ASCLEPIADES

Now, this one will be probably easier; What is this other recipe for? " by moderate exercise, by oftener resting, by anointing, and by the bath if after a meal at midday; by the bowels being confined, by winter cold in moderation, by sleep adequate but not over long, by a soft couch, by a tranquil spirit, by food whether solid or fluid which is sweet and fatty; by meals rather frequent and as large as it is possible to digest."

Salve, Amici! In fact, this is part of a Roman Weight-Watchers program during the Augustean age; Here comes Aulus Cornelius Celsus, De Medicina, Libri I, Ch. III, sec. XIV-XVI: "So then a thin man ought to fatten himself up, a stout one to thin himself down;... The body is thinned: by hot water if one bathes in it and especially if salt; by the bath on an empty stomach, by a scorching sun, by heat of all kinds, by worry, by late nights; by sleep unduly short or overlong, by a hard bed throughout the summer; by running or much walking or any violent exercise; by a vomit, by purgation, by sour and harsh things consumed; by a single meal a day; by the custom of drinking wine not too cold upon an empty stomach." Once again, please don't try this at home, kids.

Salve, C89! Welcome. (Better late than never ) PP explains all you need to know about the groups and ranks here. Cheers, learn and have fun!

I've read modern speculation along these lines, but I don't see any primary source material that would support it. What are you talking about? Here is some modern speculation in Theodor Mommsen's words (1817-1903) (R

Here again Polybius is guilty of mistaking the ideal for the practice. The reason? - possibly he finished his histories at the end date of 145 although they were probably written sometime after 129 and before 118 (after which he died v soon we think). So although the law had changed by this time (secret voting had come in) he may not have lived to see the effects, but I can tell you he would not have lived to see the death penalty used for election bribery. I will let you know when I find some bribery cases. Salve, SF! About the generally reliable Polybius, I would think this was a deliberate misinformation, either by him or by one of his editors, to glorify Rome at the expense of the supposedly corrupted and bribery-prone Carthage, for whom nobody was going to speak. Plain pro-Roman propaganda after Corinth's demise among the Greeks. (Please see my post, #31 on this same thread). And about prosecuted bribery cases, please see my post #5 on this same thred for an example: Plutarch informed us about the case followed against Marius (Ch. V, sec. I-V).

Extending on the same issue, I would think that most of the time, the outcome of the Roman campaigns against external enemies (vg, the Carthaginians) was mostly the consequence of a complex interaction between the actions of the Roman army, state and people (not to talk about the obvious influence of the adversary's initiatives and sheer luck). If you add the one-sided information we have about most of this wars, I find virtually impossible to fairly compare and grade the Roman commanders. At the Empire, we have the additional problem that each emperor always "deserved" the merit (of the victories, of course). Then, I would conclude it's only during civil wars (Romans against Romans) that we found relatively comparable conditions. Considering such limitations, I would think the following generals were virtually invincible during their respective epochs: Lucius Cornelius Sulla; Caius Julius Caesar; Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa; Lucius Septimius Severus; Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus; Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus (I); Flavius Theodosius (I); This list does not pretend to be exhaustive. Once again, I find no way to make an objective gradation among them. And about Flavius Aetius, even if I still get the same conclusions as in my previous post, I must admit that at his most famous battle (Chalons or Catalaunian Fields against Attila's Huns) he shared his command with his Germanic allies (Theodoric and Sangiban) to an undetermined degree.

Sergio Aragones.

Who is Ptellius Cerialis? I can't find him on wikipedia and have never heard of him. Please enlighten me. Salve, JR! Here goes to an excellent article by Jona Lendering about Quintus Petillius Cerialis Cesius Rufus, with many links to the Batavian revolt and related issues. BTW, there's also this nice article on en.wikipedia. I hope this may be useful.

Well, maybe their naval legacy was beyond piracy. If the carrack of the XV and XVI centuries' explorers (including Columbus' Santa Mar

Salve, amici! Congratulations, this list is going to be an extraordinary tool and it should be posted in the "government" section of UNRV. For getting the statistical analysis even better, I think some precisions might be in order: - Broughton's list is inevitably incomplete; 2890 names over 478 years give us around six magistrates/year (6,05). A typical year of the late Republic would have had 34 annual magistrates (2 consuls, 8 praetors, 4 aediles and 20 quaestors) plus censors and the extraordinary ones, like dictators. - Patrician names frequently encompass several plebeian branches; that is specially true for the largest gentes, like the Cornelii, the Claudii and the Valerii. - Conversely, some "plebeian" nomina may include patrician magistrates, as the Cassii and the Tullii. - Some minor gentes of the early Republic may be underrepresented; for one, I couldn't find the Romilia gens (T. Romilius Rocus Vaticanus, consul in 455 BC and one of the Decemviri). - Even if the consulship was closed for the plebs until CCCLXXVIII AUC / 376 BC, other magistratures were open to them at least since CCCXXXIII AUC / 421 BC (quaestorship). - We can't be sure that patrician families were larger than the plebeian, as we have virtually only the records of their magistrates (ie, plebeian families could have been even larger, but underrepresented at the Senate). Anyway, I may be wrong. Any correction would be welcomed. I hope this stuff may be useful.

Ave, GH This topic's subtitle is "The Historicity of the Gospels". I think veers had been given by each member's argumentation. Aside from that, I totally agree with your post.

Salve, amici! This is another pearl from our always prudent friend AAC; what is the next prescription intended for? ": by hot water if one bathes in it and especially if salt; by the bath on an empty stomach, by a scorching sun, by heat of all kinds, by worry, by late nights; by sleep unduly short or overlong, by a hard bed throughout the summer; by running or much walking or any violent exercise; by a vomit, by purgation, by sour and harsh things consumed; by a single meal a day; by the custom of drinking wine not too cold upon an empty stomach." Cheers and good luck!

This is what the Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (p. 204) has to said about the alternative versions of Persephone's myth: " The story of her being carried off by Pluto, against her will, is not mentioned by Homer, who simply describes her as his wife and queen ; and her abduc

Have you any figures about the patrician numbers across the Republican History? As the candidates for the Senate were only males 32 years and over, and the number of patricii gentis were always around twenty, I would have supposed that there were not so many of them, especially during their monopoly of the Senate (before CCCXXXIII AUC / 421 BC).

Matthew 27, 15-26 is even clearer (Contemporary English Version): "During Passover the governor always freed a prisoner chosen by the people. At that time a well-known terrorist named Jesus Barabbas was in jail. So when the crowd came together, Pilate asked them, "Which prisoner do you want me to set free? Do you want Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?" Pilate knew that the leaders had brought Jesus to him because they were jealous. While Pilate was judging the case, his wife sent him a message. It said, "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man. I have had nightmares because of him." But the chief priests and the leaders convinced the crowds to ask for Barabbas to be set free and for Jesus to be killed. Pilate asked the crowd again, "Which of these two men do you want me to set free?" "Barabbas!" they replied. Pilate asked them, "What am I to do with Jesus, who is called the Messiah?" They all yelled, "Nail him to a cross!" Pilate answered, "But what crime has he done?" "Nail him to a cross!" they yelled even louder. Pilate saw that there was nothing he could do and that the people were starting to riot. So he took some water and washed his hands in front of them and said, "I won't have anything to do with killing this man. You are the ones doing it!" Everyone answered, "We and our own families will take the blame for his death!" Pilate set Barabbas free. Then he ordered his soldiers to beat Jesus with a whip and nail him to a cross.

Nice and critical indeed, and here it is. Cline, Magee, me and many others have no problem in seeing it, not only here in Mark 15, but also in other Gosples.

Oops; Sorry for missing this before. My answer would be... absolutely yes. The actions of the Roman politicians regarding Ambitus can be perfectly explained if they had access to such kind of data (as they presumably did). In addition, I think we can reasonably assume that the Roman concept of Ambitus was broader than our modern concept of "electoral bribery" and would encompass some coercive aspects (vg, as illustrated by the Lex Maria episode).

Salve, LW! Here comes another poem on Persephone, by B. A. St. Andrews (2000): I. They call me Daughter of Darkness, Pomegranate Girl, call me wanton, say I yielded foolishly to some wild force surging through curled fronds and came to harm because I could resist no more than Sibyls roused to madness by Apollo's kiss. But there is more to bitter sacrifice than this. VII. ... I am uncomplaining seed and self-containing sorrow: Eternal Wife, Eternal Daughter I am both Life and Afterlife. Silent I am the music of two worlds. Persephone, Queen of Shadows. I, Kore, the Pomegranate Girl. Sequitur

Salve, Amici! Talking about Old Norse / Old English relationship, here comes a nice extract from en. wikipedia: Old English and Old Norse were closely related languages, and it is therefore not surprising that many words in old Norse look familiar to English speakers, e.g. armr (arm), f

Here comes the Gospel According to Mark, a Synoptic (Chapter 15) (Douay-Rheims translation) : "15:6. Now on the festival day he was wont to release unto them one of the prisoners, whomsoever they demanded. Per diem autem festum dimittere solebat illis unum ex vinctis quemcumque petissent 15:7. And there was one called Barabbas, who was put in prison with some seditious men, who in the sedition had committed murder. Erat autem qui dicebatur Barabbas qui cum seditiosis erat vinctus qui in seditione fecerant homicidium 15:8. And when the multitude was come up, they began to desire that he would do as he had ever done unto them. Et cum ascendisset turba coepit rogare sicut semper faciebat illis 15:9. And Pilate answered them and said: Will you that I release to you the king of the Jews? Pilatus autem respondit eis et dixit vultis dimittam vobis regem Iudaeorum 15:10. For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him up out of envy. Sciebat enim quod per invidiam tradidissent eum summi sacerdotes 15:11. But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas to them. Pontifices autem concitaverunt turbam ut magis Barabban dimitteret eis 15:12. And Pilate again answering, saith to them: What will you then that I do to the king of the Jews? Pilatus autem iterum respondens ait illis quid ergo vultis faciam regi Iudaeorum 15:13. But they again cried out: Crucify him. At illi iterum clamaverunt crucifige eum 15:14. And Pilate saith to them: Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more: Crucify him. Pilatus vero dicebat eis quid enim mali fecit at illi magis clamabant crucifige eum 15:15. And so Pilate being willing to satisfy the people, released to them Barabbas: and delivered up Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified. Pilatus autem volens populo satisfacere dimisit illis Barabban et tradidit Iesum flagellis caesum ut crucifigeretur (Luke is more or less similar)

A what-if scenario? I would say you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs and you can't overthrow any regime without breaking a number of laws, then and now, as true for Caesar and Brutus as for Cromwell and Washington. Otherwise, we would be applying a double-standard; that is politics, not law.

Sorry for the gibberish, my bad. I do think PC is right, because of: -the provisions for the protection of Roman Magistratus Majores in general. -the special Dictator's prerogatives. - the elementary life protection given to any unconvicted Roman citizen by the Lex Duodecim Tabularum (Tabula IX sec. VI). - the legal provisions for the designation of Judices and executioners (including the penalties for usurpers).

Maybe it would be a good idea if you post textually your primary source, as Talmud's translation may be difficult. From your quoting, I understand Chavel and you are referring to Mishnah Pesachim, Chapter 9, Mishnah 1 (translation by Jonathan Wolf: "One who was contaminated or was on a distant journey, and had not observed the first Pesach, must observe the second. If he erred or was prevented, and therefore did not observe the first Pesach, he must observe the second. If so, why is it said (Bamidbar 9:10) "One who was contaminated or was on a distant journey?" Because these are exempt from kares, but those are liable to kares. Commentary: The concept of kares, or spiritual excision appears in Torah in many places. It means to be "spiritually cut off" as a heavenly punishment. According to the sages, kares is incurred for willful violations of scriptural commandments. The Torah specifies only two provisions (being contaminated or on a distant journey) since those are beyond the control of the person and so they are exempt from kares. Thus if he erred or was delayed, he is liable for kares." ????? Even Christian exegesis commonly accepts the Barabbas legal background as untenable (not to mention the Jewish). As I haven't found Chavel's book yet, I'm not able to explain why he have had so little Scholar impact since 1940. Here is a nice analysis by M D Magee . And a more or less typical commentary by Austin Cline (extract): "Why was Barabbas important?: There was no custom whereby the Romans would release a condemned prisoner on the occasion of a holy day, but even if there were Pilate would never consent to allow Barabbas go over Jesus. No one who tried to overthrow Roman rule was allowed to live. Jesus, even if he did claim to be King of the Jews, hadn

Gratiam habeo, TMP. It's better late than never. Both studies are quite interesting, although their results were hardly surprising. As usual, Genetics seems to provide very hard evidence.