The slave about whom there is the most evidence in Republican Rome are ones who either wrote or taught. Hence my focus on Livius Andronicus, the poet, and Spurius Carvilius, the teacher. However as I rereading Rawson’s Intellectual Life in the Late Republic, I had an inkling of an idea of how to reconcile her arguments with some of the evidence that I’ve been concentrating on.
One of Rawson’s points is that we need to take seriously the idea that it was only in the first century that Roman fascination with Greece hit the pitch by which scholars tend to ascribe it. That is, even though Andronicus was remembered in part because in the third century he translated the Odyssey into Latin (although Cicero insists that it was more a summary than a translation), it is only in the first century that we see evidence of the Romans really figuring out what it means to read Greek literature and philosophy seriously. Hence in that century we have Lucretius, whose poem on Epicureanism give philosophical footing to a number of Latin words, Cicero, who learns and builds upon Greek oratorical theory, and Varro, who composes a thoroughly Latin antiquarian encyclopedia of Rome. As Rawson notes, part of this kind of production is the result of the Romans studying in Athens as adolescents. There is no real evidence that Romans did this en masse prior to the first century.
Rawson also highlights the presence of Greek intellectuals in Rome during this time, pointing out that while in prior years it made sense for scholars and artists to seek refuge in places like Alexandria and Pergamum, in the first century there was a reason for them to find haven in Rome. Some of these intellectuals were also captured (and enslaved, if we want to get into an argument about terminology) in the midst of various wars. These men include Tyrannio, Parthenius, Hypsicrates of Amisus, Domitius Callistratus, Ateius Philologus and Curtius Nicias.
Back to my slightly original thought: what we see in the first century is a shift from the earlier connection of slavery and intellectuals. In the first century, captivity and slavery brings men who already were intellectuals to Rome, while in prior times slaves, if they pleased their masters, would garner the freedom and resources to become artists or scholars. This model does not die out in the first century or even in the Imperial period. Cicero cultivated his slave Tiro to become a scholar and Epictetus’ master provided him the resources to become a philosopher.
Why this change? Right now I’m very tentative, but I think that this kind of development makes the most sense from the perspective of the slave masters. If a man is already a slave and he wants to spend time developing abilities that the slave master can exploit, the master might indulge those requests. However, if a master would only go through the trouble of buying or enslaving an intellectual if the master believes that such a slave will have a use.
One of Rawson’s points is that we need to take seriously the idea that it was only in the first century that Roman fascination with Greece hit the pitch by which scholars tend to ascribe it. That is, even though Andronicus was remembered in part because in the third century he translated the Odyssey into Latin (although Cicero insists that it was more a summary than a translation), it is only in the first century that we see evidence of the Romans really figuring out what it means to read Greek literature and philosophy seriously. Hence in that century we have Lucretius, whose poem on Epicureanism give philosophical footing to a number of Latin words, Cicero, who learns and builds upon Greek oratorical theory, and Varro, who composes a thoroughly Latin antiquarian encyclopedia of Rome. As Rawson notes, part of this kind of production is the result of the Romans studying in Athens as adolescents. There is no real evidence that Romans did this en masse prior to the first century.
Rawson also highlights the presence of Greek intellectuals in Rome during this time, pointing out that while in prior years it made sense for scholars and artists to seek refuge in places like Alexandria and Pergamum, in the first century there was a reason for them to find haven in Rome. Some of these intellectuals were also captured (and enslaved, if we want to get into an argument about terminology) in the midst of various wars. These men include Tyrannio, Parthenius, Hypsicrates of Amisus, Domitius Callistratus, Ateius Philologus and Curtius Nicias.
Back to my slightly original thought: what we see in the first century is a shift from the earlier connection of slavery and intellectuals. In the first century, captivity and slavery brings men who already were intellectuals to Rome, while in prior times slaves, if they pleased their masters, would garner the freedom and resources to become artists or scholars. This model does not die out in the first century or even in the Imperial period. Cicero cultivated his slave Tiro to become a scholar and Epictetus’ master provided him the resources to become a philosopher.
Why this change? Right now I’m very tentative, but I think that this kind of development makes the most sense from the perspective of the slave masters. If a man is already a slave and he wants to spend time developing abilities that the slave master can exploit, the master might indulge those requests. However, if a master would only go through the trouble of buying or enslaving an intellectual if the master believes that such a slave will have a use.