Maty

A lot depends on what you need the translations for. Cicero is not easy to translate, and both translators have to interpret rather than transliterate, because simply turning Cicero's Latin into English doesn't always cause it to make sense to a non-specialist reader. The notes are very often the translator's explanation of how he has approached a particular dilemma. Sometimes you are reading what the translator thinks Cicero meant to say. I sometimes wonder how Roman audiences understood Cicero's speeches if he did actually render them as written (we know that sometimes he did not), while the letters contain cryptic references and occasional slang and definitely need a guide. On the other hand, if you are well up on your Cicero, you might need an App. Crit. too. So if you are reading for pleasure, I'd say go with Shakleton-Bailey. I find his text pleasanter to read and it is closer to how I think Cicero should read. If you are doing it academically, try to find a library that has both, but if you are buying and have some Latin, make sure you can access the original. Sometimes it's necessary to grit your teeth and try to crack a particular phrase for yourself.

First of all, I think most people are sceptical about the Roman 'mother city' being Alba Longa - though if we ever find the darned place there will be a lot of rethinking required. My own thoughts on the matter are based on the Ver Sacra - the sacred spring. This was an ancient Latin rite when, in a time of scarcity (and sometimes as thanks for a year of plenty), the young men of a particular year were dedicated to Mars and more or less turfed out of town to find their own way in the world. These may be the original band of Romulus. There's just enough hooks to the legend to make it credible - and it would account for Rome's desperate manpower (and womanpower) shortage in the early years while allowing for abundant fighting men. I'd also guess that the original settlers took any later arrivals who had military potential and a pulse. But the by now established settlers exploited the poorer new arrivals - and therein we might find the division between patricians and plebs - somewhat like Athenians and metics, though Rome was more inclusive.

Just to clear up any misunderstanding - as Caldrail or Medusa both know, but some others might not - Charun here is not Charon the ferryman, but a winged Etruscan deity whose role, rather like part of the portfolio of Hermes, is to be a psychopompus. That is someone who leads the souls of the dead to the underworld, where Charon the boatman takes them onward. The role of the person who depicts him in the in the arena is (as we can see) considerably more ambiguous. I mention this as an amicus curiae, and will now step back to join the other spectators in this very enjoyable discussion.

I've argued elsewhere, that how far one buys into the Romulus myth is a matter of individual taste. (Even the Romans were dubious, if Plutarch is any guide). Nevertheless, it seems unlikely to me that Rome gradually coalesced from a series of villages. This is because Rome sat directly across a major crossroads - the head of navigation of the Tiber and the via Salaria from Ostia. That the Etruscans at Veii or the nearby Sabines would allow the gradual growth of a city that dominated these points seems improbable. The legend suggests a fait accompli - and one in which the building of walls preceded all other activity. This is also consistent with what we know of the growth of cities in antiquity - with the exception of Athens (where villages were unified under the rule of Theseus) almost every city was founded by colonists from a mother city. This was the case with Mesopotamia (where in the time of Cyrus the great the hobby of a rival king was archaeology to establish city foundation dates), in Greece, where most cities outside the mainland were founded around 1000 BC, and in Phoenicia, with Carthage being the prime example. The habit continued well into the historical period, with the latest and greatest foundation being Constantinople. In short, it may not have been Romulus and his merry band of shepherd boys who founded Rome, but it is probable that someone did. Whether or not we accept April 21 753 BC at 11am in the morning as the very precise foundation time, or not, the fact that the Romans counted years AUC (ab urbe condida - from the foundation of the city) means that the date was some time around there, and any error may be more due to the wretched Roman calendar than an inability to count. Finally mounting archaeological evidence - even if one does not accept all of Carandini's conclusions - makes the heroic defence of Wiseman and his fellow ultra-skeptics of their theories begin to resemble the legendary defence of Horatius. And, as is often pointed out, those opposing the 'foundation myth' have no evidence of their own to offer beyond deconstruction of legend and their own 'common sense'. However, that common sense is based on patterns of urban formation in England and the US where towns do indeed evolve into cities - under a central authority which eighth-century central Italy lacked. And that's my tuppence worth.

All these are valid points - though I understand the original archaeological reports were more qualified, and the press reports removed the 'indicative of ...' or 'could have been' and jumped to the conclusion they wanted. A couple of observations on the press reports - I'm not sure why anyone would be buried in shackles unless to make a point. Worked metal was expensive, so my guess was that the person buried was enough in disgrace that the people who did the burying wanted to make that shame eternal. It certainly was not routine to bury a criminal in his shackles. Secondly I know of only one reference of someone being trained as a gladiator from childhood (viz; the son of Arminius) so if someone has formed specifically unilateral musculature as a juvenile, this is highly indicative that he was NOT a gladiator. Finally, and this is a request for information, not disagreement - since some gladiators were criminals condemned to death ad gladium, did they qualify for Charun's attention? I'd assume that the crowd knew if the fighters were auctorati or condemned, and so would have no problem with seeing a damnatus finished off with the hammer, whether a gladiator or not?

There's little to redeem Nero as an emperor. Had he been operating from a manual entitled 'How to wreck the Roman empire' he could not have done much worse, given that he started with a sound, solvent empire and a moderately popular government. We will never know whether a better emperor could have prevented or mitigated the British and Jewish rebellions. But any responsible emperor would have realized that the financial strain of these wars meant that other extravagances should be put on hold. However, after the great fire in Rome Nero went on a tax-and-spend orgy far more damaging than any of his lascivious ones - and he launched a totally unsuccessful military campaign in Arabia as well. At the same time he went out of his way to find and eliminate any opposition in the senate, and so killed a generation of Rome's most competent leaders and administrators. He gave immensely valuable gifts to favourites, and worse, promoted them to positions where they could in turn bestow ruinous favours on their subordinates. That there was no succession plan was deliberate, even though Seneca had pointed out to Nero 'no matter how you try, you can't kill your successor'. After Nero's death, rather than sitting back to find out who was in charge, Spain, Gaul, Germany, Syria, Egypt and Africa all proposed or sponsored candidates for the succession, and three of these (Galba, Vitellius and Vespasian) went on to become emperor. Nor should we forget that Classicus and Civilis proposed secession of the 'Empire of the Gauls', and the resultant war along the Rhine frontier involved five legions before AD 70 and so certainly counted as a significant focus of military activity.

If anyone is looking for a ballpark figure, I believe the usual estimate is about 50,000 Jews in Rome at the time of Trajan. This is based on known synagogues, percentage of contemporary burials and some Jewish texts (I can't recall which ones offhand.) In the very early days Christianity was seen as a Jewish sect (even Jews and Christians themselves were uncertain about whether this was the case), and the Jews were afraid that Christianity would upset the status quo with the authorities.

That is true, gold was a big factor also. Which also attributes to the decline in the quality and leadership of Roman Emperor's, as they did not have enough gold to use anymore. 'Now Mucianus was frantically gathering huge sums into the public treasury from wherever he could find them ... He continually declared that plentiful funds were the sinews of sovereignty.' A bit of contemporary support for your contention (Cassius Dio 65.2)

In the third century, I'd say that surviving for more than a decade in the job counted as a resounding (and rare) success. Again, though their powers were similar not all emperors had the same job. So we can't really compare, say, Antonius Pius (successful by any standard) with Aurelian. Pius had simply to keep the ship of state steady in calm waters. Aurelian took over when Rome was on its beam ends and almost wrecked. Given the diabolical difficulty of the job, perhaps we should say an emperor was successful if he met most of the following criteria He died of natural causes (assuming assassination was not a natural cause for an emperor) He'd arranged a suitable successor (big black mark for Marcus Aurelius) The imperial finances were sound Rome's frontiers were advanced, or at least intact or in the event of the emperor taking over after a debacle, success can mean that substantial progress had been made in meeting the latter two criteria. Some of the other criteria - e.g, executing only a minimal number of dissidents/senators tend to be subsumed into these criteria, in that successful emperors tended not to have the bad habits of their less worthy colleagues.

Tacitus. I'd have just one question. 'Can you start reciting your Historiae from book 5.27? Keep going until we've filled in all the gaps.'

There is another possibility which our researcher may have missed. Plato's writing, like that of all contemporary Greeks, was not intended to be perused off the page like a modern book. It was designed to be read aloud to an audience. And like all contemporary leading Greeks of his era, Plato had an education in rhetoric and public speaking. I'd suggest that what our researcher's cunning mathematical researches have found is the pattern or rhythm and cadence which Plato instinctively built into his text. Instead of a code-breaking exercise, this might be more useful as a study of euphonics.

Are we talking archaeological evidence or reports in the ancient texts? If we are talking about the sources, then there seems plenty of evidence -not only the Gospels, but also reports from Josephus, Plutarch, Cicero and others. In fact it would seem that crucifixion was a standard punishment for certain types of crime such as banditry or rebellion, probably because it allowed the condemned to be publicly displayed for some time as a warning to others. If we are talking archaeological evidence, the question is what one is expecting to find. Given that nails rust and wood decays, I'd guess we'd be looking at bones in the extremities damaged by nails. And no, there'd be little evidence of that.

It's a standard joke that anything that archaeologists can't identify is attributed to religion or prostitution. Most buildings have some sort of religious and/or sexual symbols on the premises - especially the Romans who were much less inhibited about such displays, so it makes attribution deceptively simple. And because religion and sex contain so much that is self-referential (i.e. baffling to non-participants) it's an easy cop-out. I can see archaeologists in another two thousand years. "The discovery of what archaeologists are calling The House of Jimmy Choo had a large amount of odd-shaped footwear, suggesting either a religious purpose for the shoes, or that they were worn by prostitutes ..."

'Football? Oh, you mean soccer. There's a world cup for that? I thought people stopped playing it at junior school, like rounders.' I got this comment when I tried to discuss the world cup with someone here in the British Columbia interior. I'm still not sure if he was serious.

'I have brought together these acts of his, some of which are beyond criticism, while others are even deserving of considerable praise, so as to separate them from the shameful and criminal acts which make up the rest of this history.' That's a quote from Seutonius (Life of Nero 19). Seems appropriate here. Incidentally Nero also introduced some very sensible building regulations which lasted for most of subsequent Roman history. This largely explains why city-wide conflagrations ceased to be an exciting feature of life in the capital.

Re the remark by Ursus -'The movie will probably be as historically accurate as "Gladiator." I recall that someone worked out that Hypatia was at least in her late fifties at the time of her death, and may have been even older. Ms Weiss' version appears to have aged remarkably well. And the church might call Cyril a saint, but if that murderous bigot is in heaven, I'm not going ...

>>Maty, remember when you were looking for an English translation of Macrobius' Saturnalia? << I was, until a friendly librarian helped me out! Will you be reviewing this one for UNRV, Nephele?

As disclaimer here - Medusa and I have been working closely on a couple of projects recently, hence our unanimity. My opinions on the topic have been strongly influenced by her expertise! (Nephele will confirm my deplorable habit of exploiting the knowledge and enthusiasm of UNRV members ...)

>>Medusa, I always find your comments on gladiators and gladiatrixes interesting. What kind of mercy killings, to your knowledge, did the Romans practice on their mortally wounded fighters?<< I'll have a crack at this one if I may (I've been doing a bit of work on gladiators recently). Firstly, I'm not sure how often the question of 'mercy killing' arose. If a gladiator took a wound bad enough to require a 'mercy kill' then he's probably lost the bout, and the editor would signal the winner to supply the necessary kill in time-honoured fashion with a downward stab through the neck. (The infamous 'pollice verso' known - possibly wrongly - today as the 'thumbs down'.) On those rare occasions when a gladiator won but was fatally wounded, there is no indication that he would be treated any differently from a fatally wounded citizen or soldier. i.e. He was probably taken from the arena and given palliative care and made as comfortable as possible until he died. (Think Maximus' end in the movie Gladiator.) After all, some gladiators were Roman citizens and others were as popular as rock stars are today - they'd probably get some respect at their passing. I'd go with the condemned criminal angle myself. Two criminals might be forced to fight to the death, but this did not make them gladiators, which was a highly specialized trade. But also, once they had inflicted the death penalty, the Romans did not take it out on the corpse. The dead were handed to family or friends who could bury it with all honours. Consider St Peter, whose mausoleum still stands (and has grown somewhat) next to the circus of Nero where he was executed, or the last honours given to Jesus after his 'death' on the cross. So burial with elaborate grave goods might simply indicate well-connected individuals sentenced to the arena for being Christian, or on the wrong side in a rebellion.

It has not reached my corner of British Columbia yet. I'll look for it in the bottle stores, and report if I find any. Meanwhile its Naramata nut brown and Black Widow ...

We can add Jugurtha, the Numidian king who served with the Romans in the Numantine war, and Julius Classicus and Civilis who were rebels in the aftermath of AD 69, but served with Roman army of Vitellius before that. There was also the ex-auxiliary Tacfarinas who led a revolt in Mauretania during the reign of Tiberius.

Impressive material. Apart from applause, all I can add is that it may be worth adding that one of the most famous mutinies in Roman history/legend is when the centurion Verginius killed his daughter Verginia to stop her falling into the clutches of the despotic Appius Claudius, and fled to the army for protection. The men not only refused to give him up, they mutinied and brought down the oppressive Decemvirate and restored democracy. Even if this legend from the early Republic is untrue, it will have established in the army mentality that it is right to oppose unjust rule.

So they would disobey orders? Disobey, no. But proceed very slowly to the wrong address, while sending frequent messages back to their boss saying e.g. 'So you are sure you want us to invade the home of this powerful, well-connected individual who will probably ruin you and us in consequence? Our current instructions are slightly unclear that is is you who are directly responsible for giving this order. Can you clarify?'