Subarmalis in the literary sources

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

I am not happy with the notion that subarmalis could mean both a javelin and a protective undergarment but I am drawn reluctantly to Tomlin's interpretation.

I'm drawn in the opposite direction. I'm unconvinced that the tablet refers to a lance that can only be used under-arm (and Tomlin doesn't adequately explain how armalis indicates something to do with the arm-pit, when the obvious meaning of arma is staring us in the face).

Could you please explain why do you take the meaning of arma to be more obvious that the meaning of armus in this case?

As for their position on the tablet in between two weapons, I wouldn't like to press that argument too far. The tablet concerns the belongings of cavalrymen. There's no particular reason to suppose that only weapons could be listed. You could dig out a dozen "lists" from Vindolanda where the items appear to be haphazard. I think this is similarly "untidy".

It seems that by that logic, we lose the argument that subarmalo in the Vindolanda tablet has to do with garment simply because it is listed along with some items of clothing in the tablet. From what you say, it can be anything.

A suggestion - we may have a case of two homonyms of the word "subarmalis," separated by nearly 3 centuries and meaning different things. In case of the Carlisle tablet, it is a javelin, carried alongside (Josephus, BJ 3.96), likely below (sub) the rider's arm, and deriving from sub+armus. In case of SHA, it is a garment, deriving from sub+arma.

[D B Campbell]

Could you please explain why do you take the meaning of arma to be more obvious that the meaning of armus in this case?

Most readers of this forum will be familiar with the Latin word bracchium for the arm and humerus for the shoulder. We might suppose that a lance that is supposedly only used under-arm, or perhaps couched in the arm-pit, would employ one of these standard terms.

As far as I recall, Tomlin does not explain why his interpretation uses a more unusual word. This would need to be derived either from the Greek ἁρμός, meaning a "joint" (specifically the shoulder joint), or the (in my experience, rare) Latin word armus, used almost exclusively of animals to mean the haunch or fore-quarter (which, in a human, would be called the shoulder). Tomlin does not explain which one he envisages. (Lewis & Short register one poetic usage of armus: Lucan uses it to mean a point somewhere along the human arm, in a context where it was no doubt the scansion and rhyming scheme that ruled out bracchium or humerus.)

It seems that by that logic, we lose the argument that subarmalo in the Vindolanda tablet has to do with garment simply because it is listed along with some items of clothing in the tablet. From what you say, it can be anything.

I don't follow how subarmalis cannot both be a textile garment (Vindolanda) and an item of soldiers' belongings (Carlisle). The subject matter of each tablet seems fairly clear, even if the ordering is jumbled.

In case of the Carlisle tablet, it is a javelin, carried alongside (Josephus, BJ 3.96), likely below (sub) the rider's arm, and deriving from sub+armus. In case of SHA, it is a garment, deriving from sub+arma.

Before we get carried away, please note that Josephus does not mention a lance carried under the arm or couched in the arm-pit (or anything to do with arms at all, in fact). Or am I mistaken?

[Renatus]

(Lewis & Short register one poetic usage of armus: Lucan uses it to mean a point somewhere along the human arm, in a context where it was no doubt the scansion and rhyming scheme that ruled out bracchium or humerus.)

But Lewis & Short also give armus as the root of subarmalis.

[D B Campbell]

But Lewis & Short also give armus as the root of subarmalis.

Thank you. For some reason, I hadn't checked Lewis & Short. I now see where our French colleagues get their definition from (cited earlier, in French) -- the De Rhetorica of Martianus Capella (another of these late Roman encyclopaedists ... but a very peculiar one).

His discussion of rhetoric begins with a fanciful description of a meeting of the Gods, into which arrives a "woman of outstanding beauty" -- I'm not sure, but I think this may be a representation of Roma.

She wore a helmet and her head was wreathed with royal majesty, the weapons in her hands with which she was accustomed either to protect herself or to wound her enemies gleamed with the flash of lightning. Her subarmalis garment was covered by a robe wrapped around her shoulders like the Latins, which was decorated with all kinds of lights and displayed the shapes of them, and her breast was belted with the most exquisite colours of jewels.

I think Lewis & Short have misunderstood this passage. They seem to think that it clinches the deal about an "under-the-armpits" tunic. On the contrary, (imho) it is perfectly in keeping with the other descriptions of the subarmalis as a warrior's under-shirt.

Thank you for drawing our attention to Martianus Capella (who, as far as I can see, has never been cited in discussions of the subarmalis).

[mcbishop]

I think Lewis & Short have misunderstood this passage. They seem to think that it clinches the deal about an "under-the-armpits" tunic. On the contrary, (imho) it is perfectly in keeping with the other descriptions of the subarmalis as a warrior's under-shirt.

Thank you for drawing our attention to Martianus Capella (who, as far as I can see, has never been cited in discussions of the subarmalis).

No, I'd completely missed that one (he says, as if he is well-versed in late encyclopaedists hock: ) but I agree, there is nothing in there that mitigates against the interpretation of the subarmalis as an arming doublet. I doubt L&S would even be aware that anything would have to be worn under armour, bless 'em, so they would needs be interpret it in terms that made sense to them as [deep breath] classicists.

Mike Bishop

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

I don't follow how subarmalis cannot both be a textile garment (Vindolanda) and an item of soldiers' belongings (Carlisle). The subject matter of each tablet seems fairly clear, even if the ordering is jumbled.

Could you please explain then, 1) what is the subject matter of the Vindolanda tablet, and 2) how do you arrive from the subarmalo in the tablet, listed along with pepper, flask, tallow, and some towels to subarmalis as the arming doublet?

Before we get carried away, please note that Josephus does not mention a lance carried under the arm or couched in the arm-pit (or anything to do with arms at all, in fact). Or am I mistaken?

No, you are not mistaken, he does not. Neither does Tomlin argue that by subarmalis he means a lance couched in the arm-pit. Tomlin cites Josephus to show that a rider carried javelins in a quiver slang alongside, and thus under or below rider's arm.

[D B Campbell]

Neither does Tomlin argue that by subarmalis he means a lance couched in the arm-pit. Tomlin cites Josephus to show that a rider carried javelins in a quiver slang alongside, and thus under or below rider's arm.

To be honest, I think Tomlin has gone waaay out on a limb here, and it's starting to crack behind him.

He obviously has Cornelius Nepos' phrase subalare telum rattling around in his head. Nepos is telling the story of how Alcibiades was caught without his sword, so he appropriated a friend's subalare telum. The phrase seems to be a hapax, so its meaning must be deduced from the context (subalare is literally "under the wing", telum is a weapon). There is a similar Greek phrase, rather better documented and definitely more common, ὑπὸ μάλης, "under the arm-pit" -- Plato, for one, mentions that a dagger might be concealed there.

Tomlin adds the two together to get a meaning for subarmalis, but what he has really got is a meaning for subalaris. He thinks that's close enough. I don't.

[Renatus]

I now see where our French colleagues get their definition from (cited earlier, in French) -- the De Rhetorica of Martianus Capella (another of these late Roman encyclopaedists ... but a very peculiar one).

His discussion of rhetoric begins with a fanciful description of a meeting of the Gods, into which arrives a "woman of outstanding beauty" -- I'm not sure, but I think this may be a representation of Roma.

She wore a helmet and her head was wreathed with royal majesty, the weapons in her hands with which she was accustomed either to protect herself or to wound her enemies gleamed with the flash of lightning. Her subarmalis garment was covered by a robe wrapped around her shoulders like the Latins, which was decorated with all kinds of lights and displayed the shapes of them, and her breast was belted with the most exquisite colours of jewels.

I think Lewis & Short have misunderstood this passage. They seem to think that it clinches the deal about an "under-the-armpits" tunic. On the contrary, (imho) it is perfectly in keeping with the other descriptions of the subarmalis as a warrior's under-shirt.

Thank you for drawing our attention to Martianus Capella (who, as far as I can see, has never been cited in discussions of the subarmalis).

Speidel cites this passage in his note in Britannia under the reference 'De nupt. 5.426'. There is no problem with that, De Rhetorica being Bk. 5 of De Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii. I have not read it through but assume that the female figure is the personification of Rhetoric. The difficulty here is that there is no indication that she is wearing a cuirass; her subarmalis vestis is covered by a decorated robe. Nor do Speidel's other references, HA Sev. 11 (previously referred to), HA Claud. 14.8 and HA Aurelian 13.3, mention armour. The heretical thought occurs to me: Is there any text that specifically identifies subarmalis as a garment worn under armour or is this a modern assumption based on its supposed etymology?

[mcbishop]

The heretical thought occurs to me: Is there any text that specifically identifies subarmalis as a garment worn under armour or is this a modern assumption based on its supposed etymology?

Guilty (cf Occam's Razor).

Mike Bishop

[D B Campbell]

I have not read it through but assume that the female figure is the personification of Rhetoric.

D'oh! :roll:

The heretical thought occurs to me: Is there any text that specifically identifies subarmalis as a garment worn under armour or is this a modern assumption based on its supposed etymology?

Hmmm, you're thinking of sub as a prefix indicating (something like) "approximating" the item, rather than going "beneath" the item? Worth thinking about.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

The heretical thought occurs to me: Is there any text that specifically identifies subarmalis as a garment worn under armour or is this a modern assumption based on its supposed etymology?

And, if we don't "already know" that subarmalis has to be a garment worn under armor, would we ever see that arming doublet in the Vindolanda tablet, listed along with tallow and pepper, or in the Carlisle tablet, in the middle of the list of missing weapons?

[Sean Manning]

The heretical thought occurs to me: Is there any text that specifically identifies subarmalis as a garment worn under armour or is this a modern assumption based on its supposed etymology?

And, if we don't "already know" that subarmalis has to be a garment worn under armor, would we ever see that arming doublet in the Vindolanda tablet, listed along with tallow and pepper, or in the Carlisle tablet, in the middle of the list of missing weapons?

As a so-so Latinist, I think that subarmalis is pretty obviously "thing under kit". Deductions like this are very common; social historians have a lot of terms like sarcinatrix and cabator which aren't used in literature and which they have to deduce from context. I'm not saying that the obvious meaning is right, but it is what I would guess if I encountered it in an inscription and weren't a militarist.

I have never encountered the Greek loan-word armus, and the PHI database gives mixed evidence. Its common in Augustan poets, who liked Greek words to show off their learning and help fit the metre, but also shows up in Pliny Maior and Columnella. Common compounds like armiger and Armilustrum all come from the neuter plural arma. Is there any evidence that armus as "the body part between the wrist and the shoulder" was common in Vulgar Latin? I don't think it survives in French or Italian.

[Renatus]

As a so-so Latinist, I think that subarmalis is pretty obviously "thing under kit". Deductions like this are very common; social historians have a lot of terms like sarcinatrix and cabator which aren't used in literature and which they have to deduce from context. I'm not saying that the obvious meaning is right, but it is what I would guess if I encountered it in an inscription and weren't a militarist.

That was the point of my question. When we do have a context, it does not necessarily support what might at first sight seem the obvious interpretation.

Common compounds like armiger and Armilustrum all come from the neuter plural arma.

How about armilla?

[D B Campbell]

How about armilla?

armillae, quae bracchialia vocantur? :wink:

Edit: Explanation probably required. This is Priscian's gloss on armillae, from his treatise On the Twelve Main Verses of the Aeneid, where he wrestles with the word arma (as in, "Of arms and the man, I sing, ...") and its derivatives. Needless to say, he derives armilla from arma.

[Sean Manning]

As a so-so Latinist, I think that subarmalis is pretty obviously "thing under kit". Deductions like this are very common; social historians have a lot of terms like sarcinatrix and cabator which aren't used in literature and which they have to deduce from context. I'm not saying that the obvious meaning is right, but it is what I would guess if I encountered it in an inscription and weren't a militarist.

That was the point of my question. When we do have a context, it does not necessarily support what might at first sight seem the obvious interpretation.

Hold on; I was answering Alexander's question. My point is that deducing meaning from the components of a word is a common method, and so is looking to the literary sources for a rare word. We need to consider the context of all six uses (3 in the HA, 1 in Martianus Capella, 1 at Carlisle, 1 at Vindolanda which I don't have access too).

It seems like we have two questions: one about whether a subarmalis was a garment or a weapon, and one about whether it is derived from armus or arma. It seems like the Carlisle tablet is the only evidence for subarmalis as a short spear, although I don't have a copy of the Vindolanda tablets to check. Martianus Capella and the Scriptor Historia Augusta both have it as a piece of clothing with military associations. For etymology, we seem to be reduced to speculation.

Its interesting that the SHA, Capella, and de Rebus Bellicis all date to roughly the century after 360. Does that suggest that the word entered learned usage in that period? Also, the full Historiae Augustae Divus Claudius reference is “albam subsericam
unam cum purpura Girbitana, subarmalem unum cum purpura Maura.” Subsericam for semisericam, forsooth!