User:Doug Coldwell/Sandboxes/Archive 1

1

Petrarch's most famous work is Africa about a great Roman commander for Italy called Scipio Africanus,
sometimes better known as a great centurion for Italy called Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major.

• There just happens to be one named "Cornelius" in Acts of the Apostles.

Acts 10:1

• John Wycliffe 1382 a centurion of the company of knights, that is said of Italy

• William Tyndale 1525 a captain of the soldiers of Italy

• NASB: named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort

• GWT: A man named Cornelius. He was a Roman army officer in the Italian Regiment

• KJV: called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band

• ASV: Cornelius by name, a centurion of the band called the Italian band

• BBE: named Cornelius, the captain of the Italian band of the army

• DBY: by name Cornelius, a centurion of the band called Italic

• WBS: called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band

• WEB: Cornelius by name, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment

• WNT: Now a Captain of the Italian Regiment, named Cornelius

• YLT: by name Cornelius, a centurion from a band called Italian

Category:Bible versions and translations

2

File:Scipio.jpg

Scipio Cornelius Africanus

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major defeated Hannibal of Carthage in the Second Punic War. Because of this he received the additional name of "Africanus". The name Major refers to the English equalivent of Senior or the Elder.

• Coincidently Cornelius is a name most commonly found in Ancient Roman history, not the Middle East some 2000 years ago.

The naming convention used in ancient Rome was that the names of male patricians normally consisted of three parts (tria nomina):

• praenomen (given name),
• nomen gentile or gentilicium (name of the gens or clan)
• cognomen (name of a family within the gens).

Cornelius (fem. Cornelia) was the nomen of the patrician gens Cornelia, one of the important families of Ancient Rome.

The Scipiones, Dolabellae, Sullae, Lentuli and Cinnae were notable branches of the family. Over 30% of all the consuls of the republican period of ancient Rome were Cornelians. For the women of the Cornelii, see Cornelia.

3

Bible consisting of 66 books

Petrarch's most significant character in Africa is one Scipio Cornelius.

• The 66th person in Jerome's De Viris Illustribus, is of a "Cornelius" whom is also called a bishop for Rome.

• There just happens to be 66 books in the Bible, consisting of 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 books to the New Testament.

Bishop comes from the Greek word episkopos (επίσκοπος, from επι "over" and σκοπος "seeing"). It can be generally translated bishop, overseer, superintendent, supervisor, the first, leader or foreman. Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major (235–183 BC) was a general in the Second Punic War and statesman of the Roman Republic. He was best known for defeating Hannibal of Carthage, a feat that earned him the surname Africanus, the nickname the Roman Hannibal and recognition as one of the finest commanders in military history.

4

Petrarch has another list On Famous Men called Chronicle of Universal History consisting of these 28 Lives:

• Cyrus the Great (First Persain ruler) 580 BC - 530 BC Cyrus Cylinder of 40 lines

• Darius I the Great (Second Persain ruler) 530 BC - 465 BC

• Artaxerxes I (son of Xerxes I, grandson of Darius I)

• Darius III (Codomannus) was great-grandson of Darius II) (Darius II, half-brother and rival of Xerxes II) (Xerxes II, son of Artaxerxes I)

• Stateira I, sister-wife of Darius III. Stateira II (daughter of Stateira I) married Alexander the Great.

• Philip II of Macedon (father of Alexander the Great).

• Alexander the Great (One of his wives was Stateira II, daughter of Darius III)

• Philip III of Macedon (half brother of Alexander IV)

• Appius Claudius (builder of the Appian Way and Aqua Appia).

• Publius "Cornelius" Scipio Africanus (fought Hannibal of Carthage) of Cornelii family

• Publius Cornelius Scipio (father of Scipio Africanus Major)

• Lucius Aemilius Paullus (daughter Tertia Aemilia, also known as Aemilia Paullus, married Scipio Africanus)

• Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (war against King Jugurtha of Numidia]])

• Marcus Aemilius Scaurus (His second wife was Caecilia Metella Dalmatica whom who was later the third wife of Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix)

• Gaius Sempronius Gracchus (son of Cornelia Africana whom was second daughter of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus)

• Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (son of Cornelia Africana)

• Scipio Aemilianus Africanus (Adopted by Publius Cornelius Scipio, the eldest son of Publius "Cornelius" Scipio Africanus above # 10)

• Lucius Mummius Achaicus (censor with Scipio Aemilianus Africanus)

• Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus

• Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus

• Quintus Fabius Maximus Aemilianus

• Quintus Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus

• Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus

• Lucius Cornelius Sulla

• Marcus Aemilius Scaurus

• Gaius Flavius Fimbria

• Gaius Marius

• Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus

5

File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg

The Cyrus Cylinder.

• Add to number 66, the number 40 of the lines of the Cyrus Cylinder, and you get 106.
  Acts chapter 1 has in verse 3 the number 40 and the word "days".
• Petrarch's close friend Giovanni Boccaccio also has a list of 106 Lives called On Famous Women.
• Adding 106 Famous Women to the 28 "Acts of Apostles" chapters and you then get of 134,

which happens to be the amount of Jerome's biographies of his De Viris Illustribus authors.

6

• Jerome's Chapter 135 turns out to be a signature identification, explained below in much detail.
• Coincidently Petrarch's Latin list "On Illustrious Men" starts with Romulus, the first Roman ruler.

7

• It just so happens that Petrarch has still another Latin list starting with Adam, the first person.
• Coincidently Boccaccio's 106 list On Famous Women starts with the first woman of the Bible.
• It just so happens that Boccaccio's list of 106 Famous Women was influenced by Petrarch.

8

• Giovanni Boccaccio (Petrarch's close friend / associate) also has still another Latin only list.
• Coincidently that list of 24 people starts with Adam and Eve (the first people of the Bible).

9

• In Meanings below of the The Petrarch Code "rules", it says that "days" always means "times".
  This then is 40 times, same as the Cyrus Cylinder lines.

10

• Firmianus (Lactantius)
  

Gaul, 1st century BC

Lactantius, was a follower of Arnobius, during the reign of Diocletian summoned to Cirta in Numidia with Flavius the Grammarian whose poem on prescriptions for health is still existing, taught rhetoric there and on account of his lack of pupils (since it was of Greek origins) he betook himself to writing. We have a large display of his which he wrote as a young man in Africa and an itinerary of a journey from Africa to Numidia, written in hexameters, and another letter which is called The Grammarian and a most beautiful one On the wrath of God, and Divinae Institutiones ("Divine Institutions") against the nations 7 letters, and an epitome of the same work in one volume without a title, also 2 letters To Asclepiades, 1 letter On persecution, 4 letters of epistles to Probus, 2 letters of epistles to Severus, 2 letters of Epistles to his pupil Demetrius and 1 letter to the same On the work of God or the creation of man (19 letters total in the book without a name). In his extreme old age he was a private teacher to Crispus Cæsar, a son of Constantine in Gaul, the one and the same who was afterwards put to death by his papa.

<!-- [[Category:Ancient Roman titles]] [[Category:Ancient Roman soldiers]] [[Category:Ancient military unit types]] [[Category:Military of ancient Rome]] [[Category:Military ranks of ancient Rome]] [[Category:Military units and formations of the Ancient era]] [[Category:Roman military units by type]] [[Category:Roman military units by period]] [[Category:Warfare of the Ancient era]] --> [[bg:Центурион]] [[ca:Centurió]] [[de:Centurio]] [[es:Centurión]] [[fr:Centurion]] [[gl:Centurión]] [[it:Centurione]] [[nl:Centurio (Romeins leger)]] [[no:Centurion]] [[pl:Centurion (Rzym)]] [[pt:Centúria]] [[ru:Центурион]] [[fi:Centurio]] [[sv:Centurion]]

Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus

Jerome's name in Latin is Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus. What do these 3 words mean, if they have meanings other than just a name; especially Hieronymus? --Doug ^talk 15:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they all mean something in Greek. Hieronymus means "sacred name". The other two I'd have to look up. —Angr 15:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate you finding the meaning of "Heironymes". If you stumble across the meanig of the other two let me know:

• Eusebius
• Sophronius

Thanks again, --Doug ^talk 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I looked 'em up. Eusebius means "respectful, pious", and Sophronius means "temperate, moderate". —Angr 05:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these meanings. Appreciate it! --Doug ^talk 11:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Latin translation request

What exactly is this Latin in English: Epistolarum mearum ad diversos liber ? Thanks, --Doug ^talk 12:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I get: "a book of my letters to different people", does that fit the context? Storeye 12:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you!! I originally wrote up an article called Epistolae familiares and found the information from various sources, however never knew exactly what the Latin phrase said (just copied what the source said). I only knew the shorted version meant: "Familiar Letters" (which is Petrarch's letters to different people).--Doug ^talk 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

episcopus and episcopos

Do these two words have the same meaning and are they basically the same word? I understand they basically mean that of a bishop. Bishop comes from the Greek word episkopos (επίσκοπος, from επι "over" and σκοπος "seeing"). It can be generally translated as an "overseer", superintendent, supervisor, the first, leader or foreman. Could it also have meaning of:

• Consul
• Proconsul
• Commander
• Statesman
• General

Most interested in the word as spelled "episcopus". --Doug ^talk 19:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Many masculine nouns in Proto Indo-European ended in '-os', and generally in Greek that ending was retained for them. In early Latin, in many contexts 'o' was raised to 'u', and in particular the common thematic ending in '-os'. Many of the words that we get from Greek, or which were coined from Greek roots, come to us in Latinised form, (besides '-us' for '-os', we also get 'oe' and 'ae' for 'oi' and 'ai', and 'c' for 'k'). Thus 'episcopos' or 'episkopos' is a directly transliterated form, and 'episcopus' a Latinised form, of Greek 'επισκοπος'. It is possible that the two different forms have become attached to distinct senses, but I'm not aware of such a distinction.

Again, it is possible that the word has been used for any of those specific ranks (though not, I would think, 'statesman' which is not a rank), but I don't think it has every regularly been so used. --ColinFine 00:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Great answer. Appreciate you explaining of these letters. It clears things up. Thanks! Also I now have a better idea that this word was used for a "rank". --Doug ^talk 12:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Greek episkopos was not used for military commanders, and specifically was not used for actual or equivalent consuls, proconsuls, commanders, or generals. When it doesn't have its literal common-noun meaning of "overseer" of someone/something, it is used for officials who oversee things like harbors & roads, or of Athenian "inspectors" sent out to subject states of the Athenian Empire, or various municipal officials. Wareh 13:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That makes it much more clear. Could the word bishop have been used to signify or represent ranks of consuls, proconsuls, commanders, or generals? --Doug ^talk 14:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not used in that way. Wareh 16:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Greek roots

In reference to: Many of the words that we get from Greek, or which were coined from Greek roots, come to us in Latinised form:

• 'oe' for 'oi'
• 'ae' for 'ai'

Do these letters then sometimes get turn around in time for some words that are Latinised or put into English? For example:

• 'oi' becomes 'io'
• 'ae' becomes 'ea'

--Doug ^talk 13:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, neither of those changes would happen. Wareh 13:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Although phoenix does often become pheonix. :P —Tamfang 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Original (or oldest Latin copy) of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus

Who now physically has the original Latin version of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus written by Jerome himself? --Doug ^talk 23:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No autograph exists. --Wetman 01:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Who then would have the oldest know Latin copy? When was this copy made and by whom (if known)? --Doug ^talk 11:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason I am asking this question is because if there is no actual original autograph for a reference, then how would one know that it actually came frm the 5th Century. Maybe it came from the fourteenth centurty or fifteenth century or some century several hundred years later than the 4th - 5th Century when Jerome is said to lived.--Doug ^talk 12:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The style of the Latin might be a clue. Presumably other authors referred to it in the intervening centuries as well. And how could Sophronius translate it into Greek, and Gennadius write a continuation, if it did not exist in the 5th century? There must be a critical scholarly edition somewhere, which will discuss the manuscript tradition. Adam Bishop 06:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Other similar names for "Yeshua of Nazareth"

I understand these are possible spellings for name of Jesus of Nazareth.

• German: Jesus
• Middle English: Jhesus or Jhesu
• Modern English: Jesus Christ
• Latin: Iesus or Eesho or Iesu
• Hebrew: Yeshua or Yehoshua
• Arabic: Yeshua or Yasu
• Greek: Iesou or Iēsous or Iēsoun

Is there other spellings for Jesus that have the letters "esous" or "ous" or "ou" in them? --Doug ^talk 20:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know but "Eesho" is not Latin, and in Arabic his name is `Isa. A possible transliteration of the Wyandot language spells his name as "Jesous" (as in the Huron Carol). Adam Bishop 01:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In Arabic his name is both. In Islam, his name is `Isa. For Arab Christians, his name is Yasu.--Kirby♥time 01:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Hebrew above looks questionable, and I suggest you check your sources for those putative forms. (In particular: "Yehoshua" is a transliteration of the Hebrew name יהושע that's come into English as "Joshua".) [added: corresponds to historical but not modern language; see reply by AnonMoos, below, and pages on Yeshua and Yeshu.] In two leading Hebrew-to-English dictionaries (R. Alcalay's Complete English-Hebrew Dictionary and Kernerman/Kahn's Oxford English-Hebrew, Hebrew-English Dictionary), the name is given as ישו (transliterated 'Yeshu') and parenthetically, 'הנוצרי' (ha-notzri; lit. "the Nazarene"). -- Deborahjay 13:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC); amended to reflect info in subsequent edits, 23:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Actually ישו is a derogatory variant, while ישוע is the same name which appears in the Hebrew Bible at Ezra 2:2, 2:6, 2:36, 2:40, 3:2, 3:8, 3:9, 3:10, 3:18, 4:3, 8:33; Nehemiah 3:19, 7:7, 7:11, 7:39, 7:43, 8:7, 8:17, 9:4, 9:5, 11:26, 12:1, 12:7, 12:8, 12:10, 12:24, 12:26; 1 Chronicles 24:11; and 2 Chronicles 31:15 -- and also in Aramaic at Ezra 5:2. AnonMoos 14:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In stating that ישוע (Yeshua) "is the same name" – would that be, and are all those biblical citations, in reference to "Jesus of Nazareth"? Or just a name? -- Deborahjay 16:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew/Aramaic ישוע as found in those Old Testament passages is the same name as Greek Iêsous (Ιησους) found in the New Testament. This name ישוע [yēšū`] is a post-500-B.C. shortened version of earlier Hebrew יהושע [yehōšū`] -- so in Nehemiah 8:17 in the Old Testament, Joshua son of Nun is referred to as ישוע [yēšū`] , and in the ancient Greek of Josephus and the New Testament Joshua son of Nun appears as Ιησους (Iêsous); see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. AnonMoos

What's meant by [the name] ישו (Yeshu) being "a derogatory variant"? Perhaps the intention is "corrupted," i.e. from some earlier source. Or is it that there's some confusion with an abbreviation formed by those letters, of the phrase "שמו וזכרו" (yemach sh'mo ve-zichro), "[may] his name and [the] memory of him be obliterated" (per A. Even-Shoshan's New Dictionary). All the dictionaries I've cited, above and here, are of Modern Hebrew. -- Deborahjay 16:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

ישו is an intentionally and deliberately altered form of ישוע . It was the most common form used by Jews writing in an Aramaic or Hebrew context from Talmudic times to the 19th century when referring to Jesus of Nazareth, but Christians knowledgeable in Hebrew can consider it to be offensive, and you won't find it in religious literature translated into Hebrew by Christians. AnonMoos 17:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I now see that both Yeshua and Yeshu have extensive pages of their own, and am providing them here for other interested readers seeking further explanations of these variant names. -- Deborahjay 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I could very well be wrong on my spellings of Jesus and what language they associate with. Thanks for any corrections! Mostly just looking for other spellings that have "esous" or "ous" or "ou" in them. Thanks again to all of you for this help and corrections. --Doug ^talk 15:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"ou" was the ancient Hellenistic Greek spelling of an ordinary long [ū] vowel, and so was used in ancient Hellenistic Greek to transcribe the long [ū] vowel of the Hebrew/Aramaic name ישוע [yēšū`] (ending in a voiced pharyngeal conosnant - this name wasn't pronounced [yēšūă`] in Aramaic/Hebrew until a later period). AnonMoos 16:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Middle English of this spelling, if I am not mistaken wouldn't it be more likely spelled Ihesu since the letter "J" was not yet used (or in wide use). This then to me looks a lot like Hebrew/Aramaic name ישוע [yēšū`], since the letter "i" and "y" seem to be interchangable (many times). This then would be "Ihesu" (or "Iesu") being very similar to "yesu". Would that be a good assumption and conclusion? Perhaps this is where John Wycliffe got his spelling of "Jesus" for his New Testament translation? Taking this further and placing the letters "ou" back in on Wycliffe's interpretation it could be then Iesou or Greek Iesous(as in above), being the same thing as today's "Jesus". Is this a correct conclusion? In Greek could the letters "ies" or "ie" or "es" be equivalent to (or be similar to) the letter "n" (something like just the letter "u" could replace the letters "ou")? --Doug ^talk 23:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that 'J' wasn't used, it was the same letter as 'I', rather in the same way that a printed 'a' and a script 'a' have very different shapes, but we read them as the same letter without even noticing. In any mediaeval language in Europe 'Ihesu' and 'Jhesu' were the same spelling. But don't assume that the 'h' was necessarily pronounced in that word in English - it might have been, but it might equally have been a spelling variant of 'Iesu'. I would think that the spelling 'Iesus' was adopted directly from the Greek, but I don't know for shure.

I don't understand your last question. The letter 'u' could replace Greek 'ου' because it represented the same sound. The Greek letter 'υ' had already become fronted (like modern French 'u') even in hellenistic times. But no Greek sequence with a 'σ' (i.e. 's') is going to sound like 'n'. --ColinFine 00:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for these great answers and corrections. Excellent info. --Doug ^talk 11:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerome's De Viris Illustribus Chapter 80

Chapter 80 of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus says Chapter 80 Firmianus (Lactantius): Firmianus, known also as Lactantius. In Latin I believe it reads: Firmianus qui et Lactantius -- close to meaning of ...who (or which) is also.... The question: is the Latin meaning closer to "which is also" or would it be "whom is also"? Would the two names of "Firmianus" and "Lactantius" be considered one and the same. From those words it appears this way. Or could it be that "Lactantius" is a surname (i.e. family last name) and "Firmianus" is a First Name (i.e. given name at birth). --Doug ^talk 10:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As you can see in our article Lactantius, "Lactantius" is the cognomen of Lucius Cae(ci)lius Firmianus Lactantius. ("Lactantius" is also listed in the list of Roman cognomina.) The antecedent of who (or which) is a human being, so who is the usual English relative pronoun here. The meaning is appropriately captured by the English translation quoted.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The chapter heading "Firmianus (Lactantius)" is true to how Jerome puts it. He basically says, "Firmianus, a.k.a. Lactantius" (the omitted verb is not "is," but "is called," or, as in the English translation "is known as"). While the writer can be & is sometimes correctly referred to as Lactantius Firmianus, Jerome would not seem to be prescribing this, but simply letting his readers know that this is the author often known as Lactantius. ("Whom is also" is grammatically impossible. I don't understand how your proposed translations relate to the various interpretations you think the words might bear. As Lambiam says, the antecedent would seem to be the human being, not the name, if the latter is what you're suggesting with "which.") Wareh 14:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these great answers. Now I understand that the heading "Firmianus (Lactantius)" is true to how Jerome puts it. I thought that was the case. The wording "is called" makes perfect sense to me. I was told otherwise, so I just wanted to get this clear. Thanks again for the help. I have a handle on it now. The name known by or cognomen also makes sense. I notice in the article cognomen they use for an example my friend "Scipio". Scipio (plural, Scipiones) is a Roman cognomen used by a branch of the Cornelii family. Cornelius (fem. Cornelia) was the nomen of the patrician gens Cornelia, one of the important families of Ancient Rome. This is all beginning to make perfect sense to me and is coming together. I then assume some wording like Firmianus the rhetorician, surnamed Lactantius would not be correct. Using the above arguments for example the Cornelii family is where the name Cornelius comes from. In the case of P. Cornelius Scipio, his family name is Cornelius however he goes by the name "Scipio" (like a nickname). So in our case Lactantius would not be a surname, but a cognomen (the name known by). This is like Robert Smyth, where Robert is called "Bob". So as a comparison "Firmianus, a.k.a. Lactantius" would be like "Robert, a.k.a. Bob"; and the surname is Smyth (an entirely different name meaning because it is the family (tribe) name like Cornelius). --Doug ^talk 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The comparison is not entirely correct. The classical Roman naming conventions have no clear correspondence to English naming systems. If you want to compare P. Cornelius Scipio to Robert Smyth, then the best correspondence is as follows:

• Given name: Robert / Publius
• Surname: Smyth / Cornelius Scipio

The father of "your" P. Cornelius Scipio was also a Cornelius Scipio (and in fact another Publius Cornelius Scipio; see further the Scipio-Paullus-Gracchus family tree). The Romans had nothing comparable to English nicknames like "Bob". Given someone's full name, it is not quite predictable what shorter form(s) are conventionally used; compare Tiberius Claudius Nero and Tiberius Claudius Drusus, or Titus Flavius Vespasianus and Titus Flavius Vespasianus.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Great information, thanks. Yes I was aware that my friend "Scipio" (famous Italian general) had a father by the same name of "Cornelius Scipio". Thanks for making that more clear. Now the real question is then: the wording of Firmianus the rhetorician, surnamed Lactantius would not be correct then, right? This is because "Lactantius" would be a cognomen, not a surname. In other words,

• Given name: Firmianus / (Lactantius)
• Surname: unknown

Would the above then be correct, since the wording used of "is called" and "also know as (a.k.a.)" and "known also as" are used? Also then am I correct in the knowledge that Jerome conveyed this as "Firmianus (Lactantius)" ; not of this wording above in bold italic that I believe to be wrong (...surnamed Lactantius)? I don't see here in Chapter 80 where Jerome says Firmianus the rhetorician. So do you believe the above bold italic to be correct or "Firmianus (Lactantius)"?--Doug ^talk 23:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If his full name is Lucius Caelius Firmianus Lactantius, then his praenomen (given name) is Lucius, his nomen (extended family name) is Caelius, and his cognomen (closer family name) is Lactantius, and Firmianus probably shows that he (or possibly an ancestor, I'm not sure about that) was born into the Firmius extended family and adopted into the Caelii Lactantii. In modern terms, his "surname" would be Caelius Firmianus Lactantius, or any part thereof. As an example, Julius Caesar's full name was Gaius Julius Caesar, so "Julius Caesar" is his surname, but in contemporary records like Cicero's letters and speeches he's usually referred to as "Gaius Caesar" or simply "Caesar". The phrase "surnamed Lactantius" is not entirely incorrect as Lactantius is an inherited family name, but it's a bit misleading if your only point of reference is English naming practice.

The only "pet" form of a name (equivalent of "Bob" for "Robert") I'm aware of is Cicero's daughter Tullia, whom he often calls "Tulliola". --Nicknack009 01:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I somewhere remember Agrippina the Younger being called "Agrippinilla", and not just in Robert Graves's novels. --Charlene 05:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

O.K., then based on this I should re-think what I wrote about and perhaps put it this way then

• Given name: Lucius
• Surname: Firmianus / (Lactantius)

In this case then the expression and the wording of Firmianus the rhetorician, surnamed Lactantius would not be correct then, right? This is because it is implying "Firmianus" to be a first name and "Lactantius" to be a surname; two differenct entities as it is written this way. Wouldn't it be more correct to just write it as "Firmianus (Lactantius)"? The way it is written above does not indicate that "Firmianus" and "Lactantius" are basically one and the same: it indicates these as two different items. Besides Jerome himself never wrote it that way (wording of bold italic).--Doug ^talk 12:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think using the term "surname" in connection to Roman names is anachronistic. But, as pointed out above by Nicknack009, the closest correspondence to this terminology for English names we can present for Lactantius is:

• Given name: Lucius
• Surname: Cae(ci)lius Firmianus Lactantius

We don't know enough about the person to be even certain about the gens: is it "Caelius" or "Caecilius"? In Lactantius' period the Roman naming conventions were applied much more loosely than in the ancient days of the republic, and by the lack of further information we can't be entirely certain of the respective roles and importance of the parts "Firmianus" and "Lactantius". Quoting from the introductory notice to a translation of some of Lactantius' work:

Lactantius has always held a very high place among the Christian Fathers, not only on account of the subject-matter of his writings, but also on account of the varied erudition, the sweetness of expression, and the grace and elegance of style, by which they are characterized. It appears, therefore, more remarkable that so little is known with certainty respecting his personal history. We are unable to fix with precision either the place or time of his birth, and even his name has been the subject of much discussion. It is known that he was a pupil of Arnobius, who gave lectures in rhetoric at Sicca in Africa. Hence it has been supposed that Lactantius was a native of Africa, while others have maintained that he was born in Italy, and that his birthplace probably was Firmium, on the Adriatic. He was probably born about the middle of the third century, since he is spoken of as far advanced in life about a.d. 315. He is usually denominated "Lucius Cælius Firmianus Lactantius;" but the name Cæcilius is sometimes substituted for Cælius, and it is uncertain whether Firmianus is a family name or a local [i.e. of Firmium] designation. Some have even supposed that he received the name of Lactantius from the milky softness of his style.

There is nothing wrong with using "Firmianus (Lactantius)", or, more or less following Jerome, "Firmianus (known also as Lactantius)".  --Lambiam^Talk 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with you and as a matter of fact believe this to be the better way to express it. This would be the proper way to write this heading to Chapter 80 ""Firmianus (Lactantius)", or even "Firmianus (known also as Lactantius)" ; however what I am concerned about is that this wording misrepresents Jerome's intended heading: Firmianus the rhetorician, surnamed Lactantius. I believe this bold italic to not be correct. What do you think? Below is what I suggest is correct and incorrect

• Correct: "Firmianus (Lactantius)" and "Firmianus (known also as Lactantius)"
• Incorrect: Firmianus the rhetorician, surnamed Lactantius

Need a "Third Opinion" on the above bold italic, which I do not think is the way Jerome intended it. I believe Jerome intended instead "Firmianus (a.k.a. Lactantius)". Is that right? --Doug ^talk 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Firmanius (a.k.a. Lactanius)" and "Firmanius, surnamed Lactanius" are equivalent, thought the latter is likely to be misconstrued by those who know only the secondary meaning of "surname". The primary meaning is "an added name derived from occupation or other circumstance: nickname". I agree that the former is therefore preferable, but that does not make the latter wrong. - Nunh-huh 02:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and clarification. --Doug ^talk 16:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Bible books

How many total books are there in the normal bible used by the Baptist faith? --Doug ^talk 12:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Our article on Books of the Bible (which really should be incorporated into the one on the Biblical canon, no?) suggests 39 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament, for a total of 66. (Many opt for the King James translation). - Nunh-huh 13:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My copy of the King James version has 66. My Catholic version has 73. Dismas|^(talk) 15:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding has been in the past of 66 books. What is different on the Catholic version? Do the following also have 66 books total or are some different: Methodist, Lutheran, LDS, Jehovah's Witness, Christian Science.--Doug ^talk 15:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Our article on deuterocanonical books explains why a Catholic Bible has additional books not found in most Protestant Bibles. Gandalf61 16:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the Catholic Church was around a long time before the Protestant churches, I think it's more accurate to say the Protestant Bibles have fewer books than the Catholic one. The Protestants removed some books from the existing bible - it wasn't a case of the Catholics adding anything.  :) JackofOz 22:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's about time you showed some Catholic pride, Jack! Good on you!Loomis 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with pride, mate. I severed my connection with the Catholic Church more years ago than most Wikipedians have been alive. I'm more interested in factual accuracy and correcting misleading or distorted statements. JackofOz 02:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

JackofOz, I take it you are referring to my response above when you talk about "misleading or distorted statements". For the record, I was using "additional" in the sense of "more", not "added". I definitely did not imply that the Catholic Church added books to the Protestant Bible - that would be nonsense. Please think about WP:AGF before you start disparaging other people in a public forum like this. Gandalf61 12:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Great information. Even under that article of the Section "New Testament" it seems to show an agreement that most of these Christian faiths agree that it has 27 books. The Hebrew Bible (sometimes referred to as the Old Testament) apparently then has 39 books, for a total of 66 books for the entire bible. --Doug ^talk 16:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just mentioned it recently, but I suppose I should repeat it. The Old Testament is a Christian concept, and though it's almost identical to the Hebrew Bible, the two aren't comprised of precisely the same books, nor are they in the same order. Loomis 23:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate on the above point: The Hebrew Canon has 24 books, not 39. The 12 minor prophets were considered as one book; 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel together would have been considered as one book (same with Kings and Chronicles). The order of books is different in some areas as well. If you want to see a comparative list of the canons check out [1]

Thanks, this is most useful information. It helps clear this up. --Doug ^talk 16:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Relationship of Jerome to Eusebius

Jerome attacks Eusebius as "prince of Arians" in a letter to a friend. (Could I get a better explanation on this). In Jerome's De Viris Illustribus of Chapter 135 where Jerome gives a short autobiography, he says he is the son of Eusebius; however this article does not seem to represent this. Are we talking about two different "Eusebius" or is the meaning of the word "son" here something different (perhaps 'student' instead)? --Doug ^talk 14:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If we are referring specifically to Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian of the early Christian church, then, yes, in doctrinal terms he had been heavily influenced by Arius and Origen, stressing the subordination of the Son to the Father. Jerome is grossly overstressing his significance, though, because Eusebius made no original contribution to Arian theology. Although he was nearly excommunicated for heresy he finally submitted to the Nicene Creed after the Council of Nicaea. Clio the Muse 14:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these great answers. So then to just clarify to make sure I have it correct; Jerome was not physically a son (family decendent) of Eusebius being his physical father (blood relation). In the Jerome article it even says that Jerome was from Christian parents, not actually giving their names. His blood relation father then was not Eusebius then, but then more on the order of a "teacher". It looks like to me then that it is closer to a "teacher" to "student" relationship between Eusebius and Jerome then an actual physical blood relationship as in genealogy. --Doug ^talk 16:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jerome was called Eusebius himself, and it is quite possible his father also had the name Eusebius. Both men were not Eusebius "Pamphili", the bishop of Cæsarea, who died a couple of years before Jerome was born.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, that clears it up. Thanks for this additional answer. That helped alot. --Doug ^talk 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of the word "Publius"

Noticed in many Roman names (especially someone of rank) (i.e. Scipio Africanus) that they use first the name "Publius" which I noticed sometimes when the Latin name is shown as just a "P." for the word "Publius" (like in Scipio's example). Is it a similar meaning as the English word "public". In the case of Scipio, it then becomes "P. Cornelius Scipio", where Cornelius (family name) is before the given name (Scipio). Can I get a better explanation on this, thanks.--Doug ^talk 14:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My latin dictionary says that it is just another first name (note that Romans used funny first names like "secunda"). It looks like publicus (public), but the two are not the same. C mon 14:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(written during edit conflict)"Publius" is actually Scipio's given, or personal, name. It was a common given name among Romans in the ruling class. Given names often do not really have a meaning, even if they once did. What, for example, would you say is the meaning of "John" or "Fred"? Even if an etymological dictionary provides a meaning for these names, for most people they are just names. As for "Publius", it does seem to come from the same root as "public", though what this meant to Romans, if anything, I'm not sure. Perhaps it originally meant something like "of the people", "popular", or "destined for public life". "Scipio", by the way, is this person's cognomen. (See Roman naming conventions.) Marco polo 14:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Doug. Roman names came in three basic parts: the praenomen, or personal name; the nomen, or family name; and the cognomen, used to dfferentiate people within a particular family still further. The name Publius was one of a very limited number of praenomen, and would have been used only by the immediate family. It does indeed mean 'public' in Latin. The eldest son usually took his father's name. Praenomen were commonly abbreviated in inscriptions. Clio the Muse 14:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Great answers, thanks! --Doug ^talk 15:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Origination of the name "Goth"

The first Avignon Pope was Clement V. His real name is "Bertrand de Goth", which I assume is Bertrand of Goth. Goth apparently is a region or type of people. What does this mean exactly, that of "Goth". How did that become a part of his name? --Doug ^talk 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked out Goths? They were a Germanic tribe. Sacked Rome and all that. Pretty important from the 4th through the 6th centuries. Bertrand there was probably descended from a few of them; for a period a branch of them (the Visigoths) had control of lots of France, including the region of what would later be Bordeaux, where Clement was (much later) born. That the last bits have any connection to the name is pure conjecture on my part, though. --24.147.86.187 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The fullest information I could find on Bertrand was in the Catholic Encyclopedia, where he is referred to as 'Bertrand de Got', but even that offers no explanation for the origin of his name. The Goths did occupy Gascony for a time, though by the late thirteenth century, when Bertrand was born, they had left little trace of themselves. The name suggests a link with a place called Got, perhaps in the neighbourhood of Villandraut; but I, too, am speculating. Clio the Muse 03:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The family name is often spelled Gouth. In the Nobiliare de Guienne et Gasconne (p 355) I see that Bertrande de Gouth, daughter of Bernard de Gouth, married in 1573 Thomas de Pontac. The earlier form of the name was de Agathis (Jean Justin Monlezun, Histoire de la Gascogne, p. 98) or perhaps Gouth de Agathis; the family held the Château of Villandraut, (Image:Plan.chateau.Villandraut.png illustrates a groundplan, from Viollet-le-Duc) as Clio notes, near Bazas, and claimed noble descent since the 1100s. The connection with Goth is purely coincidental.--Wetman 05:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these answers. The family name of "Gouth" history of Wetman seems to make the most sense to me. I have some good information to follow up on now. --Doug ^talk 11:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How to make columns

I wrote the Wikipedia article Jerome's De Viris Illustribus. In Libri I it is a list of 134 authors. I would like to make a "Table" spreadsheet so that it consists of 4 columns wide (with no showing lines between them). This way then it will be 4 columns wide and 34 rows deep (perhaps easier to navigate). I would then like to STILL have it that each name can be edited for the future. In other words, to be able to change or edit the name through the normal way of "Editing" modifications for the future. --Doug ^talk 13:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The following template is the "start" template that is then used with several other templates: {{col-begin}}. There are detailed instructions on how to use these templates. Let me know if you have any other questions.↔NMajdan•talk 13:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That worked just great --> Thanks! --Doug ^talk 15:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Balkans

What language did the Balkans use in the 5th century A.D.? Were they part of the Ancient Italic peoples? Did they use a language from Greece or Italy or France or some other western European languages around this time period? --Doug ^talk 22:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would guess, Greek in the south, some Latin (i.e. the predecessor of modern Romanian), and in addition, dispersed groups of Illyrian, Cimmerian, Thracian, Celtic, and Eastern Germanic speaking peoples. Not all that many Slavs until after the Avar debacle of 602 A.D. AnonMoos 01:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the people near the Danube may have spoken the Dacian language, an extinct language related to Albanian. The Huns, who spoke a Turkic language, harassed the area around today's Serbia. They did have some Slavs with them. -- Mwalcoff 02:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The page on the Balkan linguistic union has some sketchy information on contacts between Proto-Romanian and Proto-Albanian linguistic groups between the 1st and 5th centuries AD. The dominant language in Illyria to the west of the Balkan peninsula was still Vulgar Latin, in the urban settlements anyway. The map on this page shows an extensive distribution of Eastern Romance or East Latin over the whole of the northern Balkan area at the beginning of the fifth century [2]. To the south-east the ancient Thracian language was still in use, though it had disappeared by the 6th century. Further south the dominant language was Greek. Clio the Muse 08:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a great answer. I have much to work on now. That was most helpful!! --Doug ^talk 20:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Poet Laureate

In 1341 Petrarch was crowned poet laureate in Rome for his epic poem called "Africa". He was the first person since antiquity to be given this honor; some 1000 years. This would put it then in about the 4th century, since he was of the 14th century. Whom was this previous person before Petrarch? Of Rome or of Greece or...? --Doug ^talk 20:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely Gulielmus Peregrinus, court poet to Richard the Lionheart, preceeds Petrarch by well over a century? I cannot say, though, if he was accorded that title specifically. I do not believe that the formal designation existed in classical times. Clio the Muse 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It was it was Theodosius who killed the Roman title, see Theodosius I#Proscription of Paganism. In his attempt to christianise the empire he abolished anything vaguely pagan including the Olympics. The Olympics and other games were when laureates were usually crowned but I don't know if there was ever any consistency between life laureateship and short term holders of laurels. It did actually outlive Theodosius with Claudian [3] having probably the best claim to the last of that title by a Roman but the job was in effect privatised, with him being employed by Stilicho rather than the state. Ah it seems Attius Tiro Delphidius may have been the last officially crowned at an olympics in the time of Theodosius, here is a latin poem about him by Ausonius meltBanana 21:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these answers. Looking up these references at a quick glance it does appear that in fact it was in the 4th century when all this type history took place. This will be a lot for me to obsorb. I will be studying it, now that I have some great leads to work on. Thanks for these leads and this great information. --Doug ^talk 22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How to use ffmpeg2theora

For those of us who don't understand a single word at the "examples" page of the ffmpeg2theora site, it would be nice with a hint on how to use it. Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 18:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the super-executive summary of how to use ff2mpeg for windows:

1. Save ffmpeg2theora to your desktop
2. Go to start -> run
3. Type "cmd" and hit enter. A black screen will pop up. This is the command prompt
4. Drag the ffmpeg2theora icon (the one on your desktop) into the window. The ffmpeg2theora's location will be copied into the command prompt window
5. Click the window and hit the space bar once (to put a space a after the address)
6. Drag the file you want decoded (let's call it xyz.mpg) into the command prompt window
7. Click the command prompt window and hit enter
8. Assuming you did everything correct, ffmpeg2theora will convert the file. The new location will be xyz.ogg. →Raul654 19:45, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Innovations & Inventions

Is there presently a "Wiki project" where the concepts of entering in practical ideas for everyday problems is located?

• Innovations Wanted to everyday problems (i.e. How to save money in purchasing products)
• Inventions Wanted to everyday problems (i.e. How to make a certain type work task easier)
• Possible Innovation Solution to everyday problems (i.e. practical concept solution others have found out that has not been widely disseminated yet)
• Possible Inventive Solutions to everyday problems (i.e. practical device solutions that a person uses personally that is not widely disseminated yet)

These all sound like original research and not really within the scope of an encyclopedia. If you mean a project somewhere else other than Wikipedia, probably not. --24.147.86.187 22:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wiki-How. --Seejyb 07:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Street Light Interference

Human "Radio Wave" Transmitter

For at 20 years (maybe even more) I have been able to effect street lights or the gas in them somehow to make them go out when I walk under them. This particular type gas (whatever it is in these bulbs) apparently is sensitive to radio waves. I can not effect ALL street lights, but perhaps 10% of them. The ones that go out I can then go back later (after it eventually comes back on in 5 minutes to 5 hours) and I can make this same bulb go out again. At my apartment complex where I live they have outside lights (of apparently the same type inner gas) that I also effect about 10% of them. It is so predictable that I have been able to video record the event many times (proving it is not happenstance). Also it proves that it is not mechanical in any way (i.e. loose or intermittent connection). Also street lights do not have "On / Off" switches, so there is not a person turning it off when I walk under it (many times no person within 1000 feet). I have many eye witnesses (i.e. apartment complex maintenance people, apartment complex managers, friends, relatives, and complete strangers). Many times when the bulb is out I walk under them and the bulb pops back on when apparently my "human radio waves" are with range (about 20 feet +/- 10 feet). Is these such phenomena as "human radio waves" or a "human radio transmitter" or something like this known in science? --Doug ^talk 00:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it's called black body radiation, though the EM radiation you should be emitting ought to be at a slightly shorter wavelength... -- mattb @ 2007-01-29T00:45Z

You do understand that high-intensity discharge lamps "cycle" at the end of their lives, going on and off on a, say, five minute cycle. You might also want to check Magical objects in Harry Potter for the "put-outer".

Atlant 01:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As it happens, we do have an article about that! It's at Street light interference. (Yes, sometimes it seems Wikipedia has an article about everything.) --cesarb 02:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for that! I always figured that this was just another hint that Jesus hates me. There's a light that does this outside the security gate to my workplace. I didn't realize people actually did some research into it. Dismas|^(talk) 05:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had a similar experience, and always figured that there was some sort of sensor on the lights that turned them off if it saw any reflected light, and that my car or clothing or whatever reflected just enough light, in those circumstances where my presence seemed to turn them off, to trip the sensor. I suppose I do walk past an awful lot of street lamps on a daily basis, some are bound to turn off, and of course I wouldn't notice those that didn't. ^tucker/_rekcut 12:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The sensors, at least the ones I've taken apart, wouldn't be affected by your passing by for at least two reasons: One, they include substantial time delays for both turn-on and turn-off; they don't change their minds quickly. Two: If properly installed, they tend to be arranged to look towards the northern sky rather than down at you walking by.

Atlant 13:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

i agree with Atlant (again?) that the sensors I had experience of for cotrolling street lighting were mounted on top of the lamp housing looking at the sky. Its difficult to see these sensors from the ground.

I did not however know about this discharge lamps cycling. Is that a design feature or are you taking us for a (bike) ride 8-)--Light current 12:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:-). But "cycling" is a well-known phenomenon in the life cycle of HID lamps. It's a natural result of the Work function of the cathodes rising as the emissive material is blasted off of them over the life of the lamps, combined with the way the voltage across the arc tube rises as temperature (and so, pressure) rise in the arc tube as the lamp heats up.

Atlant 12:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm IDKT. You learn something new every day. THanks for illuminating the process! 8-)--Light current 13:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I cant see anything in the article about end of life cycling. Maybe someone could add it?--Light current 14:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote text for Street light interference yesterday; I'll go swipe it into the HID articles.

Atlant 16:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(Done, although the various cut-n-pastes may have some redundant Wikilinks.

Atlant 17:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

You all have given me excellent answers. Appreciate it very much. I figured that probably I was not unique on this phenomena so was looking for others where this happens. The Wikipedia article Street light interference has touched on the subject pretty close. Now I can call myself either a "SLIer" or a "Puter-Outer". For the "skeptics" I will respond:

• Not the "Pauli effect" or "Synchronicity", closer to that of a "Put-Outer". Somehow I am sending out a type of "radio signal" that has a frequency that interfers with the gases igniting within the bulb itself. Also I am not effecting the electrical ballast or associated electronics. It is definitely the igniting of the gases that produces the light.
• Recorded it several times on video. To prove that I am the one "sending out a signal" I have had several other people go under the same Street Light and nothing happens; however when I go under it, then "Out" goes the bulb. Or if the bulb is already out, then I turn the bulb back "On" igniting the gases withing the bulb to ignite with a type of a microwave signal.
• I have watched the Street Light from a distance with several other witnesses and nothing happens to the bulb for hours. However the minute I go under it, "Out" it goes (video recorded). If it was something mechanical (i.e. light at the end of its life cycle) then it would happen with no person coming close to it - however nothing happens to it on its own.
• Many times, once I put "Out" the Street Light, it never comes back on until the electrical power is turned off the following morning at daybreak. Then the Street Light works normally again the next day for hours on end, until I walk under it. If it was of a mechnical or electronic nature then the bulb would re-ignite on its own, however it does not (most times). When other people I send out to go under this same Street Light, nothing happens. Tested this several times to prove it is beyond just a "happenstance" event. It is definitely a type of "radio signal" or "micro-wave signal" or of this nature. It is some sort of electrical signal sent out from the brain interfering with the gases igniting as they were designed to do to produce the light. Also I have figured it is not something I can control; nor is it good or bad. It is just a phenomena that happens, apparently to only a few people worldwide.
  

Apparently it looks like it is less than 1-in-a-million this happens to. I didn't even know what this was called or that it had an official name ("SLI"), however I knew for a fact it does exist. Is there others out there this happens to also? I would like to hear from others; maybe we can pinpoint its exact source, which is probably a type of a microwave "radio signal".
For the "skeptics": never read Harry Potter, never went to any of the movies. I am an old retiree interested in articles on Francesco Petrarch. --Doug ^talk 14:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems out of the realm of science to answer your question... As alluded to earlier, the chance that you're emitting any significant microwave EM radiation is pretty infintesimal.. -- mattb @ 2007-01-30T15:05Z

It is definitely a science question. Just because the "skeptics" didn't have it happen to them or video record the event themselves, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Video recording the event takes away "happenstance". This phenomena definitely exist, as others already responded to and know. So, bottomline: Is there others out there this happens to also? I would like to hear from others; maybe we can pinpoint its exact source. Thanks "SLIers" for responding. We will figure out what it really is (scientifically).--Doug ^talk 15:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Since I started this article, I would like to add some additional information to this article of Street Light Interference after doing additional research recently on the internet. I believe this would relate to primary source and proving this phenomena exists instead of it being a mere coincidence. I have video recorded this on many occassions and it was definitely repeatable. I have several eye witnesses at the time of the video recording the event taking place. One was an apartment maintenance manager to a very large apartment complex. I could get him to sign a statement that he was an eye witness to the event. He held the camera when he took this video when I went under the bulb and make it go out (several times). He had several people adjacent next to him at the time. They are all eye witnesses. Would this then be considered a primary source that this information could be entered into the article Street light interference? Would this be sufficient proof (at least for a start)? What additional proof would be needed to show this phenomena is real?--Doug ^talk 19:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources, in particular the part about primary sources. --cesarb 23:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reduced text

Here is the code to generate reduced size text: <div style="font-size: 80%"> at head; and </div> at foot

Renaissance humanism and New Testament hard copies

In literature, Dante Alighieri (1265–1321) and Francesco Petrarch (1304–1374) are often considered the Fathers of the Renaissance. These figures as well as others like Poggio Bracciolini scoured the monastic libraries across Europe for lost ancient texts, especially classical Middle Ages Latin works (also ancient Greek works). However I can NOT find any reference to these well known figures (or others of similar notoriety) that they ACTUALLY "found" anything of the New Testament. Also in their writings I can NOT find where they even mention that they had physically in their hands an ACTUAL hard copy of anything of the Middle Ages from before the Fourteenth Century that they even read of books or Codexes of the New Testament. Where is there references that any of these 3 (or similar Renaissance humanism figures) actually had primary sources of the New Testament that were verified from them (saying something to the effect "it appeared" to them to be "hundreds of years old" as a physical hard copy, that they had in their hands they were reading from, of a hand written copy done by a copyist of the Middle Ages of BEFORE the year 1300)? Not speaking of any of the 39 books of the Old Testament texts, just any of the 27 books of the New Testament. --Doug 16:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Doug. I feel sure that your knowledge of Petrarch and Dante is considerably better than my own, but I'm finding it a little difficult to pinpoint a specific question here. However, I do not believe that either of these great authors was working from original texts, but simply interpreting what was part of the common knowledge of western Christendom. Clio the Muse 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Doug, Why are you so insistent that they MUST have had original copies? And why do you keep shouting at us? I doubt if I am the only one who finds all your CAPITALS and emphasis distracts me when I'm trying to read you. I don't know the answer to your question, but the parsimonious answer, in the absence of any direct evidence, is that they didn't mention having originals because they didn't have them. Also, I wonder whether they would have found the age and authenticity of the physical document as important as we do today? --ColinFine 17:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks both for answering. I will restrict my use of capitals. I was just using them to show emphases, however I'll hold back on this usage. Also perhaps I should have made my question more clear. What I meant to say was that I am looking for where either Petrarch or Dante (or any others like them) say in any of their "works" or letters that they actually read any actual hard copies of the New Testament. I can not find any evidence of this. Now I also should have made clear (my fault) what I am looking for is not of an "Original" (of say from the first few centuries), however any hard copy done by a copyist off any of these supposed 'Originals' copied perhaps in the years say between 1000 - 1300. The Idea being NOT (sorry) of an 'Original' but of one done by a copyist off these supposed 'Originals' of any of the 27 books of the New Testament. I do NOT (sorry again) believe that it was a part of the common knowledge of western Christendom. Need an actual reference from one of these Renaissance people (a famous well known person of high reputation like Dante, Boccaccio, Petrarch, Da Vinci) that says they themselves actually had in their little paws some actual Copies off these "supposed" 'Originals' of any of these books of the New Testament. Perhaps I may sound a little skeptical, however let me make my viewpoint much more clear. I am VERY (really really I'm sorry) skeptical!! In other words, I do not believe you will ever find in any of their letters or works where they say they had a hard copy that they believed to be "several hundred years old" or some wording to this effect from THEM. Taking your word is not good enough. In other words, looking for a reference from them (a famous Renaissance person) that they had such NT books in their little o' paws. Now that should show up in at least some of their "works" or letters. Petrarch wrote over 500 letters alone, not counting the several hundred letters to all kinds of people (many high ranking like Popes and Kings) these others wrote to. However there is no evidence they even read from the New Testament (Latin or Greek), let alone collected any of these Codexes. None collected any of these ancient hard copy Codexes or manuscripts that were copies off the supposed Originals(or even read them). Why not??? There is no records or references of this at all. --Doug 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite get where you're coming from. I suggested that if they didn't say they had any, then perhaps they didn't, and I think you're saying the same thing but with more emphasis (Sorry). What's the big deal?

I can't work out whether you're actually trying to prove they didn't have ancient copies, or that they did but conspired not to say so. What's wrong with my suggestion that they didn't have ancient copies and didn't regard this as an important issue? Or do you have some evidence to the contrary? --ColinFine 00:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not saying there was any conspiracy. Some of these Renaissance people I named were in different time periods (i.e. Petrarch and Da Vinci) so there could not be a conspiracy. The big deal is that there is no proof whats-so-ever that any of these Renaissance people ever had physically in there hands any of the pages (i.e. any of the Originals of say 100 A.D. - 900 A.D. or hand written copies by copyist of about 1000 A.D. - 1300 A.D.) of the New Testament. If these people (i.e Petrarch and Poggio Bracciolini) collected the classics of ancient Latin (and some Greek) texts then why didn't any of these Renaissance people collect any pages or books or manuscripts or Codexes (Middle Ages 1000 A.D. - 1300 A.D. hard copy thereof) since it would be quite valuable. They collected much other Latin classics, however NONE of the New Testament. There is absolutely no proof (references of their letters or their "works") of any of these Renaissance people collected any of these. Perhaps there was none? If no Renaissance people collected (or even read) any Middle Ages (i.e. 1000 - 1300) copies, then how do we know there is any? In fact I say there was no such Codexes of the New Testament for them to put in their little o' paws. That's why there is no records they collected any. If anyone knows of any references from any famous Renaissance person saying they collected or even read from any New Testament 'Originals' or even any copies (i.e. 1000 - 1300), please show me that reference. Must be something of their "works" or of one of their letters. Actual documentation of Renaissance references. --Doug 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Doug, I have to say that I completely agree with Colin on this issue: I do not think the antiquity of documents would be an issue of any fundamental importance to any Renaissance author, who may indeed have prized more recent hand-written copies, still enormously expensive for the time. To be honest, and please forgive me for being so direct, you give me the impression of being on some kind of crusade or personal quest, and I am not really sure that the Reference Desk is the place to be making these points at such length. Clio the Muse 01:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Codex Vaticanus (written in the 4th century) "has been housed in the Vatican Library (founded by Pope Nicholas V in 1448) for as long as it has been known, appearing in its earliest catalog of 1475 and in the 1481 catalogue." Wareh 02:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If I understand the question correctly, Doug seems to be asking why, if the Renaissance Humanists were collectors of old Latin and Greek texts, they didn't collect old Biblical texts as well as Classical ones. My understanding of the answer is, the Renaissance was a time where neglected Classical Greek and Latin texts, i.e. texts that hadn't been extensively copied in the Middle Ages, and were thus not well known, were actively sought out and disseminated. It wasn't like collecting first editions. If you found a copy of the works of, say, Tacitus, you'd be discovering a work which had been virtually unknown and unread for centuries. The books of the New Testament, on the other hand, would have been among the most copied, disseminated and read texts in existence. Finding an old copy wouldn't mean gaining any new knowledge, so wouldn't have been a priority for the humanists. --Nicknack009 03:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the answers above. Fully understand them, especially that of Nicknack. Elaborating on Nicnack's answer, the question is (where I didn't made clear in the original question): how does one know that in fact the books of the New Testament were amoung the most copied IF there is no Renaissance Humanists saying in any of their works or letters that they actually read from such books of the New Testament, copied in Latin (I assume). Looking for documented proof (i.e. personal letter, diary, poem, book or "work" by a Renaissance Humanist) that says they themselves have actually read from the New Testament. Looking for something from the Renaissance Humanists that shows proof the New Testament was widely disseminated and read texts in existence. I am not talking of books of the Old Testament, however of the New Testament. On that of the Codex Vaticanus: agree totally with the quotation found by Wareh. However those dates do NOT show an indication of the New Testament in existence before the Fourteenth Century (my original question). It only shows an indication of the New Testament existence after the Fifteenth Century. The earliest date (per quotation) is 1475. The part of "(written in the 4th century)" is not part of the quotation and is just something someone injected to make it appear older than it really is. Looking for actual reference documentation that the New Testament existed before the Fourteenth Century. I have researched this question for over 2 years through several history books and many encyclopedias and can not find such documentation from a quote (for example) of a Renaissance Humanist giving an indication that they themselves had in hand physically an actual copy of the New Testament. Where is there such? --Doug 09:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For a Renaissance Humanist who can be unequivocally said to have read the New Testament, there's always Erasmus, who not only read it, but published a critical edition of the Greek and a new Latin translation in the early 16th century. For evidence of knowledge of the Latin Vulgate in pre-14th century Europe, see my answers to one of your other questions further down the page. --Nicknack009 21:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not heard that Dante spent time searching for old manuscripts. Petrarch as you know was ordained, so a bible was nothing new to him (remember at the time you read Vulgate or nothing, by church order). He could not hardly written to the pope to say he had just discovered the Vulgate. As you will know, he specifically lamented and searched for the Greek and Latin writings that had been neglected by the people of the age which he called the "dark ages." He had no reason to go looking for bibles; they, of all, had not been neglected, so they would not be his field of interest. Erasmus, as Nicknack noted, does not fit your hypothesis. The texts he used to make up the Textus Receptus were very much pre-renaissance. As for new discoveries and old texts, almost all the old NT texts and books from before 600AD have been discovered and dated during the past 200 years. If not writing about something is taken as evidence of it's non-existence, then the deduction you must make from Leonardo's notebook is that his writing is proof that there were no women in his time (or at least that they were not "widely disseminated"). Leonardo must be considered a more accurate observer than Petrarch, no? If two persons did not write about bibles in a century, that is absence of writing, and if you think that proof will be found in their writings (Why? This would require exceptionally strong justification), then that is absence of proof, not the other way round. It would be difficult to ignore the knowledge that paleography and textual criticism has given us about the existence, translation, and transcription of the NT long before the Renaissance. --Seejyb 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Doug, your last reply seems to me to confirm Clio's suggestion that you are on a personal quest, to prove something that your are not stating clearly. Specifically, your comments seem to be tending towards a proposition that the NT didn't exist before the fourteenth century, or perhaps that it was not read. Is that where you are heading? Or is it something else?

Proofs by absence of data are notoriously difficult. You say you're looking for "documented proof (i.e. personal letter, diary, poem, book or "work" by a Renaissance Humanist) that says they themselves have actually read from the New Testament." But might that not be a bit like looking for documented proof that a 21st century scholar watched the news?

Incidentally, my 'conspiracy' was a joke, not intended literally. --ColinFine 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bingo! You got it!!! That is precisely what I am saying: that the NT didn't exist before the fourteenth century. Now since it didn't exist before the Fourteenth Century, then of course any scholar or humanist of the Renaissance humanism could not have read the New Testament. There is no letters or "works' from any of these humanist in the 14th Century that say they had any pages of the New Testament because it didn't exist before this time. There is a large list of these Humanists on this page, however none (zero) have any records or references to ever reading the New Testament. Many of these were very prolific in letter writing, so surely (I'm not calling you 'Shirley') there should be some mention in some letters or something that references them reading from the New Testament. However there is none! Now for the argument of: But might that not be a bit like looking for documented proof that a 21st century scholar watched the news? - not if that scholar was very prolific in letter writing. It certainly would show up similar to your quote. He/she probably would write to another younger scholar something like this: "Saw on CNN news this evening on television that they put the polar bear on the endangered species list because of global warming. As an Elder I have noticed this trend so you of the younger generations will have to reverse this before the humans are wiped out." Seems very plausible to me. --Doug 17:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Appius Claudius Caecus

Whom is his wife? Is there a family tree of him? He built Appian Way. One of his sons is Gauis Claudius, however can not find his wife's name. --Doug Coldwell 19:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

See Appius Claudius Caecus. The article links to a Claudian family tree that does not seem functional at the moment. However, I suspect Livy does not mention his wife's name, and we have no earlier sources. alteripse 19:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Scipio Cornelius Africanus - defeated Hannibal

What relationship or connection of his family of "Cornelius" or "Scipios" is there to the "Claudius" family? Perhaps a relationship to Marcus Claudius Marcellus (c. 268-208 BC) or Appius Claudius Caecus ("the blind"; c. 340 BC-273 BC). Perhaps there is a relationship of "Claudius" to Lucius Aemilius Paullus, whom's daughter Aemilia Tertia married Scipio Africanus. -- Doug Coldwell 20:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The Claudii and the Cornelii were two of the five mighty gentes maiores patrician family clans of ancient Rome, and marriages would preferentially be between these clans. In fact, until 445 BC intermarriage between patricians and plebeians was not allowed. So the connections must be numerous.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Appius Claudius Caecus ("the blind"; c. 340 BC-273 BC) relationship to Philip II

What relationship or any kind of a "connection" did Appius Claudius Caecus have to do with Philip II of Macedon (father of Alexander the Great)? This could be perhaps a "connection" where Ptolemy I Soter is related to the Claudius family via Arsinoe of Macedonia; or perhaps through the descendants of Ptolemy I Soter (Ptolemy Keraunos or Ptolemy II Philadelphus). Stateira (daughter of Darius III) married Alexander the Great. Alexander the Great also had other wives. Are any of these wife's families in any way related to Appius Claudius Caecus or the Claudius family in that time period? I believe there to be a relationship and "connection" of Philip II of Macedon to Appius Claudius Caecus. Do you know of such relationship? Perhaps there is a "relationship" of the "Cornelius" or "Scipio" families to Philip II of Macedon??? That then would make the "connection" to Appius Claudius Caecus and the Claudius family. Maybe through Lucius Aemilius Paullus??? --Doug Coldwell 22:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The bunch of peasants huddling on some hills in Latium, imagining themselves nobility, may have been below what would register on the radar (forgive the anachronism) of the mighty conqueror Kings of Macedon, rulers over the epitome of civilization, Greece, and subjugating the next jewel in the crown of civilization, the great Persian Empire.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I am an old retiree and I do believe you lost me on that one. Do you mean to say that there IS IN FACT a connection or "relationship" of Philip II of Macedon to Appius Claudius Caecus? I have reason to believe there is an ACTUAL "relationship" (not necessarily a direct "blood line") between these two. Perhaps a descendent of Philip's married into the Claudius family about this time or the "Cornelius" family. Do you know of such relationship? --Doug Coldwell 00:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to say that, at the time of Philip and Alexander, Rome was little more than an insignificant village. The gens Cornelius as being considered important runs roughly from the 5th century BC to the 4th century AD, almost the entire lifespan of the Roman Republic and (Western) Roman Empire. Of course it is possible that at the height of the Roman Empire, several centuries later, some descendant of some member of the Argead dynasty married someone from one of the gentes Claudius or Cornelius, but I do not actually know of such an occurrence. The murder of Heracles in 309 BC ended the Argead line, after which being a descendant of Philip lost its strong political significance. This was all before Rome obtained any significant geopolitical stature. Known later descendants of Philip are royalty, which the Cornelii and Claudii were not. That does not make intermarriage impossible, but definitely less likely. You can follow the tree of descendants of Philip II, in as far as it is known, from this link.  --Lambiam^Talk 02:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very useful. The family tree on Philip II is an excellent clue I will follow up on. Here are my thoughts: Olympias was the mother of Alexander the Great. She also was the brother of Alexander I of Epirus. He was engaged in the Second Samnite War. Noticed that he made a treaty with the Romans in 332 BC while in Taras (where the Appian Way went to). Later he was killed on the banks of the Acheron. He left behind a daughter named Cadmea. My guess is that Cadmea was born somewhere around 340 BC (about the time as Appius Claudius Caecus). They were about the same age. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Alexander_I_of_Epirus http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Second_Samnite_War

I am thinking it is VERY possible that Cadmea is the wife of Appius Claudius Caecus. She is placed in the same area and same time period as where Appius Claudius Caecus put the Appian Way, Taras. Since I also can NOT get access to the Claudius familt tree to verify his wife, this is speculation. Does it sound possible to you? --Doug Coldwell 13:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd think that while fighting a military campaign in Latium King Alex would have left his daughter safely back at home in Epirus, under the care of her mother, but even if he had taken her along... Appius Claudius Caecus was only about 8 years old at the time, and another 20 years were to pass before he had the Appian Way built. So while not strictly impossible, it does not appear particularly plausible to me.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Your answer sounds correct to me and MORE logical. I will have to do more research on this to make a "connections" between the family lineage of Macedonian King Philip II and Appius Claudius Caecus. I am PRETTY sure there is a "relationship", however have not at this point made that connection. Notice that the Appian Way went to Taras. Would you say this is close in spelling and sounds similar as "Tharsus" or "Tarsus". Both start with the same letter and end with the same letter. Many Roman roads were constructed in a straight line for fast movement of troops. The Appian Way was the "Queen" of the Roman roads. Would it be fair then to be able to call it the "Straight Street" that went to Taras? --Doug Coldwell 15:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Latin definition: Cost

• What would be the equivalent in Latin for the word "cost"?
• What is the Latin definition of the word we call: "cost"?
• Does the word "cost" come from Latin perhaps from "count"?
• Is there a connection of the Latin of "cost" to "hundred"?
• Is there a connection of the Latin of "cost" to "cycles"?

--Doug Coldwell 23:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In English, the word cost is both a noun and a verb. Latin has no such word, so there's no prefect "equivalent". For the noun, there's impendium, merces, pretium or sumptus. For the verb, it's more tricky, because there's no way I know of to say things like "this costs 5 sesterces". Instead, you have to use something like the Genitive of Price to say "I value this at 5 sesterces", or the Ablative of Price to say "I bought this for 5 sesterces".

The origins of the English words cost and count are unrelated. Cost comes from the Latin constare "stand at" (used with the genitive of price); count comes from computare. Constare comes from stare, "stand", so there's no connection to hundreds or cycles. —Keenan Pepper 01:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was useful. Going further and using your examples with the number 5, then "penta-cost" could be then FIVE STAND AT" or perhaps something like "stands at five" or "stand at five". Perhaps that could be taken further then to be or translated meaning close to: "stands for five" or even "stands for five hundred". Would that be correct translating? --Doug Coldwell 12:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Pentecost is from Greek πεντηκοστή, which means "fiftieth" (feminine form). It is derived from the word πεντήκοντα, meaning "fifty" in classic Greek, formed from "pente" with a suffix "-konta", indicating multiples of ten and corresponding to the English suffix "-ty". The ending -στ- (transliterated: "-st-") turns this into an ordinal number; it is comparable to the English suffix "-(e)th". Thus, the part "-cost" is formed from the Greek suffixes "-konta" + "-st-", and has nothing to do with Latin "cum-" + "sta-", just like "-tieth" in English "fiftieth" has nothing to do with the German name Tieth.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the GREAT answer. You certainly know a lot more about Latin than I do (since I know basically nothing). Could that then come out as 500 (being a multiple of 10; 10 times 10)? I see you pointed out to me that Pentacost means "50th", however could it be translated or interpreted as 500th. This is important as to the number "500th".... --Doug Coldwell 14:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, pentecost definitely refers to the fiftieth day after Easter (or maybe Passover, see [4]). It couldn't possibly be 500 days after it, because that's greater than a whole year, so instead it would be called the 135th day after the next Easter. As Lambiam said, pentecoste is the Greek word for 50th. The Greek word for 500th is pentacosioste. —Keenan Pepper 17:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Keenan: Thanks for your answer. Now I understand the word "pentecost" much better. I am not a religious person, so know not the relationship to Easter. Do have a couple more questions however along these lines: 1) In Latin, what would be the word for "fivehundredth - 500th? 2) In Greek and Latin what are the EXACT words for 500. I assume the Greek word for 500th is that which you gave me above of "pentacosioste", but looking for the word for just 500 (perhaps the same, don't know). I am in the United States in the EST. Are you all in U.S. or Europe (i.e. England)?--Doug Coldwell 20:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Each time in the order masculine – feminine – neuter: Latin for 500th: quingentesimus – quingentesima – quingentesimum. Classic Greek for 500: πεντηκόσιοι (pentēkósioi) − πεντηκόσιαι (pentēkósiai) − πεντηκόσια (pentēkósia). Latin for 500: quingenti – quingentae – quingenta. These forms are all subject to declension according to the grammatical case; the forms shown are for the nominative case.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Latin is quite simple as five is V, fifty = L and five hundred :D -- DLL ^{.. T} 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And Turkish is even simpler as five = 5, fifty = 50 and five hundred :500  --Lambiam^Talk 23:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lambiam! That's great information and just what I was looking for. I notice in the classic Greek then it looks like (by coincidence I assume) that the number 500 is "pentēkósia" which looks very much like English "pentacost". --Doug Coldwell 22:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not quite a coincidence that the Greek words for 50th and for 500 resemble each other, because they share the part "pentē" meaning 5. But as far as I know, it is a coincidence that the suffixes -ko-st- and -kosi(o)- resemble each other. Perhaps (I don't know) the "ko" has a common origin, but the following "s" is clearly a coincidence. So English "Pentecost" comes from and therefore resembles Greek "pentēkostē" (50th), which resembles "pentēkosioi", "-ai", "-a" (500). The reason for Pentecost being called that is that if you count Easter Sunday as the first day, Easter Monday as the second day, and so on, Pentecost is the 50th day.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't know about Easter, since I am not a Christian or do NOT have any beliefs for a "religion". Do not attend church and do not belong to any organization or club. Just a simple old retiree doing some investigations for a hobby. Came across all this quite by accident and will call it The Petrarch Code. In reference to Petrarch's "De Viris Illustribus" here are Lives 15 - 19: Gaius Sempronius Gracchus, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, Scipio Aemilianus Africanus, Lucius Mummius Achaicus, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus. Notice how they are in reverse chronological order ("Chronicle"). You now have all 28 Lives. Notice how several of these are also on Petrarch's Latin list starting with Romulus (i.e. Scipio and relatives). Number 2 is of Darius the Great. His time period is about from 530 BC to about 465 BC. This crosses over the year 500 BC. You have shown me that the Greek for 500 is "pentekosia" which is close to "pentacost", like in Acts Chapter 2. In the year 500 BC just happens to be a time when the largest land mass of people were gathered together: "....when the time of pentacost came all the believers were gathered together in one place...". In that time of 500 BC there was the largest ever land mass under one king, Darius the Great. What a coincidence! And too boot, there just happens to be 28 chapters to Acts. Think about this: 40 + 66 = 106 + 28 = 134 (Jerome's Christians). Perhaps "pentacost" is a Code for 500 BC, taken off "pentekos". It then just happens to fit very nicely for the previous chapter of Cyrus the Great and his Cyrus Cylinder of 40 lines (verse 3). --Doug 00:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Lambiam: FYI, the quotes for the Captian of Italy called "Cornelius" were from here: http://bible.cc/acts/10-1.htm Also check this out: http://faithofgod.net/TyNT/ac.htm#10:1 which is of William Tyndale about 1525. Also check this out: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=10&version=53 John Wycliffe about 1382. This below has to do with the "Straight Street" that went to "Tarsus" (a.k.a. Taras). http://bible.cc/acts/9-11.htm This has to do with Jerome's De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm Look up Chapter 66, which just happens to be of one "Cornelius", a bishop for Rome. Now here is my question: How many letters to the name of the ancient city of Carthage? Would it be fair to say that these words look similar: "Volume Without A Title" -vs- "Book Without A Name" (a.k.a. "Liber Sine Nomine"). Count the amount of letters for the first starting with "Volume.....". "Liber Sine Nomine" is an epitome of Epistolae Familiares of how many? --Doug 00:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It is probably not a coincidence that the Greek suffixes for -tieth and -hundredth are so similar. The Indo-European word for '10' is reconstructed as 'dekm', for '100' 'kmtom', and for the 'tens' suffix as '-kmta' (I'm omitting loads of diacritics, laryngeals etc). But some scholars think that these themselves are related, and that the 'km(t)' in all three has the same origin. However, the sort of numerology you are indulging in is capable of proving any random idea you choose, and I would respectfully suggest that while you are welcome to play, you shouldn't expect anybody else to take it seriously. --ColinFine 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your answer, however it turns out this is NOT pure speculation. I have stumbled onto something I will call for now "The Petrarch Code". This is a DEFINITE set of rules and a system that follows certain elements and keys. I call it this name because it was Francesco Petrarch that devised these codes. I then use these "Codes" to decoded "Acts of the Apostles". This turns out to be a list of moral biographies of 28 Lives. Petrarch is already known for writing up such lists of Lives.

This particular list of 28 Lives starts with the very FIRST great Persian king called Cyrus the Great. This is "Acts" Chapter 1 and is a time period of about 580 BC going forward to about 530 BC. In "Acts" Chapter 2 it is of Darius the Great. This time period goes from about 530 BC to about 465 BC. This then crosses over 500 BC. The first verse in Chapter 2 has the wording of approximately (depending on your version)"....at the time of 500 BC they were all gathered together in one place...". This is substituting in "500" for "pentacost". The Chapters are in the correct order, so there is NO speculation here. The next "Acts" Chapter 3 is of "Artaxerxes I Longimanus". His time period is from about 465 BC to 424 BC. The Persian rulers then keep going in reverse chronological order until the FIRST great Macedonian ruler, Philip II. No speculation. It just happens to fit PERFECTLY in at the second Chapter of Acts for the time period that crosses over 500 BC, "pentekosia". This word of "pentekos" is VERY close to "pentacos" so is DEFINITELY the Coded word meaning that of 500 BC. The Petrarch Code element here is that the two words are very similar. Petrarch even coined the phrase Babylonian Captivity. This to him meant the Avignonian Captivity or the Captivity of Avignon of the papacy into Avignon. Petrarch felt it sould be in Rome instead. So as you can see here Petrarch used words that were similiar. Coded word looks or sounds similiar to the hidden word.

The reason this particular date is so important is that at the year 500 BC it just so happens to be when there was the largest land mass of people EVER under one ruler. No other time in the ancient world (or even in the modern world) has there EVER been such a large land mass of people under one ruler. They being "gathered under one place" is CORRECT since they were under the Persian King: Darius the Great. So putting in the Greek word "pentekos" (meaning 500) here for "pentacos" is chronologically correct. If this word were in the First Chapter or the Third Chapter then my theory would NOT be correct, however it is in the CORRECT place of Chapter 2: which would be for the time period of Darius the Great from 530 BC to about 465 BC; crossing over the time of 500 BC. They were all DEFINITELY "gathered together in one place" in the largest Empire ever. --Doug 19:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Appian Way

Since the Appian Way is commonly said to be the queen of the long roads and one of the most important of the Roman roads, being built in a straight line, could it have been nicknamed or called by the name of the "Straight Street"? Doug 23:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the name Via Recta ("Straight Road") was applied to two roads, neither of them the Via Appia (Appian Way). One is in Damascus, and the other, in the Campus Martius, was originally called the Via Tecta ("Covered Road") but is now commonly known as the Via Recta because of a mistranscription.[5] Of course, some Romans no doubt used the words via recta to refer to the Via Appia, but only to describe it, not as a proper name. —Keenan Pepper 00:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I'd love to read a more thorough answer. —Keenan Pepper 00:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This of describing the Appian Way of the words via recta (as a description) could then be like a nickname refering to that of a Straight Street or Straight Road? --Doug 01:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that's exactly my point: via recta isn't a nickname for the via Appia, just ordinary Latin words that mean "straight street" or "straight road". It would be accurate to describe the via Appia as a via recta, because it was indeed straight, but no more so that most other Roman roads. On the other hand, via Recta was used as a nickname, not for the via Appia, but for this street in Damascus, which is even described in the Vulgate (Acts 9:11) as vicum qui vocatur Rectus ("street which is called Straight", using a different Latin word for street). —Keenan Pepper 14:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking up Acts 9:11 I see your point of the street which is called Straight. In these multiple translations most do call it that while one says "Straight Street". I see your point of the ordinary Latin words meaning: "straight street". Latin says this, then why didn't the Greek that this supposedly came from say this? It appears that only the Latin says this. Perhaps it was only written in Latin. It also speaks of Tarsus, which I find interesting because the Appian Way (via Appia or via recta of a vey famous Roman road) goes to Taras. Taras looks a lot like Tarsus to me. That then would be a double coincidence in the same scripture verse. Did this section come straight from Naples, where it previously came straight from Rome? --Doug 23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Palazzo Vecchio

The Palazzo Vecchio, constructed in 1299 to 1314, was the home of the Florentine guilds. I understand it had 5,000 guild members. Did it always have this number (or most of the time)? Dante was a member. Was Giovanni Boccaccio or Francesco Petrarch a member of this Florentine Guild of 5000? --Doug 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dante was a member of the guild of physicians and pharmacists, whereas both Boccaccio and Petrarch were members of the guild of notaries. I have no idea if guild membership was maintained at a constant rate. Clio the Muse 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder

My understanding of the Cyrus Cylinder is that it was basically the first written down set of Human Rights. If I am correct, isn't this when Cyrus released the Jews to go back to their homeland? Is this then the reference to "Captivity of Babylon"? Also the reference to the "70 years"? Is it correct that there were 40 lines that went around it? --Doug 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This site suggests there are either 35 or 45 lines depending on how many parts are counted. The site also says that it does not talk about jewish lands and it also mentions the recent propaganda use it has been put to: as a human rights charter. Ancient people did not generally spend their time writing human rights works but they did often add details that can be interpreted that way to other texts, i.e. Code of Hammurabi and the peace treaty ending the Battle of Kadesh. meltBanana 14:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(I am trying really hard not to bite the newbie) The article explains that it is not a set of human rights but rather a list of merciful acts done by that king (ever heard of propaganda?). There is something called Google, I humbly suggest you try to use it before you ask questions. In this case try [6]. If you read the text you will see that Cyrus never talks of any rights. Flamarande 14:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Human rights is indeed a very modern concept. Throughout history kings were expected to be merciful as part of a general dispensation of justice; but it remained a strictly royal prerogative, dispensed and denied at will. Clio the Muse 14:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it that obvious that I am a newbie? Yiks!!!! I stand corrected: not a set of "Human Rights", however more like a list of merciful acts. Then am I correct in that this is a reference to "Captivity of Babylon" of the 6th Century BCE? Also the reference to the "70 years"? I want to make sure then these are one and the same. --Doug 15:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

SIGH. I seriously recommend you read the provided text. If I told you: "Yes, Cyrus is the king who liberated the Jews from the 70 years of Babylonian captivity. It is as written in the bible, Old Testament, etc... .It proves (again) that the bible is always right." Would you seriously believe me? Better you analyze the text yourself and reach your own conclusions. Always think for yourself, and analyze the evidence (story) as far you can, and never ever let other ppl think for you (for they might bull*hit you into submission and blessed ignorance). Flamarande 15:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I do believe you are right in thinking for yourself. In that process I have concluded that this of the phrase coined by Francesco Petrarch of the Babylonian Captivity is referenced as to that of the 'Captivity of Avignon' of the papacy. It turns out this Captivity also was for "70 years", being from 1308 to 1378. So I have concluded that whereever the phrase of the "Captivity of Babylon" is in the New Testament is really that of the 'Captivity of Avignon' or the Babylonian Captivity; meaning "Avignonian Captivity", same as 'Captivity of Avignon'. Thanks for help. --Doug 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The logical error in the above is contained in the word "So". --Wetman 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

DOUBLE SIGH. Doug, AFAIK "Babylonian Captivity" does not appear in the New Testament at all. The Gospels where written down in the 1st century AD (perhaps even 2nd, I am not sure). The Popes liked to compare their "deportation" to Avignon (where they were under the thumb of the French king) with the Captivity of Babylon of the Old Testament. This comparison was done for all kinds of political reasons. 1st)it presents the Pope as a martyr, and as a prisoner of faith. 2nd) it presents the French king as a tyrant who does not even respect the "Holy Mother church". Either way any of this doesn't appear in the New Testament at all. Flamarande 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you that the words of "Babylonian Captivity" do not appear in the New Testament; however "Captivity of Babylon" does. I just do not happen to believe in a 'historical Jesus' (a person roaming the earth in the middle East some 2000 years ago), so do not believe the Gospels were written in the first few centuries (since these events didn't actually happen). I believe the Gospels were written in the Fourteenth Century, hence the reference to "Captivity of Babylon" meaning that of the "Captivity of Avignon". This phrase was coined by Petrarch. In historical records scholars agree that this reference by Petrarch has to do with Avignon. So "Babylonian Captivity" and "Captivity of Babylon" and "Captivity of Avignon" are all the same thing. This is referenced in the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 1. This is sometimes refered to as the "genealogy of Jesus". Now since I do not believe in this historical Jesus then of course I do not believe this to be a genealogy (i.e. family history). I believe it relates to Avignon, being of course a self thinker. I have thought it through throughly and have concluded this of Matthew chapter 1 has everthing to do with the Avignon papacy of the Fourteenth Century. Remember you are the one that suggested: Always think for yourself. Now see what happens when one thinks for themselves. They come up with different answers than the typical Christian story line. Why it even says several times in this chapter "fourteen". What an excellent clue this has to do with the Fourteenth Century. I do believe (being a self thinker) that the Babylonian Captivity of Avignon happened in the Fourteenth Century. This is in agreement with your two reasons why the Popes of Avignon liked to compare this Avignon papacy with this of the Jews of Babylon of the 6th Century BCE; however I have thought it through to the next level figuring out that Matthew chapter 1 has to do with this "deportation" to Avignon (a.k.a. "exil to Babylon"). --Doug 12:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Palaeography

Would it be correct to say that in the field of paleography that there ultimately has to be a standard reference material to compare to? Logically wouldn't one compare handwriting from an unknown date manuscript to a known dated document to then determine its age? Then when there is several points of similarity, it could then be given a date. How was this original dated standard document established as being a true date in the first place? What was it compared to? Is this standard reference document then reverified for authenticity? Is the manuscript or document used as the standard reference point ever ultimately subjected to scientific testing (i.e. radio carbon dating)--Doug 12:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There's not usually a single, generally-agreed-upon standard example, following the analogy of a holotype in biology, but rather a range of dated material (a treaty, a contract, etc.) against which new, undated material is compared. Paleography is also concerned with placing the origin of the writer's hand: writers move from place to place, retaining the hand that they were originally taught. Particular scriptoria developed quirks that identify scribes originally taught in that scriptorium. --Wetman 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to provide another answer above, with specific references so you can see the dated examples Wetman mentions (see above, under your previous similar question). Wareh 04:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate both these excellent detailed answers. But being a self thinker I have taken this to the next level. I understand the logic of palaeography, however this still leaves too much to the imagination. For example in your statement: in careful reliance upon the most securely dated evidence available is subjective. In other words, what they think as a correct dated material is being used then as a standard. What scientific evidence is there then to back up this "supposed" date? There is none, only a person's opinion. Another example: new knowledge (say, date a MS) on a firm methodological foundation that goes all the way back to first principles then becomes; what is this first principle? back toBottomline you have not given me a standard, but only a direction of places where books are of the field of palaeography. Don't want to learn this field, however am looking for solid concrete physical manuscripts used as the standard as the reference for dating the Codex Vaticanus. I have already asked over 1000 scholars (in this field and related fields) that should have been easily able to furnish this, however to date none have. I have ever reason to believe the Codex Vaticanus is from the Fourteenth Century, not from any of the first few centuries (i.e. 1st - 6th). So I guess bottomline to solve this issue would be actual scientific testing of Codex Vaticanus (i.e. mass spectrometry) and not just someone's opinion of date. --Doug 12:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If a scientists determines the temperature by reading a thermometer, where is the standard that this thermometer is based on? If that is another thermometer, where is the "standard" IT is based on? And if the "scientist" compares the readings of the two thermometers, what scientific evidence is there to back up his "claim" that they show the "same" reading? It is all one person's opinion of reading. I have asked over 10,000 experts, and they ALL deny this is a problem. This shows conclusively that they are NOT! experts. There is NO "standard" for "scientific" measurements.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I like this question. I believe there are definite scientific standards] that references are made to. Here are a few and still some more and still even more. Here is a large category of standards. Mass spectrometry is referenced back to ISO standards. Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14. Both these have an accuracy within 1%. An atomic clock is a type of clock that uses an atomic resonance frequency standard to feed its counter. These clocks are accurate to the nanosecond because they have a definite standard as a reference. This also enters into the field of Metrology which is based on the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. The entire scientific community measures temperature using the Celsius scale, and thermodynamic temperature using the Kelvin scale. These are based on definite standards established by the scientific community and international agreement. Based then on one of these standards (i.e. ISO) and a scientific method (i.e. mass spectrometry) the age of Codex Vaticanus could be determined within 1%. I say it will show a date of 1373. Then given a +/- 1% accuracy it will be then some date for sure between 1360 and 1386. This is 1000 years from when it "supposedly" was written up. Why don't we go ahead and test it to find out for sure. Deal? I'll bet the Vatican will object. I wonder why? mmmm --Doug 15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Alpinism

I understand Francesco Petrarch is the Father of Alpinism. Apparently he did this trip when he was about the age of 30. I am confused on the issue, IF he actually made the trip to the top of Mont Ventoux or if he just wrote about making such a trip? I always thought that in fact (from his letters on this account) that he actually did climb to the top. --Doug 12:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Petrarch, together with his brother and two companions, climbed Mount Ventoux on April 26, 1336. His account of this venture was later described in a letter to his friend, Francesco Dionigi, perhaps with some metaphorical elaborations. In his classic work, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, Jacob Burkhardt, described this as the first time such an activity had been undertaken for its own sake. Clio the Muse 13:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding. It looks like then I am correct in thinking the climb was an actual event. I will follow up on your great reference you gave me on this. I would be interested in what it says about this. Then Petrarch was 32, if my math is correct. --Doug 13:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Last Supper

Has it been determined which name belongs to which Apostle in the Last Supper? I understand John the Baptist is on the right of Jesus. --Doug 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The one thing I can say with some certainty is that John the Baptist is not considered as one of the Apostles. He was certainly not at the Last Supper. The John in question is the brother of James, sons of Zebedee. In Leonardo da Vinci's painting the sequence, looking from left to right, is Bartholomew, James the Lesser, Andrew, Judas, Peter, John, Jesus, Thomas, James the Greater, Philip, Matthew, Thaddeus and Simon. Clio the Muse 13:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See, now you understand why I am asking this question. I didn't know this was John the brother of James, sons of Zebedee. We are talking about two different "Johns". I've been confused on this issue. Thanks for naming them. What reference do you have on this as to these names? --Doug 13:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

For Leonardo you will find the sequence here [7] and here [8] Clio the Muse 14:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Middle English Bible translations

Looking under Middle English Bible translations it shows John Wycliff produced the first complete English language Bible in the late 1300s with the New Testament completed about 1380 (perhaps 1382). To translate the complete Bible how long would it have taken him (with associates)? Also I do NOT see any New Testament translations into any language before the Fourteenth Century (being Wyclif's Bible). Where is there a record or documentation of the Vulgate Latin translations of the New Testament hand copied (a.k.a. hand-printed) by a Copyist with a known name before the Fourteenth Century? Looking for good documented evidence that the New Testament (not the Old Testament) was in wide spread circulation in Europe before the Fourteenth Century in any language (i.e. the Vulgate Latin, English, Italian, French, Greek). Have looked under the following Wikipedia titles with no luck: Bible, Renaissance, Italian Renaissance, Holy Roman Empire, Papal States, Holy See, Avignon Papacy, Early Christian church, Christianity, History of theology, Christian theology, Christianity in the British isles 410-1066, History of the Church of England, and World Council of Churches. Where is there such documented records that the New Testament itself (or in combination with the Old Testament as a complete Bible) was in wide spread circulation in Europe (or elsewhere) before the Fourteenth Century? --Doug 14:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Try Bible translations although it seems that you have already arrived at your own opinion and are seeking only to support it. Rmhermen 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have studied this much and came to this conclusion since I can not find good evidence that the New Testament was actually in wide spread circulation in Europe before the Fourteenth Century. I can not find that it ever was in circulation at all before the Fourteenth Century. That's why I am asking a large audience that in hopes maybe someone out of these thousands should be able to show me of this supposed evidence this to be true. Its not in any of these Wikipedia articles. If you know, please show me. I would really appreciate it. Maybe others can also show me. Should be several places for excellent evidence of this. Could you show me a few? I'm asking for help. Thanks! --Doug 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The suppression of the New Testament wouldn't surprise me, as many of it's teachings were at odds with those of the Catholic Church of the time. For example, the New Testament emphasized that everyone should have a personal relationship with God, while the Church claimed that only the Pope and saints had a personal relationship with God. The Church was also far more into "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" than they were into "turn the other cheek". StuRat 16:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Right another conspiracy, well perhaps it has more to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the ppl (perhaps 99%) during the Middle Ages was simply iliterate and that the bible was written in Latin. Doug asked for "good evidence that the New Testament was actually in wide spread circulation in Europe before the Fourteenth Century". I have found the Book of Kells which has the 4 gospels of the New Testament. Written around 800 AD. Flamarande 18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Book printing in Europe become possible only when paper became relatively easily available, around 1400. It took till around 1450 before so-called block-books, woodcut books with both text and images, appeared, at about the same time as Gutenberg's invention of moveable type. Before that, a copy of the New Testament would typically be a lavishly illustrated manuscript, painstakingly calligraphed by monks on fine vellum. In terms of current value, such a book might easily be worth more than $100,000, more than most people could scrape together in a lifetime. You bet they were not in "widespread circulation", at least not how I would understand and use that term. And, as pointed out by Flamarande, the overwhelming majority of people could not read and did not understand the language this was written in.  --Lambiam^Talk 19:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Copies of the Bible in Latin would have been in every monastery and major church even if every parish church or minor shrine/chapel didn't.have one. Recopying was a major effort of monks and wasn't confined to Biblical texts - some classical texts exist only because of monastic copying. Latin copies were so common, unknown priests could go mark up their copies in local dialects as shown in the interlineal glosses mentioned, for instance, in Old English Bible translations. Rmhermen 20:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Latin Vulgate Bible was translated by Jerome in the 5th century. Accordinging to this section of the article, it was copied so much that variants arose and attempts were made to re-standardise it in the 6th, 8th 9th, 11th, 12th and 13th centuries by named individuals, which should give you some avenues for research. --Nicknack009 21:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The article on the Carolingian Renaissance may also be of interest. Apparently in the 8th century there were plenty of Bibles, but not enough priests capable of reading them. --Nicknack009 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all for the many answers. I have read them over and I am going to read them again to make sure I got all the information from all these great Wikipedia articles.
Nicknack: know you left multiple answers, got them all. Thanks. --Doug 00:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ciphers and Codes

In Cryptography ("study of secrets") I would like to know what below each would be called, a Cipher or Code?
1. When a set of words uses identically the same vowels and has the same number of letters total, i.e.:
"The Da Vinci Code" -vs- "I’m a movie critic"
Each of these both use only the vowels a, e, i, and o. They both have 14 letters.

2. These words start and end using the same letter.
"Universal Studios" -vs- "unilateral studies"

I don't think either of these would be considered a cipher or code. These terms are used for secret methods to hide messages, but in such a way that people who know those secret methods can reconstruct the original message from the coded form. Your Da Vinci Code examples leaves too many possibilities, like "I love pineapple", "You will eat meat", "Submarines come", etc. Same for number 2.  --Lambiam^Talk 20:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I can just about see these methods being used to select code words, which are then shared with everyone who needs to know them. However, this would make a more easily broken code than just selecting words than sound innocent ("The bananas are in the bowl"), and, given the possible solutions (as per Lambian), wouldn't be a lot of help to someone you want to know the code who has forgotten. If I said to you "Cabbages are green", using your second method, do I mean "Catch a goblin", "Creep away, gambling", "Catherine ate goose"...? Skittle 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points. Let me see if I could refine further on "the Code" and answer these very good points. First, these two would be entirely two different examples, not to be mixed into each other. Now for Example 1 more refined: Lets now say that from "The Da Vinci Code" there are a finite number of word possibilities to selsect from so that it is not infinite. This finite group then being a set of preselected words (known only to both parties involved as a set of "keys) so that it turns out there can only be a possible few word group set that it could then be (i.e. 6 or less sets). One of these sets then making perfect sense between the two and the hidden message intended. This then I believe would make it more plausable.
Example 2 would also be only a few possible set of words to be able to select from make it also more plausable.
I understand your points and will think more about this. Otherwise then with these refinments would this then be a Code or a "cipher"? Thanks again......... --Doug 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Given, as I understand it, a cipher is when you swap symbols for letters, if anything it would be a code. That was roughly, according to my old books. But our article suggests that anything following an algorithm is a cipher, anything simply replacing the words is a code. So I suppose you're sort of setting up a cipher, although with the exchange of codebooks/lists it's also pretty much a flexible code. More than anything, it sounds to me like a word-puzzle that you would create for the fun of solving it more than its use. But I still don't see why you would do this, rather than just have the words/phrases mean set words/phrases, given you're already having to exchange lists of words. Your way still sounds like there could be potential ambiguity for the chosen translator, and it would take much longer for the coder and decoder while lowering the security of the code. Perhaps if your 'list' of possible words was very short, and the list of possible codewords was very long, then I can see it being useful (flexibility of plaintext meaning it could look less suspicious), but only once or twice. More than that and it's easily cracked with the short list of codewords. Skittle 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional ideas. Lets say I came across an acient manuscript (i.e. from the Middle Ages) and it used for example the word "Tarsus", which turned out to mean Taras, this then probably would be closer to the term "Code" (replacement of one word for another) than that of a cipher (anything following an algorithm). Now lets say this ancient manuscript was not intended to be for a particular person but for posterity instead. Now the way that one would know then that in this medieval manuscript it meant, by the usage of "the Code", the town of Taras and not actually Tarsus (city) is that there is also a reference to a Straight Street. In Tarsus (city) in Turkey there is no well known Straight Street, however in Taras there is. It is called the Appian Way. Now setting religion aside for the moment, this might be an example then of the usage of a Code (not a cipher), correct? --Doug 14:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a code to me, it sounds like a typo :-) But seriously, I don't see anything in that quote to suggest the street was a well-known street that was straight rather than 'the street called Straight'. Do you have real reason to believe that there was no street in Tarsus that was called 'Straight' (as a name) at the time? Onto this method of communicating: why would you use such a method of communicating with posterity rather than just writing what you meant? Or using a clearer code? If the aim is to disseminate the knowledge, what is gained by writing false things in the hope that people will work out what you mean? It doesn't really feel like a code, because you are not decoding the word 'Tarsus' and finding it to mean 'Taras', rather you are solving the geography puzzle to find a location. But what does my gut count on this? Skittle 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not a typo! It definitely sounds like a Code to me. It suggests that it is a well known street with the nick name of "Straight Street" called Appian Way because:
1. Appian Way went to Taras. This is modern day Taranto, Italy. The Greek colonists from Sparta called the city Taras.
2. All great Roman roads went as straight as possible, for fast movement of troops. Look at Map of Roman roads here.
3. The Appian Way was called the Queen of the Roman Roads. It could easily have been called a "Straight Straight".
4. There is no road now or in the last 2000 years that had notoriety of being called a Straight Street in or around Tarsus, Turkey.
5. Why not to posterity? Francesco Petrarch (famous scholar), Father of the Renaissance, wrote a Letter to Posterity, here. --Doug 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As all great Roman roads were straight, why would a road acquire the nickname 'Straight'? Secondly, notoriety does not seem to be involved anywhere in the quote; all that is required is that the street is called 'Straight'. Many street names have not survived the centuries. Thirdly, I did not suggest you would not want to communicate with posterity, but that if you did there would be no reason to encode your message, making it harder for posterity to understand it! On top of this, it doesn't sound like a code because you are not decoding words. Rather, you are solving a geographical puzzle. Skittle 17:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Babylonian Captivity

Petrarch coined the phrase "Babylonian Captivity" as a reference to the moving of the papacy to Avignon. This expression can be found this way in usage in Wikipedia articles of Pope Clement V (the first Avignon pope), Avignon Papacy, and in Avignon. This I found by typing in "Babylonian Captivity Petrarch" in the search box. In these articles then it appears to be the same thing as "Captivity of Avignon", being a reference by Petrarch of the city's corruption. Under the article Avignon Papacy, in the Contents of "Schism: The War of the Eight Saints" under Criticism it says: The period has been called the "Babylonian captivity" of the popes, a term coined by Petrarch[1], an Italian who lamented the absence of the papacy from his native land. This nickname is polemical, in that it refers to the claim by critics that the prosperity of the church at this time was accompanied by a profound compromise of the Papacy's spiritual integrity, especially in the alleged subordination of the powers of the Church to the ambitions of the French kings. Coincidentally, the "captivity" of the popes at Avignon lasted around the same duration as the exile of the Jews in Babylon, making the analogy all the more convenient and rhetorically potent. For this reason, the Avignon papacy has been and is often today depicted as being totally dependent on the French kings, and sometimes as even being treacherous to its spiritual role and its heritage in Rome. Was this time period then somewhere around 70 years and when did this take place? The Jews in Babylon? Would this be correct usage then of term "Captivity of Avignon" since it is a reference to the temporary move ("captivity") to Avignon of the papacy? Wouldn't this then be similar to "Captivity of Babylon", being then the "Babylonian Captivity"? Don't 'Avignon' and 'Babylon' sound similar? --Doug 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume that you have read Babylonian captivity or Avignon papacy. Beyond the information in those articles, can you state more clearly what information you want? If the last question is your main question, I would say that "Avignon" and "Babylon" do not sound similar, although they rhyme in some languages. Marco polo 02:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The neutral term to use, one should emphasize, is "the Avignon papacy". --Wetman 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Jews in Babylon reference is to the destruction of the first Temple in Jerusalem in 586 BCE and the subsequent forced migration of the bulk of the Jewish people to Babylon. In 516 BCE, (ie 70 years later) an edict by Cyrus allowed Jews to return to their homeland under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah, leading to the construction of the second Temple which was to stand until destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. --Dweller 09:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You all have answered my questions very good. This is basically what I was looking for. Now I understand that of the Jewish people and Babylon in the time of Cyrus. Now I can see the relationship meaning of the "70 years" connected to both. In the case of Babylon this time then being 586 BCE to 516 BCE ("70 years"). In the case of Avignon this is 1308 to 1378. Didn't Cyrus also make what is called the Cyrus Cylinder concerning this? It has the first set of Human Rights, written down on this clay cyclinder relating to this edict allowing the Jews to return to their homeland. Do I have this correct? Did this cylinder then have 40 lines of writing on it relating to this of allowing the Jews to return to their homeland?
I believe my main question would be more along the lines of would the term "Captivity of Babylon" be the same as (from Petrarch's viewpoint, whom coined it) "Babylonian Captivity"? They then would be the same to me, is that correct?--Doug 10:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that Petrarch didn't write in English, he would have called it neither the "Babylonian Captivity" nor the "Captivity of Babylon". Please see your talk page for a question about your user page, which is along a similar point. --Dweller 15:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The notion of "the Babylonian Captivity" was generally understood, well before Petrarch's time, to refer to the forced exile of Judah to Babylon. (Italian: Cattività babilonese; Latin: Captivitas Babylonica.) Given the right context you could just use "the Captivity", and people would still have understood you, just like "the Nativity" was the nativity of Christ. You can also say "the Captivity in Babylon" or "the Captivity of Babylon"; they all mean the same thing, just like "the American Senate" and "the Senate of the United States" mean the same thing. Petrarch chose this as a catchy metaphor for the "exile" of the papacy to Avignon. To distinguish this from the original Jewish exile, this became "the Babylonian Captivity of Avignon". People tired of repeating this long phrase shorten(ed) it to "the Captivity of Avignon". That's all.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's great information on that of "the Babylonian Captivity of Avignon". Thanks again.... --Doug 22:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Scientific testing of Codex Vaticanus

Why isn't there good scientific testing of the Codex Vaticanus for determining its authenticity of dating? Or for that matter any other Codex, like Codex Sinaiticus, that is used as a basis that the New Testament text is some 2000 years old. What if scientific testing (i.e. radio carbon dating, Mass spectrometry), being mathematical and unbiased, proved these to be false and just another in the long line of Archaeological forgery? There are today less intrusive testing methods, like Mass spectrometry, that could prove this without destroying much material in the process. Since there is so much money (and other things) involved, then isn't there a very good chance of Archaeological forgery to gain the upper hand? Otherwise the "dating" of Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus is just some people's opinion; especially those that will greatly benefit personally (i.e. financially, power, prestige, social status, etc). What if this testing proved the Codex Vaticanus to be of a time period around the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Century? I think this is quite possible, especially since it was not discovered until a library was established at the Vatican. According to the Wikipedia article, then it was then put into their first catalogs of 1475 and 1481. So where did it come from? The article even says it is pure speculation of its dating: Its place of origin and the history of the manuscript is uncertain. It doesn't seem logical to me to be floating around in various people's hands for over a 1000 years, then conveniently shows up in the Vatican Library (just when they could use something of 'authority' to gain some power). They had no idea of its "Dating" and were just guessing at it. Of course, the older it "appears" then the more value ("power") it has.--Doug 11:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Although the Vatican did not have a catalogued library before the 15th century, it did possess a collection of manuscripts. As you can read in the article on the Vatican Library, Pope Nicholas V established the library in the Vatican in 1448 by combining some 350 Greek, Latin and Hebrew codices inherited from his predecessors with his own collection and extensive acquisitions, among them manuscripts from the imperial library of Constantinople. In the 15th century prospective forgerers simply did not have the knowledge to produce a forged 4th century manuscript that would stand up for a second against present expertise in philology, ancient handwriting, and so on. And what would have been the point? The various extant Greek codices are in good agreement with the Septuagint and each other, so do you think they are all later forgeries?  --Lambiam^Talk 12:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No one is "just guessing," and the standard view of the date comes from the community of scholars, not from an interested party like the Vatican Library itself. Such scholars are careful to state that their conclusions are "uncertain," but these uncertainties are not as great as you assume, as much is known within a relatively narrow range (better than could be achieved by any presently available "scientific testing") and beyond any reasonable doubt. I don't think uninformed speculations or the WP Ref. Desk can substitute for a Ph.D. in paleography or papyrology, which would acquaint one with the basic knowledge and skills needed to make any credible criticism of well-accepted scholarly conclusions. Those with knowledge of these fields are not retailing "just some people's opinion" and are scholars who have not done anything to deserve your slur ("especially those that will greatly benefit personally"). Likewise, nothing about the state of papyrological studies or the evidence of the oldest witnesses to the text of the New Testament lends support to these conspiracy theories. Wareh 15:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's an online popular introduction to get you started (with some further bibliography): Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts. Wareh 15:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming it came from the imperial library of Constantinople. I tend to think it came from Avignon when that library was moved to Rome around 1400 +/- 20 years. What if instead it was written up in the Fourteenth Century in Greek as a method to hide from the powers to be in Avignon (not designed intentionally a fake manuscript, as you are saying in the second part of your argument). Totally agree with you that Pope Nicholas V established the library in the Vatican in 1448 by combining some 350 Greek, Latin and Hebrew codices inherited from his predecessors with his own collection and extensive acquisitions. His predecessors being the Popes in Avignon. I tend to think that it is an Archaeological forgery from the viewpoint that perhaps the Vatican would rather authenticate it themselves to be able to keep its value up; therefore "power" over the people. It has nothing to do with 15th century prospective forgerers of any forger person, but more of a political move on the part of the Vatican. So to settle the argument: Why isn't there good scientific testing of the Codex Vaticanus for determining its authenticity of dating? Otherwise we are still back to the fact "the dating" has been established by the powers that be since they (Vatican) are establishing where it came from. Scientific testing is mathematical and unbaised, where perhaps the Vatican could be biased (don't you think). --Doug 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit too much "what if". What if the popes are actually robots operated by the Illuminati, assisted by scientific knowledge provided by Greys, while Wikipedia was set up by them as a tool to deceive those who are about to find out the truth? If it was a forgery, that would have been discovered by now. As I wrote, prospective forgerers simply did not have the knowledge to produce a forged 4th century manuscript that would stand up for a second against present expertise. Also, several early codices, for example the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, and the Codex Bezae, do not come from the Vatican collection. Others, like the Codex Amiatinus, ended up in the Vatican only centuries later. By the way, it may interest you that there is a 4th century translation of the Bible into the Gothic language; see Codex Argenteus.  --Lambiam^Talk 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good points, especially of the additional Codexes. However these are based on the field of paleography. Perhaps I just view the Vatican as having a motive for establishing the date as being from the first few centuries. If anything this would possibly be a remark against the Vatican. However I am sure they have had such remarks like this before (probably even worse). Let me say I really do appreciate the information and the websites you noted. It so happens that I am in communication with the Vatican Library, the British Library, the British Museum, and Chester Beatty Library. So I didn't just make these comments off the spur of the moment without thinking first. I didn' just come up with "what if's", but have been working on this problem for some 2 years now. Let me point out in this website that towards the bottom it says in reference to Codex Sinaiticus: In 1933 it was sold to the British Museum in London for a mere 100,000 pounds. That was a very large sum of money in the Great Depression. Now as far as I can see in the field of paleography one still has to establish some reference points to establish this "dating" of these manuscripts. In all my communications with these many large Libraries and Museums, so far nobody has been able to show me how they reference these manuscripts to some well known standard. Then how was this standard verified as to its date? Perhaps you have much better knowledge on this? Bottomline what is needed is a standard to reference the dating. Show me this standard that I have not been able to find. I really do appreciate your answers. I think this is a great argument, don't you think? --Doug 17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you've glanced at the article I linked, but please read it with more care. You may disagree with the balanced presentation of established facts there, but the rest of us, faced with believing either that Peter van Minnen is misinformed or corrupt, or that your views are totally uninformed conspiracy theory, have a very easy choice indeed. Also, you are totally mistaken about the Vatican's involvement, for the simple reason that virtually all of the important work in this field has been done by scholars from outside the Vatican.

If you are sincere (which I find difficult to believe) in your desire to learn more about the standards by which scholars know about these things, you will need access to a good research library and can begin with the bibliographies here and here. Obviously, you will eventually need to learn Greek.

This is not a great argument, and I am exasperated by your deaf pursuit of fantasy & refusal to see that you are trying to build on no foundation at all. I will try to restrain myself from continuing my fruitless efforts to obtrude upon you a respect for people who have bothered to learn about ancient languages and documents. The only further question from you I can imagine relishing the chance to answer is "I am in location X, and have some time and money/no money on my hands. What is the best way to acquire a basic reading knowledge of ancient Greek (or some other branch of historical or linguistic science)?" Wareh 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

But don't give up now; we are getting to the Nity-Gritty. Hear me through and I would like to get an answer from you or anyone that would like to answer this very important question.
1) I am very sincere on this question. It turns out I have already asked this very same thing to the top scholars (over 1000) in these fields and related fields. Their ultimate answer is basicaly the same as your answer (very similar wording). They give up and send me off in different directions (pretty much as you have). If you would like I would be glad to forward a few dozen such e-mails of my communication to you on this (kept them all). FYI I have asked this to 1000's of clergy of the Christian faith as well. They also did not have a good answer.
2) Instead of sending me off in different directions (need to learn Greek) why not furnish this standard you obviously already know about as the reference for establishing the dating of these various Codexes. That would be easier in the long run. So far out of all these scholars and large Libraries and large Museums (i.e. British Museum) nobody has done this yet. You apparently can not also (if you can, just go ahead and put it righ here). I am betting 2 years hard research you can not (zero, nada, zipo) show this standard that is used for dating the supposed ancient Codexes (i.e. Codex Vaticanus). Please prove me wrong. I welcome anybody to answer this point. You will be 1 in a 1000. A very high honor. Go ahead, show me. Otherwise it is a mere opinion of a person (well paid I must say). I have been sent to hundreds of such scholars that have "supposedly" established this dating, so he is not the first (and I suspect not the last). Even the scholar you are pointing out has to have the ultimate standard for establishing these dates. You must agree and can not argue this point whatsoever.
3)Since all these scholars have (as you say) established that of the dating to some standard then there should be hundreds of scholars that have this standard. Could I get the names of just a few of them. Don't say I will have to find on my own. I've already done this research, you have not. So if you know of such, now is the time.... --Doug 20:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Talk about time, follow this argument. Gather together a dozen or so people that have wrist watches. Ask them what time it is. You will come up with a dozen answers. Now ask them who's is the correct time? Of course there will be a few that will say there's is the absolute correct time. Between them, their times each will be different. Ask them why they feel theirs is the correct time and it will only be a personal opinion (i.e. mine is an expensive Timex watch, all expensive Timex watches are accurate). Now would you say just because it is a Timex watch it is correct? Of course not, because it is just a person's opinion. So bottomline, who's watch has the correct time? Answer: the one that is synced to WWV, a scientific standard. The only other time that would be more accurate (could only be read with a digital clock with many digits) would be the Atomic Clock, another scientific standard. --Doug

Doug, remarks like "you must agree with this and can not argue what so ever" is perhaps not a good way to get information from people. Lambiam especially has provided some very specialized responses to many of your questions. A little politeness/calmness wouldn't hurt. It's also not necessary to wikilink words like 'library', 'standard' 'reference' and '14th century'. Excessive blue links are unnecessary, especially on the Ref Desk. BenC7 02:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with you on that. Thanks for the advice. --Doug 12:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep totally agreeing with people, and then ignoring everything they say? --ColinFine 16:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Partially agree with you. I take the answers they provide and use that information, which is a good chunk. Not at all ignoring what they say. If you follow my remarks, usually I remark on what they have said in that I appreciate their answer and am working with the material; however many of the Nitty Gritty questions I haven't received answers on yet. Some of the really good ones are just dodged. I am trying to get good answers on them. Example: still looking for the "standards" for the reference points as to how it is established in palaeography the dating of ancient Codexes. Nobody knows the answer to this. I have research this for 2 years and asked over 1000 scholars; nobody knows. Then how does one know the dates (even approximately) of the Codex Vaticanus. Many believe it is from the first few centuries, however there is no reference for this. Looking for this standard. It you will notice I asked this very specific question early today, however of as now (being 1800 hours EST) this is the only question not answered. So while I am not at all ignoring what they have to say, in fact really appreciate it and work with it, I am still looking for the real Nitty Gritty answers. I do not believe the Codex Vaticanus is from the first few centuries, however from the Fourteenth Century. I have shown my proof with the chain of custody, still looking for their answer. --Doug 23:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The standard is very simple. Some manuscripts are dated by their scribes. Their context & content show that there is nothing controversial or controvertible about their dating, and, when you dig up a papyrus scrap of boring business receipts that happens to be dated by a ruler's year (have a look in Colin H. Roberts, Greek Literary Hands, 350 B.C.-400 A.D., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), well, guess what, it was not planted in the ancient rubbish heap buried under the Egyptian desert by the Vatican! Only such dated manuscripts are used in the standard textbooks of paleography, like Ruth Barbour, Greek Literary Hands, A.D. 400-1600, (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press, 1981). With many years of study, in careful reliance upon the most securely dated evidence available, you develop an expert understanding of the development of Greek writing, and its characteristics in a given time and place. From this, you arrive at a date for an undated manuscript. If you are good enough at this, you can get it down pretty specifically. The people who are good at this are not Vatican operatives, they are boring scholars with no crazed agenda. If you want to understand it better, take a course in paleography. Otherwise, you're like someone who has an English vocabulary of 400 words but claims to detect stylistic aberrations in some of Shakespeare's comedies that prove they're by Queen Elizabeth. Or, to use a more precise analogy, like someone who can't do long division, but just starts by assuming that the textbooks in the library on differential geometry and abstract algebra may be full of malicious or hoodwinked lies! It should be obvious why such a person would never arrive at a well-informed understanding of the subject. The definition of a scholar (say, a Ph.D.) is someone who can create new knowledge (say, date a MS) on a firm methodological foundation that goes all the way back to first principles. A good grasp of first principles will also allow the community of scholars to weed out any BS, conspiracies, etc. You are not a scholar (which is 100% of the reason why you do not have access to "the standard," and not because anyone is stonewalling you), but the perplexing thing is that you don't seem to believe that scholars exist and do this kind of work.

I have now given you the standard. Please read the two books on Greek Literary Hands mentioned above. They contain some of the standard you seek, and are even in English! Please do not tell me you are still in the dark about the standard. You may not understand the standard presented in these manuals (that is why people study with teachers in Ph.D. programs—it's not child's play), but since pursuing systematic learning is "sending you off in different directions," I will instead just cherish the thought of you poring over Roberts and Barbour at the library. The bibliographies I linked before have ample further discussion about methods and will give you some idea about the issues involved. Some of these books have fun titles like The Papyrologist at Work and The New Papyrological Primer. Wareh 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Where do great "Ideas" come from?

Why is it that some people are very inspired (i.e. Da Vince, Einstein, Edison), while most of the world seems mostly uninspired? A formal education does not seem a basis to get these "inspirations". Many very famous successful people did not have a formal education. Likewise many with Degrees now-a-days have trouble with what I call the "basics" (i.e. using common sense to solve simple problems). Having a 4 year College Degree today doesn't mean all that much. Those with a High School education and those with a College Degree both basically start many jobs at "entry level". The one that can use common sense to come up with great "ideas" then seems to get ahead faster (which could just as easily be the High School "Grad"). So is there some sort of "Universal Source" out there someplace that has a stock pile of Ideas. How does one "connect" to this "Universal Source" of Ideas?
It's certainly not via cyberspace (however maybe it helps). Would I need some sort of super Cable Modem or can I just "dial up" Ideas? --Doug 11:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Creativity involves being able to combine different areas of expertise into a solution. The typical start of an invention is noticing something that doesn't work well. Next you need to come up with a solution, which may involve various technical fields of expertise, but not always. One of the simplest recent inventions was a paint filter, used to separate out clumps from paint powder. The old system used a horizontal filter, which would clogs with clumps of paint powder in short order. The invention was to put the filter at an angle so the clumps would roll off and the rest would continue to go through the filter. This didn't require much technical expertise. The final step is to figure out how to market an idea. In some cases it's best to patent it then sell it to a company, in others you may try to produce and sell the product yourself. Here is an observation I've made, which you're welcome to use to improve the product:

• The window shade mechanism doesn't work very well. They often go flying up when you try to pull them down. A version with a switch that only allows it to come down in one position and only go up in the other position might sell well. See if you can design a mechanism to do that. StuRat 12:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea of common sense and informal education being better than all the university degrees in the world is one with great tradition. In reality common-sense has failing just like formalised education, not least because definining what is common-sense is particularly difficult. What makes someone an inventor or entrepreneur? Based on the rapid advancements made in the past 150 years...access to technology, education (though what level i'm not entirely sure), access to financial backing, a culture that promotes innovation would be a few. For all the great ideas in the world without access to the requirements to make it happen (or access to people who can) your creation is worthless. I would be weary of expecting too much of common-sense and too little of formal education. The innovators of history worked remarkably harder on inventions than many think: The light-bulb, the tv, the steam engine, the electronic chip. These things weren't developed at random they came about through use of formal (and i'm sure informal) knowledge. The Eureka moment, as they say, is really quite rare. ny156uk 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

An excellently put point — much of the idea of "genius" is mythmaking, often perpetuated by the people who are themselves called the geniuses (Edison, it can be said, was a genius at self-promotion). The common stereotype of Edison as a lone worker who would hit upon brilliant ideas through sheer thought and elbow-grease alone is nonsense; he established a major research laboratory staffed with excellent scientists, devoted a huge amount of his time to maintaining a library of technical inventions which he might improve upon or combine in unique ways, and spent a lot of his time building upon ideas of others that seemed promising but not quite implemented yet. His genius with the light bulb was not the bulb itself but the creation of an electrification infrastructure — a social-governmental-economic innovation more than a technical one. One of the very difficult things in studying "creativity" and "genius" is that we wrap these terms up in a lot of mythmaking and moralizing; it is very hard to get at the base of it in practical terms, and why so many studies of it are shallow.

Einstein, by the way, fits into the above as well. He did not work in a totally isolated world, he was working on problems which were important in physics in his day, he drew heavily on the work of others. Many of the key theoretical "thought problems" he is so famous for (such as how to coordinate clocks using electrical signals) were actually important technical issues at the time he worked in the Swiss patent office (clock coordination was a major early 20th century technical difficulty). This is not to disparage Einstein's intelligence, for he was truly intelligent, but helps to re-frame the question a bit away from "how do these ideas come out of nowhere?", which is in almost all cases the product of a myth. The relation between an innovator, their context, and their work is a very complicated one. --140.247.242.85 18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would call Einstein a genius, in that he was able to think about the world in completely novel ways (but only when young, in his later years he couldn't accept new concepts like quantum mechanics). Edison, on the other hand, was not a genius (he couldn't even grasp A/C electricity), but rather a "plugger". Everyone knew you could make a filament glow for a while by passing electricity through it, but he improved the design through trial and error until eventually it became a usable light bulb. StuRat 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Einstein's ways of thinking about the world were not "completely novel." If you get outside of the hagiography you will have a better idea of appreciating in what ways he was novel and in what ways he was not. Edison also utilized much more theoretical understanding and research than the mythical version of him holds. I hate to say it StuRat but I think you're caught within the myths here! In any case whether one calls someone a "genius" or not again depends on your definition of "genius" — it is a term which needs to be unpacked before it is useful. --24.147.86.187 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If we take the example of his choice of a light bulb filament, a theoretical physicist might have looked at the periodic table and decided that tungsten was likely to be the best choice, while Edison just tried every material he could think of until he found one that worked well. StuRat 23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You should definately read Creativity In Science by D K Simonton - it answers all your questions and mentions the individuals above. One point for example is that it has been found that the chance of any scientific paper being a 'hit' is equal for any scientist, but the people regarded as geniuses were actually extremely prolific and hence had more 'hits' than other people.

That sounds extremely dubious to me. Robert K. Merton's work on the Matthew effect would seem to go against that sort of explanation. --24.147.86.187 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Eistien worked at a patent office, thats where he got his ideas from. --Delma1 07:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Chickenflicker---♣ 23:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Many years ago, I was privaleged to study the 'history and philosophy of science' at university. It's a worthy question, regarding inspiration. However, a few observations: We live in the information age. Many people are trained academically than ever before. You might think that with more people better equipped to make discoveries that more people would. They do.

In the US, in 1970, some 1000 (different, distinct) books were published each day. 1970's space technology has been superceded. In 1980, my wife wore the net in her hair.

Worth noting, someone who is inspired may be wrong, too. Also worth noting that many discoveries are made simultaneously and independantly, suggesting a role modern technique has with inspiration, and tradition has in obfuscating and confounding discovery. DDB 10:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Petrarch spoke which languages?

Francesco Petrarch wrote exclusively in the Latin Vulgate. So exactly what is the difference between just plain everyday Latin and the Latin Vulgate? What other languages did Petrarch speak and write in? I understand he did not write in Greek; but obtained help of a friend when necessary. Which friend(s)? Did Petrarch know English of the time (i.e. Middle English)? --Doug 20:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference lies mainly in grammar and vocabulary, see Vulgar Latin. 惑乱 分からん 01:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Petrarch would not have written Vulgar Latin, which was never a written language and which had ceased to exist by Petrarch's day, having mutated into an early form of Italian and other Romance languages. Instead, Petrarch wrote in Medieval Latin, which was based partly on the Vulgate. He also wrote in a late medieval form of Italian. Since he was born in Tuscany to a Tuscan family and spent his early years in Tuscany, he would have spoken the Tuscan dialect. Partly because Petrarch and Dante Alighieri, another Tuscan, were the first two Italian authors to use Italian, rather than Latin, as a literary language, the Tuscan dialect became the basis for standard modern Italian. Petrarch also spent much of his youth and part of his adulthood in Avignon and Montpellier. Although he traveled to Avignon with his parents and was connected to the largely Italian-speaking Roman Curia there, he probably picked up some of the local Provençal dialect of Occitan. A closely related Occitan dialect was spoken in Montpellier, where he studied, but the language of academic discourse would have been Medieval Latin. I do not have any sources to back me up, but I think that it is extremely unlikely that Petrarch would have spoken Middle English. He never traveled to England, which was the only place that language was spoken in his day. In Petrarch's day, Middle English was neither a language of much literary production nor a language of scholarship, and so he would have had no reason to learn it. As a scholar, he probably had some knowledge of ancient Greek, even if he was not confident enough of his Greek to write in Greek. Marco polo 02:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not even enough to read in Greek, to his great frustration:

Although Petrarch was primarily a student of the Latin classics, he made a redoubtable effort to learn ancient Greek so that he could study the Greek classics in their original language instead of Latin translations. However obtaining the necessary instruction was almost impossible in his time. Through great dint of effort he did manage to secure the efforts of a Greek monk visiting Avignon for talks with the Pope, but this monk proved to be a poor teacher, although a willing one, and Petrarch learned no useable Greek. His method of teaching involved taking Plato and translating it bit by bit into Latin, with the idea that Petrarch would thus grasp the mechanics of the language and be able to read it. However flawed its approach and intended results might have been, this endeavor did provide him with a serviceable translation of Plato into Latin in the process. And in spite of the failure of his efforts to learn Greek, Petrarch did collect a number of Greek books in hopes that one day he would be able to read them in the original. Many times he would stare at them in longing for the day when he would be able to find a suitable tutor in the language and be able to fathom the mysteries hidden within a language that would remain shut to him for all his days. In a letter to Nicholas Sygeros, the Byzantine envoy to the Papal Court, he talks about his copy of Plato and his appreciation of the man's works, combined with his regret at not being able to read the language. Yet he still continued to hope that one day he would be able to, noting that Cato learned a substantial amount of Greek at an advanced age.[9]

--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all for these great answers as to what Petrarch wrote and spoke. --Doug 16:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Persian Empire in 500 BCE

Is it not true that the Persian Empire in 500 BCE was the largest anicent land mass under one empire? How many "providences" or Countries did it have at this time; all under this same Empire? Has it been the largest land mass of people of Countries collected under one Empire ever (even to modern times)? --Doug 20:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was the largest of it's time (about the size of the US); the Mongol Empire was bigger though. As for "providences", they probably had them by their names before conquest (i.e. Mesopotamia or Egypt). Also, like I said, the Mongols had a larger empire, as did the Russians later. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The page on List of largest empires gives all the relative sizes. The first Persian entry, that for the Achaemenid under Darius the Great, comes in at number eleven in the list of all empires, and number six in the list of contiguous empires. You'll find maps on the pages about Darius the Great and the Achaemenid Empire Clio the Muse 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks on that information on the empires from you all. That is most useful on my research. In this Achaemenid Empire of the Persian Empire which I do in fact believe these provinces had their names before conquest. I believe Cyrus son Cambyses was a part of Egypt, while Smerdis (or usurper) was part of the eastern provinces. What I am interested in is the total of the provinces in the year 500 BC? Even if it is a best guess (i.e. "50" or "100" or "150" or "200")? Is there a way to find out? Livy or Polybius? --Doug 23:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Go a little more slowly, Doug, and read the articles highlighted. You will discover that the empire was divided into twenty provinces under Darius, each with its own governor or satrap. I do not kown the precise form these subdivisions took. However, you may be able to find more detailed information in the pages of Herodotus. Clio the Muse 23:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A street called Straight

In Acts 9:11 there is reference to a street called Straight. Also there is reference to Tarsus. Now it just so happens that the Appian Way (a.k.a. Via Appia or via recta) was a great Roman road (notorious for going straight) that went to Taras. This to me is just to close to being just a mere coincidence. Are they not in fact talking of one and the same thing?
That being of this street called Straight being the Appian Way or Via Appia (a great Roman road or via recta) and that it went to the town of Taras. --Doug 20:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would think it far more likely that there was some street in Tarsus called Straight, to which the verse refers. This passage is just one of several in Acts that refers to the city of Tarsus. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. - Eron ^Talk 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You have pointed out exactly my argument. I believe in each case it is refering to Taras. There is not a street in Tarsus called Straight, however there is a Straight street in Taras. I know because I already research this to find out. It then connects that this street called Straight is the Appian Way because it went to Taras. --Doug 21:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You're hopelessly muddled. Saul was from Tarsus, but Acts 9:1-19 takes place in Damascus. Damascus is in Asia Minor, not Italy. Indeed, the article on Damascus mentions the street called Straight, under Damascus#Historical sites. –EdC 03:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Father of the Renaissance

Sometimes Petrarch is considered the father of the Renaissance; while on the other hand Dante is also. Perhaps there are also others (i.e. Boccaccio)? What is this definition and what is meant by this title? Are there then some sort of subcategories to this title? When in the Renaissance was this given out?--Doug 13:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In Florence, Italy, there is a long road with statues on either side. Primarily 'Renaissance' figures. One of the two nearest to the river is Machiavelli's. He may not be the father of the Renaissance, but his name tends to be known and remembered better than most. Dante is surely one of the top two as well. Then there's the Medici family. Vranak 17:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Really, Doug, there is no great mystery here, nor is there any strict definition to what is merely a colloquial, and loosely applied title. Later generations, loooking for a seminal figure, draped the honour on Petrarch, because he might be said to have been the first to develop a new and disinterested mode of intellectual inquiry, in a clear break with the prevailing attitudes of the Middle Ages. I dare say there are many others, like Dante and Boccaccio, who have every right also to be considered as fathers and step-fathers; and the various branches of art and thought probably have their own favourite 'petty' fathers. The complex taxonomy you seem to be looking for does not exist. Finally, on a point of procedure, can I ask you please not to link the names of people like Petrarch every time you mention them, as you have now ad nauseum: there is simply no need. Clio the Muse 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Latin translation of a Petrarch work title

Looking for what this title says in English: DE SECRETO CONFLICTU CURARUM MEARUM I found it here. Is this work in English online or perhaps in a library? Is this work related to Secretum or Petrarch's "My Secret Book" or is it a separate work? --Doug 20:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd translate the title as: "On the hidden conflict of my concerns". Two words are problematic because they have several meanings. Secretus literally means: "put apart", which can mean "hidden from sight", "concealed", whether by design ("secret"), by accident, or otherwise. Cura can mean all of: "care", "carefulness", "something you care for", "the act of taking care", "cure", "concern", "sorrow", "pain". I picked the particular translation above from all possibilities only because it appeared a somewhat plausible combination. This is the same book as referred to by the name Secretum or Secretum meum, or in English "My Secret Book"; the second link you gave is a translation of the Latin at the first link.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lambiam! That was most useful. --Doug 01:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Define: Heximeters

It is said that Francesco Petrarch wrote a poem called "Africa" written in hexameters. Even after looking at the definition I don't understand what this means exactly. Could someone break this down a little simplier for an old man. Also as far as I can see this is a book (found at the library). So why is it called a "poem"? Awful big poem! --Doug 20:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A poem is anything written in verse, as opposed to prose; whether a piece of literature is a poem or not, has nothing to do with its length. A poem may by two lines or twelve volumes long. Hexameter is a certain kind of meter, a specific pattern of syllables and stresses which determines the poem's rhythm. Kpalion 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I take the following example from the article Dactyl (poetry):

"An example of dactylic meter is the first line of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem Evangeline, which is in dactylic hexameter:

This is the / forest prim- / eval. The / murmuring / pines and the / hemlocks,

The first five feet of the line are dactyls; the sixth a trochee."

A hexameter is simply a rhythm that has six parts, or feet, per line. The most common kind of hexameter is the dactylic hexameter, which is dominated by the dactyl, which is made up of three syllables: a long or stressed syllable followed by two short or unstressed syllables, as in the example above. Marco polo 02:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I get it; six parts per line. The "book" (a.k.a. 'poem') of Petrarch's Africa was written this way. Thanks again. --Doug ^talk 19:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Boccaccio's "Genealogia deorum gentilium"

I see in the Wikipedia article on Giovanni Boccaccio information on this in relationship to meeting Petrarch in 1351: Although unsuccessful, the discussions between the two were instrumental in Boccaccio writing Genealogia deorum gentilium — the first edition was completed in 1360 and this would remain one of the key reference works on classical mythology for over 400 years. Translated into English? Is there a list of mythology names this involves someplace? Did Petrarch and Boccaccio work on this together then? Did these two work together on other works also? Did Giovanni Boccaccio work with Petrarch on Petrarch's epic poem Africa about the Second Punic War and Scipio Africanus?--Doug ^talk 21:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You can get a sense of the work, especially the names it mentions, by consulting the original, even if you don't know Latin. It's available online here (PDF) and (HTML) and probably easiest to search via here. As far as I know, all that's been Englished is Boccaccio on poetry: being the preface and the fourteenth and fifteenth books of Boccaccio’s Genealogia deorum gentilium in an English version with introductory essay and commentary by Charles G. Osgood (Princeton Univ. Press 1930, reprinted in the Library of Liberal Arts, Bobbs-Merrill, 1956). Wareh 01:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for those leads, I will follow up on that. --Doug ^talk 11:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Second Punic War

My understanding is that there were 3 main Hannibal victories in Italy

• Battle of the Trebia
• Battle of Lake Trasimene
• Battle of Cannae
  

Counting forces on both sides during these 3 major battles, what was the total amount (rounded to nearest thousand) that were in the same boat fighting each other (Hannibal vs Roman Republic)? Where does this statistical information come from (i.e. Livy, Polybus)? Is there more than one source for this information? --Doug ^talk 15:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking for the total number of soldiers involved in these 3 major battles of the Second Punic War. --Doug ^talk 23:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The pages on the Battle of the Trebia, the Battle of Lake Trasimene and the Battle of Cannae all give figures for the numbers involved on each side. The main sources you need to consult are Livy's History, books 21 to 39, the World History of Polybius, and Appian's Roman History. However, I think it important to understand that the total number of people involved in these battles is based on 'best guesses'. While it would be possible to give reasonably accurate figures for Roman legions as such-assuming they were all up to strength-, Hannibal's own armies, dependant as he was on local allies and auxiliaries, were subject to wide fluctuations. Clio the Muse 23:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those additional sources. I will follow up on Livy and Polybius, etc. This is then the way I see the numbers as per Wikiarticles
(assuming someone already did some of this research - probably from some of these sources perhaps):

• Battle of the Trebia = Hannibal (31K) -- Roman Republic (45K)
• Battle of Lake Trasimene = Hannibal (30K) -- Roman Republic (30K - using this estimate)
• Battle of Cannae Hannibal = Hannibal (54K) -- Roman Republic (86K)
• Hannibal total then is 115K
• Roman Republic total then is 161K
• Grand Total (all in the same boat) then were 276K.

Is this the way you see the numbers, using the existing Wikipedia articles for this?
Looking for a confirmation from others beside myself (even using the existing articles). --Doug ^talk 21:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Doug, your calculations are spot on, taking as a basis the lower estimates for Roman strength at the latter two battles, and rounding slightly down for Cannae (quite right too!). Clio the Muse 23:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for confirmation. Appreciate it. Here is what that did (and very important in my opinion - whatever that is worth). Perhaps you have been following my "Petrarch theories" (which I believe you have). So what you just confirmed was that this information came from the ancient histories recorded by Livy and Polybius. You even pointed out exactly where it can be found, which I did not know until you told me. However I did know that Petrarch studied much the ancient histories of Livy and Polybius. In fact (if I am not mistaken) Petrarch even lived in the same town as Livy and had full access to his histories through the local library. Petrarch wrote also many instances showing he knew of Polybius histories (i.e. De Viris Illustribus). Right now that's all I dare say, however you will find this number in Acts Chapter 27 verse 37 (all of the 'souls' being in the same ship). [10] I wouldn't dare say that 'souls' sounds like "soldiers" because that would be implying something presumptuous. Isn't there an expression something to the effect: "Being all in the same boat". --Doug ^talk 23:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

To follow this up further, the way I see it is that it was Petrarch that wrote Acts of the Apostles in the Fourteenth Century (1341-1374). Petrarch called it "Chronicle of Universal History".
It is still another list of 28 moral biographies (a.k.a. De Viris Illustribus) of many such biographies that Petrarch wrote. Many of the below later ones are in the time period surrounding the Second Punic War, while the earlier ones are of world leaders leading up to this time period. Notice they are in reverse chronological order. Also it turns out they all are "related" to each other in one fashion or another, going all the way down (as if sewn together with a needle and thread). All these Lives Livy wrote about. Petrarch lived the last part of his life in Padua, Italy, where Livy lived. Petrarch then found all this history information in a monastery library there where Livy left it over 1000 years earlier. Below are the names of these 28 biographies:

• Cyrus the Great (First Persain ruler) 580 BC - 530 BC, whom wrote the Cyrus Cylinder of some 40 lines

• Darius I the Great (Second Persain ruler) 530 BC - 465 BC

• Artaxerxes I (son of Xerxes I, grandson of Darius I above)

• Darius III (Codomannus) was great-grandson of Darius II) (Darius II, half-brother and rival of Xerxes II) (Xerxes II, son of Artaxerxes I)

• Stateira I, sister-wife of Darius III. Stateira II (daughter of Stateira I) married Alexander the Great.

• Philip II of Macedon.

• Alexander the Great (One of his wives was Stateira, daughter of Darius III)

• Philip III of Macedon (half brother of Alexander, the Great)

• Appius Claudius (builder of the Appian Way and Aqua Appia).

• Publius "Cornelius" Scipio Africanus (fought Hannibal of Carthage) of Cornelii family

• Publius Cornelius Scipio (father of Scipio Africanus Major)

• Lucius Aemilius Paullus (daughter Aemilia Tertia married Scipio)

• Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (war against King Jugurtha of Numidia)

• Marcus Aemilius Scaurus (His second wife was Caecilia Metella; Dalmatica who was later the third wife of Lucius Cornelius Sulla)

• Gaius Sempronius Gracchus (son of Cornelia Africana: she was second daughter of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus)

• Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (son of Cornelia Africana)

• Scipio Aemilianus Africanus (Adopted by Publius Cornelius Scipio, the eldest son of Publius "Cornelius" Scipio Africanus above # 10)

• Lucius Mummius Achaicus (censor with Scipio Aemilianus Africanus)

• Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus

• Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus

• Quintus Fabius Maximus Aemilianus

• Quintus Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus

• Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus

• Lucius Cornelius Sulla

• Marcus Aemilius Scaurus

• Gaius Flavius Fimbria

• Gaius Marius

• Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus

Notice our friend Scipio "Cornelius" Africanus in chapter 10 of Acts - same person Petrarch is famous for in his grand epic poem Africa. Here is an interesting coincidence: Notice in chapter 1 is the number 40. Add this to "66" (which is a chapter of one "Cornelius" in Jerome's De Viris Illustribus [11]) and you get 106, which is the exact number on a list of Boccaccio's moral biographies On Famous Women that Petrarch influenced. There happens to be 66 books to the Bible (Old Testament of 39 + New Testament of 27). Now add 28 (number of chapters to Acts of the Apostles) and you get 134, which just happens to be the amount of Jerome's "Christian authors" above. --Doug ^talk 17:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Lives / De Viris Illustribus

Is there a list of Lives done by a famous person or ancient historian (i.e. Livy) that is of the Achaemenid Dynasty or ancient Persian Empires? List of Lives of people that include the ancient world rulers like Darius the Great and Cyrus the Great. --Doug ^talk 23:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Herodotus' History sprimgs to mind. DDB 12:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Herodotus, though his "concatenation" style (as opposed to "Life of...") isn't really what you seem to be looking for. You can probably find Plutarch's works online. I'm no expert, but I think he wrote a life of Artaxerxes II of Persia which seems to fit your "Persian Empire" requirement. There may also be other Persians he wrote about and in distinction to Herodotus, whose works he seems to have found intellectually unsatisfying. --Dweller 15:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that the ancient Persian emperors were ever given the kind of literary treatment accorded to the later Roman variety by the likes of Suetonius. But in addition to Heroditus you might also wish to consult the surviving fragments of History of the Persians by Ctesias of Cnidus, the one time doctor to Artaxerxes II, preserved in the later work of Diodorus of Sicily. Clio the Muse 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Fourteenth Century Old English of words "Iesus" and "god"

In the Fourteenth Century I understand that the words "Iesus" and "Jesus" were used interchangable. Is this correct? Would that be considered a time period (1350 +/-) for the transition of the letter "I" to the usage of the letter "J" instead for this word? Would this then be for Latin usage at this time period? In this time period would the word "Iesus" have been more common place than with the "J"? I understand by the 17th Century then the letter "J" was MUCH more distinguished. I am thinking in the middle of the Fourteenth Century that the letter "I" would have been more commonplace; is that correct? Could also the word "god" been Old English (Fourteenth Century) for "good"; as in good morals. Was this word of "god" in common usage then meaning what we would refer to today as just plain "good". Perhaps over time the second "o" got added? --Doug 17:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I heard that the words "good" and "god", although both Common Germanic, weren't related. 惑乱 分からん 20:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The forms "J" and "I" were used interchangeably and were just two different ways of writing the same letter. As our article J explains, "J" did not come into existence as a separate letter until the late 16th century. It did not win general acceptance as the standard spelling of the initial sound in the name "Jesus" until sometime in the 17th century. The words "god" and "good" have always been two distinct words. As Wakuran says, the words come from two different Germanic roots. The pronunciation and spelling of each has changed over the centuries, but they were never the same word. The form of English used in the 14th century was not Old English, but instead Middle English. Middle English did not have standardized or consistent spellings for words. That is, the same word might be, and often was, spelled in various different ways. The most common spelling for the modern word "good" was "gode" (pronounced something like "go:dɘ" (IPA) or "goada") and the most common spelling for "god" was "god" (pronounced "gɔd" (IPA), or much as it is pronounced today in British Received Pronunciation, or like "gawd" in General American but with the vowel much shorter). Marco polo 20:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction of Middle English. Looking at those sites I can NOW see the difference. Also this has put MUCH more light on the letters of "I" and that of "J" and when "J" came into play. As you can see above, I was a little suspicious that the letter "J" started its usage in the Fourteenth Century. This is made much more clear in sub-article "The J in Jehovah" of Tetragrammaton. I am not a religious person and know nothing of church history. You have filled in many gaps. Interesting what you say of the meaning of the word "Jesus" being "I am" or "He that causes to be". The one that causes to be sounds like something similiar to (or related to) the word "concept" or the word "idea". An "idea" is he that causes to be. This is like a general notion, conception, something that is brought about. I am just looking at this as similarities; from the viewpoint of a non religious person. I just happen to see similarities. He that cuase to be is "one that causes to be" and to me is the definition of IDEA or that of a concept; which is similar to "I am the one who is." An "Idea" is one who is a concept or an innovation (basically same thing). I know that from a "religious" viewpoint this would be incorrect. But like I say, I am NOT a "religious" person. How I see this then would be completely DIFFERENT than from any religious viewpoint. So I guess what I am saying is that perhaps I do not view this as a historical person of some 2000 years ago. Just as a concept or "idea" which is something certainly different that from a "religious" viewpoint. Thanks again for your help. You have certainly given me some EXCELLENT clues and "ideas".... --Doug 21:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

---

There's an extensive answer to this same question on Humanities reference desk... AnonMoos 01:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition of word "Jesus"

I notice under Biblical names the meaning is "Jehovah is salvation; deliverer; help" and Jehovah is "self-subsisting". This then puts the first part of the definition (meaning) as "self-subsisting is salvation". Could I get a further explanation on this. Also is there a further explanation for the definition of "deliverer; help" as part of the word ('Iesus') origination. Is there a further definition in an ancient language of these words of "Jehovah" and "Jesus", perhaps even in one of the Semitic languages or in an ancient Persian language? --Doug 18:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The meanings under Biblical names should not be combined in this way. The original source of the two names, "Jesus" and "Jehovah", is Hebrew. These names do not come from another Semitic language, and certainly not from ancient Persian. Let's start with "Jehovah". This is actually a European form of the Hebrew name "YHWH". For a discussion of the forms of this name, see Tetragrammaton and Yahweh. Tetragrammaton has a discussion of the meaning of this word, which seems to be either "I am" or "He that causes to be". Whatever its original meaning, the word "YHWH" (whose original pronunciation is unknown, partly because the pronunciation of this name became forbidden at some point in Jewish history) came to be used simply as the name of God, just as the name of God in Arabic is "Allah". The name "Jesus" is a form of the Hebrew name "Joshua" or "Yehoshua". The native language of Jesus, if he was a historical figure, would have been Aramaic, and the Aramaic form of "Joshua" was something like "Yeshua", which was written in Greek as "Iesous" (pronounced "Yay soos"), which became "Iesus" in Latin and "Jesus" in English. According to our article Joshua, this name means "YHWH saves". It does not mean that anything else saves, only that the god named "YHWH" saves. Marco polo 20:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the spelling and pronunciation of the Greek in Marco polo's reply. Note further that in the transliterations of the Hebrew and Aramaic the letters "J" and "Y" are really the same letter in the original (yod), which sounds like the English consonant "Y".  --Lambiam^Talk 20:36, December 29, 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Lambiam! Marco polo 01:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikitionary. - Patricknoddy 8:31am, January 2, 2006 (EST)

Petrarch's "De Viris Illustribus"

Petrarch's "De Viris Illustribus" starts with Romulus and goes to Titus. As far as I know, presently this list of 24 Lives is in Latin only and NOT in English. It starts with Romuus. Is there a software program that would translate this into English (even if a rough translation)? Does anybody know of an English translation of these Lives? --Doug 20:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Petrarch's Latin prefaces to this work have been translated into English (in History and Theory, Vol. 13, No. 2., May 1974, pp. 132-144, available online by subscription, for which try your nearest university library). At least some of the lives have been translated into Italian (Francesco Petrarca, Prose, ed. G. Martellotti et al., Milan and Naples: R. Ricciardi, 1955). Otherwise, no dice. Wareh 01:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I also did NOT have any luck finding an English translation, even in a library. Maybe later. Do you know if software exists that gives even a "rough" translation from Latin or Italian? Perhaps you can help me on the Petrarch title below. --Doug 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

William Tyndale English translation

William Tyndale came out with an English translation of the New Testament off the Vulgate Latin about 1525. How long would it have taken Tyndale to translate only the New Testament? Since approximately 80% of Tyndale's English translation of the New Testament was used for the King James Version of 1611, does anyone know a more accurate approximation? --Doug 13:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Exact dates are not known. Tyndale went to London in 1523, but was refused permission to translate the NT by the Bishop. However, he spent some time there "at his book" before moving to Hamburg in 1524. His NT was partially printed in Cologne in 1525, but publication was stopped by anti-Lutherans. A full edition came out in Worms in 1526. He was translating from Greek. (Info from ODNB) See also this page. --HJMG 14:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the great answers. I understand that Tyndale knew Vulgate Latin quite well. I have done some additional research on this point of Tyndale translating out of Greek. Many sites(and many history books as well) seem to indicate that William Tyndale translated the New Testament out of the Vulgate Latin. Would you agree with this? I knew Tyndale worked with the Vulgate Latin much. Did Tyndale know Greek also (a little or well)? I know that Tyndale worked with Erasmus. Erasmus came out with a Greek version of the New Testament about 1522. If I am not mistaken, didn't this have a Greek page next to the Latin page (for comparison for the reader). Do you have further evidence that Tyndale actually translated off Greek? I have a tendency to believe he translated off the Vulgate Latin, since he knew this so well. Didn't William Tyndale work much with the Vulgate Latin as well as with Erasmus? --Doug 15:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Tyndale knew several languages well. David Daniell seems very sure he based his translation on the Greek, and so does the Tyndale Society. In the ODNB entry on Tyndale Daniell says "For the first time, the whole New Testament, faithfully translated from the Greek, could be read by anyone. ..." I read the bible-researcher.com page to mean he based his translation on a Greek text, but referred to Latin and German versions too. See also [12]--HJMG 16:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot. Also in the Tyndale Society site it gave me more clues on about what percentage of his work went into the KJV of 1611. It seems to indicate something over perhaps 90% with their words: "Tyndale's English translation of the New Testament was taken almost word for word into the much praised Authorised Version (King James Bible) of 1611." --Doug 17:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Romanician

Is there such a word as "Romanician" or "Romanitian"? The way I found it, it is used to mean that of a Roman citizen. However I can not seem to find the word in actual use. Is there something like this in Latin or two words combined (resembling this) that would have this meaning? Perhaps with 10 letters? I see the word Romanization looks close to me. Perhaps this of "Romanician/Romanitian" came from Romanization. Where are examples where "Romanician" or "Romanitian" are actually used in a sentence?--Doug 16:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The word "Romanization" is used for alphabets, I don't think it's used in the sense "making something more Roman"... 惑乱 分からん 17:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking for the exact word of "Romanician" or "Romanitian". Is there such a word in Latin or Italian (Rome word)? --Doug 20:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I found no evidence of such a word in Latin. "Roman Citizen" would be "Civis Romanus". However, I did find something on a website after Googling those words:

"I reject the options presented to me in this poll. The groupings "Germanic" and "Romanician" are both social constructs invented to ease categorizations and generalizations of people. They ignore the reality that culture is ever-changing, and that traditions vary even between neighbours."

Hope this helps.CCLemon-安部さん万歳！ 07:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Latin translation

Do these words basically mean that of the "Preface" of a book and the "Forward" of a book? Are these Latin words or Italian words? Does the word "Liber" basically then mean that of an ordinary book (fiction or non-fiction) or something closer to a manuscript (many pages, however perhaps not a book) or just a document (of say one or two pages or just a few pages)?

• Frontespizio
• Prefatio

--Doug 16:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Frontespizio" is Italian. Vulgar (and I guess medieval) Latin would be "frontespicium". "Prefatio" appears to be well attested in medieval Latin - at least if Google is a good guide to attestation. And "liber" in late usage is a book in the sense of "Lord of the Rings: Book 1 - The Fellowship of the Ring". It seems to have ended up as a section label in large Latin tomes, and something like a manuscript when used to refer to a stand-alone work. Ovid's Metamorphoses uses "liber" for section headers, so it must have applied equally to fiction. --Diderot 16:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The use of "book" to which Diderot refers derives originally from how much you could fit into a scroll. This is the relevant sense when we're talking about the Iliad's 24 books, the Republic's ten, Pindar's three (lost) books of parthenia, etc. In Medieval works, the codex has replaced the scroll, so the meaning is no longer dictated by even this rough standard of quantity (except for an instinctive basis on Classical examples). In this context, it comes to be an authorial structuring device (whereas the oldest divisions, e.g. of the Homeric poems, were certainly not by the author). Wareh 20:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Italian frontespizio has the same meaning as English frontispiece, and late Latin prefatio the same as English preface.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(Added links to above item --Anonymous, January 9, 00:09 (UTC))

Thanks all for these outstanding answers. --Doug ^talk 22:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Latin name list translation needed

Latin ———————————–––- English

• ADAM - Adam (I assume)
• NOE
• NEMROTH
• NINUS
• SEMIRAMIS
• ABRAAM
• YSAAC
• IACOB
• IOSEPH
• MOYSES
• IASON
• HERCULES

Thanks... --Doug 14:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See Adam, Noah or Noach, Nimrod, Ninus, Semiramis, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Jason, and Hercules.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Lambiam...... --Doug 15:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The name Hercules is often said to be a Latin translation of Herakles, although the two can be considered different beings. Laïka 16:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Where does this list of names appear? In Jerome's Vulgate the name of Nimrod is Nemrod, and Abraam is not mentioned, it is Abram or Abraham. --Seejyb 21:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Petrarch's De viris illustribus.[13] Why he spells the name Nimrod/Nemrod with a "th" I don't know (the name in Hebrew ends with a dalet), but since the passage is about a king of Babylon who is a dedicated hunter, there is no doubt that this is our friend Nimrod.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me these names in English and linking to Wikipedia. --Doug ^talk 22:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Boccacio's "Concerning the Falls of Illustrious Men"

In The Monk's Prologue and Tale lists the 17 seventeen short stories on the theme of tragedy based on Giovanni Boccaccio's Concerning the Falls of Illustrious Men. Is Boccaccio's list identically the same list (but just in Latin) or is it a shorter list? Which are on Boccaccio's list then if it is shorter? --Doug 16:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Chaucer's work was not a translation he just pynched the idea. John Lydgate's Fall of Princes is closer to Boccaccio's work but Lydgate loosely translated Laurent de Premierfait who had in turn loosely translated Boccaccio. I haven't found much detail on Boccaccio's Illustrious Men online but there is a dead tree version in english, translated and abridged by Louis Brewer Hall. New York, 1965. From stray references I think Darius and Mark Antony are in Boccaccio but not Chaucer. meltBanana 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Second Punic War

My understanding is that there were 3 main Hannibal victories in Italy

• Battle of the Trebia
• Battle of Lake Trasimene
• Battle of Cannae
  

Counting forces on both sides during these 3 major battles, what was the total amount (rounded to nearest thousand) that were in the same boat fighting each other (Hannibal vs Roman Republic)? Where does this statistical information come from (i.e. Livy, Polybus)? Is there more than one source for this information? --Doug ^talk 15:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking for the total number of soldiers involved in these 3 major battles of the Second Punic War. --Doug ^talk 23:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The pages on the Battle of the Trebia, the Battle of Lake Trasimene and the Battle of Cannae all give figures for the numbers involved on each side. The main sources you need to consult are Livy's History, books 21 to 39, the World History of Polybius, and Appian's Roman History. However, I think it important to understand that the total number of people involved in these battles is based on 'best guesses'. While it would be possible to give reasonably accurate figures for Roman legions as such-assuming they were all up to strength-, Hannibal's own armies, dependant as he was on local allies and auxiliaries, were subject to wide fluctuations. Clio the Muse 23:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those additional sources. I will follow up on Livy and Polybius, etc. This is then the way I see the numbers as per Wikiarticles
(assuming someone already did some of this research - probably from some of these sources perhaps):

• Battle of the Trebia = Hannibal (31K) -- Roman Republic (45K)
• Battle of Lake Trasimene = Hannibal (30K) -- Roman Republic (30K - using this estimate)
• Battle of Cannae Hannibal = Hannibal (54K) -- Roman Republic (86K)
• Hannibal total then is 115K
• Roman Republic total then is 161K
• Grand Total (all in the same boat) then were 276K.