Paul the Persian: Zoroastrianism is incoherent, but science is a better guide

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In my last post, we found Armenian writer Eznik of Kolb stating that the Avesta was not in written form in his own time, the 5th century AD.  This information came to us via Zaehner’s book on Zurvan.[1]

Zaehner also gives us a comment on Zoroastrianism by none other than Paul the Persian!  This obscure writer will be familiar to few of us, as he wrote in Middle Persian, and almost none of the Christian literature in that language survives.  However we know a little about him from Bar Hebraeus, and a few other sources.

Paul the Persian lived in the later 6th century. The Chronicle of Seert tells us that he hoped to be Bishop of Persis, but on failing to be elected, sadly he apostasised to Zoroastrianism.

He wrote works in Middle Persian on Aristotle, for the Sassanid Persian king. Some of these were translated into Syriac, some by Severus Sebokht, and so they exist in a shadowy form in Syriac manuscripts and obscure publications.

Zaehner quotes Paul on Zoroastrianism, and we will come to this in a moment.  But his source is almost equally interesting.  For he gives as a reference “Casartelli, The Philosophy of the Mazdayasnian Religion under the Sassanids, p.1″.  This itself is a curiosity. It can be found at Archive.org here, from which I learn that it is a translation from the French[2], and that it was published in 1889, in India!  The translation was made by Firoz Jamaspji Dastur Jamasp Asa, rather than by an Anglo-Indian.  Here is what the learned Indian – a Parsee? – has to say:

1. Paul of Dair-i Shar, a learned Persian, who flourished at the court of the greatest of the Sassanide kings, Khosrav Anosheravan (A. D. 531—57S) gives us, in an impressive picture, the different theories on the nature and attributes of God, which were shared at the time among the minds of his fellow-countrymen.

“There are some,” he says, “who believe in only one God; others claim that He is not the only God; some teach that He possesses contrary qualities; others say that He does not possess them; some admit that He is omnipotent; others deny that He has power over everything. Some believe that the world and everything contained therein have been created; others think that all the things are not created. And there are some who maintain that the world has been made ex nihilo; according to others (God) has drawn it out from an (preexisting matter).”[1]

2. One might suspect that in this passage, amidst some general remarks on philosophical theories, Paul is speaking about various doctrines scattered over the whole world, especially as he was a Christian, and had studied the heathen philosophies of Greece in the schools of Nisibis or of Jondishapur.[2] But it must be remembered that the writer is here addressing himself directly to king Khosrav, and mentioning to him details which must have been familiar to him, just as he cites elsewhere[3] in proof of multi vocal words the Persian names of the sun. It is therefore very probable that the author is here describing the opinions which were current in his time in the bosom of the Eranian religion itself. Moreover, it cannot be doubtful to those who are aware of the divergence of opinions which separated the numerous Eranian sects, that Paul is here enumerating faithfully the characteristic doctrines of the Eranian sects of the Sassanide period.

[1] Paulus Persa, Logica, fol. 56; from Land, Anecdota Syriaca, vol. IV, Leyden, 1875 (translation p.8).
[2] Land, ibid., Scholia, p.100.
[3]  Paulus Persa, Logica, fol. 58v.

Paul, then, is testifying that Zoroastrianism had no settled teachings on a good number of subjects even in the 6th century AD.

While looking up Paul, I discovered yet another interesting snippet.

The Encyclopedia Iranica informs us that Paul’s Treatise on the Logic of Aristotle the Philosopher addressed to King Ḵosrow or Chosroes I, as we would know him, is the Logica referenced above, published by Land, and extant in British Library ms. 988 [Add. 14660], foll. 55ᵛ-67ʳ; Wright, 1872, p. 1161.  Apparently the first half of this work has been translated into French by Teixidor (1992, pp. 129-32; 1998b), which is good news for those who wish to read it in something other than a Latin translation.

Apparently Paul argued, either in this or a related lost work, that through knowledge one may attain certainty, allowing people to reach unanimous agreement. Faith, however, can neither gain exact knowledge nor eliminate doubt, leading to dissension and discord.  These ideas influenced later Arabic writers, who record some of the ideas.[3]  Sadly I was unable to obtain access to either of the references.  One would like to know exactly whose words these are; and how closely related to Paul’s own words.

Share
  1. [1]Robert Charles Zaehner, Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma, Biblo & Tannen Publishers, 1955; 128-9.  Google Books preview here.↩
  2. [2]L.C.Casartelli, La philosophie religieuse du Mazdeisme sous les Sassanides, 1884.  Google Books (US only).  The French includes the original Syriac, which is omitted by the English.↩
  3. [3]EI gives: D. Gutas, “Paul the Persian on the Classification of the Parts of Aristotle’s Philosophy: A Milestone Between Alexandria and Baghdad,” Der Islam 60/2, 1983, pp. 231-67 (p.247); reprinted in his Greek Philosophers in the Arabic Tradition, Aldershot, 2000; J. Texidor, “Science versus foi chez Paul le Perse. Une note,” in From Byzantium to Iran: Armenian Studies in Honour of Nina Garsoïan, ed. J.-P. Mahé and R. W. Thomson, Atlanta, 1996, pp. 509-19.↩

Eznik of Kolb: the Avesta was not transmitted in writing but orally

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A tweet by @BLAsia_Africa led me to a neglected passage in Eznik of Kolb, the 5th century Armenian writer, and a quotation from Paul the Persian!  From it I learned that:

…the Avesta was transmitted orally and not written down!

The author drew this conclusion after reading some remarks by R. C. Zaehner in 1955[1]:

However, whatever our view on the evidence of Paulus Persa, we have two other testimonies which can leave us in little doubt as to the fluidity of Zoroastrian dogma in Sassanian times. These are supplied by the Armenians Eznik of Kolb and Elise Vardapet. Eznik, like the nameless heretic of the Denkart, was struck by their inconsistency. ‘Their foolishness’, he says, ‘is enough to refute them from their own words which are mutually exclusive and self-contradictory’;[7] and again, repeating the oft-made charge that they had no books, he says: ‘Since their laws are not in books, sometimes they say one thing with which they deceive, and sometimes another with which they seduce, the ignorant.’[1]

[7] Ed. Venice, 1926, bk. ii, §2, p.128; Langlois, ii, p.375; Schmid, p.94.
[1] Venice, 1926, ii, 9, p.156; Langlois, ii, p.381; Schmid, pp. 111-12.

(Langlois = V. Langlois, Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l’Arménie, 2 vols, 1867: p.179-251; Schmid = J.M. Schmid, Wardapet Eznik von Kolb: Wider die Sekten. Aus den Armenischen ubersetzt…, Vienna, 1900. Online here.)

There is actually a complete English translation, and I used to have a copy but it was mislaid.  So let’s use Langlois, and just check the context of that quote.  It appears in column 1 on p.381, in about the middle of the page:

En second lieu, pour cacher cette honteuse action, [Zoroastre] publie que pour le besoin des jugements [Ormizt et Arhmèn] ont créé [le soleil].  Aussi comme les dogmes religieux ne sont pas écrits, tantôt ils disent une chose, et se trompent, tantôt ils en disent une autre, et ils trompent les ignorants. Cependant si Ormizt était Dieu, il pouvait tirer les autres du néant, comme il avait créé les cieux et la terre, et non pas au moyen d’un commerce infame, ou bieu en raison de l’absence d’un juge.

Secondly, in order to conceal this shameful act, [Zoroaster] set forth that [Ormazd and Ahriman] created [the sun] to perform judgements.  Also as the religious teachings are not written down, sometimes they say one thing, and are deceived, sometimes they say another about this, and deceive the ignorant.  However if Ormazd was god, he could brings the others out from nothing, like he created the heavens and the earth, and not by means of an infamous commerce, or because there was no judge.

That does seem like a pretty clear statement that the Avesta, the Zoroastrian scriptures, did not exist in written form at this date as far as Eznik knew; and that in consequence Zoroastrian teaching was pretty fluid.  I have seen popular claims that Christianity borrowed from Zoroastrian sources; but if there really are similarities, chronology would suggest that the borrowing is in the other direction.

Share
  1. [1]Robert Charles Zaehner, Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma, Biblo & Tannen Publishers, 1955; 128-9.  Google Books preview here.↩

A couple of pictures of the start and end of Melito’s “De pascha” (On Easter)

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Until 1940 Melito of Sardis was an obscure figure of the 2nd century AD, known mainly from Eusebius, who mentioned that he wrote a work on Easter.  In that year there appeared an edition and translation of On Easter (De Pascha).  It was based on a 4th c. papyrus codex which had come from Egypt.[1] This had been broken up, and portions of the almost complete text were in Dublin at the Chester Beatty library[2] while the remainder were at the University of Michigan.  A more complete text was published in 1960 from Bodmer Papyrus XII (start of the 4th c.),[3]  and a modern edition appeared in 1979.[4]

Coptologist Alin Suciu recently published pictures of manuscript pages on his facebook page, showing the start and end of the work.  I thought that many people might perhaps like to see them.

First the start of the work (following the end of Enoch), from the Chester Beatty codex.  Click on the image for a larger picture.

melito_de_pascha_start

There is a large ENWX, then a line, and then MELITWN (Of Melito).  The title, however, is missing.

The Chester Beatty-Michigan manuscript is defective at the end, so we don’t know how the final portion of it looked.   But in the Bodmer manuscript, both the start and end of the work are present, and the name and title are shown in both places as Μελίτωνος Περὶ Πασχα.  I am told that in fact there is a title page with this on, before the first actual page of text.[5]

melito_de_pascha_end

The work ends with MELITWNOS PERI PASXA.  This is followed by two lines which Alin translates for us:

After the subscription of the work, the scribe added a “colophon” (actually a scribal note): “Peace to the one who wrote, to the one who reads, and to those who love the Lord with sincerity of heart.”

An otherwise lost work found in damaged papyrus codices… Indiana Jones, eat your heart out!

UPDATE: My thanks to the correspondent who pointed out my mistake in supposing these images were from a single manuscript; and also that the Chester Beatty portions of the ms. are online here.

Share
  1. [1]Campbell Bonner, The Homily on the Passion by Melito Bishop of Sardis with some fragments of the Apocryphal Ezekiel, London, 1940.↩
  2. [2]Shelfmark CBL BP XII, images online at the CSNTM site here, but viewable only through a dreadful “viewer” application.↩
  3. [3]M. Testuz, Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, Cologny-Geneve, 1960.↩
  4. [4]Edition and translation by Stuart Hall, Melito of Sardis: On Pascha and fragments, Oxford, 1979.  For the Bodmer papyri, see James M. Robinson, The Story of the Bodmer Papyri: From the First Monastery’s Library in Upper Egypt to Geneva and Dublin, 2014.  Preview here.↩
  5. [5]My thanks to the correspondent who drew my attention to my mistakes and supplied this information.↩

1606 Aegidius Sadeler print of the Colosseum and Meta Sudans

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Here is another old print (from 1606, by Aegidius Sadeler) of the Colosseum and a curious view of the Meta Sudans to the right.  I found it here.  Click on the picture to get the full size image.

aegidius_sadeler_1606

The site adds:

Rare and early copper engravings by Aegidius Sadeler (c. 1570-1629)from Vestigi delle antichita di Roma Tivoli Pozzuolo et altri luoghi. … “Vestigij della parte di fuora dell’Anfiteatro di Tito…”. This is the second edition published by De Rossi.  Uncommon engraving in very good condition. Aegidius Sadeler (c. 1570-1629) was a Flemish baroque era painter and engraver; the best (Hind) of a notable dynasty of engravers, who were also significant as dealers and distributors of prints. He spent most of his career based in Prague where Emperor Rudolf II commissioned many of his works.

The original is 16 x 27 cms (27 x 39 cms sheet).

All images of the Meta Sudans are interesting, but one which shows the upper section, which disappeared before the mid-19th century, is of particular interest.  The lower section is half-buried in the debris.

Share

Coptic “Life” of Maximus and Domitius

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Anthony Alcock has continued his invaluable series of translations of Coptic literature.  The new item is a translation of the hagiographic Life of Saints Maximus and Domitius, who were brothers.  He adds a preface – read all about it!

There is an article online in the Coptic Encyclopedia here, from which I learn that the work is probably fifth century.

Share

The Annals of Eutychius of Alexandria (10th c. AD) – chapter 18b (part 1)

Posted on by Roger Pearse

We now come to the start of the portion of the Annals where the Muslims take centre stage.  But there is still some Roman and Sassanid Persian history to run.

CALIPHATE OF ABU BAKR (11-13 / 632-634)

1. The Muslims were unanimous in giving the bay`ah to Abu Bakr, i.e. to ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Uthman b. ‘Amir b. Ka’ab b. Sa’d b. Taym b. Murra.  His mother was Selma, daughter of Sakhr b. ‘Amur b. Ka’ab b. Sa’d b. Taym b. Murra.  He was given the bay’ah on the same day that Mohammed died.  His influential advisers were Umar ibn al-Khattab and Uthman ibn Affan.  This was in the eleventh year of the reign of Heraclius, King of Rum.  In that year there was made patriarch of Rome Honorius.  He held the office for eighteen years and died.

2. As for Kisra, son of Hormuz, now in his city, and seeing the killings and destruction that Heraclius had caused there, he was deeply distressed, but he did not cease his despotic behavior.  The people felt oppressed by his authority, their patience broke down and they said:  “This is a man who has a jinx.  During his reign the Persians have been killed and their homes have been destroyed.”  So they deposed him, after a thirty-eight year reign, and put in his place his son Qabād, whose real name was Shirūyeh, son of Mary, the daughter of king Maurice, king of Rum, because of whom all those misfortunes had arisen: in fact he had been killed and Kisra had tried to avenge him as his son-in-law.  Having become king, Qabād, son of Kisra, proclaimed justice, made public the misfortune of which the sons of his father were the architects, who were adverse to him because of his mother, and had eighteen of them killed.  Others managed to escape.  Then he said: “I will free the people from tax, because of my justice and my good will.”  Unfortunately it was not long before the plague fell upon the people of his kingdom.  Many died and among them the king Shirūyeh, i.e. Qabād, and his father Kisra.  His reign had lasted eight months.

3. After him reigned Azdashīr, son of Shirūyeh, but the governor of the neighboring western state attacked him, and killed him.  His reign had lasted five months.  Then a man named Gurhan advanced his claims over the kingdom, a man who did not belong to the royal line, and none of whose lineage had ever aspired to be king before him.  He was the same man whom Abarwiz had sent to fight against the Rum and had named Shahrmārān, and he was then murdered by a woman of the royal house, named Arazmindukht, who managed to make him fall by his own treachery.  His reign lasted twenty-two days and he does not appear in the list of Kings.  After him there reigned a descendant of Hurmuz who was based in Turkey.  He came when he learned that he was in line for the succession.  His name was Kisra, son of Qabād, son of Hurmuz.  But the governor of the neighboring state of Khurasan attacked him and killed him.  His reign lasted only three months and he does not appear in the list of Kings.  After him reigned Murli, daughter of Kisra II, sister of Kisra on her mother’s side, for a year and a half;  she did not demand tribute and divided her property among the soldiers.  She reigned and was counted in the number of the kings of Persia.  After her reigned a man named Hushnastadih, a son of the paternal uncle of Kisra.  He reigned for two months, then he was killed.  He does not appear in the list of Kings.  There reigned after him Azarmindukht, daughter of Kisra, but only for a short time because she was poisoned and died.  She reigned one year and four months.  She reigned and was counted in the number of the kings of Persia.  After her reigned a man named Farrukhrādkhushri for a single month and was killed.  He is not counted among the kings of Persia.

4. The period during which Shirūyeh and the men and women who succeeded him reigned, whether included or not included in the number of the kings of Persia, up until Farrukhrādkhushrī, including an interruption between [the] two reigns, was four years.  It was a period of unrest and turmoil.  But when the Persians became aware of the discord that reigned over them, of the ascendancy that was gradually going to Rum and of the corruption into which their religion and their ordinary life had fallen, they sent for a son of Kisra named Yazdagard, who had run away from Shirūyeh when he had had his brothers put to death.  They proclaimed him their king even though he was only fifteen.  There were various parties and their factions were divided, warring against each other.  The inhabitants of each place, town or village of the kingdom fought against their neighbors.  Such a diffusion of disorder, of division of the community, corruption of the kingdom and discord among the people in the city lasted for eight months.  The reign of Yazdagard coincided with the first year of the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and the eleventh year of the reign of Heraclius, King of Rum.

Share

Some post-renaissance paintings of the Meta Sudans

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Regular readers will be aware that I am interested in the Meta Sudans, a Roman fountain that stood in Rome outside the Colosseum, and behind the Arch of Constantine, until it was demolished by Mussolini in the 1930s.  By that time it was merely a stump, but earlier representations show that it was originally much taller.

Today I came across a paper by Dafina Gerasimovska, which collected representations of the Colosseum, as a way to learn more about Roman architecture.[1]:

When talking about architectural buildings from Antiquity we rely on archaeological finds and written sources. Even coins can provide information about the look of ancient Roman architecture. …

An additional rich source of clues to the original appearance of buildings and their condition at certain times, however, can be found in paintings, drawings, engravings, etchings, prints, watercolours, old reconstructions and other artistic works of different periods in the past. Many painters, engravers, architects, travellers and diplomats interested in architectural remains have left works that serve as alternative sources for the study of cultural history and the architectural monuments which form a part of that history.

This article is not intended to highlight the artistic value of the achievements of famous artists inspired by Roman buildings but to emphasize the significance of these works as historical documents—as evidence of their existence, of changes in their appearance over time, of their ruin or of their recovery.

Inevitably this paper contained images of the Meta Sudans.  Here are some of them.  I apologise for the rather awkward way that WordPress displays these – click on the image to get the full size original.

The oldest one is by Dutch artist Gaspar van Wittel (1653–1736) who went to Rome in 1675.  From his views of the Colosseum, I have excerpted the following:

Gaspar van Wittell, Colosseum - extract view of the Meta Sudans
Gaspar van Wittell, Colosseum – extract view of the Meta Sudans

Note the slender, tall appearance of the fountain, which I have marked with a red box.  The next one is by Giovanni Paolo Panini (c.1691–c.1765), from his 1758 Gallery Displaying Views of Ancient Rome.

Panini (1758) - Meta Sudans
Panini (1758) – Meta Sudans

The interesting part of this one, is that it shows a band around the Meta Sudans, about halfway up.  This sort of thing appears in the ancient coins that depict the Meta Sudans.

The final item is a drawing by Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720–1778) from his The Antiquities of Rome in 1756:

piranesi_meta_sudans

Again this shows a tall Meta Sudans, although not clearly.

All of these are very interesting evidence on the shape of a now vanished Roman monument.

Share
  1. [1]Dafina Gerasimovska, “Alternative Sources for studying Roman architecture”, Online here.↩

What patristic authors are extant in Old Slavonic?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

An interesting volume came into my hands lately:

Regarding your question as to what patristic works have been translated into Old Slavonic, the best resource to check with is a catalogue of the Old Slavonic texts prepared by a group of Russian scholars two years ago: Katalog Pam’jatnikov drevnerusskoj pismennosti XI-XIV vv. (rukopisnyje knigi), Studiorum Slavicorum Orbis (Saint Petersburg: Bulanin, 2014). This work covers XI-XIV centuries and includes one section on Scripture and one section on patristic texts with a list of MSS for each particular writing. …

The section on patristic writers is on pages 98-280, preceeded by translations of Scripture and followed by hagiographic (mostly Byzantine) works, homilies and other things.

The work is, of course, in Russian, which makes it rather difficult for the rest of us.  But I thought that I would have a go at seeing what Google Translate could make of it.  The results were less good than I had hoped, but better than I had feared.  Here is what I could make of the list of authors:

  • Augustine
  • Agapetus
  • Abba Ammon
  • Amphilochius of Iconium
  • Anastasius of Antioch
  • Anastasius Sinaiticus – a lot of this
  • Andrew of Crete
  • Anthony
  • Athanasius of Alexandria – lots
  • Basil of Amasea
  • Basil of Ancyra – lots
  • Gennadius of Constantinople
  • Gennadius of Jerusalem
  • George of Nicomedia
  • Patriarch Germanus I of Constantinople
  • Gregory of Antioch
  • Gregory the Dialogist (Pope Gregory the Great)
  • Gregory of Nyssa
  • Gregory of Sinai
  • Gregory Thaumaturgus
  • Diadochus of Photiki (?)
  • Dionysius of Alexandria
  • Dionysius the Areopagite
  • Dorotheus of Gaza
  • Dorotheus of Tyre
  • Evagrius
  • Eusebius of Alexandria
  • Eusebius of Caesarea – looks like bits of the Quaestiones ad Marinum
  • Epiphanius
  • Ephrem the Syrian
  • John Damascene
  • John Chrysostom – an awful lot of this
  • John the Faster, patriarch of Constantinople
  • John Philoponus
  • Hippolytus of Rome
  • Irenaeus of Lyons
  • Isaac the Syrian
  • Isidore of Pelusium – more than you’d expect
  • Hesychius
  • Justin the Philosopher (i.e. Justin Martyr)
  • Cyril of Alexandria
  • Cyril of Jerusalem
  • Clement of Alexandria
  • Clement of Ohrid
  • Pope Leo I – Tome to Flavian
  • Macarius the Great
  • Maximus the Confessor
  • Nemesius
  • Nicetas of Heraclea
  • Nilus of Sinai
  • Olympiodorus
  • Palladius
  • Peter of Alexandria
  • Peter of Antioch
  • Peter of Damascus
  • Saba
  • Symeon the New Theologian
  • Sosipater
  • Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem
  • Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria
  • Timothy, Presbyter of Constantinople
  • Theodoret of Cyrrhus – a fair amount
  • Theophanes
  • Theophilus of Alexandria
  • Epictetus the Philosopher

The section ends with anonymous homilies.  I’ve left the order above as it is in the Russian, for ease of location.

Happy fishing!

Share

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Brady Kiesling has kindly sent me a translation from the Greek of codex 186 of Photius’ Bibliotheca.  I have added it to the translations that I have online here.  My list of all the codices – sections – in the Bibliotheca is here.

Photius’ work, composed in the 9th century, consists of summaries of the content of 280 volumes of ancient literature still extant in his day.  Since many are now lost, these summaries are invaluable.

Codex 186 contains a summary of the Fifty Narrations by Conon, a Greek writing at the time of Augustus.  The work gives summaries of Greek mythology.

My sincere thanks to Dr Kiesling for his generosity.  I wish that I could return to translating the Bibliotheca.  Perhaps one day!

I am still convalescing from the vicious dose of flu, which has so far lasted more than three weeks.  Fortunately I seem to be recovering, at long last.

In the mean time, confined to a sofa as I have been, I have taken the opportunity to scour Twitter for claims that “Easter = Ishtar / Astarte” and the like.  All these claims derive from the nonsensical claims of Alexander Hislop in 1850 in his anti-Catholic tract, Two Babylons.  There have been quite a few instances of tweets of this nature, often accompanied by a deliberately hideous depiction of some Babylonian goddess, although fewer than I really expected.

Anyway, I have tweeted a rebuttal of some of them.  Inevitably in some cases this has been met with abuse, or impudence.  It is remarkable how invested some ignorant people are in falsehoods of this kind!  But really, nobody is served by getting the raw facts wrong.  I could wish, however, that there was some way of correcting widely-held mistakes of this kind, other than people like myself writing about it.

This evening I have seen material online suggesting that the damage to the ancient city of Palmyra is rather less than was feared.  I hope this proves to be true.  It is heartening to hear that the Syrians propose to restore the damage.  There is a tendency in Britain to do the opposite.  I remember a fire in a historic street in Ipswich, 20 or 30 years ago.  The Tudor timbers were barely cold before the town council announced its intention, not to rebuild the medieval street as it was, but instead to demolish whatever had survived and build some nondescript modern shops.  And so they did, the vandals.  Thank heavens that the Syrians know better.

Share

“I have run away. Seize me!” – a slave collar of the time of Constantine, and other similar items

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Roman society was a brutal place.  At the bottom of the heap were slaves, who could endure a very unpleasant time.  Not unnaturally, some of them ran away; and some were recaptured.

In the museum in Rome in the Baths of Diocletian, there is a slave collar on display. Here are some images of it (click on the images to enlarge them).[1]

Slave collar. 4th century. Baths of Diocletian, Rome.
Slave collar. 4th century. Baths of Diocletian, Rome.

slave_collar2

slave_collar3
The inscription is straightforward.  Slightly normalised it reads:

FUGI. TENE ME. CUM REVOCAVERIS ME D. M. ZONINO, ACCIPIS SOLIDUM

I have run away. Catch me. If you return me to my master Zoninus, you will receive a solidus.

A solidus is the standard gold coin of the later Roman empire, so not a small sum.  Clearly this was a valuable slave, and one who didn’t like his or her “employment” much.

For comparison, here is the receipt for another slave.  The tablet was found in London.  The image was reversed and coloured from a photograph.[2]

slave_tablet_1poultry

Translation:

Vegetus, assistant slave of Montanus the slave of the August Emperor and sometime assistant slave of Secundus, has bought and received by mancipium the girl Fortunata, or by whatever name she is known, by nationality a Diablintian, from […] for six hundred denarii. And that the girl in question is transferred in good health, that she is warranted not to be liable to wander or run away, but that if anyone lays claim to the girl in question or to any share in her, […] in the wax tablet which he has written and sworn by the genius of the Emperor Caesar […]

The girl is a Gaul.  Montanus is an imperial slave – really a civil servant.  Vegetus is also a slave, but clearly able to buy things with his own money, and for a not inconsiderable sum.

There are more items about slaves here.  One of these is witness to an apparently more tender relationship:

Bracelet for a slave girl, from her master. Found near Pompeii
Bracelet for a slave girl, from her master. Found near Pompeii

The inscription reads:

DOM[I]NUS ANCILLAE SUAE

The master to his slave-girl.

It was found on the girl’s arm.  For she died while hiding from the eruption of 79 AD at Pompeii, and her remains were found at modern Moregine, near Pompeii.  The item is now in the National Archaeological Museum, Naples.

But why does it not give her name?

Share
  1. [1]These from Twitter: the first via Kate Cooper; the others taken by Sarah Bond in 2014.↩
  2. [2]Published in Britannia 34, 2003, 41-51.  Details via here.↩