The Cornelii Scipiones family was a longstanding, exemplary “old money” Roman noble family. We luckily have epitaphs from their sepulcre along the Via Appia which offer primary source material for Roman noble values. The epitaphs of Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus, Publius Cornelius Scipio, and Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Hispanus each communicate core values of the noblitias. In my analysis, I will use three different epitaphs to show how the nobilitas remembered each other and use Plutarch’s section on Cato the Elder to extrapolate inversely values of the nobilitas. 

First, Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus’s epitaph shows how the nobility valued virtue, political positions, and military accomplishments. Directly after stating his name, the epitaph reads, “a valiant gentleman and wise, whose fine form matched his bravery surpassing well” (76). Rather than starting with the fact that Barbatus held the position of censor, his family chose to note first and foremost aspects of his virtue. The epitaph then continues to note his political positions and military accomplishments in that order. Similarly, the epitaph of Barbatus’s son has the exact same format. 

Second, the premature death of Publius warrants a unique epitaph format since he did not live long enough to achieve certain accomplishments. Here, the epitaph mentions the concept of out-doing your ancestor in deeds. Addressed to Publius, the author writes in the second person, “if you had but been allowed long life in which to enjoy them [qualities listed earlier], an easy thing it would have been for you to surpass by great deeds the glory of your ancestors” (77). Strikingly, the epitaphs of Barbatus and his son do not mention anything of surpassing one’s ancestors in glory. In the case of Publius, it seems unlikely that this would mean surpassing one’s father in military glory, especially since he was a son of Scipio Africanus. Rather, we may guess that living an honorable and virtuous life was the expectation for the nobilitas. Therefore, in this sense, “to surpass by great deeds the glory of your ancestors’ ‘ means achieving the life that the Scipio’s were accustomed to during the Republic. This also shows that the nobilitas were optimistic about their youth.

Third, on a similar topic, the epitaph of Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Hispanus, after listing political positions, almost argues for the virtue and familial duty of Gnaeus. Oddly, this is written in the first person. Gnaeus writes, “I begat a family and sought to equal the exploits of my father” (78). He vies for his own virtue and is very proud that he did not disgrace the line of his ancestors. From Gnaeus, it seems clear that the nobilitas greatly feared diminishing the family name. Even if they did not accomplish extraordinary things, they at least wanted to be remembered as honoring their stock.

Lastly, Cato the Elder, a “new man” in Rome, by his virtues and actions antagonized the Roman nobilitas. Plutarch notes that Cato’s “sober discipline” and “self-restraint” clashed with the extravagance of the wealthy. He introduced a tax on goods over 1,500 drachmas, worked against public water corruption, and increased rent for public land. Although achieving military accomplishments similar to the Roman nobilitas, Cato seemingly valued honor in victory rather than the superfluous memorials of his accomplishments. Using Cato as an anti-nobilitas, the Roman nobilitas valued their display of wealth and superficial honors much more than the Scipiones epitaphs suggest.

Works Cited:

Plutarch, et al. Makers of Rome: Nine Lives by Plutarch. Penguin, 2010

Page numbers refer to The Roman Republic in Crisis, “The Scipiones Epitaphs” (handout)

In his digression on Alexander, Livy unsurprisingly thinks that Rome would defeat Alexander in a hypothetical war. In his introduction, he offers three metrics to use in judging war: “the numbers and courage of the troops, the ability of the commanders, and Fortune” (9.16). In the digression itself, Livy historicizes both Alexander and notable Roman generals, then addresses the specifics of the Macedonian and Roman armies. In my view, Livy makes many credible and valid arguments, but I think he is biased since he is writing during Augustus’s Golden Age, which includes the Pax Romana and a cohesive Rome.

First, Livy claims that Alexander died too young to experience any downfall. This is valid point. As evidence, he references Cyrus’s fall, which according to Livy was the result of his lengthy life. However, Livy also lists the Roman generals with whom Alexander would have fought. He claims that “every one of these men was Alexander’s equal in courage and ability” (9.17). Without knowing Livy’s sources, I find it hard to trust this claim. 

Second, Alexander was not fit for grand success. Livy accuses him of having “forgotten his native Macedonia” and “becoming Persian in character”. In Livy’s time under the Principate, the idea of being Roman meant a lot to people and kept Rome together as one. Therefore, these accusations against Alexander would be very disgraceful for any Roman general. Continuing his diatribe, Livy writes that Alexander was harsh, a drunk, and self-proclaimed divine. Livy uses these arguments to attack the reputation of Alexander, rather than the very thing that has prompted his digression. Livy’s ad hominem does successfully degrade Alexander’s reputation. Livy also concludes this first section with rational reasons why comparisons of Alexander and Rom are invalid. He writes, “they are comparing the actions of one individual, and he a youth, with the achievements of a people who have had 800 years of war” (9.18). In addition, the governmental structures vary greatly with Alexander being king and consuls being a 2 year term leadership position, governed by the Senate. 

Third, Livy finally addresses the specific militaristic aspects of his hypothetical war. He begins with previously stated key metric, numbers.  During the revolts of the Latin league, ten legions were raised. On average, each legion was around 5,000 men, so 10 legions would be around 50,000 men. Livy compares this number to Alexander’s mere 30,000 men and 4000 Thracian cavalry. Livy also reminds us that “the Romans had a reserve to draw upon at home, but Alexander, warring on a foreign soil, would have found his army diminished by the wastage of war, as happened afterwards to Hannibal” (9.19) Although brief, this mention of Hannibal, a foreign invader king similar to Alexander in that sense, shows that Rome has warded off previously strong foreign invaders. Livy also argues that Roman weapons would have been superior to the Macedonian sarissa and small shield. He states that the Roman large shield, the “scutum”, and javelin would have given the Romans an advantage in combat. In addition, the Roman military strategy allowed for more maneuvering and less rigidity. The Romans had centuries divided up in their armies so they could have a more complex strategy than the Macedonian phalanx. Also, Livy briefly mentions that Roman soldiers were most resilient and hardest working of all (9.19). This last claim seems to be rooted in Livy’s patriotism and belief that Alexander “traversed in drunken revelry with an intoxicated army” (9.17). 

Lastly,  I agree with Livy that Alexander would have wished “that Persians and Indians and effeminate Asiatic were his foes” (9.19). Personally, I think Alexander’s conquests are impressive, but he was certainly not fighting Roman-caliber enemies the entire time. Regarding Livy’s arguments, I am not convinced that he fully understood the militaristic capabilities of civil war ridden Rome. In sum, I think Livy makes valid points against Alexander and in support for Roman military valor, but fails to prove why his audience should trust him. 

Overview:

As the estates-manager for Apollonios, Zenon held many undefined responsibilities. In the most general sense, Zenon controlled the operations of Apollonios’ large estate in Fayyum. However, he worked as the point of contact for every type of communication, ranging from the design of Philadelphia to being updated actions and needs of employees. Zenon’s role was crucial because Apollonios, the finance minister for Ptolemy II, was not the easiest to contact. From the Zenon Archive, we can gather a better understanding of the varying work of Zenon.  

Responsibilities of the role: 

            An important responsibility of Zenon was to take the lead and make decisions on moderately important affairs and problems that could not be communicated to Apollonios himself. Hierokles writes to Zenon informing him that the athlete Pyrrhos should be adequate, as well as reminding him about useful tools that ought to be brought to him. Apollonios does not need to have a direct role in this type of decision making and fulfillment of request. With this role, Zenon ensures that the estate’s image, outside of farming, runs smoothly. In addition, Zenon handles employee affairs issues. Satyra writes to him about her lack of pay and clothing allowance. Satyra writes “will you kindly inquire and inform Apollonios…remember us and see that we have something to wear”^[1]As summarized from no. 77, it seems that Zenon handles this issue with no involvement from Apollonios. Thus, his responsibility is also to care for Apollonios’ personal workers, not just workers of the estate. Zenon also deals with the runaway cook who steals money that was for purchasing hay.^[2]This shows the versatility of Zenon as he heads the non-farming operations of the estate, bringing the cook and dealing with the subsequent theft. 

            Zenon also acted in many ways as Apollonios’ secretary. Clients and employees alike contact Zenon as a way of getting their message through to Apollonios. Amyntas sends a messenger to Zenon with the intent of introducing him to Apollonios. In the letter concerning the messenger, Amyntas includes “as soon as you find Apollonios in a favorable mood.”^[3]In this role, Zenon is the cool-headed secretary who will obey clients’ suggestions. In addition, Panakestor writes to Zenon hoping that he may help with their communication problem with Apollonios. Panakestor pleads, “Please remember us, and when you find a suitable moment with Apollonios, remind him about the notes I gave you.”^[4]Although Zenon seems to have little to do with the previous letter writing between Panakestor and Apollonios, he now is the point of contact to engage with Apollonios. In this sense, he is the intermediary between Apollonios and the intermediaries^[5]in the Fayyum farmlands. 

---

^[1]Rather than writing to Apollonios, who is mostly likely busy acting as the finance minister for Ptolemy II, Satyra sends Zenon her complaints. Greek text: PCairZen 59028, Date: 258/7 B.C., Translated by: C.C. Edgar, ASAE vol. 23, no. 78

^[2]Zenon is to announce the runaway cook to everyone as a means of catching and bringing him back. Greek text: PSI 329, Date: April 257 B.C., Translated by: M. Rostovtzeff, ‘A Large Estate in Egypt in the Third Century B.C.’, p.30

^[3]We may deduce that Apollonios was not the nicest boss in the land. In fact, he may have responded harshly to messages or else Amyntas would not have noted the mood of Apollonios. Greek text: PCairZen 59045, Date: March 257 B.C., Translated by: C.C. Edgar, ASAW vol, 23, no.82 

^[4]Greek text: PSI 5.502, https://co-geeking.com/2017/03/27/bad-day-at-the-office-257-bce/

^[5]The Greek appointed in charge of the Egyptian farmers. 

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

• Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
• Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

• Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
• What topics do you think you’ll write about?
• Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
• If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.