ASCLEPIADES

Salve, Amici. Good point, Ingsoc. If by "greatest" we mean the biggest and most transcendent impact on world History, we're undoubtedly talking about Caius Octavius Thurinus, aka Caius Iulius Caesar Octavianus, aka Divus Augustus. Obviously, such an impact was not caused by a single man, but by a whole team, which chiefly encompassed Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, Cilnius Maecenas, Quintus Salvidienus Rufus, Titus Statilius Taurus, Caius Sallustius Crispus, Tiberius (Claudius Nero) Caesar Augustus and (of course) Livia Drusilla Augusta, among others.

Salve, Lady O. I expect you remember this one. It's really a nice reading. Jacobi's voice sounds certainly older than in the TV series. Narrated events correspond to Episodes 9 "Zeus, by Jove!" and 10 "Hail who?" by the US sequence (13 episodes). Personally, I prefer the audio from the TV production; anyhow, I'm going to record this one. Gratiam habeo for the tip, Lady O. And get ready next Friday for the book's equivalent of episode 11 "Fool's luck".

Salve, SPQR. Strictly speaking, primary sources are first-hand narratives. On an almost semi-mythological event as the Gallic siege, about which even the exact date is disputed, we're dealing with "ancient tertiary sources" at best. Even Titus Livius himself complained about it on (Ab Urbe Condita, Liber VI, cp. I): res cum uetustate nimia obscuras... tum quid rarae per eadem tempora litterae fuere, una custodia fidelis memoriae rerum gestarum, et quod, etiam si quae in commentariis pontificum aliisque publicis priuatisque erant monumentis, incensa urbe pleraeque interiere. "The subject matter is enveloped in obscurity... partly owing to the fact that written records, which form the only trustworthy memorials of events, were in those times few and scanty, and even what did exist in the pontifical commentaries and public and private archives nearly all perished in the conflagration of the City2." As you can see, the absence of documents itself was his best evidence on the magnitude of Rome's destruction. By chronological order, main sources would be: Polybius, Histories, Liber II. Written some one and a half centuries after the events actually took place. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica, Liber XIV. Titus Livius Patavinus, Ab Urbe Condita, by far the most extensive: Liber V, cp, XVII-LV for the Gaulish War itself and Liber VI for the aftermath. Q, Fabius Pictor, one of his main sources, was a contemporary of Polybius. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, Liber XIII. Mestrius Plutarchus, Camillus. And additional references scattered among these and other sources like Strabo, Plinius Maior, Zonaras, et cetera.

Salve, Amici. These map shows in red the location of the two Porticus Aemilia: 1) extra portam Trigeminam (left, down), biggest warehouse complex of republican Rome. 2) A porta Fontinali ad Martis aram (center), monumental arcades. Here comes Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, Liber XXXV, cp. X, sec XII (DLXI AUC / 193 BC): L. Quinctius et Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus consules facti... aedilitas insignis eo anno fuit M. Aemilii Lepidi et L. Aemilii Pauli: multos pecuarios damnarunt; ex ea pecunia clupea inaurata in fastigio Iouis aedis posuerunt, porticum unam extra portam Trigeminam, emporio ad Tiberim adiecto, alteram ab porta Fontinali ad Martis aram qua in Campum iter esset perduxerunt. L. Quinctius and Cneius Domitius Ahenobarbus were the two elected consuls... M. Aemilius Lepidus and L. Aemilius Paulus distinguished themselves as aediles this year. They inflicted fines on a large number of graziers, and out of the proceeds they had gold-plated shields made, which they placed on the pediment of the temple of Jupiter. They also built an arcade outside the Porta Trigemina, and in connection with it a wharf on the Tiber, and a second arcade leading from the Porta Fontinalis to the altar of Mars in the Campus Martius.

Salve, CS Article on gens Julia, William Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) pg 643 : "In the times of the empire we find an immense number of persons of the name of Julius ; but it must not be supposed that they were connected by descent in any way with the Julia Gens ; for, in consequence of the imperial family belonging to this gens, it became the name of their numerous freedmen, and may have been assumed by many other persons out of vanity and ostentation". And specifically on CJ Agricola, here comes P C Tacitus, De vita Iulii Agricolae, cp. IV: Gnaeus Iulius Agricola, vetere et inlustri Foroiuliensium colonia ortus, utrumque avum procuratorem Caesarum habuit, quae equestris nobilitas est. Pater illi Iulius Graecinus senatorii ordinis, "Cnaeus Julius Agricola was born at the ancient and famous colony of Forum Julii. Each of his grandfathers was an Imperial procurator, that is, of the highest equestrian rank. His father, Julius Graecinus, a member of the Senatorian order"

Salve, Lady O. Even PC Tacitus himself (a child some nine years old by that time) considered plausible the Great Fire was just an accident; (Annales, Liber XV, cp. XXXVIII): Sequitur clades, forte an dolo principis incertum (nam utrumque auctores prodidere), sed omnibus,. " A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts,". I think most scholars would exonerate Nero, because: - No rationale: Nero was supposedly destroying not only HIS capital, but his house and palace too. The explanations given by C Suetonius (plundering) and Tacitus (the founding of a New city!) simply doesn't make sense. Nero actually tried his best for controlling the conflagration and its consequences (ibid, cp. XXXIX): sed solacium populo exturbato ac profugo campum Martis ac monumenta Agrippae, hortos quin etiam suos patefacit et subitaria aedificia exstruxit, quae multitudinem inopem acciperent; subvectaque utensilia ab Ostia et propinquis municipiis, pretiumque frumenti minutum usque ad ternos nummos. "However, to relieve the people, driven out homeless as they were, he threw open to them the Campus Martius and the public buildings of Agrippa, and even his own gardens, and raised temporary structures to receive the destitute multitude. Supplies of food were brought up from Ostia and the neighbouring towns, and the price of corn was reduced to three sesterces a peck". - Fires in Rome, even huge, were commonplace: Suetonius described two under Tiberius (cp XLVIII-L), one under Claudius (cp XVIII) and another under Titus (cp. VIII), plus "many fires" in provincial cities under Vespasian (cp XVII). No one required any specific explanation for all those fires. - Arsonism was commonly attributed to mad and/or criminal rulers: Suetonius did it so in his Vita Vitellii (cp XV): succensoque templo Iovis Optimi Maximi oppressit, cum et proelium et incendium e Tiberiana prospiceret domo inter epulas. "Then he set fire to the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus and destroyed them, viewing the battle and the fire from the house of Tiberius, where he was feasting".

Salve, Amici. Were that the case (for the sake of the argument), you

Salve, Amici. Only for the record: Since 1789, 17 federal officers have been impeached in the United States (from 62 cases initiated): Two Presidents, Andrew Johnson (for violation of the tenure in office Act, 1868) and Bill Clinton (for perjury and justice obstruction, 1998), both acquitted. One cabinet officer (a Secretary of Marine) acquitted after his resignation. One case was dismissed (a Senator) as he was expelled before his trial. 13 federal judges: eight were acquitted, five were removed: main charges of the latter were bribery (2), Tax evasion, Secession support, perjury, disrepute and drunkenness.

Salve, Amici. A Pompeian electoral graffiti: "Cn(aeus) Helvius Sabinus AED(ile) D(ignum) R(ei) P(ublicae) (

Salve, Amici The Language Trends Secondary survey 2007 found that 29/678 maintained secondary schools in the UK were teaching Latin at any level, giving it the tenth position (independent schools were not reported). Data from the MLA Newsletter (Spring 2004) and the ADFL Bulletin, Vol. 35.2-3 (Winter-Spring 2004) showed Latin as the eighth most frequently learned language, based on Fall 2002 Enrollments in U.S. Institutions of Higher Education (1.9 %) .

Salve, K Neglected = by definition; as there's no unclaimed square inch of land out of Antartica, all of them are uncared citizens of any number of 21 century countries living under paleolitic conditions and epidemiology (ie, 3 out of any 4 children dying before puberty). abused = potentially, as their putative countries (and international organizations) don't protect them from any number and variety of aggressors, from pollution to slavery. Don't fool yourselves; there's no place on Earth out of range for modern "adventurers" or Indiana Jones wannabes.

Salve, Amici "Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality." Article 15, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Sorry, but nowadays "uncontacted" (or "isolated") peoples (or even worse, "tribes") concept is just an euphemism for "grossly neglected and potentially abused high risk populations in Third world countries"; it's total denial of the social contract.

Excellent question, G-man; Lady N and Ingsoc expertise urgently needed. While we're waiting: Neither of both Agrippa (kings of Judea) were named Hero: Agrippa I the Great (for Josephus) is called so only in the New Testament (Luke in Acts 12), presumably a confusion of name and/or people with his brother Herod (III) of Chalcis. Agrippa II was called just Agrippa even in Acts (25). Antipater (Agrippa I's great-grandfather) got full Roman citizenship for him and his descendants after his deeds as auxilia commander at the Alexandrian War under Caius Julius Caesar the dictator (a reminder, BTW, that barbarians didn't need a slavery period to become quirites). Consequently, all of them were Iulii by adoption and had the right to use the full tria nomina. Even so, as far as I know, only some of the descendants from Mariamne I (2nd wife of Herod the Great) did it so; after all, some of them resided more at Rome than at Judea. There's epigraphical evidence that Agrippa II used his full tria nomina: Marcus Julius Agrippa (first two were sometimes reversed); Agrippa I was at least Julius Agrippa, but there is some debate about his use of a praenomen (most scholars refer "Marcus" as his son, some "Caius", others none). Of course, Lady A is right; Herod the Great and Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa were close friends and partners for decades; besides, MV Agrippa became on his last years a virtual co-emperor, almost equal to the always unhealthy Augustus and his presumptive heir. For all purposes, he was the ruler of the Eastern half of the Empire ("Greek" or "Byzantine" if you like). Even after his death, as his son Gaius was now Augustus' new heir, the adoption of the cognomen Agrippa must have seemed like a good omen for any Roman client prince.

The 'Camillan' reforms were the reforms that changed the hoplite army of the regnal period into the republican army described by Livy. I'm guessing the idea is that this organization is sufficiently different from the Polybian army to need its own designation. Salve, Amici. Here comes Mestrius Plutarchus, Vita Camilli, cp. XL-XLI: "All with one mind chose Camillus dictator for the fifth time... instantly took upon him the command and went to levying his soldiers. Knowing that the prowess of the barbarians lay chiefly in their swords, which they plied in true barbaric fashion, and with no skill at all, in mere slashing blows at head and shoulders, he had helmets forged for most of his men which were all iron and smooth of surface, that the enemy's swords might slip off from them or be shattered by them. He also had the long shields of his men rimmed round with bronze, since their wood could not of itself ward off the enemy's blows. The soldiers themselves he trained to use their long javelins like spears,

Salve, Amici. Here comes the latin version of PC Tacitus Annales Liber XV cp. XLIV, quoted both by MPC and Guy: Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. et pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent aut crucibus adfixi [aut flammandi atque], ubi defecisset dies, in usu[m] nocturni luminis urerentur. hortos suos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat, et circense ludicrum edebat, habitu aurigae permixtus plebi vel curriculo insistens. unde quamquam adversus sontes et novissima exempla meritos miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utilitate publica, sed in saevitiam unius absumerentur. En.Wikipedia ("Tacitus on Christ") gives us what I think is a fairly balanced and well referenced commentary on this issue: "Some people have suggested that this passage could be a later addition by Christian scribes. No early Christian writers refer to Tacitus even when discussing the subject of Nero and Christian persecution, although this is an argument from silence. Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo make no reference to Tacitus when discussing Christian persecution by Nero. Sulpicius Severus repeats the passage nearly verbatim without crediting Tacitus in Chronica, but it is unknown whether Severus borrowed from Tacitus, whether a Christian scribe inserted Severus into Tacitus or whether a third source was involved. The passage also mistakenly calls Pontius Pilate a procurator instead of a prefect, a mistake also made in a passage by Josephus. This mistake, while possibly showing a common editor of Tacitus and Josephus could also be Tacitus using Josephus as a source or both of them using a common source. On the other hand, others argue that the passage is far too critical of Christians to be added by Christian scribes. The passage even implies that the Christians may have been guilty of setting fire to Rome. Further, there may be evidence of persecution against Christians in Rome during Nero's reign. The historian Suetonius also mentions Christians being harmed during this period by Nero, but there is no connection made with the fire. Robert Van Voorst writes that "the vast majority of scholars" conclude that the passage is authentic." The controversial nature of this frequently quoted passage stands mainly from its theological implications on Jesus' historicity, as it is one of the first references you can find out of the New testament, even if more than a generation after his death. Theologically, main argument for its autheticity would be that it actually contradicts main thesis of all Gospels about the responsability for Jesus' death (Tacitus blamed Pilatus, not the Jews).

Salve, F. Here comes the Wall of Alexander (Sad-e Eskander) or Red Wall (Qezel Alang). "It is indicated on these photos (which were taken near Gondab-e Kavus) with orange pylons... It was probably built by the Sasanian king Khusrau ... part of the wall dated back to the Achaemenid age ... To attribute the wall to Alexander the Great is, therefore, not a very strange idea, especially since the Macedonian conqueror is known to have built comparable defence works in Margiana. In the Quran (18.93-98), it is said that Dh

I would say, LW If unsourced, I would take it as a joke.

Gratiam habeo for your kind and quick answer, S Sorry, but at least for me, it sounds a lot as if Belisarius was still a Roman because he was too good to be a Byzantine.

Salve, Sonic Why is Belisarius considered by you (and others, of course) the Last Roman General? I assume it may be because his Triumphus at 534 for the Vandal War against Gelimer was presumably the last one ever (and incidentally, maybe the first one given to any Roman commander different from the incumbent Emperor since Germanicus). Am I right? Is there other reason?

Salve, A Here comes the very first mention of a Legion on T. Livius' Ab Urbe Condita (Liber I, Cp. XI), at the aftermath of the Sabine maidens abduction: Dum ea ibi Romani gerunt, Antemnatium exercitus per occasionem ac solitudinem hostiliter in fines Romanos incursionem facit. Raptim et ad hos Romana legio ducta palatos in agris oppressit. Fusi igitur primo impetu et clamore hostes, oppidum captum; duplicique victoria ouantem Romulum Hersilia coniunx precibus raptarum fatigata orat ut parentibus earum det veniam et in civitatem accipiat: ita rem coalescere concordia posse. "Whilst the Romans were thus occupied, the army of the Antemnates seized the opportunity of their territory being unoccupied and made a raid into it. Romulus hastily led his legion against this fresh foe and surprised them as they were scattered over the fields. At the very first battle-shout and charge the enemy were routed and their city captured. Whilst Romulus was exulting over this double victory, his wife, Hersilia, moved by the entreaties of the abducted maidens, implored him to pardon their parents and receive them into citizenship, for so the State would increase in unity and strength."

Salve, P As Mr. William Smith was unable at 1867 to define where the "Byzantine" begins and the Roman ends (?), I think his Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology MUST be included in your list, either online or paperware.

Actually, this rebate from the quaestors (not the tribunes) at DLXVII AUC / 187 BC was a defeat for Marcus Porcius Cato Maior. Here comes Mestrius Plutarchus, Vita Cato Maior, cp. XVIII, sec. I-III: "...But he was most obnoxious to the majority of his enemies because he lopped off extravagance in living. This could not be done away with outright, since most of the people were already infected and corrupted by it, and so he took a roundabout way. He had all apparel, equipages, jewellery, furniture and plate, the value of which in any case exceeded fifteen hundred drachmas, assessed at ten times its worth, wishing by means of larger assessments to make the owners' taxes also larger. Then he laid a tax of three on every thousand asses thus assessed, in order that such property holders, burdened by their charges, and seeing that people of equal wealth who led modest and simple lives paid less into the public treasury, might desist from their extravagance. As a result, both classes were incensed against them, but those who endured the taxes for the sake of their luxury, and those no less who put away their luxury because of the taxes. For most men think themselves robbed of their wealth if they are prevented from displaying it,.. "

Salve, Amici According to Cornelius Nepo, Hannibal Barca was fluent in Greek; "De Viris Illustribus", Liber I, cp. XXIII, sec. XIII: "This great man, though occupied in such vast military operations, devoted some portion of his time to literature; for there are some books of his written in the Greek language, and amongst them one addressed to the Rhodians on the acts of Cnaeus Manlius Vulso in Asia. Of the wars which he conducted many have given the history; and two of them were persons that were with him in the camp, and lived with him as long as fortune allowed, Silenus and Sosilus the Lacedaemonian; and this Sosilus Hannibal had as his instructor in the Greek language. "

Salve, Amici Here comes an outstanding article by Richard Gottheil & Samuel Krauss on Celsus (the Jewish Encyclopedia): "Greek polemical writer against Christianity; flourished in the second century. He was the first pagan who denounced Christianity, and in his work, "The True Word" (Λόγος 'ΛληΘής), he attempted not only to refute but to ridicule the doctrines of Christianity. Although the work has been lost, large fragments of it are preserved in the apology of Christianity ("Contra Celsum," in eight books) written by Origen in answer to Celsus. An attempt was recently made by Keim and Muth to reconstruct the original from these fragments. Origen was not clear as to the person of Celsus; he mentions two Epicureans by that name, one of whom was said to have lived under Nero and the other under Hadrian; and it was against the latter that he directed his polemic. In designating his opponent by the opprobrious epithet of "Epicurean," Origen was misled by his prejudice; for Celsus, according to his own teachings, was an eclectic, following Plato and perhaps also Philo. Moreover, he must have lived after Hadrian's time, probably flourishing about 180 under Marcus Aurelius (161-180), since he mentions the Marcionites and the Marcellians. Lucian, who also denounced Christianity, dedicated to him his "Alexander, the Lying Prophet" ("Alex." xxi.). In the first book of Celsus from which Origen took his extracts, a Jew, introduced by Celsus, addresses Jesus; in the second book, the Jew addresses his Jewish coreligionists who have embraced Christianity; and in the remaining six books Celsus speaks in his own person. All this shows, as Mosheim says, that Celsus mingled with the Jews, getting from them the story of the life and passion of Jesus. Yet the Jew introduced knew so little about his own religion as to describe it often incorrectly; hence his introduction in the work is merely a rhetorical device, and Celsus himself is the speaker, promulgating opinions which he had heard or learned from Jews. Whether he reproduced mere verbal assertions of the Jews (compare Origen, "Contra Celsum," vi.

Salve, LW Here comes Titus Livius Patavinus, Ab Urbe Condita, Liber XXI, cp. XLV: Eaque ut rata scirent fore, agnum laeua manu, dextra silicem retinens, si falleret, Iouem ceterosque precatur deos ita se mactarent quemadmodum ipse agnum mactasset, et secundum precationem caput pecudis saxo elisit. Tum uero omnes, uelut dis auctoribus in spem suam quisque acceptis, id morae quod nondum pugnarent ad potienda sperata rati, proelium uno animo et uoce una poscunt. "To convince them of his determination to carry out these promises, he held a lamb with his left hand and a flint knife in his right and prayed to Jupiter and the other gods, that, if he broke his word and forswore himself they would slay him as he had slain the lamb. He then crushed the animal's head with the flint. They all felt then that the gods themselves would guarantee the fulfilment of their hopes, and looked upon the delay in bringing on an action as delay in gaining their desires; with one mind and one voice they clamoured to be led into battle."