Did some mythological characters live?

[David Dalton]

Is there any evidence for any mythological characters,
e.g. Dionysus, having lived as humans?

--
David Dalton dal...@nfld.com http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/nf.html Newfoundland&Labrador Travel & Music
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"Here I go again...back into the flame" (Sarah McLachlan)

[Agamemnon]

"David Dalton" <dal...@nfld.com> wrote in message
news:dalton-5FB7EC....@mx05.eternal-september.org...

> Is there any evidence for any mythological characters,
> e.g. Dionysus, having lived as humans?
>

Yes. All of them lived. They are named in Egyptian and Cretan kings lists.

GODS

Kronos/Saturn/El = Satur king of Knossos c.1700 BC.

Zeus = Pharaoh Sheshi, Saasitepis (Zeus The' Apis) king of Lato and Tilsis
c.1650 BC

Jehovah = Meruserenre Yakubher c.1675 BC and Yakobaam Sekkhaenre c.1600 BC

Apis king of Argos/Sarapis = Apophis, Awoserre Apepi 1627-1596 BC

HEROES

Epaphus = Apachnas, Seneferankhre Apepi 1646-1627 BC

Agenor = Janins, Aqenienre Apepi 1596-1571 BC

Aegyptus = Menkheper-re Djehutymes 1479-1425 BC

Cassiopea = Kasiyope, Ankhesenpaaten 1324-1320 BC

Proteus/Ktes = Setnakhte 1185-1182 BC

Tithonus = Aktisanis/Petissonius, Binere-meramun Merneptah-hotphi(r)mae
1212-1192 BC (ho-tphi(r)mae = T(i)phimae(s) = Tithonus).

Memnon = Seti Userkheperure Meryamun 1192-1182 BC

Theoclymenos = Ramses III 1182-1151 BC

http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/Manetho.htm

[SolomonW]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:50:57 -0230, David Dalton wrote:

> Is there any evidence for any mythological characters,
> e.g. Dionysus, having lived as humans?

No but it maybe possible that they did live depending on what you define as
lived.

[j...@sfbooks.com]

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 8:20:57 PM UTC-7, David Dalton wrote:

> Is there any evidence for any mythological characters, e.g.
> Dionysus, having lived as humans?

Certainly. Even if you aren't a fundamentalist of Greek mythology
(which is probably a moderately incorrect description of one
of those who've already replied to you), several of the myths
themselves explicitly identify this or that character as human.
The most obvious example is probably either Achilles or Odysseus,
depending on your preferences as regards Homer, but I suspect what
you really mean by "mythological characters" is not just characters,
but ones identified as gods, in which case it's a little bit tougher.
For example, there are lots more myths about Heracles as a human than
as a god (do *any* myths feature him after his apotheosis?).
Something similar applies to the various Roman emperors deified after
their deaths. (I'm not sure, but vaguely remember that one of the
bad ones arranged to be deified *before* his death; I have no idea
how that relates, but at any rate, there should certainly be stories
about him both before and after deification.) I'm not sure there's
*any* figure of Greek mythology proper who figures in actual myths
both as a mortal *and* as a deity.

For most of the pantheon we read the Greek myths as providing, who
were classically never mortal at all, things are complicated by the
fact that they were worshipped by the Mycenaeans centuries before
Homer, let alone other mythmakers. So we'd have to posit humans who
lived before the *Mycenaeans*, and what records we have from the
Mycenaean civilisation don't exactly document people a century or
three earlier all that well.

That said, for some later Greeks, who didn't know much about Mycenae,
this sort of thing was somewhat easier. There's this guy named
Euhemerus who lived around 300 BC. He wrote a book which we have
a fair amount of information about, though we don't have the book
itself, and in this book, he apparently claimed that the gods were
actually human rulers who'd done wonderful things, resulting in
their being worshipped after their deaths.

So, um... In particular, please note that many of our main sources
for Greek mythology are later than Euhemerus. In particular, this
guy named Apollodorus (though classicists, for some reason, insist
he's really some *other* guy named Apollodorus), who provides for
the heroes the sort of systematic genealogies Hesiod provides for
the gods, is centuries later.

It dawns on me that you didn't specify *Greek* or even *classical*
mythology. Most other written mythologies don't fit within this
group's time scale, but some do. We have a fair number of myths
from the Sumerians, and fewer from the Akkadians; the Hittites
have preserved for us a bunch of myths, most apparently not
originally their own; we have a few myths from Ugarit and from
Egypt. We have stories from Israel and India which tend not to be
called myths because large and influential religions still consider
those stories scriptural. I think that's about it; in particular, the
Norse and Persian myths weren't written until rather later, and the
Celtic were, more or less, not written at all. (There is some early
Chinese writing that more or less counts as mythical, but I'm not
familiar with it; it's arguably less important to later Chinese myth
than early writing that's emphatically *not* mythical.)

Some characters presented as (super)human in Sumerian and Akkadian
stories probably really lived, and were later worshipped as gods.
That is, Gilgamesh was certainly a minor god, and probably lived
(contemporaries of his, people who feature as opponents in stories
about him, certainly did); things get progressively sketchier for
his mythological forebears Lugalbanda, Enmerkar, and Adapa. Putting
it mildly, we do not have evidence that divine characters like Enki
or Inanna in the Sumerian myths were originally human.

I know of no confusion of categories in the Hittite or Ugaritic
myths. I'm not that familiar with Egyptian myths proper (they
tended to appear in things like spells rather than in stories per se),
but one notable case that might get somewhere near your question is
a son of Ramses II (13th century BC) who became famous for his
interest in ancient monuments. A millennium later this resulted in
his being portrayed as a sort of bumbling magician in at least three
stories, two of which we have more or less complete. (These stories
appear in collections of Egyptian literature under names like "Setne-
Khamwas"; Wikipedia knows the original historical guy as
"Khaemweset".) Of course, there are plenty of deified rulers in
Egyptian history.

The major characters in the <Ramayana>, which is pretty important
in Hindu and some Buddhist religions, are essentially all deities
acting like humans. (One way Hindu theologians deal with this is by
positing that Rama is just an "avatar", or incarnation, of a god.
But, well, he's still a god in his own right, at least in the sense
that people, who may not be theologians, worship him.) I'm less
familiar with the <Mahabharata> but if I understand correctly only
one of its characters (Krishna, of course) is also an important god.
Most more conventionally scriptural Hindu and Buddhist writing is
significantly less narrative; there aren't a lot of myths buried in
the <Rgveda>, for example. (Similar for early Persian writing. The
<Avesta> hints at several myths, it just doesn't tell any.)

As for Israel? Putting it mildly, confusion of categories isn't an
issue; I don't think even Enoch was ever considered anything more
than human. Also there's a book, which I hope to read soon, that
apparently shows how the Biblical stories fairly consistently tone
down the elements of the fantastic in the Near Eastern myths they
resemble.

Which brings us back to Greece. One thing about Achilles, Odysseus,
*and* Herakles is that they were all worshipped as "heroes". Sort of
similar to what I gather happens at important Muslim shrines to this
day, the ancient Greeks had not only temples for deities, who were
at least notionally universal, but also what are called "shrines" at
the putative tombs of "heroes". Whether this would count as a human
becoming a god to you, I dunno. Flipside, though, Page's <Folktales
in the Odyssey> shows that when Homer tells a fairy tale, he
consistently tells it less fantastical than anyone else; an article
by Jasper Griffin shows, in particular, that he tells it less
fantastical than the other authors in the "Epic Cycle".

So apparently the *really successful* myths are precisely those least
likely to produce the kind of result you seem to be asking about, or
alternatively, most likely to produce it in the other direction.
Perhaps Noah, say, is a mythological character who was formerly (e.g.
as Ziusudra) at least quasi-divine.

Joe Bernstein

--
Joe Bernstein, tax preparer and writer j...@sfbooks.com

[Agamemnon]

<j...@sfbooks.com> wrote in message
news:f3f5ded6-3044-420e...@googlegroups.com...

> On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 8:20:57 PM UTC-7, David Dalton wrote:
>
>> Is there any evidence for any mythological characters, e.g.
>> Dionysus, having lived as humans?
>
> Certainly. Even if you aren't a fundamentalist of Greek mythology
> (which is probably a moderately incorrect description of one
> of those who've already replied to you), several of the myths
> themselves explicitly identify this or that character as human.
> The most obvious example is probably either Achilles or Odysseus,
> depending on your preferences as regards Homer, but I suspect what
> you really mean by "mythological characters" is not just characters,
> but ones identified as gods, in which case it's a little bit tougher.
> For example, there are lots more myths about Heracles as a human than
> as a god (do *any* myths feature him after his apotheosis?).
> Something similar applies to the various Roman emperors deified after
> their deaths. (I'm not sure, but vaguely remember that one of the
> bad ones arranged to be deified *before* his death; I have no idea
> how that relates, but at any rate, there should certainly be stories
> about him both before and after deification.) I'm not sure there's
> *any* figure of Greek mythology proper who figures in actual myths
> both as a mortal *and* as a deity.

Yes there are.

Apis/Sarapis king of Argos who was in reality pharaoh Apophis (Manetho),
aka. Awoserre Apepi 1627-1596 BC.

There's also Dionysus the son of Semele who is named in Linear B
inscriptions, Asclepheus and the Dioscuri.

>
> For most of the pantheon we read the Greek myths as providing, who
> were classically never mortal at all, things are complicated by the
> fact that they were worshipped by the Mycenaeans centuries before
> Homer, let alone other mythmakers. So we'd have to posit humans who
> lived before the *Mycenaeans*, and what records we have from the
> Mycenaean civilisation don't exactly document people a century or
> three earlier all that well.

Wrong. ALL ancient writers EXPLICITLY STATE that all of the where originally
mortal kings who were defied by their own people, either during their
lifetimes or after because of the wonders they brought to mankind.

>
> That said, for some later Greeks, who didn't know much about Mycenae,
> this sort of thing was somewhat easier. There's this guy named
> Euhemerus who lived around 300 BC. He wrote a book which we have
> a fair amount of information about, though we don't have the book
> itself, and in this book, he apparently claimed that the gods were
> actually human rulers who'd done wonderful things, resulting in
> their being worshipped after their deaths.

Not just Euhemerus but every ancient writer said that including Herodotus
whose books are still extant and Plato.

>
> So, um... In particular, please note that many of our main sources
> for Greek mythology are later than Euhemerus. In particular, this
> guy named Apollodorus (though classicists, for some reason, insist
> he's really some *other* guy named Apollodorus), who provides for
> the heroes the sort of systematic genealogies Hesiod provides for
> the gods, is centuries later.

Apollodorus wrote his Library in about 260 BC. The copies which survived
today are all major redactions copied by later writers credited to
Apollodrus as their source.

>
> It dawns on me that you didn't specify *Greek* or even *classical*
> mythology. Most other written mythologies don't fit within this
> group's time scale, but some do. We have a fair number of myths
> from the Sumerians, and fewer from the Akkadians; the Hittites
> have preserved for us a bunch of myths, most apparently not
> originally their own; we have a few myths from Ugarit and from
> Egypt. We have stories from Israel and India which tend not to be
> called myths because large and influential religions still consider
> those stories scriptural. I think that's about it; in particular, the
> Norse and Persian myths weren't written until rather later, and the
> Celtic were, more or less, not written at all. (There is some early

Wrong. Celtic if you mean Irish mythology dates back to the time before the
Flood/Ogygian Deluge (The Thera Eruption mega tsunami of 1628 BC) and was
written down long before the Hellenistic period since it contains
information which had already been redacted from Hellenistic accounts.
Celtic if you mean Italy-Celtic mythology, Italy, Britain, Spain, France,
Sicily was written down since are least 400 BC since it is know to be extant
in the surviving fragments of Antiochus of Syracuse' The Colonising of Italy
and Dionysus of Halicarnassus. The orginal source and binding story for all
of these accounts is known to be Thymaetes', Phrygia which was written in
1200 BC and which follows the Egyptian Low chronology as I have already
proven about four years ago.

http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/Manetho.htm

> Chinese writing that more or less counts as mythical, but I'm not
> familiar with it; it's arguably less important to later Chinese myth
> than early writing that's emphatically *not* mythical.)

The Chinese accounts can also be shown to follow the Greek accounts of the
Flood as do the Hindu accounts and the Bible story. Before you mention the
last tablet of Gilgamesh, that has been shown to have been written after the
Thera Eruption.

>
> Some characters presented as (super)human in Sumerian and Akkadian
> stories probably really lived, and were later worshipped as gods.
> That is, Gilgamesh was certainly a minor god, and probably lived
> (contemporaries of his, people who feature as opponents in stories
> about him, certainly did); things get progressively sketchier for
> his mythological forebears Lugalbanda, Enmerkar, and Adapa. Putting
> it mildly, we do not have evidence that divine characters like Enki
> or Inanna in the Sumerian myths were originally human.

Wrong. Anyone who has actually read the literature can see perfectly clearly
that all of the gods are portrayed as mortal human beings who behave like
mortal humans, fight wars like mortals and die like mortals.

>
> I know of no confusion of categories in the Hittite or Ugaritic
> myths. I'm not that familiar with Egyptian myths proper (they
> tended to appear in things like spells rather than in stories per se),
> but one notable case that might get somewhere near your question is
> a son of Ramses II (13th century BC) who became famous for his
> interest in ancient monuments. A millennium later this resulted in
> his being portrayed as a sort of bumbling magician in at least three
> stories, two of which we have more or less complete. (These stories
> appear in collections of Egyptian literature under names like "Setne-
> Khamwas"; Wikipedia knows the original historical guy as
> "Khaemweset".) Of course, there are plenty of deified rulers in
> Egyptian history.
>
> The major characters in the <Ramayana>, which is pretty important
> in Hindu and some Buddhist religions, are essentially all deities
> acting like humans. (One way Hindu theologians deal with this is by

Wrong. They are all portrayed as humans who were later made into deities.

> positing that Rama is just an "avatar", or incarnation, of a god.
> But, well, he's still a god in his own right, at least in the sense
> that people, who may not be theologians, worship him.) I'm less
> familiar with the <Mahabharata> but if I understand correctly only
> one of its characters (Krishna, of course) is also an important god.
> Most more conventionally scriptural Hindu and Buddhist writing is
> significantly less narrative; there aren't a lot of myths buried in
> the <Rgveda>, for example. (Similar for early Persian writing. The
> <Avesta> hints at several myths, it just doesn't tell any.)
>
> As for Israel? Putting it mildly, confusion of categories isn't an
> issue; I don't think even Enoch was ever considered anything more
> than human. Also there's a book, which I hope to read soon, that
> apparently shows how the Biblical stories fairly consistently tone
> down the elements of the fantastic in the Near Eastern myths they
> resemble.

The narrative of the bible makes it explicitly clear that the god of the Old
Testament was
the Pharaoh of Egypt. It even names him as Setnakte, aka. Ktes (who is also
Proteus in Homers account) meaning The One or On in the account of the
Exodus and infers him to have been Necho in the account of Nebuchadnezzar's
conquest of Palestine.

>
> Which brings us back to Greece. One thing about Achilles, Odysseus,
> *and* Herakles is that they were all worshipped as "heroes". Sort of
> similar to what I gather happens at important Muslim shrines to this
> day, the ancient Greeks had not only temples for deities, who were
> at least notionally universal, but also what are called "shrines" at
> the putative tombs of "heroes". Whether this would count as a human

They also worshiped the members of their own families at these shrines as
did the Romans and as did the Arabs at Mecca. The Bible also describes this
kind of ancestor worship being carried out by the descendents of Abraham.

> becoming a god to you, I dunno. Flipside, though, Page's <Folktales
> in the Odyssey> shows that when Homer tells a fairy tale, he

Rubbish. Homer is doing exactly the same thing that the writers of the bible
copied from him. He has gods which were already being worshiped by the
Mycenaean's before the Trojan War appearing in the form of the mortal kings
and other protagonists in the main narrative. For example Zeus appears to
Agamemnon in a dream in the form of Nestor and encourages him to attack
Troy. It's blatantly obvious that in the original historical text that Homer
based this account on Agamemnon was meeting Nestor in his tent to discuss
tactics in the middle of the night.

> consistently tells it less fantastical than anyone else; an article
> by Jasper Griffin shows, in particular, that he tells it less
> fantastical than the other authors in the "Epic Cycle".
>
> So apparently the *really successful* myths are precisely those least
> likely to produce the kind of result you seem to be asking about, or
> alternatively, most likely to produce it in the other direction.
> Perhaps Noah, say, is a mythological character who was formerly (e.g.
> as Ziusudra) at least quasi-divine.

Noah was stolen by the Jews from the Romans and is in fact the same person
as Ianus II king of Italy who is known to have been included in Antiochus of
Syracuse', The Colonising of Italy (based itself of Thymaetes', Phrygia)
long before the Old Testament account was written. In fact the Old Testament
account of Noah was still being composed in Christian times as extant texts
of the Book of Noah and the Book of Enoch clearly show. They were all
pinched from Roman accounts of the decent of the kings of Europe and Asia
from Ianus II also known as Ogygus, king of Athens and Phrygia who migrated
to Italy after the Flood.

[Christopher Ingham]

In regard to classical mythology, a difference is always maintained
between gods and mortals. The latter generally have demi-god status,
frequently as a result of the mother having been impregnated by a god.
There is no certainty that any of the legendary heroes ever lived,
although certainly the possibility exists in many cases, particularly
with those associated with civic cults. That there are historical
kernels of truth contained in many of the legends of heroes is
strongly suggested, but as yet none of these personages are
recoverable by current historical methods. That a handful of gods may
have originated as real persons is not beyond the realm of
possibility, but is – as the gods hearken back to remote antiquity –
certainly beyond any means of proof.

As to Herakles, after his apotheosis he is frequently depicted in
Greek art standing among the deities on Olympus, but at this point he
is no longer an actor on the human plane. There were many temples
dedicated to him throughout the Mediterranean region – the city of
Rome alone had about a dozen.

Deified Roman emperors were not gods on a par with the Olympians.
Deification essentially was no more than an official act of hyper-
flattery by the senate, and it has been argued that it was that body’s
ability to confer or withhold divine status on an emperor posthumously
which preserved for it any vestige of political leverage it had in its
dealings with virtually omnipotent autocrats. As to a lack of
mythologies of these persons, historical times generally are not
fertile times for for the development of myths and legends.

Christopher Ingham

[SolomonW]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:40:05 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham wrote:

> Deified Roman emperors were not gods on a par with the Olympians.

Yep

> Deification essentially was no more than an official act of hyper-

> flattery by the senate, and it has been argued that it was that bodyοΏ½s

> ability to confer or withhold divine status on an emperor posthumously
> which preserved for it any vestige of political leverage it had in its
> dealings with virtually omnipotent autocrats.

It is not a trivial issue as many people go into politics for this reason.

The senate also had the power to remove divine status from an emperor
already declared divine as well as their official *memory*.

[Christopher Ingham]

On Mar 25, 12:34 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:40:05 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham wrote:
> > Deified Roman emperors were not gods on a par with the Olympians.
>
> Yep
>
> > Deification essentially was no more than an official act of hyper-

> > flattery by the senate, and it has been argued that it was that body s

> > ability to confer or withhold divine status on an emperor posthumously
> > which preserved for it any vestige of political leverage it had in its
> > dealings with virtually omnipotent autocrats.
>
> It is not a trivial issue as many people go into politics for this reason.
>
> The senate also had the power to remove divine status from an emperor
> already declared divine as well as their official *memory*.

That never occurred. “_Damnatio_is the direct antithesis
of_consecratio_, the process by which a deceased emperor was declared
an official god of the Roman state, and his character, policies, and
reign formally and eternally endorsed” (Eric R. Varner,_Mutilation and
transformation: Damnatio memoriae and Roman imperial portraiture_,
Boston, Brill, 2004, p. 6).

The emperors officially condemned by_damnationes_were Caligula (de
facto), Nero, Domitian, Commodus (later rescinded), and Elagabalus,
and official sanctions (or evidence  of them), sometimes less severe
than outright_damnatione_,  were posthumously enacted against the
memories of Didius Julianus, Pescennius Niger, Clodius Albinus, Geta,
Macrinus, Diadumenianus, Maximinus Thrax, Maximus, Pupienus, Balbinus,
Gordian III, Philip the Arab, Trebonius Gallus, several mid-third
century soldier-emperors, Maximian, Maxentius, and Maximinus Daia
(Varner, 6, 257, 200, 203-5, 208-11, 214-21). None of the foregoing
were ever deified.

Christopher Ingham

[Agamemnon]

"Christopher Ingham" <christop...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ab76d663-1319-4bdb...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

>
<<<In regard to classical mythology, a difference is always maintained
between gods and mortals. The latter generally have demi-god status,
frequently as a result of the mother having been impregnated by a god.
There is no certainty that any of the legendary heroes ever lived,>>>

Not true. Dionysus' grave was shown in Delphi. Zeus's grave was shown in
Crete.

The other gods and heroes I have named who ruled over both Greece and Egypt
are confirmed from Egyptian records and archaeology.

GODS

Kronos/Saturn/El = Satur king of Knossos c.1700 BC.

Zeus = Pharaoh Sheshi, Saasitepis (Zeus The' Apis) king of Lato and Tilsis
c.1650 BC

Jehovah = Meruserenre Yakubher c.1675 BC and Yakobaam Sekkhaenre c.1600 BC

Apis king of Argos/Sarapis = Apophis, Awoserre Apepi 1627-1596 BC

HEROES

Epaphus = Apachnas, Seneferankhre Apepi 1646-1627 BC

Agenor = Janins, Aqenienre Apepi 1596-1571 BC

Aegyptus = Menkheper-re Djehutymes 1479-1425 BC

Cassiopea = Kasiyope, Ankhesenpaaten 1324-1320 BC

Proteus/Ktes = Setnakhte 1185-1182 BC

Tithonus = Aktisanis/Petissonius, Binere-meramun Merneptah-hotphi(r)mae
1212-1192 BC (ho-tphi(r)mae = T(i)phimae(s) = Tithonus).

Memnon = Seti Userkheperure Meryamun 1192-1182 BC

Theoclymenos = Ramses III 1182-1151 BC

<<<although certainly the possibility exists in many cases, particularly
with those associated with civic cults. That there are historical
kernels of truth contained in many of the legends of heroes is
strongly suggested, but as yet none of these personages are
recoverable by current historical methods. That a handful of gods may
have originated as real persons is not beyond the realm of
possibility, but is � as the gods hearken back to remote antiquity �
certainly beyond any means of proof.>>>

All of the gods and heroes originated as real persons. Their descendents
were still living and ruling places such as Sparta, Athens, Corinth and
Macedonia in classical and Hellenistic times and their royal histories and
genealogies and burials grounds proved it. If you dispute their existence
then you must also dispute the entire genealogy linking the British royal
family to William the Conqueror and the existence of Julius Caesar and
Augustus who were both named god by the Romans as well as Alexander the
Great.

[Agamemnon]

"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:YKudnWcEfIN9Qs3M...@eclipse.net.uk...

>
> "Christopher Ingham" <christop...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ab76d663-1319-4bdb...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>
> <<<In regard to classical mythology, a difference is always maintained
> between gods and mortals. The latter generally have demi-god status,
> frequently as a result of the mother having been impregnated by a god.
> There is no certainty that any of the legendary heroes ever lived,>>>
>
> Not true. Dionysus' grave was shown in Delphi. Zeus's grave was shown in
> Crete.

Oresetes bones were also known to have existed and were stolen from Tegea by
the Spartans and taken to Sparta in about 600 BC. The bones of Theseus were
also returned to Athens from Scyros by general Cimon in 476 BC.

>
> The other gods and heroes I have named who ruled over both Greece and
> Egypt are confirmed from Egyptian records and archaeology.
>
> GODS
>
> Kronos/Saturn/El = Satur king of Knossos c.1700 BC.
>
> Zeus = Pharaoh Sheshi, Saasitepis (Zeus The' Apis) king of Lato and Tilsis
> c.1650 BC
>
> Jehovah = Meruserenre Yakubher c.1675 BC and Yakobaam Sekkhaenre c.1600 BC
>
> Apis king of Argos/Sarapis = Apophis, Awoserre Apepi 1627-1596 BC
>
> HEROES
>
> Epaphus = Apachnas, Seneferankhre Apepi 1646-1627 BC
>
> Agenor = Janins, Aqenienre Apepi 1596-1571 BC
>
> Aegyptus = Menkheper-re Djehutymes 1479-1425 BC
>
> Cassiopea = Kasiyope, Ankhesenpaaten 1324-1320 BC
>
> Proteus/Ktes = Setnakhte 1185-1182 BC
>
> Tithonus = Aktisanis/Petissonius, Binere-meramun Merneptah-hotphi(r)mae
> 1212-1192 BC (ho-tphi(r)mae = T(i)phimae(s) = Tithonus).
>
> Memnon = Seti Userkheperure Meryamun 1192-1182 BC
>
> Theoclymenos = Ramses III 1182-1151 BC
>
> <<<although certainly the possibility exists in many cases, particularly
> with those associated with civic cults. That there are historical
> kernels of truth contained in many of the legends of heroes is
> strongly suggested, but as yet none of these personages are
> recoverable by current historical methods. That a handful of gods may
> have originated as real persons is not beyond the realm of

> possibility, but is - as the gods hearken back to remote antiquity -

[Christopher Ingham]

On Mar 25, 10:25 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>
> news:YKudnWcEfIN9Qs3M...@eclipse.net.uk...
>
>
>
> > "Christopher Ingham" <christophering...@comcast.net> wrote in message

And there  are scores of churches and monasteries that conserve relics
of the True Cross and the Holy Foreskin.

I suppose you’re aware that Kekrops was a snake-merman? Not even all
the Greeks of the classical period uncritically accepted the fabulous
and supernatural elements of their early history. Thucydides
indirectly criticizes his predecessor Herodotus by stating that he
intends to exclude_ το μυθώδες_from his history of the Peloponnesian
War (1.21); though, in fairness, even Herodotus is occasionally
careful to accompany his more fabulous reports, such as the posthumous
revenge of the Trojan War hero Protesilaos at the end of the Persian
War, with disclaimers (“a local Chersonesian story” [9.119]).

You have every right to uncritically accept myths as history,  but I
wonder what criteria, if any, you use to determine which of
conflicting accounts are true, such as in the case of the history of
Penelope,  who, in addition to and in sharp disagreeement with what
Homer reports, was, according to the story preserved among the
Mantineans in the Peloponnese, thrown out of the house after Odysseus
learned that she had gotten it on with all her suitors while he was
away, and died near Sparta in Mantinea (Paus. 8.12.6-7); or, according
to (most probably) the Arcadians, had an affair with Hermes or Apollo
(or all the suitors) and consequently gave birth to Pan (Herodotus
1.45.4; Apollod._Epit._2.7.38; Duris of Samos_Die Fragmente der
griechischen Historiker_76 F 21; Pind. fr. 100).

Christopher Ingham

[Agamemnon]

"Christopher Ingham" <christop...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:17bad882-bbf1-4747...@f5g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

Whereas there was only one skeleton of Oresetes and only one skeleton of
Theseus and only one skeleton of Dionysus at Delphi (not withstanding the
fact that there were at least 3 different Dionysus's who lived at different
times in history as is stated by Diodorus et al.)

Now how about comparing like with like and telling me how many skeletons of
William the Conqueror and his descendents there are? One for each descendent
and only one.

<<<I suppose you're aware that Kekrops was a snake-merman? Not even all>>>

The above statement proves that you don't have a clue of anything you are
talking about. Kekrops/Cecrops was a mortal king of Athens who ruled between
1482 and 1456 BC and was preceded by Actaeus and followed by Cranaus,
Amphictyon, Erichthonius, Pandion, Erechtheus, Cecrops II, Pandion II,
Aegeus, Theseus Menesthus, Demophon, Oxyntes, Aphidas and Thymotes after
which the kingship switch to the kings of Pylos starting with Melanthus
whose descendents were still around ruling Athens in classical times
including Peisistratus, Alcmaeon, Megacles and Clisthenes.

Now please explain how any of these people could have been descended from a
half man half snake?

<<<the Greeks of the classical period uncritically accepted the fabulous
and supernatural elements of their early history. Thucydides>>>

No they did not and you will not find one single ancient writer who even
remotely supported such a notion. All the ancient writers said exactly the
opposite and explained how the myths were created from original historical
accounts. For example the poisonous Hydra was created out of some festering
lake that Herakles had to clean up in Aetolia.

<<indirectly criticizes his predecessor Herodotus by stating that he

intends to exclude_ ?? ???????_from his history of the Peloponnesian

War (1.21); though, in fairness, even Herodotus is occasionally>>>

Thucydides does not criticise Herodotus in any way and begins his history of
the Peloponnesian War by citing and affirming the existing mythology from
the Trojan War. Therefore it is abundantly clear to anyone but a dissembler
that Thucydides accepts all the past history and intends not to dwell on it
by glossing over it at the start.

<<<careful to accompany his more fabulous reports, such as the posthumous
revenge of the Trojan War hero Protesilaos at the end of the Persian
War, with disclaimers ("a local Chersonesian story" [9.119]).

You have every right to uncritically accept myths as history, but I
wonder what criteria, if any, you use to determine which of
conflicting accounts are true, such as in the case of the history of>>>

There are no conflicting accounts whatsoever. The chronology is the primary
criteria that I have always used and I have that down to an accuracy of
better than +/- 5 years from 1750 BC onwards, which is better than any
Egyptian kings list.

<<<Penelope, who, in addition to and in sharp disagreeement with what
Homer reports, was, according to the story preserved among the
Mantineans in the Peloponnese, thrown out of the house after Odysseus
learned that she had gotten it on with all her suitors while he was
away, and died near Sparta in Mantinea (Paus. 8.12.6-7); or, according
to (most probably) the Arcadians, had an affair with Hermes or Apollo
(or all the suitors) and consequently gave birth to Pan (Herodotus
1.45.4; Apollod._Epit._2.7.38; Duris of Samos_Die Fragmente der
griechischen Historiker_76 F 21; Pind. fr. 100).

Christopher Ingham>>>

So there is no contradiction then. Both accounts state she was unfaithful to
Odysseus and since some of the writers are either unsure who it was with or
they don't want to completely dishonour her they ascribe her unfaithfulness
to a god. The original account would have followed the pattern of Homer and
had the particular suitor or suitors coming to Penelope in the form of a god

[JTEM]

"Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:

> Whereas there was only one skeleton of Oresetes and only
> one skeleton of Theseus and only one skeleton of Dionysus
> at Delphi (not withstanding the fact that there were at
> least 3 different Dionysus's who lived at different
> times in history as is stated by Diodorus et al.)

The Greeks also had the grave of cyclops, and the
Egyptians decided that they had the tomb of Osiris.

Nothing you're saying is the least bit noteworthy,
much less convincing. In fact, it would be something
on the order of shocking if they didn't claim to have
all sorts of relics -- many religiously significant
graves.

And the concept of deified kings was not new to
them, either. It would actually be quite logical
to look at the god kings around them in places
like Egypt -- or at Alexander -- and conclude that
their entire pantheon must have began the same
way.

Quite frankly, you're the equal to any bible thumping
fundy. You're looking for a literal truth, insisting
on mashing what you read (selected parts there of)
into history instead of trying to ascertain the truth
in an independent fashion. And just like the fundies
your view is entirely circular... you know it's true
because the (cherry picked) writings say it's true,
and because they're true that proves the (cherry
picked) writings...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham wrote:

> On Mar 25, 12:34ļæ½am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:40:05 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham wrote:
>>> Deified Roman emperors were not gods on a par with the Olympians.
>>
>> Yep
>>
>>> Deification essentially was no more than an official act of hyper-
>>> flattery by the senate, and it has been argued that it was that body s
>>> ability to confer or withhold divine status on an emperor posthumously
>>> which preserved for it any vestige of political leverage it had in its
>>> dealings with virtually omnipotent autocrats.
>>
>> It is not a trivial issue as many people go into politics for this reason.
>>
>> The senate also had the power to remove divine status from an emperor
>> already declared divine as well as their official *memory*.

> That never occurred. ļæ½_Damnatio_is the direct antithesis

> of_consecratio_, the process by which a deceased emperor was declared
> an official god of the Roman state, and his character, policies, and

> reign formally and eternally endorsedļæ½ (Eric R. Varner,_Mutilation and

> transformation: Damnatio memoriae and Roman imperial portraiture_,
> Boston, Brill, 2004, p. 6).
>
> The emperors officially condemned by_damnationes_were Caligula (de
> facto), Nero, Domitian, Commodus (later rescinded), and Elagabalus,

> and official sanctions (or evidence ļæ½of them), sometimes less severe
> than outright_damnatione_, ļæ½were posthumously enacted against the

> memories of Didius Julianus, Pescennius Niger, Clodius Albinus, Geta,
> Macrinus, Diadumenianus, Maximinus Thrax, Maximus, Pupienus, Balbinus,
> Gordian III, Philip the Arab, Trebonius Gallus, several mid-third
> century soldier-emperors, Maximian, Maxentius, and Maximinus Daia
> (Varner, 6, 257, 200, 203-5, 208-11, 214-21). None of the foregoing
> were ever deified.
>
> Christopher Ingham

The power was there for example Domitian was a God and then was Damnatio
memoriae

[Christopher Ingham]

On Mar 27, 5:58 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 12:34 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:40:05 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham wrote:
> >>> Deified Roman emperors were not gods on a par with the Olympians.
>
> >> Yep
>
> >>> Deification essentially was no more than an official act of hyper-
> >>> flattery by the senate, and it has been argued that it was that body s
> >>> ability to confer or withhold divine status on an emperor posthumously
> >>> which preserved for it any vestige of political leverage it had in its
> >>> dealings with virtually omnipotent autocrats.
>
> >> It is not a trivial issue as many people go into politics for this reason.
>
> >> The senate also had the power to remove divine status from an emperor
> >> already declared divine as well as their official *memory*.

> > That never occurred. ´_Damnatio_is the direct antithesis

> > of_consecratio_, the process by which a deceased emperor was declared
> > an official god of the Roman state, and his character, policies, and

> > reign formally and eternally endorsed¡ (Eric R. Varner,_Mutilation and

> > transformation: Damnatio memoriae and Roman imperial portraiture_,
> > Boston, Brill, 2004, p. 6).
>
> > The emperors officially condemned by_damnationes_were Caligula (de
> > facto), Nero, Domitian, Commodus (later rescinded), and Elagabalus,

> > and official sanctions (or evidence  of them), sometimes less severe
> > than outright_damnatione_,  were posthumously enacted against the

> > memories of Didius Julianus, Pescennius Niger, Clodius Albinus, Geta,
> > Macrinus, Diadumenianus, Maximinus Thrax, Maximus, Pupienus, Balbinus,
> > Gordian III, Philip the Arab, Trebonius Gallus, several mid-third
> > century soldier-emperors, Maximian, Maxentius, and Maximinus Daia
> > (Varner, 6, 257, 200, 203-5, 208-11, 214-21). None of the foregoing
> > were ever deified.
>
> > Christopher Ingham
>
> The power was there for example Domitian was a God and then was Damnatio
> memoriae

You should try to have at least a minimal understanding of the subject
matter you choose to argue about. Otherwise others might think you
only want to make noise.

I explained in some detail already that no deified emperor was ever
deconsecrated. At no time was Domitian a god, his alleged self-esteem
notwithstanding. Suetonius, whose gossipy anecdotes are often
unreliable, says that Domitian liked to be addressed as_dominus et
deus_(“lord and god” = “lord and master”; _Dom._13.2), yet this is not
borne out in the epigraphical evidence, and no living Roman would have
had pretensions in his lifetime to be called a_divus_– much less
a_deus_– without being considered mad. A slave commonly addressed his
master as_dominus et deus_.

Christopher Ingham

[Agamemnon]

"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c87a256-1066-4830...@c6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>> Whereas there was only one skeleton of Oresetes and only
>> one skeleton of Theseus and only one skeleton of Dionysus
>> at Delphi (not withstanding the fact that there were at
>> least 3 different Dionysus's who lived at different
>> times in history as is stated by Diodorus et al.)
>
> The Greeks also had the grave of cyclops, and the

That was probably the skeleton of a mammoth. If you are talking about the
grave of Polyphemus then since he was a mortal man it would have contained
the skeleton of a human.

> Egyptians decided that they had the tomb of Osiris.
>

Plus about 2 or 3 thousand different penises they claimed belonged to him.

We are not talking about Egyptians but about Greeks. The Greek gods and
heroes have living descendents just like the kings and queens of the British
Isles and France and Spain and Italy and Scandinavia. Are you going to
dispute that kings of Spain, Italy and France existed because they are no
longer reigning today?

> Nothing you're saying is the least bit noteworthy,
> much less convincing. In fact, it would be something
> on the order of shocking if they didn't claim to have
> all sorts of relics -- many religiously significant
> graves.
>
> And the concept of deified kings was not new to
> them, either. It would actually be quite logical
> to look at the god kings around them in places
> like Egypt -- or at Alexander -- and conclude that
> their entire pantheon must have began the same
> way.

They didn't need to look anywhere outside of Greece to make this deduction.
The temples were set up by the gods and heroes themselves to house their own
or their ancestors remains and they made their own relatives, offspring and
descendents priests over them since Minoan and Mycenaean times and had
complete written genealogies of priests and kings as well volumes of scrolls
and other records containing their acts and legislation.

>
> Quite frankly, you're the equal to any bible thumping
> fundy. You're looking for a literal truth, insisting

Quite frankly you don't have the remotest clue of what you are talking about
and your view is the completely simplistic view of a small child who is
simply repeating what it has been told by its parents who don't have a clue
of what they are talking about either and haven't read a single ancient
historical text for themselves let alone the entire body of texts whereas I
have. You don't even know what the entire body of texts even consists of let
alone which texts was derived from which or contain references to others.
You do not realise that over 200 Greeks city states had rulers and citizens
who claimed descent from the gods and heroes and could prove it along with
historical records, burial sites and religious rites which all agreed with
those of every other city state as to who lived at which time, who was
descended from whom and their common deeds including battles which each city
state took part in with other city states some of which where on opposites
sides of the Aegean. I am not talking about a set of texts that consist of
just Homer and Hesiod but over 100,000 separate historical texts less than
5% of which survive today, and this is just for Greece. If we include Rome
and Europe then multiply that by 10, and there is not one single
contradiction among and of them and we know that since the 5% of texts that
survive today contain their epitomies and all show a single common source,
the actual historical events themselves.

> on mashing what you read (selected parts there of)
> into history instead of trying to ascertain the truth
> in an independent fashion. And just like the fundies
> your view is entirely circular... you know it's true
> because the (cherry picked) writings say it's true,
> and because they're true that proves the (cherry
> picked) writings...

ALL ancient historians say exactly the same thing that I have said. Unlike
you I have studied them. There is no need for cherry picking to support my
thesis since there is not one dissenting voice among ancient writers whereas
every theory to the contrary consists entirely of cherry picked information
deliberately misrepresented, misinterpreted and taken completely out of
context.

>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

"Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:

> We are not talking about Egyptians but about Greeks. The Greek gods and
> heroes have living descendents just like the kings and queens of the British
> Isles and France and Spain and Italy and Scandinavia. Are you going to
> dispute that kings of Spain, Italy and France existed because they are no
> longer reigning today?

Google "Non Sequitur."

Seriously, dude, can you not see how screwed up
that is? Spain & Italy had kings so the Greek
gods had to be kings?

Sheesh!


P.S. We're back to square-one, as kings claiming divine
ancestry (even parentage) was damn pedestrian.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Agamemnon]

"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:7a41adc1-69d0-458f...@p5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

> "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>> We are not talking about Egyptians but about Greeks. The Greek gods and
>> heroes have living descendents just like the kings and queens of the
>> British
>> Isles and France and Spain and Italy and Scandinavia. Are you going to
>> dispute that kings of Spain, Italy and France existed because they are no
>> longer reigning today?
>
> Google "Non Sequitur."
>
> Seriously, dude, can you not see how screwed up
> that is? Spain & Italy had kings so the Greek
> gods had to be kings?

That's your argument not mine and it proves that your challenge is
completely baseless and you lack any understanding of the facts beyond that
of an uneducated child.

Your entire premise is based entirly on a prejudice which treats the ancient
Greeks as if they had no form of government, no form of public or private
record keeping, no kind of legal or judicail system, and that each city
state was run on nothing more than a whim.

You don't have the remotest clue of what you are dealing with. The facts
clearly show that even from Mycenaean times that the civic records of the
ancient Greeks were as sophisticated as those of the Romans, Egyptians,
Assyrians, Babylonians and even those of the middle ages and those we have
today.

There were records of births, marriages and deaths, there were records of
tax receipts, there were records of military deployments, records of trade,
records of everything and to argue that the kings of each Greek city state
didn't know who they were descended from and who their predecessors and when
they ruled despite the fact that during the same period in history the
Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians all kept similar records, is tantamount to
disputing the authenticity of every historical document ever written
including those recording the ancestry of the British royal family from
William the Conqueror and the lines of decent of the kings of Italy and
Spain.

Now how about you stop acting as if you only have the primitive mind of a
child and realise how governance actually works.

The facts that stand before you show that no one ever disputed the ancestry
of the kings of any of the Greek city states because there was an entire
body of public records available which proved their ancestry to the same
degree as that of the British royal family today.

Herodotus wrote roughly 1000 years after Dionysus lived, the same time
between the present and William the Conqueror. The Theban royal family from
which Dionysus was descended from survived to the time that Herodotus was
writing and beyond and Herodotus was able to verify their claims when he
refers to the killers of Hippias. Dionysus' skeleton existed and was buried
at Delphi just like the skeleton of William the Conqueror survives today and
its burial site is known. Dispute one fact on the basis that Herodotus was
writing 1000 years after the fact despite the historical records and
physicals artefacts that were available to him and you dispute every
historian who has written on the same basis including those claming the
existence of William the Conqueror and the kings of Italy, France and Spain.

The same degree of proof as that pertaining to the ancestry of the British
royals also applied to the Macedonian royal family who had to prove their
line of decent from Herakles to the satisfaction of the judges at the
Olympic Games in order from Alexander I to be allowed to take part.

If these claims were not valid then neither Herodotus or any other historian
would have written about them.

[SolomonW]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 07:51:12 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham wrote:

> Suetonius, whose gossipy anecdotes are often
> unreliable,

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelve_Caesars



The Twelve Caesars is considered very significant in antiquity and remains
a primary source on Roman history.

[Martin Edwards]

On 27/03/2013 14:51, Christopher Ingham wrote:
> On Mar 27, 5:58 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham wrote:
>>> On Mar 25, 12:34 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:40:05 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham wrote:
>>>>> Deified Roman emperors were not gods on a par with the Olympians.
>>
>>>> Yep
>>
>>>>> Deification essentially was no more than an official act of hyper-
>>>>> flattery by the senate, and it has been argued that it was that body s
>>>>> ability to confer or withhold divine status on an emperor posthumously
>>>>> which preserved for it any vestige of political leverage it had in its
>>>>> dealings with virtually omnipotent autocrats.
>>
>>>> It is not a trivial issue as many people go into politics for this reason.
>>
>>>> The senate also had the power to remove divine status from an emperor
>>>> already declared divine as well as their official *memory*.

>>> That never occurred. �_Damnatio_is the direct antithesis

>>> of_consecratio_, the process by which a deceased emperor was declared
>>> an official god of the Roman state, and his character, policies, and

>>> reign formally and eternally endorsed� (Eric R. Varner,_Mutilation and

>>> transformation: Damnatio memoriae and Roman imperial portraiture_,
>>> Boston, Brill, 2004, p. 6).
>>
>>> The emperors officially condemned by_damnationes_were Caligula (de
>>> facto), Nero, Domitian, Commodus (later rescinded), and Elagabalus,
>>> and official sanctions (or evidence of them), sometimes less severe
>>> than outright_damnatione_, were posthumously enacted against the
>>> memories of Didius Julianus, Pescennius Niger, Clodius Albinus, Geta,
>>> Macrinus, Diadumenianus, Maximinus Thrax, Maximus, Pupienus, Balbinus,
>>> Gordian III, Philip the Arab, Trebonius Gallus, several mid-third
>>> century soldier-emperors, Maximian, Maxentius, and Maximinus Daia
>>> (Varner, 6, 257, 200, 203-5, 208-11, 214-21). None of the foregoing
>>> were ever deified.
>>
>>> Christopher Ingham
>>
>> The power was there for example Domitian was a God and then was Damnatio
>> memoriae
> You should try to have at least a minimal understanding of the subject
> matter you choose to argue about. Otherwise others might think you
> only want to make noise.
>
> I explained in some detail already that no deified emperor was ever
> deconsecrated. At no time was Domitian a god, his alleged self-esteem
> notwithstanding. Suetonius, whose gossipy anecdotes are often
> unreliable, says that Domitian liked to be addressed as_dominus et

> deus_(�lord and god� = �lord and master�; _Dom._13.2), yet this is not

> borne out in the epigraphical evidence, and no living Roman would have

> had pretensions in his lifetime to be called a_divus_� much less
> a_deus_� without being considered mad. A slave commonly addressed his

> master as_dominus et deus_.
>
> Christopher Ingham
>

It is interesting to note that "Doubting Thomas" addressed Jesus in the
Greek equivalent, when there is none in Aramaic. Even if they could
both speak Greek, which was not uncommon, they would have spoken Aramaic
to each other.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

[Martin Edwards]

On 28/03/2013 04:09, JTEM wrote:
> "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>> We are not talking about Egyptians but about Greeks. The Greek gods and
>> heroes have living descendents just like the kings and queens of the British
>> Isles and France and Spain and Italy and Scandinavia. Are you going to
>> dispute that kings of Spain, Italy and France existed because they are no
>> longer reigning today?
>
> Google "Non Sequitur."
>
> Seriously, dude, can you not see how screwed up
> that is? Spain & Italy had kings so the Greek
> gods had to be kings?
>
> Sheesh!
>
>

Quite, I have now kilfilled that loon so I only see his posts in the
replies of others.

[Poetic Justice]

>Suetonius, whose gossipy anecdotes are
>often unreliable,

SolomonW wrote;

>Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelve_

>aesars

>The Twelve Caesars is considered very
>significant in antiquity and remains a
>primary source on Roman history.

Then directly following that wiki paragraph.

[Contents
1 Critical approaches: Reliability]

Suetonius used the imperial archives to research eyewitness accounts,
information, and other evidence to produce the book;

however, critics say[citation needed] the book is founded on gossip and
citations of historians who had lived in the time of the early emperors,
rather than on primary sources of that time.

The book can be described as racy, packed with gossip, dramatic and
sometimes amusing.

There are times the author subjectively expresses his opinion and
knowledge. Though he was never a senator, Suetonius took the side of the
Senate in most conflicts with the princeps, as well as the senators'
views of the emperor.

This resulted in biases, both conscious and unconscious.

Suetonius lost access to the official archives shortly after beginning
his work.

He was forced to rely on second-hand accounts when it came to Claudius
(with the exception of Augustus' letters which had been gathered
earlier) and does not quote the emperor.

Despite this, it provides valuable information on the heritage, personal
habits, physical appearance, lives and political careers of the first
Roman Emperors.

It mentions details that other sources do not.
For example, Suetonius is the main source on the life of Caligula, his
uncle Claudius, and the heritage of Vespasian (the relevant sections of
the Annals by his contemporary Tacitus being lost). Suetonius made a
reference in this work to "Chrestus", which may refer to "Christ".
During the book on Nero, Suetonius mentions a sect known as the
Christians (see Historicity of Jesus).

Like many of his contemporaries, Suetonius took omens seriously and
carefully includes reports of omens portending Imperial births,
accessions and deaths.

-----------------------------------------
Seeing that Domitian is used here's a minor Suetonius claim.

"At the beginning of his reign he used to spend hours in seclusion every
day, doing nothing but catch flies and stab them with a keenly-sharpened
stylus. Consequently when someone once asked whether anyone was in there
with Caesar, (Courtier) Vibius Crispus made the witty reply: "Not even a
fly."

Perhaps once Domitian killed a fly while holding a stylus and it became
a joke among his inner circle?

The story gets out and embellished perhaps just in the retelling or
maybe by his many enemies?

Suetonius who will take the Senator's side in most disputes with the
Emperor puts this 2nd hand rumor in his book as fact as he does have a
bias.

And it's not like he would get stories like these from the Imperial
Archives.

Without TV and Youtube this funny event with President Obama could morph
into a legend that he chased flies around the White House for hours on
end if it had happened 2000yrs ago:-).

2009 1-on-1 TV interview with President Obama.

[CNBC] That's the most persistent fly I've ever seen.

[Barack Obama] ( swats the fly )

[CNBC]
Nice

[Background Camera Man]
"Nice"

[Barack Obama]
"Now, where were we."

[Background Camera Man]
"We were gonna catch it with chop sticks"

[Barack Obama] "That was pretty impressive. Was it? I got it, I got the
sucker! What do you think Gibbs?"

[Gibbs]
"That is very good, it's there, its right there."

[Barack Obama] "It's right there, you want to film that." There it is!"

Regards, Walter

[Christopher Ingham]

I’m now certain that my time is being wasted by an ignorant jackass.
The following is therefore intended for other reader(s) in the vast
void of SHA:

Brian Jones deduces that Suetonius’ story that Domitian dictated a
letter beginning with “Our lord and master orders,” whereupon the
habit arose of addressing him with that term, is “all but
incredible” (_The emperor Domitian_, New York: Routledge, 2002,
108-9): http://books.google.com/books?id=Bluo1AJm61AC&pg=PA108

Stephen J. Friesen:  “Most specialists now hold that [“the allegation
that Domitian demanded to be called Lord and God”] was an
exaggeration, if not a fabrication, on the part of
Suetonius.” (_Imperial cults and the Apocalypse of John_, New York:
Oxford Univ. Press, 2001, 148): http://books.google.com/books?id=en-URyPm66gC&pg=PA148

Leonard Thompson notes that neither of the two writers closest to the
imperial court, the poet Statius and the rhetorician Quintilian (tutor
of Domitian’s heirs), describe Domitian with the term alleged by
Suetonius, but use language that is “strikingly similar” to that in
Pliny’s panegyric of Domitian’s successor Trajan (a “Good Emperor”)
(“Domitianus Dominus: A gloss on Statius_Silvae_1.6.84,”_AJPhil._105
(1984):469-71, 475): http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/294839?uid

Nor do any inscriptions, coins, or medallions from Domitian’s reign
bear the_dominus et deus_formula (Peter L. Viscusi, “Studies on
Domitian,” PhD diss., Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan, 1973, 94):
http://books.google.com/books?id=f0tNewAACAAJ&dq

Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny were members of the senatorial clique
that had been hostile to Domitian and brought about his_damnatio
memoriae_, and consequently one needs to be cognizant that what they
say about him is biased, through such means as misleading by
intentional omission of pertinent details and blatant
misrepresentations of facts (particularly true with Suetonius); all of
which one may suppose was implicitly condoned by Trajan (during whose
reign the writings were composed), whose own legitimacy would have
been made more secure by the the vilification of his predecessor,
thereby rendering untenable any possibility for the continuance of the
previously-admired Flavian dynasty.

Christopher Ingham

[Christopher Ingham]

On Mar 28, 7:13 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/03/2013 14:51, Christopher Ingham wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 5:58 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham wrote:
> >>> On Mar 25, 12:34 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:40:05 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham wrote:
> >>>>> Deified Roman emperors were not gods on a par with the Olympians.
>
> >>>> Yep
>
> >>>>> Deification essentially was no more than an official act of hyper-
> >>>>> flattery by the senate, and it has been argued that it was that body s
> >>>>> ability to confer or withhold divine status on an emperor posthumously
> >>>>> which preserved for it any vestige of political leverage it had in its
> >>>>> dealings with virtually omnipotent autocrats.
>
> >>>> It is not a trivial issue as many people go into politics for this reason.
>
> >>>> The senate also had the power to remove divine status from an emperor
> >>>> already declared divine as well as their official *memory*.

> >>> That never occurred. ´_Damnatio_is the direct antithesis

> >>> of_consecratio_, the process by which a deceased emperor was declared
> >>> an official god of the Roman state, and his character, policies, and

> >>> reign formally and eternally endorsed¡ (Eric R. Varner,_Mutilation and

> >>> transformation: Damnatio memoriae and Roman imperial portraiture_,
> >>> Boston, Brill, 2004, p. 6).
>
> >>> The emperors officially condemned by_damnationes_were Caligula (de
> >>> facto), Nero, Domitian, Commodus (later rescinded), and Elagabalus,
> >>> and official sanctions (or evidence  of them), sometimes less severe
> >>> than outright_damnatione_,  were posthumously enacted against the
> >>> memories of Didius Julianus, Pescennius Niger, Clodius Albinus, Geta,
> >>> Macrinus, Diadumenianus, Maximinus Thrax, Maximus, Pupienus, Balbinus,
> >>> Gordian III, Philip the Arab, Trebonius Gallus, several mid-third
> >>> century soldier-emperors, Maximian, Maxentius, and Maximinus Daia
> >>> (Varner, 6, 257, 200, 203-5, 208-11, 214-21). None of the foregoing
> >>> were ever deified.
>
> >>> Christopher Ingham
>
> >> The power was there for example Domitian was a God and then was Damnatio
> >> memoriae
> > You should try to have at least a minimal understanding of the subject
> > matter you choose to argue about. Otherwise others might think you
> > only want to make noise.
>
> > I explained in some detail already that no deified emperor was ever
> > deconsecrated. At no time was Domitian a god, his alleged self-esteem
> > notwithstanding. Suetonius, whose gossipy anecdotes are often
> > unreliable, says that Domitian liked to be addressed as_dominus et

> > deus_(“lord and god” = “lord and master”; _Dom._13.2), yet this is not

> > borne out in the epigraphical evidence, and no living Roman would have

> > had pretensions in his lifetime to be called a_divus_– much less
> > a_deus_– without being considered mad. A slave commonly addressed his

> > master as_dominus et deus_.
>
> > Christopher Ingham
>
> It is interesting to note that "Doubting Thomas" addressed Jesus in the
> Greek equivalent, when there is none in Aramaic.  Even if they could
> both speak Greek, which was not uncommon, they would have spoken Aramaic
> to each other.

I don’t quite get your point. Am I supposed to attempt a reply to your
observation in the context of the previous discussion?

Christopher Ingham

[SolomonW]

He certainly did not list his sources but then again few historians did
till modern times and he certainly did put in his history entertaining of
what we hope are facts? What I do like is when Suetonius is if he not sure
he will quote conflicting accounts with no conclusion.

[SolomonW]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:21:19 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham wrote:

> On Mar 28, 5:33ļæ½am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 07:51:12 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham wrote:
>>> Suetonius, whose gossipy anecdotes are often
>>> unreliable,
>>
>> Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelve_Caesars
>>
>> The Twelve Caesars is considered very significant in antiquity and remains
>> a primary source on Roman history.

> Iļæ½m now certain that my time is being wasted by an ignorant jackass.

> The following is therefore intended for other reader(s) in the vast
> void of SHA:
>

Your form of arguing is shoot the messenger, please grow up.

> Brian Jones deduces that Suetoniusļæ½ story that Domitian dictated a
> letter beginning with ļæ½Our lord and master orders,ļæ½ whereupon the
> habit arose of addressing him with that term, is ļæ½all but
> incredibleļæ½ (_The emperor Domitian_, New York: Routledge, 2002,
> 108-9): http://books.google.com/books?id=Bluo1AJm61AC&pg=PA108

This is just an example of your faulty logic.

Did you read page 108? I think not!

In it Jones accepts that many scholars but not all, have accepted the claim
that Domitian insisted on being addressed as Dominus et Deus ("Master and
God") not only that but Jones noted but we have other primary sources that
say exactly the same thing. Jones however has his doubts and concludes that
Domitian did not demand it but allowed flatters to say it.


The reality is that many modern historians do accept that Domitian
attempted to rule as divine leader.



> Stephen J. Friesen: ļæ½ļæ½Most specialists now hold that [ļæ½the allegation
> that Domitian demanded to be called Lord and Godļæ½] was an

> exaggeration, if not a fabrication, on the part of

> Suetonius.ļæ½ (_Imperial cults and the Apocalypse of John_, New York:

> Oxford Univ. Press, 2001, 148): http://books.google.com/books?id=en-URyPm66gC&pg=PA148
>
> Leonard Thompson notes that neither of the two writers closest to the
> imperial court, the poet Statius and the rhetorician Quintilian (tutor

> of Domitianļæ½s heirs), describe Domitian with the term alleged by
> Suetonius, but use language that is ļæ½strikingly similarļæ½ to that in
> Plinyļæ½s panegyric of Domitianļæ½s successor Trajan (a ļæ½Good Emperorļæ½)
> (ļæ½Domitianus Dominus: A gloss on Statius_Silvae_1.6.84,ļæ½_AJPhil._105

> (1984):469-71, 475): http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/294839?uid
>

> Nor do any inscriptions, coins, or medallions from Domitianļæ½s reign
> bear the_dominus et deus_formula (Peter L. Viscusi, ļæ½Studies on
> Domitian,ļæ½ PhD diss., Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan, 1973, 94):

> http://books.google.com/books?id=f0tNewAACAAJ&dq
>
> Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny were members of the senatorial clique
> that had been hostile to Domitian and brought about his_damnatio
> memoriae_, and consequently one needs to be cognizant that what they
> say about him is biased, through such means as misleading by
> intentional omission of pertinent details and blatant
> misrepresentations of facts (particularly true with Suetonius); all of
> which one may suppose was implicitly condoned by Trajan (during whose
> reign the writings were composed), whose own legitimacy would have
> been made more secure by the the vilification of his predecessor,
> thereby rendering untenable any possibility for the continuance of the
> previously-admired Flavian dynasty.





>
> Christopher Ingham

sews

[Martin Edwards]

On 28/03/2013 19:21, Christopher Ingham wrote:
> I don�t quite get your point.

Just fuguing.

[Poetic Justice]

SolomonW wrote;

>He certainly did not list his sources but
>then again few historians did till modern
>times

Well for info from the Imperial Archives he's all set.

But the stories are tougher to cite as you would need 1st hand accounts
decades later that Suetonius had access too.

Like how do you prove that Caligula slept with his sisters if all you
have is a often repeated story?

1987 a man tells me his granddaughter has female friend who knows a girl
in their same college that brought a boy back to her room and had sex,
the next day he's gone but in the bathroom written with her lipstick on
the mirror is "Welcome to the AIDS Club".

I told him it was a popular Urban Legend going around and he got mad a
me for calling his granddaughter a liar.
How could you ever cite the source that started this?
www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/aidsmary.asp

With these Emperors once the legend, rumor, gossip, etc was out there it
was impossible to get the toothpaste back in the tube...it is now fact.

>and he certainly did put in his history
>entertaining of what we hope are facts

Suetonius' Caligula is very morbidly entertaining but so bizzare that he
pissed-on everyone in Rome it seems except his horse in his very short
reign:-).

>What I do like is when Suetonius is if he

>not sure he will quote conflicting acounts
>with no conclusion.

Yes where the facts are concerned but never with the bizzare stories he
tells, he states them as facts and he does have a well known bias.

Giwer would very likely excel over everyone here on a 'WW II Battles'
multi-choice test.
But how would he do on his essay:-).
Regards, Walter

[SolomonW]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 20:50:26 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:

>>What I do like is when Suetonius is if he
>>not sure he will quote conflicting acounts
>>with no conclusion.
>
> Yes where the facts are concerned but never with the bizzare stories he
> tells, he states them as facts and he does have a well known bias.

The problem here is we do not have mountains of info, we have to take what
we have with all its imperfections.

[Poetic Justice]

>Yes where the facts are concerned but
>never with the bizzare stories he tells, he
>states them as facts and he does have a
>well known bias.

SolomonW wrote;

>The problem here is we do not have
>mountains of info, we have to take what
>we have with all its imperfections.

Agree, but just remember the likely bias in the very bizzare stories and
it's an excellent account.

And some of the stories are very possiblily true.

Suetonius Caligula;

"...he built out a part of the Palace as far as the Forum, and making
the temple of Castor and Pollux its vestibule, he often took his place
between the divine brethren,"

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/08/artsandhumanities.arts

Plus on a recent documentary one of the lead archaeologists (Darius
Arya] on that dig was shown behind the Temple of Castor and Pollux and
as he walked across that Via to the leftside of the temple pointing out
that there they had found underground foundations that could have
supported this structure.

So foundations, a section of floor beneath the street, a re-aligned
underground drain and Claudius later reopening the street offers very
good proof that Caligula had built an extention from his Palatine
'Atrium Gai' to the temple.

But now the question is!

Was this just a cool new vestibule to his house?

Or so he could easily access and converse with the Castor and Pollux
temple statues as a God?

And of his 'Bay of Naples' bridge;

Suetonius Caligula;

"...he devised a novel and unheard of kind of pageant; for he bridged
the gap between Baiae and the mole at Puteoli, a distance of about
thirty-six hundred paces, by bringing together merchant ships from all
sides and anchoring them in a double line, afterwards a mound of earth
was heaped upon them and fashioned in the manner of the Appian
Way. Over this bridge he rode back and forth for two successive
days,..."

Suetonius then lists 3 reasons, 2 of a madman and 1 as a military plan;

"I know that many have supposed that Gaius devised this kind of bridge
in rivalry of Xerxes,[snip]

..others, that it was to inspire fear in Germany and Britain, on which
he had designs,[snip]

..Thrasyllus the astrologer had declared to Tiberius,[snip]...that
Gaius had no more chance of becoming emperor than of riding about over
the gulf of Baiae with horses."


And then we have this 2nd hand account from his long lost manuscript;
http://rogueclassicism.com/2013/04/01/nineteen-years-ago-today-missing-tacitus-manuscript/

From the Vatican spokesman 19yrs ago claiming that Tacitus said it was a
military exercise;

"Scholars have, for example, argued often over Caligula's building a
boat bridge across the Bay of Naples.
Usually it is seen simply as a sign of his insanity.

Tacitus tells us, however, that it was in fact a military exercise
conducted shortly after Caligula's failed attempt to cross over to
Britain.

It appears that the soldiers were afraid to cross the English Channel by
boat and the boat bridge was designed to allow them to march across."
Regards, Walter

[SolomonW]

Overall I am not surprised, I have often seen dubious history confirmed
with the proviso that even today with the comparative large amount of info
available there is much room for a commentator to explain the facts.

Gaius Suetonius is writing to a population many who that knows much of what
happened. If he had wrote what was implausible they would probably know.
For example in this case say Suetonius said that Domitian declare himself
a God and the senate afterwards could not declare Domitian, _damnationes_
and Suetonius said they did, the audience would have known something was
wrong.

There is only so much leeway a historian gets.

[Poetic Justice]

SolomonW wrote;

>Gaius Suetonius is writing to a population
>many who that knows much of what
>happened.

Names, dates, events, places, etc.

>If he had wrote what was implausible they
>would probably know.

Not if it is an accepted belief that the stories are *true*.

Nero ordered his chamberlains to set the 64AD Fire to confiscate land to
build his 'Golden House'.

Because there was an actual fire and Nero did built his 'Golden House'
on that land doesn't make the arson story true, just accepted as fact.

>For example in this
>case say Suetonius said that Domitian
>declare himself a God and the senate
>afterwards could not declare Domitian,
>_damnationes_ and Suetonius said they
>did, the audience would have known
>something was wrong.

Of course they would but it's the unproveable stories that are mainly
questioned.

>There is only so much leeway a historian
>gets.

With the known facts yes but in ancient times with the stories accepted?

Back to Nero, besides setting the fire Suetonius also has 'war siege
engines' knocking down granaries on prime real estate *during* the fire
and Nero in costume singing from the Tower the 'Sack of IIium'.

Decades later did Suetonius make that all up out of the blue where his
readers would know it's all BS?

Or does he just relate an accepted story that his readers already
believe?

And in 64AD the war siege engines and Nero's singing were all witnessed
by Marcus' cousin's friend who has a friend who has brother.... Urban
Legend.

[SolomonW]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:12:52 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:

> SolomonW wrote;
>
>>Gaius Suetonius is writing to a population
>>many who that knows much of what
>>happened.
>
> Names, dates, events, places, etc.

If I read a book on WW1, I will firstly closely monitor what experts on WW1
who know much of the Names, dates, events, places, etc. think about that
book.

>
>>If he had wrote what was implausible they
>>would probably know.
>
> Not if it is an accepted belief that the stories are *true*.
>
> Nero ordered his chamberlains to set the 64AD Fire to confiscate land to
> build his 'Golden House'.
>
> Because there was an actual fire and Nero did built his 'Golden House'
> on that land doesn't make the arson story true, just accepted as fact.
>

Here perhaps the interesting point of the story is that the public believed
it.

>>For example in this
>>case say Suetonius said that Domitian
>>declare himself a God and the senate
>>afterwards could not declare Domitian,
>>_damnationes_ and Suetonius said they
>>did, the audience would have known
>>something was wrong.
>
> Of course they would but it's the unproveable stories that are mainly
> questioned.
>
>>There is only so much leeway a historian
>>gets.
>
> With the known facts yes but in ancient times with the stories accepted?
>
> Back to Nero, besides setting the fire Suetonius also has 'war siege
> engines' knocking down granaries on prime real estate *during* the fire
> and Nero in costume singing from the Tower the 'Sack of IIium'.
>
> Decades later did Suetonius make that all up out of the blue where his
> readers would know it's all BS?
>
> Or does he just relate an accepted story that his readers already
> believe?
>
> And in 64AD the war siege engines and Nero's singing were all witnessed
> by Marcus' cousin's friend who has a friend who has brother.... Urban
> Legend.

On this subject you may find these articles interesting

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/09/opinion-errors-knowledge-crowdfixing/

http://www.bestthinking.com/articles/science/chemistry/biochemistry/the-spinach-popeye-iron-decimal-error-myth-is-finally-busted

[Italo]

Christopher Ingham <christop...@comcast.net> schreef:

She's just some Philistine deity, Derketo/Atargatis. Same name as
Kasios.

What is fabulous, salted fish jumping as popcorn in a frying pan ?

> You have every right to uncritically accept myths as history,  but I
> wonder what criteria, if any, you use to determine which of
> conflicting accounts are true, such as in the case of the history of
> Penelope,  who, in addition to and in sharp disagreeement with what
> Homer reports, was, according to the story preserved among the
> Mantineans in the Peloponnese, thrown out of the house after Odysseus
> learned that she had gotten it on with all her suitors while he was
> away, and died near Sparta in Mantinea (Paus. 8.12.6-7);

Mantinea is Ptolis. Perhaps the story of Penelope going there was
supposed to explain the name of her son Ptoliporthes.

> or, according
> to (most probably) the Arcadians, had an affair with Hermes or Apollo
> (or all the suitors) and consequently gave birth to Pan (Herodotus
> 1.45.4;

2.145

> Apollod._Epit._2.7.38; Duris of Samos_Die Fragmente der
> griechischen Historiker_76 F 21; Pind. fr. 100).

Hesychius has 'penelope' for a species of bird. Perhaps there was some
minor bird-goddess of the same name (compare Picus as parent of Faunus).







--

b o y c o t t a m e r i c a n p r o d u c t s