ASCLEPIADES

This legionary from the IV century AD is using a paenula (in pink). More or less like a modern poncho.

Here comes an image of the Lullingstone's floor mosaic from Wikipedia commons: The depicted mythologic scene is the rape of Europa by Jupiter as a bull, with some nice svastikas in both directions.

From the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, the image in this coin's obverse has been dubbed: The "Nero Elvis". Inscription: NERO CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG(ustus) GERM(anicus) P(ontifex) M(aximus) TR(ibunicia) P(otestae) IMP(erator) P(ater) P(atriae).

Technically.

Here comes Caius Suetonius Tranquilus, Vita XII Caesarum Divus Augustus, cp. LXXII-LXXIII: Habitavit primo iuxta Romanum Forum supra Scalas anularias, in domo quae Calvi oratoris fuerat; postea in Palatio, sed nihilo minus aedibus modicis Hortensianis, et neque laxitate neque cultu conspicuis, ut in quibus porticus breves essent Albanarum columnarum et sine marmore ullo aut insigni pavimento conclavia. Ac per annos amplius quadraginta eodem cubiculo hieme et aestate mansit, quamvis parum salubrem valitudini suae urbem hieme experiretur assidueque in urbe hiemaret. Si quando quid secreto aut sine interpellatione agere proposuisset, erat illi locus in edito singularis, quem Syracusas et technyphion vocabat; huc transibat aut in alicuius libertorum suburbanum; aeger autem in domo Maecenatis cubabat. Ex secessibus praecipue frequentavit maritima insulasque Campaniae aut proxima urbi oppida, Lanuvium, Praeneste, Tibur, ubi etiam in porticibus Herculis templi persaepe ius dixit. Ampla et operosa praetoria gravabatur. Et neptis quidem suae Iuliae, profuse ab ea exstructa, etiam diruit ad solum, sua vero quamvis modica non tam statuarum tabularumque pictarum ornatu quam xystis et nemoribus excoluit rebusque vetustate ac raritate notabilibus, qualia sunt Capreis immanium beluarum ferarumque membra praegrandia, quae dicuntur gigantum ossa, et arma heroum. Instrumenti eius et supellectilis parsimonia apparet etiam nunc residuis lectis atque mensis, quorum pleraque vix privatae elegantiae sint. Ne toro quidem cubuisse aiunt nisi humili et modice instrato. "He lived at first near the Forum Romanum, above the Stairs of the Ringmakers, in a house which had belonged to the orator Calvus; afterwards, on the Palatine, but in the no less modest dwelling of Hortensius, which was remarkable neither for size nor elegance, having but short colonnades with columns of Alban stone, and rooms without any marble decorations or handsome pavements. For more than forty years too he used the same bedroom in winter and summer; although he found the city unfavourable to his health in the winter, yet continued to winter there. If ever he planned to do anything in private or without interruption, he had a retired place at the top of the house, which he called "Syracuse" and "technyphion." In this he used to take refuge, or else in the villa of one of his freedmen in the suburbs; but whenever he was not well, he slept at Maecenas's house. For retirement he went most frequently to places by the sea and the islands of Campania, or to the towns near Rome, such as Lanuvium, Praeneste or Tibur, where he very often held court in the colonnades of the Temple of Hercules. He disliked large and sumptuous country palaces, actually razing to the ground one which his granddaughter Julia built on a lavish scale. His own villas, which were modest enough, he decorated not so much with handsome statues and pictures as with terraces, groves, and objects noteworthy for their antiquity and rarity; for example, at Capreae the monstrous bones of huge sea monsters and wild beasts, called the "bones of the giants," and the weapons of the heroes. The simplicity of his furniture and household goods may be seen from couches and tables still in existence, many of which are scarcely fine enough for a private citizen".

Salve, Amici. Even if the resemblance is not so striking, check out this quiff: This is Flavius Iulius Constantius II, second son of Constatine the Great, in the obverse of a bronze coin minted in Alexandria circa 351-354, with the inscription "D(ominus) N(oster) CONSTANTIVS NOB(ilissinus) CAES(ar)" ("Our Lord, Constantius, most noble Caesar").

As far as I know, there's virtually total scholar agreement on Cichen Itza being the main focus of Toltec influence in the Yucatan Peninsula. In fact, we currently find more Toltec architecture in Chichen Itza than in Tula (the Toltec capital).

No. Please use your seatbelt. No matter how much is at risk (ie, public health), you better choose not to fight (ie, no public measures) because you're sure in advance that you will lose (ie, corruption). Drug abuse: psychiatric pathology (via violence and accidents) , intravenous infectious disease transmission (Hepatitis, AIDS). Commercial sex: Women and homosexual abuse, sexual disease transmission (syphilis, AIDS). BTW, the care and sequels of such diseases eventually require taxpayers' money.

Salve, Ursus. Actually, there are many interesting questions. It was about how the enforcement of minorities' respect can restrict the freedom of speech in Netherlands. Being a democracy is commendable from and fortunate for every nation, but it doesn't entitle such country any more than any other political regime to intervene in other countries' affairs. I would certainly not encourage such people, being their strict religious code Islamic, Christian or of any other kind. However, I'm not sure if "respect" can be considered "encouraging". Holocaust denial is not forbidden in the US; is that "encouraging" such attitudes? Theocracy is a form of government (ruled by or subject to religious authority). Strictly speaking, I don't think there can be by definition any "theocratic groups" within a democracy (ie, a government within another government). Semantics aside, if any country (democratic or not) is really tolerant, it ought to tolerate intolerant groups, no matter how paradoxical might it sound. The real eventual suicide would be the end of tolerance. That doesn't mean such (or any) groups or individuals are exempted from keeping the law. Intolerance is not limited to any religious or un-religious group

I would be comfortable with police forces who are responsible for protecting my rights. Consider drug prohibition or prostitution. Smoking dope or making a mutual arrangement to trade money for sex don't violate anyone's rights, yet they are prohibited. Has this made the situation better? I think not. It has only created violent and unsafe black markets which are impossible to stamp out. Is the criminalization and death of many more people than before an acceptable trade off for allowing the government to restrict these activities? Many policemen, including a member of my immediate family, consider these prohibitions to be the most corrupting force in law enforcement. The same thing will happen with energy. A violent black market will arise and many people will be criminalized and killed because of restrictions on energy. This is only one of the many unintended consequences. Then, you don't have any problem with the concept of Global warming per se; it's a problem with the concept of authority. The idea that my rights finish where the others' rights begin. I would consider the lack of implementation of required public security measures just for their inherent risk of corruption as nihilistic (at least). Getting a little off from our topic, current medical consensus is that both the use of at least some drugs and sex commercialization pose significant public health risks; ie, we're well ahead from just personal choices. I would agree that the legal definition of what's permissible and what's not on both counts might require a thorough review; but unrestricted access is hardly what I would consider a viable alternative.

Salve, EG. I know of no evidence of stoic influences on Theodosius; dressing simple is not the same as Republican, and he was certainly a despot by any measure; just remember the massacre of circa 7000 citizens at Thessalonica in April, 390 (Christian citizens, BTW). As with any emperor, Roman senators under Theodosius (either at Rome or at Constantinople) were designed by him, and they were exclusively christians, so it's hardly surprising they were his friends. Let's look at the cultured Roman Flavius Theodosius I: After more than a thousand years, he closed the Olympic Games. He issued laws (the Theodosian decrees) to prohibit all pagan worship by forbidding visits to pagan temples or even the adornment of the images of the gods: ""no one is to go to the sanctuaries, walk through the temples, or raise his eyes to statues created by the labor of man". The eternal fire in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum was extinguished. The Vestal Virgins were disbanded. In 388 a prefect was sent around Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor for the purpose of destroying temples and breaking up pagan associations. In 391 Theodosius refused to allow the Altar of Victory to be restored in the Roman Senate. The Serapeum at Alexandria was destroyed in 392, the same as many other temples all around the Empire. Pagan sacrifices, omens, and "witchcraft" were to be punished as lesa majestas (high treason, ie. by death: Codex Theodosianus, Liber XVI, cp X, sec X-XII). And of course, as a direct antecedent of Medieval intolerance, the famous decree against the heretics in February 27, 379 (Codex Theodosianus, Liber XVI, cp. I, sec II): Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum Catholicorum nomen iubemus amplecti, reliquos vero dementes vesanosque iudicantes haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere, nec conciliabula eorum ecclesiarum nomen accipere, divina primum vindicta, post etiam motus nostri, quem ex coelesti arbitrio sumpserimus, ultione plectendos. "We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven shall decide to inflict".

The Senate killed an Emperor, put in the throne one of them, prevented a civil war, preserved a relative unity among themselves and peacefully selected the general that would became the next Emperor, without the recorded execution of even one of them; there's where I find the difference. No one can participate and even less succeed in such kind of negotiations without some real power on their own; otherwise, Legions and Praetorians wouldn't have had any incentive to close any deal with the Senate.

On a middle stage of his pleasant trip from Rome to Beneventum, here comes Quintus Horatius Flaccus, Sermonum, Liber II, cp. V, lines XXXIX to LIV and LXX: postera lux oritur multo gratissima; namque Plotius et Varius Sinuessae Vergiliusque occurrunt, animae, qualis neque candidiores terra tulit neque quis me sit devinctior alter. o qui conplexus et gaudia quanta fuerunt. nil ego contulerim iucundo sanus amico. proxima Campano ponti quae villula, tectum praebuit et parochi, quae debent, ligna salemque. hinc muli Capuae clitellas tempore ponunt. lusum it Maecenas, dormitum ego Vergiliusque;namque pila lippis inimicum et ludere crudis. hinc nos Coccei recipit plenissima villa, quae super est Caudi cauponas. nunc mihi paucis Sarmenti scurrae pugnam Messique Cicirri, Musa, velim memores et quo patre natus uterque contulerit litis. ...prorsus iucunde cenam producimus illam. "The next day arises, by much the most agreeable to all: for Plotius, and Varius, and Virgil met us at Sinuessa; souls more candid ones than which the world never produced, nor is there a person in/the world more bound to them than myself. Oh what embraces, and what transports were there! While I am in my senses, nothing can I prefer to a pleasant friend. The village, which is next adjoining to the bridge of Campania, accommodated us with lodging [at night]; and the public officers with such a quantity of fuel and salt as they are obliged to [by law]. From this place the mules deposited their pack-saddles at Capua betimes [in the morning]. Maecenas goes to play [at tennis]; but I and Virgil to our repose: for to play at tennis is hurtful to weak eyes and feeble constitutions. From this place the villa of Cocceius, situated above the Caudian inns, which abounds with plenty, receives us. Now, my muse, I beg of you briefly to relate the engagement between the buffoon Sarmentus and Messius Cicirrus; and from what ancestry descended each began the contest. ... We were so diverted, that we continued that supper to an unusual length".

Shalom et Felicem Natalem Dies, I

Exactly my point; we agree. Not having real ascendance over the Imperial soldiers, Domitianus' Senate wouldn't have been able to select and preserve Nerva if the last Flavian Emperor had not given them enough power and influence in the first place.

Regarding this thread

In fact, it would be valid to question if Diocletianus and Galerius were actually right on the Christians becoming a major menace to the Roman institutions and way of life. Briefly, the real question would be: Would the Roman state and culture have lasted some centuries more, were Diocletianus, Galerius & co successful in preventing the Christian Church access to the power over the Empire?

Well, you could be both despotic and republican at the same time. Just ask LC Sulla Felix.

Salve, ML. Let me see if I got this one straight: As inevitable corruption follows governments, you would be more comfortable if there were no police forces at all. Forget the euphemisms, they are trying to take control of our activities. Is that so?

Salve, Amici. A new related Faustus thread

Salve, Amici. A previous related Faustus thread Here comes Caius Suetonius Tranquillus, Vitae XII Caesarum, Divus Augustus, cp. LXXVIII, sec. I: Post cibum meridianum, ita ut vestitus calciatusque erat, retectis pedibus paulisper conquiescebat opposita ad oculos manu. A cena in lecticulam se lucubratoriam recipiebat; ibi, donec residua diurni actus aut omnia aut ex maxima parte conficeret, ad multam noctem permanebat. "After his midday meal he used to rest for a while just as he was, without taking off his clothes or his shoes, with his feet uncovered and his hand to his eyes. After dinner he went to a couch in his study for working by lamp-light, where he remained to late at night, until he had attended to what was left of the day's business, either wholly or in great part". ... and also ibid, Vita Cai (Caligula), cp.XXXVI, sec II: Quas plerumque cum maritis ad cenam uocatas praeterque pedes suos transeuntis diligenter ac lente mercantium more considerabat, etiam faciem manu adleuans, si quae pudore submitterent; quotiens deinde libuisset egressus triclinio, cum maxime placitam seuocasset. "These as a rule he invited to dinner with their husbands, and as they passed by the foot of his couch, he would inspect them critically and deliberately, as if buying slaves, even putting out his hand and lifting up the face of anyone who looked down in modesty"

Salve, PC. We agree on the social interpretation of your quotation; however, Caius Sallustius Crispus never used in his Bellum Catalinae the Ciceronian names for the Roman factions or "parties", ie. Optimates and Populares. You're quoting from Cp. XXXIX, sec. I-II: Sed postquam Cn. Pompeius ad bellum maritumum atque Mithridaticum missus est, plebis opes inminutae, paucorum potentia crevit. Ei magistratus provincias aliaque omnia tenere; ipsi innoxii, florentes, sine metu aetatem agere ceterosque iudiciis terrere, quo plebem in magistratu placidius tractarent.. (and in Loeb's translation at Lacus Curtius When, however, Gnaeus Pompeius had been dispatched to wage war against the pirates and against Mithridates, the power of the commons was lessened, while that of the few increased. These possessed the magistracies, the provinces and everything else; being themselves rich and secure against attack, they lived without fear and by resort to the courts terrified the others, in order that while they themselves were in office they might manage the people with less friction". Judging by the overall context, I think Sallustius was talking about Roman social divisions, not the political factions. Even if C. Sallustius attributted Catalina's conspiracy to moral decadence, it's clear he was well aware of its social and economic causes; just check ibid, Cp. XIV, sec. II-III: Nam quicumque inpudicus, adulter, ganeo, manu, ventre, pene bona patria laceraverat quique alienum aes grande conflaverat, quo flagitium aut facinus redimeret ... postremo omnes, quos flagitium, egestas, conscius animus exagitabat, ii Catilinae proxumi familiaresque erant. "For whatever wanton, glutton, or gamester had wasted his patrimony in play, feasting, or debauchery; anyone who had contracted an immense debt that he might buy immunity from disgrace or crime ... finally, all who were hounded by disgrace, poverty, or an evil conscience

Salve, L. Greatness is in the eye of the beholder. Even if most Roman Emperors weren't particularly humble, the epithet Magnus as we know it today is mainly a historical denomination used long after their deaths, based not only in their individual deeds, but also in the plurality of homonym Emperors. Most frequently quoted "...the Great" Emperors are Constantine I, Theodosius I and Justinian I; on the Christian historical tradition, that basically means they were considered great supporters of the Church against the pagans and/or heretics.

Salve, I. We have at least an fist-hand account. Here comes Marcus Tullius Cicero, In M. Antonium Oratio Philippica II, cp. XC-XCI: Etsi tum, cum optimum te putabant me quidem dissentiente, funeri tyranni, si illud funus fuit, sceleratissime praefuisti. Tua illa pulchra laudatio, tua miseratio, tua cohortatio; tu, tu, inquam, illas faces incendisti, et eas, quibus semustulatus ille est, et eas, quibus incensa L. Bellieni domus deflagravit; tu illos impetus perditorum hominum et ex maxima parte servorum, quos nos vi manuque reppulimus, in nostras domos inmisisti. "You behaved with the greatest wickedness while presiding at the funeral of the tyrant, if that ought to be called a funeral. All that fine panegyric was yours, that commiseration was yours, that exhortation was yours. It was you--you, I say--who hurled those firebrands, both those with which your friend himself was nearly burned, and those by which the house of Lucius Bellienus was set on fire and destroyed. It was you who let loose those attacks of abandoned men, slaves for the most part, which we repelled by violence and our own personal exertions; it was you who set them on to attack our houses". and in addition, ibid, Epistularum ad Atticum, Liber XIV, Epist. X, sec. iam pridem perieramus. meministine te clamare causam perisse si funere elatus esset? at ille etiam in foro combustus laudatusque miserabiliter servique et egentes in tecta nostra cum facibus immissi. quae deinde? "Do you remember that you explained that it was all over with us, if he were allowed a funeral? But he was even burnt in the forum, and a funeral oration was pronounced over him in moving terms, and a number of slaves and starvelings instigated to attack our houses with firebrands".