ASCLEPIADES

Salve, GM! Yessir! Congratulations. Your turn.

Nope.

Maybe he should begin with English... Sequitur

Salve, M! Of course you're right! Sorry for not being around. Your turn.

Nope. Try in Africa.

You

After the Lex Iunia (Norbana?) of (probably) 19 BC (735 AUC), the Augustean regime designed an intermediary step between slaves and citizens for freedmen who were manumitted de facto but not de jure, called the Iuniani Latinii, meaning they were nominally free but with restricted civil rights. From the reign of Caius (aka Caligula) onwards, one of the main available ways for them to get full citizenship (jus quiritum) was serving for a minimum of six years in the guards (vigiles) at Rome (even if they were less than thirty years old), according to the Lex Visellia of 24 AD (777 AUC): "Praeterea ex lege Visellia tam maiores quam minores XXX annorum manumissi et Latini facti ius Quiritium adipiscuntur, id est fiunt cives Romani, si Romae inter vigiles sex annis militaverint." (Source: Gaius, Institutionum, Commentarius Primus, Ch. VII, tit. XXXII).

Nope. There was no direct consanguinity between them. Caius Suetonius, Cornelius Tacitus and Cassius Dio told us that he had a slave which very much resembled him.

Hmm ... youthful with a slight jawline ... Caligula? Nope, but they were relatives.

Now try this one:

Nope, I certainly didn't realize the magnitude of my petition. Neither is the reliability of John the thrust of my question. Can you quote some of the specific sources of this Millar's book which might be available online about this issue?

True, with one exception. As I stated before, the (purported) superior historicity of John over the Synoptics (your argumentation) is a purely theological concept.

Excellent point, Lady A! It's the marble funerary altar of Cominia Tyche, the most chaste and loving wife of Lucius Annius Festus, who died at the age of twenty-seven years, eleven months, twenty-eight days (circa 90-100 AD). At the Roman Naming Practices section of UNRV, Lady N tell us that: "Cominia" being the name of a Roman plebian gens, indicating that the lady's father's name may have been "Cominius", while "Tyche" is the name of the Greek goddess of good fortune. Alternately, Cominia Tyche may have been a freedwoman of Cominius, having adopted his nomen gentilicium for her own and having retained her original name of Tyche for her cognomen, as was the custom of male freed slaves. .. In the past such a lady might have been known simply as Cominia Festi (taking her husband's cognomen in the genitive form and often followed by the word uxor, to show her relationship to him)."

I don't know you, but I am far more interested in what Millar has to said about Jewish and other people's autonomy under the Roman rule than in theological arguments. I have no access to his book. May I ask you how does he qualify the degree of autonomy of the Jews and other conquered populations across the diverse periods of Roman rule on the Near East? (Besides John, I mean). Thanks in advance.

Let try this one, also from ACC: What disease is this treatment for?: "... quod ex subita causa etsi... primam curationem habet, qua sanguis mittatur. ... satiusque est abstinere a cibo; si fieri potest, etiam potione; si non potest, aquam bibere. ..., alvum ducere, sternumenta evocare, nihil adsumere nisi aquam.... Si vero in his auxilii parum est, tonderi oportet ad cutem;. " "Of these the case that is acute,... has its primary remedy in blood-letting... and it is better to abstain from food; also from drink, when possible; if not possible, then to drink water. ... the bowels should be clystered, sneezing provoked, and nothing but water taken. . But if there is little benefit from the above, the head should be shaved down to the scalp"

I think GO is right and the Lady would be Valeria Messalina.

Salve, amici! Yeah, I really miss Miguel and Klingan on this thread too. And if what GO means is that it's time for some hints, his desire is my command. This baby has space for 3500 spectators and was donated by one of this city's wealthiest families. Its condition is so good that it is still used for concerts in summer. It is located on the western half of the Roman world. Its estimated date of construction is circa the late Lucius Verus' reign. Cheers & good luck.

As far as I understand, John's historicity is highly debated among Christian theologians. But at least for us, the main problem is probably their concept of "historicity". What they mean is the account of Jesus' deeds on this World. Taking away some fundamentalist views (vg, LDS), most scholars seem to agree that John was the last of the Gospels to be written (circa early II Century AD). Briefly, the "pro-John" group considers that this Gospel fills some gaps in the narrative continuity of the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark & Luke), originally written for almost contemporary readers. For example, Mark 10:32: "They were on the road going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking on ahead of them; and they were amazed, and those who followed were fearful", didn't explain the reason of that fear; John 2:13-15: "The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple those who were selling ... And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple... and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables;" helps to explain it. This episode didn't appear in the Synoptics at all. On the other hand, the "against-John" group would consider the long time that had passed after Jesus' life made John's testimony unreliable. Here are a couple of examples: a pro-John and an against-John. I haven't found yet any statement about John as a superior source for the background historicity in comparison with the other Gospels. All that said, I would consider any Gospel as an unreliable source for Roman or even Jewish legal information (remember Barrabas).

Nice analysis on this thread Plutarch repeats his chronology on Antonius XII. Suetonius' Divus Caesar LXXIX mentions a "Latin festival" (sacrificio Latinarum) as the moment for the tribunes

Then, the pragmatic conclusion is that the servus Sticius failed on his attempt to profit from his null legal status, mainly because he hadn't been manumitted yet. Being the "granter" of the Power of Attorney a slave (he couldn't), there was no mandate. As Sticius had no peculium, the delivery of the land was considered as a "donation" from Ticius by the law. Not being proprietary, Ticius couldn't demand Res vindicatio. So, the legal actions couldn't proceed against Sticius' owner, even less against the slave. BUT, as Sticius was still a slave, he couldn't claim the exceptio in factum, nor could he obtain the land by long possession. So, until proven otherwise, the tract of land goes to the slave-owner, as any other of the slave's possesions.

Ultimately, faith is believing without question, and science is little more than answering questions rigorously. Faith and Science had always made and will always make a bad mixture. Both of them have their right place, and it's not together.

I'm not sure if I understand it rightly. Then, the modern Eastern variety is a less especialised creature and less vulnerable as a species than the Western one?

This case was originally published on the Pandektes or Digest of Justinian I (VI Century AD), based in two commentaries: the first one by Publius Salvius Iulianus (II Century AD) on Liber XLI, Ch. IV, sec. VII, line II: ") My slave directed Titius to purchase a tract of land for him, and Titius transferred the possession of the same to the slave after his manumission. The question arose whether he could obtain it by long possession. The answer was, that if my slave had directed Titius to purchase the land, and Titius had delivered it to him after his manumission, whether he believed that the slave's peculium had been given to him, or did not know that it had not, the slave could, nevertheless, obtain the land by long-continued possession, because he either knew that his peculium had been given him, or he ought to have known it, and hence he resembles one who pretends to be a creditor." and the other by Domitius Ulpianus (III Century AD). on Liber XXI, Ch. III, sec. I, line IV: ") If a slave purchases merchandise with money belonging to his peculium, and his master orders him to become free by his will before he obtains the ownership of the property, and bequeaths to him his peculium, and the vendor brings suit to recover the merchandise from the slave; an exception in factum can be pleaded, on the ground that he was a slave at the time he made the contract."

Interestingly, that's also the case for the goddesses Tellus and Salus.

Marcus Ulpius Traianus?