|
|
This topic has been archived and locked - replies are not allowed.
Watched Rome for the first time on dvd and still in shock! What historical/logical reasons could the writers have to depict the Cleopatra as they did.
The most famous woman of her time gets pregnant from an unknown Roman soldier, even though we know Egyptian royalties were so conservative as to marry within family. Not only she keeps her first born (next pharaoh), she fooled Caesar and fought all her life for his birth right as next Caesar. After the defeat, she lets the next pharaoh go safely to Rome with another Roman soldier. Out of all possible places, the best place would be Rome for a child who responds in Egyptian to the address of "his majesty". If Cleopatra was really so stupid, how could she hold the interest of Caesar and Antony for such a long time.
On the contrary, I think Cleopatra was extremely astute woman. She used marriage as an alliance to ward off Roman invasion as long as possible, even though Roman needed the grain and wealth of Egypt. Even persuaded Antony to fight his own people.
So what motivation did the writers have to depict Cleopatra as they did? Even comic books have more logic than this story!
|
Posts:
1,558
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(51 of 66)
Jul 5, 2009 3:30 AM
|
> Forgive me for cheating and asking you instead?
> No matter how many reference books I have, there are
> e never enough, and I confess to having few in Greek,
> as only one chapter is devoted to such issues I did
> not concentrate on it, naturally being more difficult
> to read than Latin.
Is it because of the alphabet? I cannot discern differences, but this is just me.
> The intonation is
> > on the first syllable for the masculine and on
> the
> > second for the feminime. Weird, eh?
>
> Yep, just another thing to get wrong. For example, I
> had been referring to the ancient port of Campania as
> 'Puteoli', emphasis on the third syllable, but
> listening to the curators narrate the tape at the
> Pompeii exhibit, found out it is on the second!!!
> And now, it is Pozzuoli.
I am rather good on Latin and I can tell you that modern Italians may be placing the emphasis quite differently from ancieht Romans.
> > Yes, but not as a slave. If he sets up "shop"
> > somewhere, and he is rather distinguished, yes.
>
> Oh, he is very disinguished all right, but not freed
> so I think I shall forgo using one at all, normally
> using the shortened version 'Aris'.
You cannot use the shortened version "Aris". No Greek would have ever used it at that time as Aris is the name of the Greek God of war.
>Although I
> mention the Roman characters by their full 3 name
> monikers, for the ease of the reader I ended up
> referring to them largely by praenomens. YES, I know
> this is wrong and not how it would have been. But
> with a man named Valerius and a daughter named
> Valeria, and 7 Marcias, as one told me, their head
> was about to explode. All applauded the change, and
> I am trying to entertain with a story, teaching
> history is secondary.
Absolutely. The Romans themselves used the prenomen extensively.
> I LOVE the work of Alma-Tadema, and never thought of
> googling his work. Thank you, for such a tremendous
> site. Although more known for his etheral work with
> female subjects, this one was new to me and struck me
> with its realism.
>
> .Sculptors in Ancient Rome
Despite being a peripheral painter in the 19th century, I enjoy his works immensely. They do not have the stiffness of French academic painting and seem a lot more intimate. There are echoes of Pre-Raphaelite approach. The said site is a reference one, the paintings unfortunately are of relatively low resolution but give one a good idea of his work.
However, you would find a series of reconstructions of ancient sites by a French group of academics very nice. I was once in an exhibition that displayed their work. Here is a sample, a reconstruction of ancient Delphi.
http://www.cooliris.com/tab/#url=jsfeed%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fimages.google.com%2Fimages%3F%26tab%3Dwi%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26ie%3DUTF%2D8%26um%3D1%26client%3Dfirefox%2Da%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%253Aen%2DUS%253Aofficial%26oe%3Dutf%2D8%26q%3DDelphi%2520reconstruction%26start%3D0%26gbv%3D2&guid=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shunya.net%2FPictures%2FGreece%2FDelphi%2FDelphi%2Dreconstructed.jpg
--
Edited by aretzios at 07/05/2009 12:32 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
298
Registered:
1/12/08
|
|
(50 of 66)
Jul 4, 2009 3:26 PM
|
&> Hosioi is the plural of hosios (masculine). Hosiai
> would be the plural for hosia (feminine). You should
> have access to a good dictionary
Forgive me for cheating and asking you instead? No matter how many reference books I have, there are never enough, and I confess to having few in Greek, as only one chapter is devoted to such issues I did not concentrate on it, naturally being more difficult to read than Latin.
The intonation is
> on the first syllable for the masculine and on the
> second for the feminime. Weird, eh?
Yep, just another thing to get wrong. For example, I had been referring to the ancient port of Campania as 'Puteoli', emphasis on the third syllable, but listening to the curators narrate the tape at the Pompeii exhibit, found out it is on the second!!! And now, it is Pozzuoli.
> > So while he is still enslaved in Italia, would
> he be
> > Aristaeus Delphius?
>
> Yes, but not as a slave. If he sets up "shop"
> somewhere, and he is rather distinguished, yes.
Oh, he is very disinguished all right, but not freed so I think I shall forgo using one at all, normally using the shortened version 'Aris'. Although I mention the Roman characters by their full 3 name monikers, for the ease of the reader I ended up referring to them largely by praenomens. YES, I know this is wrong and not how it would have been. But with a man named Valerius and a daughter named Valeria, and 7 Marcias, as one told me, their head was about to explode. All applauded the change, and I am trying to entertain with a story, teaching history is secondary.
> If you want to be inspired by antiquity depictions in
> Victorian Britain, check out he work of Alma-Tadema
> http://www.alma-tadema.org/
> His painting of the Roman Spring Festival at the
> Getty is really evocative. You would like it.
I LOVE the work of Alma-Tadema, and never thought of googling his work. Thank you, for such a tremendous site. Although more known for his etheral work with female subjects, this one was new to me and struck me with its realism.
.Sculptors in Ancient Rome
> Let's not go too far.
I won't... I know far too little to discuss the ramifications of physics with you.
Pythagoras was interested in
> the harmonic properties of the strings and he was one
> of the first to connect music and mathematics. But
> he was no string theorist. The modern "string
> theory" (or about six variations of it), attempts to
> unify the four elemental forces (electromagnetism,
> strong and weak nuclear forces and gravity) and
> explain why gravity is so much weaker than the other
> forces. In its current form, it assumes the presence
> of 11 dimensions (although there was a 10 vs 11
> dimension fight at some time) and now it also assumes
> that the big bang was generated by a collision of
> branes and since branes interact all the time, we
> live in a world of multiple universes (multiverse) in
> which big bangs occur all the time.
BANG BANG!!! BANG BANG!!! (Sorry... couldn't help myself. , being 4th of July with firecrackers going off here at the beach.)
So, Pythagoras
> was no string theorist.
I did find it interesting, that awhile back, Harvard or MIT scientists were doing experiments with montmorillonite, a component of volcanic ash, in bell jars finding that they were capable of creating matter and studying the role in earth's evolution. Strangely enough, I drink the stuff in colloidal form as a colon cleanser. It has absorption power of something like 65 times its own weight and works very well. All things volcanic...
And your pardon, Beagle, for going off topic on your Cleopatra thread. As there is little activity on the board at present, I hope you will forgive me, and I hope you are well as can.
--
Edited by Elare at 07/04/2009 12:33 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,558
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(49 of 66)
Jul 4, 2009 11:59 AM
|
> aretzios wrote:
> > ... "Oh, they were definitely incestuous but by
> design. Ptolemy men usually married their sisters for
> a very good reason: the throne was never disputed
> from the outside. I am virtually certain that none of
> them wanted to engage in this incest but they did so
> purely for matters of state. My guess is that
> the first Ptolemy initiated this (having his son
> married to his daugther) after watching the ancestral
> home, Macedonia, being enveloped in continuous
> warfare by competing dynasties for the crown for
> forty years." ...
>
> Forgive me, but I think that's a pretty lame guess.
>
> The Ptolemaic dynasty wasn't substantially different
> from hundreds of others in similar circumstances.
> Alexander, himself, had encouraged cultural and
> d familial intermarriage as a means of societal
> unification. Were it not so, there would've been no
> "Roxana" in our history books.
First of all, Alexander's policy of intermarriage was very, very unpopular with his lieutenants and the troops. As soon as he died, these wives were divorced and removed from the scene. As for Roxana and her children, his successors had not problem in killing them too. Despite the popularity of Alexander among the populace, his generals despised him personally and his politics intensely.
> Why the Ptolemaic's would've virtually
> institutionalized royal incest remains a mystery to
> me and many others.
Not really a mystery. Ptolemy II Philadelphus was originally married to the daughter of Lysimachos, the ruler of Thrace and the Aegean Islands (if I recollect correctly) and after her death he married his sister who was the wife of Lysimachos! Because of his marriage to his sister, he got control of the Aegean Islands (important in his fight against Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia). Having instituted this, I think that the wagon rolled on after that as the practice became "acceptable" in that court. I see it as a typical dynastic device that did not allow for many foreign claimants to the throne. It was not utilized by other dynasties, this is true but the Seleukids had their own deal with deification and so on.
It is important to understand that many of these rulers were assumed to be connected to the divine (divus not deus) - a typical assumption in antiquity for persons of exceptional power and accomplishment-, and incest was just fine in the world of the gods and divine beings.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(48 of 66)
Jul 4, 2009 11:38 AM
|
aretzios wrote:
> ... "Oh, they were definitely incestuous but by design. Ptolemy men usually married their sisters for a very good reason: the throne was never disputed from the outside. I am virtually certain that none of them wanted to engage in this incest but they did so purely for matters of state. My guess is that the first Ptolemy initiated this (having his son married to his daugther) after watching the ancestral home, Macedonia, being enveloped in continuous warfare by competing dynasties for the crown for forty years." ...
Forgive me, but I think that's a pretty lame guess.
The Ptolemaic dynasty wasn't substantially different from hundreds of others in similar circumstances. Alexander, himself, had encouraged cultural and familial intermarriage as a means of societal unification. Were it not so, there would've been no "Roxana" in our history books.
Why the Ptolemaic's would've virtually institutionalized royal incest remains a mystery to me and many others.
--
I am, Beagle CMXIV: always the author of this post; opinions expressed are my own.
|
|
|
Posts:
6
Registered:
6/21/09
|
|
(47 of 66)
Jul 4, 2009 10:50 AM
|
> The modern "string theory" (or about six variations
> of it), attempts to unify the four elemental forces
> (electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces
> and gravity) and explain why gravity is so much
> weaker than the other forces.
I always knew in my heart I am just a vibrating string...
|
|
|
Posts:
1,558
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(46 of 66)
Jul 4, 2009 2:21 AM
|
> I gave him this quality, as in my research I read
> that some considered it a definitive mark of a seer,
> and he has the gift of prophecy, one of the hosioi
> serving the two priests at Delphi. Could you tell me
> if hosioi is the singular or plural? I believe there
> were five men in this position. I have that from
> "Mystery of the Oracles", a great out of print book,
> and if memory serves me, Plutarch.
Hosioi is the plural of hosios (masculine). Hosiai would be the plural for hosia (feminine). You should have access to a good dictionary. The intonation is on the first syllable for the masculine and on the second for the feminime. Weird, eh? It means something less than sanctified but something more than typical. For Orthodox Christianity, it is the level just prior to sainthood.
> > example, if we assume that Aristaeus was from
> Corinth
> > then he would have been named Aristaeus
> > s Corinthius (likely in a Roman setting).
> If he
> > was freed, and he wanted to have a Latin name,
> then
> > his Greek prenomen Aristaeus becomes his
> cognomen.
> > Thus, depending on the gens of his patron, he
> can be
> > e Lucius Ceasilius (why not?) Aristaeus
> usually
> > written as L. Ceasilius Aristaeus.
>
> So while he is still enslaved in Italia, would he be
> Aristaeus Delphius?
Yes, but not as a slave. If he sets up "shop" somewhere, and he is rather distinguished, yes.
> Sadly and strangely enough, I believe it only came to
> three cities; Charlotte, Wash D.C and LA. There are
> always various ones, Melbourne Australia has a big
> one this November. However as you may imagine, some
> are better than others. This one even had the
> privilige of the famous decorative gladiator helmet
> from Pompeii inscribed with scenes from 'The Iliad'.
> The detail really is remarkable, even the brim is
> s encrusted with fallen victims of the conflict that
> look as though they were absorbed into the metal, or
> half sunken in sand.
>
> Another piece I found very moving, was a mosaic of
> Plato and his followers. The tesserae of this
> particular mosaic are some of the smallest I've ever
> seen, you really have to get close to believe it is
> not a painting. He sits under an olive tree,
> pointing to an orb whilst his followers listen. The
> border is of fruits interspersed with masks of
> tragedy and comedy. Also, the statue of the Ephebe I
> mentioned has been loaned by the Getty. And I didn't
> expect it, but there is a room of more contemporary
> portraits done by artists in the 18th and 19th
> centuries. The famous one of Pliny collapsing on the
> beach in Stabiae was particularly stunning, and
> inspiring as I'm writing his death scene now.
If you want to be inspired by antiquity depictions in Victorian Britain, check out he work of Alma-Tadema
http://www.alma-tadema.org/
His painting of the Roman Spring Festival at the Getty is really evocative. You would like it.
> Thanks for answering
>
> By the way, I did decide to use a bit of The Music of
> the Spheres concept at his death. Once I leaned that
> both Pythagoras and Pliny were proponents of it, I
> couldn't resist! Sounds as though Pythagoras was the
> earliest proponent of 'string theory', something I
> find fascinating reading Brian Greene's "Fabric of
> the Cosmos" years ago.
Let's not go too far. Pythagoras was interested in the harmonic properties of the strings and he was one of the first to connect music and mathematics. But he was no string theorist. The modern "string theory" (or about six variations of it), attempts to unify the four elemental forces (electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces and gravity) and explain why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces. In its current form, it assumes the presence of 11 dimensions (although there was a 10 vs 11 dimension fight at some time) and now it also assumes that the big bang was generated by a collision of branes and since branes interact all the time, we live in a world of multiple universes (multiverse) in which big bangs occur all the time. So, Pythagoras was no string theorist.
|
|
|
Posts:
298
Registered:
1/12/08
|
|
(45 of 66)
Jul 3, 2009 7:01 PM
|
> Well, as the nomen goes to the gens, he is not going
> to have one (I think). Aristaeus in this case is the
> praenomen. Aristaeous Dicoros would be something
> that he would not particulary choose himself but
> something that would be used by others to describe
> him.
I gave him this quality, as in my research I read that some considered it a definitive mark of a seer, and he has the gift of prophecy, one of the hosioi serving the two priests at Delphi. Could you tell me if hosioi is the singular or plural? I believe there were five men in this position. I have that from "Mystery of the Oracles", a great out of print book, and if memory serves me, Plutarch.
If he eventually adopts it is another matter.
> The Hellenistic "cognomens" were in many cases not
> t particularly desirable by the people they were
> attached to. They were not honorific agnomens (like
> Africanus, Gothicus, Persicus etc, etc). The example
> of Constantine V Copronymous is a good one. Who
> would like to be called "shit-named"???
And I thought 'chick pea nose' was bad... I suppose others might have given him such a cognomen out of jealousy or ridicule, so I think it works.
In most
> cases, people did use their city as a cognomen. For
> example, if we assume that Aristaeus was from Corinth
> then he would have been named Aristaeus
> s Corinthius (likely in a Roman setting). If he
> was freed, and he wanted to have a Latin name, then
> his Greek prenomen Aristaeus becomes his cognomen.
> Thus, depending on the gens of his patron, he can be
> e Lucius Ceasilius (why not?) Aristaeus usually
> written as L. Ceasilius Aristaeus.
So while he is still enslaved in Italia, would he be Aristaeus Delphius?
> > You're in Northern CA, right? I went to the
> LACMA
> > A Pompeii exhibit today and highly recommend it,
> much
> > better than the last one that came through about
> 10
> > yrs back. They have one room set up (without
> > couches) with three huge panels from a
> triclinium
> > that was discovered only recently and saved 10
> yrs
> > ago from near the river Sarnus. Pompeiian red,
> > featuring Apollo and the muses.
>
> Yes, I am in Northern California (not that far away
> from Beagle, in fact)! If the exhibit travels to the
> North, I would definitely go and see it.
Sadly and strangely enough, I believe it only came to three cities; Charlotte, Wash D.C and LA. There are always various ones, Melbourne Australia has a big one this November. However as you may imagine, some are better than others. This one even had the privilige of the famous decorative gladiator helmet from Pompeii inscribed with scenes from 'The Iliad'. The detail really is remarkable, even the brim is encrusted with fallen victims of the conflict that look as though they were absorbed into the metal, or half sunken in sand.
Another piece I found very moving, was a mosaic of Plato and his followers. The tesserae of this particular mosaic are some of the smallest I've ever seen, you really have to get close to believe it is not a painting. He sits under an olive tree, pointing to an orb whilst his followers listen. The border is of fruits interspersed with masks of tragedy and comedy. Also, the statue of the Ephebe I mentioned has been loaned by the Getty. And I didn't expect it, but there is a room of more contemporary portraits done by artists in the 18th and 19th centuries. The famous one of Pliny collapsing on the beach in Stabiae was particularly stunning, and inspiring as I'm writing his death scene now.
Thanks for answering
By the way, I did decide to use a bit of The Music of the Spheres concept at his death. Once I leaned that both Pythagoras and Pliny were proponents of it, I couldn't resist! Sounds as though Pythagoras was the earliest proponent of 'string theory', something I find fascinating reading Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos" years ago.
--
Edited by Elare at 07/03/2009 4:11 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,558
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(44 of 66)
Jul 3, 2009 1:28 PM
|
> aretzios wrote:
> >"Actually, most Greeks did. And they used a
> variety of ways of differentiating themselves from
> others. One way was to use their father's name, a
> custom that is still much in use in Greece and parts
> of eastern Europe. So, Alexander would have utilized
> "Alexandros Philippou" (Alexander, son of Philip);
> others would have utilized the name of their town so
> Aristotle was "Aristoteles Stageirides" (Aristotle
> from Stageira). For rulers, descriptors were also
> used and virtually all East Roman Emperors, all
> Antigonids, Seleukids, Ptolemies have them. For
> example, Cleopatra Philopator was the daugther of
> Ptolemy Auletes and Cleopatra Tryphaena. So, it was
> not that difficult to follow. These "descriptors"
> could be funny on occasion and very personal: for
> example Anastassios I Dicoros (because each eye had a
> different color) and Constantine V Copronymus
> (because he defocated during baptism). I am sure that
> the difficulty that you perceive was quite evident to
> the historians of that time too!!"
>
> Thanks for your feedback; however, you may be
> over-simplifying the topic of genealogy in ancient
> times:
>
> On Topic:
> There were at least two (possibly three) Ptolemaic
> female royalties named Cleopatra Tryphaena.
> Historians disagree as to which was which.
> Cleopatra VII (Philopator) is the person of
> immediate interest but the preceding
> Cleopatras (V and VI) may have been her
> mother, sister or both one and the same.
From our time vantage point, it is quite likely to be somewhat confused because not all historical documents have been transmitted to us and some sources are contradictory. It does not mean that this was so at the time of the lives of these individuals. The amount of information that has reached us after 2000 years of history is minuscule compared to what was available then. We are trying to reconstruct the past with relatively few clues for persons that did not really become well known in their time.
> All of which argues for an incestuous dynasty.
Oh, they were definitely incestuous but by design. Ptolemy men usually married their sisters for a very good reason: the throne was never disputed from the outside. I am virtually certain that none of them wanted to engage in this incest but they did so purely for matters of state. My guess is that the first Ptolemy initiated this (having his son married to his daugther) after watching the ancestral home, Macedonia, being enveloped in continuous warfare by competing dynasties for the crown for forty years.
> Off Topic:
> Along with my close relatives, we've done an enormous
> amount of reading, research and field study regarding
> our own ancestry. As a result, our families can
> trace ancestors back to the seventeenth century with
> documentation and confidence. Our family reunion
> will be held in August; estimated attendance 100, +/-
Beagle, have fun!!! It is always good to provide such level of detail.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,558
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(43 of 66)
Jul 3, 2009 1:16 PM
|
> . These "descriptors"
> > could be funny on occassion and very personal:
> for
> > example Anastassios I Dicoros (because each eye
> had a
> > different color)
>
> Wow, thanks. My Greek character has one brown and
> one blue eye, could I then name him Aristaeus
> Dicoros? Did that replace the use or need for a
> nomen? Curious... If anything, in most of the book
> he is in Rome or Pompeii as a slave, so they'd likely
> not care about his nomen anyway (wouldn't it have
> reverted to his owner's?) but I can see giving him
> the cognomen monikor.
Well, as the nomen goes to the gens, he is not going to have one (I think). Aristaeus in this case is the praenomen. Aristaeous Dicoros would be something that he would not particulary choose himself but something that would be used by others to describe him. If he eventually adopts it is another matter. The Hellenistic "cognomens" were in many cases not particularly desirable by the people they were attached to. They were not honorific agnomens (like Africanus, Gothicus, Persicus etc, etc). The example of Constantine V Copronymous is a good one. Who would like to be called "shit-named"??? In most cases, people did use their city as a cognomen. For example, if we assume that Aristaeus was from Corinth then he would have been named Aristaeus Corinthius (likely in a Roman setting). If he was freed, and he wanted to have a Latin name, then his Greek prenomen Aristaeus becomes his cognomen. Thus, depending on the gens of his patron, he can be Lucius Ceasilius (why not?) Aristaeus usually written as L. Ceasilius Aristaeus.
> You're in Northern CA, right? I went to the LACMA
> A Pompeii exhibit today and highly recommend it, much
> better than the last one that came through about 10
> yrs back. They have one room set up (without
> couches) with three huge panels from a triclinium
> that was discovered only recently and saved 10 yrs
> ago from near the river Sarnus. Pompeiian red,
> featuring Apollo and the muses.
Yes, I am in Northern California (not that far away from Beagle, in fact)! If the exhibit travels to the North, I would definitely go and see it.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(42 of 66)
Jul 3, 2009 12:59 PM
|
aretzios wrote:
>"Actually, most Greeks did. And they used a variety of ways of differentiating themselves from others. One way was to use their father's name, a custom that is still much in use in Greece and parts of eastern Europe. So, Alexander would have utilized "Alexandros Philippou" (Alexander, son of Philip); others would have utilized the name of their town so Aristotle was "Aristoteles Stageirides" (Aristotle from Stageira). For rulers, descriptors were also used and virtually all East Roman Emperors, all Antigonids, Seleukids, Ptolemies have them. For example, Cleopatra Philopator was the daugther of Ptolemy Auletes and Cleopatra Tryphaena. So, it was not that difficult to follow. These "descriptors" could be funny on occasion and very personal: for example Anastassios I Dicoros (because each eye had a different color) and Constantine V Copronymus (because he defocated during baptism). I am sure that the difficulty that you perceive was quite evident to the historians of that time too!!"
Thanks for your feedback; however, you may be over-simplifying the topic of genealogy in ancient times:
On Topic:
There were at least two (possibly three) Ptolemaic female royalties named Cleopatra Tryphaena. Historians disagree as to which was which. Cleopatra VII (Philopator) is the person of immediate interest but the preceding Cleopatras (V and VI) may have been her mother, sister or both one and the same.
All of which argues for an incestuous dynasty.
Off Topic:
Along with my close relatives, we've done an enormous amount of reading, research and field study regarding our own ancestry. As a result, our families can trace ancestors back to the seventeenth century with documentation and confidence. Our family reunion will be held in August; estimated attendance 100, +/- .
Always a stickler for details.
--
I am, Beagle CMXIV: always the author of this post; opinions expressed are my own.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,100
Registered:
12/13/04
|
|
(41 of 66)
Jul 3, 2009 8:44 AM
|
>
> Wow, thanks. My Greek character has one brown and
> one blue eye, could I then name him Aristaeus
> Dicoros?
Maybe you could call him Hankus Cowdoggus.
--
" "A Man must have a Code" The Bunk
"Its what a war is. Once you in it you in it." Slim Charles
"That Halibut is good enough for Jehovah!!! " Mathias, Son of Deuteronomy of Gath
|
|
|
Posts:
298
Registered:
1/12/08
|
|
(40 of 66)
Jul 3, 2009 1:05 AM
|
. These "descriptors"
> could be funny on occassion and very personal: for
> example Anastassios I Dicoros (because each eye had a
> different color)
Wow, thanks. My Greek character has one brown and one blue eye, could I then name him Aristaeus Dicoros? Did that replace the use or need for a nomen? Curious... If anything, in most of the book he is in Rome or Pompeii as a slave, so they'd likely not care about his nomen anyway (wouldn't it have reverted to his owner's?) but I can see giving him the cognomen monikor.
You're in Northern CA, right? I went to the LACMA Pompeii exhibit today and highly recommend it, much better than the last one that came through about 10 yrs back. They have one room set up (without couches) with three huge panels from a triclinium that was discovered only recently and saved 10 yrs ago from near the river Sarnus. Pompeiian red, featuring Apollo and the muses.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,558
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(39 of 66)
Jul 2, 2009 7:42 PM
|
> And ...
> >... "They did not use numerals but they did use
> "cognomens" which is something that passed on to
> Rome. Thus, Ptolemy XII was Ptolemy Auletes and
> Cleopatra VII was Cleopatra Philopator."
> ...
>
> Again, I agree. However, the term "cognomen"
> is of Latin (possibly Greek) origin. Many
> historian/scholars find difficulties in
> distinguishing among the various "Cleopatras". I
> don't think the Ptolemaic dynasty gave much of a damn
> in their times.
Actually, most Greeks did. And they used a variety of ways of differentiating themselves from others. One way was to use their father's name, a custom that is still much in use in Greece and parts of eastern Europe. So, Alexander would have utilized "Alexandros Philippou" (Alexander, son of Philip); others would have utilized the name of their town so Aristotle was "Aristoteles Stageirides" (Aristotle from Stageira). For rulers, descriptors were also used and virtually all East Roman Emperors, all Antigonids, Seleukids, Ptolemies have them. For example, Cleopatra Philopator was the daugther of Ptolemy Auletes and Cleopatra Tryphaena. So, it was not that difficult to follow. These "descriptors" could be funny on occassion and very personal: for example Anastassios I Dicoros (because each eye had a different color) and Constantine V Copronymus (because he defocated during baptism). I am sure that the difficulty that you perceive was quite evident to the historians of that time too!!
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(38 of 66)
Jul 2, 2009 5:53 PM
|
aretzios wrote:
> ..."With current knowledge, this is true. But what we can do today was virtually unthinkable just 30 years ago. If one suggested that each one of us would possess a computer many times more powerful than any than mainframe, I think that hilarity would have ensued. We are just in the beginning, Beagle, just in the beginning.
>I am not sure how long a "technical civilization" can keep going. The SETI assumptions incorporate a variable that it is not open-ended. But I know that we are in the very beginning of ours." ...
Basically, I agree with your thoughts of "beginning" as it relates to history, and as that terminoligy is commonly understood.
Prediction is always difficult; particularly, when the future is involved. Nevertheless, here is mine:
"The next great inflection point in human development won't occur as a result of advancing mathematics or technology. It will come about from an unexpected source." ...
And ...
>... "They did not use numerals but they did use "cognomens" which is something that passed on to Rome. Thus, Ptolemy XII was Ptolemy Auletes and Cleopatra VII was Cleopatra Philopator." ...
Again, I agree. However, the term "cognomen" is of Latin (possibly Greek) origin. Many historian/scholars find difficulties in distinguishing among the various "Cleopatras". I don't think the Ptolemaic dynasty gave much of a damn in their times.
--
I am, Beagle CMXIV: always the author of this post; opinions expressed are my own.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,558
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(37 of 66)
Jul 2, 2009 12:52 AM
|
>
> In fact, I devoured SF paperbacks for many years in
> the 1950's, throughout the 60's and beyond. I still
> read some and re-watch the classic films (e.g.,
> "Blade Runner, Alien, Who Goes There?, and so on).
> I probably read "Foundation", et seq at some
> e time or another. I don't remember it specifically
> well, however.
I think that if you had read the "Foundation" trilogy, it is unlikely that you would have forgotten it. Check it out. Of course, now it is much more than a trilogy because eventually Asimov merged the "robot" series with the "Foundation" series and the whole comprises something like 12 titles or more.
Asimov's two main books of the "Robot" series such as the "Caves of Steele" and "The Naked Sun" are not only effective sci-fi but also very effective who-dunnits.
> however, the clearer it became to me that there are
> limitations as to what can be understood and achieved
> following mathematical paths.
> In short, I agree that human society (and the
> universe overall) are much too complex to be
> formulated.
With current knowledge, this is true. But what we can do today was virtually unthinkable just 30 years ago. If one suggested that each one of us would possess a computer many times more powerful than any than mainframe, I think that hilarity would have ensued. We are just in the beginning, Beagle, just in the beginning.
I am not sure how long a "technical civilization" can keep going. The SETI assumptions incorporate a variable that it is not open-ended. But I know that we are in the very beginning of ours.
>
> I have more than I can handle remembering which
> Ptolemy was which. That's why I scrupulously insist
> on identifying Cleopatra VII to distinguish
> her from the many others of similar name.
>
> I never gave it much thought but the Ptolemaic
> dynasty never identified themselves by succession
> numbers (e.g., I, II, III, etc). That's not too
> surprising since they didn't use Roman numerals or
> (apparently) numerical symbols of any kind.
They did not use numerals but they did use "cognomens" which is something that passed on to Rome. Thus, Ptolemy XII was Ptolemy Auletes and Cleopatra VII was Cleopatra Philopator.
|
|
|
|
|
