Category Archives: Culture

When we think of witches, we think of Hallowe’en and scary movies. What many people don’t realize is that witches have been around for a lot longer than any of those things, stretching all the way back to ancient Greece and Rome…

In fact, many ancient cultures have female figures that can be accurately characterized as witches. The witch is a cultural construction:  someone (almost always a woman) who uses sorcery to accomplish some goal or to afflict evil. In the ancient world (as indeed, the modern world), they were often the embodiment of male fear about female sexuality and power. Greek society was patriarchal : women had to be subordinate to males. If they were not controlled, it was believed (by the men) that they were capable of all sorts of evil. The Greeks believed that a witch could commit any evil, such as Medea, who killed her own children to avenge herself on their father, Jason

Furthermore, like many other pre-industrial societies, the Graeco-Roman World was one where the belief in magic was universal: it was simply part of the everyday life of many people. Individuals often ascribed disasters to witches who were capable of what would today be termed black magic.

So, there are, indeed, many representations of women engaging in sorcery in Greek literature: as far back as Homer there are ancient Greek references to female figures who cast spells. Hecate was revered as the goddess of magic and witchcraft, for instance. One of the distinguishing characteristics of Greek witches was that they were sexually unrestrained and predatory. A good example of a Greek witch is Circe, who in her pursuit of Odysseus, turned his men into swine, and kept the hero a virtual prisoner on her island. Circe. Like other witches, she engaged in pharmakon: the concoction of brews and potions. Another example of a witch from Greek mythology is Lamia, who after her children were killed by Hera, became a child-eating monster. In this tale we see the origin of many of the tales of sorceresses who eat children.

The Romans appear to have been even more concerned about witchcraft than the Greeks. In the law of the Twelve Tables, the casting of spells which harmed crops, cattle and persons were prohibited. Witchcraft was a capital crime in the Roman world, and witches could be burned or buried alive. Curse-tablets were very common. These were artifacts that were believed to curse or harm victims, and were often purchased from women who could be interpreted as witches. Many witches, especially in the Roman world, were associated with poisons. Females who made potions and perfumes could be condemned as witches. Some Latin sources refer to women who engaged in necromancy, and even some who were believed to be shapeshifters. There were both male and female witches or magicians in Rome, and they were often persecuted for casting spells on the emperor. As Pliny the Younger wrote: everyone was afraid of witches and their spells. Romans began the first known witch hunts in the Imperial period, long before the Christians began burning witches.

In contrast to the Greek depictions of witches, the Roman witch was motivated by pure spite and malice. One of the earliest depictions that we have of Roman witches is from the poems of Horace. He depicts two sorceresses with pale skin, long nails and wild hair, which are very similar to modern depictions. They are showing burying a wolf’s head under a full moon to conjure up the dead and make them do their bidding. One of the most famous witches in Latin literature was Erichtho in the Pharsalia by Lucan. In this Epic, she desecrates the corpses of the dead and murders people. She is shown as even terrorising the spirits of the realm of the dead, by screaming down the throats of their corpses on earth. It was widely believed that witches murdered children and used portions of their body for spells.  One of the most distinctive of all Roman witches were the so-called Strix or owl-witches. They were women who embodied the screams of birds of ill-omen, who would devour the flesh of children. They often abducted infants and substituted them with straw dolls.

While witches are often portrayed by male classical authors as evil, many people may not have regarded them as so. Many women with knowledge of herbs and potions sold love potions and engaged in what we might term ‘white magic’. These ‘witches’ were often seen as healers and respected members of their community. The Classical depiction of witches is much influenced by male misogyny: those whom many elite males referred to as witches were often ‘wise women’ whose help was often sought by the poor and other women. It is likely that many of the representations of the witch was motivated by male fears of female sexuality and were used to justify the existing patriarchy.

So, maybe witches aren’t monsters after all, and are just misunderstood. Or maybe I’m under a spell!

Luck, G. ed., 2006. Arcana mundi: magic and the occult in the Greek and Roman worlds: a collection of ancient texts. JHU Press.

The worlds of ancient Greece and Rome were, of course, deeply intertwined over the centuries. This history stretches back further than some may realise, though, to a series of city states in the south of Italy.

From the 8th century BCE, the Greeks established colonies along the coasts of Sicily and southern Italy (with the exception of the west of Sicily), from the Bay of Naples to the Bay of Tarentum, stretching to the southern coasts of Gaul. Further Greek expansion to the west and north was inhibited by the Etruscans and the Carthaginians.  The 6th and 5th centuries were the summit of flourishing for these Greek colonies. It was through their influence on the Etruscans, with whom they had extensive trade relationships, that these Greek colonies came to indirectly influence Roman culture. This is evidenced by the amount of Greek pottery in Etruscan tombs and the presence of Greek mythic and legendary themes found on Roman and Etruscan art works. Through the Etruscans the Romans received Greek architecture, social practices, religious cults and the art of writing.

The influence of Greek culture on the Romans strengthened with the Roman conquest of Magna Graeca in the third century. This is apparent in areas of science, philosophy, literature, education and legal and political institutions. Magna Graeca encompassed, amongst others, the city-states of Cyme (Cumae) and Posidonia. These were two centers of Greek culture that had a significant and enduring impact on Rome in the regal period as well as the early and middle republic.

Founded by Greeks from Chalcis before 750 on the northern Campanian plain, Cumae was a colony responsible for spreading Greek culture through the foundation of other settlements, such as Neapolis (Naples). In control of a significant portion of the Campanian coastline during the seventh and sixth centuries, the Greeks counted the settlements of Baiae and the port city if Puteoli among their possessions.

It was in the early religion of the Romans that Cumae would play an important role.  In the late fifth century it was home to the Cumaean Sibyl. At this time the Romans placed great stock in the oracular powers of the sibyl and she was regularly consulted on important matters of state.

In Book VI of The Aeneid by the Roman poet Virgil, the Trojan hero Aeneas visits the sybil. It must have been a daunting experience to travel through the 137 metres long, 5 metres high stone tunnels, hewn out of the living rock, to seek and audience with the priestess. Virgil sets the scene:

‘This rocky citadel had been colonized by Chalcidians from Euboea, and one side of it had been hollowed out to form a vast cavern into which led a hundred broad shafts, a hundred mouths, from which streamed as many voices giving responses to the Sibyl.’ 

Some scholars believe the priestess was under the influence of powerful intoxicants, perhaps coming from the thermal vents over which she sat. Her prophecies, written in Greek, were gathered by the Romans and compiled in the form of the Sibylline Books, or Books of Fate.  These books were given into the safekeeping of one of the colleges of Roman priests (a collection of ten men whose duty to was to carry out the sacred rights). In times of crisis it was they who would consult these scared tomes. Quite often when the books were consulted and interpreted by the priests, they suggested that some new Greek god or Greek ritual be brought in to the traditional framework of the Roman religion. Through this practice the Roman religion was changed over the centuries; this predisposed the religion to greater receptivity to the cults of the east.

Posidonia was another Greek cultural and commercial center in southern Italy that had a deep cultural impact on the early Romans. It was also friendly to the Romans: its residents were willing to contribute to Rome’s protection in the form of a naval alliance.

It was the Greek city of Sybaris on the eastern coast of the toe of Italy that set out to establish a trading settlement on the western side of the peninsula, in about the middle of the 7th century. The Sybarian’s founded the settlement so as to benefit from the cross-country trade from the Ionian to the Tyrrhenian Sea, while at the same time partaking in a rich trade with Latium and Etruria further north.  They named the settlement Posidonia. Archaeologists have dated its foundation from a wholly Greek necropolis found there.

The fertile soil, the secure anchorage in the river Sele and its ideal geographical location, as well as the decline of Etruscan power in the 6th century, and the destruction of Sybaris in 510, saw Posidonia becoming the major centre for commerce in the area.  Its prestige and wealth were boosted by the influx of refugees arriving from Sybaris, who brought with them a spirit of entrepreneurship and initiative. Scholars believe that this influx of Sybarian refugees were responsible for the dedication of the underground sanctuary at Posidonia to Is, the mythical founder of Sybaris.

Between 560 and 440 Posidionia was at its zenith, its power and prestige embodied in the building of three great temples: 550 the Temple of Ceres, the so-called Basilica in 500, and the temple of Poseidon or Neptune in 450. At its most powerful it is believed Posidionia had near 20,000 inhabitants. The material remains, beautifully preserved, of the Temple of Neptune, and the tomb frescoes and terracotta statues provide evidence for the richness and magnificence of the city. 

The Lucanians (from the southwest of Italy), around 410, took control of Posidonia, renaming it Paistom. Despite remaining under Lucanian control until 273, the city held on to its Greek culture and appearance –  Greek potters and artists were dominant there, and the coinage remained Greek. The richness of tomb evidence from this period suggests that Paistom did not suffer a decline under the Lacanians. It seems the Italic Lacanians adopted and imitated, as the Etruscans and Romans before them did, the Greek style of vases in both shape and decoration.

The name of the city was changed, it became the city of Paestum, after the Romans established a colony at Posidonia in 273, it remains Paestum to the present day. Rome and Paestum kept close ties.  The residents of the city became naval allies of Rome (socii navales). They showed great loyalty to Rome and never failed to support the Romans in times of conflict, supplying the Romans with ships and sailors. Rome was able to defeat the Carthaginians during the Hannibalic War in the third century due to the loyalty and service of cities like Paestum.

The Romans improved the amenities of the city, adding a forum, amphitheatre and gymnasium. The Romans, however, contributed to the eventual decline of the city when they built the Via Appia, a road that linked Rome with the Adriatic; Paestum was bypassed and cut off from the valuable trade from the east.

Although the Romans would eventually conquer the Greek city-states and subjugate them under Roman rule, Greek culture played an integral part in the culture, art, religion and politics of the Roman state; Greek influence was responsible for much of the later sophistication of Roman culture. Greek influences may have dismayed some advocates of traditional Roman values, but for many, if not more, they were a well-spring of valuable ideas to be tapped for the betterment of Rome.

Bradley, P. (2003) Ancient Rome; Using Evidence, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp.29-34.

Connolly, P. (1981 2006) Greece and Rome at War, New Edition, London, Green Hill Books, pp. 87-130.

When we watch the trials of the fictional Roman General Maximus in Ridley Scott’s Oscar-winning film Gladiator, the arena fights that we see make for vivid, nail-biting spectacle, but how close to the truth is Scott’s depiction of professional gladiatorial combat? Films like Gladiator become part of our cultural memory, and inaccuracies contained within them can come to represent a kind of truth, if left unchallenged.

Scott creates a compelling picture of ancient Rome; what we see appears authentic. We meet Marcus Aurelius, scribbling in his tent, perhaps working on his Meditations, near Carnuntum. We see his ‘mad’ son Commodus, glowering at senators and cavorting in the arena. We meet the fictional General Maximus, whose qualities are reminiscent of the Claudius Maximus described by Marcus Aurelius. Scott’s film taps in to our ‘cultural memory’ of the Roman world, creating a seemingly authentic vision of it. Yet Scott’s aim was not primarily authenticity, but rather to create a compelling film. In the fight sequences, we are shown professional gladiatorial combat of the imperial era that has a sheen of authenticity. This depiction, however, is not consistent with what we know about professional gladiatorial combat in the imperial era.

But first, who were professional gladiators? By the imperial period they were: slaves, kidnap victims, prisoners of war, criminals, or free people, sometimes ex-gladiators who took a sacred oath to train, suffer and fight until killed or released. They had the chance of freedom, profit and fame. They trained at a gladiator school (ludus), were subject to military discipline and expert tuition, and they fought humans of comparable skill in rule-bound spectacles. This happened under the auspices of a lanista, who leased gladiators to an editor. The lanista was compensated for their full cost if they died in the arena.

When we explore the observable material culture and interpretations of the ancient literary sources, we see professional gladiatorial combat in the imperial era had strict rules and norms, known as leges pugnandi (fighting/fight rules), which helped to preserve the lives of skilled and popular gladiators. These leges pugnandi provide a clear contrast to the spectacle of rule-free, to-the-death combat in Scott’s film.

Before the imperial era, gladiatorial combat was to-the-death. By the time of the empire, however, professional gladiators fought two or three bouts per year; epigraphic evidence shows the average age at death was between 22 and 27 years old. Their chances of survival has been estimated to be 8 out of 10 fights during the A.D. 1^st century, to 5 out of 10 fights between the A.D. 2^nd and 3^rd centuries. These rising numbers appear to contradict the idea that the existence of leges pugnandi had a preservative effect. Nevertheless, this was the case for skilled, trained, and popular gladiators.

Suetonius tells us that the first emperor, Augustus, banned gladiatorial contests where the defeated fighter was forbidden to plead for mercy. Augustus, an editor of arena games, was no humanitarian; his concern was the high cost of hiring professional gladiators. A senatus consultum about the time of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus sought to lower and control the prices of trained gladiators, whose price ranged from as low as 3000 sesterces to as much as 12,000 or 15,000 sesterces. Deaths of high-ranking gladiators increased the costs of public games. The records of gladiators from Pompey shows that high-ranking gladiators could have long careers. This suggests that they were spared for more prestigious fights. Clearly, money was a factor in the evolution of the leges pugnandi, as more frequent games became standard fare. This standard fare was supplemented with lavish events, like celebrations for the emperor’s birthday or a military triumph. The economics of the games were a serious concern, yet in Scott’s film Commodus, carelessly funds expensive games. The combat depicted in the film, like the emperor, is also unrestrained. 

Mosaics from the period show restraint was in fact encouraged by two referees, who monitored strict combat rules; mosaics and ceramic vases show gladiators in a gesture of surrender, with finger raised and shield lowered. This suggests they had an expectation of cessation and mercy. Typically fighting was conducted by pairs recruited from seven different gladiator types. Opponents wielded evenly balanced weapons for attack and defence.

A good display was desirable. To make combat fair, opponents of comparable strength and skill were matched. They fought to a decisive outcome: defeat through death, as a result of incapacitation, or defeat due to exhaustion. A draw typically meant both opponents were permitted to live. The superiority of one fighter had to be shown to allow the public to reach a decision. The loser’s fate ultimately rested with the editor, who appealed to the mood of the crowd. With the cry of iugula (lance him through), the defeated were expected to submit to the death thrust. Not a bloodless spectacle, but it does not appear to have been as bloodthirsty as Scott’s film suggests.

Scott’s combat is as a free-for-all, no rules, no referees; each fight is to the death, with one exception. When Maximus fights Titus of Gaul, he downs Titus and then grants mercy, thus usurping the editor’s (Commodus’) prerogative. Titus is announced as the only undefeated champion in Roman history, returning to the arena after five years in retirement (meaning he has gained his freedom through displays of courage and excellence in the arena); his age and the enthusiastic and positive crowd reaction suggest his popularity and a long career. The crowd, however, quickly turn and scream for his death when he is defeated, even though he displayed courage, fighting skills and a willingness to die. In Scott’s arena, the odds of Titus having a long career and making retirement stretch credulity. In clear contrast to Scott’s portrayal of rule-free professional gladiatorial combat, classical scholars and archaeologists show a more restrained (yet still bloody) spectacle was the norm.

If we join the fragments of our mosaics with ancient inscriptions we see a clearer picture of combat with leges pugnandi.  Leges pugnandi had a coherent logic, with the purposes of producing fair and aggressive combat between well-matched fighters, and the limitation and/or reduction of fatalities. Fights to the death were exceptional and even required imperial permission. An uncommon inscription from Beroia in Macedonia required gladiators to fight “for their lives”; however, the organiser had to get an imperial indulgentia (indulgence).

Clearly the audiences of the imperial era were knowledgeable, with very stringent standards for gladiatorial performance.  Fans, aficionados, and editores wanted to preserve high-ranking, skilled gladiators. They were few and expensive, they put on a better show. Each fight they survived increased their value, and they were spared for big-ticket events. Good matches between evenly matched opponents were desirable. Popular pairings of high-ranked gladiators who drew a big crowd made for good spectacle. Low-ranking or less skilled gladiators were more expendable, the odds stacked against them as they battled their way to a higher-ranking. Professional gladiatorial combat in the imperial era was an ordered affair, but not a bloodless one; because of the existence of leges pugnandi, the rise in deaths in the imperial era, despite the preservative elements, are explained by a coherent systemic logic.

The importance of leges pugnandi is also supported by physical evidence. Bone fragments studied with osteo-archaeology from a cemetery site for gladiators at Ephesus, analysed by Fabian Kanz and Karl Grossschmidt, offer a clear view of how injured, dying and dead gladiators of the imperial era were treated. When seriously injured during training or combat, they received medical treatment, surgical intervention, or wound cleaning. They were then granted sufficient time to heal and recover.

The wounds suffered by these gladiators are consistent with weaponry commonly used in the arena and in training scenarios. The skull wounds are singular in nature, supporting the notion of leges pugnandi by which fight officials intervened when a fight winning blow was struck. Some killing wounds are rounded in profile and the authors suggest these might have been delivered by a rounded hammer, carried by an arena assistant dressed as Charun, who dispatched mortally wounded fighters. This evidence provides a contrast to Scott’s film, wherein no leges pugnandi are apparent. Kanz and Grossschmidt show a form of rule-bound combat, as described by the historic sources, is confirmed due to the absence of multiple perimortem traumatized individuals. These bones do not display the excessive violence often observed on, for instance, much later medieval battleground victims.

Despite inaccuracies, Gladiator has immense value. Scott’s film and popular productions like it play a big role in sparking interest in ancient cultures. Their use as a comparison can help clarify our understanding of the ancient world by prompting inquiry; they encourage research, speculation and debate. They expose the world of the Classics to future generations who might be inspired by what they see to undertake a course of scholarship. Through analysing both the artistic and scholarly worlds, fresher, clearer, and more coherent perspectives of the past can come in to view.

In the Roman citizenry there existed two distinct social classes or orders.  The patricians (patres – fathers) and the plebeians (plebs – multitude). To understand the political, social, economic and military developments that happened in the Roman Republic, it is important to understand how early republican society functioned and was organised according to this class system.

The patricians were a select few who owned large amounts of land and they were of noble birth. This gave them a privileged status within the state. To be a patrician you had to be able to trace your ancestry back to the original clans who settled the Seven Hills of Rome. The patricians totally controlled the state by monopolizing authority. They monopolized the senate and the position of consul, and they controlled the assembly. Patricians also controlled the state’s religious bodies through domination of the two major colleges of priests – the Augurs and the Pontifices. Religion and politics were not separate, and religion played a central role in the political decision making process.

Furthermore, patricians controlled the courts – all criminal and civil law was their jurisdiction. The fact that the legal code was unwritten and only patricians could administer and interpret it meant they could bend the law to suit themselves, which they did. They could make it up as they went along. In order to maintain the strict separation of the two social classes, patricians could not intermarry with plebeians. Patricians in this era had a special form of marriage, the only one of three at the time thought to be recognized by the gods. They were married by confarreatio, by the pontifex maximus and the flamen Dialis (priest of Jupiter). In this form of marriage the bride was entitled to a share of possessions and of the religious duties of the household.

Patricians owned significant amounts of land and they could afford to lease big tracts of public land (ager publicus) from the state. This aristocratic class did not sully their hands with industry or trade, these aspects of the Roman economy were left to plebeians and foreigners, e.g. Greeks.

Patricians also dominated the highest officer ranks of the army, and especially the cavalry. Entrance into the military was based on property qualifications, because a soldier was responsible for providing his own kit. While away on campaign it was easy for a patrician to keep his properties productive, as they could afford the associated expenses.

The plebeians were the mass of the Roman citizenry, those not part of the patrician order. They were small farmers, those who worked in in the crafts, labourers and traders. They were excluded from legal, political, economic and religious rights. The Plebeians were subject to the power and authority of the consuls. The consuls had power over the lives of the citizens, against their authority there existed no right of appeal.  Plebeians were excluded from public office and the aristocratic senate. In the assembly, plebeians who were not clients (tenants or dependents) of patricians could be outvoted by those who were. Plebeians were also kept out of the administration of the state’s religious institutions and major priesthoods.

Subject to a legal system dominated by patricians, the plebians often found themselves suffering cruelty and injustice.  They did not have knowledge of the laws, nor could they administer any aspect of the legal system. When a decision was handed down to them, no matter how unjust, they had no right of appeal. Any notion for plebeians and their descendants of climbing the social ladder by marrying a patrician was quashed by the fact that they were not legally allowed to marry a patrician, but if they did marry any children from the marriage would automatically be classed as plebeian. Marriage for plebians took two forms – marriage by coemptio (fictitious purchase of the bride to be from her father), or by usus (co-habitation).

Plebeians who were clients of a patrician were granted land by them in return for political and economic support. The prospect of dire poverty among the plebeian order was very real, and they often had to be absent from working their land because of a duty to do military service. This often led them to fall into debt, the debt law (unwritten) was very harsh. Also, during wartime they had to pay a military tax (tributum).  No share of public lands was granted to them and they could not graze their livestock on them. Trade was one way  plebeians could make a lot of money, and some become wealthier than patricians. With the power and influence money brought them they felt that they should have political rights, and they resented the fact that they did not.

Plebeians could serve in the army, but while they did they had to leave their lands unattended. It was during military crisis that membership of the Roman army could benefit the plebeian order, it allowed them to exert pressure on the patricians to make reforms. A rich plebeian who could afford cavalry equipment could,within the ranks of the army, achieve a kind of equality with the patricians.

At a glance the casual observer can see that the Roman system of the early republic was deeply skewed in favour of the patricians. The grievances of the plebeians, and their striving for equality lasted in Rome’s internal history for over 200 years of the early republic. The unwillingness of the patrician order to share power would be the source of great conflict and social upheaval during this period of Rome’s history. An understanding of the importance of social relationships between Roman citizens, the different degrees of political responsibility each held, the importance of religion in both private and public life and the military obligations of each social class is a vital part of understanding the subsequent changes that occurred in the lives of Romans during the middle and late republican periods, and beyond.

She’s probably the single most famous woman from all of Greek mythology.

We think we know the tale – the most beautiful woman in the world, and the enormous war that was fought over her.

Yet her story is much more complex than many may imagine. Was she really the face that launched a thousand ships?

The most well-known version of the Helen of Troy myth is what we get from the Epic Cycle, particularly Homer in the Iliad and the Odyssey. After visiting Menelaus, King of Sparta, the young Trojan prince Paris absconded with the Spartan king’s wife, Helen, and took her to Troy. In retribution, and in outrage at the insult to xenia, Menelaus and his brother King Agamemnon launched a vast expedition against the city of Troy, leading to a siege which lasted for ten years. Following the fall of Troy, Menelaus and Helen returned to Sparta, where they lived as king and queen once more.

That’s the most commonly known version of the myth. Yet there is another, very different version of this story.

The Greek lyric poet Stesichorus, one of the Nine Lyric Poets of ancient Greece, is attributed with creating an alternative view of the Trojan war.  While much of his poetry is lost, a key segment survives in quotation, regarding Helen of Troy:

‘It is not true, the tale. You did not go in the well-benched ships; you did not come to Pergama of Troy.’

In Stesichorus’ version of the myth, it was not really Helen that was taken to Troy by Paris. Rather, Helen was replaced by an eidolon – a sort of ancient Greek version of a phantom. The eidolon is a completely convincing doppelgänger of the Spartan queen, fooling all who see it, but it is not really her. The real Helen was spirited away by the gods to Egypt, where she lived for the whole duration of the Trojan War. Here she lived under the protection of the Egyptian King Proteus, while the eidolon resided in Troy. None of the Trojans nor the Achaeans knew the truth, and the war was fought, essentially over nothing.

This is the version of the myth that Euripides – the most experimental and daring of the three surviving Greek tragedians – used as the basis of his play Helen. Euripides was also influenced by the Encomium of Helen by the Greek Sophist Gorgias, which expressed similar ideas. When we meet Euripides’ Helen, she is a painfully isolated figure, all too aware of the events of the Trojan war, and moreso, of the blame wrongly attributed to her. She cries:

The play focuses on the distinction between nomos – the name of something, and physis – the reality of something. It’s an exploration of how what people say about us can conjure up an image that is completely removed from the reality of who we are, and yet remain a potent force. Helen knows that the Greeks consider her to be an adultress, when in reality, she has been completely faithful to her husband. She knows she is blamed for the vast number of deaths in the Trojan War, when she truly had nothing to do with it.

The play also follows Menelaus on his homecoming – or nostos – following the Trojan War. Newly shipwrecked in Egypt, Menelaus is now a man who looks like a beggar, claiming to be a king, and unaware of how close he is to finding his real wife. Greek drama is famous for its recognition scenes, and this play features a moving one, when both members of the married couple are baffled and overwhelmed to be in each other’s presence again.

Despite the tenderness of their reunion, all is not well. Helen’s protector King Proteus has died, and his son Theoclymenus plans to swiftly make her his bride, believing reports that Menelaus died in the shipwreck. This Euripides play belongs alongside his other ‘escape tragedies’ like Iphigeneia Among the Taurians, or his lost play on the Andromeda myth. These are somewhat removed from what we typically think of as ‘tragedies’. While they were performed on the same stages as the famous tales of Oedipus or the House of Atreus, they are perhaps closer to a medieval romance: tales of adventure and love, set in faraway lands, with a villainous tyrant lurking.

The play ends with the appearance of Castor and Pollux  – the Dioscuri. They act as a deus ex machina in the play, resolving the conflict, and ensuring that Helen and Menelaus freely escape. In a play so concerned with how misleading a name can be, it is ironic that these characters have a much more famous name. Elsewhere in myth, they are turned into stars and become a costellation, twins known as the Gemini to the Romans. While they are Helen’s brothers, perhaps the more relevant detail is the fact that they are twin brothers. It is perhaps a fitting image for the drama to end on – two who are alike, and yet not alike.

Roman literature has been enormously influential in the history of Western culture. The Pharsalia, an Epic poem by Lucan, was once widely read, and inspired many great Renaissance writers, such as Christopher Marlowe and Dante. This work tells the story of the great Roman Civil War between Julius Caesar and his legions on one side, and Pompey and his supporters in the Senate on the other. The Epic is one of the masterpieces of the Silver Age of Roman literature, and it is not only a remarkable work of art, but it also offers many insights into the history of Rome.

The author of the Pharsalia was Lucan (39 AD – 65 AD) who was born in what is now southern Spain. He was the grandson of Seneca the Elder, and the nephew of the Stoic philosopher and statesman, Seneca the Younger. He became a close friend of Nero, who helped Lucan to secure the post of Quaestor. Lucan managed to write the Epic which consists of ten books in a remarkably short period of time.  In this he was assisted by his loyal wife. At some point, Lucan and Nero had a falling out. Some sources suggest that Lucan dared to criticise the work of Nero. In 65 AD, Lucan became involved in a conspiracy led by Piso.  This plot was discovered, and Lucan was implicated. Ancient sources alleged that the poet revealed information about the other conspirators, including his family members, in a bid to save his life. This failed and he was forced to commit suicide by opening his veins by Nero.

The Epic is also known in Latin as the De Bello Civili (Concerning the Civil War). The work narrates in dramatic detail the events of the war between Julius Caesar and Pompey (49-45 BC), which led to the downfall of the Roman Republic. The work opens with a dedication to Nero and a denunciation of civil war. In Book One it relates how Caesar defied the Senate and marched on Rome.  It then narrates how the Senate and Pompey were forced to leave Italy. The poem tells how Caesar campaigned against forces loyal to the Senate in Spain. The poem concentrates on the events surrounding the battle of Pharsalus, which took place in Thessaly in Greece. This was the crucial battle of the Civil War and it forms the centrepiece of the Epic. The poem became known as the Pharsalia by later Roman commentators, naming it after the battle.

Lucan relates how Caesar was able to defeat Pompey, and how the latter was forced to flee. The last Books are concerned with the wanderings of the defeated general, and finally his assassination in Egypt. The Epic concludes with the Julius Caesar in Egypt fighting for his life after he became involved in the Egyptian Civil War, and his infatuation with Cleopatra. Scholars believe that if Lucan had lived, the poet would have continued his Epic until the assassination of Caesar, or even the rise of Augustus. The Epic is not an accurate historical document and there are many sections of the work such as Pompey consulting with a witch that are inventions.

The poem shows the influence of Virgil and Ovid, the key figures in the Golden Age of Roman literature. The influence of oratory on the poet is evident as well, and there are many sententious phrases in the Epic. It is structured in a series of discrete episodes and eschews a linear narrative. Lucan does not respect the Epic convention of portraying divine intervention in human affairs. The Epic minimizes the role of the Gods and even seems to deny that they exist. On the other hand, it focuses a great deal on the supernatural, such as witches and oracles. The work of Lucan is a good example of the type of literature that was favored by Nero and his court. The style of the work has made it difficult to read for many modern readers.

The Epic is often interpreted as being anti-imperialistic. It is clearly sympathetic to the cause of Pompey and the Senate. Many have argued that the poet shows his sympathies to the Republican system of government. The sentiments in the work could also be interpreted as being critical of Nero. There are some academics who believe that this is not the case. They argue that the occasions when Julius Caesar is portrayed negatively were warnings to Nero. An important theme in the book is the importance of character and how it can influence events. The Epic can be seen as being anti-war, and the poet graphically describes the tragedy caused when Romans fought Romans, which is rare in Latin literature.

Some have seen Lucan as part of a Neronian Renaissance in Roman literature, along with writers such as his relative Seneca the Younger and Petronius. The Pharsalia influenced literature during the Renaissance but subsequently fell out of favor.  While it is not comparable to the work of Virgil and Ovid, it still an important literary work. Today, scholars have revived the study of the Epic poem because it provides insights into the culture of First Century Rome.  

Leigh, M. (1997), Lucan: Spectacle and Engagement. Oxford.