Publius Nonius Severus

Ancient Library is still down and there doesn't seem to be any sign of life right now. In the meantime (if not forever), in addition to Lacus Curtius, I have found another source for the Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities and Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. The University of Michigan offers both of these works in online archives. They are offered in scanned image, scanned text, and .pdf format. They are also fully indexed for ease of searching. The only special note is that for Biography and Mythology, the work is in three volumes, so you have to figure out which volume (alphabetically) where the entry might be and search that one specifically for the article. So, with Lacus Curtius and now this site we should still be able to have full (and continuing) access to Smith's perennial works. Here are the links: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology - Vol I A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology - Vol II A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology - Vol III

Nice additions Neil, I had completely forgotten about this thread. Laudes to you!

Here is the entry from Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology on The Fabius Pictor clan: Pictor Make sure you click on the next page as well. This will give you a basic overview and cites to the ancient sources for further review. Here is the same source for the Aelius Tubero Clan: Tubero Again be sure to click on the next page, etc. These should get you started...who needs libraries...we got teh internets?

Here is some additional info. According to this paper (which I have not yet had a chance to check the sources):Poverty, wealth and politics in second-century BC Rome by DW Rathbone, one iugerum was worth about 1000 sestertii in 140 BC (shortly before the Grachii). You needed to be worth 100,000 sestertii to be in the first class, which means 100 iugera. So, both Cato the Elder and Columella's references above probably apply to the estates of the majority of wealthy landowners. Later on in the paper the author estimates that there were approximately 2,000 landownders of estates ranging from 100-500 iugera. By the way, it looks like 30 iugera of land would have been quite big. It appears that colonists, depending on their status and other factors, received land grants ranging from 7-15 iugera when they settled into the colonies. Also note that during the principate, a legionary who completed his enlistment received a land grant of 200 iugera (or cash equivalent).

Here is what the sources say on plots of farm land: Marcus Cato, on Agriculture, Chap 1: Columella, De Re Rustica, Book II, Chap 12: . Cato also describes vineyards and other types of farms in the 200 iugera range as well. You can check it out here: De Agricultura by Cato the Elder at Lacus Curtius (you can find De Re Rustica there too!) Of course these amounts: 100, 200, etc. would only apply to one farm. I am sure the wealthy owned multiple farms of their properties. Columella gives us an idea of how many slaves were necessary based on land size. There are accounts of the some welathy romans havin 100+ slaves (I will look for references - can't find them right now). I'll try to see if I can figure how big some of the large holdings were...I'll be back soon

But wasn't it the unwillingness of the Optimates to compromise that drove Pompey to Crassus and Caesar? And afterward, it seems that unimaginative obstructionist policy of the Optimates further escalated the situation and undermined their own position as totally ineffectual. The Senate did not drive them into each other's arms...Caesar started the embrace himself. The reason the triumvirate formed was not due to the unwillingness of the Senate to compromise, it was because Caesar knew in order to get what he wanted he would have to either attach himself to Crassus or Pompey. If he endeared himself to one, he made an opponent of the other...so, he brought them together instead. I do not think Senate opposition to their individual desires was completely unreasonable: 1)Pompey wanted ratification of his eastern settlements and land for his veterans all in one fell swoop. Of the three, I have the least amount of contempt (for his motives)...his motives were somewhat reasonable, his methods were not. Secret alliances, fast-tracked legislation, bringing his soldiers into the city to "support" Caesar's land bill...disgraceful. 2) Crassus' main motivation with the alteration of the tax collectors contracts were completely personal and unwarranted. I know the harmony of the equites was also at stake, but you reap what you sow. This was no "popular" measure. 3) Caesar wanted it his way and would stop at nothing to get it. So much for ruling collegially with one's co-consul...instead let's have his fasces broken and manure thrown at him by Pompey's mob. Then when the forum is free of his opponents he passes his laws, gets a tribune to increases his pro-consular provinces, and sets off on Mr. Toad's Wild Ride through Gaul and Britain. When one discusses one of the critical steps to the demise of the republic, the triumvirate is one of the big ones. There was very little "popular" about it. Sure it may have been popular with the people, but it was in the interests of the men that formed it, not the people they "served".

May the Lemures of that house find these most disgraceful of offenders and torment them the rest of their days!

This is a very good point Cato. Ti was a member of the Claudii faction of the Senate who stood to gain immensely in terms of clientelae by passage of the agrarian bill. Obviously the Corenlii Scipiones (the major opposing faction to the Claudii) were unhappy at this development. There are many possible motives for Ti's actions ranging from being the pawn of factional politics, to revenge for being humiliated by the Senate for repudiating his treaty with the Numantines, to his mother putting too much pressure on him (yes I am serious!). Regardless, it wasn't Ti's motives that were so controversial (as Cato said, the Senate had yielded a lot of ground (no pun intended) over the years), it was his motives. Open defiance rarely turns out well.

That would be nice. A factually based show covering events from Marius and Sulla to the Principate. Ooh, I like this idea...although I think there would have to be a prequel covering the brothers Gracchi, nonne? But this turn in the discussion has made me realize something, unless a large number of episodes/series/sequels can be dedicated to such endeavors, is it possible to portray factually based works like this in an entertaining fashion AND to the satisfaction of the critical eyes of the likes of us? The tales of Marius and Sulla (either in concert or in conflict with each other) endured 20ish years. Of course there is a lot of fluff that is not suitable for film but how would you try to cover all of that properly in 2 hours - or even 12 or 24 (say, two seasons of 12 one-hour episodes)? HBO has tried that now, covering a large period like this, from 54 to 31 BC, and look at how many historical gaps, inaccuracies, and the like we have found. Sure, you could focus better on the history and less on sub-plots, which would help keep the story on track and more factual but still a massive undertaking. I would love to see this though...maybe we should write a manuscript?

I too have noticed that it is down to much shagrin. I have been using the version at Bill Thayer's Lacus Curtis in the meantime: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roma...IGRA*/home.html I actually like Lacus Curtius' version better but sometimes I find reading the Ancient Library version easier. I REALLY miss Smith's biographies and mythology at Ancient Library. I have found you can still get at some of the stuff through the "cached" pages feature of Google. In all cases, I do hope it comes back up!

Let the reaming begin! This is true, it was not illegal, but tradition was an important part of the Roman constiution, so when you openly flaunt your disregard for tradition, you open yourself to attack. Please do not think I am trying to justify the killing of a tribune, far from it. But Tiberius played a big role in his own death. If a mosquito bites you once, you might get some bug spray to protect you. If it bites you again you light a citronella candle. If it bites you a third time you splatter it! Tiberius bit the Senate too many times. The first time when he took his bill right to the plebeian assembly, the second time when he had his fellow tribune Octavius deposed (nearly as egregious as what eventually happened to Tiberius himself), and the third time when he threatened to pass a law using the inheritance of Perganum for his land bill, an affair that was well within the domain of the senate...splat! Some of the reforms he proposed were needed but he pushed too hard, too fast, and paid the ultimate price for it.

Very interesting. I could understand about 85-90% of what was spoken based on my Spanish. If you put someone speaking Ladino in front of me without giving any more information I would easily say that they were speaking speaking Castilian Spanish with a twinge of some unknown regional dialect.

Aye, the missing word should be few

There were very few restraints placed on masters during the Republic but there were several constitutiones during the principate that placed some restrictions upon masters in dealing with their slaves. I could find none that dealt with intercourse, most of them had to do with improperly putting slaves to death. I have not read the 'Code of Justinian" but I am sure you are correct. He was quite the champion for slaves' rights. Edit: Added an omitted "few " before "restraints".

Mi Cicero- A lot of our understaning of the Roman father/non-Roman mother came from the Roman Jurist Gaius I think, but I don't have any references in front of me. I had researched this earlier and I believe this was the breakdown. Roman Father + Non-Roman Mother (Even Latins) = non-Roman Child. Basically, if there was connubium (the right to marry which only existed between citizens) then the child took on the status of the father. If there was no connubium then the child took the status of the mother. This would have applied equally to patricians and plebeians (but for a long time intermarriage between patricians and plebeians was illegal as well!). If I also remember correctly there were some stipulations that if the mother was a Latin and the father thought she was Roman he could later request that the oversight be overlooked and both the mother and child could gain citizenship. Interesting stuff, nonne?

I think this is a very legitimate question. After perusing several secondary sources, there seems to be two (related) suppositions. 1) the pompa funeris was for "office-holders" and 2) it was for prominent/illustrious citizens. As for the actual act, almost everyone either directly or indirectly uses Polybius 6.63 as their primary source. Some of the most detail I found was in the book Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture by Harriet I. Flower (you can get a preview at Google books). But as I stated, even Polybius doesn't say anything more than "illustrious". There also seems to be general acknowledgment that there could be two types of processions. One for private funerals and one for public ones. It would seem a private procession would be right to the place of internment from the home whereas the public one would include the laudatio at the rostra. Assumingly as long as the deceased held the ius imaginnum, the imagines could be displayed in the procession. So, I started to look for passages in the ancient sources that mention actual public funeral proceedings to ascertain how a funeral was made public. Ideally post-Sulla sources since by then as you stated plebeian aediles earned the ius imaginum as well and this would seem to be the minimum requirement for a pompa funeris with imagines (otherwise, there isn't much point). I did find one such source that maybe clears it up: Tacitus, Book VI, Chapter 11: "...and then Piso, after twenty years of similar credit, was, by the Senate's decree, honoured with a public funeral." From this passage (about about the funeral of a pontifex maximus) we can hopefully correctly assume that there had to be at least a senatusconsultum authorizing a public funeral. It would also suggest that one would only be authorized for "one of their own" (i.e. past or present magistrate (and probably curule)). I am afraid we may never be able to get more specific than this. I hope this may have shed a little light.

Interesting question...I don't recall any of Sulla's laws that restricted funeral processions to only those who had held curule offices. The only real distinctive source (that I could find) on the pompa funebris is from Polybius 6.53 (cited and shortened below:: "Whenever any illustrious man dies, he is carried at his funeral into the forum to the so‑called rostra..." He then goes on to talk about the imagines and how they are displayed in the procession by the chosen wearers (dress, decorations, etc.). The word Polybius uses for "illustrious" is epiphan

That was good! If you can't get it try starting really close to your monitor. Oh, and don't bother Googling "lude the as"!

I haven't seen Season 2 yet (but I don't care about spoliers so I read these threads!) but Posca is alive? I thought he died when he got thumped on the head by Quintus Pompey as he was running out of the Curia?

Holy Cow, Andrew...I believe you are correct! When I look back on all of the other potables that Isidore describes in that chapter, almost all of them are only one sentence where mine was two. I am incredibly embarrassed. I didn't recognize saccatum as a proper noun, instead I recognized it as the past participle/adjective "strained" (which is a correct form) which seemed to make perfect sense to me at the time. With your revelation it is clear that that saccatum has nothing to do with Hyrdomelum and that saccatum is water mixed with wine-lees and squeezed from a bang. Mea magna culpa!. Sorry all!

Sorry, I don't know what made me say Cato...you are correct sir!

An excellent point Cicero. I have just spent the last 15 minutes or so looking at statues of the late republic and early empire (Mostly Augustus but some Cato as well) and although the toga does run across the right shoulder for the most part it runs behind the shoulder and then comes around the front for the most part leaving a wide diagnol stretch of the front of the tunic uncovered. With this configuration you would see either all of the shoulder stripe or the upper half of the center stripe. I will constinue to search and see. Thanks for your suggestion.

Salve- Translating names like this into Latin are quite difficult because the concept of this type of descriptive name or the concept behind Superman in its entirety wouldn't make sense in Latin, but I'll give it a shot. My best suggestion would be: Vir Omnipotens Which means "All-Powerful Man". I considered "Superhuman Man" but the Latin for superhuman is "divinus", which means as you can probably guess, "divine". To do the things that Superman does if he actually existed (and in Ancient Rome) he would have been considered a god, hence the reason it is difficult to put a descriptive name on him. I hope this helps.

Omnes- Thanks for all of your responses so far, very insightful! I have found another reference that I would be very interested in garnering your opinion if this supports the down the front or over the shoulder argument or neither. I am torn myself. This time from Quintillian (so we can assume it at least refers to the 1st century AD) regarding the wearing of tunics during oration. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria , Book 11, Chapter 3: "The speaker who has not the right to wear the broad stripe, will wear his girdle(belt) in such a way that the front edges of the tunic fall a little below his knees, while the edges in rear reach to the middle of his hams. For only women draw them lower and only centurions higher. If we wear the purple stripe, it requires but little care to see that it falls becomingly; negligence in this respect sometimes excites criticism. Among those who wear the broad stripe, it is the fashion to let it hang somewhat lower than in garments that are retained by the girdle."

Mi Gai- Indeed, Smith is my favorite source for finding cites. I used that article to find the excerpt from Isidore. Omnes- I would like to ammend my above translation. I misinterpreted "faece vini" as "dregs, wine". It should be "dregs of wine". The "dregs of wine", that is, the sediment that forms during/after fermentation (more commnly known as the "lees") were commonly used as a spice. So in fact, the cider was not mixed with wine and was most likely fermented and spiced too! Sorry for my earlier mistake.