Our Fascination with the Romans, why?

[Praefectus Praetorio]

Second, Latin is a dead language because it is no longer spoken and therefore never changes.

But it was used in legal and government and church for over 1,000 years and forms a pinnacle of Western language. The very fact that it died as a living language means it stayed pure. The grammar and inflections from the Golden age (70 BCE to 18 CE, covering Cicero, Virgil, Horace and Livy) give us a language of purity and expression unequaled in modern , mongrel speech.

With sufficient incentives (threat of crucifixion) we should be able to get a substantial portion of the population to learn it. As for the others, the decorations along the Via Appia and other roads would be excellent entertainment

(of course, LOL)

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

However, Aramaic was the common language spoken in the Middle Eastern part of the empire all the way through to Persia

Amen, Amen!

(anyone get the pun?)

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

In fact, all of the New Testament was originally written in Greek. An official Latin translation (the Vulgate) didn't come about until the late IV century.

True - I was just pointing out that the section composed in Rome was not Latin

 

[Barbaria1]

I’ve been busy and haven’t had time to contribute to this discussion but I have followed it and just want to say it’s been fascinating. Learned so much! Keep it up!

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

I’ve been busy and haven’t had time to contribute to this discussion but I have followed it and just want to say it’s been fascinating. Learned so much! Keep it up!

Do you know enough Latin to pass the test, or have you reserved a prime spot on the Via Appia (and the Virtoria's Secret outfit - I'd love to see you on the cross in something lacy but innocent!) ?

 

[Naraku]

True - I was just pointing out that the section composed in Rome was not Latin

The tradition that the gospel was written by one of Paul's disciples is rejected by serious scholars. It is believe to be the earliest gospel, written in Palestine, most likely Jerusalem, between 65 and 70 CE. The author was almost certainly a Christian Jew.

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

The tradition that the gospel was written by one of Paul's disciples is rejected by serious scholars. It is believe to be the earliest gospel, written in Palestine, most likely Jerusalem, between 65 and 70 CE. The author was almost certainly a Christian Jew.

I respectfully disagree. The current majority opinion is that it was written by a disciple of Peter, shortly after his death, at the dates you quote. But the likelihood of composition in Rome is strong and alone among the gospels it contains a number of Latinisms. Very little evidence of Jewish authorship, in fact the Jews are not well treated.

Additionally, Mark's geography of the Holy Land is seriously lacking with several impossible map journeys. The only geography that is any good is the northern shore of the Lake of Galilee where Peter would have sailed his boat.

I have studied Mark for years and taught 3 classes on him. Respectfully I disagree.

 

[windar]

The very fact that it died as a living language means it stayed pure. The grammar and inflections from the Golden age (70 BCE to 18 CE, covering Cicero, Virgil, Horace and Livy) give us a language of purity and expression unequaled in modern , mongrel speech.

What does such a term even mean? If you mean never absorbed words from other languages, of course Latin did. The only languages that might be pure by that definition might be the Polynesian dialects spoken on islands so isolated that they had no contact with the outside world for long periods of time. And even those likely evolved over time.

Nor does such incestual "purity" imply superiority any more than incestual reproductive practices...

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

What does such a term even mean? If you mean never absorbed words from other languages, of course Latin did. The only languages that might be pure by that definition might be the Polynesian dialects spoken on islands so isolated that they had no contact with the outside world for long periods of time. And even those likely evolved over time.

Nor does such incestual "purity" imply superiority any more than incestual reproductive practices...

I meant purity as languages are before they begin to compromise the rules and degrade the grammar.

 

[messaline]

What does such a term even mean? If you mean never absorbed words from other languages, of course Latin did. The only languages that might be pure by that definition might be the Polynesian dialects spoken on islands so isolated that they had no contact with the outside world for long periods of time. And even those likely evolved over time.

Nor does such incestual "purity" imply superiority any more than incestual reproductive practices...

I agree ! Us, French people, are always saying that English language is invading us , but it's avered that there are more French words in English that English words in French !

 

[ShadowWolf]

I'm thinking of all the interesting Victoria Secret outfits that would go with the cross! Yes, I'm a dirty sexist pig!

You could also think of going to Victoria's Secret for an outfit as a form of romanticism. It can help create the necessary environment to entertain her

 

[Loxuru]

Second, Latin is a dead language because it is no longer spoken and therefore never changes. Living languages are constantly changing and evolving. That's why the OED has to put out a new addition every year. Latin did continue to be spoken in some parts of the world and it did evolve; into Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian.

Actually, there is some evolution, still. Latin is still occasionally spoken today, in the small world of clergy and the small communities of monastries. A monk explained me a few years ago, that, in order keep their communication up to date, they need Latin words for objects that did not exist in Roman times. 'Motorcycle', 'computer', "airplane',... to mention a few. So, these words are added to the vocabulary of a language pronounced dead.

 

[TallTitus]

Well, you made me listen to Carl Orff's Catuli Carmina again. Beatiful! And the poem is also part of it!

The Carmina Burana has absolutely nothing to do with the Romans (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmina_Burana). These are medieval texts, written in Latin, because Latin was the "lingua franca" in the Europe of that time, just like English is the lingua franca now (making that you score better at the Euro song context when singing in English, and the fact that on an international congres English is spoken, even when there is no native English speaker in the room).

This must be comforting for our anglo-saxon friends: even if the American empire has been overrun by the Chinese and the British has been thrown into nullity after leaving the EU, English might be continued to be used in the office and the Eurovision song contest (and considered as being a "dead language").

And why are the Romans still so important to us? Not only because of being a regional power 2000 years ago. It's also because of our European humanist historians, philosophers, etc. that promoted that culture (and unrightfully denouncing the era after the Romans as "the dark ages"), and the European empires dominating the world as from the industrial revolution. Thought experiment: what if the industrial revolution had happened in let's say the Andes mountains, what would we think about the Romans now? Maybe the Via Appia and the Colosseum would have the same significance as Stonehenge and menhirs.

 

[Loxuru]

The Carmina Burana has absolutely nothing to do with the Romans (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmina_Burana). These are medieval texts, written in Latin, because Latin was the "lingua franca" in the Europe of that time, just like English is the lingua franca now (making that you score better at the Euro song context when singing in English, and the fact that on an international congres English is spoken, even when there is no native English speaker in the room).

TallTitus, are you not mixing up two different works from Orff? :
- Carmina Burana, without doubt Orff's most popular work, which is, as you say, based on Mediëval poems, some in Mediëval Latin, others mostly in German of the time?
- Catuli Carmina, with poems from the Roman poet Catullus, to which I refer to in my previous post?.

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

TallTitus, are you not mixing up two different works from Orff? :
- Carmina Burana, without doubt Orff's most popular work, which is, as you say, based on Mediëval poems, some in Mediëval Latin, others mostly in German of the time?
- Catuli Carmina, with poems from the Roman poet Catullus, to which I refer to in my previous post?.

Great classic performance on DGG vinyl!

 

[cire]

I am kind of fascinated with the fascination the we have (as a group) with the Roman version(s) of crucifixion.

Many cultures used crucifixion as a punishment both before and after Rome, yet we constantly seem to be enamored with Rome.

The Phoenicians and Carthaginians certainly practiced it as did the post Alexandrian Greeks.

I've been reading a history of the Nabateans (the Arabic people who created Petra) and the author mentions a Hasmonean (same line Herod the Great came out of) King of Judea by the name of Alexander Jarnaeus who crucified 800 of his opponents and had their wives and children (while he was drinking wine surrounded by his concubines) massacred in front of them as they were dying on the crosses.

The Arab conquerors of the Middle East practiced crucifixion at least into the 700s (although they tended to torture their victims to death on the cross, not to use it by itself as a form of execution).

There is a story of a Japanese Damiyo falling to capture his opponent after a battle and crucifying the man's wife and children instead.

And the Chinese Warlords may have been using it as a form of punishment possibly up to WWII.

Yet we (mostly) keep coming back to the Romans. I wonder if this is based on our shared Christian heritage. Even those of us in the west who are not Christians have grown up in a culture seeped in Christianity.

Thoughts?

Kisses

willowfall

To me it's hard to tell why I'm hooked to something like the roman way of crucifixion, because I hated going to church and actually, I'm not into violence.

This is a point where I can't understand myself. With the time and the folks here in the forum I have learned to accept and enjoy it. I have been attracted already by crucifixion as a child. We were forced to go to church on Sundays, and there was this huge altar with that medieval painting of the crucifixion, showing the men, especially the thieves with almost nothing covering their sex. Looking closer, I could see the roots of the penises of the thieves. One of them white skinned, and the other one tanned. Only the white skinned Jesus is nailed in the middle. On the walls around me the paintings of the stations of the cross.
While I had to sit there, I fantasized about being crucified and used to have erections. I don't have to tell you how embarrased I was.

Maybe it's that contrast that attracts me. On one side the great roman inventions and the culture, on the other side the abyss of mankind (and myself) with the crucifixion.
Independent from these facts, I realized very early that the romans didn't give a damn about a loincloth, or had used crucifixion exclusively for male victims (that understanding then scared and excited me even more).

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

You could also think of going to Victoria's Secret for an outfit as a form of romanticism. It can help create the necessary environment to entertain her

Isn't the cross sufficient entertainment?

 

[old slave]

what if the industrial revolution had happened in let's say the Andes mountains,

An attempt to imagine such a world, though the challenge proved too great to construct it completely, was detailed in my work Stories From The Colonies

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

The Carmina Burana has absolutely nothing to do with the Romans (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmina_Burana). These are medieval texts, written in Latin, because Latin was the "lingua franca" in the Europe of that time, just like English is the lingua franca now (making that you score better at the Euro song context when singing in English, and the fact that on an international congres English is spoken, even when there is no native English speaker in the room).

This must be comforting for our anglo-saxon friends: even if the American empire has been overrun by the Chinese and the British has been thrown into nullity after leaving the EU, English might be continued to be used in the office and the Eurovision song contest (and considered as being a "dead language").

And why are the Romans still so important to us? Not only because of being a regional power 2000 years ago. It's also because of our European humanist historians, philosophers, etc. that promoted that culture (and unrightfully denouncing the era after the Romans as "the dark ages"), and the European empires dominating the world as from the industrial revolution. Thought experiment: what if the industrial revolution had happened in let's say the Andes mountains, what would we think about the Romans now? Maybe the Via Appia and the Colosseum would have the same significance as Stonehenge and menhirs.

Counter thought. It was the Engineering of the Romans (not entirely lost in the "Dark" Ages) and the science of the Greeks (transmitted primarily by the Arabs) that laid the foundation for the Scientific and Industrial Revolution. And perhaps most importantly the seeds of intellectual freedom planted (albeit tenuously) by the Greeks and Romans (think Plato) and by (are you ready for it?) the Christians (Galatians 5:1), that allowed the Revolutions to proceed.

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

Amen, Amen!

(anyone get the pun?)

No response yet on the hidden play on words?