Vox Populi 2024

2024
Vox Populi
2024

Contents
5 Editorial
by Conor
7 Roman Britain: Hadrians Wall
by Elliot
9 The Roman Army
by Joseph
11 Gladiators
by Aidan
12 Male Tragedy
by Victoria Ginsburg, Head of Classics
16 The Peloponnesian War
by Conor
18 The Peloponnesian War
by Josh
19 Life in Ancient Rome
by Edward
20 Duality of Sapphic Love
by Ed Baker, Teacher of Classics
22 Verulamium Museum
by Matthew
24 ‘We women’. Medea in Medea, Gloria in Barbie
by Mark Davies, Teacher of Classics
28 The Othismos of Hoplite Combat
by Alex
Front cover design by Alex, Lower Sixth Form

Editorial
Conor, Lower Sixth Form
Vox Populi was created in order to allow the ‘voice
of the people’ to be heard, on all topics concerning
the Classical world, and, in keeping with this, we
ensured a wide range of topics have been written
about, from an equally wide range of passionate
classicists. From the First Form to the Upper Sixth
Form, the student writers of the magazine have
worked hard to create consistently high-quality
articles on various matters, including studies of
Ancient literature, Sapphic love, and Philosophy,
alongside engaging accounts from the vast array of
trips, visits, and talks provided for us by the School.
This year’s edition includes student experiences
such as the Lower School Roman Soldier visit and
visit to Verulamium Museum, alongside the Upper
School’s Classics concert, and Hylocomian Talk. The
magazine also covers more specialised student
articles on a selection of topics, such as studies of
ancient literature, military strategy, conflict, and
Philosophy. These intriguing student-written articles
are supplemented by several teacher articles,
enriching the engaging series of topics explored.
Through this collection of highly intriguing and
readable articles on Classical topics, and by
showing the incredible experiences we gain from
studying Classics at St Albans School, we hope
to help more people discover an interest in the
Classical world and pursue an understanding of
any aspect of these wonderful topics, whether
its war or philosophy, literature or Gladiators,
there is something Classical for everyone.
Thank you to all the teachers and students who
have worked hard to ensure the production
of this magazine especially Mrs Ginsburg and
Mrs Hawkes for their expertise and time.
4 5

Roman Britain:
Hadrian’s Wall
Elliot, Second Form
Running along the border
between England and Scotland
lies a lasting legacy to Roman
occupied Britain, Hadrian’s
Wall, known in antiquity
as the Vallum Hadriani or
Vallum Aelian.
The wall was constructed on the orders of
Emperor Hadrian who arrived in Britain in
122 AD and proclaimed, ‘We need to build
a wall, 80 Roman miles long to separate
us Romans from the Barbarians.’
Construction started immediately, taking six years
to complete. The wall stretched coast to coast
across the width of Northern Britain, from Wallsend
(Segedunum) on the River Tyne in the east to
Bowness on the Solway Firth in the west, a length
of 73 miles. It was ten feet wide and twelve feet
high on the eastern section and with a turf rampart
twenty feet wide at the base of the Western section.
Historians are still debating the actual underlying
motive behind Emperor Hadrian’s massive building
project. Was it simply to mark the boundary line
between Britain and Scotland, limit the movement
of people or to keep the native people at bay
north of the wall? The answer to why the wall was
built could possibly be explained by the Emperor
Hadrian’s manner in the way he ruled, which was
“peace through strength”, with the wall being an
impressive representation of this. His rule has
been described as a time of consolidation, a
period in which an attempt was made to restore
order in estranged areas of the Roman Empire.
Historians and archaeologists argue that the Wall
was not designed to prevent movement, in a
military sense, but rather to control it, as can be
seen in the frequent gateways or milecastles which,
as their name suggests, were placed at regular
mile intervals along the length of the Wall. It seems
therefore more likely that it was constructed as
a display of force, a symbolic gesture of Rome’s
power, showing that the might of the Roman
Empire could go anywhere and do anything.
With the end of Roman occupation (AD 410),
substantial portions of the wall started to
be dismantled with stone being used as
material for other projects, including a new
monastery at Lindisfarne. Fortunately, in
1834 a local archaeologist John Clayton began
purchasing land around the wall in an attempt
to preserve it, and with his dedication and
passion kept what remained of Hadrian’s
Wall intact for future generations.
In 1987 Hadrian’s Wall was designated a
World Heritage Site, granted this status by
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), recognising
its outstanding, universal significance, with
tourists attracted by its beautiful location with
stunning views, as well as its features and
interesting stories. When excavating the site,
they even found board games hidden around!
6 7

The Roman
Army
Joseph, Third Form
The Roman army was one of
the greatest armed forces ever
to exist and was established in
the years 753 BC to 509 BC.
The Roman army was one of the greatest
armed forces ever to exist and was
established in the years 753 BC to
509 BC. It became one of the longest
surviving and most effective fighting
forces in all of military history. Between
200 BC and 14 AD, Rome conquered most of
Western Europe, Greece, the Balkans, much of the
Middle East and parts of North Africa. At its peak,
the Roman army had about half a million soldiers.
The army had an extremely effective fighting
style. They introduced the Maniple system, which
was a way to arrange all the various legions and
groups. Each legion was divided into smaller units
which were called cohorts, and these were split
again into maniples. Each of the maniples were
then divided into numerous centuries which all
contained around 100 soldiers. The effect of this
was to separate the army into smaller, well-defined
groups which created a sense of discipline whilst
also enabling better structure on the battlefield.
This organisation was enabled through a set
of rules introduced to the Roman army in
the late 2nd century BC by a general called
Gaius Marius. The laws were called Marius’
reforms and helped transform the Roman
empire from a semi–professional military to
a professional and famous fighting force.
The Roman Army also had the ability to bounce
back from defeats in battle, which helped in their
overall success. An example of this is after the
battle of Cannae, in which the Romans lost over
70,000 soldiers. However, they recovered and
built a new army which went on to eventually
defeat the Carthaginian general Hannibal. A good
example of losing the battle but winning the war.
The professionalism and organisation of the
Roman army produced one of the most successful
armed forces in history. However, despite their
many victories, including over Boudica near
Watling Street, the Romans never managed to
conquer the whole of Britain and were finally
banished at the beginning of the 5th century.
8 9

Gladiators
Aidan, Third Form
The gladiators were made
up of many varied, distinct
types, each with their own
advantages and disadvantages.
They wielded different weapons that
accompanied their classification,
to create more exciting battles.
Some gladiators were slaves or
even prisoners whereas others
volunteered to be gladiators for the
potential fame and glory that it might bring.
The battles that were fought between the gladiators
came with their own sets of unusual conventions:
for instance, two gladiators of the same class
could not fight each other to ensure a more
compelling fight. The fighters would also have
been chosen to be the same size and experience.
The Romans would often pit unwilling fighters
against animals; these fighters were known
as venatores and would fight against exotic
animals such as rhinos, tigers, and elephants.
These games were so hugely popular that they
even led to the extinction of multiple species.
One of the most famous places that many of
these battles were held was the Colosseum
which was the largest and most grand of all of
the amphitheatres in Rome. This building had a
vast network of tunnels and cages underneath
which were used to house the prisoners and the
animals that were imported from the rest of the
empire. It was capable of hosting intense mock
sea battles which were known as naumachia:
here they would fill the basin with water and use
specialised flat-bottomed boats to accommodate
the shallow water and they even staged historic
battles between Athens and Syracuse.
Gladiators were viewed by society as very
humble, but the public also admired their
qualities of discipline and courage and the
danger that they put themselves in for others’
entertainment. All in all, the gladiators were
respected but also pitied due to the terrible living
conditions that they had to endure as slaves.
10 11

Male
Tragedy
Victoria Ginsburg, Head of Classics
front line, than bear one child.
This blatantly honest exposition
on the hardships of being a
woman are interrupted by the
arrival of Creon, King of Corinth,
who informs Medea that she
and her sons are to be banished
that day. He tells her that as an
intelligent woman, she cannot
deal with Jason barring her from
his bed and taking a new wife
and that having heard her public
threats against his daughter,
he fears what Medea will do.
Medea manages to persuade
the king to allow her one more
day in Corinth, to make travel
arrangements, appealing to
Creon’s love as a parent.
He acquiesces, threatening death
if she is still within Corinth’s
boundaries on the next day.
The Greek tragedians Aeschylus, Sophocles,
and Euripides offered their audiences moral
mazes to consider: Are the gods moral
beings? Are individuals in control of their
lives? And why do misfortunes befall good
people?
These huge philosophical conundrums were written by male tragedians, acted
by male actors and, as far as we can gauge, were watched by a male audience.
Given that these tragedians drew female characters such as Clytemnestra
and Medea, who not only did not conform to the Athenian ideal of women—
whose greatest virtues were to be unseen and skilled at weaving—but
instead committed violent murder, I have often wondered what a male
audience member must have felt, going home in the dark to his wife. Did he
feel a frisson of fear? Did he wonder what lurked beneath her submissive
exterior? Or was he comforted by the thought that his wife, constrained
by societal and patriarchal submission, would never act so barbarically?
Euripides’ Medea, like all Greek tragedies, opens with the assumption that the
backstory of Medea and Jason will be known to the audience. Namely that...
Medea, the princess of Colchis, having fallen in love with the hero Jason,
betrayed her father and her fatherland by helping Jason get the Golden
Fleece. She used her magic to help him defeat a variety of monsters such as
fire-breathing bulls, and armed
soldiers and gave him a soporific
cake to put to sleep the dragon
that guarded the Fleece. After
these Harry Potter type potions
and spells, she attempted to
slow down her father who was
giving chase across the sea by
hacking into small pieces the
body of her little brother; her
father then had to zig zag across
the sea, collecting the body parts
of his young son which afforded
Jason and his talented squeeze,
a safe getaway. On arriving at
Jason’s home, Medea boiled
Jason’s usurping uncle to death,
and they then fled to the city of
Corinth where our play begins.
Jason and Medea are now husband
and wife. Medea has born him two
sons and they are now resident
in the Greek city of Corinth.
The play opens with the
Nursemaid to Medea’s children
wishing that Jason had never
sailed to Colchis. He would then
never have met Medea whom
he has now abandoned for the
young princess of Corinth. Medea
is beside herself with grief and
cannot eat or sleep. The boys’
tutor then informs us that worse
is to come for Creon, King of
Corinth and father of Jason’s new
love, has decreed that Medea
and her sons are to be exiled.
Medea then appears on stage
and gives a heartfelt soliloquy,
offering an intimate portrait of
the lot of a woman at that time.
She tells us that Jason was her
whole life. She describes the lot of
a woman in Greece at that time:
We need to spend a fortune to buy us
a man who will become the master
of our bodies. She explains that if
a man is unhappy, he can leave
and seek pleasures elsewhere
but if the woman is miserable, or
at risk, she is powerless. Medea
then utters the famous saying:
I’d rather stand three times in the
The play continues with Medea
sharing with the Chorus, who
represent the women of Corinth,
her plan to kill her three enemies:
Jason, his new love Glauce and
her father, Creon, swearing by her
grandfather the sun-God, Helios.
There follows the first of three
scenes with Medea and Jason,
each one set out like a boxing
match of insults and verbal
badinage with a clear winner.
The first scene begins with Jason
telling Medea that she has brought
this whole situation on herself
through her public vitriol at his
new relationship and that had
she remained quietly at home,
exile would not be on the cards.
Having placed the blame firmly at
Medea’s feet, he very kindly offers
money to ease the exile in store
for herself and her two sons.
Medea, then launches a verbal
assault on him, reminding him
that his acquisition of the Golden
Fleece, and his defeat of the
enemy soldiers were all thanks to
12 13

her skill and strategy; she has also
performed her wifely role perfectly
by bearing him two sons with
which to continue his family name.
She then tries to invoke Jason’s
sympathy by reminding him
that due to her previous actions,
namely stealing the Fleece
from her father and doing
the equivalent of a magimix
on her younger brother,
she has nowhere to go.
Jason counters this saying his
fame and victory were down
to Aphrodite alone, and that
Medea should be mindful of
what being married to Jason has
afforded her- the exchange of her
former alien status for a life of
superiority and status in Athens.
The icing on the cake is Jason
mansplaining to Medea that
rather than being angry with
him, she should be grateful that
he has elevated their position
in society by shacking up with a
princess and she should learn to
control her sex-jealousy, saying:
If only children could be got some
other way without the female sex.
Jason exits the stage, offering
to send Medea on her way
with letters of introduction.
Round 1: Jason 1, Medea 0.
So, our titular character Medea,
has been exiled, has a murderous
plan up her sleeve, but nowhere
to take refuge, cue the entry
of Aegeus, King of Athens.
Aegeus has been to Delphi to seek
the oracle’s help in becoming a
father. Aegeus, an old friend of
Medea, is sad to see her visibly
upset and shocked at news of
her banishment; Medea offers
to help him interpret the oracle’s
answers, in return for him offering
safe passage for her and her
sons to Athens. Aegeus swears
an oath agreeing to this request.
Now that Medea has procured
safe haven, she can focus on
the next stage of her plan, and
she asks the Nurse to summon
Jason, under the pretext that
she has realised the errors of
her ways; she understands that
he was right, and that his new
marriage will ensure their financial
security. She divulges that she
will send a poisoned wedding
dress with which to murder his
new wife, and finally, she will
kill her and Jason’s two sons to
ensure the complete devastation
of his lineage and home.
The second scene with Jason and
Medea, sees a contrite Medea,
a submissive Medea who asks
for his forgiveness. She brings
the boys on stage to hug their
father, and hiding her obvious
upset, she convinces Jason
that his previous speech has
made her rethink her previous
foolishness. Jason is completely
taken in by Medea’s words.
Medea then convinces Jason
that although his new wife has a
wardrobe of fine dresses, he must
allow their sons to take a special
gift and place it in her hands. Jason
is not keen but eventually agrees.
Round 2: Medea 1, Jason 0.
As soon as the children leave with
the gifts for Glauce, the plan is
underway; her boys’ fate is sealed.
We then see a different Medea
on stage, a vulnerable mother
who weeps as she understands
she will never see her boys grow,
become men, get married; her
hopes for them are no more;
she remembers their newborn
softness, their rosebud
mouths, their sweet breath.
This intimate portrait is
interrupted by the arrival of
a messenger who rushes on
stage, to recount, in grotesque
detail, what happened after the
boys arrived at the palace.
He tells that when Glauce first saw
the children of Medea and Jason,
she expressed her displeasure like
the sullen teenager that she was,
but then once she opened the gift
and saw the sparkly gifts, her upset
was won over and she gleefully
put them both on. This intimate
picture of a young girl hypnotised
by her shimmering reflection
in the mirror, is shattered by
the messenger’s description of
what happened next: the princess
grows pale, trembles all over and
falls to the ground; then her eyes
roll back in her head, her mouth
foams and the servants rush here
and there screaming in fear.
Worse is to come as flames erupt
from the crown adorning her head
and the dress begins to eat at her
tender flesh. Try as she might,
running this way and that, tearing
at her hair and her skin, she cannot
wrench away the fatal adornments.
She is a mess of blood and flames.
Her father appears and with the
paternal devotion and familial love
so lacking in Jason, he runs to his
daughter, falls upon the remains
of her body and as he tries to rip
away the poisoned gifts, he too
sticks fast to her decomposing
flesh, like ivy to a tree.
The death of the children at the
hands of Medea is now inevitable;
she murders her children off
stage, whilst the audience listen
to their anguished cries.
Enter Jason, for his third and final
encounter with Medea: he has
come to punish her for the murder
of Glauce and her father Creon,
having lost his hopes of a royal
marriage, material prosperity
and more children; as he rebukes
Medea, the Chorus inform him
that she has also killed their sons.
Finally, we pity Jason, a broken
man, far removed from the
arrogant, self-assured, man of the
first part of the play; a has-been
hero who found a way to rekindle
his fame by exchanging Medea
for a younger model, a Greek
princess who would guarantee him
wealth, status and legacy. As he
bangs on the doors of the house
demanding to see the bodies of his
sons, to cradle them in his arms
and take them away for proper
burial, Medea appears on the
roof of the palace, ensconced in
a chariot drawn by the dragons
of her grandfather Helios, with
the bodies of her sons on her
lap. She refuses Jason’s request,
and just when he cannot fall any
further, she pierces his heart
with one final act: prophesying
his death by the timbers of his
legendary boat the Argo.
The play ends without punishment
for the murderous Medea, but
rather redemption by the gods
who whisk her away firstly to bury
her sons in the temple of Hera
and secondly to take up her home
beside Aegeus, King of Athens.
At the end of this speech, the male
audience would have heaved their
weary legs up from the stone
seats of the theatre and made
their way home in the darkness
to the wife who was waiting
for them. And just maybe they
wondered, they questioned, they
worried- was their wife all she
seemed? Or were they reassured
by patriarchal confidence that
all was well in their home?
14 15

The Peloponnesian
War
Conor, Lower Sixth Form
Two students have written articles on events and consequences
of the Peloponnesian War. The war was perhaps the most
significant conflict in the Classical World, being fought between
the two largest powers at the time, Sparta and Athens. Yet the
extent of the war came about not due to the individual powers of
the city states, but rather their dominance in the region, and the
resultant scope of their alliances.
ultimately leading to Thebes,
a Spartan land ally, to attack
Plataea, an Athenian ally.
This initial violence spread into
total war, which would go on
to last for 10 years. Pericles
pursued an isolationist, defensive
tactic, telling Athenians to remain
inside their city, and utilise
their navy to disrupt shipping,
and enemy coasts. It is this
imbalance of power, with the
Athenian Navy, and the Spartan
land army, which shaped much
of the war, as the Athenians
largely refused to engage
on land, and vice versa. The
Athenians suffered a devastating
plague, and trapped in their
city, suffered major losses,
including Pericles. However,
the Spartan attacks during this
period were largely unsuccessful,
and the Athenians went on the
attack, invading Syracuse, and
Western Greece. Sparta had
begun to sue for peace, which
Athens rejected, yet, under
the leadership of Brasidas, the
Spartans began to gain successes
in Chalcidice, causing Athenian
states to revolt. In the battle
of Amphipolis, Brasidas, and
Athenian leader Cleon, were
killed, allowing Nicias, another
Athenian, and Cleon rival, to
persuade the Athenians to
accept peace, perhaps aided
by the absence of Pericles.
The Peace of Nicias lasted for
6 years, and was characterised
by small military operations,
and an unstable peace. This
peace was shattered with the
Athenian invasion of Sicily. This
second period of conflict went
on for 11 years, yet ultimately,
with support from Sparta,
Syracuse broke the Athenian
blockade, and defeated their
army, and then their navy, with
reinforcements in 413. The
Athenian army was obliterated
as they attempted to retreat.
Meanwhile, in Athens, democracy
was removed by the Oligarchs,
which was then replaced by the
regime of the five Thousand.
The Navy restored Democracy
in late 411, but refused Spartan
peace, Finally, the Athenian
navy was truly defeated at
Aegospotami by the Spartan
navy under the leadership of
Lysander, with substantial aid
from Persia. Athens suffered
blockades for a year, and
eventually surrendered, marking
the end of the Athenian empire,
and its dominance across
Greece and the Aegean Sea.
The Athenian alliance was an
empire which included the
vast majority of the island
and coastal states along the
northern and eastern shores
of the Aegean. Sparta, on the
other hand, led an alliance of
independent land states of
central Greece, and Corinth,
a coastal state which would
prove important in the war.
The war erupted after Athens
allied with Corcyra, a colony of
Spartan ally Corinth. Conflict
developed from this, and, as
advised by Pericles, Athens
refused to stop the conflict,
causing diplomatic efforts to fail,
16 17

The Peloponnesian
War
Josh, Fourth Form
Life in Ancient
Rome
Edward, Fourth Form
Lasting just under three decades, between the years 431 and
404 BC, the Peloponnesian War was one of the most influential
wars in Ancient Greek history, with the democratic Athenians set
against the warlike Sparta and its allies.
Did you know that in Roman times the streets were covered
in pee? Well, I did not, until Ben Kane came into school on the
12th December to talk to us First Formers about ‘Life in Ancient
Rome’.
Considered to be one of the main
causes of the Peloponnesian
War, the growing power of both
Athens and Sparta, as well as
the Athenian control over the
Delian league – an association
of Greek city-states which
was formed to combat the
Persian Empire – led to Sparta
wanting to free its country from
the Athenian “Tyranny.” This
unrest provoked Sparta to do
what it did best: start a war.
There were three main phases
of the Peloponnesian War –
the Ten Years War, the Sicilian
Expedition, and the Decelean
War. During the first phase, the
Spartan army was no match
for the Athenian army, and the
Athenian navy was no match
for the Spartan navy, leading to
something of a stalemate, during
which no decisive battles could
be fought. However, during the
Spartan invasion of Attica, a
plague struck Athens, leading
to the death of over 30,000
citizens, including their leader,
Pericles. The fear of this plague
caused Sparta to abandon their
invasion. After many battles,
the Spartan general Brasidas
decided to invade Amphipolis
(an Athenian Colony). Both
Brasidas and the new Athenian
leader, Cleon, were killed in the
Athenian attempted to recapture
Amphipolis, resulting in a truce,
which lasted for six years.
The second phase consisted of
numerous attempts by Athens to
conquer Sicily, in the hope that
it would bring them the power
needed to beat Sparta. Unable to
do so, Athens suffered a massive
defeat, and its navy was almost
wiped out. During the third
phase, with Persian support,
Sparta encouraged rebellions
within the Athenian empire,
which led to the dissolution of
Athens’ naval power. Athens
then surrendered after another
defeat in Sicily, thereby marking
the end of the war, and Sparta’s
victory. In 404 BC, the Spartans
installed the “Thirty Tyrants”
to rule over Athens, thus
finally achieving their goal of
overthrowing democracy.
However, in 403 BC, democracy
was swiftly restored by
Thrasybulus, an Athenian
general. Sparta’s efforts
had all been for nothing.
Ben Kane is a Classical historian
and author who is an expert
on the Romans. He has written
many books including ‘The
Forgotten Legion’, Spartacus and
Hannibal. Dressed in a Roman
tunic, he talked about all the
kinds of food they ate, medicine,
houses and being a slave. He
summarised what life was what
like for an average Roman
citizen. He told us that the roads
were covered in pee because
everyone dumped buckets of pee
and poop in the roads outside
their houses. They built really
high curbs on the pavements so
that citizens were not walking in
it and ruining their sandals. He
brought in with him a ring, which
signified a person’s family and
job status, and a bronze helmet
among other things. One of my
favourite objects he showed
us was the replica swords and
daggers. Ben Kane also showed
a tersorium which is a sponge on
a stick used in the public baths
to wash themselves after going
to the toilet. Even though the
Romans streets weren’t clean,
their Roman bottoms were!
Personally, the talk was one
of my highlights of the term.
18 19

Sappho was a remarkable poet.
Born circa 630BC, she was said
to have lived a wealthy lifestyle
on the island of Lesbos.
Scholarly assumptions of this
are based upon the references
to her luxurious clothing, to
the occasional pretentious
language she uses, and to the
allusions of the wealth of Lydia
in Asia Minor, now West of
modern-day Turkey.
Her brothers Charaxos, Larichos, and Erigyius
are alluded to in several of her poems, and it is
believed that she also had a daughter called Cleis;
the father of the infant, however, is unknown. Her
fame does not perhaps stem from her explicit
references to homosexuality; indeed, this topos was
not uncommon during this period, as the writing of
another lyricist Anacreon attests. In fact, her role
as a female poet discussing female homosexuality
is more significant. Although their religious input
was important in Classical Greece, women’s duties
predominantly revolved around the wishes of her
Duality of
Sapphic Love
Ed Baker, Teacher of Classics
husband, regardless of status. By acknowledging
the social context, which is to say that female
responsibilities were primarily domestic at this time,
her accomplishments were indisputably incredible.
As well as her poetry having a contemporary
impact, it has also provided etymologies for
words we use today, such as the word ‘lesbian’
for describing female homosexual couples. It is
clear that, in order to garner an understanding of
the complexities of love through poetry, Sappho’s
poetry is seminal and iconic.
On the one hand, desire is perceived as a force
for pleasure in her poetry. Perhaps owing to the
ritualistic context of her work, Sappho refrains
from indulging in explicit obscene material
and, instead, uses euphemism and metaphor
to articulate the joys of love and desire. Her
second poem aptly demonstrates this:
Here, the cold water sings
Through the branches of the apple trees,
The whole place is covered with
The shadows of roses
And sleep flows down
From the trembling leaves.
Here, the horse-rearing valley
Flourishes with
The flowers of Spring
And the breezes blow gently.
A ‘locus amoenus’, or a place of love, is described
here, where the incantatory force of eros vivifies
nature through the tender voice of the poet. This is
best illustrated by the enjambment within the lines,
indicating the author’s stream of consciousness, as
well as the evident personification pervading the
fragment. This praise of love continues in arguably
her most famous and subversive 16th poem:
The most beautiful sight in the whole world
Is, according to some,
A group of cavalry,
Others say infantry.
And still others a fleet of ships.
I think it is the one you love.
This verse is remarkable in an array of ways.
Firstly, Sappho rebels against the status quo, which
Freeman regards as a challenge to masculine
oppression. As evidenced through a stunning
tricolon, it is not Homer’s cavalry, it is not his fleet
of ships, and it is not his infantry, which inspire her
as it would ‘according to some’. The most beautiful
sight in the whole world for her is ‘the one you
love’. In fact, this approach is so unconventional
from the poet that she even pardons Helen of
Sparta from her infamous actions in creating a
ten-year war between the Greeks and Trojans.
Sappho not only challenges the patriarchy here,
but even challenges literary consensus. She has
made her stand clear here; she says, ‘I think’, which
insinuates how contrary her stance is to traditional
contemporary perception. This is testament to her
audacity, her willingness to write on a topic close to
her heart, and her wish to not accept the accepted.
So, love can be patently pleasurable for our
poet. But as her description of it is conveyed as
‘bittersweet’, a more daunting side of ‘eros’ must
be alluded to in her literary corpus. Although
previously I suggested that love has medicinal
purposes to cure and support, Sappho equally
renders it as malignant, painful, and even fatal.
Take her 31st poem as an exemplum of this:
When I see you,
Even for a moment,
I can no longer speak.
My tongue breaks and, immediately
A delicate fire runs beneath my skin,
I see nothing with my eyes but
There is a buzzing in my ears,
And sweat pours over me
And a tremor
Seizes me all over
And I am greener
Than grass
And I think that I am
On the point of death.
One must appreciate the powerful imagery adopted
by the Lesbian poet, especially to evoke the
influence of love in its facilitation of death. Sappho
portrays Love like a disease inducing the physical
destruction of the soul and body, and not always
a force for good. The speaker is out of control to
the point where she can no longer live and we
not only hear, but feel, the speaker wasting away
at the perniciousness of love. One can infer that
the speaker’s perpetual strive for a partner can,
paradoxically, cause self-harm and, therefore, loss.
Sappho’s 94th poem continues in the same fashion,
perhaps talking to a member of the thiasos cult, to
whom much of her poetry is addressed. She sings:
Honestly, I want to die
Weeping, she was leaving me
She said this to me many times,
“Oh, Sappho, after all we have been through!
I mean this,
I do not want to leave you.”
Some scholars have interpreted this as a younger
girl leaving Sappho as she moves towards
adulthood and away from the cult, which celebrates
Aphrodite. Others perceive this as the end of a
romantic relationship. Despite this ambiguity, the
fear of loss is palpable here. Her pain is continuous;
this is a feeling which has happened ‘many times’
and the girl’s wish to stay with Sappho induces the
speaker’s wish to die. The nostalgic exclamation,
considering ‘all (they) have been through’ shows an
incredulity that the end has come. It is clear that
love, therefore, can create loss as well as union.
Although the remnants of Sappho’s literary
corpus remain few (we are missing approximately
11,400 verses of her poetry), it is this very
scarcity, which makes her poetry so appealing
to the notion of love and loss. On the one hand,
love is presented as a salvatory phenomenon,
which can cure the empty spaces or the ‘lack’
as Rene Girard would suggest, in one’s soul.
Paradoxically, it is this very same emotion which
incurs loss: loss at the inevitable pain to come
when we have to say goodbye to those whom
we love. Sappho’s poetry is complex, but it aptly
demonstrates the very complexity of love and loss.
20 21

Verulamium
Museum
Matthew, Second Form
At the end of last term, the Second Form visited Verulamium
Museum, just a short walk from the School. We are so lucky to
have so much history in St Albans and with the city forming such
an important part of the Roman Empire in Britain, this trip was a
great opportunity to learn more.
The museum really brings the
Roman Empire to life. For me
personally, I was struck by how
advanced the Romans were,
given their rule in Britain was
so long ago. As well as seeing
lots of recovered items, we were
very lucky to have an interactive
handling session with one of the
museum’s top guides. We were
given many different types of
objects and learnt how they were
used and by who. This helped
us learn hierarchical structure
of ancient Roman society. In this
handling session, some of us
were able to wear Roman clothes
which may have been worn at
the time, further bringing to
life the hierarchy of the time.
After the handling session, we
watched a short video on what
it was like in Verulamium and its
vital importance to the Empire.
This was followed by some small
group sessions where we got to
explore in more detail certain
aspects of Roman Britain.
We also saw examples of
Roman architecture. Their
building techniques still clearly
influence building methods
today. And we were even allowed
to use and touch the Roman
versions of the modern day
equipment and compare them
to see how they have evolved
through time and we concluded
that they had become more
reliable and industrious.
I found the museum very
interactive, including games
and visual representations.
This helped me to better grasp
what living here was like. My
favourite of all was the Roman
version of Chess and Drafts,
two games I enjoyed playing.
We also found out the
importance of Verulamium in
Roman Britan and how it was
the second largest after London
and if you wanted to get to
London then you would have
to go through Verulamium.
22 23

‘We women’.
Medea in Medea,
Gloria in Barbie
Mark Davies, Teacher of Classics
we’re always doing it wrong.
You have to be thin, but not too
thin. And you can never say you
want to be thin. You have to say
you want to be healthy, but also
you have to be thin. You have
to have money, but you can’t
ask for money because that’s
crass. You have to be a boss, but
you can’t be mean. You have to
lead, but you can’t squash other
people’s ideas. You’re supposed
to love being a mother, but
don’t talk about your kids all the
damn time. You have to be a
career woman but also always
be looking out for other people.
You have to answer for men’s
bad behavior, which is insane,
but if you point that out, you’re
accused of complaining. You’re
supposed to stay pretty for
men, but not so pretty that you
tempt them too much or that
you threaten other women
because you’re supposed to
be a part of the sisterhood.
But always stand out and always
be grateful. But never forget
that the system is rigged. So,
find a way to acknowledge that
but also always be grateful.
You have to never get old,
never be rude, never show
off, never be selfish, never fall
down, never fail, never show
fear, never get out of line. It’s
too hard! It’s too contradictory
and nobody gives you a medal
or says thank you! And it turns
out in fact that not only are you
doing everything wrong, but
also everything is your fault.
I’m just so tired of watching
myself and every single other
woman tie herself into knots
so that people will like us. And
if all of that is also true for a
doll just representing women,
then I don’t even know.
The first thing likely to strike
someone looking at these two
speeches is how extremely
Euripides’ tragedy Medea, first performed in 431 BC, tells the
story of Medea. Originally a princess from Colchis at the eastern
end of the Black Sea, she married Jason, the hero of the quest for
the Golden Fleece, and moved to Corinth in Greece.
When she first appears on
stage, she addresses the
chorus of native Corinthian
women. Jason has left her to
marry the Corinthian king’s
daughter. She tells them, “I
have given up all delight in
life. I want to die, my friends.
My husband, who – as he well
knows – was everything to me,
has turned out to be the most
despicable of men.” She then
launches into an impassioned
tirade about the position of
women in their society:
Of all the creatures that have life
and brains, we women are the
most unhappy. First, we have
to buy a husband for far too
much money and accept him
as lord and master of our body
– a still more painful injustice.
And all our safety hangs on
whether we get a bad husband
or an honest one. There are no
respectable ways for a woman
to get a divorce, and no way for
her to refuse her husband.
And then when we come across
our new house’s new customs
and laws, we must have second
sight to learn something we
certainly didn’t learn at home:
how best to treat the man
who shares our bed. And, if
we struggle through, and get
everything to turn out all right,
and our husband can live with
us without feeling himself
weighed down by the chains, oh,
everyone will envy us our happy
life; if not, there is nothing for
it but to die. A man, when he is
tired of the company inside, can
go out of the house for relief
from his boredom; but we have
to fix our eyes on one single
soulmate. They say we live a
life free from danger at home,
while they go off and fight. The
idiots! If I had the choice, I would
stand three times in the battle
line before I gave birth once.
In Greta Gerwig’s film
Barbie, released in 2023, the
character Gloria addresses
the title character, a doll
who is feeling unsettled and
upset after a visit to the real,
female-unfriendly world:
It is literally impossible to be a
woman. You are so beautiful,
and so smart, and it kills me
that you don’t think you’re good
enough. Like, we have to always
be extraordinary, but somehow,
24 25

tough life in fifth-century BC
Greece was, compared to life
for the middle class in twentyfirst
century AD America. In
comparing fighting and giving
birth, Medea is not just talking
about the pain of battlefield
wounds and of childbirth
before anaesthesia; battle for
men and childbirth for women
both carried very high risk of
death, because Greek states
were hardly ever not at war
and because, for all the Greeks’
intellectual achievements,
they did not know enough
about nutrition, medicine, or
sanitation to make giving birth
less dangerous for mothers.
Medea’s speech also highlights
the complete lack of women’s
rights in a society in which
men invented democracy for
themselves but held attitudes
to women close to those of
the Taliban in Afghanistan
today. She refers to giving
the husband’s family a dowry,
to women surrendering all
rights over their own bodies
to their husbands, not being
able to get a divorce, not being
able to leave the house.
It would, however, be unfair to
dismiss Gloria’s complaints on
the ground that they all deal with
what are, in the literal sense,
first-world problems, or on the
ground that, unlike Medea, she
does not face oppression in her
personal life – her husband is
no Jason; he is much more like
Aegeus in Medea, who is softheaded
but also soft-hearted.
It pretty much proves her point
about women always being
forced to “be grateful” if one
insists that someone who isn’t
virtually imprisoned or at risk of
death doesn’t have the right to
complain about anything. She
forcefully makes the case that
“freedom” ends up meaning
the responsibility to do, and be,
everything at once all the time,
and that women do not have to
be the victims of individual bad
men to suffer from sexism: they
can be attacked by other women
who have internalised impossible
expectations and confused and
negative feelings, or they can
internalise those expectations
and feelings themselves.
Medea’s speech has also been
dismissed as not to be taken
seriously, since Medea is shown
as using it to manipulate the
Chorus into taking her side
and promising not to reveal
her secrets – which then turn
out to include the fact that
she is going to kill her own
sons in order to take revenge
against Jason, their father. The
words of such a monster, it is
said, cannot be taken at face
value. But Medea’s monstrous
behaviour can be taken to show
the opposite: the fact that she
resorts to doing these things may
indicate the extremes to which
women could be driven by their
powerlessness and suffering,
proving the truth of her words.
So, having accepted that both
speeches deserve consideration,
let us take the Greeks’ own
approach of making everything
a competition. Who deserves
the crown for best speech
about the plight of women?
As already indicated, the
speeches are about two vastly
different societies and situations,
which makes the decision
very difficult. We could point
to the fact that Gerwig, unlike
Euripides, did not write the film
by herself, but together with
her partner Noah Baumbach.
Understandable as her decision
to collaborate in the writing
was, given that she gave birth
once at the beginning of her
time working on the film and
again at the end, perhaps
Euripides should take the crown
as being entirely responsible
for the script of Medea.
However, can we be sure of
that? In the comic plays of
Aristophanes, it is alleged that
Euripides’ wife was unfaithful
to him with the famous
actor Cephisophon, and that
Euripides was so spineless
that he let Cephisophon share
their house. Maybe she was
unfaithful; or maybe, in a society
as aggressively misogynistic
as some areas of the internet,
the label of “cuckold” was, as
on social media today, applied
to men who were seen as not
“manly” enough, of being happy
with women getting “above
themselves” and threatening
men’s roles and men’s selfimage.
In other words, perhaps
Euripides was not actually being
humiliated by his wife’s being
unfaithful to him; perhaps
this was a metaphor for his
emasculating himself by letting
his wife into a world that should,
in the eyes of Athenian men,
have excluded women – the
world of work. Could it be that,
just as Gerwig collaborated in
writing Barbie with the man
who became her husband,
Euripides collaborated with his
wife in writing his plays? It would
explain why Cephisophon, who
probably played the lead parts
in many of the plays, would
have spent a lot of time with
both Euripides and his wife
Choerine at their house (if he
really did). It could also explain
the unusual closeness that
Aristophanes indicates in The
Poet and the Women between
Euripides and his father-in-law
Mnesilochus, who even risks his
own life when Euripides feels
that he is under threat. And it
would force us to declare the
contest between Euripides (with
Choerini) and Greta Gerwig
(with Noah Baumbach) a draw.
26 27

What happened during the fighting between hoplite formations
in the context of the Ancient Greek war is a highly disputed
topic of debate. In its simplest form, the Hoplite phalanx was
utilised by Ancient Greek armies c.800-350BC. It formed a ranked
structure of hoplites, lightly armoured infantry units equipped
with a spear and a shield with some more well-armed “hoplitepolis”
amongst the army.The phalanx was the rectangular
structure formed by the interlocked fighters.
The conservative view of what
defined an othismos was an
event between two hoplite
phalanxes shoving each other in
a pushing match. The front ranks
would charge at each other,
and the supporting ranks would
push their backs. The aim was to
collapse the enemy line through
brute strength, thus winning
the battle. A heretical view
of the othismos exists, where
the word is interpreted more
metaphorically. The “push” of the
othismos, therefore, describes
how one phalanx uses combat
manoeuvres to force the enemy
to retreat. The “final phase”
theory combines both schools
The Othismos of
Hoplite Combat
of thought, suggesting that parts
of hoplite engagements would
devolve into a shoving match.
It seems that engagements
between opposing phalanxes
could develop the conditions for
either or both ideas to occur.
The depth of a phalanx is the
first piece of evidence for the
prevalence of physical othismos.
It was rare for a phalanx to be
deployed with less than eight
ranks, which would be odd
in a conventional war as the
latter ranks would not be able
to hit the enemy with their
spears. However, the depth
Alex, Lower Sixth Form
of a phalanx would reconcile
the lack of practicality for
the last ranks, as they would
provide the extra manpower
needed to hold a physical push.
Historian J.K. Anderson states:
When the front rank on either
side met, the men behind them
did not stand waiting for their
leaders to be killed before
taking their places; still less
did the front-rank men fight
for a time and then fall back to
the rear to give someone else
a turn. The rear ranks closed
up, and when we read of one
Greek army pushing another
back (Thuc. 6. 70. 2; Hdt. 9. 62.
2; Xen. Hell. 2. 4. 35), or unable
to bear the weight of another’s
attack (e.g. Diod. Sic. 18. 17.
4), the words are to be taken
literally, not as mere figures of
speech, as they would be in an
account of a modern battle . . .
Literary evidence that supports
the idea of a physical othismos
is limited. Tyrtaeus describes
“shield against round shield”
in his poetry. Thucydides also
refers to a collision between two
sides at the battle of Coronea
(394BC) in a similar “shield
against” shield phrase. Scholars
such as P. Krentz, however, offer
the idea that the phalanx would
be more spaced to allow for
open combat between ranks,
with ranks serving to replace
the casualties at the front. The
argument that an othismos would
severely limit the ability of front
soldiers to use their weapons
may also be raised, with battles
that lasted for consecutive hours
being physically impossible
were a traditional othismos to
occur. Thus, we should not
interpret othismos as literal
in all cases and more as an
ambiguous term. Othismos can
be a pushing of one’s weapon
against their enemy, rather than
their own body, such as when
Ajax “pushed back” Hector by
pressing his spear against his
shield. In its verb form, otheo
has a similar expression to being
“pushed” back rather than as
a physical description of the
battle. This notion is reflected
in the writings of Homer in the
Iliad, which depicts a much
looser structure to battle, more
focused on individual skill rather
than uniformed tactics, or at the
battle of Sphacteria (425) where
the Athenian army attempted
to “push back” a Spartan army.
However, the depth of the
phalanx is still called into
question. If physical othismos
was not an occurrence in
many battles why would the
phalanx require eight ranks?
Thucydides’ account of battling
armies at Mantinea gives insight
into a potential reason:
After this the two armies met,
the Argives and their allies
advancing with great violence
and fury, while the Spartans
came on slowly and to the music
of many flute-players in their
ranks. This custom of theirs
has nothing to do with religion;
it is designed to make them
keep in step and move forward
steadily without breaking ranks,
as large armies often do when
they are just about to join battle
(Thucydides, The Peloponnesian
War, trans. R. Warner; rev. edn,
Harmondsworth: Penguin,
1972; henceforward Thuc.;
this quotation 5.70).
From Thucydides’ writing, we
can assert that the reason for
the shape of the phalanx may
have been twofold. Whilst it
supported a physical othismos,
it also allowed Greek armies to
maintain an ordered structure
to their ranks, as a shallower
othismos would fall out of line
over hundreds of metres and
uneven terrain. No evidence ever
suggested that there were fixed
positions within the phalanx
except in the Spartan military
during early Greek combat
and that it was not unusual for
Greek armies to drift slightly
in rank over greater distances.
Thus, it is likely that othismos
describes a much more general
combat term rather than
explicitly the action of physically
pushing back another army
(even though accounts suggest
that this still happened). The
use of othismos to describe
naval engagements where
the enemy is “pushed” further
complicates the true meaning
(Thuc. 7.36, 7.52, 7.63, 8.104.).
However, it seems that othismos
takes on a form most akin to
the “final phase” theory. Much
like many things in the ancient
world, it is likely that the usage
of the word and what it meant
was not necessarily consistent.
The rank structure of the phalanx
initially seems to indicate
that physical othismos was
predominant in ancient battles.
However, the formation offered
the dual purpose of allowing
relatively untrained soldiers to
maintain formation. The depth
of the structure also meant that
newer infantry would not be
lost in their first battles, allowing
them to garner experience over
their military careers. From
descriptions in the Iliad, accounts
and the context of the word,
othismos can also mean pushing
the enemy back for a tactical
advantage, or simply other
ways of physically moving an
opposing force without needing
to use your body against them.
28 29

30 31

32