Flavius Inismeus
-
Posts
23 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Flavius Inismeus
-
-
24 minutes ago, cinzia8 said:
Definitely!
I imagine in an empire of such magnitude that some people knew very well how to alter their consciousness not only for spiritual reasons but also for respite from physical pain and their reality. Can you imagine living in those times? You might need a good buzz now and then. Ha! ha!
I will have to research if I can use the word 'opium' (did the process exist in the far east in the 5th century
The Far East, as in China? Pliny the Elder has a description here http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D20%3Achapter%3D76, "opium" is a good Latin word.
24 minutes ago, cinzia8 said:Was it something smuggled to market or openly sold?). Maybe it was manufactured in the Western Empire.
The only Roman list of controlled substances I can think of right away is an excerpt from Aelius Marcianus in the Digest on the Cornelian Law of Assassins and Poisoners. No opium there, I suppose it was openly sold for medical use.
QuoteIt is provided by another Decree of the Senate that dealers in ointments who rashly sell hemlock, salamander, aconite, pine-cones, buprestis, mandragora, and give cantharides as a purgative, are liable to the penalty of this law.
-
In a nine-part (!) 1997 article in Substance Use & Misuse, which was enticingly entitled "The Rules of Drug Taking: Wine and Poppy Derivatives in the Ancient World," Paolo Nencini came to a downer
conclusion:
QuoteThe widespread therapeutic use of opium and its probable ritual use is faced with the absence of any explicit description of cases of opium dependence. It is possible that this was due to a lack of diagnostic capability. However, even the attempt to uncover cases of opium dependence by systematically analyzing the literary passages in which poppies, opium, and meconium are quoted are unsuccessful. The only two cases of suspected opium addiction that can be selected in this way are those of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius and Ovid. The most parsimonious interpretation is the lack of an hedonic use of poppy derivatives, being that this kind of use is the most frequently connected with the development of addiction.
Speaking of ritual use:
QuoteSeveral literary and iconographic sources, in particular of the early Roman imperial age, are here interpreted as evidence that poppy derivatives were ingested during mystery rites.
Given that "[t]o defend the old faith the high aristocracy, not content with Roman tradition and the Latin classics, fell back in retreat on 'haruspicina', on portents and prophecy, on the folly of magic and theosophy" (Syme), I think an author can have a couple of late 4th century pagan senators up in smoke.
-
17 hours ago, barca said:
I did read Tim O’Neill’s vitriolic review. He almost convinced me that her book was not worth reading. He was on a mission to totally discredit her. As much as he accuses her of biases, he cannot help but show his own biases with a very unbalanced review.
having read the book anyway, I found it a compelling read even though there are some imperfections and exaggerations, Nixey should perhaps write a revised version where she addresses all the complaints of her critics.
Where would be the money in that? She'll write another book on another subject.
And yep, I wouldn't have read Nixey's book had I seen O'Neill's review first, at no great loss. This reader doesn't really need emotional polemicizing against Christianity to convince himself that it's intolerant etc., the basic tenets of three Abrahamic faiths repel him anyway. Reading Momigliano, both A. Camerons, David Potter, and Peter Brown on the period has much to be recommended over Nixey's own vitriol.
-
On 4/18/2018 at 3:16 PM, caldrail said:
I seem to recall that a display of crocodiles in the arena failed because the animals died before the show. In the reign of Augustus? I will have to read again.
I think I've found it, it must've been Symmachus. From Peter Heather's Fall of the Roman Empire, p. 21:
QuoteOur last glimpse of Symmachus the circus master is a fairly desperate one. There had been delays, the letters tell us, and since the only surviving crocodiles were refusing to eat, he was anxiously urging that the games be staged before the poor animals expired from starvation.
-
Certainly; I omitted Commodus from my list because the poor I-am-Iron-Man was likely done in by a vast
right-wingAfrican conspiracy, "caught up in the machinations of others," i.e. Aemilius Laetus first and foremost.However, Laetus appears to have fixed his own fate in masterminding the plot.
Perhaps he expected to betray Pertinax to Septimius Severus, but Pertinax got himself killed too early, and Laetus had to face Didius Julianus anxious to secure himself. That was unfortunate.
-
On 5/1/2018 at 0:18 PM, caldrail said:
Caligula wasn't crazy. I agree he wasn't especially well adjusted as an individual, but then the Romans were often colourful characters. What we can easily observe is his immaturity. He takes nothing seriously except his own importance and safety. He plays games with people, he acts out roles, such as general, auctioneer, gladiator, statesman, and so on. However his sense of humour is black, and as a cruel personality, almost like a child torturing ants, he is callous to lesser individuals. In fact his sense of humour did nothing for his survival chances. Cassius Chaerea, the Praetorian Prefect at the time, was a war hero from the conflicts in Germania. Unfortunately, Chaerea also had a soft voice, and Caligula teased him mercilessly about his manhood. Right up until Chaerea - alongside other conspirators - stabbed him in a tunnel leading to the theatre.
Quite a few of the 'bad' emperors could've stayed alive if they had cared about, or at least had not messed with, their guards and personal staff. Caligula, Domitian, most likely Caracalla, several barracks emperors.
-
On 4/30/2018 at 10:23 PM, indianasmith said:
Given Pilate's tenuous standing in Judea - there had been two near riots occasioned by his insensitivity towards local customs and traditions - it does make sense that he would want his version of events to reach Rome first.
A crucifixion of three provincial troublemakers seems to me the very model of a Roman non-event.
On 4/30/2018 at 10:23 PM, indianasmith said:Essentially, your quote boils down to "one scholar postulates that Justin only assumed such a report existed." In the end, it's a quotation of an assumption presuming an assumption!
It's four scholars, and it's better than nothing.
-
On 4/27/2018 at 6:57 AM, guy said:
Thank you for reading my post.
I certainly recommend Harper's book. I appreciate his enthusiasm and study ... but neither are proof alone. (If both enthusiasm and study were sufficient, I would believe in Ancient Aliens.
)
Aren't Ancient Aliens pretty much enthusiasm-only?
-
1 hour ago, indianasmith said:
Also, I should note that Justin Martyr, in his FIRST APOLOGY written to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, after recounting the history of the crucifixion, commented "that these things did happen, you can ascertain for yourself by consulting the Acts of Pontius Pilate."
At one time there was a report filed to Rome about the events of that tumultuous Passover weekend. A shame it's lost to history! (I did write a novel about that, too, actually!!! ;-) )
Seems quite unlikely, Minns and Parvis comment in the 2009 edition of Apologies (the note to IA 35.9
QuoteAnd that these things happened you can learn from the Acts Recorded Under Pontius Pilate.
that
QuoteThe Greek text might also mean 'the deeds done under Pontius Pilate', but we haνe supposed that Justin's use, οn both occasions, of the Latin word for 'Acts' indicates that he has in mind a document. Scheidweiler says that the reference to the census-lists made under Quirinius (IA 34.2) 'which certainly did not exist . . . prompts the suspicion that Justin's reference to the acta of Pilate rests solely οn the fact that he assumed such documents must have existed' (New Testament Apocrypha Ι, 501). Hill considers that Justin is here referring to the memoirs of the apostles, including Johannine material ('Was John's Gospel Among Justin's Apostolic Memoirs?', in Justin Martyr and His Worlds, 91).
-
8 hours ago, pattrick123 said:
The Romans had no problem with religion. As pagans, they saw no differentiation between their beliefs and those of the Essenes and Jesus's own cult.
The matters of strict monotheism, circumcision and insistence on no pork in the dining room pretty much forced the Romans to distinguish the Jews, Jesus and his followers included, from run-of-the-mill devotees of Isis, Cybele, or the Rider God. The Empire had a serious beef with Druidism, and the effort to destroy it was successful.
8 hours ago, pattrick123 said:However, Jesus was a rabble rouser, and in Judaea of that time such a person was liable to bring themselves to the attention of the authorities for security issues, which is exactly what happened.
Yes, Jesus arrested and executed as an anti-Roman seditionist seems most likely, at least to me.
-
Kyle Harper presents a strong case for "Antonine smallpox" in last year's Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire, but in the end we'll have to wait for scientific discovery (Walter Scheidel in the introduction to The Science of Roman History, 2018). Hard to argue with that.
Incidentally, Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi was proposed as the causal agent of the Plague of Athens.
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(05)00178-5/fulltext
Which proved controversial.
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(06)00053-1/fulltext
-
With most of his beard broken off, Marcus Aurelius looks like a 17th century European noble.
-
5 hours ago, caldrail said:
I seem to recall that a display of crocodiles in the arena failed because the animals died before the show. In the reign of Augustus? I will have to read again.
I think I've read something about such a disappointment in an ancient author, but I'm far from sure it was the crocodiles who died.
-
http://www.strachan.dk is always a great place to start researching; Christian C. Strachan has done a lot of hard work collating the stemmata from the plethora of prosopographical studies.
Women have their uses for historians. They offer relief from warfare, legislation, and the history of ideas; and they enrich the central theme of social history, if and when enough evidence is available. Ladies of rank under the first imperial dynasty are a seductive topic.
Ronald Syme, The Augustan Aristocracy (1986)
To continue from the thread on interests on the Rubellii: http://www.strachan.dk/family/rubellius.htm presents a stemma - with a small mistake, it should be "or dt of R109" for Rubellia Bassa. Hence it is far from clear that Bassa truly was a member of the first dynasty.
-
There's a subforum, https://www.unrv.com/forum/forum/59-nomina-et-gentes/
-
On 1/18/2018 at 7:18 PM, sonic said:
Over the last few months there have been a lot of new members signing in to UNRV. However few of them have posted. So a few basic questions for these individuals.
What period of Roman history fascinates you the most?
What the French grandly call Haut-Empire, even if it didn't look too Haut in the third century.
On 1/18/2018 at 7:18 PM, sonic said:What aspect of that period (e.g. military, emperors, religion) are you most interested in?
I'm omnivorous, but if I had to choose - the genealogy and prosopography of the senate and high equestrians from Augustus to Gallienus.
On 1/18/2018 at 7:18 PM, sonic said:Are there any specific questions you have yet to find the answers to?
To take the period of 96-138 solely: What happened to the sons of Flavius Clemens? Was Nerva in on Domitian's assassination? How was the adoption of Trajan managed? Why was Laberius Maximus exiled? Who was Publilius Celsus, and was the affair of Four Consulars for real? The course of Jewish wars of Trajan and Hadrian? Who were the early Hadrianic governors of Syria? Antinous - suicide or accidental death? Why Aelius Caesar? Why Aurelius Antoninus and not Catilius Severus or Salvidienus Orfitus? So many questions, so few sources.
7 hours ago, Bantymom said:I found this site looking for information first on names for Roman women and then about famous Roman women, and then about how long did any of the most well-known lines continue.
Welcome, and it might be the right place, even if it's awfully quiet and Christian Settipani is likely not a UNRV member. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Settipani On the other hand, maybe he is.
7 hours ago, Bantymom said:So that's why I finally joined, but now I don't know where to ask my question. I need to find a female descendant of someone important, yes, even someone close to an emperor or such. I need her not to have been executed (rather limits the choices it seems), or at least have her execution have been, perhaps, iffy. Some way that she might have been turned sometime in her 30s-50s. A vague execution could be construed as a cover up for her having gone missing, but a very public execution would make her being made into a vampire the way think of vampires being made (thanks to Stoker) impossible. Someone whose birth was recorded but whose death was not so important as to be a big deal. Someone who just died for an unknown reason would be best. So far, all I've found is Rubellia Bassa, the daughter of Julia Livia (AD 5–43) (a.k.a.) Julia Drusi Caesaris filia or her daughter, Octavia.
Rubellia Bassa's ascendance is far from established, I'm afraid. She might have been daughter of C. Rubellius Blandus (suff. 18) and Julia, or his daughter by an unknown first wife, or even his sister, the daughter of C. Rubellius Blandus proconsul of Crete-and-Cyrene (Settipani's idea).
This one, perhaps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavia_Domitilla_(saint) Her sainthood and her Christianity are pretty iffy - she could've had fun through the ages, knowing that she was revered as a saint.
There are hundreds of names of senatorial women anyway. Is there a genealogy thread here to talk it through?
-
10 hours ago, Sabrina said:
Hi, sorry for my English...but dude, I'm Italian.
As italian I grew up obsessed by Roman Empire, all in Italy is based on Roman Empire.
Bacco is our international god!
And I was asked me "we come from Ancient Greek"? And I noticed yes...is funny noticed that we are so close to Trojan, for our slang!
Hello!
I truly nope not every troia is Trojan, for the sake of Ilium that was!
10 hours ago, Sabrina said:But, after all, people tell me that a Enea created Padova...true?
But how is the real history?
And is meaning we re Trojan?
QuoteThe peculiar Roman synthesis of the legend of Romulus with the legend of Aeneas no doubt developed slowly through the centuries with materials which are partly indigenous, partly Greek and perhaps partly Etruscan. It is important as an indication of what the Romans thought about themselves at least from the end of the fourth century B.C. onwards. When the Romans decided that they were ultimately Trojans, they were in effect saying that they were neither Greeks nor Etruscans - an answer in anticipation to the question put by the Greeks whether Rome was a Greek or an Etruscan polis.
So said Arnaldo Momigliano in the revised Cambridge Ancient History. Italy, which itself was populated with a great number of peoples (think Social War), with Gauls north of the Po, has welcomed a great many nations throughout the ages, I think it's hard to say who didn't come to Rome of the Caesars. Juvenal railing about Syrian migrants to Rome in the times of Hadrian sounds distinctly modern. Italians are a wonderful mix.
10 hours ago, Sabrina said:This is why Spartacus were so obsessed with us? Ahahah?!
And it's really funny noticed that Italian politic is still working the same, only without murders!
Thanks, I hope isn't OT all this...but dude, it's Italy!
Where all happened!
QuoteThe first characteristic of the myth about the foundation of Rome is precisely that it is a myth about a city, not about a tribe or a nation. The citizens of Rome were always conscious of belonging to the comparatively small nation of the Latins which in its turn was identifiable by its specific language, its specific sanctuaries and (at least for a long time) federal institutions. The Roman story recognizes the existence of the Latins and of their centres Lavinium and Alba Longa, but does not explain the origins of the Latins as a whole. Secondly, the Roman legend emphasized in its most authoritative versions that both Aeneas and Romulus had one divine parent (but on the opposite side, Aeneas having a divine mother and Romulus a divine father: Venus and Mars were not unknown to each other in Greek myths). Both were leaders of migrant bands which in turn absorbed alien elements. The ultimate impression the Romans wanted to give of themselves was of a society with divine, but by no means pure, origins in which political order was created by the fusion of heterogeneous and often raffish elements, after a fratricide had marked the city's foundation.
Momigliano again, and he leaves a distinct impression that he would've agreed with you in general terms.
-
I must be really late to this party, but whatever.
I am an ardent admirer of Roman history who cherishes the times of the Flavii, the Ulpii, and the Aelii most, and I'd dearly like to write a novel or three set in this period (wannabe historical novelist is a dreaded species!), but I know a few things about the neighboring periods as well. Ego vox clamantis in deserto, perhaps, and a feeble vox to boot, yet still a voice.
-
On 8/12/2014 at 5:34 PM, Pompieus said:
They treated the Augers oddly. These priests were not a separate sect outside the mainstream that had to be influenced by secret negotiations, but were elected from the main players in the state. In fact Antonius and Pompey were Augers, and Caesar, as Pontifex Maximus, was responsible for their supervision.
Yes and no; I think they (correctly) showed Cicero lurking among the augurs, but the whole business of auspication was a travesty. The question of whether the PM supervised augurs is rather thorny; Mommsen thought so, but Jerzy Linderski states in the beginning of his article on the augural law in ANRW that pontifices took care of sacra and augurs of auspicia, and that was that. Further, R. E. A. Palmer argues in "The Deconstruction of Mommsen on Festus 462/464, or the Hazards of Interpretation," in Imperium sine fine: T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic (F. Steiner, 1996), pp. 75-101, that Mommsen's reconstruction of the source was wrong: it was not an augur but a reluctant choice for flamen Dialis whom the PM tried to discipline.
-
"A worse narrative than that of Tacitus concerning this war, Annals 14, 31-39, is hardly to be found even in this most unmilitary of all authors," Theodore Mommsen stated. Unfairly.
Tacitus' account is still the one to begin with. Then there's The Rebellion of Boudicca by Dudley and Webster (1962), Boudica: Iron Age Warrior Queen by Hingley and Unwin (2006), and the Osprey offering, Boudicca's Rebellion, AD 60-61 by Nic Fields (2011).
-
It's not exactly the four gospels, but there's a CUP book https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/acts-of-the-apostles-and-the-rhetoric-of-roman-imperialism/D2B7967999AD41B56055E832C87224C6#fndtn-information where "Drew W. Billings demonstrates that Acts was written in conformity with broader representational trends and standards found on imperial monuments and in the epigraphic record of the early second century."
-
Good as polemic, not so much as history. Tim O'Neill has a lengthy review of it over at his blog: https://historyforatheists.com/2017/11/review-catherine-nixey-the-darkening-age/
Jörg Rüpke's From Jupiter to Christ is a recent scholarly book on the question, and I'd like to read The Dawn of Christianity by Robert Knapp.
Roman Recreational Drugs
in Romana Humanitas
Posted
It's rather my inelegant phrasing, I should've said 'an excerpt from Aelius Marcianus on the subject of Cornelian Law of Assassins and Poisoners in the Digest', the Digest here being https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Anglica/digest_Scott.htm