Peter Jones

The UK obesity crisis is again in the headlines, and ‘life-style’ is the culprit. The ancients may have come up with a different analysis. Our word ‘diet’ derives from the ancient Greek diaita, which meant ‘way of living’ and, medically, a prescribed way of life, or regimen, especially in relation to diet for the ill. But whatever deficiencies are evident in the normal diet of the ancients, a tendency to promote obesity was not among them. Sugar was unknown (honey was the only sweetener), and fats too would have been enjoyed only on special occasions.

Matthew Parris feels that he has become a genuine Remainiac, and kindly readers, fearing for his mental health, have been springing to his aid. The Roman elite, who felt the same sense of disempowerment after the republic collapsed and Augustus became the first Roman emperor in 27bc, might have a solution. The point about Augustus was that he did not call himself ‘emperor’ but princeps (‘first citizen’) or Caesar (as the later emperors did); and he maintained the trappings of the republican system (senators, consuls, etc). But he was now the final source of all authority. Any popular control over laws and appointment of officials was gone. So Romans began to wonder how they should live under a system that allowed them no political say.

Alfie Evans was seven months old when he went to hospital with seizures. When more than a year later doctors said that nothing more could be done for him, his parents took the hospital to court. They lost a number of cases on the issue, and when the courts ruled he could not be moved abroad, public outrage ensued. The ancient view on such events was very different. In 1931 a well (dated to c. 150 bc) was excavated in Athens and found to be a mass grave into which some 450 babies had been discarded. Recent analysis shows that one third had died from bacterial meningitis, an infection of the brain caused by cutting the umbilical cord with an unsterile object. Others presumably died from common conditions that were often fatal in babies, e.g. diarrhoea.

Jeremy Corbyn, it is said, does not have a racist bone in his body, and therefore cannot, by definition, be anti-Semitic (‘Semitic’ here referring to Jews, not Arabs). The Jewish community, however, begs to differ. Perhaps the problem is that Corbyn and Momentum take a Roman attitude towards the Jews. If racism today relates to defining people as inferior simply because of some unalterable characteristic (e.g. heredity, colour), irrespective of evidence, the Romans, it has been argued, were ‘proto-racist’. The reason is that, like the Greeks, they thought that the environment or heredity made a people what they were.

Barely a day passes without yet another Russian explanation for the Salisbury nerve agent attack. What’s new? Such disinformation has a very ancient history. After Caesar’s assassination in 44 bc, his old friend Mark Antony and the 18-year-old Octavian, Caesar’s adopted son and heir, emerged as the two contenders for power. In 32 bc, it had become clear that it war between them was inevitable. At this critical juncture, two allies of Antony deserted to Octavian, and revealed that Antony had a will, which had been lodged with the Vestal Virgins. It was illegal to open the will of a living man, and the Virgins told Octavian that they would not touch it.

The outsourcing business Carillion has gone bust because its bids for government work have been far too low. The problems raised by such contracts are not new. The Romans outsourced a great deal of state business. The Bible’s ‘publicans’ were wealthy publicani (lit. ‘men engaged on public business’). No doubt aided by the occasional sinner, they formed powerful and influential partnerships to bid at auction for state work of every hue — collection of taxes and harbour dues, provision of military and civilian supplies, building and repairing roads, bridges and aqueducts, running the mines, waste disposal and so on. Partnerships raised incredible sums for these operations.

Advertisements encouraging men and women to join the army emphasise that their religious beliefs, sexual orientation and emotional needs will be no barrier to making a career. Very nice too, but what sort of come-on is that? Is there no positive reason for joining up in the first place? In the ancient world, war was a constant, and men had to be ready to die in battle for the very survival of their country, wives and children. So the motivation was very powerful — self-preservation. There were also rewards: the prospect of booty and honours. We hear of one Spurius Ligustinus, an ordinary foot-soldier from a one-acre farm who ‘four times within a few years held the rank of chief centurion; 34 times I was honoured by my commanders with rewards for bravery.