ASCLEPIADES

Indeed, as great as Perseus is, it's terribly user un-friendly, imo. I'm hoping it's a simple problem, but after looking up the domain on who-is, it's registered well into 2009 so it shouldn't be a registration issue. Still the possibility of a host migration could be at the crux of the matter. BTW, maybe one of the admins may contact ancientlibrary.com editor BA Tim Spalding http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6535083.html

Salve, PP It seems all Isidore-of-Seville.com has been down; I haven't been able to found mirror sites yet. My last successful access was at the early last week. According to the Traffic History Chart, its traffic ceased realatively abruptly at July 26. 2008. With a little painstalking patience you can consult both WS dictionaries at the Perseus-Tufts digital Library; I know of no alternative for the other resources.

Salve, Amici. There was indeed the first recorded forensic re-enactment ever, done by the physician Antistius (Suetonius). Taking advantage from the thorough and exhaustive review by PP, it seems the confusion raises from the number and names of all involved conspirators compared with those from the actual physical attackers. At least six of the latter were identified by name in the five quoted sources, among no less than nine conspirators closely around the Dictator. The quoted sources are fairly consistent in their descriptions of the attack on Caesar; identifying them by their initials: Servilius Casca gave the first blow (N,A,S,P) in the neck (S,P), left shoulder (N) and/or breast (A). His brother Caius Casca struck Caesar's side (N); A described this blow without identifying the attacker, while S & P situated this Casca being called for help by his brother. Cassius Longinus struck Caesar's face (N, A). Decimus Brutus struck Caesar's thigh (N). Bucolianus struck Caesar's back (A). Marcus Brutus struck Caesar (ASPC; N?) in the thigh or groin (A,P). The final wound count was 23 for A,S & P and 35 for N. In Antistius' opinion, only "the second" wound in the breast was fatal (S) (presumably from one of the Casca brothers, probably Caius). Additionally, Tillius Cimber began the attack, seizing hold of his purple robe to expose Caesar's neck (N,A,S,P). Minucius Basilius and Rubrius Ruga were also there; the first mistakenly stabbed the second's hand (N). P states many of the conspirators were wounded by one another; Cassius Longinus struck Marcus Brutus on the hand (N). At least one conspirator kept Marcus Antonius at the door; A & C identified Trebonius, but P instead Brutus Albinus. The quoted sources didn't state where the other six conspirators enlisted by Appian were (please scroll up); please note that Brutus Albinus (P; not mentioned by any other source) is not included in the list and also that Appian apparently confused the Casca brothers as a sole conspirator. If there really were from six to nine attackers, 23 wounds would have implied an average from 2.5 to almost 4 wounds by conspirator (N would have raised those figures up to "from almost 4 to almost 6", respectively).

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix died during Caius Sallustius Crispus childhood (circa eight years old). Sallustius recommended on Sulla the now unfortunately lost history of Sulla's contemporaneous Lucius Sisenna, optume et diligentissume omnium qui eas res dixere persecutus / "whose account of him is altogether the best and most careful", in no less than 23 books. This was presumably a primary source for later historians too, like Mestrius Plutarchus and Appianus of Alexandria. Here comes Belli Iugurthini cp. XCV, sec. III-IV and cp. XCVI, sec. I-III: Igitur (quaestor) Sulla gentis patriciae nobilis fuit, familia prope iam extincta maiorum ignavia, litteris Graecis atque Latinis iuxta atque doctissume eruditus, animo ingenti, cupidus voluptatum sed gloriae cupidior, otio luxurioso esse; tamen ab negotiis numquam voluptas remorata, nisi quod de uxore potuit honestius consuli; facundus, callidus, et amicitia facilis; ad simulanda negotia altitudo ingeni incredibilis; multarum rerum ac maxume pecuniae largitor. Atque illi, felicissumo omnium ante civilem victoriam, numquam super industriam fortuna fuit, multique dubitavere fortior an felicior esset. Nam postea quae fecerit, incertum habeo pudeat an pigeat magis disserere. Igitur Sulla, uti supra dictum est, postquam in Africam atque in castra Mari cum equitatu venit, rudis antea et ignarus belli, sollertissumus omnium in paucis tempestatibus factus est. Ad hoc milites benigne appellare, multis rogantibus, aliis per se ipse dare benificia, invitus accipere, sed ea properantius quam aes mutuum reddere, ipse ab nullo repetere, magis id laborare ut illi quam plurumi deberent; ioca atque seria cum humillimis agere, in operibus, in agmine atque ad vigilias multus adesse neque interim, quod prava ambitio solet, consulis aut cuiusquam boni famam laedere, tantum modo neque consilio neque manu priorem alium pati, plerosque antevenire. Quibus rebus et artibus brevi Mario militibusque carissumus factus. "(The quaestor) Sulla, then, was a noble of patrician descent, of a family almost reduced to obscurity through the degeneracy of his ancestors. He was well versed alike in Grecian and Roman letters, of remarkable mental power, devoted to pleasure but more devoted to glory. In his leisure hours he lived extravagantly, yet pleasure never interfered with his duties, except that his conduct as a husband might have been more honourable. He was eloquent, clever, and quick to make friends. He had a mind deep beyond belief in its power of disguising its purposes, and was generous with many things, especially with money. Before his victory in the civil war he was the most fortunate of all men, but his fortune was never greater than his deserts, and many have hesitated to say whether his bravery or his good luck was the greater. As to what he did later, I know not if one should speak of it rather with shame or with sorrow. Now Sulla, as I have already said, after he came with his cavalry to Africa and the camp of Marius, although he was without previous experience and untrained in war, soon became the best soldier in the whole army. Moreover, he was courteous in his language to the soldiers, granted favours to many at their request and to others of his own accord, unwilling himself to accept favours and paying them more promptly than a debt of money. He himself never asked for payment, but rather strove to have as many men as possible in his debt. He talked in jest or earnest with the humblest, was often with them at their work, on the march, and on guard duty, but in the meantime did not, like those who are actuated by depraved ambition, try to undermine the reputation of the consul or of any good man. His only effort was not to suffer anyone to outdo him in counsel or in action, and as a matter of fact he surpassed almost all. Such being his character and conduct, he was soon greatly beloved by both Marius and the soldiers".

You have a quite interesting point, even if it runs against the traditinoal interpretation quoted by JC and clearly prevalent here at UNRV. I would agree, for the Occam's razor; otherwise, you require to admit the existence of multiple homonym patrician families abruptly ended before the annalist period without leaving any trace in the Fasti or everywhere else; that's in fact the way W. Smith regularly solved such anomaly.

Actually, you mean the not-so-average irresponsibly comfortable human lives everywhere. That's exactly the new problem with China and India. After everything has been discussed, all the problem lies in the creatures' comfort. Guilt, irony or doing nothing are certainly not going to solve the problem. Nihilism; n(oun) : Philosophy an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth. Therefore, life has, in a sense, no truth, and no action is objectively preferable to any other. Certainly such attitude is not based on previous ecological experience (ie, pollution control and biological species preservation); hardly a laughable issue. I have some problems finding the religious analogy here. Soul ecology? Now we got something; a global conspiracy theory; an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Surely you could suggest some alternative measures for climate change damage control that are not so uncomfortable for our lifestyles and do not benefit such malevolent governments (besides doing nothing, I mean). She's not the only one. And I'm not quoting Mr. Lennon's idealism; it's called pragmatism.

I would have thought that after so many years of republicanism, the US electorate would vote for a pig in a suit as long as it was democrat. Salve, NN What do you have against pigs? You know, Animal farm was just Orwellian fiction.

[quote name='Julia C

[quote name='Julia C

Salve, D. Welcome to UNRV. For the last century or two, the idea of "greatness" has greatly evolved; conquering your neighbours sounds more like Herr Adolf Hitler these days. Ezekiel 27-28 is a lament for Tyre; as Alexander is not explicitly mentioned, anything else is open to subjective interpretation. Alexander III the Great is explicitly quoted at the beginning of 1 Maccabees (1:1-8), a canonical book for the Catholic and Orthodox versions of the Bible (even if not for Protestants and Jews). "Now it came to pass, after that Alexander the son of Philip the Macedonian, who first reigned in Greece, coming out of the land of Cethim, had overthrown Darius king of the Persians and Medes: He fought many battles, and took the strong holds of all, and slew the kings of the earth: And he went through even to the ends of the earth, and took the spoils of many nations: and the earth was quiet before him. And he gathered a power, and a very strong army: and his heart was exalted and lifted up. And he subdued countries of nations, and princes: and they became tributaries to him. And after these things, he fell down upon his bed, and knew that he should die. And he called his servants the nobles that were brought up with him from his youth: and he divided his kingdom among them, while he was yet alive. And Alexander reigned twelve years, and he died." All that said, Panthagatus made some excellent contributions on the posts # 4, 6 and 8 of this same thread.

I entirely agree Theodosius knowingly crippled the Roman (and Greek) traditional religion, art and culture to a point of no return. Nobody forced him; he never looked for "mitigating circumstances" because he was quite proud of it. In fact, that's the reason why the Christian historians gave him the Magnus epithet ("The Great"). As the massacre of orthodox Christians at Thessalonica and the subsequent excommunication prevented Theodosius from being canonized, Ambrose alone was so rewarded for their deeds. I would like to know your source on Theodosius' respect for the classical culture (or at least for its remains). Constantine (and Licinius) issued the Edict of Milan (313) on religious tolerance. Rings any bell? BTW, heretics were Christians too; the Theodosian administration had the sad honour of the first ever recorded executions for heresy, undoubtedly recorded because among the seven beheaded victims was Priscillianus, no less than a Bishop. By merciless persecuting other Christians, Jews, Manicheans and Pagans for no other reason than his own religious convictions, Theodosius has a unique and well deserved place on the history of fanaticism and intolerance, close to Saint Peter Martyr of Verona, inquisitor and patron of the Inquisition.

Glad to know you found it useful. I never heard of anyone asking permission for becoming friends here. I have always considered all UNRV members I have interacted with my friends. Now that I think about it, maybe I should explore that feature. BTW, Tom Holland has a nice commentary on source's analysis in his Rubicon; he highlights the fact that most often than not, we use the term "primary source" as an equivalent to "Classical Antiquity's author" even when most of their historical work is based in second, third or n-number-hand accounts. True Primary sources are rare; people like Titus Livius, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Caius Suetonius Tranquillus, Claudius Cassius Dio, Polybius of Megalopolis, Mestrius Plutarchus, Appianus of Alexandria and so on gave us some first-hand accounts mainly via: - Direct quoting of previous authorities, like Quintus Fabius Pictor (by Titus Livius on the II Punic war) and Caius Suetonius the Elder (by his son in his Vita Otho). - Recorded speeches, letters or decrees, like the Cato Uticensis' oratio quoted by C. Sallustius. Epigraphy lead us to some additional documents, like the Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Direct extensive personal experience reports, like Caius Julius Caesar Commentariorum de Bello Gallico, are exceptional. Presumably our most frequently quoted true primary source is Marcus Tullius Cicero. Caius Sallustius Crispus is a primary source on his Bellum Catalinae, but not in his Bellum Iugurthinum.. Velleius Paterculus Historiae Romanae (Liber II) i a good example of an unreliable primary source. If you search this site carefully, you will find many nice previous posts by UNRV admins and other members on the same issue.

Salve, PM. Welcome to UNRV. If you're looking for the basics, this brief guide by Patricia Barry may be useful: Reliability refers to how credible or trustworthy material may be as a historical source of evidence. In order to test for reliability, these are some of the questions an historian should ask. Who wrote the source? What are their ideas / beliefs? What is the extent of their knowledge of the subject Are they well informed or is their work over opinionated? Are there many "I" statements in the work, or is it written in the "third person". Are they for or against the issue under discussion? Is the source a Primary Source? Is the author an eyewitness? Eyewitnesses may lack a global view, they may not be able to see/hear all that happened However, they will be able to present a focussed point of view Was the source written for a specific reason, eg. a private diary may present the same material quite differently from a witness statement given to a government inquiry. As an immediate report, it could contain errors An eyewitness report can be very valuable for feelings and details which may not "make it" in later versions. Is the Source a Secondary source? It could have the benefit of hindsight. That means the researcher knows the outcome. It is based on primary sources. Researcher may have been careful to select from sources which "corroborate", ie. bear each other out Researcher should have been able to check the facts to ensure there are no errors in fact. Why was the source written? This may well have effect on the treatment of the subject by its author. Was it written for publication - ie. the author was paid to write it? Was it written for a newspaper or a professional /educational journal? This will affect the way and the depth in which the subject is presented Was it written for official purposes, as part of a government inquiry, or for a Council, etc. Was it written for private use? Again, a letter and a diary may present the same information quite differently. Who was the intended audience? Was it written for the general public with a limited knowledge of the subject, eg. a newspaper Was it written for people who knew a little about the subject - eg. a text book or people who were experts in the subject area? Was it written by a member of the group for the same group? How was the language selected? The choice of words may place bias on the material. Is it emotive or factual? Are there many "I" statements? What about the selection of facts? Does it seem to be a fair account, or is only one side presented? What 'silences' or gaps exist in the information? Remember, what is not said if often more important than what is said Are there errors in fact? This may indicate an unreliable source. When sources do not agree

Salve, Amici. The unavoidable sequel of a previous related thread.

I've said this before, but...Did it fall at all? I think it just evolved, (or devolved for want of a better modernism). Salve, PC; you have an interesting point. I think both conceptions are not contradictory but complementary. On one hand, it's true that many Republican institutions were preserved for a long time under the Empire. The Imperial authority was legitimized under conveniently modified Republican precedents, fundamentally the Tribuniciam Potestas and the Imperium Proconsularis Maior; even such titles like Princeps and Augustus were of senatorial origin. For a long time, many Roman Emperors dated their reign years from their accession to the Tribunicial power, even if it predated their actual accession to the Throne. Most Emperors accumulated Republican magistratures (like Pontifex Maximus, Consul and Censor) all across the Principate, and some of them even later, like Maximinus, Gordianus III, Gallienus, Claudius II and even the secessionist Postumus. The Roman Senate was still a minor partner of the Emperor (Diarchia), at least until Diocletianus; thereafter the Roman Senate was just an administrative municipal body for the city of Rome (and later at Constantinople too), in some way like it had been in the early Republic. The last non-emperor consul was Belisarius (535) and the last Consul as an independent position was Constans II (642). Some of these institutions were at least nominally still ongoing at 1453. Even more important was the fact that a great deal of the elective political structure of the Roman Republic was preserved on the municipal administration at the provinces. Such electoral practices were well attested at Pompeii immediately previous to the Vesubian eruption; even new Leges de Ambitus were required. There's where you find the connection between the Roman Republics and the Medieval republican city-states. In fact, the ongoing Serenissima Repubblica di San Marino comes from 301. The Roman senate itself was continued under Medieval Rome's local government until it was displaced by the Papacy; we still find the local nobiliary title Consul Romanorum at the XI century. Eventually, such republican traditions came down to the US and other modern democracies. But on the other hand, the consuls Caius Claudius Marcellus Maior and Lucius Cornelius Lentulus Crus (DCCV AUC / 49 BC) were presumably the last Roman heads of state ever selected by the Roman people on a truly open and competitive election. Nuff

In the spirit of the thread: Gerard Baker's Barak Obama: The Child - The Messiah - The Obamessiah <Click Here> And going back to humor, does anyone find this funny, compared to the New Yorker cover for instance? Gratiam habeo for that link, Faustus. A nice piece of political humour without unrequired insults and with a quite sensible implicit critic on Sen Obama's campaign: Yes, he can, but how? How is he going to keep his campaign promises?

Briefly, the existence or not of Global Warming or any public health problem is of no consequence to you as long as nobody bothers you and everything is allowed to you.

Quite an interesting programme and worth catching if only for a glimpse of the remains of a defensive wall, which Hadrian had built in north Africa. The section shown is apparently in Tunisia, seemed to be standing almost to it's full height. It was part of a longer series of walls which blocked particular access routes into the Roman empire along the southern limes of the empire. Salve, Amici. From a quite judicious article of Mary Beard on the British Museum exposition on Hadrianus: The only fully surviving ancient biography is a short (20 pages or so) life - one of a series of colourful but flagrantly unreliable biographies of Roman emperors and princes written by person or persons unknown, sometime in the fourth or fifth centuries AD. This includes one or two nice anecdotes, which may or may not reflect an authentic tradition about Hadrian. My own particular favourite features his visits to the public baths. The story goes that on one occasion Hadrian spotted a veteran soldier rubbing his back against the marble wall. When he inquired why he did this, the old man replied that he could not afford a slave. So Hadrian presented him with some slaves, and with the money for their upkeep. On his next visit, there was a whole crowd of old men rubbing their backs against the wall. Far from repeating his gift, he suggested that they take it in turns to rub each other down. There were a number of morals here. Hadrian was a man of the people, not above mixing with the plebs in the public baths. He had his eyes open for his subjects' genuine distress and personally intervened to help. But you couldn't take him for a ride. Sadly, very little of the life is up to this quality. Most of it is a garbled confection, weaving together without much regard for chronology allegations of conspiracies, accounts of palace intrigue, and vendettas on Hadrian's part - plus an assortment of curious facts and personal titbits (his beard, it is claimed, was worn to cover up his bad skin). To fill the gaps, to make a coherent story out of the extraordinary material remains of his reign, to explain what drove the man, modern writers have been forced back on to their prejudices and familiarising assumptions about Roman imperial power and personalities. So, for example, where - thanks to the surviving ancient literary accounts - it has been impossible to see Nero as anything other than a rapacious megalomaniac, Hadrian has morphed conveniently into cultured art collector and amateur architect. Where Nero's relationships with men have to be seen as part of the corruption of his reign, Hadrian has been turned into a troubled gay. Hadrian seems familiar to us - for we have made him so. ... But an even better reason to visit this stunning show is to see how the myth of a Roman emperor has been created - and continues to be created - out of our own imagination and the dazzling but sometimes puzzling array of statues, silver plates and lost keys of slaughtered Jewish freedom-fighters. READ MORE

We agree.

It was a topos (a sort of cliche) amongst the Romans that they were not the men that previous generations had been.

If there's no explicit contradiction between both statements, you would be basically respecting how incautious such people may be.

Salve, NN. I don't know if you're a 'Right winger'. Being that the case, that's you right; period. The way you explain it, you're certainly not a "racist", not even a "religion-basher". Ideally, what tolerance is all about is a society without minorities; nowadays real-world minorities deserve equality, not a special status. Any of those who try to restrict our rights based on their own race, religion or any other personal or cultural characteristic are becoming bigots; defending ourselves from bigotry is not hatemongering. It's just both-ways tolerance.

Understandably, under cold weather conditions, the open caligae were displaced in favour of the toe-closed calcaeus:

Here comes current Amazon.com list on "Best films about Jesus, Early Christians, and Romans" category by Wolfgang Dolbe (SIC: History Major). First two subcategories are clearly over-represented: 1. Ben-Hur DVD ~ Charlton Heston "The Best Roman Epic ever filmed - Worth all its 11 Oscars!" 2. The Passion of the Christ (Widescreen Edition) DVD ~ James Caviezel "The most moving and powerful film of Jesus. Great Catholic symbolism. The Blessed Virgin finally gets her proper recognition as the Mother of God." 3. Jesus of Nazareth DVD ~ Robert Powell "This miniseries is the best place to see the whole life of Christ. Make sure to watch the sequel, A.D. also!" 4. The Miracle Maker - The Story of Jesus DVD ~ Ralph Fiennes "This clay amination film is a great way to teach the kids about Jesus. Adults can also enjoy it. Very reverent." 5. King of Kings DVD ~ Jeffrey Hunter "What I like about this film is that it is really more about some of the people who were changed because they met Jesus" 6. Mary of Nazareth DVD ~ Myriam Muller "Good portrayal of the Blessed Virgin." 7. Quo Vadis (1951) VHS Robert Taylor "Excellent protrayal of the martyrdoms of Christians in Rome including St. Peter! This needs to be on DVD!!" 8. A. D. The Series "A great miniseries regarding the Apostles and Early Christians - very inspiring! Where's the DVD?? If you want to see the proper role of St. Peter as the leader of the early Christians this is it." 9. The Robe DVD ~ Richard Burton "My favorite movie about the early Christians. St. Peter has an important role here as Bishop of Rome." 10. Barabbas DVD ~ Anthony Quinn "Excellent film regarding what might have happened to the murderer who was picked over Christ to be freed. Great Imagery in the film." 11. Demetrius and the Gladiators DVD ~ Victor Mature "Good sequel to "The Robe". Great story on sin and forgiveness" 12. I, Claudius DVD ~ Robert Graves (II) "Quite simply the best retelling of the Caesars" 13. The Fall of the Roman Empire VHS Sophia Loren "This film is so beautifully done - even Rome looks real! Another movie that needs to be on DVD!" 14. Gladiator (Two-Disc Collector's Edition) DVD ~ Tomas Arana "A worthy successor to the Great Roman Epics"