Q Valerius Scerio

Huh. I thought you said they weren't sciences. Why are you moving the goalposts now? I never claimed they were physical sciences, merely sciences. Now you've proven my point for me. Thank you.

I also agree that the play is much better than the film. Luckily for me I saw the play first. However, it was not written by Plautus. The play was actually based on two plays by Plautus - Psuedolus and Miles Gloriosus. In neither of those plays was there a character named "Hero" nor a "Domina". Those are the modern inventions. But do realize that hero is a Latin word (from Lt. Heros; from Greek). And if you remember us talking about it earlier, I mentioned that it did have a demigod-like meaning attached to it.

Archaeology falls under anthropology and philology under linguistics, both of which employ scientific methods. How are they not using the scientific method?

How is scientific misleading? Archaeology and philology are both sciences. Following the scientific method is the only requisite of science, and both do that exactly. Next thing you know you hear that "evolution" isn't science.

Stuffy? Best term? Scientific inquiry is what, I hope, you are doing. Why use a label that has always had a quite negative connotation to it? Revisionism gives the idea that you have an agenda and you wish to change history to suit that. Revisionism is what Rameses the Great is doing - envisioning Rome as some Evil Empire and Spartacus as the voracious hero who steps up despite all odds to strike it down. Revisionism is when religious neo-fascist theocrats decide that the country was founded on the Bible. I shudder at revisionism.

Scientific Inquiry?

Yes, but I didn't think that was the point? Certainly Hellenization had some effect on Roman society, whether positive or negative, and it certainly wasn't the same afterwards.

But is pilfering others corruption for the tribe? The Romans would disagree. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for individualism, but we have to look at it from the Romans' viewpoint. And Cato was a lot closer to the "crime" of hellenization that Tacitus was. By the time of the principate, hellenization had long ago occurred and was deeply seated within the society. Cato was old enough to be born in a time before the Greeks really had major influence in Rome, and yet lived to see its birth.

Intellectual cousins? I've never been fond of using familiar terms to describe complex relationships. Agreed that there is some remnant of Greek philosophy in Christianity, but that says nothing of itself. More specifically, Christianity is descends from Judaism with an emphasis on its mystical side, which was later transformed into its current Orthodox state of pseudo-Judaic christology by Platonism. Despite this, there is still a resilient strain of asceticism left over from ascetic Judaism (not Stoicism) but this is downplayed heavily.

N.B. You have to have access through your institution in order to access this journal. Most universities should have it.

Actually, the Etruscans had the gladiatorial games first, if I recall correctly. The Greek culture that Cato lambasted was the decadence, hedonism, and opulence that religious and pious Romans did not like. Nudity, excessive feasts, lavish decorations, the Dionysian theatre. The Romans were very prudent. It's very easy - I scorn Platonism and laud Stoicism and Stoic/Ascetic aspects of Christianity. I don't think you will find many people who dislike Christianity wholly, but certainly it doesn't seem far-fetched to not like the anti-intellectual, the theistic, the evangelical, the apocalyptic, the xenophobic sides of Christianity?

It's ok, Rameses. I don't mean to be condescending, but translations aren't to be thrown around lightly. What if, for instance, he was getting a tattoo, or spent a lot of money printing up fliers or advertisement with the wrong advice? It's always better to not say anything if you have no idea how a language works. I do hope this encourages you to learn Latin. It's a beautiful language, once you learn it, and merely the process itself is rewarding. PS - And do note that this goes for all languages. I wouldn't dare try to give a Sanskrit translation of some English phrase, even if I do have the dictionary downstairs. In fact, there'd only be one language I'm truly comfortable in translating from English: Latin. I do want to correct an error I made earlier. Plurus isn't even a word at all. It's the comparative form of "multus" - plus, pluris "more". A temporary brain lapse had me thinking that plus, pluris was some sort of noun and plurus the adjective.

"Plurus visio, unus matris." Rameses the Great wrote this above. Anyone who has taken basic Latin should know that this really says, "Plural vision; one of a mother" and is still grammatically incorrect, since vision is feminine. You can't take a dictionary and try to match word for word - nor can you really use a translation program - more often than not they're just plain wrong. Do you actually know Latin? Anything at all about it's grammar? Anything at all about how the words are used themselves and not in relation to English? I doubt it. Can you parse your own phrase? I can. plurus - singular, masculine, nominative; visio - singular feminine nominative; unus - singular, masculine, nominative; matris - singular, feminine, genitive. Nothing in that sentence aligns. Even if the words themselves were correct, the grammar would still read "plurae visiones; una mater." Yet even that is wrong. Plurae visiones would mean "plural visions" - visio coming from, visus, the perfect past participle of video, which means "to see". It means something that is seen - a vision, apparition. It can be used metaphorically, like vision in English, to mean an ideal, or something sought after. It does not mean face. Face is either facies or vultus. Actually, I think vultus would fit better than facies. Multi vulti; una mater. (Or if you used archaic, then multa volta; una mater). Chris

Multae facies; una mater.

And just to clarify - you don't need to be advanced in Latin in order to discuss the text. However, a bulk of the conversation will be focused on the actual Latin, so if you don't know any Latin, but still would like to hear, then come on anyway!

I’ve decided to do a reading of the entire Res Gestae in Latin at the forum. If you’re interested, sign up here! Title: Res Gestae Divi Augusti Scope: A reading and full translation of Res Gestae with a study of the historical events behind it. Prerequisites: At least some advanced Latin knowledge. The symposium will be reading Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Every week, we will be working through the selected passages commenting on both the Latin text and any historical information behind it. Everyone who knows Latin or would like to learn about the history behind the first emporer is welcome to join. The first meeting will commence on Monday and will last through the whole week. Adeste Latini Romanique!

It's certainly not Latin.

Carpere is merely the infinitive of carpo. Carpe is the imperative form. "(You-understood) Seize the day!" And "sezie" and "pluck" in the context are too similar to differentiate.

It was found in Panormus, Sicily, although there is a question mark after that statement. Other than that, I've no idea, although he must have been sure enough not to explain what he means by the question. From my inference, there was probably a small debate on its provenance, but generally points to Panormus, Sicily or at least somewhere in Sicily. I'll look into it more.

Very interesting. Thanks for the information!

The Latin is archaic, which is why it's "heic" and not "hic" (with a long i). However, it still used the ablative and not the genitive.

My recent blogpost may be of interest to some here. http://neonostalgia.com/weblog/?p=81 A couple days ago I mentioned about translation problems. Browsing through Remains of Old Latin IV, I found an advertisement for a temple inscriber in both Greek and Latin, in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum X 07296. Στηλαι ενθαδε τυπουνται και χαρασσονται νασις ιερος συν ενεργειαις δημοσσιαις. “Slabs here are modelled and engraved for holy temples with public labors.” Tituli heic ordinantur et sculpuntur aidibus sacreis cum operum publicorum. “Inscriptions here are ordered and engraved for holy temples with public labors.” Can you guess the errors? No cheating now. Actually, there is are three errors: a grammatical error, a word usage error, and a translation error. The grammar error should be recognizable enough: cum operum publicorum ought to be cum operis publicis since cum takes an ablative, not a genitive. What’s funny, though, is that συν also takes a dative (Greek lost its ablative case fairly early; the dative and genitive case took over its function), which would correspond with the ablative, and not a genitive like some Greek prepositions. Perhaps, as Warmington noted, the translator was confusing it with μετα? The second error is that ordinare “to order, to arrange” is not a very good word used to translate τυποω “to mold”. In my opinion, fingere seems a much better word that should have been used. The third error is that ενεργεια does not indicate public labor. I cannot confirm this absolutely, but I think it is closer to the Latin actus than opus.

Hispano-Celtic was written in a modified Greek/Phoenician alphabet from at least the 3rd Century BC as was Southern Iberian (which is attested earlier) Interesting. Do you have a source for this I can read up on? And did they make it into the Empire? I wouldn't doubt it, but I've no idea. As for Oscan and Umbrian, surely, like Etruscan, those died out before the dawning of the Empire? It's been too long since I looked at the materials, so I could be wrong.

Written Languages existing under the Empire: Hebrew, Aramaic/Syriac, Greek, Egyptian (Late Egyptian both Hieroglyphic and Demotic and later Coptic). The other languages on your list weren't, as far as I know, written until after the Empire was decayed.

It was used to describe Caesar Augustus precisely because he was an Imperator. The emporer (princeps) held many titles, including Imperator.