Level 4; literature; Vulgate: The Parable of the Good Samaritan [Luke 10:25–37] (1) comprehension

[25] Et ecce quīdam lēgisperītus surrēxit tentāns illum, et dīcēns: Magister, quid faciendō vītam aeternam possidēbō?

[26] At ille dīxit ad eum: In lēge quid scrīptum est? quōmodo legis?

[27] Ille respondēns dīxit: Dīligēs Dominum Deum tuum ex tōtō corde tuō, et ex tōtā animā tuā, et ex omnibus virtūtibus tuīs, et ex omnī mente tuā: et proximum tuum sīcut tēipsum.

[28] Dīxitque illī: Rēctē respondistī: hoc fac, et vīvēs.

[29] Ille autem volēns iūstificāre sēipsum, dīxit ad Iēsum: Et quis est meus proximus?

[30] Suscipiēns autem Iēsūs, dīxit: Homō quīdam dēscendēbat ab Ierusālem in Ierīchō, et incīdit in latrōnēs, quī etiam dēspoliāvērunt eum: et plāgīs impositīs abiērunt sēmivīvō relictō.

[31] Accidit autem ut sacerdōs quīdam dēscenderet eādem viā: et vīsō illō praeterīvit.

[32] Similiter et Lēvīta, cum esset secus locum, et vidēret eum, pertrānsiit.

[33] Samarītānus autem quīdam iter faciēns, vēnit secus eum: et vidēns eum, misericordiā mōtus est.

[34]  Et appropiāns alligāvit vulnera eius, īnfundēns oleum et vīnum: et impōnēns illum in iūmentum suum, dūxit in stabulum, et cūram eius ēgit.

[35] Et alterā diē prōtulit duōs dēnāriōs, et dedit stabulāriō, et ait: Cūram illīus habē: et quodcumque superērogāverīs, ego cum redierō reddam tibi.

[36] Quis hōrum trium vidētur tibi proximus fuisse illī, quī incīdit in latrōnēs?

[37] At ille dīxit: Quī fēcit misericordiam in illum. Et ait illī Iēsūs: Vāde, et tū fac similiter.

(1) Note the line number(s) referring to:

being attacked by robbers _____

being moved by pity _____

being specifically told to do something _____ / _____

giving somebody money _____

giving the correct answer _____

Jesus being tested _____

obtaining eternal life _____

people who pass by _____ / _____

placing somebody on a donkey _____

what the Law actually states _____

(2)

[i] Who begins this conversation? (1)

[ii] How does Jesus respond to the first question asked? (1)

(3)

[i] Which line marks the beginning of the parable? (1)

[ii] What question prompts Jesus to begin the parable? (1)

(4) Which one word in the passage emphasises that the man was very seriously beaten up? (1)

(5) Line 36: Quis hōrum trium vidētur tibi proximus fuisse illī, quī incīdit in latrōnēs? To which three people is Jesus referring? (3)

(6) How are the man’s wounds treated? (3)

____________________

(1)

being attacked by robbers: [30] incīdit in latrōnēs

being moved by pity: [33] misericordiā mōtus est

being specifically told to do something: [28] hoc fac; [37]: fac similiter

giving somebody money: [35] prōtulit duōs dēnāriōs, et dedit stabulāriō

giving the correct answer: [28] Rēctē respondistī

Jesus being tested: [25] tentāns illum

obtaining eternal life: [25] quid faciendō vītam aeternam possidēbō

people who pass by: [31] sacerdōs … praeterīvit;  [32]: Lēvīta … pertrānsiit

placing somebody on a donkey: [34] impōnēns illum in iūmentum suum

what the Law actually states: [27] Dīligēs … tēipsum

(2)

[i] A lawyer / expert in the law | lēgisperītus

[ii] He asks him what is written in the law / how he interprets the law (any one). | In lēge quid scrīptum est? quōmodo legis?

(3)

[i] line 30: “Homō quīdam…”

[ii] line 29: And who is my neighbour? | Et quis est meus proximus?

(4) sēmivīvō: (literally) half alive (or can be rephrased in this context: half dead)

(5) a priest (sacerdōs); a Levite (Lēvīta); a Samaritan (Samaritānus)

(6) bandaged (1); oil and wine (1) poured on them (1) | alligāvit vulnera eius (1) īnfundēns (1) oleum et vīnum (1)

Topic / Level 4; transport [10]: heavy duty vehicles (3) carrus

[3] carrus, -ī [2/m]: wagon; vehicle for transportation of freight

As we continue to move through the topic of transport, you will see that a mere dictionary definition – although sufficient for translation purposes – does not always convey nuance of meaning, but it may be determined when reading in context.

Its function is clearly indicated in this first quotation from Caesar’s description of the Gauls’ preparations for a departure, iūmenta referring to the animals that would pull the wagons:

auctōritāte Orgetorigis permōtī cōnstituērunt ea quae ad proficīscendum pertinērent comparāre, iūmentōrum et carrōrum quam maximum numerum coemere (Caesar)

• deeply moved by the authority of Orgetorix, they decided to prepare those things which pertained to setting out, [and] to buy up as great a number as possible of pack animals and wagons

The image of animals pulling cartloads of equipment generally conveys slow movement. However, in the following extract, the wagons are able to keep pace with troops that do not have heavy baggage:

magna enim multitūdō carrōrum etiam expedītōs sequī Gallōs cōnsuēvit (Aulus Hirtius)

• For a large multitude of wagons was accustomed to follow the Gauls, even when they were lightly equipped.

Most noticeably, this description does not convey a slow advance but one so deafening that it terrifies the Roman horses:

essedīs carrīsque superstāns armātus hostis ingentī sonitū equōrum rotārumque advēnit et īnsolitōs eius tumultus Rōmānōrum conterruit equōs (Livy)

• standing erect in chariots and wagons, armed enemies arrived with a mighty clattering of hoofs and wheels, frightening the horses of the Romans with the unfamiliar din.

In other words, unlike plaustrum and serrācum – both of which also refer to vehicles for freight transportation, but are not associated with any sense of ‘pace’ or speed – the carrus certainly appears to have had greater manoeuvrability. 

Topic / Level 4; transport [9]: heavy duty vehicles (2) serrācum

serrācum (sarrācum), -ī [2/n]: cart; wagon

Why should an entire post be devoted to a single word? Serrācum, like plaustrum, is most often defined as a cart or wagon. It would be perfectly legitimate to leave it at that since it occurs infrequently. However, in ‘exploring’ vocabulary – especially everyday objects about which the Romans said little – the noun serves as an example of being circumspect when you read very specific definitions for which there is a dearth of evidence.

[i] There is some debate as to whether this type of cart was fundamentally different from the plaustrum.

In Vitruvius’ discussions on machines and implements he distinguishes between the plaustrum and the serrācum but without specifying what that distinction is:

portātiōnēsque eōrum nōn essent, nisi plostrōrum [ = plaustrōrum] seu serracōrum per terram, nāviculārum per aquam inventae essent māchinātiōnēs.

• ...and their transportation would not exist, unless the mechanisms of wagons or carts across land, and of small boats across water, had been invented.

[ii] It is suggested that its use was for transporting heavier payloads although we must be wary of assuming absolute distinctions when attested evidence is limited. Juvenal describes the traffic chaos caused by goods vehicles:

longa coruscat / serrācō veniente abiēs, atque altera pīnum / plaustra vehunt

• A long fir-tree sways as the cart approaches, and other wagons carry a pine tree

His reference to a long / tall fir-tree suggests that a larger, sturdier vehicle would be required, its bulk emphasised by the swaying motion. However, the choice of nouns may simply be adhering to the poetic metre

sēr-rā- | cō vĕ-nĭ- | ēn-t'ă-bĭ- | ēs, āt- | qu'āl-tĕ-ră | pī-nūm

plāus-tră vĕ- | hūnt ...

Juvenal is less concerned with specific function than with the creation of an overall effect. Describing the dangers of such freight traffic with high, bulky and precarious payloads, he continues:

nūtant altē populōque minantur. | they totter on high and threaten the people

nam sī prōcubuit quī saxa Ligustica portat axis / et ēversum fūdit super agmina montem, | for if the axle which carries Ligurian stones [ = marble] has broken and poured an upturned mountain on the crowds

quid superest dē corporibus? | what remains of the bodies?

[iii] The description of the devastating Antonine Plague from 165 – 180 AD does imply that mass transportation of human bodies would require a flatbed vehicle on four wheels to maximise stability. After all, nobody would have wished plague victims to be strewn over the streets:

Tanta autem pestilentia fuit ut vehiculīs cadāvera sint exportāta sarrācīsque. (Historia Augusta)

• ...and the plague was so great that bodies were carried out on carts and wagons

[iv] The following is a comment by Quintilian on a lost fragment of Cicero’s speech In Pisōnem:

An cum dīcit in Pīsōnem Cicerō 'cum tibi tōta cognātiō serrācō advehātur', incīdisse vidētur in sordidum nōmen, nōn eō contemptum hominis quem dēstrūctum volēbat auxisse?

• Or when Cicero, in his speech against Piso, says 'when all your relations are carted in a serrācum', does he appear to have fallen back on a vulgar word, and not rather to have increased thereby his contempt for the man whom he wanted to ruin?

i.e. the noun is used pejoratively to convey social distinction; a vehicle that is normally used for the transportation of heavy goods is transporting people.

[v] The following two quotations refer to Boötes.  Derived from Ancient Greek Βοώτης [Voótis], “the herdsman”, it is a large constellation in the northern sky.

Referring to the stars, Ovid describes them as plaustra i.e. as a yoked ‘team’ of carts being driven by ‘the herdsman’:

Tē quōque turbātum memorant fūgisse, Boōtē, quamvīs tardus erās et tē tua plaustra tenēbant. (Ovid)

• They say that you also fled in confusion, Boötes, even though you were slow and your wagons held you back.

Juvenal, however, portrays the stars in the same way as the slow, swaying wagon carrying a fir tree through crowded streets (see [ii] above). His use of serrāca is less elevated, emphasising the slow passage of time.

sīderibus dubiīs aut illō tempore quō sē / frīgida circumagunt pigrī serrāca Boōtae.

• when the stars are fading or when the cold carts of sluggish Bootes wheel round.

To conclude, we can see that a single word can be:

• open to multiple interpretations
• used both literally and metaphorically
• subject to overly confident and specific definitions

Topic / Level 4; transport [8]: heavy duty vehicles (1) plaustrum

plaustrum, -ī [2/n]: a two-wheeled or four-wheeled cart (plaustrum maius) / wagon with heavy solid wooden wheels and pulled by a pair of yoked oxen

Terram cariōsam cave nē ārēs, nēve plaustrum nēve pecus impellās; (Cato)

• Be careful not to plough crumbling / rotten soil, nor to drive a wagon or livestock over it;

Nunc quōquō veniās plūs plaustrōrum in aedibus videās quam rūrī, quandō ad vīllam vēnerīs (Plautus)

• Wherever you go these days, you see more wagons among city houses than in the country, when you visit a farm.

The wheels and axle were joined, revolving together that caused a creaking or screeching (strīdēns, -ntis) noise.

montīsque per altōs contentā cervīce trahunt strīdentia plaustra (Virgil)

• and across high mountains, with strained neck, they drag the creaking wagons

Note Virgil’s use of contentā and trahunt to convey that the wagon is a slow vehicle transporting heavy loads.

Ovid makes the same comment on the noise of the plaustrum:

...incūstōdītae dīripiuntur opēs, / rūris opēs parvae, pecus et strīdentia plaustra...

• ... unprotected wealth is plundered—the meager wealth of the countryside, the cattle, and the screeching wagons ...

Topic / Level 4; transport [7]: wheeled vehicles (7) raeda; Cicero and the defence of Milo [ii]

The following excerpt comes much later in Cicero’s speech, and invites the jury to picture the event and decide which description naturally fits an assassin. The focus is entirely on the visual.

Rēs loquitur ipsa, iūdicēs, quae semper valet plūrimum. Sī haec nōn gesta audīrētis, sed picta vidērētis, tamen appārēret uter esset īnsidiātor, uter nihil malī cōgitāret, cum alter veherētur in raedā paenulātus, ūna sedēret uxor. Quid hōrum nōn impedītissimum? vestītus an vehiculum an comes? quid minus prōmptum ad pugnam, cum paenulā inretitus, raedā impedītus, uxōre paene cōnstrictus esset?

The facts themselves speak, gentlemen of the jury, and they always carry the greatest weight. If you were not to hear these actions, but to see them depicted in a picture, it would nevertheless be clear which of the two was the ambusher and which was harbouring no evil intention, when one was being conveyed in a carriage, clad in a travelling cloak, with his wife sitting beside him. Which of these circumstances was not a very great hindrance? His clothing, his vehicle, his companion? What could have been less suited to a fight, when he was entangled in his cloak, impeded by his carriage, and almost bound fast by his wife?

Note:

[1] juxtaposition, placing two opposing ideas side-by-side, again creating the powerful antithesis evident in the first excerpt:

uter esset īnsidiātor, uter nihil malī cōgitāret

[2] rhetorical questions

Rhetorical questions do not invite answers since they are already obvious in context; rather, they are designed to persuade the jury mentally to reach their own conclusions.

Quid hōrum nōn impedītissimum?

vestītus an vehiculum an comes?

quid minus prōmptum ad pugnam, cum paenulā inretitus, raedā impedītus, uxōre paene cōnstrictus esset?

[3] Cicero’s use of the tricolon:

(1) vestītus (2) an vehiculum (3) an comes?

cum (1) paenulā inretitus, (2) raedā impedītus, (3) uxōre paene cōnstrictus esset

It could be argued that Cicero is using a tactic which, in our contemporary terms, is described as ‘anchoring’. The word is particularly associated with advertising and encourages consumers to focus on one striking feature of a product. Here, Cicero focuses on how the events look and on the circumstances pertaining to a specific part of the case to the exclusion of other factors that may be pertinent and not in his favour.

Topic / Level 4; transport [6]: wheeled vehicles (6) raeda; Cicero and the defence of Milo [i]

raeda, -ae [1/f] or rēda, -ae  [1/f]: a four-wheel wagon or coach used for long-distance travelling and / or carrying baggage

raedārius, -ī [2/m]: coachman; carriage driver

sed dum tōta domūs raeda compōnitur ūna / substitit ad veterēs arcūs (Juvenal)

• But while his whole household is being packed into a single carriage, he lingered at the ancient arches... 

Cicero and the defence of Milo

One of the tactics of a lawyer is to challenge the opposing case by introducing an element of scepticism, encouraging the jury to doubt whether the accusation has been proved or, in this case, is even logical given the circumstances.

In 52 BC, Milo was put on trial for killing his political enemy Clodius after a violent confrontation on the Via Appia. That Clodius had been killed by Milo's party was not really in dispute; the key question was whether the killing was justified. In his speech Pro Milone, Cicero argued that Clodius had planned an ambush and was the aggressor, while Milo had simply been travelling with his wife and attendants when the attack occurred. Cicero, therefore, claimed that Milo had acted in self-defence and that the killing was a legitimate response to a deadly threat.

As part of Cicero’s defence of Milo, he compares the readiness of both parties to engage in violence. He does this by means of carefully constructed antithesis. We will consider both statements:

[A] CLODIUS

Obviam fit eī Clōdius, (1) expedītus, (2) in equō, (3) nūllā raedā, nūllīs impedīmentīs, nūllīs Graecīs comitibus, (4) ut solēbat, sine uxōre, quod numquam ferē:

• Clodius meets him coming the other way, lightly equipped, on horseback, with no carriage, no baggage, no Greek attendants as he usually had, and without his wife, which was something he hardly ever did.

Notes:

(1) expeditus: lightly equipped, but does not suggest unarmed

(2) in equō: Clodius is on horseback i.e. unlike Milo, he could move quickly

(3) Cicero’s use of the tricolon (nūllā … nūllis … nūllīs…) to reinforce that Clodius was travelling unusually light

(4) ut solebat / sine uxōre quod numquam ferē; Cicero observes that the manner of Clodius’ appearance is out of character. Moreover, that his wife was absent might suggest that Clodius wished to avoid her witnessing a murder.

[B] MILO

cum hic (1) īnsidiātor, quī iter illud ad caedem faciendam (2) apparāsset, (3) cum uxōre veherētur in raedā, (4) paenulātus, magnō et impeditō et muliebrī ac dēlicātō ancillārum puerōrumque comitātū.

• While this ‘ambusher’, who had (supposedly) prepared that journey for the purpose of carrying out a killing, was being conveyed in a carriage with his wife, clad in a travelling cloak, with a large and cumbersome and womanish and delicate retinue of maidservants and boys.

Notes:

(1) Given Milo’s location in the carriage and its physical constraints, the term īnsidiātor is used sarcastically. He goes on to justify that sarcasm.

(2) cum … apparāsset: the use of the pluperfect subjunctive conveys what the prosecution has claimed; the translation of “supposedly had” neatly communicates scepticism

(3) [1] cum uxōre [2] veherētur [3] in raedā

[1] cum uxōre: Milo was with his wife, whereas Clodius was (unusually) not; the contrast of sine uxōre in [A] and cum uxōre in [B] could imply that Milo was unaware of what was to happen. 

[2] veherētur: it is appropriate to retain the passive meaning of the verb i.e. Milo was not involved in controlling the carriage; this could also contrast with obviam fit eī Clōdius, which presents Clodius as the one who comes to meet Milo, perhaps implying that it was Clodius who initiated the encounter.

[3] in raedā: Milo was in a carriage, whereas Clodius was on a horse

(4) Cicero emphasises that Milo was in no position to instigate any act:

[1] paenulātus: Milo is not dressed in a manner that would allow rapid movement

paenula, -ae [1/f]: a thick, sleeveless travelling cloak

“It was chiefly worn by people of low rank and slaves, but also by the higher classes, … in bad weather, on a journey, and in the country.” (Thurston Peck)

The image shows a statuette of a figure wearing a paenula (British Museum). In other words, if this is the type of apparel Milo was wearing, he hardly looked like a man who had set out prepared to commit a murder!

[2] [i] magnō et impeditō [ii] et muliebrī ac dēlicātō ancillārum puerōrumque comitātū

Cicero conveys two ideas in this heavily loaded statement, presenting the jury with an image of comfort and domesticity rather than a planned armed ambush:

[i] Milo’s retinue is large and cumbersome

Note the contrast between expeditus in [A] and impeditō in [B], the prefixes – both of which are stressed in pronunciation – changing the meaning.

[ii] Those around him are not the type who would be physically or emotionally capable of assisting him; while dēlicātus can translate as ‘luxurious’ it can equally mean ‘tender’ or ‘delicate’.

Note the use of comitibus in [A] and comitātū in [B], both referring to those who accompanied the travellers and reinforcing the contrast between the two parties.

Topic / Level 4; transport [5]: wheeled vehicles (5) carpentum [ii] the carpentum on the coins

The reference to the carpentum would have had cultural resonance amongst the ancient Romans. As a symbol of honour, it appeared on coins:

Image #1

22-23 AD: first depiction on a sestertius of a decorated carpentum drawn by a pair of mules

The coin refers to Livia, the wife of Augustus:

• S.P.Q.R IVLIAE AVGVST(ae); SPQR indicates that she is honoured by the Senate and the Roman people:

[i] Senatus Populusque Romanus

[ii] Iuliae Augustae: dative; honour given to her; IVLIA AVGVSTA were honorific titles given to her by Augustus

It was minted during the reign of her son Tiberius i.e. the immediate predecessor of Caligula:

• TI(berius) CAESAR DIVI AVG(usti) F(ilius) AVGVST(us) P(ontifex) M(aximus) TR(ibunicia) POT(estate) XXIIII (vicesima quarta) | Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus, Augustus, chief priest (Pontifex Maximus), holding tribunician power for the twenty-fourth time.

The coin’s production was authorised by the Senate:

• S(enatus) C(onsulto)

The coin is unlikely to be referring to her death, but to an illness from which she recovered and, in celebration of which, the Senate declared a holiday of thanksgiving.

Image #2

Bearing in mind that, as Suetonius describes, it was Caligula’s aim to reinstate his mother, there is a remarkable similarity in the design of this sestertius commemorating Agrippina the Elder, who had suffered owing to the actions of Tiberius. The coin was minted between AD 37 and 41.

[1] AGRIPPINA M(arci) F(ilia) MAT(er) C(aii) CAESARIS AVGVSTI | Agrippina, daughter of Marcus [Agrippa], mother of Gaius Caesar Augustus

[2] Unlike the previous coin, Agrippina’s image is distributed through currency circulation. In the same way that the ashes of Agrippina were brought to Rome at the busiest time of the day, the coin would have ensured maximium visibility.

[3] S P Q R MEMORIAE AGRIPPINAE | The Senate and People of Rome to the memory of Agrippina; again, there is official recognition of the status of Agrippina.

[4] The same (reversed) depiction of a decorated carpentum pulled by two mules, with its symbolic reverential significance.

What we see here is a physical reinforcement of Suetonius’ account: a deliberate piece of dynastic propaganda, confirming Caligula’s regime as a reversal of Tiberian repression, not unlike the commemorative coin issued by Brutus – with his portrait and its symbols of freedom from oppression – following the assassination of Julius Caesar.