But what have the Romans ever done for us?

[switchbladeeyes]

It's August 24th so that means it's "Happy Traumatic End to Your Mortal Existence Day" for our favorite Forever Knight fiend, LaCroix. He was turned into a vampire 1,944 years ago while his home and nearly everyone he knew were incinerated in a volcanic eruption. There's not really a greeting card for this.

We learned LaCroix's origin story in "A More Permanent Hell" (AMPH) with a later continuation of his early vampire story in "Ashes to Ashes."

The fact that he came from being a male Roman citizen of high social rank explains a lot about him. A LOT.

I hope you're ready for a long-winded chat about LaCroix as a Roman and how that helps explain why he is the way he is, a related fic recommendation and analysis, and learning how "Divia" and "Lucius" would have been pronounced in Classical Latin (quite different from how we pronounce them in English).

'cause that's exactly what you're going to get.

This is a long one. It's going to get very nerdy up in here because I'm a sucker for all things Roman. (Though LaCroix's time is just a bit after my peak interest time, which was late Republic, civil wars, and the reign of Augustus. I'd have flipped if he'd known Augustus).

LaCroix as a Roman

We see in the show a lot of talk about casting off human concepts of morality and right and wrong, which, if your very nature is to kill human beings, makes sense. Murder is universally condemned in human societies. But for all the talk of shedding their mortal selves, the vampires don't actually shake off the experiences from their mortal lives. These things shaped who they are to the core. It's not so easy to shed the self. We see it in Nick constantly. We see it in Janette mainly in "A Fate Worse Than Death." And after we learn LaCroix's history, what we've seen of him starts to make more sense than "man, that guy's just a dick."

LaCroix was a Roman social elite ingrained with all the cultural norms that go with that. He was damn near at the top of the social heap in his world. He would have been highly privileged and there would be high expectations placed on him.

LaCroix as Roman General: A "citizen soldier" was a Roman ideal so no surprise on having a military role. And I'd guess that he probably had rural holdings because part of the ideal was a farmer as a soldier. (Though idk, this may have been more of a virtue of the Roman Republic, but Imperial Rome--i.e., LaCroix's Rome--did cling to Republican concepts.) Politics and military were the proper spheres here and you see him hobnobbing with the political elite.

He returns home fresh off a military victory against the "armies of Gaul." Not sure what they're talking about here at this point in history, but we'll roll with it. We know LaCroix maintains an interest in warfare in his vampire life. While the carnage of war presents many menu options for a hungry vampire, I wonder if there is an interest on a different level as a former soldier himself. He could be literally anywhere in their world where there would be plenty of humans around, but he kept showing up at war zones. It seems to me, there's more to this behavior than just a culinary interest.

LaCroix's Roman and vampire families: Roman society was family driven and highly patriarchal. The status of LaCroix's Roman family is a bit murky in the show. It certainly would have been a Thing and Frowned Upon for him not to be married with legitimate children because these were things he owed to the state. But you certainly do not get the impression in AMPH that Divia's mother, Seline, was his wife. LaCroix is pretty free with other women at the party in the flashback (which would be weird if his wife were RIGHT THERE) and LaCroix is cagey when talking to her about Divia ("your daughter," not "our daughter.") I'm not even really clear if this is his house or her house. At any rate, I get the impression that she was either his slave (and he could have kept her in a wife-like manner), or a free concubine or high-level prostitute. Any of those would have made Divia illegitimate and, unless Seline was a slave (which would have given Divia that status too), would have placed Divia outside the sphere of LaCroix's legal authority. Though I'm pretty sure he could have legitimized her through adoption, which would have then brought her within his legal control as well. The "your daughter" comment is obviously a plot device to obscure the familial relationship until the reveal when Divia calls him, "Father" after bringing him over. It turns out writing for a vampire cop show does not involve resolving such burning questions as BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN about the Roman family and the legal constructs of the day, LOL.

Let's talk about the status of the Roman "paterfamilias," i.e., the head of the Roman household/head of the family. This was a male role. No one was smashing the patriarchy here. The paterfamilias had the responsibility and absolute right to control his legitimate children, including his adult children (and their children for that matter) as well as his slaves, which would include any children he had with a slave. Effectively, he owned everyone subject to his control, freeborn or not. We don't need to get into a lot detail about paterfamilias (wikipedia has a good article explaining it). Let's just assume that when LaCroix thinks about his authority, he thinks about it in these terms.

Divia, Divia, Divia. Yes, her proposed incest was extremely icky and disturbing, but is that really a death penalty offense? For a Roman, it could be. I'm sure LaCroix could not easily shake the concept of how a proper Roman daughter, especially his daughter, was supposed to behave. Vampire Divia was certainly not consistent with that. Even Augustus exiled his own daughter for violating Roman laws concerning moral sexual conduct. Augustus certainly would have been within his rights to have had his daughter executed, but exile from Rome was a severe punishment of the day. (Augustus also had a particular "family values" public image to uphold, which I'm sure contributed to imposing a serious punishment.) This is the kind of cultural background LaCroix was coming from.

(Of course, there seems to be more to it than that. LaCroix repeatedly refers to Divia as “evil.” IDK what’s going on there. She's certainly a nasty piece of work as a vampire, but like, in vampire terms, is she "evil"? There was either more to her that we didn’t see or LaCroix convinced himself of it so he could sleep at night, errr, during the day.)

Also, all the discussion of paterfamilias above sounds fairly harsh (obviously, it could be), which I fear might be painting a fairly one-dimensional picture. It's an important legal and social construct, but power doesn't exist in a vacuum. Romans were people with complex lives, personalities, relationships, and emotions, just like any other people. Of course they cared for their family members (generally speaking). Romans did all kinds of things and how power dynamics actually played out in any particular family unit would have varied based on the individuals involved and their particular circumstances.

Vault ahead 1200 years later, and LaCroix has constructed a new family. We've got LaCroix as head of the family and Janette and Nick as his children.

Let's start with Janette. Janette is not only respectful of, loyal to, and deferential to LaCroix, she also behaves in a way, in his eyes, a vampire should. Namely, hunting humans, drinking human blood, and enjoying these things. They see eye-to-eye most of the time. She's a "good daughter" who does him credit as the paterfamilias of their little vampire family.

Nick though, not so much. Nick rejects his nature. He rejects the "good" things LaCroix has done for him and tries to do for him. Nick regularly defies LaCroix. Defies him! So ungrateful! For a Roman patriarch, that kind of thing would not stand. LaCroix would correct Nick however he saw fit. Because under a Roman conception of family roles, he had a responsibility to do so and the absolute right to do so. We see this play out between them repeatedly.

Nick and Janette being subject to LaCroix's absolute authority would be the normal order of things to someone whose mentality was shaped by Roman laws and mores. I'm not saying I see LaCroix as justified when he is abusive, not even close. But I can see given the cultural context that he came from, he would see himself as justified.

What kept LaCroix compelling on the show was that he was not just a one-note character. Rather, he was a complex person (see comment above re: power not exising vacuum). We see not only his harsh and controlling side, but also a side where he expresses care, affection, and devotion.

Remember the exchange in "Father's Day" when LaCroix shows up at the police station and reads the list Schanke compiled for his daughter about what a father is?

LaCroix: A father provides love, disciple, guidance, protection, and support. That's not bad.

Nick: He left out freedom.

LaCroix: So would I.

Paterfamilias. That right there just about sums it up.

Fan Fiction Rec

For a really good fan fiction tackling the problem of LaCroix as Roman paterfamilias and Divia as vampire master, check out "The Father, The Son, and The Unholy Ghost" by greerwatson. Greer paints a more complex picture of them than you see on the show and absolutely nails the incompatible power dynamics created by their cultural origins. You get a sense that no matter what, something disastrous would have happened eventually. Their power conflict was irreconcilable from the start. I recommend reading the story before getting into my nerdcore comments below. I'm going to get embarrassingly deep into the weeds here.

(Did you read the story? Read it.) Not to nerd out... scratch that, to completely nerd out, Greer masterfully coveys some of the conflict through language by inserting a verbal tug-of-war in Latin, for which English meaning is provided, but which doesn't translate entirely without commentary. This is not a criticism of the story or Greer! Obviously, you can't just interrupt a story with random commentary. I'm just rolling in here many years after this was written with just enough Latin leftover in my brain from college to really appreciate and nerd out about what Greer has cleverly done. This is the dialog I'm talking about:

"Paterfamilias sum,” said the General sternly. Divius Lucianus he was, whatever name he assumed; and the head of the family.

“Ego sum domina tua,” she replied, her head haughty. And in her eyes that was greater: she had brought him across: she was his master.

“Non sum servus,” he snarled, all his patrician pride rising at the suggestion that he, like a slave, could have a master.

“Non servus,” she protested. “Tu es pater meus … pater carissimus.” She smiled sweetly; but he could see the tiny sharp points of her fangs. “Sed ego sum domina,” she added, in a hard cold tone.

Let’s break down why this is clever!

"Paterfamilias sum,” said the General sternly. Divius Lucianus he was, whatever name he assumed; and the head of the family.

Literally "I am the head of the family." I already talked about what that means the context of Roman society. He's not saying, "I'm your father," he is very specifically invoking the power he holds as paterfamilias, a power that is exclusively his. He shouldn't have to say it, but Divia is chafing his nerves at that point in the story so here he is asserting his absolute authority over her.

"Ego sum domina tua,” she replied, her head haughty. And in her eyes that was greater: she had brought him across: she was his master.

She counters with “Ego sum domina tua." Literally "I am your [female] master." This is more complex from a cultural and language front. There’s no female equivalent of paterfamilias. "Domina" would be the most “dominant“ female title available. But it's just a respectful title (and certainly how slaves would address the lady of the house) and not a legal status. It does not have any of the power of paterfamilias. So what’s Divia to do here to try and assert her own dominance within the constraints of the language she spoke? Strategically structure her sentence to start with "Ego sum."

"Ego" means "I," but you don't see it coupled with a verb a lot because in Latin, the personal pronoun is understood as part of the verb. "Sum" means "I am" so you don't need to say "ego sum." In addition, Latin is pretty flexible on the order of words. A verb can appear pretty much anywhere in a sentence, but typically appears at the end or somewhere in the middle, not the beginning.

Where am I going with this? Divia could have said, "domina tua sum," and the literal meaning of the words in English would be the same as "ego sum domina tua." But emotionally, these things do not carry the same weight in Latin. Coupling a grammatically unnecessary personal pronounce with a verb at the beginning of the sentence renders the statement forceful and emphatic. Hard to convey in English. (Maybe something like *I* *am* your master, which just looks clunky.) At any rate, Divia is expressing herself in the strongest possible terms in the parameters of the words she would have had. She is asserting her dominance over LaCroix, countering him.

This is completely outrageous. As a male Roman citizen, there is no reality where LaCroix would be subordinate to a woman let alone his own young daughter over whom he should have absolute authority. You can see the problem here!

"Non sum servus,” he snarled, all his patrician pride rising at the suggestion that he, like a slave, could have a master.

"I am not a slave" (and you see him more forceful here). He's pissed. He's at the top of the social order and she is saying he isn't.

"Non servus,” she protested. “Tu es pater meus … pater carissimus.” She smiled sweetly; but he could see the tiny sharp points of her fangs. “Sed ego sum domina,” she added, in a hard cold tone.

"Not a slave... you are my father [again, emphatic], a most beloved father, but I am the master." She's trying to butter him up a bit here here, but she's just straight up is not going to acknowledge him as holding a higher status than her.

Total incompatibility. Great stuff. Go read it.

Ever wonder how "Divia" and "Lucius" would have been pronounced during their mortal lifetimes?

While we're here talking about Latin, let's end on a fun note and talk about the names Divia and Lucius and how they, and some other terms, would have been pronounced in Classical Latin.

Divia would not have been pronounced with an English "v" sound. Vs sounded like "u" or "w" depending on the context. Here, a "w." And, if I'm remembering right, the first "i" would have had a long "e" sound.

So Divia would not have been pronounced "Div-ee-uh," it would have been pronounced "Dee-wee-uh."

Knowing that, have fun replacing "v" sounds with "w" sounds in "Vesuvius," the volcano that destroyed Pompeii :-D

Lucius would not have been pronounced with a "sh" sound in the middle because the "c" would have sounded like a "k." The "i" would have been a long "e" sound and the second "u" would have been long, not short.

Not "Loo-shus," but "Loo-kee-oos."

Knowing what you know now about Vs and Cs in Classical Latin pronunciation, enjoy saying aloud the famous line attributed to Julius Caesar, "Veni, vidi, vici."

Comments

[greerwatson]

For tu/vous to be consistent, the writers on the show would have to know enough French to recognize the distinction. There were too many outside writers, too many of whom were American; and I suspect a lot of those had never taken much (if any) French. Things should have been revised in-house, of course. Sadly, not only was there not a proper "book" for the show, consistency was never something they strove for.

Calling each other by their last names used to be pretty normal, especially among men. But yes ... even once they'd invented a past for LaCroix—and that was late in Season Two—they didn't use his first name much.

[switchbladeeyes]

This made me think. And I have known a couple people in my life who I referred to by last name (to their faces or talking about them). I even had a former colleague/friend who referred to me by my former last name. In all instances, the last name basically became a nickname.