Daily life in Ancient Rome

The Roman day was a daylight day, divided into twelve equal portions, so that an hour at midsummer, in Rome, would have been about thirty minutes longer than at midwinter. This time difference would have been even more exaggerated in the northern extremities of the Empire. The common way of measuring time was by water clocks, according to which the slow flow of water out of a container would be checked against a marked stick; this measure would therefore have had to be readjusted throughout the year, although mechanical water clocks existed that took account of this difficulty.

Midday was therefore at the end of the sixth hour, after which little or no work was done. Six hours’ solid work was regarded as something to aim for.

Breakfast was not a large meal for most, and the same was true for lunch, so these did not occupy much time.

The first two hours of the day were the time of the “salutatio”, when middle-class Romans would beg favours from upper-class Romans. This practice was originally of real benefit, for example to give people direct access to legal advice, but under the Empire it became a ritual of little purpose other than to cause annoyance and embarrassment all round, and providing encouragement to sycophants and hangers-on.  

In rural areas, most work was on the land. In the cities, it was trade and politics. We think of Romans as living in the big towns and cities, mainly because of the ruins that have survived, but far more people made their living from the land than in the cities. There was, indeed, little manual work for the freeborn city dweller to do, because there was an army of slaves to do it. Our knowledge of the daily routine of Roman citizens is therefore that of the upper strata of society, from whose ranks came the writers and poets whose documents have survived to inform us about their lives.

Roman children were educated at home by slaves when very young, and the routine of going to school would not affect children younger than nine or ten, and would not have involved girls at all. There were no schools in the modern sense, teaching a multitude of subjects according to a timetable, but many different masters teaching small groups in a single subject.

A boy of twelve might therefore spend an hour with a master of Latin or Greek grammar, before going on to a master of geometry, or of music. When older, at around fifteen years of age, he would probably go to a school of rhetoric, to learn public speaking. This was particularly important for sons of politicians who hoped to be senators themselves one day.

The time immediately after noon was given over to a siesta, except in winter, and then the average Roman would exercise. The Greek influence after the 2^nd century BC led to an interest in such pursuits as running, wrestling, discus and javelin throwing, boxing, gladiatorial-type contests and strenuous ball games for the young, gentler ones for older people. Emperor Augustus instituted the “Iuventus”, an early version of the Hitler Youth, in which the exercise was very strenuous indeed.

The public baths featured largely in the daily routine, and visits to the baths were family affairs, although the facilities for men and women were usually in separate chambers within the same building. The exercise spaces (“palaestrae”), where the young people tended to congregate, were often next to the baths, and use of the cold outdoor plunge pool (“piscina”) followed the athletic exertions. A large city would have many different bath complexes, reflecting the different social strata within a city. Rome itself had more than 900 baths during the late Empire.

The family, accompanied by its slaves if reasonably well-to-do, would therefore head for the baths after the siesta, and then each family member would go his or her own way, although mixed bathing was known to take place at the baths for the lower classes. The cleansing routine involved the use of pools at every temperature from hot (“caldarium”) to cold (“frigidarium”) and there were also sweating rooms (“laconia”) resembling modern saunas. Instead of soap, Romans used aromatic oils that were scraped from the skin, along with the dirt, by the use of strigils, which were blunt blades.

The baths, especially those for the higher orders, were also places of culture and social congress, and had the functions of modern art galleries, concert halls, libraries and meeting rooms. They also played the role of the modern golf course, in that a lot of business was conducted during the hours spent soaking, relaxing and socialising.

  

So that bathers could keep track of the time, a slave would shout out the hours as they passed, and by the ninth hour most people would have left to go home for dinner (“cena”), which was the only substantial meal of the day.

These were family occasions, with maybe a few guests, and the orgies of popular imagination were very rare occasions indulged in only by the ultra-rich. Three-course meals were typical, with an educated slave reading aloud when conversation flagged. After dinner, entertainment might be provided at a neighbour’s house by professional dancers or acrobats.

Lighting a house at night was inconvenient and expensive, so nightfall was soon followed by bedtime.

© John Welford

Rome's Colosseum: history and architecture

This article provides a concise account of the history, architecture and features of one of the most iconic buildings in the world, namely the Colosseum, which was the largest amphitheatre in Rome.

The Colosseum

The Colosseum is one of the best-preserved buildings in Rome that dates from Classical times. The construction was started during the reign of Emperor Vespasian and completed during that of his son Titus, being dedicated in 80 AD. However, severe damage caused by a lightning strike in 217 was not repaired until 240, and other restorations were made in later centuries following earthquakes.

The site

The site of the Colosseum (the original name of which was the Flavian Amphitheatre), is in a valley between three of the Roman “hills”, the area having previously been a small lake that formed part of the grounds of Nero’s vast palace (which was destroyed after his death). The planners of the building therefore needed to take account of the marshy nature of the terrain, so the streams flowing through the valley were diverted and foundations dug to a depth of 42 feet in places. These precautions were clearly justified by the fact that the massive structure has never suffered damage due to subsidence in the intervening 1900 years.

Architecture

The plan of the Colosseum is quite unlike anything else seen up to that date in Greek or Roman architecture. The architect is unknown, but he was clearly a man of exceptional vision to have designed something so original but at the same time sound enough to stand the test of time.

The Colosseum is not circular but elliptical, the axes being approximately 610 feet and 515 feet. The building had to meet the prevailing standards for symmetry, based on the proportion of 5:3, and the size of the building was determined by the requirement for 80 entrance arches, each of which measured the standard Roman size of 20 feet in width with 3-foot columns between them.

The height of the Colosseum is 165 feet, which also accords with the rules of proportion. Above the ground-floor arches are two further storeys of arches surmounted by a fourth storey that is of solid stone. At least, that was the original design, but the full height has only survived around slightly less than half of what can be seen today. Only two of the storeys can now be seen around the whole perimeter.

The three-quarter columns separating the arches represent the Classical orders of architecture, such that those of the ground floor are quasi-Doric (sometimes referred to as “Tuscan”), those of the first floor are Ionic and the second-floor columns are Corinthian, as are the pilasters on the top storey. The arches above the ground floor were originally adorned by statues of emperors, gods and heroes, but these have long since disappeared.

The rim at the top of the structure was designed so that a vast awning, called a Velarium, could be pulled across to provide shade for the spectators from the hot Mediterranean sun.

The basement area

Visitors who go inside the Colosseum today will be struck by the fact that the arena has no floor. This would have been wooden, and therefore subject to constant repair and replacement. To this day, a partial floor is used for events and displays within the arena.

Of great interest are the walls (built using large flat bricks) that formed the basement area and supported the floor. It is known that during the early years of the Colosseum the arena could be flooded and mock sea-battles fought. However, Emperor Domitian (reigned 81-96 AD) was more interested in staging fights of a different kind and he had the area excavated so that a complex network of passages, tunnels and chambers could be built, although they would have had no natural light.

It is possible to make out the places where hoists operated to lift wild animals from their cages to trapdoors in the arena floor. The shafts are visible, as are the bronze fittings to which the capstans would have been fitted. Fights between gladiators would have had added excitement for the crowd when a trapdoor flipped open and a lion emerged to attack an unsuspecting fighter. At various times public executions of prisoners (including captive Christians) are known to have taken place in the form of wild animals being released to tear the victims to pieces.

The seating area

The Colosseum was designed to allow the maximum number of spectators to see the maximum amount of action. In all, some 50,000 people could have been accommodated on the five tiers of seating that rose above the arena, although they would have been packed together very tightly and those people on the topmost tier would have been a long way from the floor of the arena. Doubtless most spectators would have found standing to be more comfortable than sitting.

The Emperor, of course, could watch in perfect comfort from his private box, reached via his own entrance and passageway.

Because much of the stone that formed the seating/standing areas has disappeared over the centuries, the secrets of how they were constructed have become more apparent. The whole building comprised a series of arched barrel vaults running from the external arches inwards towards the arena, each series standing on top of the one below and ending at the appropriate point for building the spectator terraces on top. This provided an extremely strong construction, similar to that of the spokes of a bicycle wheel, and it allowed for the thrusting forces of the walls to compensate each other. Only in relatively recent years has it been necessary to provide any external buttressing for the outer walls, despite the looting of stone and supporting ironwork down the centuries.

Preservation

The preservation of the Colosseum has been due to a number of factors, one of them being its recognition by the Vatican, in the 18^th century, as a place of Christian martyrdom, and thus a sacred site. There may well be some truth to this, although the numbers of Christians who died there has probably been greatly exaggerated, and there were other places in Rome where such executions took place.

However, for such a large building to have survived from ancient times to the present day, even in its current condition, it must have been well built in the first place. That is definitely the case, and the architectural features that can now be seen, particularly the barrel vaulting and ribbed construction, point to why this is so.

That being said, it has still been necessary for the city authorities in Rome to do a lot of work in recent years to preserve the structure. The ravages of time have been nothing in comparison to the damage done by the fumes and vibrations of the traffic of a modern city.

© John Welford

Trajan, Emperor of Rome

Marcus Ulpius Trajanus, who is usually known as Trajan, was born near Seville, Spain, on 18^th September 53AD (although some sources say 52AD). He was a soldier from an early age, serving for ten years as a military tribune before becoming a praetor in 85AD. He served with distinction in the Eastern Empire and in Germany. He became a consul in 91AD and was adopted by the emperor Nerva in 97AD.

Nerva died in January 98AD, so Trajan became emperor, the first to have been born outside Italy. He was widely acclaimed and there was no opposition to his succession.

At the time of his accession he was fighting to establish Roman dominance on the Rhine and Danube frontiers, and he continued to do so during the first few months of his reign, including the building of fortifications and roads in the area. When he eventually returned to Rome, in 99AD, he and his wife entered the city on foot.

However, in March 101 Trajan resumed his campaign on the Danube, where he was determined to make war on the Dacians, led by Decebalus, in what is now Romania and Hungary. Decebalus had compelled Domitian (emperor 81-96) to make peace on humiliating terms, and Trajan wanted to set this right.

The war was in two parts, the first lasting until 103, when Decebalus was defeated and sued for peace. However, this was merely to buy time until he had rebuilt his defences and forces and felt strong enough to resume the fight. The second Dacian War, from 104 to 106, resulted in the complete defeat of Decebalus, after which he took his own life.

Dacia now became a province of the Empire, with a permanent bridge built across the Danube, new forts established, and colonies of people from other parts of the Empire encouraged to settle there.

When Trajan returned to Rome, bearing the head of Decebalus, he was received with great jubilation. The monument known as Trajan’s Column, which still survives, was erected in celebration of his triumph. This remarkable edifice, completed in 113, is 98 feet high and 11 feet in diameter. The story of the Dacian Wars is told in relief carvings that spiral their way up the column in a continuous frieze, the upper parts of which would clearly have been invisible to anyone at ground level. However, it is from this column that much of our knowledge of Roman military tactics and equipment derives.

More immediately, Trajan’s triumph was celebrated with games that lasted for 123 days, involving 10,000 gladiators and the slaughter of 11,000 animals.

After a period of relative peace, Trajan left Rome in 114 to make war on the Armenians and Parthians (who inhabited modern day Iran and Iraq). During 115 and 116 Trajan was able to subdue the Parthians, reaching as far as the Persian Gulf. However, in 117 Trajan fell ill and decided to return to Rome, leaving the campaign in the hands of his nominated successor, Hadrian.

Trajan died in August 117 at Selinus in Cilicia (Asia Minor), aged 63, and his ashes, in a golden urn, were taken to Rome where they were buried with great ceremony under his column.

Apart from his military exploits, Trajan was also an excellent administrator and financier, aided in great measure by the gold mined in the new province of Dacia. He added to the network of Rome’s great roads, building important bridges and aqueducts, plus the forum in which his column stands today.

He was not well educated, or a man of learning, but he had sound common sense and believed in fairness and justice. He was strong and good looking, was prepared to live as frugally as his soldiers, and was generally well liked, which is not something that could be said for many Roman emperors.

© John Welford

Nerva, Emperor of Rome

Nerva was the first of the “five good emperors” of Rome, according to Edward Gibbon. However, he was probably the least influential of that group.

Nerva – his background and rise to power

Marcus Cocceius Nerva was born in 32AD at Narnia, a town not far from Rome. He came from a rich and privileged background, his father being a wealthy lawyer and his grandfather and great-grandfather both having served as consul. He was twice consul in his own right, in 71AD under Vespasian and in 90AD under Domitian, whom he was to succeed as emperor.

It would appear that Nerva knew Domitian, who was 19 year his junior, from the latter’s childhood. It is quite possible that he served as Domitian’s guardian for at least some of the time during which Domitian’s father, Vespasian, and elder brother Titus were away on campaign (his mother had died some time before). There is a story that Nerva abused Domitian sexually, but the source of this is doubtful, and it certainly appears that the two remained on good terms for many years.

It was almost certainly the case that Nerva knew about the plot to assassinate Domitian in 96AD, although it is unlikely that he was himself one of the plotters. The conspirators clearly did not believe that Nerva was so friendly with Domitian that he would betray them to the emperor, but Nerva also knew that not only was he in the frame as Domitian’s successor but that opposition to the conspirators would almost certainly lead to his own death.

Nerva as emperor

The proclamation of Nerva as emperor followed immediately on Domitian’s death, this being a highly welcome event, at least among the senatorial class of which Nerva was a prominent member. An orgy of denigration of Domitian followed, with the late emperor being declared “damnatio memoriae” by the Senate. All images of Domitian were destroyed, included the coinage, as the Senate tried to erase his memory from the public consciousness.

This reaction could have placed Nerva in an extremely difficult position, as it would have been very clear to him that any behaviour on his part that resembled that of his predecessor would have put him in grave danger of suffering the same fate. The Senate had made it blindingly obvious that the real power lay with them, leaving Nerva, potentially, as little more than a puppet in their hands.

However, Nerva proved to be a man with a measure of tact and good sense. His first act as emperor was to declare that no senator would be put to death during his reign, and he kept to his word even when a conspiracy led by one of the senators was uncovered.

He found it more difficult to keep firm control of the Army, particularly the Praetorian Guard. He was forced to give way to their demand that the assassins of Domitian be punished, but he made up for this by declaring as his successor the well-liked and respected general Marcus Ulpius Trajanus (Trajan). The Army now knew that their interests would be upheld, and so were able to give their firm support to Nerva throughout the rest of his reign, which did not turn out to be all that long.

Nerva had been 64 at the time of his accession (which was an advanced age in the first century AD) and he did not enjoy good health. He died suddenly (possibly from a stroke) on 27^th January 98AD, having reigned for little more than a year.

His reputation

Nerva is credited (by Edward Gibbon in particular) as being the first of the “five good emperors” between Domitian and Commodus. Whether this accolade would have been deserved had Nerva had a longer reign is open to doubt. Nerva certainly showed signs of weakness, and he did nothing to solve some of the outstanding problems that he inherited from his predecessor, particularly the embarrassment of having to pay tribute to Decebalus of Dacia, who could not be defeated.

He prided himself on being one of the few emperors with a clear conscience, who could step back from office any time he wanted to, but it has to be wondered how long the Army would have waited for strong leadership, knowing that a very strong leader was waiting in the wings.

© John Welford

Domitian, Emperor of Rome

Domitian was a Roman emperor who succeeded his brother Titus in 81AD. There is some debate over what sort of emperor he was – good or bad.

For much of the time since his death in 96AD, the Roman emperor Domitian has had a very bad press. His name is on many lists of “bad emperors” who behaved with cruelty and tyranny, and under whose rule everyone went in fear of their lives. However, his reputation has had something of an upwards revision in recent years, and it may well be that he deserves to move across the line that divides bad emperors from good ones.

His early life

His full name was Titus Flavius Domitianus and he was born at Rome in 51AD, the younger son of Vespasian, who was a successful Roman general destined to become one of the Empire’s better emperors. His elder brother was Titus, who also became emperor.

The year 69AD was the “year of the four emperors”, during which Rome went through a period of chaos following the overthrow of Nero the previous year. Vespasian was declared emperor by the eastern legions on 1^st July, while he was on campaign in Palestine accompanied by Titus. Domitian, as the son of a rival claimant, was therefore in grave danger from the incumbent, Vitellius, and he only narrowly escaped with his life by staying in hiding until Vitellius was overthrown and murdered in December. Domitian, aged only 18, then emerged from hiding and took control of the city until his father arrived to accede to the imperial throne.

Under Vespasian, Domitian took very little part in government, not having been entrusted with any official role by his father, and he spent most of his time living on a country estate and devoting himself to artistic pursuits such as poetry. There does seem to be some evidence that Domitian gave way to temptation in some respects, which is hardly surprising seeing that he was a young man with plenty of money and time on his hands and with nothing to do but enjoy himself. The fact that he had no official role would have led to behaviour that would ensure that no such role would ever come his way. History is full of “playboy princes” of whom the same story could be told.

When Vespasian died in 79AD the imperial power passed effortlessly to his elder son, Titus, who also had no role to offer Domitian. One thing to remember is that the brothers were hardly close. Titus was eleven years older than Domitian, and had been fighting alongside his father for much of Domitian’s childhood. They therefore hardly knew each other.

However, it seems highly unlikely that Domitian had anything to do with Titus’s early death in 81AD at the age of 40. This was almost certainly due to natural causes, and not poison as alleged by some historians based on comments by contemporaries. It is apparently true that Domitian did not show a lot of grief at his brother’s death but instead made every effort to secure the imperial crown for himself, but he would have remembered the chaos caused by the uncertainty that preceded his father’s accession and would therefore have been keen to ensure that no rival claimants could gather support in opposition to him.

Domitian as emperor

It is worthy of note that one of Domitian’s first acts as emperor was to commission a magnificent triumphal arch in Rome to honour his late brother. The Arch of Titus survives (somewhat restored) to this day, and has been the model for many later monuments, such as the Arc de Triomphe in Paris and Marble Arch in London.

Domitian also continued the work begun by Titus to rebuild much of the city that had been destroyed by the fire of 80AD. However, large parts of the city had been neglected for a number of years, right through the reigns of his father and brother. Domitian was therefore making good the oversights of his predecessors as well as constructing many new public buildings. This largesse made him very popular with the common people of Rome, especially as he was able to introduce economic reforms that meant that all this work did not bankrupt the city or the empire.

However, in order to do all this, Domitian worked largely without consulting the Senate, which was therefore sidelined. Vespasian and Titus had favoured a system that was almost republican, with the institutions of government being given proper roles to play. Domitian brought all those institutions into his own hands, making the important decisions himself. He therefore ruled as a despot, doubtless seeing himself as an enlightened one, although this was an excellent way to make enemies of those who thereby lost power and influence.

In military matters, despite having no military experience prior to becoming emperor, Domitian enjoyed some success. His aims were mainly defensive, particularly at the difficult frontier in Germany along the River Rhine, where a system of defensive walls, forts and roads known as the “Limes Germanicus” was built (“limes” is a two-syllable word, the plural of which is “limites” hence the English “limit”).

However, it is probably true that Domitian made more of his limited military victories than was warranted. For example, he claimed a triumph in his campaign against the Chatti tribe of central Germany in 83AD. From 86 to 90AD he was involved in wars against the Dacians (in modern-day Hungary and Romania), where the opposing King Decebalus proved to be a difficult opponent who was not to be defeated until 104AD, by Trajan. Domitian was forced to make peace on terms that involved the payment of tributes to Dacia, and this was a considerable humiliation to Rome that some senators were not prepared to forgive.

The brightest spot in the expanding empire was Britain, where General Agricola was able to push the border into present-day Scotland, there being evidence of Roman activity as far north as Inverness. However, he was recalled to Rome in 85AD, possibly because Domitian was jealous of his successes; at least this was the view of the historian Tacitus. On the other hand, Agricola had been governor for seven years, on top of several previous years as a legionary commander, so perhaps it was high time for him to return to Rome, although he was not appointed to any fresh command.

The pattern of Domitian being popular with the people but less so with the patrician class repeated itself in the Army. He was well liked by the common soldiers, among whom he spent a lot of time in the field, and he raised their pay. However, his personal lack of military competence gave rise to opposition and conspiracies.

Domitian tried to reform Roman morals among the upper classes and to restore the cult of emperor worship, although directed towards his deified father and brother rather than himself. He imposed strict discipline in religious matters, with vestal virgins who fell from grace being condemned to death.

It is also true that a number of senators were executed on Domitian’s orders. However, whether this constituted the “reign of terror” of which historians were later to accuse him is another matter.

There were therefore many reasons for some people in high places to want Domitian out of the way, and this led eventually to his assassination on 18^th September 96AD. A plot was hatched that involved a number of palace officials, chief among them being a steward named Stephanus who had feigned an injury some days before so that he could hide a dagger under his bandages. When the attack came, several conspirators struck the blows.

His reputation

Domitian is one of those emperors on whom the “the jury is out”. When history is written by people in the pay of others who have suffered at the hands of the person in question, it is unlikely to be fair or balanced. At this distance of time it is impossible to know the ultimate truth of what may or may not have happened, and so there is much reading between the lines to be done.

It seems fairly certain that Domitian, as well as being a sound administrator, was a strong ruler who abandoned some of the more conciliatory policies of his two predecessors, so it is hardly surprising that he made enemies. That he was a despot is quite evident. Whether or not he was a benevolent one is the point at issue.

© John Welford

Aristotle the teacher

The name of Aristotle is associated with teaching in three important respects, these being as the tutor of Alexander the Great, the founder of the Lyceum in Athens, and a profound influence on learning for many centuries after his death.

Aristotle and Alexander

Aristotle was a Macedonian by birth (in 384 BC) and upbringing but he spent some twenty years in Athens, from 367 to 347 BC, studying and teaching in Plato’s Academy, although he left Athens when he was apparently overlooked as Plato’s successor. In 342 BC he was invited by King Philip of Macedon to become the tutor of his son Alexander, who was then thirteen years old.

Aristotle was treated with the greatest respect by Philip, who provided him with all the facilities he needed and also encouraged other Macedonian nobles to enrol their sons at his school, which was established in his native city of Stagira. Aristotle ran the school for seven years although Alexander only stayed for four, after which Philip reckoned that he was old enough to undertake state duties as a royal prince.

The degree of influence that Aristotle had on his pupil, who would soon set off on a campaign of military conquests and empire-building, is open to question. It is true that Alexander had a lot to do with the spread of Hellenistic culture and civilization around much of the Middle East, but how much of this was down to Aristotle’s teaching?

Bertrand Russell was of the view that the influence was slight, given that Alexander’s admiration for Greek culture was common to Macedonian aristocrats who had no wish to be thought of as barbarians when they ventured abroad. This attitude would have been the same whether or not one had been tutored by Aristotle.

In Russell’s words: “I cannot imagine his pupil regarded him as anything but a prosy old pedant, set over him by his father to keep him out of mischief.”

It would also appear that Aristotle, the urbane philosopher from Athens who had himself been taught by the greatest teacher of his age, namely Plato, did little to correct the faults of his star pupil. A W Benn, quoted by Russell, described the adult Alexander as: “Arrogant, drunken, cruel, vindictive and grossly superstitious. He united the vices of a Highland chief to the frenzy of an Oriental despot”.

However, it was also the case that Alexander did not forget his tutor, and as long as Alexander lived, Aristotle had his protection. Alexander also supported him financially and sent him items of interest that he collected during his campaigns. The picture of the relationship between the distinguished teacher and his former pupil is therefore a mixed one.

Aristotle and the Lyceum

In 335 BC Aristotle returned to Athens where he found that his friend Xenocrates had been made president of the Academy, originally founded by Plato. The state granted him a site, functioning as a gymnasium that trained athletes, that was sacred to Apollo Lyceus (the “wolf-god”) and hence named the Lyceum.

Over the next twelve years Aristotle devoted himself to teaching scholars at the Lyceum while also writing the works for which he is best known. He was forced to leave Athens in 323 BC on the death of Alexander, and died the following year.

Aristotle’s method of teaching was to give lectures as the group of scholars (to be regarded more as “postgraduates” than “undergraduates” in modern terminology) walked through the lime groves of the Lyceum. This has given his followers the name “Peripatetics” from the Greek word “peripatein” meaning “to walk around”. The sessions therefore combined training of the mind with gentle exercise of the body, a method that has much to recommend it.

According to the Roman writer Aulus Gellius, Aristotle offered two distinct courses of instruction. The morning sessions were directed at an “inner circle” of hearers whom he dubbed “esoterics”. They covered the more abstruse subjects of theology, physics and dialectics. In the afternoons Aristotle welcomed a wider group of “exoteric” scholars for his lectures on rhetoric and politics. No doubt there was considerable interest in being promoted to the inner circle that was allowed to attend the morning sessions, which would have ensured that Aristotle was listened to with rapt attention.

Aristotle was the archetypal polymath of the ancient world, with his surviving works incorporating a huge range of knowledge including science, mathematics, logic, economics, politics, ethics and metaphysics. The word “metaphysics” derives from a published edition of Aristotle’s works put together by Andronicus of Rhodes in the first century BC. Aristotle’s various works on the nature of reality and existence were placed after (“meta”) the Physics in the collection, and the name has stuck.

Aristotle’s later influence

As a teacher, Aristotle’s influence lasted for hundreds of years after his death, even to the extent that teachers at medieval universities relied on his works as being reliable repositories of knowledge; they performed no original research of their own but tweaked Aristotle’s teaching as and when the facts gathered from experience seemed to be at odds with what he had written.

At the heart of Aristotle’s beliefs and teaching was the concept that the world was ordered and continuous. There were four elements, namely earth, air, fire and water, and four qualities that were possessed by everything in different degrees, these being hot, cold, dry and wet. Every object and event can be described in terms of those qualities acting on those elements, according to Aristotle.

The idea of order and purpose in creation was in line with the Christian concept of divine creation, so that it was natural for Aristotelian thinking to be generally acceptable to Christian scholars of later ages. There were problems with it, such as Aristotle’s world being eternal and the Christian one being destined to end with a Day of Judgement, but scholars such as Thomas Aquinas in the 13^th century found ways round these difficulties and were thus able to retain Aristotle’s teachings as the basis of university curricula, with the basic ideas being virtually unquestioned.

The real problem with Aristotle’s works is that they were built on pure theory rather than on experience. Having established a world-view of how things should be, all observations were made to fit that world-view rather than the theories being derived from experience and experiment and adjusted until they fitted with reality.

As it happens, there are huge difficulties with Aristotle’s teachings in many areas, and learning was held back for centuries by being locked into a general acceptance of his writings rather than a rigorous examination of them. It was only when scientists such as Galileo and Newton became determined to set Aristotle to one side and look at the world with fresh eyes that real progress in science began to be made.

In some areas, however, Aristotelian ideas have continued down to relatively recent times. Aristotle invented the science of formal logic, based on the syllogism, and this was being taught in universities well into the 20^th century. However, his system was a closed and complete one that was incapable of being expanded to deal with new ways of thinking and arguing.

As a teacher, Aristotle belonged to his age, and he was clearly a revolutionary one in comparison to what had gone before. His pupils, particularly at the Lyceum, continued to promulgate and develop his ideas such that they became extremely influential.

However, the lack of anyone who was remotely comparable to Aristotle for centuries after his time meant that he continued to “teach” long after he should have been set to one side.

© John Welford

Epicureanism and Stoicism: two ancient philosophies

Epicureanism and Stoicism were two philosophical schools of the Hellenistic period that were active at the same time. Although their founders, Epicurus (see image above) and Zeno, were contemporaries who settled in Athens within a few years of each other, the doctrines of Epicureanism were fixed once and for all by their founder, whereas those of Stoicism had a long development.

Epicurus and his philosophy

One problem we have in determining the facts of Epicurus’s life is that his story has come down to us, in part, via the writings of Stoics who were all too willing to discredit his philosophy. However, we can be fairly certain that he was born around 342 BC and died in 270 BC. He came from the island of Samos, started teaching his theories in 311 BC and established his school in Athens in 307 BC.

He suffered from ill health for much of his life, and his personal habits were extremely frugal, his diet consisting mainly of bread and water. However, he based his teachings on the view that pleasure is the beginning and end of life, and the pleasures of the body must precede those of the mind. You cannot think happy thoughts on an empty stomach.

He held that static pleasure is better than dynamic pleasure. In other words, the state of being free of pain is more desirable than the process of achieving pleasure. It is better to eat moderately, and never suffer hunger, than to build up an appetite and eat a huge meal to satisfy that appetite.

Likewise, sexual passion is not a good thing, because it is a pursuit of dynamic pleasure. Curiously, he was fond of children, so he relied on others not to follow his advice.

The goal of life, according to Epicurus, is therefore to avoid pain and fear. He saw religion as a source of fear, and therefore to be rejected. This led him to materialism, and the belief that the soul dies with the body.

He and his followers had no interest in science or in finding explanations for natural phenomena. The course that caused least pain was the wise one to follow, whatever its scientific foundation.

Although Epicurus had a number of followers, the very nature of Epicureanism’s somewhat laid-back approach to life meant that they were restricted to a cultured elite who had only a moderate impact on the lives of their fellow human beings. It is important not to confuse them with Hedonists, for whom the active seeking of pleasure, as opposed to the avoidance of pain, is the main aim of life.

Zeno and Stoicism

Zeno the Stoic was a Phoenician from Cyprus, born during the latter half of the fourth century BC. On arriving in Athens he studied philosophy, particularly that of Plato, through which he came to admire the attitude of Socrates towards bodily discomfort, an attitude that would have been anathema to Epicurus. However, he rejected much of the rest of Plato’s philosophy.

Incidentally, the name “Stoic” comes from the Greek “stoa”, meaning “porch” and referring to the Painted Porch in Athens where Zeno taught. He founded his school in around 308 BC.

For Zeno, what mattered most was the pursuit of virtue, and science and philosophical thinking only had value insofar as they contributed to making a man virtuous.

The Stoics held that the universe was deterministic, everything being determined by natural laws. There was a Supreme Being who ordained everything that happened, which was always for the ultimate benefit of human beings. Even bed bugs are useful, for reminding us not to stay in bed too long! (But what about wasps? Has anyone ever worked out what they are for?!)

The Stoic universe was cyclical. Everything would end in a huge, pre-determined conflagration, but then be born anew, to repeat the same cycle, over and over again.

Virtue consists of having a will that is in agreement with Nature. Wicked people obey God’s law, because they have no choice, but they do so involuntarily. The virtuous do so out of their own choice.

To the modern mind, Stoicism is a barren and unattractive philosophy, because a man’s virtue is an end in itself, not the action he performs as a result of being virtuous. It is also a cold philosophy; the death of a wife is not to be regretted as long as it has no effect on the virtue of the husband.

Epicurus valued friendship, but the Stoic would say that a friendship must end if the friend’s misfortune threatens to destroy your state of calmness.

The Stoic is not virtuous in order to do good, but he does good in order to be virtuous.

Stoical thinking was far more influential in the Greek world, and in the Roman world in later years, than was Epicureanism. This may sound strange to us, given the apparent relative unattractiveness of Stoicism, but the later history of Christianity may give us some clues as to why this may have been.

There has always been a certain strain in Christianity that is “holier than thou”. The prig has always been assured of his own virtue, and delights in pointing the finger at those he considers less virtuous. Many religious sects maintain that strict adherence to a set of rules is of greater importance than any harm caused to individuals as a result of so doing.

This would appear to reflect a strong tendency that goes back many centuries and which is found in many societies. The Pharisees of ancient Israel clearly had their counterparts in the Stoics of ancient Greece.

There is much that is unsatisfactory about both Stoicism and Epicureanism, and neither philosophy is a sound basis for modern living. However, elements of both can be seen in the way many people have conducted themselves in the centuries since Epicurus and Zeno.

© John Welford

Titus, Emperor of Rome

Titus is usually regarded as one of the better Roman Emperors, although his reputation among Jewish historians is seen in a very different light.

Emperor in waiting

Titus Flavius Sabinus Vespasianus (known to us as Titus) had exactly the same name as his father Vespasian, so it is fortunate that history has chosen to refer to him by his praenomen. He was born on 30^th December 40AD.

He was clearly destined for a military career, and served with distinction as tribunus militum in Britain and Germany, before being given command of a legion and assisting his father in the Jewish wars in Palestine. When his father left for Italy in 69 AD to become Emperor, Titus finished the job in Palestine and was largely responsible, in 70 AD, for the destruction of Jerusalem that was regarded as a triumph in Rome but, among the Jews, as one of the greatest disasters in their history.

Titus returned to Rome in 71 AD to share the triumph with Vespasian and to assist in the work of government.

While in Palestine, Titus had become attached to Berenice, the daughter of King Agrippa I, and she eventually (in 75 AD) followed him to Rome, as did her brother, also named Agrippa. The idea of the next emperor (as always seemed likely) marrying a foreign princess did not appeal to the people who mattered in Rome, so Titus agreed not to marry her and sent her away when he became Emperor in 79 AD. This act may seem heartless to us today, but rulers often have to do things for political rather than personal reasons.

As the Emperor in waiting, Titus did not appear to be a promising prospect, given that his behaviour was not always of the best. His sexual morality was questionable, to say the least, and the fear was that another Nero was on the way. However, it does not always happen that a dissolute prince becomes an unworthy king, and Titus was one of those for whom the trappings of office made a huge difference. He turned out to be one of Rome’s better-liked emperors, respected by all Romans both civil and military, much as his father had been.

Emperor Titus

One important action of his was to reform the legal system that had encouraged a network of spies and informants to bring treason charges against people who were personal enemies. Titus refused to listen to such claims and had the informants banished from Rome. He was prepared to exercise clemency, and no Senators were executed during his reign.

However, his reign was marked by disasters of other kinds, the most notable being the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD that buried the towns of Herculaneum and Pompeii, near Naples. Titus was active in helping the families of those affected by the eruption and trying to repair its ravages. The following year a fire at Rome lasted for three days and destroyed many buildings, including the Capitol and other public buildings as well as many houses. Titus sold some of his personal property to help raise funds for rebuilding. A third disaster was a plague that he also did what he could to mitigate.

  

Besides restoring buildings lost to fire, Titus completed the amphitheatre begun by his father that is now referred to as the Colosseum, and built the Baths of Titus. The opening of these buildings was marked by massive celebrations that lasted for a hundred days.

However, his reign was a short one, as he died of a fever on 13^th September 81 AD, at the age of 40, although some historians claim that he was poisoned by Domitian, his brother. At the time of his death he was extremely popular and he was greatly mourned as a result. However, it has been speculated that his popularity might not have had much longer to run, seeing as he was spending the wealth of Rome faster than it was being replenished, and he was much less careful with finances than his father had been. That said, the people of Rome soon had good cause to wish that Titus had lived a lot longer, given that the reign of Domitian was to prove far less comfortable.

© John Welford

Vespasian, Emperor of Rome

Titus Flavius Sabinus Vespasianus (known to us as Vespasian) was born on 17^th November 9AD in the Sabine country near Rome, into a relatively poor family although his mother was the sister of a Roman senator. She was widowed at a young age, and so had to bring up two boys on her own.

Vespasian the soldier

Vespasian joined the army and served as a military tribune in Thrace, serving later in Crete and Cyrene and rising through the ranks. He married and had two sons, both of whom would later become Roman Emperor in turn (Titus and Domitian).

He served under Claudius during the latter’s campaign to conquer Britannia in 43AD, and led the 2^nd Legion Augusta in capturing the Isle of Wight and then defeating the Durotriges tribe in Dorset at their fortresses of Badbury, Hod Hill and Maiden Castle.

He served as consul in 51AD and as proconsul of Africa under Nero. At no time did he acquire any personal wealth, although there were accusations that he was dishonest in his financial dealings. Had he been so, he was clearly not very good at fraud and embezzlement!

He was sent east in 66AD to conduct the war against the Jews, and it was while he was in the region that civil war broke out in Italy after the death of Nero. His growing reputation as a “safe pair of hands” led to his being proclaimed emperor at Alexandria on 1^st July 69AD in opposition to Vitellius, to whom he had at first declared his allegiance.

This was clearly a popular move in the eastern part of the empire, as many legions and governors rallied to his cause. One of his supporters, Antonius Primus, invaded Italy from the north and deposed Vitellius on reaching Rome. Vespasian’s envoy, the orator and historian Mucianus, then took over and held the city awaiting Vespasian’s arrival, which happened in 70AD. Because Vespasian’s reign can be dated from the death of Vitellius on 22^nd December 69AD, Vespasian counts as the fourth emperor during the “Year of the Four Emperors”.

Vespasian the emperor

Vespasian was able to restore order to a troubled Rome. He made immediate changes in the army, so that mutinous soldiers were replaced by loyal ones, and he worked alongside the Senate in the public administration. His character was clearly very different from that of some of his recent predecessors, notably Vitellius and Nero, and this went down very well with people of all classes in Rome.

Above all, he had no personal vanity and was able to get on with anybody, from any station in life. He felt no shame about his humble origins and ridiculed attempts to create a distinguished genealogy for him.

He was very proud of the achievements of one of his sons, Titus, and horrified by the behaviour of the other, Domitian. He was therefore happy to share his triumph in the Jewish wars, in 71AD, with Titus, and took careful steps to ensure that Domitian was kept under suitable restraint.

He continued to expand the empire, sending Agricola to North Wales in 78AD, and securing the borders in Germany. He reformed the Praetorian Guard, ensuring that its ranks were only levied from within Italy.

Although he was very sound as far as public money was concerned, and did much to restore the empire’s financial well-being (mainly through raising taxes) he also left behind some buildings of note, such as the Temple of Peace and the rebuilt Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.

In the summer of 79AD his health started to fail, although he was determined to keep working for as long as he could. Having ensured a new dynasty through the nomination of Titus as the next emperor, he declared that an emperor should die standing and, much as Queen Elizabeth I was to do more than 1500 years later, did exactly that, remaining upright until he died, on 24^th June 79AD, at the age of 69.

It cannot be doubted that Vespasian was exactly the man that Rome needed at the time, given the chaos that had preceded his reign. It was however unfortunate that the stability he had engendered was to tread an uncertain path in the years to follow.

© John Welford

Vitellius, Emperor of Rome

Aulus Vitellius (who later added Germanicus to his name) was the third of four emperors of Rome who held office during the year 69 AD, a year of civil war that marked a period of uncertainty between the tyranny of Nero and the stability of Vespasian.

Vitellius: his early life and rise to power

He was born on 24^th September 15 AD, the son of a former consul and governor of Syria who had gained promotion (and kept his head) by being able to flatter firstly Caligula and then Claudius.

Vitellius was well educated, but had no particular talents that would ensure his rise to high office. However, his father’s status gave him a position at court, and his questionable morals and enjoyment of luxury had made him a favourite of every emperor from Tiberius to Nero, serving as consul (under Claudius) for the first six months of 48 AD.

It was therefore something of a surprise when Galba, Nero’s successor, chose him to take charge of the legions in Lower Germany, seeing that he had no military experience or expertise. Perhaps it was a move to get this thoroughly unpleasant man far away from Rome as soon as possible.

Galba quickly made himself unpopular with the army in a number of regions, much of this coming from a feeling of jealousy on the part of those soldiers who suffered all the hardships of camp life in distant provinces towards the pampered members of the Praetorian Guard who were now being shown favour in Rome. Vitellius could hardly be said to be suffering many privations in his own private life, but was happy to exploit the anti-Galba sentiment that was running through the army.

The German legions consequently refused to take the oath of allegiance to Galba and were keen to find a nominee of their own. When they heard that Galba had been assassinated (by troops loyal to Otho), the legions in both Upper and Lower Germany declared their support for Vitellius (on 2^nd January 69 AD), who now therefore found himself in competition with Otho for the imperial throne.

Otho was declared emperor on 15^th January, and immediately set out northwards from Rome to meet the legions from Germany, led by Vitellius’s generals, Fabius Valens and Aulus Caecina. Otho was defeated at the first battle of Bedriacum (in northern Italy), and, although he could probably have carried on the fight, took his own life on 16^th April.

Vitellius was therefore free to march into Rome and take the throne, which he did in July, having received oaths of allegiance from the defeated troops.

Vitellius: his short reign as emperor

Once established as emperor, Vitellius at first showed signs of being able to provide stability for the empire. Nobody’s property was confiscated, and, although some former adherents of Otho lost their lives, their estates were allowed to pass to their next of kin. However, this moderation did not extend to his personal life, given that the consumption of vast quantities of food appeared to be what interested him above all else.

Now that he was back from his “exile” in Germany, Vitellius was determined to resume the lifestyle that he had enjoyed as a young man in the fleshpots of Rome, and huge sums of public money were spent on his feasts. Vitellius had never exactly been slim, but now his waistline continued to expand to obese proportions.

In the east of the empire, Vespasian, one of Rome’s most successful generals, had at first taken the oath of allegiance to Vitellius but then changed his mind. He was declared to be emperor by the troops at Alexandria (Egypt) on 1^st July, followed by similar acclamations throughout the region.

Antonius Primus, the general in charge of the legions in Illyricum (on the eastern side of the Adriatic) led an army into northern Italy in support of Vespasian, and was met by an army nominally under the command of Caecina, one of the victorious generals at the first battle of Bedriacum, who had now been appointed as consul under Vitellius.

Caecina was himself an interesting character, as he had only joined the cause of Vitellius because he had fallen out of favour with Galba, the reason being that he had been caught embezzling public funds. He now changed sides again, presumably because he could see which way things were going, and tried to turn his army to the cause of Vespasian, being arrested by his own troops as a result, so that the ensuing battle was fought with no overall commander in charge on Vitellius’s side. Caecina later served under Vespasian but yet again proved to be traitorous, after which he was put to death.

The second battle of Bedriacum on 24-25 October was won decisively by Primus, who then marched on Rome with the aim of holding the city until Vespasian arrived. Vitellius was arrested in his palace on 22^nd December and dragged out into the streets, where he was reviled by the populace and then killed. His head was cut off and paraded round the city, while his body was thrown into the Tiber, later to be recovered and buried by his wife.

Vitellius had been emperor for only eight months, during which he had directed other generals to fight on his behalf and been happy to enjoy the trappings of power without assuming its responsibilities. His demise, and the accession of a strong replacement in Vespasian, was doubtless a very good thing for Rome, especially as it brought to an end one of the most turbulent and chaotic years in the empire’s history.

© John Welford