Publius Nonius Severus
-
Posts
147 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Publius Nonius Severus
-
-
Gaius Octavius to Gaius OctaviANus.
what is the relevance of the added 'an'?
I also seem to remember that Sejanus had the 'an' added?
Good question, per William Smith:
If a person by adoption passed from one gens into another, he assumed the praenomen, nomen, and cognomen of his adoptive father, and added to these the name of his former gens, with the termination anus. Thus C. Octavius, after being adopted by his great-uncle C. Julius Caesar, was called C. Julius Caesar Octavianus, and the son of L. Aemilius Paullus, when adopted by P. Cornelius Scipio, was called P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus -
...Now if Perseus would just finish it's upgrade I could add some quality links to English Cicero texts.
If you considered it of high enough quality, you could always link to the appropriate pages of the Google Books version of Cicero's works (if only in the interim). For example:
In the example above from De Republica, the source is Barham's The political works of Marcus Tullius Cicero. This is the same source as the Online Library of Liberty's HTML version of De Republica, but, is easier to link to since you can link to a specific page in Google Books unlike the OLL version which has entire book (in this case Book II) on the same HTML page without sections to link to individually.
I know all of De Republica is available in this source from Google Books as well as De Officiis, and De Legibus. I am not sure about all of the letters but I haven't looked yet either.
If you are interested in linking like this, I would be more than willing to help getting specific links for you (I am always looking for side projects!) Let me know!
-
Rummikub became a favorite of my wife and me. It is very similar to playing Gin rummy except with tiles instead of cards.
-
There is a suggestion in some of the source material i have read that mercantile factions within the senate wanted the destruction of Corinth to prevent competition for key trade routes, perhaps Rome 'forced' them to revolt.
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?
Like Cato, I too am unfamiliar with any primary sources supporting the theory. A good deal of the specifics we do have come from fragmented sources unfortunately. The best chronology of the whole affair that I have found comes from Pausanias' Description of Greece. What I can find does not dismiss the suggestion that Rome "forced" them to revolt, but I think makes it unlikely. Let's look at a bulletized chronology:
147 B.C.
-Roman envoys arrive to arbitrate between the Lacedaemonians and the Achaeans (disupte between them instigated by Diaeus).
-The envoys are maltreated by the Achaeans (the work of Critolaus).
146 BC
-Critolaus takes over for Diaeus and persuades the League to declare war.
-Rome despatches Mummius to fight the Achaeans .
-Metellus doesn't want Mummius to get all the credit so he sends envoys with terms to Critolaus.
-Critolaus still refuses and his forces are defeated by Metellus.
-Diaeus takes over and also refuses to entertain terms.
-Mummius arrives, takes command, enters Corinth and...
If Rome's actions up to the point where their legation was mistreated were designed to "force" the Achaeans into revolt it would have had to have been a very deep and complex political maneveur that could have easily failed (what if they simply said yes to their terms?). I am sure they could have enticed rebellion in a more simple manner if they were so inclined. I am of the opinion that at this point the Romans did not want another war (yet). Macedonia was still being settled and despite good progress in the war in Africa they were still fully engaged against Carthage. Now, it does appear that Mummius was ordered to attack and raze Corinth:
Livy, Periochae, 52In his place Diaeus, the instigator of the Achaean revolt, was elected as leader by the Achaeans, and he was defeated at the Isthmus by consul Lucius Mummius. Having received the surrender of all Achaea and being ordered to do so by the Senate, he sacked Corinth, where the Roman envoys had been maltreated.
But their is no evidence that the basis of this decision was for commercial purposes (but it leaves the door open for such a suggestion).
My theory as to the reason war broke out was because Critolaus and Diaeus manipulated the situation in that direction for their own purposes. Why would they do such a thing (that so clearly appears to us to be a war they could not win)? From their perspective, this was most likely their last chance to maintain power. If Rome faced setbacks in their war against Carthage or wasw even outrightly defeated, the Achaens would have been in a very good position (the war was still in progrees when they started their shenanigans). Perhaps they felt if they did nothing, they would eventually be overcome...but if they could exert some dominance while Rome was stretched thin, and might reinforce their power. They rolled the dice and lost against unfavorable odds. However, I firmly believe had they not provoked Rome, Corinth would not have been razed. Would Rome have benefitted from a ruined Corinth...of course, but they would have had little justification for such actions without war.
-
I saw this has been touched upon in a previous thread so do excuse me if it has already been said.
Basically how did a person of plebeian rank get allowed into the senate?
Can they just walk up with the correct qualifications, a few supporters and go "Can I join." Surely not.
vtc
It did vary over time, but the primary way for anyone to enter the Senate was getting voted in a higher magistracy. If you were elected as quaestor, the censors normally entered you into the senatorial census. That is not to say that you were there for life, the censors could remove you for various reasons.
The other way to enter the Senate was to be appointed because of your (or your family's) dignitas by the Censors or by special appointment by a Dictator or other such means.
For a more thorough treatment check out Smith's detailed description of the Senate:
Senatus (scroll down to where is says p1018 on the right to jump right to how senators were selected.
-
Excellent points and counter Doc...thanks for such a thorough treatment.
I am in no position to refute...I am an amateur at exploring the evolution of languages so your explanation is really inciteful....clearly English is popular because it makes "business" sense...I guess I thought that its weak inflection just hastened its popularity. I just had a hard time seeing English being as popular as it is if it were actually Icelandic (which is the hardest language I have ever had to learn ((even harder than Latin)).
-
Building upon Doc's and Sonic's explanation of the linguistical influences, I would like to throw my two cents in. I cannot speak with any academic authority, but as an amateur student of languages, I think one of the most enduring effects was the role that the Viking incursions may have had in the loss iof inflection in the eventual development of Modern English.
One of the reasons I think English is so heavily taught today as a second language is the simplification of grammatical rules that follows with minimal inflection. For the other languages I learned, the most difficult part was learning all the various rules for noun/adjective declension and verb conjugation. I never realized how simple English grammar was in comparison to so many other languages until you get the nominative, accusative, dative, genetive...subjunctive, conditional, etc. etc. thrown at you. Sure, there are still some elements of inflection in English (mostly seen in pronouns, marking possesive with a clitic "s", etc.)., but if English were heavily inflected and as difficult as it currently is to learn proper pronunciation, I think we would see and hear far less English in the world.
So, what does this have to do with the Vikings? Old English was a heavily inflected language. I had always wondered how and when what we today call Modern English lost its inflection. I found some interesting information at the following site:
The Loss of Inflections by Barry Rawling
Specifially on the claim of some academics that:
...a crucial aspect having a major influence on OE inflections was the incursion of the Vikings. It is argued that, in their attempts to communicate with each other, the English and the Scandinavians would have adopted a kind of pidgin. This may have subsequently evolved into a type of creole employed as a lingua franca for everyday communication between the two cultures. Because in the initial stages (as with pidgins the world over) there would have been a greater dependence on word order, the need for inflectional endings would have been greatly reduced....Of course this may not be the only or even the primary reason English grammar became more simple, but if true, I think it is a very important influence on how we all communicate today even if only an indirect "benefit" of the viking incursions.
-
Salve
Regarding Caesar's use of Imperator - would it then be technically correct to date the end of the Republic with Caesar instead of with Octavius as is usually done?
A little OT, but...If you are refereing to the use of the term "Imperator" as akin to "Emperor", I would say no. If you mean was this the defining moment that marked the end of the Republic...perhaps? There has been a lot of debate of what event/date marked the actual end of the Republic. Some months ago our Cato asked the question in a different thread:
Here's the quote:
In contrast, when (and in what) do we observe the "fall" of the republic?-In 59, with activation of the "Three Headed Monster"?
-In 49, when Caesar marched on Rome?
-In 48, after Pharsalus?
-In 46, after Utica?
-In 45, after Munda?
-In 44, after Caesar's assassination?
-In 43, when the lex Titia sanctioned a junta to create a new constitution?
-In 42, after Philippi?
-In 31, after Actium?
-In 28, when public affairs were handed back to the Senate and People of Rome?
-In 27, when public affairs were again handed back to the Senate and People of Rome?
-In 23, when Augustus took the title of Princeps?
-In 14, when Tiberius took the title of Princeps in monarchical fashion and effectively abolished popular election to the magistracies?
-
Regarding the question of the title Imperator - if it's any help, the Fasti do not record the use of the name by Caesar in his consulships of 48 and 46-44. Interestingly, they do record this title with regard to Octavian/Augustus from 33BC onwards. So, regardless of coinage, the fact that the Fasti makes this distinction would incline me to think that Caesar's use of 'Imperator' was not a part of his official nomenclature, as it was with Octavian/Augustus.
This verifies the historian Ballard, who claims he did not officially adopt the title.
Eventhough "Imperator" is not mentioned specificallu, Cassius Dio presents evidence that Caesar did not always employe every title he had, which I think makes the argument stronger:
Cassius Dio, Roman History, Book XLIII, Chap 46.These were the measures that were passed in honour of his victory (I do not mention all, but as many as have seemed to me notable), not in one day, to be sure, but just as it happened, at different times. Caesar began to avail himself of some, and was intending to use others in the future, however emphatically he declined some of them. Thus he took the office of consul immediately, even before entering the city, but did not hold it through the whole year; instead, when he got to Rome he renounced it, turning it over to
-
...Thanks for the reminder! It's a great website, Smith's dictionaries, isn't it?
I agree completely! In nearly all cases they are the first place I look when I want to look something up or get refreshed. Considering how comprehensive his dictionaries are, that they are online at various places (Lacus Curtius, Google Books, Ancient Library, and the Univ of Mich.), they have excellent source references, and they are free...they are absolutely invaluable tools in any student of Roman history!
-
three questions RE Caesar:
When exactly did he start wearing the purple robe? After Thapsus or Munda?
Secondly, I have read opposing arguments that he used or didnt use the title imperator officially, which is it?
Thirdly, Appian states that statues of him were put in all the temples. This is an exaggeration?
Does anyone have a list handy of the chronology of Caesar's honors? I did a search and can't find one.
I cannot answer two and three, but for the first, Smith states:
Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, Vol 1, p. 553The senate received him with the most servile flattery. They had in his absence voted a public thanksgiving of fifty days on account of his victory in Spain, and various other honorary de
-
There were also neighborhood magistrates that could police their own neighborhoods as well I believe.
Were these magistrates among the Vintigisexviri?
No, mi Cicero, I believe they were called vicomagistri, neighborhood magistrates.
Here is a link to the appropriate article in Smith:
The article discusses how they existed in the time of the Principate, but they also did pre-date Augustus.
-
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
-
Excellent analysis as usual, Cato! What I wrote above was not a theory based on evidence, just supposition so I would like to explore the matter further. Regarding this para:
... Ultimately, almost any independent interpretation of the sources requires some sense of what really happened at the Lupercalia. For example, the account by Nicolaus of Damascus, who had eyewitness testimony to Caesar's assassination, differs greatly from that of Plutarch, with Nicolaus essentially depicting the event as an attempt by the Liberators to trap Caesar into taking the crown. If this view is correct (and it is entirely consistent with what little Cicero says of it), then the Lupercalia incident can't have been an attempt to salvage Caesar's handling of the tribunes.You make reference to other statements by Cicero that mention the Lupercalia incident. If I recall correctly, Cicero's take on Lupercalia (which he referenced several times in the Phillipics) was that it was part of Anthony's scheme to seize power after Caesar. Is this a correct summary? If it is, I see some potential conflicts between Nicolaus's interpretation and Cicero's (unless at the time of the incident, Anthony was conspiring with the Liberators). If not, could you expand further. I plan on reading more of what Cicero has to say but will not be able to until tonight.
-
My apologies PNS
In any case, I am more inclined to agree with Cicero (a contemporary of the events at hand), Paterculus who was 1 generation removed, Appian, Suetonius and Cassius Dio who concur, than Plutarch, who stands alone and doesn't list his reasoning for the alternative chronology. As always though, Plutarch's version has a certain flow to it that makes it seem believable.
No problem PP, great minds think alike, no?
I also agree with you and the majority that the incident with the tribunes occured first. It could really go anyway really...The Lupercalia incident was a precurosr to putting diadems on Caesar's statue as Plutarch lays it out, or, my theory is the incident with Marullus and Flavius occurred first and as an attempt at damage control of how he dealt with the tribunes, Caesar rejected the diadem at the Lupericalia festival.
-
EDIT: PP beat me to it, again!!!! I need to check if he is online before I try replying to a post from now on...good show PP!
Source Material:Dion Cass. xliv. 9, 10 ; Appian, B. C. ii. 108, 122 ; Plut. Caes. 61 ; Vell. Pat. ii. 68 ; Suet. Caes. 79, 80 ; Cic. Philipp. xiii. 15
These I had naturally read, save for Paterculus and Cicero. Paterculus puts the score now 5 to 1, and I can't access Cicero save in Latin and my Latin is sub-nominal at best.
There are a couple of English sources for a good number of Cicero's works. Here is what I believe to be the relevant pasages from Cic. Philipp. xiii. 15 from Online Library of Liberty (also available from the Perseus Project):
...What then? Were we to remove a man, as if he had been Marullus, or C -
Mi Augusta-
I cannot answer your question, but since I am ex patria in Iceland currently, and the Icelanders are quite proud of their sagas...you might be able to see what the Vikings though about England for clues to your answer:
Follow the link and search for "England". I have only looked for hits, I haven't actually looked through the results yet. Good Luck!
-
Salve, amici!
When this case was discussed by the Roman jurists (including the "Byzantine" ones), especially Julianus and Ulpianus, they had to determine the pertinence of the following legal actions:
I. actio de peculio.
II. actio mandati contraria.
III. actio de in rem verso.
IV. reivindicatio.
V. exceptio in factum.
Hmmm, I am far from a jurist but here goes:
I. actio de peculio. - Did the matter involve the Sticius's peculio?
II. actio mandati contraria. - Is there an obligation to demand reimbursement? (Julianus or Titius?)
III. actio de in rem verso. - Did Julianus derive andvantage from Sticius's actions since they were without his consent?
IV. reivindicatio. (should read rei vindicatio I think) Is a claim to the property by one with the right to own property) probably by Julianus
V. exceptio in factum. Is probably Sticius's reply to the the claim (his defense) but the in factum is used with findings, not law I think.
My head is spinning!
-
The Aediles were charged with police powers. Here is how Smith describes it:
William Smith, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities:
The general superintendence of police comprehended the duty of preserving order, decency, and the inspection of the baths, and houses of entertainment, of brothels, and of prostitutes. The aediles had various officers under them, as praecones, scribae, and viatores.There were also neighborhood magistrates that could police their own neighborhoods as well I believe.
-
Interesting concept and case...this should be fun!
Edit: Below I have made distinctions between ownership and possession as they were distinct in ancient Rome. I assume the case is about ownership (and argued as such), but it may not be...it may only be about possession in which case my arguments would need to be adjusted.
I agree with Kosmo, the transfer is probaly legal and Sticius should be the rightful owner (based on the information we have)...but, I can see why Julianus brought forward the case.
While Sticius was the property of Julianus, he could acquire no ownership of any thing (but he could acquire things for his master) and anything he posseses is the property of Julianus. The only caveat to this is whether or not Sticius had any peculium (money or other things expressly granted by the master to the slave). While a slave, even though any peculium would be Sticius', it was still owned by Julianus. Once manumitted, the peculim would be Sticius wholely as long as that was stipulated in the manumission and any debts to the former master were settled in full.
So, what does all this have to do with the case before us? Well, I can see Julianus making claim that while Sticius was his slave when he directed Titius to purchase the land for Sticius, Sticius could not rightly own it and thus it belonged to Julianus. Yes, Sticius didn't transfer ownership until after Sticius was free, but what were the terms of the agreement between Sticius and Titius when Sticius "directed" him to acquire the land? Did he pay him for it or have an obligation to pay him? If he did, then it mostl likely belonged to Julianus. If he didn't then it is easy for Titius to claim that he owned the property and was under no obligation to sell it to Sticius AND only after Sticius was freed did he sell it to him.
I wonder in Rome if possession was IX / X'ths of the law?Nope! Dominium was the right of ownership. Possessio was the right to possess something. Someone with dominium could have possessio but someone with possessio could not necessarily have dominium .
-
I know this will seem extremely simple-minded, but is there a practical guide with simplified phonetic pronounciation of Ancient Roman Latin? Many textbooks I've consulted overlook certain vowel combinations, such as "ii": is this sounded as a long "i" ("ee") or a double vowel (as "ee-ee")? I know this sounds utterly ridiculous, but I'm genuinely confused, and I'd like to have some reliable guide without embarking on a project of learning to speak Latin (as worthwhile as it might be). Don't know if this is the correct forum for this.
Wheelock has an excellent guide to pronuncation with audio examples here:
Introduction to Latin Pronunciation
If you are looking for a quick guide, page four of the following PDF should be just what you are looking for. Ancient pronunciation is on the far left.
http://www.ai.uga.edu/mc/latinpro.pdf
Good luck!
-
It took me about five years to finally decide on Publius Nonius Severus. I discovered my Romanitas about five years ago and took seriously the process for finally deciding on a name for my Roman "Persona". I tried to tie my real life persona and my Roman Persona together for my screen name.
I wanted to choose the nomen of an established plebeian gens active in the period of the late Republic (my primary period of interest). I chose Nonius because there were several Nonii documented during the period and it partially resembles my real surname. I chose Publius because my real first names begins with a P so I thought that would be a good praenomen. I chose Severus for my cognomen after considering several possible descriptors for my paternal grandfather (who was the patriarch for the branch of my real family). I thought Severus was fitting, and several of the men in my family have an S name somewhere in the mix as well. Of course, had I know ahead of time that a major character in the Harry Potter series was named "Severus", I would have chosen a different one (and still may change one day). So, I ended up with a unique but plausible name for the period of my interest to express myself in all ways Roman.
-
Edit: Wow, I have been one post behind all day today, lol!
I have to go with Eddie Izzard. A friend turned me on to him a couple of years ago and I crack up whenever I listen to his stuff. Additionally, his performance on The Riche$ is outstanding as well (although not as comedic!).
And of course, he has some brilliant routines on the Romans. One of which you can see below:
Eddie Izzard - The Romans on YouTube
-
Edit: PP beat me to it again!
It's correct, in 110 BC Marius marry Julia who was Julius Caesar aunt.Thanks for the response Ingsoc, but that's not the Julia I'm referring to. The book, and Wikipedia, allege that that woman's sister (known as Julilla or Julia Minor) married Sulla. Can't find a record of that anywhere.
The marriage of Sulla and a 'Julilla" have just be one of the fill-in's McCullough used to make the story flow better. As stated above, there is no listing of Julilia on the Julian family tree. What McCullough may have used for a basis however is a reference to a passage in Plutarch's The Life of Sulla, Chap 6:
...unworthy of the woman although they had judged him worthy of the consulship. And this was not the only woman whom he married, but first, when he was still a stripling, he took Ilia to wife, and she bore him a daughter; than Aelia, after her; and thirdly, Cloelia, whom he divorced for barrenness, honourably, and with words of praise, to which he added gifts. But since he married Metella only a few days afterwards, he was thought to have accused Cloelia unfairly...Many think the woman listed as Ilia, is corrupted (either in PLutarch's text or the source he used) and should read Julia (or Julilia), hence the possibe connection to the Julian and most liklely served as McCullough's "source". I have never seen any other reference to Sulla being Caesar's uncle directly or indirectly.
Major Roman Families
in Nomina et Gentes
Posted · Edited by Publius Nonius Severus
If you are looking for a quick breakdown by name I suggest Les Gentes Romaines. It is a site in French but is easy to navigate and understand and gives notable members of Roman families by Gens. You may also want to look up families in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology
For both of these links, you need to know who you are looking for though. It is hard to decide which is a "Major Family" so a comprehensive lists may not be available, but, if you know who you want to find, these links should be a good start. For example, here is the Caesar branch from gens Julia in Smith's dictionary. Perhaps Nephele or others will be able to share more resources. Good luck!