There really is a Cappadocia
Michael Morbius
Sideshow Bob says that "hydrological engineer" was never considered a
"calling," then grudgingly admits that okay, "the Cappadocians" did. I
looked it up. "Cappadocia" is "an ancient region of Asia Minor, annexed
by Rome (AD 17)."
Mike
trins...@fuse.net
Yep. For anyone with a bit of historical knowledge, it made the joke a bit
funnier.
Cappadocia began as a province of the Persian Empire, and became an
independent state after Alexander's conquest. After being annexed by Rome,
it was a Roman and Byzantine provence for centuries. The inerior of Turkey
is still even today refered to as "Cappadocia"
--
Tom Rinschler
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
paraFUCK...@hotmail.com
>I just saw the repeat of "The Brother from Another Series," in which
>Sideshow Bob says that "hydrological engineer" was never considered a
>"calling," then grudgingly admits that okay, "the Cappadocians" did. I
>looked it up. "Cappadocia" is "an ancient region of Asia Minor, annexed
>by Rome (AD 17)."
This is true, however the semi-obscure history tidbit I find most interesting
from the show is Nelson's comment to Uter in "Much Apu About Nothing," where he
requests that he "go back to Germania."
I've always wondered if Nelson realized that Germania was once a region within
the Roman Empire, falling in the whereabouts of what is now Northern France or
Belgium (I'm a little sketchy on the specifics).
trins...@fuse.net
"Germania" was what the Romans refered to the entire area that the ancient
Germans lived in. The had two provinces in their Empire, Germania Inferior
and Germania Superior, which were along the west bank of the Rhine (Inferior
was basically Belgium and the German Rhineland, Superior was in what is now
northeastern France). "Germania Magna" was the area inhabited by those
Germans which they never subdued; it was in what is now Germany north of the
Danube and east of the Rhine.
Who says that a degree in history is useless? :)
Todd Emerson
told Uter to go back to "Germania" is because he's an idiot, and thinks
that's the proper name of the country. Just like when a friend of mine
made a comment about going up to "Canadia" for the weekend.
Michael Morbius
by a zany coincidence, my friend just came back from a trip to Turkey and
said that among the places he visited was Cappadocia!
Mike
trins...@fuse.net
I'm not thinking about it too much. The person I responded to had asked
where Germania was, and I merely informed him. I don't think he was too
serious about it either :)
Lee Johnson
> You people are thinking about it too much! The only reason why Nelson
> told Uter to go back to "Germania" is because he's an idiot, and thinks
> that's the proper name of the country. Just like when a friend of mine
> made a comment about going up to "Canadia" for the weekend.
>
I agree with "old man" Todd (actually, we're the same age, though I am
still a snot-nosed monkey)-- Nelson was just being a grade-A moron when he
told Uter to go back to Germania, just being typical of an American (U.S.)
kid displaying his ignorance of basic world geography (and ignorance
always works so well with any "Go back to..." comment).
But as for Cappadocia I think there is more to it than anyone has yet
mentioned. When the region of Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) known as
Cappadocia was part of the Byzantine Empire, it was extremely famous for
having given birth to a number of fourth-century theologians who were the
first to really tackle the thorny questions of the Christian Church (i.e.,
how could Christ be both fully human and yet fully divine; what was the
exact nature of the relationship among Father, Son and Holy Ghost). These
theologians came to be known as the Cappadocian Fathers, and so whenever a
scholar uses the term "the Cappadocians" loosely in a historical sense, he
or she is referring to these theologian Fathers.
Although scholars today look upon these Fathers as the backbone of
Christian theology (particularly in Eastern Orthodoxy), non-theologians
(not to mention non-Christians) will probably find their wranglings over
arcane terminology rather obscure, if not downright silly. And so, when
Sideshow Bob grudgingly admits that the Cappadocians did consider
hydrological engineering a calling, it is a humorous reference to the fact
that the Cappadocian Fathers, though long forgotten by non-theologians,
thought about just about everything and determined the religious
significance of everything under the sun.
In short, the Cappadocians were being used as an obscure exception to the
rule dating from a long-past antiquity... all of which means that even if
you've never heard of the Cappadocians, you probably got the gist of the
joke anyway: they were an obscure group who theorized about obscure
things, etc.
Lee
trins...@fuse.net
Lee Johnson <joh...@pantheon.yale.edu> wrote:
> I agree with "old man" Todd (actually, we're the same age, though I am
> still a snot-nosed monkey)-- Nelson was just being a grade-A moron when he
> told Uter to go back to Germania, just being typical of an American (U.S.)
> kid displaying his ignorance of basic world geography (and ignorance
> always works so well with any "Go back to..." comment).
>
> But as for Cappadocia I think there is more to it than anyone has yet
> mentioned. When the region of Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) known as
> Cappadocia was part of the Byzantine Empire, it was extremely famous for
> having given birth to a number of fourth-century theologians who were the
> first to really tackle the thorny questions of the Christian Church (i.e.,
> how could Christ be both fully human and yet fully divine; what was the
> exact nature of the relationship among Father, Son and Holy Ghost). These
> theologians came to be known as the Cappadocian Fathers, and so whenever a
> scholar uses the term "the Cappadocians" loosely in a historical sense, he
> or she is referring to these theologian Fathers.
>
Well technically, it couldn't have been part of the Byzantine Empire in the
fourth century. At best it would be simply the Eastern Roman Empire. At the
earliest, you couldn't call it Byzantine until the fall of the Western Empire
in 476 (or 480), and most agree that "Byzantine" shouldn't be used for the
Eastern Roman Empire until the time of Heraclitus in the 7th century.
I think I'm letting myself get out of control with the letting loose of
useless knowledge (unlike all the useful knowledge of OFF usually traded here
:) ) -- Tom Rinschler
Lee Johnson
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.94.990108...@mercury.cis.yale.edu>,
> > Lee Johnson <joh...@pantheon.yale.edu> wrote:
> >
> > But as for Cappadocia I think there is more to it than anyone has yet
> > mentioned. When the region of Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) known as
> > Cappadocia was part of the Byzantine Empire, it was extremely famous for
> > having given birth to a number of fourth-century theologians who were the
> > first to really tackle the thorny questions of the Christian Church (i.e.,
> > how could Christ be both fully human and yet fully divine; what was the
> > exact nature of the relationship among Father, Son and Holy Ghost). These
> > theologians came to be known as the Cappadocian Fathers, and so whenever a
> > scholar uses the term "the Cappadocians" loosely in a historical sense, he
> > or she is usually referring to these theologian Fathers.
> >
>
> Well technically, it couldn't have been part of the Byzantine Empire in the
> fourth century. At best it would be simply the Eastern Roman Empire. At the
> earliest, you couldn't call it Byzantine until the fall of the Western Empire
> in 476 (or 480), and most agree that "Byzantine" shouldn't be used for the
> Eastern Roman Empire until the time of Heraclitus in the 7th century.
Hi, Tom. I'm glad of your correction and take your point, though it
doesn't exactly jibe with my understanding of the time periods (but, of
course, these temporal demarcations are always a subjective matter and so
I'm happy to learn from you). I'll admit that one cannot properly,
officially speak of a Byzantine _Empire_ until Rome falls in 476, but even
this is an iffy thing as the capital of the Empire was Byzantium
(Constantinople) by 330.
As for the adjective "Byzantine," I don't see why it can't be applied as
soon as Constantine moved the capital to Byzantium. In short, I didn't
think it necessary to wait for Heraclius before whipping out this word. In
fact, I thought that the traditional breakdown went something like this:
Early Byzantine period -- 324 (physical move to new city) to 610
(time of Heraclius, his defeat of Persians and defeat to
Arabs, etc.)
Middle Byzantine period -- 610 to 1081
>
> I think I'm letting myself get out of control with the letting loose of
> useless knowledge (unlike all the useful knowledge of OFF usually traded here
> :) ) -- Tom Rinschler
Yes, very useless. This silly empire which lasted over a millenium and
which shaped the way we think and live today is dwarfed in importance by
our favorite pop culture phenomenon of the 1990s! (Anyway, after 10,000
"X is gay" and 1,000,000 "I know where Springfield is" posts, if someone
has the desire to jump on our cases because of one small thread veering
off topic, well, you know where they're really coming from...)
Lee
trins...@fuse.net
I certainly agree with you on the fact it's not really "useless" (My whole
ending paragraph was meant to be somewhat facetious and self-effacing). I
myself have several books on Byzantine history sitting on my bookshelf right
now. Maybe I should have said "knowledge the average a.t.s. reader will
consider useless" instead?