Sulla is corrupt

ViadiGregorio

New Member

Just to be clear, Cinefactus, I never found any of your comments anything but helpful. It was only Bitmap's that I was referring to, which as you can see has been edited several times to remove the more flagrant of the insults. But I understand that because he thought that I was going to actually use the names of Sulla and Cicero in those statements in context he assumed that I'm a moron, and a bad teacher.

What I knew I needed from the very beginning were 20 or so short, simple Latin insults that a politician MIGHT have received from his detractors. I searched around for genuine ones in vain and then, lacking time and needing results, decided to just make some of my own that seem to align with the impression of Roman values/opinions I've been given from different books. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I truly thought that to the majority of conservative Romans, fairness to your wife and fairness to your household slaves was seen as honorable.

What Bitmap may not understand is that unfortunately if you're creating projects like this for a world history class sometimes you're forced to cut some corners. I don't like it either, but I realize that I only have a certain amount of hours to devote to preparing this project and in a matter of two weeks we're moving on to a different historical period, and I'd better have something ready for that as well! If my students learn some characteristics of what Roman politics was like during this period and about the patron-client system and other major concepts, it won't break my heart to have to tell them "these Latin insults may be a bit more like insults we would say than what they would have said, but you get the general idea". I understand that from your perspective that seems unacceptable, but that is because this is your area of passion and expertise. My end goal is for students to be engaged enough in what they're learning to leave my class having retained knowledge of broad concepts and major themes, and hopefully interested enough in the topic to want to learn more on their own. When put in full perspective those small corners I have to cut become fairly inconsequential.
 
B

Bitmap

Guest

This discussion would actually merit a reply of 15 pages, but I don't really have time to do that, so I'll try to give you a few quick notes

ViadiGregorio dixit:
Just to be clear, Cinefactus, I never found any of your comments anything but helpful. It was only Bitmap's that I was referring to, which as you can see has been edited several times to remove the more flagrant of the insults.
Just to be clear: Some admin deleted the part where I said "I don't know which idiot came up with role-play in history classes." That was not meant to be a personal insult. It's just that I've read quite a number of scientific essays on role play in history classes and I find the entire conception rightout studip for the reasons I mentioned above. It may have its merits if it's truly done right, but it takes by far more didactical consideration and skill than most teachers would imagine (... and have.)

ViadiGregorio dixit:
teenagers of today (who have an extremely short attention span)
oh, btw - I find such a comment extremely disrespectful towards your students.
Actually, there's nothing wrong with being disrespectful every now and then as I know that we all complain in such a way about our students every now and then, be it out of fun or frustration. However, I find it dangerous to make such a complaint the basis of a serious didactical consideration because it means you've already given up on them.
That may not disqualify your simulation, but it's a dangerous thought to have.

ViadiGregorio dixit:
the names of Sulla and Cicero in those statements
You have to be careful because most names are declined in Latin. That means that names may change their ending depending on the case they are in - unlike in English.
So, a sentence like "don't vote for Sulla, vote for Cicero" would translate to Sullam ne eleger(it)is, Ciceronem elig(it)e! (the -it- in brackets turns it into a plural statement) with Sulla's and Cicero's name being in the accusative. If you substitute those names, you have to be able to put the new names into the accusative a well.

ViadiGregorio dixit:
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I truly thought that to the majority of conservative Romans, fairness to your wife and fairness to your household slaves was seen as honorable.
Regarding women: I think that's true to some extent. However, I don't think that 'being a womaniser' would have worked as a real insult. Some diversion away from the classical standards of marriage must have been possible and also acceptable. It wasn't until Augustus, 100-years-ish after Sulla, that such double standards were seriously questioned and I think the fact Augustus questioned them serves to show that they must have existed beforehand.
On the other hand, you were not free to do whatever you like, of course. Cicero reprehended some of his political opponents for visiting brothels in his speeches (see below)

regarding slaves: no. It's true that some more or less honourable nobles treated their slaves mildly, but that was by far not the standard. Nor was it the moral standard. There were a few (mostly Greek) slaves in well-off families (like Cicero's Tiro, whom he later set free) who served higher purposes, as it were, and were treated quite well, but that does not apply for the majority of slaves who were forced to work under severe conditions in mines, street construction and wherever. That's essentially why Spartacus could mobilise such a force of slaves for his revolt.
Cato suggests in de agri cultura that a slave who turns sick should not be given any food, so that he might report for work again sooner out of hunger. The book is full of such examples and it may give you an insight of the generally disregarding perspective on slaves (which, I think, is found in all ancient societies)

regarding conservative Romans: It's hard to apply our modern term of "conservatism" on Romans because it's hard to make a distinction. Even the most liberal Romans were (by our standards) hardcore conservatives.

ViadiGregorio dixit:
these Latin insults may be a bit more like insults we would say than what they would have said, but you get the general idea
that's the part the 'see below' thingy above is referring to
If you want to find out about Roman invective, I think Cicero's second Philippic, his speech against Antonius, is the best example to read. Off the top of my head I can recall Cicero insulting Antonius as a drinker, as someone who frequently visits brothels and as someone who has wasted everything he had been heir to.

I won't bother to read this post over as it's 5 in the morning. If you find any spelling mistakes, you may keep them
 
 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
Certainly if I could find evidence of such graffiti, I would be happy to translate it for you. However even the verbal ad hominem attacks which Bitmap refers to in the Second Philippic (and he forgot the bit about Antonius being a homosexual toy boy) refer to specific incidents, rather than just being general slurs.

The philosophical issue I personally have is that, without evidence, I have to conclude that such translations would be a projection of modern values onto the Romans. This is an important issue, because it doesn't cognitively prepare the students to accept that different cultures have markedly different values to their own. The practical ramification is that many modern cultures are completely different to the American culture. If the students cannot understand that Republican Romans had a fundamentally different outlook on life, they probably won't understand the differences in these modern cultures either.

Have you considered getting them to role play incidents which show these differences, such as the Roman Senate's refusal to ransom the prisoners taken at Cannae, or the story of T Manlius Torquatus executing his son, or Lucius Verginius' actions in protecting his daughter?
 
B

Bitmap

Guest

Cinefactus dixit:
However even the verbal ad hominem attacks which Bitmap refers to in the Second Philippic refer to specific incidents, rather than just being general slurs.
That's true, but such insults are recurring motifs (motifs? motives? please help) that may also be found in other speeches. I have an essay on laptop with some footnotes to literature that lists the most common topics of Roman invective. Unfortunately, I don't have any access to it right now and I don't remember it off the top of my head. I might not be able to tell you before tomorrow.

Cinefactus dixit:
(and he forgot the bit about Antonius being a homosexual toy boy)
as I said, my list is not complete. I probably forgot a lot more.
However, it seems to me that criticism concerning things like homosexuality, drinking or adultery was more aimed at poking fun at people rather than seriously reprehending them. Insults concerning somebody's origin (somebody from a lesser family or even a former slave) or the waste of his inherited money seem far more severe to me.

The philosophical issue I personally have is that, without evidence, I have to conclude that such translations would be a projection of modern values onto the Romans.
Well, that's what I was trying to say, although I grant that I can imagine quite a few of those slogans to be topical of Ancient Rome.

What you describe is basically also what I feel concerning role plays in history classes. That problem is not only true for ancient Rome, though, but for all periods of history
 
B

Bitmap

Guest

ViadiGregorio dixit:
1. Sulla is corrupt
2. Do not vote for Sulla
3. Sulla is a dog
4. Sulla is a womanizer (or whatever term the Romans would have used)
5. Sulla is a coward
I know some of those have been answered already, I'm sorry if this gets repetitive

1. possibly also Sulla de ambitu condemnetur (Sulla should be condemned for his corruption)
2. Sullam ne elegeritis
3. not sure if this should be translated directly into Latin
4. Sulla moechatur ... there is a similar poem by Catullus that runs "Mentula moechatur ..." but as I said, I'm not sure if such a statement questions somebody's political integrity
5. Sulla ignavus est. I think Matthaeus suggested that already. Also possible in a superlative: Sulla omnium ignavissimus est (Sulla is the biggest coward of all)

ViadiGregorio dixit:
6. Sulla has angered the gods
7. Sulla is a loser
8. No one should trust Sulla
9. Rome does not need Sulla
10. Forget about Sulla
11. Sulla is a traitor
12. May Sulla be cursed
13. Beware of Sulla
14. Sulla wants to be king, not consul
15. Sulla will destroy the Republic
16. Sulla is cruel to his slaves
17. Sulla will lead us to ruin
18. Vote for Cicero instead of Sulla
19. Supporters of Sulla are criminals
20. Sulla betrays our traditions
6. Did he? Sulla deos offensit or possibly Sulla iram commovit deorum
If you want to depict him as an impious man: Sulla omni caret pietate
7. I don't think that can be easily translated into Latin (unless with a different insult)
8. Sullae ne credatur would be one possible translation
9. Sulla Romae non usui est but there may be better translations
10. I'm not sure if a direct translation would make sense here
11. Sulla patriae proditor est or Sulla prodit patriam
12. Cursing other people is not nice
13. Cavete Sullam
14. The Romans truly took some pride in chasing their kings away, but I don't think they worked with accusations like this one
15. Sulla rei publicae erit pernicei or Sulla rem publicam perdet
16. They probably deserved it
17. Sulla nobis parabit perniciem
18. I think I have answered that above somewhere
19. I think Cinefactus has answered that pretty well
20. Sulla nihil curat mores maiorum

I translated all commands in the plural
 
 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
I must admit that this topic has intrigued me, so I tried to do a bit more background reading.

Ancient Graffiti in Context discusses political graffiti, but it seems to be exhortatory or political commentary:
Tiberius Gracchus: The common people kindled his eagerness and ambition greatly, by urging him through graffiti written… to recover the public land for the poor.

On a statue of Brutus: Brutus you are asleep. You are not the true Brutus.
On the statue of Caesar: Brutus was the first of the consuls, 'cause he drove out the kings; this man is at last made king because he drove out the consuls.

The political graffiti in An Introduction to Wall Inscriptions from Pompeii and Herculaneum is all positive - vote for so and so. Likewise those in By Roman Hands: Inscriptions and Graffiti for Students of Latin

So the question I wish to ask is: Is there any evidence that the Romans did actually write non-specific defamatory political graffiti?
 
B

Bitmap

Guest

From the humble knowledge I have (which is really humble in this regard), I used to believe that paintings on buildings were used to inform people about upcoming elections and similar administrative stuff.

Cinefactus dixit:
So the question I wish to ask is: Is there any evidence that the Romans did actually write non-specific defamatory political graffiti?
to be honest, I don't even think there is much evidence of such a practise being done today. most 'political' graffiti I know are anarchistic in nature, like "fuck the police", as befits vandalism. Considering an estimated 99% of the Roman population were not even able to read, you may also question the use or the actual impact of political graffiti in those days.
However, I can picture some of the phrases he requested in different contexts, like in political orations.
 
Top