The German historian, classicist, and orientalist Johannes Leunclavius published a translation of Zosimus, and he felt obliged to defend the pagan Zosimus (the last important pagan historian of Rome) from his Christian detractors. In the best tradition of Renaissance scholarship, he enthusiastically debates the ancient authors as if they were alive today and right in front of him. This translation of Leunclavius’ Apology appeared in an English translation of Zosimus published in 1684.
Leunclavius’s Apology for Zosimus
Although I were either to Dispute against Men even of a different Religion, or were not to undertake the defence of a Man, who, for having professed the old exploded Pagan Superstition, would certainly at first sight lose any manner of favour that he could expert in his cause among Men of our times; yet encouraged and supported with evident Arguments from Truth it self, and the weakness of those which are brought against him by his Adversaries, I will not fear but that what I have to say will with impartial Men obtain. But I foresee his Defence is like to prove no easie Province, being to reply to those Men who under the pretence of defending the Christian Religion and those Princes who were the most celebrated Patrons of it, charge one of the most elegant and useful Historians with lying and calumniating; and who because he was no Christian must not be admitted to be a proper or a faithful reporter of those things which were transacted in the Commonwealth. For mankind is generally so unhappily built, as easily to believe those Men whom they find of the same Opinions with themselves, even in things indifferent, but especially in matters of Religion, crying down in the mean while Men of different Sentiments, although the things they deliver do not appear repugnant to truth. But seeing there is that force in Virtue in general, but especially in truth, that we cannot but approve it even in an Enemy; we hope you will hear what we have undertaken to say in a few words in defence of Zosimus, and that Men not too perverse and disingenuous will acknowledge that matters of fact may with candour and integrity be transmitted to future Ages by Men even of a different Religion from our selves.
A 1905 architectural dictionary gives us a description of the usual New York tenement house, which historical novelists and students of working-class conditions at the turn of the twentieth century will find invaluable.
TENEMENT HOUSE. A building occupied by more than one family and usually having suites of rooms, a public stairway, dumb-waiter, and toilet room common to two or more families on each floor, each suite consisting of a living room, with one or more bedrooms opening therefrom, and furnished with cold water supply and a chimney flue, and renting for less than $300 a year. (See Apartment House.)
Historical. With the growth of a town, the first tenements have always been abandoned houses of the wealthier classes, but these are ultimately replaced by houses divided into separate suites and occupied by many tenants. The tenement house was undoubtedly an early result of ancient city life, coming as an inevitable consequence of the increase of population within circumscribing defensive walls. Rome is known to have had tenements many stories in height, and the crowded cities of medieval Europe housed their poor under steep gables and in high buildings. The conditions of life under these circumstances are always very objectionable, in both a sanitary and moral sense, and the menace which such crowding constitutes has become well recognized by legislators and philanthropists.
The Modern Tenement House. This is the result of conditions which are ditterent in different localities and times. These are briefly:
(a) The size of the lot in Europe is large and approximately square, and the building is erected about a central court with an open passageway to the street on the first floor; in America long narrow lots are in vogue, resulting in buildings with small air shafts.
(b) The amount of capital employed limits the building to a certain size and character; in Europe the investors represent wealth, in America they commonly represent small capitalists who erect buildings on small lots.
(c) Legal restrictions which have generally resulted from a struggle between forces allied to vested interests on the one side and those associated with sanitary requirements on the other.
The New York Tenement House. This being built under what are probably the most severe conditions in the world, small lot, small capital, and stringent laws, is commonly erected on a unit lot of 25 feet by 100 feet. The law limits the percentage of the lot that can be occupied, requires an open rear and courts of a certain size, and regulates the plumbing, ventilation, construction, etc. The commonest type produced under these conditions is the “dumb-bell” plan (Fig. 1), and the modified form of this plan which provides narrow courts along the party lines and open at the rear. Three or four families are accommodated on each floor, each family having a living room looking upon the street or upon the open yard, and bedrooms on the air shafts. Public halls are long and narrow, lighted only at the middle point, if at all. The chief advantages of this plan are cheapness and simplicity of construction, and small running expense; the chief disadvantages are wasted room in public halls, narrow air shafts giving little light or air below the top story and rendering privacy in summer almost an impossibility, public water closets, and the like. Other types of plan have been used on wider lots which have a much better disposition of area and arrangement of courts. An absolute departure from old lines has been made lately (Fig. 2) by building companies which have erected tenements upon large plots of ground, generally on a unit lot of 100 feet square. This type of building has a large square court in the middle with broad courts open at the street or yard along the party lines. The advantages of avoiding the long, dark, public hall, the public toilet room, and the dark, narrow air shaft are evident. The chief disadvantages are the many living rooms which have no outlook upon the street or yard, the amount of capital required to erect, the fewer number of suites on a given area than are provided by the “dumb-bell” plan, and the smaller income from the capital invested.
Requirements. The living room is the largest room and must accommodate laundry tubs, table, range, sink, and dresser, the minimum area being 120 square feet. The other rooms should have a capacity of at least 600 cubic feet with direct access to outer air by means of a window of at least 12 square feet of area. The living room must be accessible from the public hall either directly or through a private entry. The bedrooms must be entered either from the living room or from a hall. It is very desirable that each suite should have a short private hall, stand for refrigerators, private toilet opening off private hall, windows on narrow courts not opposite each other, and a closet in each bedroom. The laundry tubs frequently have a removable partition so that they can be used for bathing. It is desirable to have the cross partition set so as to divide them un- equally, making one tub larger than the other. The sink and the back of the laundry tubs may be of metal. Gas should be provided for lighting with rising mains for the supply of each row of apartments and branches taken off so that metres can be placed in each suite, using either the old type or the new prepay system. Each suite of rooms should have a second exit by means of a fire escape. The drying of clothes must be provided for by a drying frame on the roof or by means of tall poles with pulleys thereon set on the rear lot line, and each suite must have a locked coal box or room in the yard or cellar. Halls are lighted and cared for by the owner. Lighting of halls may be furthered by setting wire glass in the upper half of doors opening upon them. It is very desirable to provide for the safe use of the roof by the tenants in hot weather by means of slat platforms and proper railings and guards at front and rear and around courts. Shower baths are sometimes provided in the basement. The walls and ceiling of the passageway from the entrance doorway to the public staircase should be fireproofed and have the floor concreted and the walls tiled or cemented to a height of five feet.
Construction. A complete fireproof construction is much the best from every point of view except that of expense. It is feasible only when the only restriction on the builder is safe construction. In any case the stairways, stair landings, and dumbwaiter shafts with all openings therein must be fireproofed. The ceilings should be wire-lathed and plastered, both being carried completely across all floors to prevent the communication of fire between stories. The first tier of beams should be of iron with fireproof floor construction. All toilet rooms should have water tight floors and impervious side walls to a height of at least two feet. —George Hill.
