philippus could restrain himself no longer; he jumped from his Senate seat and commenced to coerce Crassus by seizure of his property, if he failed to relent. (Such a move by Philippus treated Crassus not as a fellow Senator but as someone to be ordered about.) The exchange heated up quickly. At that point Crassus replied that, since he did not view Crassus as a Senator, he denied that he, Philippus, was a Consul.
"Do you really think, when you regard the Senate as something to be controlled by intimidation, and in a public assembly you ruin its authority, that I can be intimidated with threats of seizure? If you wish to coerce Crassus, you must not destroy his property; you must rip out his tongue; as a matter of fact although his tongue has been removed, with breath alone my liberty will repel your obscene willfulness. "
It seems that Philippus mocked the standing of the Senate in the wrong setting and in a demeaning way, at least in the opinion of Crassus. Crassus felt that Philippus had not only done damage to the Senate's ability to have credibility with Roman citizens (and consequently more difficult to perform its duties) but had failed to treat an ancient government body with the respect it deserved in a public setting.
Crassus at the end moved a resolution which declared that the country should be confident that neither the advice nor loyalty of the Senate was lacking. The motion passed with ease.
Decorum is a complex term but the swift route to the heart of its meaning is that there is a right place and a wrong place to say something and a right time and wrong time. It may be that Chief Justice Roberts was suggesting that the President express his thoughts in the proper setting and at the proper time without damaging the Court's standing.
President Obama at his State of the Union, January 27, 2010, made a strongly worded remark about the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had recently handed down a decision allowing corporations to contribute money to election campaigns. When the President's remark was made, numerous supporters stood around and behind the seated Supreme Court members and screamed and cheered. By protocol members of the Court are expected to remain nonpartisan. Chief Justice Roberts on March 9, 2010, while talking to law students at University of Alabama expressed concern about such a remark in a setting which is supposed to have dignity and decorum.
It occurred to me that Chief Justice Roberts, within bounds of Supreme Court etiquette, was making a defense of the Court's dignity. As the Chief Justice, he felt in his opinion that there was a need, in the face of, what he considered, blatant outright denigration of the Court's standing, to come to its defense.
As I read this incident, something came to me which I have read several times in Marcus Tullius Cicero's De Oratore. The story concerns Lucius Marcius Philippus, one of the consuls at the time (91 B.C.) and Lucius Licinius Cassus, a former consul and teacher for whom Cicero had undying respect. The time is different, the situation is different but there is a connection concerning the protection of dignity and proper protocol. So here is Cicero's account of the incident (De Oratore III. 2-5):
The Consul, Philippus, was not happy with the Senate's stand on matters before the house. He was meeting with serious resistance. The Senate, apparently, adjourned without resolution. Senators went home. Philippus, irate, delivered a speech, laying out his anger and complaints not to the Senate but to the public in a public assembly. He did not simply criticize the Senate but belittled its standing.
In public assembly Philippus said among other things that he must look elsewhere for an advisory body, for with this Senate he could not carry on the government. When Crassus heard of the speech, he returned to Rome. On the morning of September 13, Marcus Livius Drusus, as Tribune, called a meeting of the Senate. Crassus came, Philippus came and soon the Senate house was stuffed to overflowing. Drusus listed his complaints about Philippus and then made a motion for a vote concerning the violent attack which Philippus had made publicly against the Senate on the previous day.
Crassus, Cicero reports, was astonished that a Consul, in public, made a vicious attack on the Senate. Crassus was further angered that a Consul, who ought to be a faithful parent and guardian of the Senate, plundered the cherished dignity of the Senate like some looter. "There must be no surprise", said Crassus, "when this consul has damaged the Republic with his policies, if he should reject the Senate as an advisory body" (since it no longer suits his purpose).
With this, says Cicero, Crassus had enraged Philippus ,a man impetuous, bold and learned, too. Philippus could restrain himself no longer; he jumped from his Senate seat and commenced to coerce Crassus by seizure of his property, if he failed to relent. (Such a move by Philippus treated Crassus not as a fellow Senator but as someone to be ordered about.) The exchange heated up quickly. At that point Crassus replied that, since he did not view Crassus as a Senator, he denied that he, Philippus, was a Consul.
"Do you really think, when you regard the Senate as something to be controlled by intimidation, and in a public assembly you ruin its authority, that I can be intimidated with threats of seizure? If you wish to coerce Crassus, you must not destroy his property; you must rip out his tongue; as a matter of fact although his tongue has been removed, with breath alone my liberty will repel your obscene willfulness. "
It seems that Philippus mocked the standing of the Senate in the wrong setting and in a demeaning way, at least in the opinion of Crassus. Crassus felt that Philippus had not only done damage to the Senate's ability to have credibility with Roman citizens (and consequently more difficult to perform its duties) but had failed to treat an ancient government body with the respect it deserved in a public setting.
Crassus at the end moved a resolution which declared that the country should be confident that neither the advice nor loyalty of the Senate was lacking. The motion passed with ease.
Decorum is a complex term but the swift route to the heart of its meaning is that there is a right place and a wrong place to say something and a right time and wrong time. It may be that Chief Justice Roberts was suggesting that the President express his thoughts in the proper setting and at the proper time without damaging the Court's standing.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Temple of Portunus
the only surviving building in Rome seen by Cicero.
By Bill Prueter - 8/29/2008
Imaging delights some. Others are thrilled by catching live video moments. Both are legit, worthwhile and satisfying. Imaging cameras have remarkable ability to record colors and shading. What tool has sensitivity for millions of shades of intensity, colors and can negate temporary fluctuations in atmospheric disturbances? That tool is the human eye, an
organ which produces proteins at light speed to keep receiving photons of light in endless streams. The eye needs a partner. That is the brain. This awesome organ can manipulate information, sift out nonsense and synthesize previous images with those which smack of accuracy. I make the case for live observations at the scope and putting those views on paper.
How to get started.
Sharpen a pencil, any pencil. Take a chair, place it in front of the scope, any scope. Preferably point it at the moon. You can start with any object. But the moon has so many features to examine that any telescope will give interesting views and plenty to draw. If it is still daylight, makes no difference. In fact drawing in the daylight eliminates the need to worry about lighting, flashlights etc. Sit down and get comfortable. If the moon is high in the sky, take out a stool, maybe your child’s bathroom stool. Sitting is much more comfortable than standing. Use a diagonal, it is much more comfortable. You do not need an equatorial mount. Sit down, point the scope. Make enough magnification to allow a prominent sea or crater to display some features.
If you are going out at night, kind of dark, isn’t it? Take a flash light with you. Get a flashlight with a clip on it. Clip it to the hood of your sweatshirt, on the side near your ear. I found my flash light at http://www.zengineering.cjb.net/. They come with red or white bulbs. White light is great for the Moon. If it is warm, wear a thin hood. You can, if you wish, go to the web and read other methods for lighting, but they are going to add equipment and trips back to the house and more expense. Some seem to me very labor intensive. Check my photo, it may give you an idea, even a better one.
What paper should be used?
In the beginning - any paper. Take something along to support the paper. After a while, get a note book. I really like Sketchbook by Fusion. The paper is very heavy (100 lbs. weight). It easily resists dew and dampness. It also endures numerous erasures. It also has a nice smooth surface which will allow for nice details. One side is lined, the facing page is blank. I put my information on the lined side. What I have observed, how long, filters used, magnification, date etc. Some papers are bumpy and do not allow accurate drawings.
Begin to draw what you see. Take some time to look at the object. Select some feature which attracts your attention. Let us say, it is the crater, Plato. What is the shape? Are there any mountains near by? Is the floor of the crater smooth, rough? What do you notice about the rim which goes around the crater? Are there breaks in the walls? Continuous ridges? Can you see any craters in the crater? Dark spots, light spots? Pick out some features. Draw them. Use your pencil to show areas which are darker or lighter. You may want to make notes. Be sure to record the time and date. The notes may take on a simple description. Such as: darker here, lighter there, really dark, in between. Use this drawing as a guide to make a final drawing of what you see, once you go inside. Worry more about drawing size and proportions accurately rather than making it look good.
Keep your expectations low. Your drawing may not look like much. But cherish it, and make sure you keep it.
Here are two of my earliest drawings:
Note how simple it looks. In fact childlike. Some might be tempted to bury such efforts. Big mistake. Keep drawing and once and a while go back, look at the early stuff and then begin to realize the advances you have made. Can’t do that if you chuck what does not measure up to your hopes. There are a number of reasons these drawings do not look like much:
1. I needed to develop my drawing skills. Practice will take care of that.
2. I needed to learn to look for details. This requires training. That means looking frequently through the telescope. I have sometimes noticed that my drawings rival in detail what telescopes reveal using digital imaging.
3. I also needed to learn to connect what my mind saw with care in drawing.
4. I also needed to learn to be more patient. That is one more reason to have a comfortable position to observe.
Books.
I am not a big fan of astronomy books which discuss how to draw. I have purchased some. They may be what you need or want. Buy them. For me some have too much of an artsy approach. Sure, it sounds good but when I am done with a sentence, I wonder just exactly what good lies therein and what it means. Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers (ALPO) highly recommends a book entitled: Introduction to Observing and Photographing the Solar System by Dobbins, Parker, Capen. This book is out of print but used copies are available. It tells you what to look for in Solar System objects (planets, sun, moon, comets, asteroids). It also explains how our atmosphere works. This has turned out to be a very big plus. As a result I learned about weather. Clouds are not necessarily the enemy. There are even times where the leading edge of a cloud brings great stability to quality view. I also learned that the moon has great wonders to offer, mysteries and joy. If someone had said when I received the book that this is the interpretation of the atmosphere and approach it would give to observing, I would have been incredulous. Just another example in my life of the endless set of connections between one so-called disparate subject and another. It also discusses what to look for on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn etc. The chapters on photography are dated but that is not the reason I purchased it.
ALPO also provides a manual for learning to draw. Its instructions show you how to make what they call intensity drawings. Numbers are used on a scale of one to ten. One is complete darkness, ten is brightest. These are called intensity numbers. The others are shades in between. These numbers are placed in those areas of your drawing which will indicate how dark that area will be drawn in your final drawing. To do this will be handy to buy drawing pencils which have different hardness. Different shades are possible with different number of pencil. I recommend buying at an art store 6B, H and 6H. You may also want an eraser. I suggest Papermate’s Tuff Stuff Eraser Stick. It works well and allows fine line erasing. This book has some weaknesses which are partially mitigated by its briefness.
Look at an example of an intensity drawing I have made. The first is an early one; the second is more recent.
There are several factors involved in intensity drawings. I think that the following two are the most important: learning to gauge which area is the lightest, which the darkest and those shades in between the two. The best cure for poor drawings is to practice. The other is looking with care for details. It is often the case for me that I notice something after I have already been looking at the object for 10, 15, 20 minutes. I look around, then, the next view something seems to pop out that simply eluded me before. It could be that the atmosphere cooperated and gave me great clarity for a moment or two or I simply missed the feature.
Part of the beauty, in my humble judgement, is that you do not need to be out there all night. There are those who do that, fine. But for those who have trouble doing this, have jobs or can not fit such into their life, go out to make one drawing, if that is all of the time you have. You can make a nice rough draft with intensity numbers and features you have noticed in an hour or hour and a half. You still have an evening and actually will be refreshed for the next day, since this activity will sever those ties with what has been bugging you. It will, in the still of the night, energize and bring meaning to life.
If you need reasons to continue drawing, read Peltier’s Starlight Nights. Follow that up with The Friendly Stars by Martha Evans Martin. These will not even mention drawing but they will place stars and the universe in context of life and seasonal events. One of the many fascinating moments in Peltier’s book was when he mentioned how much he enjoyed hearing owls, birds, rustling critters during an evenings observation. There is more to this than just drawing, far more. The Friendly Stars was the book Peltier read when he was a kid which spurred him to study the sky in the first place. The woman who wrote it looked upon the stars as companions for flowers and plants as the seasons turned. Too much of astronomy seems to smack of memorizing lists and treating celestial objects as bugs under glass. Observing puts you with the bug. Read these books, if you wish, and maybe what you see will reflect worlds which bear a connection to life here on earth. This book is also out of print but used copies are available. Your local library, if you live in a state with a quality library system will be able to fetch a copy for free. Of course, you will need to return it when done.
Here are some later drawings:
These drawings show more detail. Far more than the first ones. As you become more adept at drawing, you will want to include more information. How long did you observe while drawing? What was the temperature that night? This may help in planning proper clothing.
Averted vision.
What is this? The human eye and brain together are an awesome pair. The eye has a spot in the middle of our sight which is called the blind spot. In some ways our peripheral vision is stronger. Let us say that you are looking at Jupiter. Near by there are always three or four Galilean moons. Bend your eye to one of the moons, pick one furthest away. You will after time, notice features on the planet’s surface which you did not notice when looking directly at the planet. This takes practice. It takes time.
Clothing
There are some nice private websites which have wonderful information about how to dress for observing. Layered clothing is the best way to go. You will need to dress for temps about 20 degrees less than the actual ambient temp. So if the thermometer outside says 50 degrees, better dress as though it is 30 degrees. I have found that in the summer a light hooded sweatshirt is nice to wear- I clip my flashlight to it and it keeps mosquitos away.
Altazimuth mount versus Equatorial Mount.
Altazimuth mount is lighter, therefore it is easier to carry, for those of us who lug our scopes outside. It, of course, must be adjusted frequently in order to keep the object in view. I do not find this a bother. In fact I enjoy directly perceiving how quickly the world turns. Keeps one humble and fully aware that life should not be wasted. Equatorial mounts will track an object, once it is aligned. If you have a permanent place for your scope and you simply go out, roll off a roof and you are ready to go, then set up time is not a concern. But if you haul out the equatorial mount (probably will not be able to carry it with scope mounted on it- too heavy), attach scope, then it has to be aligned at least well enough to allow tracking ability to be useful. Be careful with adding on too much equipment. Studies show that scopes which are too much of a bother do not get used very often, in fact less and less until not at all. Keep it simple. At least as simple as you can.
What type of scope?
Whatever you have will do just great. If you are going to purchase one, then I would consider a refractor. These are much easier to sight. Lighter and yes more expensive per inch of aperture. However, more frequent use will be made of a Scope easy to carry and set up. There are 76 mm and 85 mm used scopes which are available for very good prices. The most important consideration: which scope is the most likely to be used most often? Refractors do not need alignment. They are good to go as is. Used ones are available.
This leads to eyepieces.
Select eyepieces with wide field of view. These are more expensive but will allow a larger area of view, even under higher magnification. Better to have very few good eyepieces rather than a sack full of poor ones. Wide angle is a nice feature for finding objects and keeping track of objects even with an altazimuth mount. By the way stick with a wooden mount, if you can, these do a much better job of damping vibrations. Main rule with eyepiece: select one or those which offer ease of use. The idea is not to collect a raft of eyepieces. Astromart has a nice offering, frequently for quality eyepieces.
Filters.
Filters are presented as necessities for observing. This is somewhat deceptive. Much, much, much can be seen with just you, the eyepiece and your telescope. For me filters have been a tricky item to grip. I feel at the moment that it is best to become as proficient as you can drawing with what you have and then when plateau has been reached, start with a filter. Best start for me was polarizer. Non variable type. I have used it with success on Jupiter, Mars, Venus and the Moon. I did not find it as much of a benefit on Saturn. Too little light, at least at high magnification. I have a five inch refractor. Thus I do not have a tremendous amount of light gathering ability. Also be careful reading suggested filters for particular objects put out by manufacturers. The reason for this is that a darker filter on my scope will not allow enough light to reach my eyes. This same darker filter may be perfect in a larger scope. I have for example a #8 yellow filter (very light yellow) which works very well with my scope on Saturn, Moon, Mars and Jupiter. My blue filter is also very light (82a). I suggest approaching filters with caution. No need to hurry into something. You can see a whole bunch with just the telescope, eyepiece and the mind’s eye.
Binoviewing
A binoviewer uses two eyepieces of the same focal length. This allows both eyes to be used. It reduces eye strain. It also eliminates the need to squeeze one eye shut which becomes very annoying after a while. Because you are using both eyes the brain helps to use the information which your eyes gather to make features more clear. The brain will also help to eliminate floaters, as one eye helps to compensate for another.
Binoviewers are expensive but combined with comfy chair, a position which makes it easy to look through the scope and wide angle eyepieces, the experience can only be enhanced. If the money scares, then look for used ones. That is what I have. Also better to use it with very few high quality eyepieces, rather than several which are to be honest not worth the money. As long as you have about 100 X, it is impressive what can be seen. Wide angle eyepieces also mean that you can use higher power, still find an object and keep it in view even with altazimuth mount. Check reviews for binoviewers. Some do not seem to be very good. Some are very heavy. This may be a consideration based on the kind and quality of scope you have. Astromart has binoviewers for sale. These are used, so be wary. Astromart does have a nice evaluation system.
Drawing on the spot is so very pleasant. I have heard coyotes, tree frogs, critters amongst the leaves. I have been suspended in the heavens, watched shadows grow on the Moon in a single evening and I have seen Jupiter’s moon clear his shadow and pop into view, in a matter of minutes. The silent hum of night, the pleasant rustle of leaves, the beauty above breaks the distance and brings the heavens to walk with me. Grasping great distances is fruitless and oppressive. The key to grasping the universe lies in making a connection between the beauty of daylight, the passing of daytime color as night embraces and the ever increasing intensity of color in night time sky. The beauty of day fades into the glory of nocturnal color.
"A feeling of awe for the stars is not induced by exciting wonder at the expanse and mystery of the heavens, nor by burdening and oppressing the mind with the vastness that seems beyond all compassing thought, but by showing how the stars like flowers and trees are but parts of the visible beauty of nature which have their share in making "the perfect whole". (Martin, The Friendly Stars)
This and a whole lot more beckons.
684. PRO REGE DEIOTARO BY CICERO- summary
684. PRO REGE DEIOTARO BY CICERO. Scholars often comment that Cicero bends the facts to benefit his client. I am sure that this is true. Some scholars also suggest that these court cases do not pursue truth. Some maintain that Cicero published his case speeches to protect his prominence in the literary field. I agree that Cicero flatters Caesar and in several places praises his ability and clemency. I just do not see how this is it; that there is no more. Cicero was a person patient in argument, he could plot a course extending over weeks, if not months. There is more to learn from this speech than the immediate case at hand- namely the defense of a King whom Cicero knew from his personal experiences in Cilicia, while governor, decrees the Senate had passed in his honor before Cicero's tenure in Cilicia.
Cicero in his letters and elsewhere made it very clear how he felt about Caesar and the Civil War he conducted, the triumphs he celebrated over ancient Roman allies, the position he assumed first as virtual continuous consul, dictator for unspecified amount of time, then 10 years and in 44 BC Dictator for life. These measures ran counter to every view and thought Cicero had of the Republic. It was no accident that the Republic elected two consuls each year. The purposes of this were two fold- no one person had excessive power, since one consul could block another, power was meant to be shared jointly and consuls were expected to work together. This may sound weird but the Republic worked well with this system for several centuries. To restate, Cicero hated him for the position he, Caesar, had assumed. His actions trampled just about every aspect of what the Republic was.
Yet, it is fascinating that in this speech, Cicero remains so calm and calculating. This speaks directly to Cicero's amazing self control while under fire so to speak.
In terms of literature Cicero rises to a fine height with:
pro perpetuis eius in nostram rem publicam meritis (2)
for his perpetual good service toward the Republic…
These words describe Deiotarus' loyalty for the Republic with a fine chiasmus. This intensifies Cicero's case that the King has long been recognized as a fine member of the Senate's imperial system. It is a neat attractive, well turned phrase.
Nam dicere apud eum de facinore, contra cuius vitam consilium facinoris inisse arguare (4)
For to plead before him about a crime against whose life one is accused to have formed a plan of the crime…
With this the reader becomes acutely aware of the utter novelty of the setting. The trial was in Caesar's house with defending attorneys and prosecuting attorneys with Caesar as judge in a case involving himself. Cicero could not have been impressed and he certainly would not see this as proper Republican practice. So I have a question which apparently no one has asked- what reaction would Romans have upon reading these words of the implication of these words? Yes, some fawned over Caesar, as some do in any age for their favorite, but others, those who thought beyond the moment might not be pleased to read these words.
It makes good sense that Cicero soon says:
non enim tam timeo quid tu de rege Deiotaro quam intelligo quid de te ceteros velis iudicare (4)
I do not fear so much what you wish to judge of King Deiotarus as I understand what you wish others to think of you
Cicero turns the court case on its head. Caesar is as much under review as Deiotarus is under judgement before Caesar.
In tuis oculis, in tuo ore voltuque acquiesco (5)
In your eyes (Caesar), in your expression and face I find repose.
Is this a suck up? Yes, with out a doubt. But what else does it betray? Everything, utterly everything rests with Caesar. This would not be happy words to numerous politicians. That Cicero must cosy up to Caesar, that he must be stroked would not be lost on politicians who lived and breathed political contest.
Cum audiret senatus consentientis auctoritate arma sumpta, consulibus, praetoribus, tribunis plebis, nobis imperatoribus rem publicam defendendam datam, movebatur animo et vir huic imperio amicissimus de salute populi Romani extimescebat…(11)
When he (Deiotarus) kept hearing that with the authority of a unanimous senate weapons had been taken up, to the Consuls, Praetors, Tribunes of the People, us generals the Republic was handed over to be defended, he (Deiotarus) was moved with passion and this man very loyal to this empire feared for the safety of the Roman people.
These words could not have pleased Caesar. Oh yes, Cicero balances these with the fact that the King did not know of Caesar's offers of peace. Of course, we must juxtapose Cicero's letters in which he expresses disgust upon news of Caesar crossing the Rubicon and in which Cicero relates the meeting between the two of them before Cicero realized that peace with this guy was not possible. In the meeting Caesar's civility and gentle ways are obscured by a rather vicious reply.
In section 12 Cicero confesses that Pompey can not be forgotten, his great feats, his wars and service even if these are eclipsed by your achievements (says Cicero to Caesar).
It is important to keep in mind that Caesar's celebrations for victories in Gaul were legitimate but all the rest were illegal in the eyes of Cicero and of many others.
misero fatalique bello (13)
Here Cicero makes an honest assessment of the Civil War- a war wretched and murderous
Cicero has this to say of Deiotarus actions to support Pompey at the beginning of the war:
qui senatui parere didicisisset…(13)
(Deiotarus) who had learned to be obedient to the Senate…
The King by obeying Pompey's summons to supply troops for battle was obeying the will of the Senate. I am curious upon what grounds stood Caesar? These are subtle remarks encased in a speech to defend Deiotarus and gain acquittal. Yet they are there, and surely spoke more to the reader than merely words used in defense.
In support again, there are others, of Cicero's wonderful literary style we have:
Deiotarum saltantem, quisquam aut ebrium vidit umquam?(26)
Has anyone seen Deiotarus dancing or drunk ever?
The prosecution claimed that Deiotarus was so elated at news of disasters for Caesar that he danced naked at a banquet. The language makes me think that Cicero figured that the accuser was the one tipsy when these things were said. The disgust, the exasperation are so expressive here. Listen to the order as heard: Deiotarus dancing anyone or drunk has seen ever?
Cicero claims that temperantia (self-control, restraint) is the chief of all virtues. This a word apparently Caesar thought described himself. Yep, the same guy who crossed the Rubicon to defend his dignity. In terms of the speech this is where Cicero wants to take Caesar. To encourage him to show restraint, to set aside any residual anger.
In summary it seems that Cicero published this speech to maintain his position as the creator of fine literature, to keep his name current, to save a client and to expose the untenable and un-republican position of Caesar.
Cicero in his letters and elsewhere made it very clear how he felt about Caesar and the Civil War he conducted, the triumphs he celebrated over ancient Roman allies, the position he assumed first as virtual continuous consul, dictator for unspecified amount of time, then 10 years and in 44 BC Dictator for life. These measures ran counter to every view and thought Cicero had of the Republic. It was no accident that the Republic elected two consuls each year. The purposes of this were two fold- no one person had excessive power, since one consul could block another, power was meant to be shared jointly and consuls were expected to work together. This may sound weird but the Republic worked well with this system for several centuries. To restate, Cicero hated him for the position he, Caesar, had assumed. His actions trampled just about every aspect of what the Republic was.
Yet, it is fascinating that in this speech, Cicero remains so calm and calculating. This speaks directly to Cicero's amazing self control while under fire so to speak.
In terms of literature Cicero rises to a fine height with:
pro perpetuis eius in nostram rem publicam meritis (2)
for his perpetual good service toward the Republic…
These words describe Deiotarus' loyalty for the Republic with a fine chiasmus. This intensifies Cicero's case that the King has long been recognized as a fine member of the Senate's imperial system. It is a neat attractive, well turned phrase.
Nam dicere apud eum de facinore, contra cuius vitam consilium facinoris inisse arguare (4)
For to plead before him about a crime against whose life one is accused to have formed a plan of the crime…
With this the reader becomes acutely aware of the utter novelty of the setting. The trial was in Caesar's house with defending attorneys and prosecuting attorneys with Caesar as judge in a case involving himself. Cicero could not have been impressed and he certainly would not see this as proper Republican practice. So I have a question which apparently no one has asked- what reaction would Romans have upon reading these words of the implication of these words? Yes, some fawned over Caesar, as some do in any age for their favorite, but others, those who thought beyond the moment might not be pleased to read these words.
It makes good sense that Cicero soon says:
non enim tam timeo quid tu de rege Deiotaro quam intelligo quid de te ceteros velis iudicare (4)
I do not fear so much what you wish to judge of King Deiotarus as I understand what you wish others to think of you
Cicero turns the court case on its head. Caesar is as much under review as Deiotarus is under judgement before Caesar.
In tuis oculis, in tuo ore voltuque acquiesco (5)
In your eyes (Caesar), in your expression and face I find repose.
Is this a suck up? Yes, with out a doubt. But what else does it betray? Everything, utterly everything rests with Caesar. This would not be happy words to numerous politicians. That Cicero must cosy up to Caesar, that he must be stroked would not be lost on politicians who lived and breathed political contest.
Cum audiret senatus consentientis auctoritate arma sumpta, consulibus, praetoribus, tribunis plebis, nobis imperatoribus rem publicam defendendam datam, movebatur animo et vir huic imperio amicissimus de salute populi Romani extimescebat…(11)
When he (Deiotarus) kept hearing that with the authority of a unanimous senate weapons had been taken up, to the Consuls, Praetors, Tribunes of the People, us generals the Republic was handed over to be defended, he (Deiotarus) was moved with passion and this man very loyal to this empire feared for the safety of the Roman people.
These words could not have pleased Caesar. Oh yes, Cicero balances these with the fact that the King did not know of Caesar's offers of peace. Of course, we must juxtapose Cicero's letters in which he expresses disgust upon news of Caesar crossing the Rubicon and in which Cicero relates the meeting between the two of them before Cicero realized that peace with this guy was not possible. In the meeting Caesar's civility and gentle ways are obscured by a rather vicious reply.
In section 12 Cicero confesses that Pompey can not be forgotten, his great feats, his wars and service even if these are eclipsed by your achievements (says Cicero to Caesar).
It is important to keep in mind that Caesar's celebrations for victories in Gaul were legitimate but all the rest were illegal in the eyes of Cicero and of many others.
misero fatalique bello (13)
Here Cicero makes an honest assessment of the Civil War- a war wretched and murderous
Cicero has this to say of Deiotarus actions to support Pompey at the beginning of the war:
qui senatui parere didicisisset…(13)
(Deiotarus) who had learned to be obedient to the Senate…
The King by obeying Pompey's summons to supply troops for battle was obeying the will of the Senate. I am curious upon what grounds stood Caesar? These are subtle remarks encased in a speech to defend Deiotarus and gain acquittal. Yet they are there, and surely spoke more to the reader than merely words used in defense.
In support again, there are others, of Cicero's wonderful literary style we have:
Deiotarum saltantem, quisquam aut ebrium vidit umquam?(26)
Has anyone seen Deiotarus dancing or drunk ever?
The prosecution claimed that Deiotarus was so elated at news of disasters for Caesar that he danced naked at a banquet. The language makes me think that Cicero figured that the accuser was the one tipsy when these things were said. The disgust, the exasperation are so expressive here. Listen to the order as heard: Deiotarus dancing anyone or drunk has seen ever?
Cicero claims that temperantia (self-control, restraint) is the chief of all virtues. This a word apparently Caesar thought described himself. Yep, the same guy who crossed the Rubicon to defend his dignity. In terms of the speech this is where Cicero wants to take Caesar. To encourage him to show restraint, to set aside any residual anger.
In summary it seems that Cicero published this speech to maintain his position as the creator of fine literature, to keep his name current, to save a client and to expose the untenable and un-republican position of Caesar.
674. The Swerve by Stephen Greenblatt- summary
674. The Swerve by Stephen Greenblatt. There are two parts to this review. First part. The author shows in a very engaging way how the search for ancient Roman texts began and how it was pursued by the likes of Petrarch, Poggio, Salutati and others. It was also interesting to see the road blocks to the survival of texts. One was lack of interest in what ancient books had to say, another was out right hostility to what the books had to say and another just as dangerous (and more permanent in a way)were book worms. Now I know from my own reading of ancient Roman libraries that they developed ways to preserve books besides the obvious method of making new copies. They used cedar oil to repel insects, developed a special brick which reduced the amount of moisture which penetrated the walls of a library, they also used papyrus made from plants which grow in Egypt and vellum which is animal skin or even intestines. These methods must have ceased to play a part on library book maintenance. Many books were vellum (animal skin) which is a very durable material. However many books were lost because vellum was highly prized and expensive, consequently ancient texts served another purpose which was very destructive- the script of an ancient text was scraped off and the vellum reused for another purpose. Makes me , a Classicist, very sad even to say these words let alone type them. So the door through which Latin texts survived was rather slim. But some did survive.
He also covers the internal argument early Christians had with reading pagan literature. They admired the charm of classical literature but in many cases despised the thoughts or views. Ancient Romans had few thoughts or views which had to be kept secret. So their minds ranged far and wide on a number of topics and many invigorating ideas were written down to be shared with others. In early Christianity dogma was the main thrust of religion- the ruling class of priests gave instruction on what was to be learned and understood, maintained strict control over the flow of ideas and restriction to sources of knowledge such as libraries. Hence libraries were located in monasteries. There the books were kept and not just anyone was allowed to visit the books. But blessing upon blessing (in a way) it was felt that monks should either farm or other such labor or copy texts if they had the skill. So into the scriptorium they went and copied texts- In some areas books were very scarce, so books were copied again and again, the same books. The mere task was sufficient. So books in one sense were valuable, even ancient texts. These too were copied. Then placed on shelves and restricted to qualified visitors. Must have been a lonely life being a book. Into this world enters Poggio Bracciolini. He was not a priest but worked for the Vatican/Popes in various capacities- eventually as Apostolic Secretary to the Pope. Here he had access to money and connections. When he lost his job because the Pope for which he was secretary was forced to resign he began his search for texts; ancient Roman texts. In 1417 at the monastery at Fulda he pulled the long neglected and thought lost volume of De Rerum Nature by Titus Lucretius Carus.
I only mention in passing the grim tales of punishment and torture meted out to those who denied church authority or remarked on forbidden topics. A review of such things tends to give the impression that there may be pleasure in the telling. So go else where if those things interest you (some are detailed in The Swerve). But all these things - difficulty of access to monasteries and their libraries, molding and rotting books, suppression of ideas and lack of interest in search for the new Poggio ignored or overcame and off he went and brought back to the world De Rerum Natura. This part of the book I enjoyed very much.
2nd part.
The basic tenets of Epicureanism/Lucretius are, according to Greenblatt:
Everything is made of invisible particles
the elementary particles of matter are eternal
the elementary particles are infinite in number but limited in size and shape
all particles are in motion an infinite void
the universe has no creator or designer
everything comes into beginning as a result of a swerve
the swerve is the source of free will
nature never stops experimenting
the universe is not created for or about humans
humans are not unique
human society began not in a Golden Age of tranquillity and plenty but in a primitive battle for survival
the soul dies
there is no afterlife
death is nothing to us
all organized religions are superstitious delusions
religions are invariably cruel
the highest goal of life is the enhancement of pleasure and the reduction of pain
the greatest obstruction to pleasure is not pain but delusion
Greenblatt then says that understanding the nature of things generates wonder and the other philosophical systems do not generate this wonder. By wonder I think he means asking questions.
There are some problems here.
These problems lead me to another author which Greenblatt mentions but only is a minor way- Marcus Tullius Cicero. Cicero wrote a work entitled: On the Nature of the Gods. Three philosophical systems (Epicurean, Stoic, Academic) present their view of divinity and the part divinity plays in our lives. Then one of the members of the discussion group finds as many flaws in that argument as possible. The dialog is very interesting because the conclusion is left somewhat open at the end. Cicero says that the Stoic view seems the best but clearly indicates that he is open to further discussion and perhaps maybe a different conclusion. To avoid going on too long, Cicero's arguments against Epicureanism are so powerful that it seems strange that none of these criticisms of Epicureanism are addressed. One of the biggest is this: What caused this swerve? After all luck is what science has striven to eliminate from an understanding of nature. Greenblatt mentions it and then lets it drop and then claims that Lucretius' system of thought promotes wonder. Well, what about the wonder involved in the swerve? What caused that? A cough? Sneeze? A temporary bleep in the powers of the universe? An eternal particle got confused? I am being silly but I hope for a purpose. A fundamental problem of Epicureanism is swept aside and then lack of wonder is heaped upon other systems of thought. As a Phd in Humanities at Harvard I think that he has/had an obligation to address the issue.
Greenblatt seems devoted to piecing together his puzzle without any spare pieces left. In other words all has to fit tightly together. He completely ignores the tendency of Epicureanism to be dogmatic. He does say so in one short sentence but the subject is dropped and dogmatism is leveled at the Catholic church. I am convinced that the Catholic Church once was dogmatic, more or less published a list of rules and attempted to enforce their acceptance. I admit that this was wrong. I also insist that the tense I am using should mean something. BUT Epicureanism as Cicero makes very clear in his on the Nature of the Gods and in his work On Moral Ends, Epicureanism had a strong tendency to be dogmatic, too. Epicurus was so sure that he was right that as a result he did not see a need for any other system of though or approach to the argument but his own. Any system which disputed his was not just wrong but foolish. Now we could go on and on- for each system is convinced it is right. But a good test question would be this: If Epicureanism reached supremacy and had power of enforcement behind it, would it be tolerant of different views? Does dogma see any need for dispute? Does it not have the tendency to say- they debate is over- we have the answer? Lucretius does not say that it seems his argument is correct- he says it is correct. Cicero says that the argument he accepts appears to be correct but perhaps later after further review another argument may prevail. This may seem petty and picky but it seems to me that a large ocean separates the two. And leads in different directions- Cicero's argument drives one to search and wonder looking at any system of thought which may spread light on the situation, Epicurus sees no need to consult any one else. It would be difficult to argue and be convincing that Cicero's way would lead to dogma. But one can say that Epicureanism has a tendency for dogma. I wonder too, if Epicureanism had triumphed at the end of antiquity, would it have had devotees driven to find lost texts which disputed Epicurean views?
It is also a tad bothersome to me when Greenblatt says that Lucretius was the only philosopher who despised enforcement of ideas via nightmares of the afterlife as was done apparently by the early Catholic Church. Cicero spends much time debunking such things in his Tusculan Disputations.
Greenblatt ignores the problem that if all things change all the time and only things exist, how can one define courage? Love? Justice? Does these exist only in so far that they serve the interests of pleasure?
Much of Epicureanism involves withdrawal from society. To them the material world is meaningless- acquisition of property, valuable. I have no problem with someone's right to do so but just exactly who will provide the wealth needed for such a person to withdraw to? To put it another way to what would they withdraw if everyone withdraws? Does it not seem odd that a philosophy says that only things exist, yet things are meaningless? It just may be that Epicurus had answers but Greenblatt does not.
He also does not discuss the problem created by Lucretius-if Epicureanism is a release from the fears of life is it also in some way a release from the obligations of life? - by obligations I mean to the needs of others if we are busy seeing to our own pleasure?
There may be answers to these questions and perhaps can thoroughly refuted, but they are not present in this work.
At the end Greenblatt suggests that Thomas Jefferson was guided by Epicureanism when he wrote that we have a right to the "pursuit of happiness". It appears that what he did was take the word happiness which Epicurus used and assumed that the same word was used by Jefferson in the same way. However, this completely denies or ignores that all the ancient philosophical systems wrestled with what happiness was and how to achieve it. Greenblatt also seems to ignore those words which precede these- "endowed by their creator". It seems to me that first Greenblatt must prove or demonstrate that Jefferson put those words in as a flare or fanciful flourish. Then he must show that Jefferson meant a reference to Epicurus by the words- "pursuit of happiness". He does not. And from a prof from a great institution I expect more.
He also covers the internal argument early Christians had with reading pagan literature. They admired the charm of classical literature but in many cases despised the thoughts or views. Ancient Romans had few thoughts or views which had to be kept secret. So their minds ranged far and wide on a number of topics and many invigorating ideas were written down to be shared with others. In early Christianity dogma was the main thrust of religion- the ruling class of priests gave instruction on what was to be learned and understood, maintained strict control over the flow of ideas and restriction to sources of knowledge such as libraries. Hence libraries were located in monasteries. There the books were kept and not just anyone was allowed to visit the books. But blessing upon blessing (in a way) it was felt that monks should either farm or other such labor or copy texts if they had the skill. So into the scriptorium they went and copied texts- In some areas books were very scarce, so books were copied again and again, the same books. The mere task was sufficient. So books in one sense were valuable, even ancient texts. These too were copied. Then placed on shelves and restricted to qualified visitors. Must have been a lonely life being a book. Into this world enters Poggio Bracciolini. He was not a priest but worked for the Vatican/Popes in various capacities- eventually as Apostolic Secretary to the Pope. Here he had access to money and connections. When he lost his job because the Pope for which he was secretary was forced to resign he began his search for texts; ancient Roman texts. In 1417 at the monastery at Fulda he pulled the long neglected and thought lost volume of De Rerum Nature by Titus Lucretius Carus.
I only mention in passing the grim tales of punishment and torture meted out to those who denied church authority or remarked on forbidden topics. A review of such things tends to give the impression that there may be pleasure in the telling. So go else where if those things interest you (some are detailed in The Swerve). But all these things - difficulty of access to monasteries and their libraries, molding and rotting books, suppression of ideas and lack of interest in search for the new Poggio ignored or overcame and off he went and brought back to the world De Rerum Natura. This part of the book I enjoyed very much.
2nd part.
The basic tenets of Epicureanism/Lucretius are, according to Greenblatt:
Everything is made of invisible particles
the elementary particles of matter are eternal
the elementary particles are infinite in number but limited in size and shape
all particles are in motion an infinite void
the universe has no creator or designer
everything comes into beginning as a result of a swerve
the swerve is the source of free will
nature never stops experimenting
the universe is not created for or about humans
humans are not unique
human society began not in a Golden Age of tranquillity and plenty but in a primitive battle for survival
the soul dies
there is no afterlife
death is nothing to us
all organized religions are superstitious delusions
religions are invariably cruel
the highest goal of life is the enhancement of pleasure and the reduction of pain
the greatest obstruction to pleasure is not pain but delusion
Greenblatt then says that understanding the nature of things generates wonder and the other philosophical systems do not generate this wonder. By wonder I think he means asking questions.
There are some problems here.
These problems lead me to another author which Greenblatt mentions but only is a minor way- Marcus Tullius Cicero. Cicero wrote a work entitled: On the Nature of the Gods. Three philosophical systems (Epicurean, Stoic, Academic) present their view of divinity and the part divinity plays in our lives. Then one of the members of the discussion group finds as many flaws in that argument as possible. The dialog is very interesting because the conclusion is left somewhat open at the end. Cicero says that the Stoic view seems the best but clearly indicates that he is open to further discussion and perhaps maybe a different conclusion. To avoid going on too long, Cicero's arguments against Epicureanism are so powerful that it seems strange that none of these criticisms of Epicureanism are addressed. One of the biggest is this: What caused this swerve? After all luck is what science has striven to eliminate from an understanding of nature. Greenblatt mentions it and then lets it drop and then claims that Lucretius' system of thought promotes wonder. Well, what about the wonder involved in the swerve? What caused that? A cough? Sneeze? A temporary bleep in the powers of the universe? An eternal particle got confused? I am being silly but I hope for a purpose. A fundamental problem of Epicureanism is swept aside and then lack of wonder is heaped upon other systems of thought. As a Phd in Humanities at Harvard I think that he has/had an obligation to address the issue.
Greenblatt seems devoted to piecing together his puzzle without any spare pieces left. In other words all has to fit tightly together. He completely ignores the tendency of Epicureanism to be dogmatic. He does say so in one short sentence but the subject is dropped and dogmatism is leveled at the Catholic church. I am convinced that the Catholic Church once was dogmatic, more or less published a list of rules and attempted to enforce their acceptance. I admit that this was wrong. I also insist that the tense I am using should mean something. BUT Epicureanism as Cicero makes very clear in his on the Nature of the Gods and in his work On Moral Ends, Epicureanism had a strong tendency to be dogmatic, too. Epicurus was so sure that he was right that as a result he did not see a need for any other system of though or approach to the argument but his own. Any system which disputed his was not just wrong but foolish. Now we could go on and on- for each system is convinced it is right. But a good test question would be this: If Epicureanism reached supremacy and had power of enforcement behind it, would it be tolerant of different views? Does dogma see any need for dispute? Does it not have the tendency to say- they debate is over- we have the answer? Lucretius does not say that it seems his argument is correct- he says it is correct. Cicero says that the argument he accepts appears to be correct but perhaps later after further review another argument may prevail. This may seem petty and picky but it seems to me that a large ocean separates the two. And leads in different directions- Cicero's argument drives one to search and wonder looking at any system of thought which may spread light on the situation, Epicurus sees no need to consult any one else. It would be difficult to argue and be convincing that Cicero's way would lead to dogma. But one can say that Epicureanism has a tendency for dogma. I wonder too, if Epicureanism had triumphed at the end of antiquity, would it have had devotees driven to find lost texts which disputed Epicurean views?
It is also a tad bothersome to me when Greenblatt says that Lucretius was the only philosopher who despised enforcement of ideas via nightmares of the afterlife as was done apparently by the early Catholic Church. Cicero spends much time debunking such things in his Tusculan Disputations.
Greenblatt ignores the problem that if all things change all the time and only things exist, how can one define courage? Love? Justice? Does these exist only in so far that they serve the interests of pleasure?
Much of Epicureanism involves withdrawal from society. To them the material world is meaningless- acquisition of property, valuable. I have no problem with someone's right to do so but just exactly who will provide the wealth needed for such a person to withdraw to? To put it another way to what would they withdraw if everyone withdraws? Does it not seem odd that a philosophy says that only things exist, yet things are meaningless? It just may be that Epicurus had answers but Greenblatt does not.
He also does not discuss the problem created by Lucretius-if Epicureanism is a release from the fears of life is it also in some way a release from the obligations of life? - by obligations I mean to the needs of others if we are busy seeing to our own pleasure?
There may be answers to these questions and perhaps can thoroughly refuted, but they are not present in this work.
At the end Greenblatt suggests that Thomas Jefferson was guided by Epicureanism when he wrote that we have a right to the "pursuit of happiness". It appears that what he did was take the word happiness which Epicurus used and assumed that the same word was used by Jefferson in the same way. However, this completely denies or ignores that all the ancient philosophical systems wrestled with what happiness was and how to achieve it. Greenblatt also seems to ignore those words which precede these- "endowed by their creator". It seems to me that first Greenblatt must prove or demonstrate that Jefferson put those words in as a flare or fanciful flourish. Then he must show that Jefferson meant a reference to Epicurus by the words- "pursuit of happiness". He does not. And from a prof from a great institution I expect more.
672. TEN TEA PARTIES BY JOSEPH CUMMINS- summary
672. TEN TEA PARTIES BY JOSEPH CUMMINS. There were tea parties in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, Chesterton, York, Annapolis, Edenton and Willmington and Greenwich. They were not called tea parties until much later. In fact participants were not willing to discuss involvement because they feared legal action by the East India Company whose tea had been destroyed. At that time tea party activity was known as "action against tea". The reason for the tea parties was actually a company, East India Company which had poorly managed its business to the point where it needed subsidizing by Parliament. And the reason Parliament was willing to float the company was because the company was thoroughly intertwined with those in government and government itself via taxes. The EIC did account for something like 6 percent of the total income of England. It had its own army, ships and means of enforcement. So England granted a huge bailout. And to recoup this loan they needed to add a tax which American colonists were expected to pay. It, as we know, did not turn out so well. But what is interesting is that the colonies ,spread out along the Atlantic coast with poor roads connecting them, quickly learned to communicate with each other and were competitive as regards resistance to the tax. It is also interesting how well organized the colonists became and how closely their sentiments were the same concerning reason for opposing the tax. One goes:
Resolved, that no duty or taxes can constitutionally be opposed on us but by our own consent given personally or by our own representatives.
The sentiment was similar all along the coast. Some parties were smooth and openly destroyed tea, others involved destruction of property and acts of violence and outright intimidation .
In the last chapter author gives an interesting account of how the tea party concept has been interpreted through the ages not just here in the USA but also in Europe and Asia. He brings it up to the present with a brief discussion of the new Tea Party movement here in the United States. Interestingly complaints, grumbling, accusations and criticism of the present Tea Party reflects characteristics of those of 200 plus hundred years ago.
Resolved, that no duty or taxes can constitutionally be opposed on us but by our own consent given personally or by our own representatives.
The sentiment was similar all along the coast. Some parties were smooth and openly destroyed tea, others involved destruction of property and acts of violence and outright intimidation .
In the last chapter author gives an interesting account of how the tea party concept has been interpreted through the ages not just here in the USA but also in Europe and Asia. He brings it up to the present with a brief discussion of the new Tea Party movement here in the United States. Interestingly complaints, grumbling, accusations and criticism of the present Tea Party reflects characteristics of those of 200 plus hundred years ago.
668. The Natural History of Pompeii by Jashemski.- summary
668. The Natural History of Pompeii by Jashemski.
I.xiv.6-7 lararium has the Sarno river in it
Port was outside Porta di Stabiana
Onions cabbage grapes olives biggies
Best mill stones came from here- made from lava
walls outside house fair game for graffiti and adds
Boring street but houses looked inward
House of Polybius IX.xiii.1-3 owner apparently did not want to aqueduct water nib his house- he or she had the old style garden- this was my kind of guy
Pompeii is on a base of pyroclastic flow from very ancient times
The eruption which covered Pompeii the base was a pyroclastic flow, upper was a surge which moved at hurricane speed.
Area was/is very active- Phlegean fields= Laestrygonians with their hurling rocks
Pumice/lithic= tephra
Column lifted material above, it became so heavy that this forced ash and gases to travel elsewhere, thus surges and flows. The terrain helped to determine where the flows and surges would go.
Explosions were produced by magma mixing with ground water.
6AM- eartly beg eruption went east and did not rise very high. 12 noon- Pliny's mom saw a plume- soon to be 20 miles high- yes 20 miles high. 108 inches fell in 20 hours- then add on surge flows
At 16 inches house roofs began to collapse- people began to leave- this may have saved many lives. The eruption oscillated between ash/lapilli fall and flows/surges SIX times. Pompeii is 6 miles from Vesuvius.
The first surge hit outside wall at Herculean gate- must have caused panic and almost unbearable conditions- the heat. Most bodies have been found at 9 plus feet . Herculaneum- the ocean was directly at base of cliff. The baths at Herc were protected by a wall to deflect water during a storm. The arches where bodies were found were meant to be support for the wall above. Years before the eruption- land was rising. 1 meter- not much BUT made beach water shallow. Thus docks would have been series of jetties jutting out into the sea. Then when eruption was over as magma was removed from underneath Herc, the city sank 4 meters. The first surge killed the inhabitants. The vaults were used to store ships- none have been found- escape? Water did not fill the vaults. Bones, most of them, are in moist ash. The ash fall reached northern Africa, Egypt, even Syria
70% of rain comes in Sept-March. The porous material holds much water. Generally the darker the soil the more organic matter present.
Figs, chestnuts- highly liked. The fruit of the arbutus and acorn was seen as the primitive food before Ceres taught agriculture- these are the symbol of the Golden Age. before humans had to work.
Arundo looks like a corn stalk- appears in paintings.
Beets- Romans ate the leaves, beet used as medicine.
They loved morning glory- these are in frigidarium of San Marco
chestnuts are in Naples
Room 23 of Oplontis- quince
ivy mounds are in Venus Marina
iris in peristyle garden Oplontis- paintings apparently designed to coordinate with actual flow garden
juglans- walnut in Villa Mysteries tablinum- nuts were scattered at weddings with hope of fertility, used to dye wool, red hair dye
lentils and beets leaves used to make a salad
had lupines
malus=apple
morus-mulberry
Venus Marina- heron in front of a mulberry
opium poppy found in garden
pinus pionea- umbrella pine
platanus orientalis=plane tree- looacetolysis used to extract pollen and hydrofluoric acid to reduce mineral content.
chemicals in soil helped to preserve pollen
many olives at Polybius house
Platanus=plane tree-looks like a sycamore
emmer wheat in painting in Naples
Martial- dog poem-1.109
Pliny said that insects were the greets creation
Roman knowledge of nature provides insight as to how they related to their environment
she appears unaware of Pliny's remarks that plants do better when nibbled by insects
Cato- slime of olive pressings used to line granaries to keep out beetles, Varro used ashes.
Eumachia carvings has- flies, bees, butterflies, ants, spiders
galls from oak trees were sold for medicine- Romans did not like getting stuff from Docs- better to use free or cheap stuff
VI.vii.18 butterfly mural
I.ix.5 snake painting
Aesclapian snake feeds on small nest
snake protected home from harm and symbol of fecundity
snakes used to control mice and rats
Paintings indicate that Pompeians may have fed birds
dogs left behind to protect house- small dos may have been taken with family.
goats milk preferred
I.viii.12 assembled horse
melting pot society.
I.xiv.6-7 lararium has the Sarno river in it
Port was outside Porta di Stabiana
Onions cabbage grapes olives biggies
Best mill stones came from here- made from lava
walls outside house fair game for graffiti and adds
Boring street but houses looked inward
House of Polybius IX.xiii.1-3 owner apparently did not want to aqueduct water nib his house- he or she had the old style garden- this was my kind of guy
Pompeii is on a base of pyroclastic flow from very ancient times
The eruption which covered Pompeii the base was a pyroclastic flow, upper was a surge which moved at hurricane speed.
Area was/is very active- Phlegean fields= Laestrygonians with their hurling rocks
Pumice/lithic= tephra
Column lifted material above, it became so heavy that this forced ash and gases to travel elsewhere, thus surges and flows. The terrain helped to determine where the flows and surges would go.
Explosions were produced by magma mixing with ground water.
6AM- eartly beg eruption went east and did not rise very high. 12 noon- Pliny's mom saw a plume- soon to be 20 miles high- yes 20 miles high. 108 inches fell in 20 hours- then add on surge flows
At 16 inches house roofs began to collapse- people began to leave- this may have saved many lives. The eruption oscillated between ash/lapilli fall and flows/surges SIX times. Pompeii is 6 miles from Vesuvius.
The first surge hit outside wall at Herculean gate- must have caused panic and almost unbearable conditions- the heat. Most bodies have been found at 9 plus feet . Herculaneum- the ocean was directly at base of cliff. The baths at Herc were protected by a wall to deflect water during a storm. The arches where bodies were found were meant to be support for the wall above. Years before the eruption- land was rising. 1 meter- not much BUT made beach water shallow. Thus docks would have been series of jetties jutting out into the sea. Then when eruption was over as magma was removed from underneath Herc, the city sank 4 meters. The first surge killed the inhabitants. The vaults were used to store ships- none have been found- escape? Water did not fill the vaults. Bones, most of them, are in moist ash. The ash fall reached northern Africa, Egypt, even Syria
70% of rain comes in Sept-March. The porous material holds much water. Generally the darker the soil the more organic matter present.
Figs, chestnuts- highly liked. The fruit of the arbutus and acorn was seen as the primitive food before Ceres taught agriculture- these are the symbol of the Golden Age. before humans had to work.
Arundo looks like a corn stalk- appears in paintings.
Beets- Romans ate the leaves, beet used as medicine.
They loved morning glory- these are in frigidarium of San Marco
chestnuts are in Naples
Room 23 of Oplontis- quince
ivy mounds are in Venus Marina
iris in peristyle garden Oplontis- paintings apparently designed to coordinate with actual flow garden
juglans- walnut in Villa Mysteries tablinum- nuts were scattered at weddings with hope of fertility, used to dye wool, red hair dye
lentils and beets leaves used to make a salad
had lupines
malus=apple
morus-mulberry
Venus Marina- heron in front of a mulberry
opium poppy found in garden
pinus pionea- umbrella pine
platanus orientalis=plane tree- looacetolysis used to extract pollen and hydrofluoric acid to reduce mineral content.
chemicals in soil helped to preserve pollen
many olives at Polybius house
Platanus=plane tree-looks like a sycamore
emmer wheat in painting in Naples
Martial- dog poem-1.109
Pliny said that insects were the greets creation
Roman knowledge of nature provides insight as to how they related to their environment
she appears unaware of Pliny's remarks that plants do better when nibbled by insects
Cato- slime of olive pressings used to line granaries to keep out beetles, Varro used ashes.
Eumachia carvings has- flies, bees, butterflies, ants, spiders
galls from oak trees were sold for medicine- Romans did not like getting stuff from Docs- better to use free or cheap stuff
VI.vii.18 butterfly mural
I.ix.5 snake painting
Aesclapian snake feeds on small nest
snake protected home from harm and symbol of fecundity
snakes used to control mice and rats
Paintings indicate that Pompeians may have fed birds
dogs left behind to protect house- small dos may have been taken with family.
goats milk preferred
I.viii.12 assembled horse
melting pot society.
667. The Gardens of Pompeii by Jashemski.- summary
667. The Gardens of Pompeii by Jashemski. Author presents this as response to crisis of modern cities. What did the Pompeians do with land use? Here is her answer- the whole book. Main roads in Pompeii- Via di Nola, Via Stabiana, Via Mercurio. Study of gardens is key to understanding the people of this city. 4 crops per year. City faces south and more so west. Sun hits year around. Late morning the breezes begin. Subside early afternoon and pick up again late evening. I/2 kilometer from sea in ancient times. Pompeii is located on a spur of lava.
600 sheep died when volcano erupted in one herd.When facing Mt Vesuvius the Lattar Mts are behind you.
In the basilica- trials, banking, market took place. Measurement standards are next to temple of Apollo- the Romans used the samnite stone- altered to meet their own system.
The palaestra and amphitheater are at opposite end to keep crowds down for busy forum area
Much of life was outdoors. As Via dell Abbondanza moves toward amphitheater- the street widens to form a mini piazza. The area was probably roofed over. Most streets were narrow for a reason- shade, break the cold winds.
Heavily traveled streets had porticos.What to do when it rains?- at first, the cisterns were closed and the initial water drained into the streets- this cleaned the streets- hence need for stepping stones. When roof had been clean and water was clean coming off of the roof- the cistern was opened and filled the cistern.
The streets were safe at night- there are places for night lights in niches in the walls along the street. No house was more then a 15 minute walk from the forum. Streets leading to forum were blocked at forum entrance site- this was the people's area. Before the amphitheater was built, gladiator fights were in forum, musical entertainments and bullfights. In the forum were portable and frequent street stands..
A proper tour of Pompeii should begin at train station.- point out shops, awnings- these would have been much like those of ancient Pompeii- this is my idea.
At crossroads thought out the city were fountains and shrines. Hawkers everywhere in the forum. Gossip exchanged at fountains.
Facilities for entertainment and recreation far exceed those of any modern town of comparable size. eg- amphitheater capacity held 3 times as many people as what lived in Pompeii. One theater- the larger one- held 5,000 people- that is almost the entire population of the city. 3 large open air swimming pools, 3 baths. This gives an idea of how large the population was in surrounding areas.
Wool was a big business here:
12 officinae lanifricariae
11 fullonicae
6 officinae tinctoriae
4 officiniae coatiliariae
6 tertrinae
partly due to Feb 5 62 earthquake- many old house had been converted to shops- the wealthy were moving to the suburbs
Outside the Porta di Stabia- huge tannery
35 pistoria
shops with stepped shelves were wine shops
dolia- vases buried ion counter held lentils, nuts, cereals
at portas di nucera- large lamp factory
Garden- not from Greeks- Roman had strong interest in gardens for a very long time. Part of early Italic home. House of the Surgeon- 300-400 BC the oldest. Pompeians relied on well water and cisterns until Augustus had an aqueduct built. To emphasize above point- Greeks had a peristyle- but it was a paved floor- Romans put a garden in it. Some houses were huge- House of Pansa- whole city block, another old Samnite house.
Jashemski discovered gardens, parks, vineyards, orchards, vegetable plots inside the city. There are 450 plus house gardens alone. Plants were something that all Romans enjoyed. House of Polybius- first house excavated with new methods. Large trees accompanied by informal plantings, props for trees heavy with produce, ladder founder for harvest. Peristyle gardens had formal plantings. Trees in the corners, if large enough even when a house was converted to commercial use- the gardens remained. Plants were for appearance, attraction of animals and food.
In the house of D. Octavius Quartius- aedicula behind biclinium had telemon statue- a support which held up the fountain.
edge of stream at upper level had sculpture- lions, hound attacking a hare, little boy clasping a serpent, tiny herm, tiny sphinx, a head of a river god.
between pillars- Polyhymnia, Mnemosyne.
Below water jet fountain- is a nymphaeum- there was a small seated puttee holding a comic mask. east edge of garden had 44 amphorae unbroken- for wine?
small houses had gardens too.
Horace mentions "nursing trees amid your varied columns"
aqueduct waters allowed fountains and pools- these caused gardens to become more formal
the rose, lily and violets were the most popular
old style had larges trees, shrubs and plants- new gardens had fountains, statues- these required curtains to control heat.
Garden paintings were not highly regarded. So many left to decay. Garden painting were often visible from the front door.
Paintings heavily used by poor people to make garden area look bigger. Romans were very fond of herbs.
Bones of a donkey found in house- during eruption it may have run inside for shelter.- there it died.
Clients made calls on patrons at daybreak. There are seats outside many houses where clients waited their turn. In antiquity, the houses of the wealthy were open to the public in many ways.
To archeologists the house of the poor held no interest. Until Jashemski.
House of Venus Marina has many interesting paintings.
There is evidence that the owner of this house loved gardens more than living quarters- after earthquake-which was very severe- garden area were repaired first.
Painted garden scenes were a continuation of the real garden- e.g a painted fountain pours water into a real gutter.
Large wild animals were made to look part of a garden.
These paintings reflect wide range of response to nature- beauty, awe, gander, ferocity, beauty of movement.
Paradeisos on huge estates were mimicked by paintings by those who could not afford the real thing.
Animals are often same pose in different houses- artists brought sketch books to sell their skill.
Garden paintings are common in tombs.
Even in room where gardens are not possible there are paintings of gardens.
A painting survey showed- all have fences, fountains, birds and plants.
Sacro-idyllic paintings were popular- and villa landscapes- these apparently were developed by Romans- a fellow named Spurius Studius. Garden paintings reflect Roman love of gardens.
In the winter the family was by the hearth, in summer- outside. Breakfast and lunch were small affairs- cena was at 3 PM- in the garden. Mattresses, pillows were used. Triclinium was often under an arbor or tent- children sat in the open U.
House of Silver Wedding- Samnite. Dining areas looked on to a vegetable garden- this what Romans liked. A garden of this house would have had: onions, lettuce, beets, artichokes, cauliflower, peas, beans, herbs and flowers for decoration. Fruit and nut trees in corners.
Cena: gustus- eggs, asparagus, rocket leeks
mensa prima- kid meatballs
menus secunda- fruit, wine
some triclinium designed as fountains when not in use- this made it easy to irrigate the garden
Candelabras allowed night dining.
Houses of the poor mimicked those of more well to do- vegetable gardens, herbs, fruit trees
Music, reading, comedy part of entertainment, lyre performance.
The cypher may reflect a nod to Apollo or the tibia to Dionysus.
Theater comedies like our musical comedies. Sometimes a book was read aloud- some houses are designed with stage overlooking the garden- look for elevated areas. Mothers worked in the garden.
Pliny often thought and worked in and then dedicated books in his garden. Children played- some had fences to keep children away from the pool.
Child's song:
Bucc, bucca quot sunt hic
rex eris, si recte facies.
Pets were very common and there were guard dogs. Cats kept for mice, turtles to eat insects. These are used today.
These gardens attracted ducks, pigeons, herons, turtle doves, warblers, swallows, robins, egrets, peacocks. Peacocks may also have served as watch dogs.
Songs birds kept in cages for songs.
There was a commercial aviary behind the temple of Apollo.
Elaborate paintings of animals, fish, deer gave feeling of what owner of large estate experienced.
Sundials in the garden. One in the Triangular Forum. Three types- spherical, conical and planar. Spherical was most popular.
Evidence of niches for night lights and niches outside in the street.
Religion in the garden:
sacellum, aedes, templum, sacrarium- words used for places where lares were kept. Lararium was a much later word. These shrines were quickly rebuilt after the earthquake.
One lararium shows onions, for which Pompeii was famous, being loaded. In these shrines were kept the Penates/Lares- rarely found- they took these with them. Lares were originally dieties of the fields and of dead ancestors. These were prayed to everyday at meal time with wine, incense, garlands. Hooks for garlands are often found near the hearth. Expensive offerings avoided- garlands often made of circlets of flowers. Prayers are often for good crops and wine. A figure with a toga over his head is the genius of the Pater Familias.
Offerings: cereals, salt, wine, little cakes, figs, dates, almonds, pine cones, eggs. Thus it makes sense that these are often shown in paintings in bowls. Dates were imported. Date trees in Pompeii did not produce fruit. Incense was also imported.
Only occasionally are animals sacrifices shown- this may hint that the house was sight of deity worship. These sacrifices probably took place in the garden.
The Caupona of Euxinus (I.xi.10-11)
The lararium painting is in the Thermopolium. One altar appears to have been provided for guests of the hotel. Any god could be worshiped at the altar.
Hercules was worshiped at this garden- (II. viii.6) this is just west of the Great Palaestra- there was a statue of Herc near this shrine. He was worshiped by the Samnites which took on Italic traits which was connected with Ares which was connected with worship of Ceres at the Villa of the Mysteries. Herc was special to shop keepers hopping for success and health- thus doctors and production thus vines. According to Martial three gods primary at Pompeii- Venus, Herc and Bacchus. Thus it is difficult to determine when divinities depicted were works of art or sacred- perhaps Pompeians did not distinguish.
Venus was an Italian garden goddess. Mars too was a garden deity of Samnite extraction who protected crops. There portable altars. There more images of Venus than any other. Venus is called Venus fiscia- from greek it means related to nature. Diana was another garden goddess worshiped by the Samnites in groves. I like these Samnites: great warriors and lovers of gardens- nice combo.
It is difficult to identify plants for painters used same foliage for different plants- one must look at the flower.
Sacred trees common- altars placed near by. Hung fillets, cymbals, ribbons and chaplets- Cybele was popular
Isis was worshiped at House of the Moralist, III. iv. 2-3
Zeus Sabazius was worshiped in a garden. Isis near theater when entering the Triangular forum to the left down the street. Isis universal mother who created all things with an offer of eternal life. The Isis temple is in a garden setting.
Doric temple in Triangular forum was public worship for a garden deity.
Tomb gardens had wells, cooking areas, and gardens. Triclinium tomb same side as exedra tomb but at other end before house of Diomede. Martial and others mention tomb gardens designed to give pleasure to the deceased and the living.
Gardens often landscaped with sundial(live well while there is time), sautés, parks, pools, fountains, homes for caretakers, shaded triclinium, $ was provided for upkeep and purchase of flowers, veggies and fruit trees. Pompeians frequently visited tombs- so do modern Pompeians. Possible ustrina at Porta Ercolano tomb street where road divides. Tombs near Pompeii found by accident show tomb gardens along road side. Was a low mound of dirt which turned out to be an ustrina- shows that ustrina, gardens and tomb could be combined. Eumachia's tomb is outside Porta di Nocera. Tombs paintings reveal garden scenes.
Villa of Mosaics columns may be a tomb garden (These columns are now in the museum in Naples, they are beautiful). Street frontage is roofed niche for weary travelers, inscription inside is blank- behind to the right is the tomb and pergola behind supported by four mosaic columns now in Naples museum.
Triangular Forum has doric temple- 5 deities worshiped here, carrara fountain, nearby here is base for statue of Marcus Claudius Marcellus- nephew of Augustus. The east portico was for a promenade. Vitruvius recommends such near a theater and temple for discussion and health. The view of the bay from here is stunning. The area was probably planted.
Temple of Isis was excavated 1764- 1766. Evidence of plants destroyed BUT a Herc painting shows a garden setting for Isis in front of the temple- there is an Ibis walking about.
The temple of Dionysus was found outside the city with triclinium very large for ceremonies and banquets- the triclinium was covered by a pergola.
The gladiator barracks were originally used for a promenade and gardens for theaters goes if it rained or as promenade for other days.
I now know the difference between umbrella pine and plane tree- plane tree is very similar to Sycamore. Silly me.
The Great Palaestra was a promenade, a school met here, doctors, there was a temple, exercise area, pool, shade trees
Public places had numerous gardens areas in and outside the city.
Gardens in restaurants, hotels and Inns.
copa is a hostess poem: Dine among the vines covered arbors, babbling brooks, cool drink in crystal goblets, cheese, plums, chestnuts, apples, grapes and music of flute and lyre.
Only six insula lack an inn. Most inns and restaurants are near city gates, forum and amphitheater. Those near Porta Ercolano:
VI. ii.4 damaged by bomb House of Sallust was converted to an inn.
Tombstone shows Copa bidding farewell to traveler identified by pointed hood and a mule.
Porta di Stabiana:
VIII.vii.1 stabula- slopping incline at curb.
Forum:
VII.xi.11-14 large hotel on a winding street, Stabian baths across the street. Could hold 50 guests, large garden, north wall had three triclinia- arbors, with roof of vines in arched niche. Lararium, the garden was a produce garden- plants have been restored.
Amphitheater:
I.xi.12 Euxinus- identified by amphora which sat Euxinus- . Found 34 root cavities and place where dog buried 9 bones. Put a neat touch to the area- does it not? Some wine came from this vineyard BUT as amphora indicate- imported wines too.
2 methods: dolia above ground- supposedly better
dolia below ground
1 dolia = 100 gallons. Here they may have eaten at tables
The vineyards near the amphitheater had triclinia in them.
II.viii.5- 2 masonry triclinia in atrium small bath, tin garden with 6 small triclinia- used a seats. May have served as meeting places for guilds, book makers, librarians, fullers.
Shop/House gardens
these also had gardens- often this consumed larger area than rest of the house. Usually a window allowed owner to keep eye on business while in the garden. Some had fountains
On Vias di Stabiana VII.i.27 north of stabian baths, 2 latrines- one under the stairs, the other as one entered the shop.
VII.ix.27-40 reaches through the whole insula, a wool scouring plant, had a fountain, flower garden, large window allowed view of garden painting.
IX.ii.7 charming house rear of shop or by long corridor from the street. garden with a pool.
VII.iii.11-12 on Via di Nola- largest shop, impluvium, peristyle, lower and upper room
I.xx.5 lst insula to left as one enters Porta Nocera. It opened to a wide street on north side of insula, phallus warred off evil- on wall at corner, broken pots at top discouraged thieves, numerous tree cavities found. Large cistern indicates need for extra watering- thus veggies, also had irrigation channels. Items found indicate that families spent much time here: weights, perfume bottles, lamp, tweezers, cooking equipment, doll dishes, tweezers used to extend the wick.
Bakery gardens:
IX.iii.20 bakery with garden, had a fountain and triclinium
VII.ii.22 most luxurious house of a baker, entrance at 20 and 41.
Garum gardens:
I.xii.8 2 large fig trees shaded workers, painting too. One was planted near latrina for privacy. Also fig leaves were used a toilet paper.
Fuller/wool garden:
VII.xii.22-24
VI.vii.20-21 Lucius Veranius Hypsaeus put fullory in the peristylium
There does not appear to be any business without a garden.
VII.vii.24 saw was still in the marble being cut, carved feet and herms found.
Large Vineyard
Once know as cattle market. rows are 4 roman feet apart.
3/4 depressions around each pair of vine cavities- these used to hold water. These depressions were distinct- one cavity for vine one for stake- just as her workers told her it would be- 2014 root cavities!!!!!! This investigation showed that layering was method of reproduction. Entrance had no row to allow works to bring in tools, wagons etc. One triclinium to right as entering. Other location to left where paths intersect. Nails indicate that the rows were arbored. Chestnut poles were used- these resist rot. and easy to work with. willow was used as rope- as is now. Coins found on path along north wall- stroll area? A number of trees were located- same as modern system. Following trees planted in todays vineyards:
walnut, filbert, pear, cherry, plum, fig, apple, apricot, sorb, olive. Found a carbonized bean- veggies may have been grown between vines. vitis compluviata vine training was used. (Designed like a compluvium)
different varieties of grapes may have been planted allowing one worker to care for the whole vineyard. Animal bones found- 2 cows were found in stall at house of Faun. Triclinium were money makers for vinter, a wine shop at other end from amphitheater located here.
Wine at Pompeii- wine was main product, oil second. Animal skins used for delivery door to door, shop to shop. Lamps found in wine shops. Painting shows shop keeper pouring sample tastes of wine- just like Sorrento today. If they lacked a wine press, may have used neighbors or processed grapes with feet, if making a small batch.
1 dolium= 275 gallons= 40 amphorae. A number of dolia have been found all over Pompeii.
I.xx.1. vineyard pressed by feet- considered superior top grape press- makes sense to me- this prevents bitter taste from being extracted via a press.. Grape juice was consumed. called must. There is an underground storage cellar here. Bottomless dolia were set above the cellar. One was for juice to be poured into vat below, the other to allow air to move about to prevent build up of carbon dioxide. Columella's instructions- weave baskets to picks grapes., small hooks and sickle, dolia treated with pitch, all equipment washed, wine cellar cleansed and made fragrant with smell of herbs. Prayers were offered to Liber who was later associated with Bacchus and Libera. Hence paintings of lararium in gardens of a vineyard.
III.vii.a vineyard. Arbor covered a triclinium, rows of vines, large trees, perhaps open areas for veggies, very few stakes, these were young vines, cistern for water, has been replanted, a popular tree would have supplied withes for tying up vines.
The Discovery of the Market/Orchard/Garden
I.xv.3. House of Europa
Land slopes from the house. once was two houses. upper level is much higher than lower. Large tree cavities, vine cavities, cistern for water, 2 large veggie gardens, most vines were young, pile of clay for pottery, maybe used by clay lamp place nearby. pile of crushed lava and lime for cement. He had plans. Hope he was able to carry them out at some other location. Large pots found here with usually one hole in the bottom and 3 or so around the side- this helps conserve moisture and makes it easy to transport. It is possible that these were exotic plants such as citrons which were shipped to Pompeii. Also there are signs or markers indicating that a canopy was raised over these perhaps during frost time. Citron was used by Jews- perhaps for these people- or may via jews Pompeians found that they liked these too. Holed pots also used for grafting purposes. Hardy trees to which grafts were attached were grown in pots.
Dates do not grow in Pompeii. Numerous carbonized nuts found at this place: filberts, grapes, almonds
The date must have come from gardeners lunch box- the front of the shop probably sold dates- imported and of course his own nuts and veggies. This was the first garden vineyard found in the city and speaks volumes about land use in ancient cities.
The garden of the fugitive
I.xxi.2 triclinium on one side is shorter. had a pergola but destroyed in 62 earthquake. arches under triclinium were for dishes and ware. Large tree near the triclinium. It has been suggested that instead of a vineyard that this was a rose garden- there is absence of stake for vines.
There is another small garden with a triclinium and niche for a lararium, other small niche may have held a lamp. Maybe mom and day came here in the evening to relax in the quiet of the night and talk about their dreams and the beauty of the day. Small olive trees found supported by pollen count. but since these grow large- maybe it was a nursery.
water- small garden had 2 sources. 1- water emptied from street via tile lined opening in the wall and underground channels for water distribution and a cistern.
Large Orchard
I.xxii Regular rows sort of- maybe like Herman Stroh. Three piles of soil hard to explain. Perhaps 300 trees here. Pompum to Romans was any fleshy fruit.
Triclinium in the middle of the garden shaded by 3 large trees. In front of the triclinium was an altar. Soil packed ion path leading from house to altar and triclinium- went everyday. 2 dogs found- all sorts of animal bones. Very high quality soil. Pumice allows soil to hold much water.
Pollen tests done here but carbonized fruit found, yet pollen can not tolerate heat. The lapilli which fell on Pompeii was cool. Carbonization can take place over years with low heat. When supply of oxygen is cut off. Wind blown pollen, insect transfer pollen- this was found in the garden- olive pollen. Not grown now. There was probably a variety of fruit trees.
I.vii.1 Felix fruit shop
Election notice on house- evidently grows promoted their own people to office probably to protect their interests
The Flower Industry
Flowers in demand for festivals, banquets, birthdays, weddings, games, funerals. Often in the form of a garland for guests, the dead and gods. At a sacrifice the priest assisted and the altar was decked in flowers. Many flower places provided garlands and wreathes. Vesta was patron goddess of bakers- at Vestalia many flowers were used.
Forum on market day had garlands from column to column. Favorite flowers: rose, lily(madonna lily), violet (sweet violet). Other flowers: oleander, cyan's (bachelor buttons), amaranth (cockscomb), cyclamen, coltha, pot marigold (calendula officalis, salvia, ivy.
Roses were made to bloom early by watering with warm water. Garlands were refreshed by dipping in water, portable flower booths set up in forum.
Thus makes sense that perfume trade in Pompeii was huge.
unguentarii- the ingredients they used: juice, solids, oil, salt, resin/gum
VII.iv.25- oil press
VII.iv.5 near temple of Apollo- mural of oil being made.
Flowers used for honey and medicine it was a very big business.
II.viii.6 doghouse here, hoe here, first pollen found here. During excavations a light rain revealed a circular contours and a center point. Root cavity did not survive- plants too small. To supplement water- drain hole outside had a short sluece which led water to dolium inside the house. Large trees with flower beds between and around.
Large nubbier of perfume bottles found here in small room nearby and broken bottles in the garden. Olive trees here- the oil was used in perfume production.
Modern plants similar to ancient:
cauliflower ready at end of Jan
then potatoes in 2 months
then flowers ready in 2 more months
Professional flower grower observed scavi- said it was a flower garden- just the way he did it.
Cult of Herc popular with merchants/traders perhaps this explains the altar for Herc.
Oplontis
begun 1 century BC. So many villas in the area made it look like a continuous city. Garden design reflects the rooms and the room design reflect the gardens
The Villa of Papyrus must have been a show place for quality art- the bronze ladies, Mercury, fauns in Naples are from here. Rostovtzeff argues that the paintings of villas are real places.
Bronze raven in Naples is from San Marco vestibule
Villa de Pastore is between San Marco and Villa of Arriana
Conclusion:
"gardens intimately relates to many aspects of their lives- to their architecture, both political and domestic, painting, sculpture, aesthetic expression, horticulture, religion, work and recreation"
Some cut windows in their upstair room apartments to have a view of a neighbor's gardens
Older homes had large trees in peristyle- after aqueduct more formal gardens became popular with a pool as a focal point combined with plants, sculpture as reflection
600 sheep died when volcano erupted in one herd.When facing Mt Vesuvius the Lattar Mts are behind you.
In the basilica- trials, banking, market took place. Measurement standards are next to temple of Apollo- the Romans used the samnite stone- altered to meet their own system.
The palaestra and amphitheater are at opposite end to keep crowds down for busy forum area
Much of life was outdoors. As Via dell Abbondanza moves toward amphitheater- the street widens to form a mini piazza. The area was probably roofed over. Most streets were narrow for a reason- shade, break the cold winds.
Heavily traveled streets had porticos.What to do when it rains?- at first, the cisterns were closed and the initial water drained into the streets- this cleaned the streets- hence need for stepping stones. When roof had been clean and water was clean coming off of the roof- the cistern was opened and filled the cistern.
A proper tour of Pompeii should begin at train station.- point out shops, awnings- these would have been much like those of ancient Pompeii- this is my idea.
At crossroads thought out the city were fountains and shrines. Hawkers everywhere in the forum. Gossip exchanged at fountains.
Facilities for entertainment and recreation far exceed those of any modern town of comparable size. eg- amphitheater capacity held 3 times as many people as what lived in Pompeii. One theater- the larger one- held 5,000 people- that is almost the entire population of the city. 3 large open air swimming pools, 3 baths. This gives an idea of how large the population was in surrounding areas.
Wool was a big business here:
12 officinae lanifricariae
11 fullonicae
6 officinae tinctoriae
4 officiniae coatiliariae
6 tertrinae
partly due to Feb 5 62 earthquake- many old house had been converted to shops- the wealthy were moving to the suburbs
Outside the Porta di Stabia- huge tannery
35 pistoria
shops with stepped shelves were wine shops
dolia- vases buried ion counter held lentils, nuts, cereals
at portas di nucera- large lamp factory
Garden- not from Greeks- Roman had strong interest in gardens for a very long time. Part of early Italic home. House of the Surgeon- 300-400 BC the oldest. Pompeians relied on well water and cisterns until Augustus had an aqueduct built. To emphasize above point- Greeks had a peristyle- but it was a paved floor- Romans put a garden in it. Some houses were huge- House of Pansa- whole city block, another old Samnite house.
Jashemski discovered gardens, parks, vineyards, orchards, vegetable plots inside the city. There are 450 plus house gardens alone. Plants were something that all Romans enjoyed. House of Polybius- first house excavated with new methods. Large trees accompanied by informal plantings, props for trees heavy with produce, ladder founder for harvest. Peristyle gardens had formal plantings. Trees in the corners, if large enough even when a house was converted to commercial use- the gardens remained. Plants were for appearance, attraction of animals and food.
In the house of D. Octavius Quartius- aedicula behind biclinium had telemon statue- a support which held up the fountain.
edge of stream at upper level had sculpture- lions, hound attacking a hare, little boy clasping a serpent, tiny herm, tiny sphinx, a head of a river god.
between pillars- Polyhymnia, Mnemosyne.
Below water jet fountain- is a nymphaeum- there was a small seated puttee holding a comic mask. east edge of garden had 44 amphorae unbroken- for wine?
small houses had gardens too.
Horace mentions "nursing trees amid your varied columns"
aqueduct waters allowed fountains and pools- these caused gardens to become more formal
the rose, lily and violets were the most popular
old style had larges trees, shrubs and plants- new gardens had fountains, statues- these required curtains to control heat.
Garden paintings were not highly regarded. So many left to decay. Garden painting were often visible from the front door.
Paintings heavily used by poor people to make garden area look bigger. Romans were very fond of herbs.
Bones of a donkey found in house- during eruption it may have run inside for shelter.- there it died.
Clients made calls on patrons at daybreak. There are seats outside many houses where clients waited their turn. In antiquity, the houses of the wealthy were open to the public in many ways.
To archeologists the house of the poor held no interest. Until Jashemski.
House of Venus Marina has many interesting paintings.
There is evidence that the owner of this house loved gardens more than living quarters- after earthquake-which was very severe- garden area were repaired first.
Painted garden scenes were a continuation of the real garden- e.g a painted fountain pours water into a real gutter.
Large wild animals were made to look part of a garden.
These paintings reflect wide range of response to nature- beauty, awe, gander, ferocity, beauty of movement.
Paradeisos on huge estates were mimicked by paintings by those who could not afford the real thing.
Animals are often same pose in different houses- artists brought sketch books to sell their skill.
Garden paintings are common in tombs.
Even in room where gardens are not possible there are paintings of gardens.
A painting survey showed- all have fences, fountains, birds and plants.
Sacro-idyllic paintings were popular- and villa landscapes- these apparently were developed by Romans- a fellow named Spurius Studius. Garden paintings reflect Roman love of gardens.
In the winter the family was by the hearth, in summer- outside. Breakfast and lunch were small affairs- cena was at 3 PM- in the garden. Mattresses, pillows were used. Triclinium was often under an arbor or tent- children sat in the open U.
House of Silver Wedding- Samnite. Dining areas looked on to a vegetable garden- this what Romans liked. A garden of this house would have had: onions, lettuce, beets, artichokes, cauliflower, peas, beans, herbs and flowers for decoration. Fruit and nut trees in corners.
Cena: gustus- eggs, asparagus, rocket leeks
mensa prima- kid meatballs
menus secunda- fruit, wine
some triclinium designed as fountains when not in use- this made it easy to irrigate the garden
Candelabras allowed night dining.
Houses of the poor mimicked those of more well to do- vegetable gardens, herbs, fruit trees
Music, reading, comedy part of entertainment, lyre performance.
The cypher may reflect a nod to Apollo or the tibia to Dionysus.
Theater comedies like our musical comedies. Sometimes a book was read aloud- some houses are designed with stage overlooking the garden- look for elevated areas. Mothers worked in the garden.
Pliny often thought and worked in and then dedicated books in his garden. Children played- some had fences to keep children away from the pool.
Child's song:
Bucc, bucca quot sunt hic
rex eris, si recte facies.
Pets were very common and there were guard dogs. Cats kept for mice, turtles to eat insects. These are used today.
These gardens attracted ducks, pigeons, herons, turtle doves, warblers, swallows, robins, egrets, peacocks. Peacocks may also have served as watch dogs.
Songs birds kept in cages for songs.
There was a commercial aviary behind the temple of Apollo.
Elaborate paintings of animals, fish, deer gave feeling of what owner of large estate experienced.
Sundials in the garden. One in the Triangular Forum. Three types- spherical, conical and planar. Spherical was most popular.
Evidence of niches for night lights and niches outside in the street.
Religion in the garden:
sacellum, aedes, templum, sacrarium- words used for places where lares were kept. Lararium was a much later word. These shrines were quickly rebuilt after the earthquake.
One lararium shows onions, for which Pompeii was famous, being loaded. In these shrines were kept the Penates/Lares- rarely found- they took these with them. Lares were originally dieties of the fields and of dead ancestors. These were prayed to everyday at meal time with wine, incense, garlands. Hooks for garlands are often found near the hearth. Expensive offerings avoided- garlands often made of circlets of flowers. Prayers are often for good crops and wine. A figure with a toga over his head is the genius of the Pater Familias.
Offerings: cereals, salt, wine, little cakes, figs, dates, almonds, pine cones, eggs. Thus it makes sense that these are often shown in paintings in bowls. Dates were imported. Date trees in Pompeii did not produce fruit. Incense was also imported.
Only occasionally are animals sacrifices shown- this may hint that the house was sight of deity worship. These sacrifices probably took place in the garden.
The Caupona of Euxinus (I.xi.10-11)
The lararium painting is in the Thermopolium. One altar appears to have been provided for guests of the hotel. Any god could be worshiped at the altar.
Hercules was worshiped at this garden- (II. viii.6) this is just west of the Great Palaestra- there was a statue of Herc near this shrine. He was worshiped by the Samnites which took on Italic traits which was connected with Ares which was connected with worship of Ceres at the Villa of the Mysteries. Herc was special to shop keepers hopping for success and health- thus doctors and production thus vines. According to Martial three gods primary at Pompeii- Venus, Herc and Bacchus. Thus it is difficult to determine when divinities depicted were works of art or sacred- perhaps Pompeians did not distinguish.
Venus was an Italian garden goddess. Mars too was a garden deity of Samnite extraction who protected crops. There portable altars. There more images of Venus than any other. Venus is called Venus fiscia- from greek it means related to nature. Diana was another garden goddess worshiped by the Samnites in groves. I like these Samnites: great warriors and lovers of gardens- nice combo.
It is difficult to identify plants for painters used same foliage for different plants- one must look at the flower.
Sacred trees common- altars placed near by. Hung fillets, cymbals, ribbons and chaplets- Cybele was popular
Isis was worshiped at House of the Moralist, III. iv. 2-3
Zeus Sabazius was worshiped in a garden. Isis near theater when entering the Triangular forum to the left down the street. Isis universal mother who created all things with an offer of eternal life. The Isis temple is in a garden setting.
Doric temple in Triangular forum was public worship for a garden deity.
Tomb gardens had wells, cooking areas, and gardens. Triclinium tomb same side as exedra tomb but at other end before house of Diomede. Martial and others mention tomb gardens designed to give pleasure to the deceased and the living.
Gardens often landscaped with sundial(live well while there is time), sautés, parks, pools, fountains, homes for caretakers, shaded triclinium, $ was provided for upkeep and purchase of flowers, veggies and fruit trees. Pompeians frequently visited tombs- so do modern Pompeians. Possible ustrina at Porta Ercolano tomb street where road divides. Tombs near Pompeii found by accident show tomb gardens along road side. Was a low mound of dirt which turned out to be an ustrina- shows that ustrina, gardens and tomb could be combined. Eumachia's tomb is outside Porta di Nocera. Tombs paintings reveal garden scenes.
Villa of Mosaics columns may be a tomb garden (These columns are now in the museum in Naples, they are beautiful). Street frontage is roofed niche for weary travelers, inscription inside is blank- behind to the right is the tomb and pergola behind supported by four mosaic columns now in Naples museum.
Triangular Forum has doric temple- 5 deities worshiped here, carrara fountain, nearby here is base for statue of Marcus Claudius Marcellus- nephew of Augustus. The east portico was for a promenade. Vitruvius recommends such near a theater and temple for discussion and health. The view of the bay from here is stunning. The area was probably planted.
Temple of Isis was excavated 1764- 1766. Evidence of plants destroyed BUT a Herc painting shows a garden setting for Isis in front of the temple- there is an Ibis walking about.
The temple of Dionysus was found outside the city with triclinium very large for ceremonies and banquets- the triclinium was covered by a pergola.
The gladiator barracks were originally used for a promenade and gardens for theaters goes if it rained or as promenade for other days.
I now know the difference between umbrella pine and plane tree- plane tree is very similar to Sycamore. Silly me.
The Great Palaestra was a promenade, a school met here, doctors, there was a temple, exercise area, pool, shade trees
Public places had numerous gardens areas in and outside the city.
Gardens in restaurants, hotels and Inns.
copa is a hostess poem: Dine among the vines covered arbors, babbling brooks, cool drink in crystal goblets, cheese, plums, chestnuts, apples, grapes and music of flute and lyre.
Only six insula lack an inn. Most inns and restaurants are near city gates, forum and amphitheater. Those near Porta Ercolano:
VI. ii.4 damaged by bomb House of Sallust was converted to an inn.
Tombstone shows Copa bidding farewell to traveler identified by pointed hood and a mule.
Porta di Stabiana:
VIII.vii.1 stabula- slopping incline at curb.
Forum:
VII.xi.11-14 large hotel on a winding street, Stabian baths across the street. Could hold 50 guests, large garden, north wall had three triclinia- arbors, with roof of vines in arched niche. Lararium, the garden was a produce garden- plants have been restored.
Amphitheater:
I.xi.12 Euxinus- identified by amphora which sat Euxinus- . Found 34 root cavities and place where dog buried 9 bones. Put a neat touch to the area- does it not? Some wine came from this vineyard BUT as amphora indicate- imported wines too.
2 methods: dolia above ground- supposedly better
dolia below ground
1 dolia = 100 gallons. Here they may have eaten at tables
The vineyards near the amphitheater had triclinia in them.
II.viii.5- 2 masonry triclinia in atrium small bath, tin garden with 6 small triclinia- used a seats. May have served as meeting places for guilds, book makers, librarians, fullers.
Shop/House gardens
these also had gardens- often this consumed larger area than rest of the house. Usually a window allowed owner to keep eye on business while in the garden. Some had fountains
On Vias di Stabiana VII.i.27 north of stabian baths, 2 latrines- one under the stairs, the other as one entered the shop.
VII.ix.27-40 reaches through the whole insula, a wool scouring plant, had a fountain, flower garden, large window allowed view of garden painting.
IX.ii.7 charming house rear of shop or by long corridor from the street. garden with a pool.
VII.iii.11-12 on Via di Nola- largest shop, impluvium, peristyle, lower and upper room
I.xx.5 lst insula to left as one enters Porta Nocera. It opened to a wide street on north side of insula, phallus warred off evil- on wall at corner, broken pots at top discouraged thieves, numerous tree cavities found. Large cistern indicates need for extra watering- thus veggies, also had irrigation channels. Items found indicate that families spent much time here: weights, perfume bottles, lamp, tweezers, cooking equipment, doll dishes, tweezers used to extend the wick.
Bakery gardens:
IX.iii.20 bakery with garden, had a fountain and triclinium
VII.ii.22 most luxurious house of a baker, entrance at 20 and 41.
Garum gardens:
I.xii.8 2 large fig trees shaded workers, painting too. One was planted near latrina for privacy. Also fig leaves were used a toilet paper.
Fuller/wool garden:
VII.xii.22-24
VI.vii.20-21 Lucius Veranius Hypsaeus put fullory in the peristylium
There does not appear to be any business without a garden.
VII.vii.24 saw was still in the marble being cut, carved feet and herms found.
Large Vineyard
Once know as cattle market. rows are 4 roman feet apart.
3/4 depressions around each pair of vine cavities- these used to hold water. These depressions were distinct- one cavity for vine one for stake- just as her workers told her it would be- 2014 root cavities!!!!!! This investigation showed that layering was method of reproduction. Entrance had no row to allow works to bring in tools, wagons etc. One triclinium to right as entering. Other location to left where paths intersect. Nails indicate that the rows were arbored. Chestnut poles were used- these resist rot. and easy to work with. willow was used as rope- as is now. Coins found on path along north wall- stroll area? A number of trees were located- same as modern system. Following trees planted in todays vineyards:
walnut, filbert, pear, cherry, plum, fig, apple, apricot, sorb, olive. Found a carbonized bean- veggies may have been grown between vines. vitis compluviata vine training was used. (Designed like a compluvium)
different varieties of grapes may have been planted allowing one worker to care for the whole vineyard. Animal bones found- 2 cows were found in stall at house of Faun. Triclinium were money makers for vinter, a wine shop at other end from amphitheater located here.
Wine at Pompeii- wine was main product, oil second. Animal skins used for delivery door to door, shop to shop. Lamps found in wine shops. Painting shows shop keeper pouring sample tastes of wine- just like Sorrento today. If they lacked a wine press, may have used neighbors or processed grapes with feet, if making a small batch.
1 dolium= 275 gallons= 40 amphorae. A number of dolia have been found all over Pompeii.
I.xx.1. vineyard pressed by feet- considered superior top grape press- makes sense to me- this prevents bitter taste from being extracted via a press.. Grape juice was consumed. called must. There is an underground storage cellar here. Bottomless dolia were set above the cellar. One was for juice to be poured into vat below, the other to allow air to move about to prevent build up of carbon dioxide. Columella's instructions- weave baskets to picks grapes., small hooks and sickle, dolia treated with pitch, all equipment washed, wine cellar cleansed and made fragrant with smell of herbs. Prayers were offered to Liber who was later associated with Bacchus and Libera. Hence paintings of lararium in gardens of a vineyard.
III.vii.a vineyard. Arbor covered a triclinium, rows of vines, large trees, perhaps open areas for veggies, very few stakes, these were young vines, cistern for water, has been replanted, a popular tree would have supplied withes for tying up vines.
The Discovery of the Market/Orchard/Garden
I.xv.3. House of Europa
Land slopes from the house. once was two houses. upper level is much higher than lower. Large tree cavities, vine cavities, cistern for water, 2 large veggie gardens, most vines were young, pile of clay for pottery, maybe used by clay lamp place nearby. pile of crushed lava and lime for cement. He had plans. Hope he was able to carry them out at some other location. Large pots found here with usually one hole in the bottom and 3 or so around the side- this helps conserve moisture and makes it easy to transport. It is possible that these were exotic plants such as citrons which were shipped to Pompeii. Also there are signs or markers indicating that a canopy was raised over these perhaps during frost time. Citron was used by Jews- perhaps for these people- or may via jews Pompeians found that they liked these too. Holed pots also used for grafting purposes. Hardy trees to which grafts were attached were grown in pots.
Dates do not grow in Pompeii. Numerous carbonized nuts found at this place: filberts, grapes, almonds
The date must have come from gardeners lunch box- the front of the shop probably sold dates- imported and of course his own nuts and veggies. This was the first garden vineyard found in the city and speaks volumes about land use in ancient cities.
The garden of the fugitive
I.xxi.2 triclinium on one side is shorter. had a pergola but destroyed in 62 earthquake. arches under triclinium were for dishes and ware. Large tree near the triclinium. It has been suggested that instead of a vineyard that this was a rose garden- there is absence of stake for vines.
There is another small garden with a triclinium and niche for a lararium, other small niche may have held a lamp. Maybe mom and day came here in the evening to relax in the quiet of the night and talk about their dreams and the beauty of the day. Small olive trees found supported by pollen count. but since these grow large- maybe it was a nursery.
water- small garden had 2 sources. 1- water emptied from street via tile lined opening in the wall and underground channels for water distribution and a cistern.
Large Orchard
I.xxii Regular rows sort of- maybe like Herman Stroh. Three piles of soil hard to explain. Perhaps 300 trees here. Pompum to Romans was any fleshy fruit.
Triclinium in the middle of the garden shaded by 3 large trees. In front of the triclinium was an altar. Soil packed ion path leading from house to altar and triclinium- went everyday. 2 dogs found- all sorts of animal bones. Very high quality soil. Pumice allows soil to hold much water.
Pollen tests done here but carbonized fruit found, yet pollen can not tolerate heat. The lapilli which fell on Pompeii was cool. Carbonization can take place over years with low heat. When supply of oxygen is cut off. Wind blown pollen, insect transfer pollen- this was found in the garden- olive pollen. Not grown now. There was probably a variety of fruit trees.
I.vii.1 Felix fruit shop
Election notice on house- evidently grows promoted their own people to office probably to protect their interests
The Flower Industry
Flowers in demand for festivals, banquets, birthdays, weddings, games, funerals. Often in the form of a garland for guests, the dead and gods. At a sacrifice the priest assisted and the altar was decked in flowers. Many flower places provided garlands and wreathes. Vesta was patron goddess of bakers- at Vestalia many flowers were used.
Forum on market day had garlands from column to column. Favorite flowers: rose, lily(madonna lily), violet (sweet violet). Other flowers: oleander, cyan's (bachelor buttons), amaranth (cockscomb), cyclamen, coltha, pot marigold (calendula officalis, salvia, ivy.
Roses were made to bloom early by watering with warm water. Garlands were refreshed by dipping in water, portable flower booths set up in forum.
Thus makes sense that perfume trade in Pompeii was huge.
unguentarii- the ingredients they used: juice, solids, oil, salt, resin/gum
VII.iv.25- oil press
VII.iv.5 near temple of Apollo- mural of oil being made.
Flowers used for honey and medicine it was a very big business.
II.viii.6 doghouse here, hoe here, first pollen found here. During excavations a light rain revealed a circular contours and a center point. Root cavity did not survive- plants too small. To supplement water- drain hole outside had a short sluece which led water to dolium inside the house. Large trees with flower beds between and around.
Large nubbier of perfume bottles found here in small room nearby and broken bottles in the garden. Olive trees here- the oil was used in perfume production.
Modern plants similar to ancient:
cauliflower ready at end of Jan
then potatoes in 2 months
then flowers ready in 2 more months
Professional flower grower observed scavi- said it was a flower garden- just the way he did it.
Cult of Herc popular with merchants/traders perhaps this explains the altar for Herc.
Oplontis
begun 1 century BC. So many villas in the area made it look like a continuous city. Garden design reflects the rooms and the room design reflect the gardens
The Villa of Papyrus must have been a show place for quality art- the bronze ladies, Mercury, fauns in Naples are from here. Rostovtzeff argues that the paintings of villas are real places.
Bronze raven in Naples is from San Marco vestibule
Villa de Pastore is between San Marco and Villa of Arriana
Conclusion:
"gardens intimately relates to many aspects of their lives- to their architecture, both political and domestic, painting, sculpture, aesthetic expression, horticulture, religion, work and recreation"
Some cut windows in their upstair room apartments to have a view of a neighbor's gardens
Older homes had large trees in peristyle- after aqueduct more formal gardens became popular with a pool as a focal point combined with plants, sculpture as reflection
664. Remembering the Roman People by T. P. Wiseman- summary
664. Remembering the Roman People by T. P. Wiseman. I am so glad that I read this book. I have learned so much from it about the late Republic, Cicero, his contemporaries and modern scholarship. He has made me think and ponder.
Wiseman's contention is that the Roman People had an ideology- that is they had a set of beliefs. What, he says, proves this is the tension which existed between the People and the aristocracy. Makes sense to me but he seems consistently to put a negative twist to tension. Perhaps tension is good- at least up to a point. He seems to talk as though the history of the Republic was a struggle for the Roman People to attain victory, to impose their sovereignty. But this really puzzles me when much later, p. 132, he mentions that finally in 27 BC the authority of the RP was restored. Such statements lose me- ending the Republic which allowed the plebs liberty of expression of ideas was achieved by domination of a monarchy which limited expression?
He identifies early on champions of the People: Gracchi, Saturninus, Clodius and Caesar.
The first challenge to the arrogance of the aristocracy was that of Gaius Geta. He was consul in 116 BC. Soon removed from Senate by Censors. This must have been done in eyes of Wiseman as a means of revenge by the aristocracy. Another example of source of tension between aristocracy and People.
The Tablinum in the Forum built by Quintus Catullus represents the triumph of the aristocracy since the temple of Moneta was placed on top. Wiseman suggests and I find this very fascinating- the tabularium was meant as a records area but was also a huge and I mean huge platform for a temple which was meant to make a statement to the RP that the aristocracy was in charge. That temple, the temple of Juno Moneta stood on top. This temple, that of Juno Moneta was vowed by Fabius Dorsuo who was one of those patrician heroes who stood up to the invading Gauls in 390 BC. Thus Juno Moneta was a symbol of patricians.
This huge back drop to the Forum (the Tabularium) was meant, says Wiseman, to be a statement that the forum was dominated by the aristocracy.
Romulus had meant that all land was to be equally distributed. This principle the aristocracy set out to ignore or destroy.
Wiseman interestingly uses the comments and observations of Thomas Macaulay, a British politician, to put Cicero in a different light. Macaulay as a young man admired Cicero but also saw that in his view he had sold himself out to the aristocracy. This was an interesting chapter and forces a new perspective on Cicero. It is interesting too that Macaulay's views are considered worthwhile because he was a well read Brit who also had mounds of political experience- thus his views on Cicero from someone with practical experience were/are useful.
Wiseman has a chapter on Cicero and Varro- the famous Varro- Marcus Terentius Varro who was considered by many the most scholarly of all Romans. Wiseman makes a strong case that the men did not see eye to eye on political issues. I am not sure but it seems that Wiseman's main point is that contrary to view expressed by Cicero there were other views. I agree and makes much sense but it was to this Varro that Cicero wrote that he was looking forward to studying in Varro's library with garden attached. Apparently they were going to discuss political issues of importance to both of them. This was in 46 BC. Just another example that Wiseman seems to bend over backwards to show differences. They may have disagreed- no surprise there but also seemed to get along.
Then Wiseman makes one of those statements which puzzles me: Varro lived to see the restoration of the authority of the Roman People. And then remarks that he died in 27 BC. He seems to connect restoration of authority of the RP with the Principate. If this is true then Cicero may be right- power invested primarily in the people without balance of authority leads to monarchy and the suppression of thought and political activity.
In his discussion on satire which he connects directly with the Roman People he makes some fascinating observations. He analyzes a poem by Horace. The poem implies that public recitals of literary works were common and that leading figures were present in the audience. (Satire 2.1 lines 68-74). So Wiseman thinks that poems by Ennius, Naevius (Bellum Punicum) Varro (Menippean Satires) were read out loud before large audiences. My interest in this is that the RP were sophisticated and eager for the beauty of prose and poetry. Evidently audiences filled large theaters to hear these. Something I always suspected but never had information to back it up.
Wiseman uses Cicero's return from exile in an interesting way. He was met by huge crowds starting at the Porta Capena. These were large crowds of plebs- Roman People. These large crowds came to see the man whom Wiseman claims hated them. But it is here that Wiseman seems weak- without regard to any differentiation Wisemen lumps any word or phrase which Cicero uses in regards to the plebs as one an the same- he never seems to allow that Cicero may have viewed people in various aspects- Cicero despised mob rule which may be attributed to thugs, slaves and leaches assembled by a politician for personal purposes. Does not mean that this is the same as the Roman People, per se. Wiseman is slippery here in my opinion. To use the term Roman People the way Wiseman uses it gives no room for differentiation. He then points out that the man (Cicero) who hated the People was pleased with their approval. Part of the evidence that Cicero did not like the plebs is supported by the fact that Cicero did not make a public speech to the people until he was 39. Yet, criers went dashing throughout Rome to let people know that Cicero was about to speak. I found this chapter very informative and interesting and valuable- I just am puzzled what and how he makes his point.
Then another fascinating discussion by Wiseman- it is known that gladiatorial contests took place in the forum. To do so required some conversion and planning. The forum area with its wide open area- much more open than it became during the imperial period, so steps on temples, porticos, roofs of buildings, balconies allowed for views. Even the rostra was set up as a viewing place.
Wiseman mentions that Clodius claimed that Cicero's return from exile caused a shortage of grain in the city. And his adherents ran first through the theater and then to the Senate house. What theater? Plays and performances of a festival were held in from of the temple of that god or goddess whom the festival honored. Thus the steps and surrounding area would be converted into a theater.. Sounds to me like modern Romans. Through one of these theaters Clodius' buds ran on their way to the Curia(Senate House). The Ludi Romani were going on at this time and that means that the temporary theater would have been set near/in front of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. This passage puts an interesting view on permanent theaters erected later.
So he establishes that there were public stages at different times throughout Rome for various festivals and reasons. One of these public stages was the Rostra, Caesar's new rostra. Caesar was on it and a Licinius offered a diadem to Caesar. The crowd encouraged Lepidus to offer it. Cicero says that the crowd was shouting to reject but Nicolaus, an historian, says the opposite. Caesar said that only Jupiter was king. Wiseman mentions that Caesar had been granted sacrosanctity by the RP- same as that of Tribunes. If this is a display of authority by the RP, why should I not long for the friction produced by aristocracy competing with plebs? Wiseman seems to favor the sovereignty which Romulus, a king, set up with everyone equal.
I would like to know if Cicero took the oath to protect Caesar. Wiseman implies but does not state explicitly.
The rich are constantly bad in Wiseman and these he seems to equate to aristocrats. This sounds familiar to my modern ears. The rich are the bad guys. Of course Caesar was filthy rich but he is excluded. Only the "other" rich are bad.
He seems to keep saying that the Roman People wanted a Republic of equals. By establishing a monarchy? Actually Wiseman has done much for me to understand Cicero's comments about dangers of democracy without restraint.
Wiseman writes that it was so impressive that the Republic so often solved problems without bloodshed. It was indeed impressive- the withdrawal of the plebs which had gained rights for the plebs through the years. But Wiseman never seems to address the possibility that the plebs of 60 BC were not the same as the plebs of 350 BC.
For 360 Years the sacrosanctity of the Tribunes was respected. The murder of Tiberius Gracchus put an end to that record. Thus Wiseman ultimately puts the blame for the Civil Wars on the senatorial class. Cicero says that the death of Tiberius split the People into two parties. Wiseman disagrees. The People when they voted and appointed were one. He points out disagreement among the aristocracy but seems to avoid the possibility of dispute among the plebs.
At that crucial moment (during the crisis of T. Gracchus) the presiding consul, Publius Mucius Scaevola refused to take action against Tiberius. Then Publius Cornelius Nasica led out a group of senators, encountered Tiberius and killed him. Wiseman interprets this to mean that the legal scholar, Scaevola, did not see where Tiberius was doing anything illegal. Yet later mentions that Scaevola declared the murder of Tiberius justified. Can't use one situation for one point and then ignore the other. He makes the first act ring in support of himself and the second questionable.
What did Tiberius do wrong?
The occupation of public land by the rich was illegal
Tiberius was legally elected
the agrarian law was legally passed
I agree with all of this but how long had the situation with illegal use of land been allowed to go on? This is never addressed.
Before Tiberius there had been three seditious people:
Spurius Cassius in 485, Marcus Manlius in 384- both were condemned in the courts
Spurius Maelius in 439 was killed by order of a Dictator.
Wiseman works like this:
The Senate claimed to set standards for what was politically acceptable.
Gaius Gracchus tried to re-establish power of the people with a law that no citizen could be put to death without the authority of the Roman People.
The Senate's answer was the senatus consultum ultimum
Wiseman's concusion- the Senate wanted executive action without regard for the laws.
I see his point but he avoids any discussion whether or not a state has the right to protect itself. It may be that Wiseman thinks not. So he calls the SCU a quasi- constitutional authority.
The case of Publius Clodius Pulcher. Titus Milo was on his way to Lanuvium. Clodius was on his way back to Rome from Aricia. The two groups meet at Bovillae. A minor fight unfolds between the slaves of each group. Milo's man, Birria hits Clodius with a javelin. Wounded Clodius is taken inside a tavern. Milo's men attack the tavern. Clodius is dragged out and killed.
Milo was defended by Cicero at the trial. Milo was condemned.
What had Clodius done to deserve this? Wiseman says that he had done nothing except pass laws legally. Clodius and his use of law to banish Cicero are not mentioned.
In defense of Caesar crossing the Rubicon, Wiseman mentions Caesar's concern for the rights of Tribunes and his desire to liberate Rome. That is indeed a concern which Caesar lists in the Bellum Civile. He ignores Caesar's statement also in the Bellum Civile that he did it (crossing the Rubicon) to protect his own dignity.
So in Wiseman's view Caesar was forced by arrogant aristocrats to "put himself in the wrong by invading Italy." Wiseman seems convinced that Caesar had no other choice. Mind you, no other choice. Fascinating.
Cicero was pleased with Caesar's clemency but Wiseman seems to ignore another aspect of what the war meant, the implications of clemency, confusion as to where Caesar fit into political legalities.
Wiseman asserts that as of June 1, 48 BC the constitutional question was settled. The People elected new consuls: Caesar and Publius Servilius Isauricus. The sovereignty of the Roman People was now on the side of Caesar.
So we have a man forced by the rich to leave illegally his province to protect the tribunes whose sacrosanctity he ultimately took for himself while being elected to multiple dictatorships and consulships simultaneously. All these are fine because the People voted them. In October 48 BC he was voted the consulship for five years in advance. His second Dictatorship was for a whole year instead of six months. He was given Tribunicia potestas. April 46 he was appointed Praefectus moribus for three years. He was then given successive Dictatorships. He was granted the right of granting magistracies and honors on behalf of the People. In April of 45 BC he was voted ten successive Consulships and granted authority over all military authority and all public funds. In 44 BC he was granted the Censorship for life with no colleague, the sacrosanctity of Tribunes and made Dictator for life. All these were voted/elected/appointed by the People. Wiseman does not question any of this in any way- the People voted etc- that is it.
After this Wiseman says that Caesar was not a despot, that the rule of law had not been abandoned. Whatever the people vote is not only fine and dandy but apparently can not be opposed by the will or thought of any other group such as aristocrats. Wiseman also mentions that these things were approved by the Senate. But also fails to mention that ,after a Senate which had contained 600 plus senators before the Civil War and had been reduced to as low as 300, Caesar had raised the number to 900.
Arguments put forth by Cicero in Pro Marcello are completely ignored.
Wiseman uses Cicero's letters to suggest that Cicero held views about Caesar which were dependent upon his whim of the moment. Without any discussion on how much if any change there had been between say 48 and 44 BC.
Cites Cicero's Pro Caelio wherein Cicero says that the aristocracy will not tolerate an affront. Thus he says that aristocratic interests do not coincide with that of the Roman People. To Wiseman friction is bad but I wonder if part of what accounts for Roman greatness is the friction produced by opposing groups which in the long run benefited both groups. Maybe the tragedy of the Principate was the elimination of friction. Perhaps this led to stagnation.
Then after the above long list of powers granted to Caesar in assemblies whose legitimacy some may have doubted says:
"It may seem frivolous to suggest that Caesar was killed because the optimates liked things to be at their own convenience, but something like that must be near the truth." I am so puzzled. Maybe that is what Wiseman wants.
Wiseman does not distinguish between Cicero's various references to the Roman People. Wiseman lumps Cicero's use of multitudo, populus romanus and other references to people together. Doing so allows Wiseman to expose Cicero as a fraud because of apparent inconsistency. In Philippic III Cicero mentions that Caesar softened the multitudo with gifts, monuments, etc. BUT in De Officiis Cicero says that Caesar oppressed the Roman People with an army.
Wiseman sweeps away Cicero's De Officiis because it was written in haste in a time of crisis. E.g. Caesar's victory was more foul than Sulla's. Wiseman gives these reasons to support his arguments: Caesar pardoned captured soldiers, he settled veterans without the disruption caused by Sulla. That Cicero despised Sulla is readily evident in Cicero's speeches but there was one major difference between the Caesar and Sulla which Wiseman does not bring up or ignores: Sulla restored the Republic and retired.
Later Wiseman uses vulgi as equivalent to Populus Romanus. This is free and loose with vocabulary. Wiseman has an agenda here- it is more than simply to spur discussion and debate.
In a discussion of the aftermath of Caesar's murder, Wiseman says that Caesar was not a tyrant. This is his proof- March 17, 44 BC the Senate voted to confirm his acts. He treats this at simple face value without any discussion of the potential that other issues were at stake.
Wiseman remarks that Cicero's standards "did not coincide with those of the Roman People for whom the rule of law was the guarantee of their freedom against exploitation and oppression. At face value I completely agree but would add- sometimes. A leader, a great leader must sometimes stand up to the People.
Wiseman offers fascinating discussion on the murder of Caesar. Nicholaus of Damascus insists that Caesar fought very hard when the assassination attempt began.
Several thousand people were watching gladiatorial games in Pompey's theater while the Senate was meeting in a chamber nearby on that fateful day.
I thought that it was interesting that after the assassination when the crowd at the theater learned of it, they did not riot. Soon afterward Brutus addressed the People in the Forum. They came and listened. There were no riots. The March 17 the Senate met on the Liberalia.
It never occurs to Wiseman that the Roman People at times were usurped by a mob put together by a politician to get what they wanted. The possibility of this is never mentioned. If he did not think that this was the case he should have brought it up and dismissed it with his own argument.
Cicero disagrees with Nicholaus. He says that the people at the contio received Brutus and Cassius favorably and that they were overjoyed when the decision of the Senate was announced:
Caesar's acts were confirmed
no public praise of assassins because it was in the public interest
public reading of the will
Again Cicero's eyewitness account is swept aside because Wiseman says that not everyone would have cheered Brutus and Cassius. Clever and persuasive on his part but silly too. Who has ever been approved by all?
March 18 the will was read:
each citizen was to receive 300 sesterci
Caesar's gardens were now the property of the Roman People
Decimus Brutus was declared heir to Caesar if Octavian declined.
March 19 was the funeral. The bier was lavishly decorated. Musicians and actors were arranged. The rostra was set up as a stage. There was a crane to allow actors to fly about. There was a gilded replica of temple of Venus Genetrix on the platform. The body was placed on an ivory couch covered with purple and gold. There was a trophy of arms at the head of the couch. And Caesar's bloody robe hung on a spear.
Antonius mounts the rostra. (This was indeed a very elaborate play.) A crane lifts the wax image of Caesar showing all of his wounds. The Roman People wanted to burn the body in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus because that is where the assassins had taken refuge. Or at Pompey's Senate house. They remember says Wiseman what they had done for Clodius.
A pyre was made and set on fire with Caesar's body on it. Actors and musicians put their robes on the fire- very dramatic indeed- but there is a problem here- wool smoothers flame and does not burn- oh well why ruin Wiseman's day?
Cicero the eyewitness is swept aside although or because Cicero says that the Roman People were happy with the assassination. Cicero was an optimate. Enough said. Eyewitness out. Wiseman decides that the other view is from Pollio who was a lover of peace and liberty. Which of course explains why Pollio fought for the man who ended elections.
With the defeat of Brutus and Cassius at Philippi, the deification of Caesar and the establishment of a successor regime based on the tribunicia potestas, the People's cause triumphed over that of aristocracy. And soon the People's cause faded. This time I am not so sure what Wiseman's point is.
Interesting book, glad that I read it. I hope it spurs debate and lots of it.
Wiseman's contention is that the Roman People had an ideology- that is they had a set of beliefs. What, he says, proves this is the tension which existed between the People and the aristocracy. Makes sense to me but he seems consistently to put a negative twist to tension. Perhaps tension is good- at least up to a point. He seems to talk as though the history of the Republic was a struggle for the Roman People to attain victory, to impose their sovereignty. But this really puzzles me when much later, p. 132, he mentions that finally in 27 BC the authority of the RP was restored. Such statements lose me- ending the Republic which allowed the plebs liberty of expression of ideas was achieved by domination of a monarchy which limited expression?
He identifies early on champions of the People: Gracchi, Saturninus, Clodius and Caesar.
The first challenge to the arrogance of the aristocracy was that of Gaius Geta. He was consul in 116 BC. Soon removed from Senate by Censors. This must have been done in eyes of Wiseman as a means of revenge by the aristocracy. Another example of source of tension between aristocracy and People.
The Tablinum in the Forum built by Quintus Catullus represents the triumph of the aristocracy since the temple of Moneta was placed on top. Wiseman suggests and I find this very fascinating- the tabularium was meant as a records area but was also a huge and I mean huge platform for a temple which was meant to make a statement to the RP that the aristocracy was in charge. That temple, the temple of Juno Moneta stood on top. This temple, that of Juno Moneta was vowed by Fabius Dorsuo who was one of those patrician heroes who stood up to the invading Gauls in 390 BC. Thus Juno Moneta was a symbol of patricians.
This huge back drop to the Forum (the Tabularium) was meant, says Wiseman, to be a statement that the forum was dominated by the aristocracy.
Romulus had meant that all land was to be equally distributed. This principle the aristocracy set out to ignore or destroy.
Wiseman interestingly uses the comments and observations of Thomas Macaulay, a British politician, to put Cicero in a different light. Macaulay as a young man admired Cicero but also saw that in his view he had sold himself out to the aristocracy. This was an interesting chapter and forces a new perspective on Cicero. It is interesting too that Macaulay's views are considered worthwhile because he was a well read Brit who also had mounds of political experience- thus his views on Cicero from someone with practical experience were/are useful.
Wiseman has a chapter on Cicero and Varro- the famous Varro- Marcus Terentius Varro who was considered by many the most scholarly of all Romans. Wiseman makes a strong case that the men did not see eye to eye on political issues. I am not sure but it seems that Wiseman's main point is that contrary to view expressed by Cicero there were other views. I agree and makes much sense but it was to this Varro that Cicero wrote that he was looking forward to studying in Varro's library with garden attached. Apparently they were going to discuss political issues of importance to both of them. This was in 46 BC. Just another example that Wiseman seems to bend over backwards to show differences. They may have disagreed- no surprise there but also seemed to get along.
Then Wiseman makes one of those statements which puzzles me: Varro lived to see the restoration of the authority of the Roman People. And then remarks that he died in 27 BC. He seems to connect restoration of authority of the RP with the Principate. If this is true then Cicero may be right- power invested primarily in the people without balance of authority leads to monarchy and the suppression of thought and political activity.
In his discussion on satire which he connects directly with the Roman People he makes some fascinating observations. He analyzes a poem by Horace. The poem implies that public recitals of literary works were common and that leading figures were present in the audience. (Satire 2.1 lines 68-74). So Wiseman thinks that poems by Ennius, Naevius (Bellum Punicum) Varro (Menippean Satires) were read out loud before large audiences. My interest in this is that the RP were sophisticated and eager for the beauty of prose and poetry. Evidently audiences filled large theaters to hear these. Something I always suspected but never had information to back it up.
Wiseman uses Cicero's return from exile in an interesting way. He was met by huge crowds starting at the Porta Capena. These were large crowds of plebs- Roman People. These large crowds came to see the man whom Wiseman claims hated them. But it is here that Wiseman seems weak- without regard to any differentiation Wisemen lumps any word or phrase which Cicero uses in regards to the plebs as one an the same- he never seems to allow that Cicero may have viewed people in various aspects- Cicero despised mob rule which may be attributed to thugs, slaves and leaches assembled by a politician for personal purposes. Does not mean that this is the same as the Roman People, per se. Wiseman is slippery here in my opinion. To use the term Roman People the way Wiseman uses it gives no room for differentiation. He then points out that the man (Cicero) who hated the People was pleased with their approval. Part of the evidence that Cicero did not like the plebs is supported by the fact that Cicero did not make a public speech to the people until he was 39. Yet, criers went dashing throughout Rome to let people know that Cicero was about to speak. I found this chapter very informative and interesting and valuable- I just am puzzled what and how he makes his point.
Then another fascinating discussion by Wiseman- it is known that gladiatorial contests took place in the forum. To do so required some conversion and planning. The forum area with its wide open area- much more open than it became during the imperial period, so steps on temples, porticos, roofs of buildings, balconies allowed for views. Even the rostra was set up as a viewing place.
Wiseman mentions that Clodius claimed that Cicero's return from exile caused a shortage of grain in the city. And his adherents ran first through the theater and then to the Senate house. What theater? Plays and performances of a festival were held in from of the temple of that god or goddess whom the festival honored. Thus the steps and surrounding area would be converted into a theater.. Sounds to me like modern Romans. Through one of these theaters Clodius' buds ran on their way to the Curia(Senate House). The Ludi Romani were going on at this time and that means that the temporary theater would have been set near/in front of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. This passage puts an interesting view on permanent theaters erected later.
So he establishes that there were public stages at different times throughout Rome for various festivals and reasons. One of these public stages was the Rostra, Caesar's new rostra. Caesar was on it and a Licinius offered a diadem to Caesar. The crowd encouraged Lepidus to offer it. Cicero says that the crowd was shouting to reject but Nicolaus, an historian, says the opposite. Caesar said that only Jupiter was king. Wiseman mentions that Caesar had been granted sacrosanctity by the RP- same as that of Tribunes. If this is a display of authority by the RP, why should I not long for the friction produced by aristocracy competing with plebs? Wiseman seems to favor the sovereignty which Romulus, a king, set up with everyone equal.
I would like to know if Cicero took the oath to protect Caesar. Wiseman implies but does not state explicitly.
The rich are constantly bad in Wiseman and these he seems to equate to aristocrats. This sounds familiar to my modern ears. The rich are the bad guys. Of course Caesar was filthy rich but he is excluded. Only the "other" rich are bad.
He seems to keep saying that the Roman People wanted a Republic of equals. By establishing a monarchy? Actually Wiseman has done much for me to understand Cicero's comments about dangers of democracy without restraint.
Wiseman writes that it was so impressive that the Republic so often solved problems without bloodshed. It was indeed impressive- the withdrawal of the plebs which had gained rights for the plebs through the years. But Wiseman never seems to address the possibility that the plebs of 60 BC were not the same as the plebs of 350 BC.
For 360 Years the sacrosanctity of the Tribunes was respected. The murder of Tiberius Gracchus put an end to that record. Thus Wiseman ultimately puts the blame for the Civil Wars on the senatorial class. Cicero says that the death of Tiberius split the People into two parties. Wiseman disagrees. The People when they voted and appointed were one. He points out disagreement among the aristocracy but seems to avoid the possibility of dispute among the plebs.
At that crucial moment (during the crisis of T. Gracchus) the presiding consul, Publius Mucius Scaevola refused to take action against Tiberius. Then Publius Cornelius Nasica led out a group of senators, encountered Tiberius and killed him. Wiseman interprets this to mean that the legal scholar, Scaevola, did not see where Tiberius was doing anything illegal. Yet later mentions that Scaevola declared the murder of Tiberius justified. Can't use one situation for one point and then ignore the other. He makes the first act ring in support of himself and the second questionable.
What did Tiberius do wrong?
The occupation of public land by the rich was illegal
Tiberius was legally elected
the agrarian law was legally passed
I agree with all of this but how long had the situation with illegal use of land been allowed to go on? This is never addressed.
Before Tiberius there had been three seditious people:
Spurius Cassius in 485, Marcus Manlius in 384- both were condemned in the courts
Spurius Maelius in 439 was killed by order of a Dictator.
Wiseman works like this:
The Senate claimed to set standards for what was politically acceptable.
Gaius Gracchus tried to re-establish power of the people with a law that no citizen could be put to death without the authority of the Roman People.
The Senate's answer was the senatus consultum ultimum
Wiseman's concusion- the Senate wanted executive action without regard for the laws.
I see his point but he avoids any discussion whether or not a state has the right to protect itself. It may be that Wiseman thinks not. So he calls the SCU a quasi- constitutional authority.
The case of Publius Clodius Pulcher. Titus Milo was on his way to Lanuvium. Clodius was on his way back to Rome from Aricia. The two groups meet at Bovillae. A minor fight unfolds between the slaves of each group. Milo's man, Birria hits Clodius with a javelin. Wounded Clodius is taken inside a tavern. Milo's men attack the tavern. Clodius is dragged out and killed.
Milo was defended by Cicero at the trial. Milo was condemned.
What had Clodius done to deserve this? Wiseman says that he had done nothing except pass laws legally. Clodius and his use of law to banish Cicero are not mentioned.
In defense of Caesar crossing the Rubicon, Wiseman mentions Caesar's concern for the rights of Tribunes and his desire to liberate Rome. That is indeed a concern which Caesar lists in the Bellum Civile. He ignores Caesar's statement also in the Bellum Civile that he did it (crossing the Rubicon) to protect his own dignity.
So in Wiseman's view Caesar was forced by arrogant aristocrats to "put himself in the wrong by invading Italy." Wiseman seems convinced that Caesar had no other choice. Mind you, no other choice. Fascinating.
Cicero was pleased with Caesar's clemency but Wiseman seems to ignore another aspect of what the war meant, the implications of clemency, confusion as to where Caesar fit into political legalities.
Wiseman asserts that as of June 1, 48 BC the constitutional question was settled. The People elected new consuls: Caesar and Publius Servilius Isauricus. The sovereignty of the Roman People was now on the side of Caesar.
So we have a man forced by the rich to leave illegally his province to protect the tribunes whose sacrosanctity he ultimately took for himself while being elected to multiple dictatorships and consulships simultaneously. All these are fine because the People voted them. In October 48 BC he was voted the consulship for five years in advance. His second Dictatorship was for a whole year instead of six months. He was given Tribunicia potestas. April 46 he was appointed Praefectus moribus for three years. He was then given successive Dictatorships. He was granted the right of granting magistracies and honors on behalf of the People. In April of 45 BC he was voted ten successive Consulships and granted authority over all military authority and all public funds. In 44 BC he was granted the Censorship for life with no colleague, the sacrosanctity of Tribunes and made Dictator for life. All these were voted/elected/appointed by the People. Wiseman does not question any of this in any way- the People voted etc- that is it.
After this Wiseman says that Caesar was not a despot, that the rule of law had not been abandoned. Whatever the people vote is not only fine and dandy but apparently can not be opposed by the will or thought of any other group such as aristocrats. Wiseman also mentions that these things were approved by the Senate. But also fails to mention that ,after a Senate which had contained 600 plus senators before the Civil War and had been reduced to as low as 300, Caesar had raised the number to 900.
Arguments put forth by Cicero in Pro Marcello are completely ignored.
Wiseman uses Cicero's letters to suggest that Cicero held views about Caesar which were dependent upon his whim of the moment. Without any discussion on how much if any change there had been between say 48 and 44 BC.
Cites Cicero's Pro Caelio wherein Cicero says that the aristocracy will not tolerate an affront. Thus he says that aristocratic interests do not coincide with that of the Roman People. To Wiseman friction is bad but I wonder if part of what accounts for Roman greatness is the friction produced by opposing groups which in the long run benefited both groups. Maybe the tragedy of the Principate was the elimination of friction. Perhaps this led to stagnation.
Then after the above long list of powers granted to Caesar in assemblies whose legitimacy some may have doubted says:
"It may seem frivolous to suggest that Caesar was killed because the optimates liked things to be at their own convenience, but something like that must be near the truth." I am so puzzled. Maybe that is what Wiseman wants.
Wiseman does not distinguish between Cicero's various references to the Roman People. Wiseman lumps Cicero's use of multitudo, populus romanus and other references to people together. Doing so allows Wiseman to expose Cicero as a fraud because of apparent inconsistency. In Philippic III Cicero mentions that Caesar softened the multitudo with gifts, monuments, etc. BUT in De Officiis Cicero says that Caesar oppressed the Roman People with an army.
Wiseman sweeps away Cicero's De Officiis because it was written in haste in a time of crisis. E.g. Caesar's victory was more foul than Sulla's. Wiseman gives these reasons to support his arguments: Caesar pardoned captured soldiers, he settled veterans without the disruption caused by Sulla. That Cicero despised Sulla is readily evident in Cicero's speeches but there was one major difference between the Caesar and Sulla which Wiseman does not bring up or ignores: Sulla restored the Republic and retired.
Later Wiseman uses vulgi as equivalent to Populus Romanus. This is free and loose with vocabulary. Wiseman has an agenda here- it is more than simply to spur discussion and debate.
In a discussion of the aftermath of Caesar's murder, Wiseman says that Caesar was not a tyrant. This is his proof- March 17, 44 BC the Senate voted to confirm his acts. He treats this at simple face value without any discussion of the potential that other issues were at stake.
Wiseman remarks that Cicero's standards "did not coincide with those of the Roman People for whom the rule of law was the guarantee of their freedom against exploitation and oppression. At face value I completely agree but would add- sometimes. A leader, a great leader must sometimes stand up to the People.
Wiseman offers fascinating discussion on the murder of Caesar. Nicholaus of Damascus insists that Caesar fought very hard when the assassination attempt began.
Several thousand people were watching gladiatorial games in Pompey's theater while the Senate was meeting in a chamber nearby on that fateful day.
I thought that it was interesting that after the assassination when the crowd at the theater learned of it, they did not riot. Soon afterward Brutus addressed the People in the Forum. They came and listened. There were no riots. The March 17 the Senate met on the Liberalia.
It never occurs to Wiseman that the Roman People at times were usurped by a mob put together by a politician to get what they wanted. The possibility of this is never mentioned. If he did not think that this was the case he should have brought it up and dismissed it with his own argument.
Cicero disagrees with Nicholaus. He says that the people at the contio received Brutus and Cassius favorably and that they were overjoyed when the decision of the Senate was announced:
Caesar's acts were confirmed
no public praise of assassins because it was in the public interest
public reading of the will
Again Cicero's eyewitness account is swept aside because Wiseman says that not everyone would have cheered Brutus and Cassius. Clever and persuasive on his part but silly too. Who has ever been approved by all?
March 18 the will was read:
each citizen was to receive 300 sesterci
Caesar's gardens were now the property of the Roman People
Decimus Brutus was declared heir to Caesar if Octavian declined.
March 19 was the funeral. The bier was lavishly decorated. Musicians and actors were arranged. The rostra was set up as a stage. There was a crane to allow actors to fly about. There was a gilded replica of temple of Venus Genetrix on the platform. The body was placed on an ivory couch covered with purple and gold. There was a trophy of arms at the head of the couch. And Caesar's bloody robe hung on a spear.
Antonius mounts the rostra. (This was indeed a very elaborate play.) A crane lifts the wax image of Caesar showing all of his wounds. The Roman People wanted to burn the body in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus because that is where the assassins had taken refuge. Or at Pompey's Senate house. They remember says Wiseman what they had done for Clodius.
A pyre was made and set on fire with Caesar's body on it. Actors and musicians put their robes on the fire- very dramatic indeed- but there is a problem here- wool smoothers flame and does not burn- oh well why ruin Wiseman's day?
Cicero the eyewitness is swept aside although or because Cicero says that the Roman People were happy with the assassination. Cicero was an optimate. Enough said. Eyewitness out. Wiseman decides that the other view is from Pollio who was a lover of peace and liberty. Which of course explains why Pollio fought for the man who ended elections.
With the defeat of Brutus and Cassius at Philippi, the deification of Caesar and the establishment of a successor regime based on the tribunicia potestas, the People's cause triumphed over that of aristocracy. And soon the People's cause faded. This time I am not so sure what Wiseman's point is.
Interesting book, glad that I read it. I hope it spurs debate and lots of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)