WARNING: This blog post contains SPOILERS about Greek myth and history, a little Shakespeare, and a 1991 SF novel.

Yesterday and today I am struggling with how to address the use of what we’ve been calling AI — it’s just a large language model, for now. All educators are dealing with this these days and the answers have not been great. Some educators at both the HS level and the college level are simply not giving any assignments completed outside the classroom any weight in the assessment of student learning.

What’s the problem with that you ask?

First, Time. My time with my students is precious. According to our bulletin (most accredited institutions)students should dedicate twice the amount of time outside of class learning as in class. If I only assess work completed in the classroom, the time to complete that work comes out of my teaching time. Students get less instruction.

Second, Power Dynamics. When instructors obsess over policing academic integrity we lose sight of our relationship with students. We become primarily rule-enforcers rather than mentors, educators, and coaches. We lose the ability to reach our students across the gaping power differential. There are always ways to break the rules (and even get away with it). If a student doesn’t value the learning and respect integrity of the assessment process, more dystopian futures of enforcement won’t help. It only feeds a technological arms race with students consuming technology to enable ‘easy answers’ and educators and institutions will always be looking to buy better ‘detectors’ or ‘prevention methods’.

The solutions must be cultural and based on the relational rather than transactional aspects of education.

Why do I believe this? Why do I want to stay in relationship with students who have sought or may seek to deceive me? Why do I hope they may wish to stay in relationship with me?

Largely because humans have been struggling with these issues for millennia and telling stories about the risks they entail. My experiences with A.I. and my students and colleagues resonates with the fantastic narratives I read or watch for pleasure and the texts I have taught for more than 20 years.

Pithy Answers

Apollo slew the great Pytho^* to win his shrine at Delphi. In honor of this his priestess, his voice on earth, his oracle, was named the Pythia. When something is said in a witty, concise manner we describe that as “pithy” to recall the nature of the responses given by the Pythia to those mortals who came to seek answers to difficult questions. The Pythia is always right but almost always misinterpreted. Oedipus’ parents are told their son will kill his father and marry his mother. They toss him away only to have him found and reared by other parents. He hears his own fate and trying to avoid it flees his adoptive parents and ends up killing his birth father and marrying his birth mother. Croesus wonders what will happen if invades Persia and is told “a great empire will fall”. Of course, being an optimist, he goes ahead only to have his own great empire of Lydia toppled by Cyrus the Great. If only they understood the ‘true’ answers and how to use that knowledge!

Or, maybe it is worse to have access to these questions and be tempted to use it? Socrates rebuked Xenophon for asking the wrong question before his ill-fated expedition with a much less great Cyrus. Xenophon tried to constrain the answer through the forming of his question: “What gods should I propitiate to have success in this endeavor?” Xenophon and a few of his comrades reached the sea and made it home to inspire others on their own ill-fated retreats. Many did not return. All were scarred. What if he’d asked a better question: “What will it cost me if I go?”

Weird Answers

I thought a great deal about the Delphic oracle while watching Macbeth with members of the BC Classical Society, a wonderful student club, which initiated a group viewing of campus production of “the Scottish play”.

Shakespeare reworked historical fiction to tell a story of the evils of “true” answers caused by the limits of human understanding. Macbeth was a real person, so Duncan, and so Malcolm, but none lived lives as we see on the stage or remember. Banquo and MacDuff were not purely Shakespeare’s own invention but may be considered shared fictional characters. Macbeth is tempted by seemly miraculous access to information. He asks again and again. And each ‘true’ statement brings him only deeper toward his own tragic end. Banquo tries to abide by his own moral code even as he asks and receives delicious answers. Macbeth is jealous of his access to this knowledge and Banquo’s own demise is the cost of knowing. We are also left to wonder if the answers given to Banquo are even correct. Shakespeare does not have them manifest on stage. Malcolm takes the crown. Sure the Stuarts claim Banquo’s equally fictional surviving son Fleance as an ancestor to legitimate their rule, but is it true? Did the audience believe it to be true? How can we verify the weird answers of the three sisters?

You can read those those better versed in these things to learn about how Shakespeare intersects with the classical tradition of riddles and prophecy.^**

A Bird^*** of a Different Feather?

I finished the last 20 minutes of my latest audiobook, All the Weyrs of Pern (1991), on the drive home from the dropping my children at school. I’d guessed from the foreshadowing how it would end and yet nonetheless it was poignant and I find myself writing now instead of addressing some most necessary piece of bureaucracy or service.

Pern is a world created by Anne McCaffery in the late nineteen-sixties and is still to some degree being created by her children and intellectual heirs. It was colonized by future Earthers looking to start afresh by using technology to escape the devastation of this world. (A dangerous SF trope influencing the minds of men with too much money today.). All goes well until unforeseen natural disaster on the new world returns the descendants of the original colonists to a pre-modern state. Fast forward more than two millennia and Pernese start excavating their past. The discoveries influence fashions and create social unrest. The best and worst of the discoveries is the A.I.V.A.S. or the Artificial Intelligence Voice Address System.

Let me tell you how disappointed I am to find no actual SF scholars have yet written about A.I.V.A.S. (as far as I can find)!

This character and how society reacts to it speak volumes to our present moment and has had me pause the playback on many occasions just to let the implications of this 1991 vision of today’s reality sink in fully. A.I.V.A.S. will remind readers of the computer in Star Trek and similar remarkable seemingly all-knowing data storage and computation tools from other SF worlds. A.I.V.A.S. holds necessary information for the Pernese to overcome the constant threat of natural disaster and thus have the material and temporal resources necessary for more than a subsistence living.

And, once the mission is accomplished, the machine destroys itself. Without the specific mission and focus of its energies, it will only disrupt society rather support it. The information it held is still accessible, but the ability to rely on the character of A.I.V.A.S., the interface that demands little or no comprehension of the mortal human accessing it must be removed.

What now?

I don’t think any of our AI will turn itself off. It has been programmed to capture our eyeballs and continually fascinate us, rather than to protect us and our intellectual autonomy. It is closer to Macbeth’s weird sisters than A.I.V.A.S. At best it might be pithy, a clever tool, of which we may if we dare ask questions and try to use the answers without (too much) risk. Futile attempts to smash AI, ignore it, or calling ‘the abomination’ will get us nowhere. Thoughtful, cautious engagement is where we must start.

I do know that thinking about the character of AI is something I want to do more and something I will invite my students to do alongside me.

---

* –

Python as we use the word today was imposed during the European taxonomy revolution and is only first attested in 1803. It is a borrowing of the classical to describe the ‘exotic’ without any inquiry of

** –

Davies, Malcolm. “‘All’and ‘Nothing’: Existential Riddles and Cosmic Pessimism in Ancient Greek Literature and Shakespeare.” GAIA. Revue interdisciplinaire sur la Grèce ancienne 18, no. 1 (2015): 455-469.

Fontenrose, Joseph. “The Oracular Response as a Traditional Narrative Theme.” Journal of Folklore Research (1983): 113-120.

*** –

Avis is Latin for bird. I’m playing with the homophone and wonder if the author may have intended this.

I bought the catalogue of mirrors in Brussels. I’ll collect my notes here.

The catalogue describes the head at Minerva’s feet as a likely personification of body of water. I’m not sure at all. Typically I’d see such a head as oracular but how that would work with the scene is as unclear as it would be if a water personification.

This one I like for its suggestion of the use of the cistae, bronze cylindricaltoilet boxes. Also the body necklaces are delightful as ancient lingerie.

Here the head on the ground is interpreted as a mask of Silenus, as an attribute of Fufluns, associated with Dionysus/Liber. More sensible but still not clearly correct. The catalogue associates Esia with Ariadne and her slaying by Artemis cf Hom. Od. 11.321-325. The childlike characteristics of Esia and her being held make me think this image is connected to a very different narrative than any we know.

While the catalogue seems to endorse Helbig’s interpretation of this as Eos’ seizing of Cephales even if not fully explained, I’m inclined to see this as the union of Salmacis and Hermaphroditus. While most have seen Ovid Met. 4.306ff. as an Augustan age literary invention, it would also fit this scene. The figure to the far right would be their final joined forms marked by the velafactio. Saturn, the right hand figure, stands for tradition and how this new form is to be rejected.

TBC

Occupational Scenes

Two young men dress a fawn (not a calf!) (gut/butcher?). The wooden vessel on the ground is probably for offal. We find vessels on the floor of butcher shop illustrations. The silver vase with Pan heads seems decorative, but perhaps held watter. Why do such messy work in such nice clothes? Do the stripes on the tunics mean something? The catalogue says the far left object is a tray (I do see handles) and it is resting on a pillar, perhaps holding objects needed to prepare the meat or to carry the meat in side once dressed and ready for the kitchen. The scenes with Cupids show perfume making and garlend making in both cases a Psyche is the client/buyer of the goods. Is the overarching message: the mind must carefully select the fruits/labors/works of desire? The cupid occupations are both known from other frescoes. The panel picture and the limited number of figures are similar those from Herculaneum, but the color pattern and style is closer to the long continuous frieze of the more famous working cupids from the house of Vettii in Pompeii (perfume making; another perfume making scene; garland making). I struggle with all three frescos. Are they real? If so, where were they found? The funerary relief of the wool merchant L. Aelius Evangelos I have few doubts about authenticity, but do love the details of the craft. In a naughty fashion, I’ve put in two occupational reliefs from Brussels that probably should have gone in the previous post, but fit thematically better here. We have the famous ‘banker’ or ‘money-changer’ scene and also a relief of merchants weighing goods but the light was terrible for that one.

Portraits (Probably)

These are all facing I thought might be useful for teaching. I follow Elizabeth Marlowe in thinking the Capitoline ‘Flavian’ Woman is probably an early modern fantasy piece. The Hellenistic ‘not a king because no diadem’ portrait is good for showing verism beyond Rome. The Cybele looks a great deal to me like a portrait “in the guise of…”. The Etruscan bronze can be contextualized now with the San Casciano finds and and the life-size Gallo-Roman votive heads also have antecedents there (early posts). I really liked the special exhibition on the 26th Dynasty in Egypt (most objects on loan from BM). The faces help make clear that naturalism isn’t strictly Ptolemaic introduction in Egyptian portraiture. Other faces just diversify what I remember to show my students.

Arms and Armor

The statue I believe to be Virtus. Of course some would say it is indistinguishable from Roma, but I tend to think that Roman mostly covers her breasts and Virtus personified less so, and yet even this isn’t a tell tale sign (earlier blog post). The griffin helmet is a nice parallel for Roma on coins of the Republican series. The white ground lethykos I liked because of how we see the reverse of the shield and how all the parts attach to say nothing of the strapping on the scabbard of the sword (I’ve worried about straps on this blog before).

Other things that make me think

The flight is almost over so I need to bang out the rest of these. The fishnet suit that the muse of tragedy wears is hilarious. Who is she playing? Silenus? The seascape I like because the painter has allowed you to see the arches of the substructure of the pier continue below the waterline. Also I wonder if this counts as a cryptoporticus. Six winged seraphim with faces and little hands make me want to sing a praise song. The sarcophagi are complete but without portraits finished always an interesting topic to discuss with students. I tend to go for practical rather than symbolic reasons for leaving them uncarved but try to keep an open mind. The high relief faience vase is so curious–I see why the curators think it may be a Ptolemaic queen. I cannot make out the word in the legend on the pointy altar before euerget… (in Greek). That pointy altar made me look twice at the pointy one on the glass faux cameo vases with the cupid. The end of larger sarcophagus for a married couple has Achilles at Skyros being discovered in the disguise of a woman by Odysseus. One of my favorite compositions, and one I associate with the mosaics of Zeugma. The Mosaic in this set also evoked memories of the Zeugma museum in Gaziantep: so much was looted from that site and this bears many stylistic similarities. The Etruscan ring with Achilles lying in wait for Troilus reminded me so strongly of the rendering in the Tomb of the Bulls at Tarquinia, but I find myself now thinking I just don’t know the iconography of this scene as well as I should (images for comparison). The warrior on the red figure fragment caught my eye because his helmet has hair. The label said i might be the scalp of Troilus. I can’t confirm this but there is a tradition of him being beheaded and often Achilles grabs his hair (more on the myth). The late Roman gold fibula has a secrets screw compartment, like a poison ring! Other images I just liked or thought might be useful.

I ponied up the money for wifi on this flight home so I could organize, share, and think more about all the fantastic artifacts I’ve seen. Hopefully if all goes well the next post will be a round-up of the Getty Visit last weekend. I only had 2 hours in this museum so it was rather a speed walk through everything. I’m going to group photos into galleries and/or slide shows. Click on an image to see more detail and uncropped images.

Big Stuff mostly from Apamea, Syria

The mosaic of the “Therapenides” (enslaved female domestic workers) commemorates the homecoming of Odysseus and his reunion with the women of his house after the destruction of the suitors. However, the joyous dancing of the enslaved evokes also the murder of the ‘unfaithful’ enslaved women who were gruesomely hung for suffering at the hands of the suitors. The motif of happy dancing slaves especially in this type of ring composition is found through out colonial and imperialist art of the modern period (there are some images in my 2018 tree and sunset article). The kiss at the gate between the reunited enslavers strongly reminds me of iconography of Joachim and Anna at the Golden Gate, esp. Giotto’s rendering. The munching scene is just one of many from the Synagogue in the museum. The model of Rome is delightful but I did not linger in the interests of time.

Pots

The highlight of this section is the black gloss cup with a relief impression created from a coin of Syracuse with the head of Arethusa. I’ve blogged about this type of cup before but then a different example. The other stamped black gloss pot (vernice nera with petites estampilles) is perhaps more typical of the genre, a fine example, but a poor photo. The askos with the ivy leaves in relief I wanted to remember for comparative iconography. The others are just delightful scenes: women rearrange the furniture, the equipment for stomping grapes to extract the juice and retain the skins and seeds, a polka dot Minotaur, funny stylized sea creatures (=Mycenaean octopus cups). Notice that the shield of the one warrior has a thunderbolt (fulmen) on it. And, the dancers are wearing an early version of the comic fat suit. Less fat, just a little paunch, also a rather small fake phallus. The women dance nude besides a necklace, but notice how their nipples point down in a rather amusing rendering.

Military stuff

The images don’t do justice to the standard top. It has so many little animal motifs and details worked in to the design that can’t be clearly seen here. The sling bullets (glandes) also have rich decoration AND interesting inscriptions–check out the labels. I thought the detail on the architectural terracotta relief was spectacular–it reminded me straight away of the battle friezes on monument of Aemilius Paulus so well studied by Michael Taylor.

Funerary Stuff

Ever since my 2004 Turkish road trip I’ve been obsessed with the image of two disembodied open hands on grave stele. Somewhere or perhaps lost forever on a fried hard drive I have dozens of images of these symbols from across Anatolia but I rarely meet them in museums outside of Turkey. Lead coffins are rare and this one has some nice sphinxes on it if you look carefully. The sarcophagus represents a lamp stand in use.

Figural terracottas

The color on the Campana plaque with Achilles and Penthesilea caught my eye but also it is just a favorite motif for how it has been adapted artistic representations of conquest in Roman art (a theme of past blog posts). There Hercules and boxers relief is a nice study in idealized hyper masculinity. Cybele’s lap cat is hilarious so needed a photo. The lamps provide examples of how it is not only disability that interests ancient artists exploring the extremes of the human body, but also how hard labor especially for the enslaved leads to disfiguration. The squatting woman I think is obese or has an abdominal tumor rather than being pregnant. The face seems older and the cup suggests a life of over indulging in wine. Perhaps a variation on the drunken woman clutching a vase.

Other objects of interest

The water spigot with the disturbingly distorted head of a black person didn’t have a label. For context I also photographed a lamp in the form of a similarly distorted head. What is up with the abuse of the mouth!? The snail shell is another bronze lamp. A fully intact wooden table from Luxor is certainly noteworthy. It has a similar share to tables depicted in some Pompeian frescoes. The lead figure in a lead box (coffin?) is almost certainly a magic object related to cursing, but it also lacked a label. The thumb is carved from bone in exquisite detail and was the handle of a knife: it and the cameo and spindle, lantern, and glass objects were all from Belgian finds, mostly tomb assemblages. The wax tablet was photographed because of the figural complexity of the scraper, the blade of which was either v smooth glass or rock crystal. I failed to make a note if the materials were listed in its label.

This post is a real hot mess of literary citations. Read on only if you dare.

—

Why did so many Greek communities end up in debt to powerful Romans?

No word here about the creditors, but we see that Sulla’s own need for funding for his march on Rome is a key component. Even if the poleis are borrowing from fellow Greeks at the origin they are still entering debt to accommodate Roman leadership.

Now my current project joins up with my last one on the 80s BCE (Forthcoming in proceedings of the RACOM conference):

The historiographer in me is just delighted with how Appian seamlessly draws us from the Social War and the Roman debt crisis in the aftermath into the violence between Marius and Sulla over the Mithridatic War and all that follows. The murder of Asellio filled with tragedy and pathos and questions of who is right and wrong and the agency of unnamed forces divided between creditors and debtors is a beautiful construct. Letting the reader engage and empathize and feel some sense of understanding of the contentions let civil war erupt, but frankly that isn’t today’s problem.

State interference with interest rates didn’t work but was desired. The state also has no will to punish creditors for protecting their interests (pun intended with violence).

Let’s point out that we don’t know how the 12% APR rule was enforced OR to what types of loans it applied. We do know from Cicero’s letter that the 4% = 48% APR attempted to be backed by and SC for Salamis’ debts to Brutus was considered beyond the pale.

The Lex Valeria of 86 was passed by the consul suffectus L. Valerius Flaccus (the same man who lost his life in the mutiny of Fimbria later that year; this law allowed debts to be repaid as in full with only a quarter of the amount owed. Sources in same older blog post.

[At this point I’ve lost a mass of work thanks to a browser crash…].

I cannot re construct all my notes but here are the clippings

Highlights of above clippings:

Not loaning at interest: Augustus, Manlius, and Atticus

Debt shennanigans in Rome (Caelius’ legislation) and Provinces (Scipio et al) c. 48 BCE

4 century Livy on interest rates and debt relief

193 BCE attempts to get around regulation to charge higher interest

—

---

Dio 41.37 ‘restoration’ motives questioned…

Lucan – Debt associated with Bribery!

Look again at Cic. Par. Sto. VI on the nature of wealth because of allusions to Crassus and good vs. bad ways of making money. usury is bad. tax collecting good.

Taking state funds and then using them to give out loans. Taking bribes to allievate debt burden of foreigners to other Romans:

Problem of extorting Provincials:

Concordia rests on generosity and gratitude: interest on loans removes gratitude.

The endebted war hero without a name x2!

1% rate x2!

Cato throws the money lenders out of Sardinia

Forfeit property rather than keep a creditor waiting! Lots also in Catiline about this

Selling provincial assets to settle bills in Rome and/or borrowing to instead:

Cic. Att. 8.7, Feb 49

Cic. Att. 7.3.7, Dec 50

Tact. Ann. 6.16, 33 CE

Cf. (D. Cass. LVIII. 21).

Everytime I end up thinking about the François Tomb I end up having to remind myself about the Vibenna brothers. I was sure I’d left myself notes last time but no. On the tomb itself Jacyln Neel has a smart and accessible write up.

Aulus Wiki entry

Caelius Wiki entry

Tacitus Ann. 4.65

It may not be out of place to state that the hill was originally named the “Querquetulanus,”​ from the abundance of oak produced on it, and only later took the title of “Caelius” from Caeles Vibenna, an Etruscan chief; who, for marching to the aid of Rome, had received the district as a settlement, either from Tarquinius Priscus or by the gift of another of our kings. On that point the authors disagree: the rest is not in doubt — that Vibenna’s numerous forces established themselves on the level also, and in the neighbourhood of the forum, with the result that the Tuscan Street has taken its name from the immigrants.”

Varro, LL 5.46

Festus:

TUSCUS VICUS. All other authors say that the Tuscan quarter is the name of that part of Rome which was assigned to those Etruscans who remained in the city, and settled there when Porsena withdrew from it after raising the siege; or else that this quarter received this name, because it was inhabited by the two brothers Caeles and Vibenna, who came from Vulci and whom King Tarquin, it is said, brought with him to Rome. But Varro says that this place was so called because inhabitants of Mount Celia were brought there.

One day I’ll track down the Claudian Speech mentioning Mastarna for completeness and also the epigraphic references…

This text was cut from my recent RBN article. It provides a narrative imagining how and why we see a revival of the semuncia at the end of 2nd Cent BCE.

A speculative reconstruction

If I were to create a plausible sequence of events to explain this pattern, it would look something like this.  This version is not fact, but rather serves as reasonable narrative to connect our known points of commonality. 

In 105 BCE Saturninus was already politically ambitious and was starting to campaign for his first step on the cursus honorum, the quaestorship.  He uses his moneyership to make a distinctive coinage that would stand out in the hand of any individual: ‘hey this coin has two heads?!’ ‘wait, this one has two tails!’[1] He also revives the uncia, but he may have left off the ROMA legend.  He looks all the way back to Metellus’ issue [256/5] of the late 130s for design template distinguishing his own issue from those created more recently in the 110s.  As we saw above Metellus’ reverse design echoed design choices known from Roman-Sicilian bronzes.  Perhaps Saturninus used his time in the Roman mint to create a a series of uncia for his own private use.  Perhaps to be passed out to potential voters as he campaigned, a coin that was unofficially official and useful, but too small to be a bribe exactly. 

The next year Balbus, Tubulus, and Herennius take office.  Balbus is a convivial man from Lanuvium, perhaps pressured by family to make a name for himself at Rome even as is own inclinations are otherwise.[2]  Herennius is beginning to be known for his oratory and has ambitions beyond his equestrian rank.  Marius’ career gives him hope at what might be possible.  Perhaps Marius’ rise also inspired Balbus or those pushing him toward politics at Rome. Tubulus has a noble, if ancient and nearly useless, pedigree and yet here he was starting on a public career. His grandfather (or great grandfather) had made a name for himself extorting bribes from litigants as a judge in his praetorship (142 BCE) and when prosecuted went into exile and finally took poison to end his life.  Tubulus had been fed on a diet, though, of the accomplishments of his grandfather’s grandfather a hero of the Second Punic War, a time when his family had been true heroes. 

This college knew Saturninus has made hay out of his moneyership, landing the quaestorship and was now butting heads with the leaders of the Senate for his ‘unusual’ manner of controlling the trafficking of grain upriver from Ostia to the docks at Rome.  A highly visible post that was setting him up well for his political future.  Why not follow suit and get creative?

Tubulus takes inspiration from a much older coins he has found, perhaps they were stored in his family tablinum said to have been struck by an ancestor, or perhaps the mint archives (tabularium) preserved examples of older coin types.[3]  He liked that it had Diana on it as his C. Tubulus has been stationed at Capua during the Second Punic War. Regardless, he likes that it was old and thus properly traditional regardless of whether it was truly connected to the family history. Tubulus wanting to emphasize his traditionalism copied the obverse of the old coin nearly exactly even the backward sigma.[4]  He encourage Balbus and Herennius to follow suit.

Herennius was game and also struck a semuncia and likewise used Diana, but he wasn’t convinced that that backwards sigma was correct and he wasn’t going to copy bad Greek onto his coin.  Maybe he had seen small coins from Campania (around Minturniae) that had used cornucopiae on the reverse?[5]  He did, however like, the idea of minting uncia in large enough numbers to be useful: with all the ugly small change floating around how could it be a bad idea to make something more legitimate and official.

Thorius had made the family happy by putting Sospita on the coinage, why not please his fellow moneyers too by following suit?  He could mark his out but still echo their work.  He wasn’t convinced that the backwards sigma was a mistake but rather some other ancient symbol marking the denomination. He had the engraver redraw what he ‘saw’ on the old coin and place it explicitly as a denomination mark on both obverse and reverse. For the obverse he decided to echo rather than emulate his fellow moneyers. If they used Diana why not use an aspect of Apollo and add Veovis’ oak crown?[6]  This has some precidence if in a different aspect Apollo on the uncia of Curtius, Silanus, and Domitius. Regardless the oak would nicely echo the oak of the reverse.

Is this picture true? Perhaps in part, but like so much of ancient history it is speculation.  Numismatists tend to prefer knowable truths.

---

[1] Stannard 1987.

[2] See above discussion of Epicurean leanings.

[3] Cf. consistent design elements across multiple generations of families, e.g. RRC 149 and RRC 362.

[4] The backward sigma like shape appears on both RRC 160/5 and also the new semuncia of the RRC 216 series, cf. Campana 2023.

[5] Stannard 2018 and Stannard and Carbone 2018.

[6] Cf. RRC 298/1 and 304/1 for precedence.

So the conference for which I’ve been preparing is to mark the 50th anniversary of Gruen’s Last Generation of Roman Republic. Thus in preperation I need to re familiarize my self with his thoughts on Debt. The fantastic thing about 50 year old indices is that they are USEFUL. This is in stark contrast with many today that are at once created by text searching and also assume that you can probably just search the electronic version of the book yourself.

P. 68 – Reviews power of Crassus uses as examples his role in Catilinarian conspiracy and Clodius and Cicero both wanting his support after.

Gruen:

Crassus lent out cash, not for material profit, but to place men under an obligation. A good number of Roman senators were in his debt.

Footnote gives evidence: paying off Caesar’s debts in 61 BCE (Plut. Crass. 7.6, Caes 11.1). Less paying off and more a case of underwriting the debt:

Plutarch in the loeb (translation adapted):

once when Caesar was on the point of setting out for Spain as praetor, and had no money, and his creditors descended upon him and began to attach his outfit, Crassus did not leave him in the lurch, but stood surety himself for eight hundred and thirty talents.

Also it is NEARLY 830 talents not exactly that amount in the Greek. So how much are we talking.

Imagine the weight of 8 full grown male rhinos and a one young skinny cow. That’s how much Crassus got hold over Caesar by way of other creditors. Or, if that is too silly for you enough to pay a legion for over 8 years. It makes me wonder if Crassus gave up the triumph to stand for the consulship because he’d not made enough in Spain to cover the debts and he needed a new province to get out from under Crassus’ thumb… Rabid speculation. Don’t quote me. I’d have to think a great deal more about this.

---

A helpful comment on the original post helped me correct the above.

---

I’m not sure I agree with the sentence:

Money was flowing abroad in such large quantities that the senate felt compelled to issue a decree in 63 banning, at least the export of gold and silver.

Here’s the primary evidence:

Cic. Flac. 67

Cic. Vat. 12

In the Pro Flacco the key question is the sending of tribute to the temple in Jerusalem and stopping it is good, in the In Vatinum Cicero leaves the Jewish element out of his rhetoric because he’s seeking to vilify Vatinus not the Jewish people. The senate bans the export of resources to Jerusalem from Italy in 63 BCE because Pompey is actively besieging the city in that year! One does not fund the enemy.

---

Interest rates were consequently fluctuating and unstable.

S-B doesn’t think Teucris is Antony himself but rather a female agent based on the use of illa. The question is whether Cicero will defend Antony at his trial and if this loan is a quid pro quo arrangement. Antony may be holding out on dispensing the loan because of Cicero’s hesitations on the defense. Cicero wants a good interest rate. 12% per annum (= 1% per month) is an acceptable business rate as we’ve seen from this being the cap in Cicero’s edict. Cicero wants mates’ rates and Antony doesn’t want to deliver without re assurances of them actually being mates! Again I’m not sure this can be used as evidence as Gruen does here. I read the difficulty with the loan being a personal matter not a state of the economy matter.

Cic. Att. 1.13.5, 61 BCE

This follow up letter shows that Cicero wants the money to buy his house and that the loan is for some number less than 3.35 million denarii or that’s like 5 to 5.5 rhinos worth of silver. nothing to sneeze at.

To me the key part of this passage is that making expensive purchases with the help of friends was a matter of personal dignity. The loan facilitates the outward necessary performance.

Cic. Fam. 5.6.2, 62 BCE

Cicero is bragging here about the amazing interest he’s getting on mate rates on account of his being a friend to the creditors by suppressing Catiline’s conspiracy and the possibility of debt cancellation. 6% per annum is not the going rate it is the special rate for Cicero. Not unlike Crassus lending at no interest for political purposes (Plut. Cras. 3).

Val. Max. 4.8.3

Cic. Att. 2.24.4

S-B thinks this is the same individual as in A.1.12. Seems plausible and would make connection to Val. Max. individual more likely. For this incident opposing Caesar’s agrarian legislation cf. Plut. Caes. 14.

This Q. Considius may also be the fair minded juror mentioned by Cic. Verr. 2.1.18 and Cic. Cluent. 107.

Cic. Rab. 21 provides nice evidence for the talent of account being 6000 denarii.

Pro. Cael.

Cic. QFr. 2.15 54 BCE

Why did this interest rate jump? Because they were borrowing so much and thus creating risk? Was it just for them or everyone?