ASCLEPIADES

Salve, WW! Yes, indeed! Congratulations. This babe is the famous circular temple of Aphrodite/Venus at Cnidos, Caria. Your turn.

BTW, you may find a better model of double-standard here. Finally, I must say that I happen to agree with most of what AJ wrote for us in her last post (#51 of this thread), especially with her wise last statement (sic): "For my part, I wouldn't use it unless I was researching something that was absolutely not mentioned anywhere else but then I would do it with a lot of scepticism."

Which acts? By killing Caesar, the Liberators were honoring the Lex Valeria de Provocatione of 509. Even if that person was a dictator? I don't think so. From a purely legal standpoint, I would think PC is right, regarding the provisions for the protection of Roman Magistratus Majores in general and the special Dictator's prerogatives of being sine provocatione and even irresponsible (for the case of Caesar's abdication), not to mention the elementary life protection given to any unconvicted Roman citizen by the Lex Duodecim Tabularum (Tabula IX sec. VI) and the legal provisions for the designation of Judices and executioners (including the penalties for usurpers). Accusing the other side without charging your own would be a good example of double-standard.

Are you kidding? You should try this more often. Gratiam habeo, Doc!

First of all, let me apologize in advance to other UNVR members and visitors, as I do not intend to be disrespectful to their personal beliefs (atheists included). The auto-proclaimed and only purpose of all the Gospels (canonical and apocrypha alike) is to give testimony of the coming of the only God to the earth. As an atheist, where does the "scientifically impossible" begin for you? Check out the list on my last post (the "historically" more accurate data that make the difference between John and the Synoptics, the assertion in question of my purported double-standard). All of them were, by definition, acts of god (deeds of Jesus) and Christian articles of faith. Once upon a time, this thread began because I doubted of the authority of John (and also of the other Gospels) as a source for the study of contemporary Jewish Law (or Roman, BTW); we can find many examples for that, and other UNRV members had done it for us, but I have repeatedly stated specifically one; the Barabbas story, a legal absurdity quoted by the four canonical Gospels (Matthew 27:15-26, Mark 15:6-15, Luke 23:13

And while we are waiting for Doc, here is a brief description of Old English (before the XII Century AD) noun morphology (Verbs are entirely another story): Old English nouns were declined

Salve, amici! I completely agree with this concrete statement of NS Gill: Word Order Differences Between Latin and English Speakers of English are used to putting the subject of the sentence at the beginning of the sentence, the verb in the middle, and the direct and indirect object at the end (SVO = Subject + Verb + Object), as in (1)Man bites dog,which means something entirely different from (2)Dog bites man. When learning Latin, one of the obstacles to overcome is the word order, since it is rarely SVO. In Latin it is often SOV or OVS or OV, with the verb at the end and the subject included in it. At any rate, it wouldn't matter whether the dog or mailman came first, because who did the biting would always be clear. (3)canem________ vir_____________ mordet dog-acc_sg.(object) man-nom._sg.(subject) bites-3d_sg. man bites dog (4)canis___________ virum___________ mordet dog-nom_sg.(subject) man-acc._sg.(object) bites-3d_sg. Although English has a fixed word order, it is not entirely foreign to us to find the words in an order other than SVO. When we utter a sentence in the imperative, like an order, we put the verb first: (5)Beware of dog!Incidentally, the Latin imperative can have the same order: (6)Cave canem! beware dogVO with no stated subject. An English question has the verb first, too (even if it is an auxiliary), and the object last, as in (7)Will the dog bite the man?The point of these examples is that we are able to understand sentences that are not SVO. The reason Latin is a more flexible language in terms of word order is that what English speakers encode by position in the sentence, Latin handles with case endings at the ends of nouns, adjectives, and verbs. English word order tells us that what is the subject is the (set of) word(s) that comes first in a declarative sentence, what is the object is the set of words at the sentence end, and what is the verb separates subject from object. We rarely confuse verb with noun, except in ambiguous cases like Bart Simpson's (8)What has 4 legs and ticks? There is ambiguity in Latin, as well, but most of the time, an ending will show, just as efficiently, what is the subject, what is the object, and what is the verb. (9)omnia______________ vincit______________ amor everything-acc._pl._neut. conquers-3d_pers._sg. love-nom._sg._masc. 'Love conquers all.' (Attributed to Vergil.)

Nymphs.

Felicem Natalem Dies, JR!

Hey, hey; hold your ponies,Tonto! Lady A is going to blow the whistle! The answers, one by one, please. Anyway, Nope, Nope and Nope. This shall be a good time for some hints; this temple is in Asia Minor. Good luck!

Good questions, indeed. My two cents: - While it is controversial (not for me) the use of the verb "deserve" for individual legal purposes, it surely should be totally inappropriate to describe the fate of a national political system. - Caesar murders' motivations surely varied from case to case, mainly a mixture of ambition, resentment, patriotism and (paradoxically) devotion to the law. - Liberatores acts were criminal, period. But here applies the same rule as with Caesar and others (sic): "... it was basically a political crime. During civil wars and periods of political instability, political crimes tend to be prosecutable only if you are on the losers' side." For a while, Liberatores appeared to be on the winners side.

From the hand of Cicero? Salve, amici! Welcome, AJ! After two millennia and many turns of peoples, countries and civilizations, we shouldn't be surprised that only 58/88 ciceronian speeches survived. We should be amazed that 66% (2/3) of his recorded speeches were able to get to us. All considered, an extraordinary score. One of the reasons might have been that his books were real best-sellers. Any ancient book reached us through myriad hands' rewriting and editing. For Cicero's works, his freedman MT Tiro was probably the first one.

Salve, JC! Here is a related thread to begin with.

Why is that, Asclepiades? I thought we were talking about verifiable historical data here. Where does Faith come into it? The assertion in question is "John is more reliable than the Synoptics". The narrative differences between John and the Synoptics, as far as I know, are mainly Jesus' life events quoted by no independent sources. For example: - The Gospel of John contains 3 passover feasts, suggesting Jesus' ministry lasted between 2 and 3 years, where in the synoptic gospels, it is only one. - The healings of demon-possessed people are never mentioned as in the Synoptics. - John doesn't have as many Jesus' miracles and healings as do the Synoptics. - Major synoptic speeches of Jesus are absent, including all of the Sermon on the Mount and the Olivet discourse and the instructions that Jesus gave to his disciples when he sent them out throughout the country to heal and preach. - Jesus driving the money changers from the temple appears near the beginning of the work. In the Synoptics this occurs late in Jesus' ministry. - Most of the action in John takes place in Iudaea Province and Jerusalem; only a few events occur in Galilee. - The crucifixion of Jesus is recorded as Nisan 14, about noon, in contrast to the synoptic Nisan 15. Then, the choice of relying in John or the Synoptics (or both or no one) does not depend on verifiable historical data; it is entirely a matter of Faith.

The same argument could be made for Sulla, Octavius, Washington or the first Brutus that made them seem really stupid. Sulla, Octavius and Lepidus died peacefully, Caesar didn't. At least for Octavius' case, he survived no less than seven recorded conspiracies; Caesar died after the first one. In my book, that made the former three more careful than Caesar (even Lepidus). "Deserve" get all to do with this topic's title. I didn't select it. Anyway, quoting myself "Did he commit a crime? Juridically, hardly disputable; maiestas to begin with." I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here. I don't think Caesar's culpability has been overrated. I do think (sic) "that Caesar's contribution to the demise of the Republic has been highly overrated." From Tiberius Gracchus to Tiberius Augustus, there were many contributors. For one (sic) " Octavius

Salve, amici!

Salve, GM! Nice details. Have you a more panoramic view? Or are there additional trademark problems with that?

(Emphasis it's mine). I think this would be an excellent opportunity to discuss a couple of things about the contiones. They seem to be cardinal to F. Millar's conception of the Roman Republican system, and they are included in one of your six Late-Republican (or maybe Triumviral) stereotypical points. You see, it's not easy to read online Millar's critical works; I have read some from his "disciples", like Morstein-Marx and Pina Polo, but they appear not to be as true believers as you are. Smith's Dictionary is clearly not enough. It's notorious that in all UNRV site, the not-so-rare references to contio or contiones are almost your monopoly, with the interesting exception of a still unanswered long question by Schappes here.

If he does then that is a marked departure from the stance taken by the Synoptic Gospels. Mark, and Matthew who copies him, state unequivocally that the entire Sanhedrin were present at the trial (Mark 14: 53 - 65). Interesting. It's further evidence that John is more reliable than the Synoptics. That assertion is entirely a matter of Faith. That's exactly the problem.

BUT: Am London I to going Going am London I to To I London going am To am going I London London going am to I I London am to going Going am to I London Am to I London going And so on. In fact, with your example (or most English phrases, BTW), it is much more easier to get a non-sensical syntax than a right one, even with or without additional punctuation marks as your comma. On the other hand, with my Latin example, I was almost syntactically exhaustive (I had a mistake and repeat myself; the last one should have been "Est alea Iacta"). There are no more possible sequences of those three words, and all of them make sense. With this little Latin phrase, non-sensical syntax is simply impossible.

Salve, U! Firstly, Sonic gave an extensive answer to that question in the post # 8 of this thread. That said, from where I am I would think their main contribution to universal history would be their advances in naval technology and navigation, as they affected directly the development of late medieval seamanship and, consequently, the post-Renaissance global expansion of Western European countries. Here is a nice article on Scandinavian Longships from en.wikipedia. Here is another nice article about the history of shipbuilding, this time from MSN Encarta.

Only a little more than four hundred words ... BTW, X-cellent commentary. You mean this Pic?

Wow! Good selection, GM. We have to admit that the mutual resemblance is remarkable.

Salve, amici! From a pragmatic standpoint, if we admit there is more than enough evidence that Caesar was no fool, he was killed purely because of his overconfidence, which itself could have been a manifestation of megalomania. Sulla, Octavian and even Lepidus (and many of their fellows) did much bigger crimes and killed much more people, and they died quietly on their beds. They were simply more careful. The original topic was if Caesar deserved to die. "Deserve" implies an ethical concept, more specifically retributive justice. Did he commit a crime? Juridically, hardly disputable; maiestas to begin with. But it was basically a political crime. During civil wars and periods of political instability, political crimes tend to be prosecutable only if you are on the losers' side. Then, your subjective considerations about the criminal nature of Caesar's acts and the proportionality of the correspondent punishment depend mostly on your political convictions. The same is appliable to most revolutions and coups d'etat, from the first Brutus to Robespierre, from Cromwell to Washington. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, the Liberatores operation was clearly a failure; the Roman Republic didn't reemerge, its enemies were not redeemed nor deterred, the political class was not rehabilitated. That is another reason to consider that Caesar's contribution to the demise of the Republic has been highly overrated. If the republican system were still even a fraction of what Polybius had depicted, the Roman Republic couldn't have been so definitely annihilated by one man's caprice. In any case, Octavius