Julius Caesar

"The Star of the Magi" explores a new chronology of Jesus, based upon historical considerations of Nikos Kokkinos' that prove that John the Baptist died in 35 CE.  Since Jesus' ministry is subsequent to that of John's, his own death cannot be placed earlier than 36 CE.  Attempts to date it earlier have always been predicated upon false assumptions about what astronomical event, or series of events, could explain the appearance of the Star of the Magi, approximately 33 years earlier, provided that Jesus indeed was "about 30," when he began his ministry (Luke 3:23).  But there are no viable stellar events corresponding to the traditional date of Jesus' birth in ca. 6-4 BCE.  Rather, the only probable astronomical event associated with the Nativity can be that of the appearance of the great comet, Halley's, in the year 12 BCE, the true approximate date of the Birth of the Messiah -- a saviour (saošyant) expected from Zoroastrian sources to inaugurate a new Golden Age.  The reference in Luke is corrupt (an incomplete sentence), and the remark on Jesus' age in John 8:57 ("not yet 50 years old") fits more perfectly a birth of Jesus in 12 BCE and a death in 36 CE (thus, 12 + 36 = 48 years old, sc., the "not yet 50" complicit with John and other sources).  The article further discusses the rôle of Zoroastrianism in science and star-lore (but not zodiacal astrology), and the interface between cometology and the body of ancient magical and apocryphal literature.  The contribution concludes with a presentation of a hypothetical pre-Matthean version of the birth narrative and the rôle of entheogenic drugs in Zarathustrian revelation, which may have contributed to the events surrounding the Magi's historical discovery of the Child.

This was my second published article, in a graduate student journal called Past Imperfect (Vol. 15, 2009) out of the University of Alberta. The published version can be found at:
https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/pi/index.php/pi/article/view/6634

The Roman calendar was first developed as a lunar calendar, so it was difficult for the Romans to reconcile this with the natural solar year. In 45 BC, Julius Caesar reformed the calendar, creating a solar year of 365 days with leap years every four years. This article explains the process by which the Roman calendar evolved and argues that the reason February has 28 days is that Caesar did not want to interfere with religious festivals that occurred in February. Beginning as a lunar calendar, the Romans developed a lunisolar system that tried to reconcile lunar months with the solar year, with the unfortunate result that the calendar was often inaccurate by up to four months. Caesar fixed this by changing the lengths of most months, but made no change to

Analisi del rapporto di amicizia e politico fra M. Bruto e Cicerone, in particolare attraverso una puntuale analisi delle opere dell'Arpinate e di come queste veicolarono il mito di Bruto quale tirannicida.
Capitolo II, tratto da "La fortuna letteraria di Bruto cesaricida fino all'età augustea":

""""“Barbatuli iuvenes”. Political Activity of Young Roman Aristocrats during the so-called First Triumvirate. 

On the turn of the 60’s  B.C. we could notice a political activity of young men in their twenties who were often termed in Cicero’s speeches and letters as barbatuli iuvenes. Such an activity was facilitated due to the fact that a relative stability of the political system of the Republic was threatened by Cn. Pompeius Magnus, C. Iulius Caesar and M. Licinius Crassus.
The first recorded action carried out by young aristocrats was the trial of P. Claudius Pulcher (aka Clodius) in 62 B.C. Barbatuli iuvenes were led by C. Scribonius Curio, sometimes called princeps iuventutis. In the first half of the 50’s B.C. during the first triumvirate of Pompey, Crassus and Caesar, became the Opposition aiming at the primacy in the state of Pompey and Caesar.
Contemporary researchers use the term barbatuli iuvenes to refer to a large circle of the sons of meritorious nobles. For example, besides the earlier-mentioned Curio, who was the son of C. Scribonius Curio (cos. 76), they also mention other people belonging to barbatuli iuvenes, namely a triumvir-to-be, M. Antonius, Dec. Iunius Brutus Albinus, little-known C. Megabocchus and perhaps M. Caelius Rufus and C. Licinius Macer Calvus.
""""

Thucydides was perhaps the most influential historian in antiquity; his work
inspired countless subsequent authors. In the past decade, interest in the
connection between Julius Caesar’s commentaries and Thucydides’
Peloponnesian War has grown, and linguistic and other links between the
works have been noted. In this paper I will show, following Powell 2009,
connections between Caesar’s civil war commentaries and Thucydides’
analysis of stasis. Caesar redeploys the different characteristics of stasis and
then employs them to highlight the Pompeians as the true villains and
culprits of the civil war, using the work of the famed Greek historian as his
modello codice.

Violence in Roman warfare is certainly not a myth. But until recently, historians have understood violence in terms of their own standards instead of considering the thresholds of Roman sensibilities. Within the framework of the “histoire des representations”, a discussion is made about the discourses that underly the violence in Roman warfare. We aim to reassess the methodological basis of such an analysis by close observation of its vocabulary. By scrutinizing the appearance of the terms uis and βία, we undermine their traditional relevance in war contexts. Then, we apply methods of correspondence analysis on the example of Latin verbs for killing. It reveals their meaning and stresses the strengths and flaws of text analytics, still not much employed in ancient history. In the end, returning to the texts and their contexts is necessary to qualify and refine this technique.

http://annalesdejanua.edel.univ-poitiers.fr/index.php?id=2003

La violence de Rome à la guerre n’est certes pas un mythe. Mais, jusqu’à très récemment, les historiens l’ont davantage évaluée à l’aune de leurs propres normes qu’ils n’ont abordé la question des seuils de sensibilités proprement romains en la matière. Dans le cadre d’une histoire des représentations, l’étude de la violence guerrière romaine implique par conséquent un examen des discours qui la sous-tendent. Cet article a ainsi pour ambition de repenser les fondements méthodologiques d’une telle analyse à travers l’observation serrée du vocabulaire de la violence guerrière. Un examen complet des contextes d’apparition des termes uis et βία permet de relativiser leur pertinence en contexte guerrier. Dès lors, le recours à d’autres méthodes est nécessaire. À travers l’exemple des verbes latins signifiant l’action de tuer, on entend montrer les atouts et les limites de l’analyse factorielle des correspondances, branche de la statistique textuelle encore peu mobilisée en histoire ancienne. Enfin, un retour aux textes et à leurs contextes est une démarche nécessaire afin de nuancer et d’affiner cette technique.

http://annalesdejanua.edel.univ-poitiers.fr/index.php?id=2003

Romans Never Surrender, or do they? The Crisis facing Cotta and Sabinus at BC 5.26-37
  This paper will be read at CAMWS-SS on 28 Oct. 2016.  I welcome suggestions, since it is incomplete at the moment. 
  Not surprisingly the Romans made heroes of those who thought or fought their way to freedom when surrounded by the enemy by keeping their swords and wits about them, such as Horatius Cocles at the bridge.  Supposedly, the Romans never surrender to tyranny and/or lose their freedom; instead the good Roman should prefer to die.  Roman historians repeat many positive proofs of the above where virtue was rewarded and almost never provide negative examples of cowards who make the wrong choice to hang onto life in disgrace.  Livy and some other authors deny the ransom to Brennus of Rome in 387 (Camillus rescued Rome in the nick of time), and Livy (or his sources) alters the surrender at Caudine Forks in 321.  Yet the Divine Julius, writing about the disgraceful loss of 15 cohorts under Titurius Sabinus in Gaul in 54 BC provides a rare example of a "bad Roman" who tries to treat with a treacherous enemy and trusts them - causing the loss of his honor, life, and those of his men.  Using negative reinforcement, this incident rams home the point that when faced with seemingly hopeless odds, the only course of action (once fighting one's way to freedom is impossible) is to fall on one's own sword. 
  I am concerned that I may not have enough time to cover the issue in the 22 minutes allotted to me at the conference, but can/will expand the paper after.

History contains many accounts of speeches given by civic and military leaders before large crowds prior to the invention of electronic amplification. Historians have debated the historical accuracy of these accounts, often making some reference to acoustics, either supporting or refuting the accounts, but without any numerical justification. The field of digital humanities, and more specifically archaeoacoustics, seeks to use computational techniques to provide empirical data to improve historical analysis. Julius Caesar recalled giving speeches to 14,000 men after the battle of Dyrrachium and another to 22,000 men before the battle of Pharsalus during the Roman Civil War. Caesar's background and education are discussed, including his training in rhetoric and oratory, which would have affected his articulation and effective sound pressure level while addressing his troops. Based on subjective reports about Caesar's oratorical abilities, his effective Sound Pressure Level (SPL) is assumed to be 80 dBA, about 6 dB above the average loud speaking voice but lower than that of the loudest trained actors and singers. Simulations show that for reasonable background noise conditions Caesar could have been heard intelligibly by 14,000 soldiers in a quiet, controlled environment as in the speech at Dyrrachium. In contrast, even granting generous acoustic and geometric conditions, Caesar could not have been heard by more than about 700 soldiers while his army was on the march before the battle of Pharsalus.

Julius Caesar, one of the protagonists of Lucan’s Pharsalia, disappears from the scene for a long time after the Battle of Pharsalus. He reappears at the end of Book 9, when he pays a visit to the ruined city of Troy. The function and the source of this historically unsupported scene are both worth examining. Earlier research disclosed as the literary source of the Troy scene the episode in Aeneid Book 8, when Evander shows Aeneas the future site of Rome. While fully accepting that, I would like to present another possible source that might have as much effect on the constructing of Lucan’s Troy as the Evander–scene: the katabasis in Book 6 of the Aeneid. Definite parallelisms can be identified between the two scenes on both motivic and textual levels. Furthermore, the connection between these three scenes can be proved on the level of content, since by examining them together the real purpose of the Troy scene can be decoded: Lucan predicts Rome’s destruction in this episode.

In Caesar's Civil War: Historical Reality and Fabrication, Westall combines literary analysis of Caesar's Bellum Civile with a concern for the socioeconomic history of the Roman empire. The Bellum Gallicum and the Shakespearean play are better known, but Caesar's partisan account of the Roman civil war culminating in the battle of Pharsalus offers a historical text of perennial interest and relevance. Two introductory chapters contextualize this book and offer a traditional narrative of political and military history for 49-48 BCE. There follow seven chapters that are dedicated to each of the geographical theatres of civil war. These chapters show how Caesar's testimony sheds important light upon the nature of Roman rule in the Mediterranean, but also explore the problems to be encountered in using potentially tendentious testimony.

The issue of audience targeting is crucial in studies of contemporary propaganda. Meanwhile, it is usually ignored in analysis of Roman propaganda despite the fact that studies of ancient rhetoric clearly shows that speakers were well aware that they must use a different language when performing in front of different audiences. The primary aim of this paper is to consider the possibility of targeting propaganda messages encoded on coins struck by the Pompeians (RRC 444, RRC 445/1-3) during the war with Caesar. The analysis of the imagery placed on these coins may indicate that different types were in the first instance intended for the inhabitants of Epirus and Greece (RRC 444, RRC 445/2), Sicily (RRC 445/1) and West Asia Minor (RRC 445/3). Considering the fact that those were the most important areas of recruitment for the Pompeians, it is possible that by placing images that referred to them they tried to influence locals also in this way.

JULIO CÉSAR: O CALVO ADÚLTERO O legado do grande Imperador Romano, que ultrapassou gerações, tem características curiosas REINALDO JOSÉ LOPES E JOSEANE PEREIRA PUBLICADO EM 20/05/2019, ÀS 08H00 250 None Crédito: Wikimedia Commons Muita gente acha que os gênios já nascem prontos. Mas, para o homem cujo nome virou sinônimo de imperador e general, as coisas aconteceram bem mais devagar. Ele teve de esperar a maturidade para mostrar a que veio, galgando o poder aos poucos, de mansinho-ascensão que, aliás, combinava bem com a personalidade desse mestre conciliador.

La sospecha sobre la incorrecta traducción que se venía haciendo del fundamental texto sobre Mérida de Dión Casio, LIII, 26, 1 (al.ed. LIII, 25, 8, cf. infra, nº 3) me asaltó en 1986 gracias al préstamo, por mi buen amigo Michael Blech, del DAIM, de la monografía recién aparecida de Michel Casevitz sobre la terminología usual en los textos sobre la colonización griega clásica, y su posterior evolución (Le vocabulaire de la colonisation en grec ancien. Etude léxicologique: la famille de ktitso et de oikéo-oikítso, Études et Commentaires 97, París, 1985). Aunque Casevitz no citaba el caso de Mérida, los paralelos que leí en él para época romana me incitaron a revisar bajo una nueva y distinta perspectiva la traducción de tan famoso texto, que para todos los autores "clavaba" la fundación 'ex novo' de Augusta Emerita en el 25 a.C., y a buscar otros indicios que apoyaran la preexistencia de Mérida. Eso fue lo que hice desde 1986, aunque sabía lo difícil que es en España ir contra corriente en un asunto indiscutido, uno de los muchos axiomas históricos en vigor. Y claro que los había, bastantes hechos anómalos y sin explicar. La mayoría (11) los expuse en 1987 (publ. en 1990: http://www.academia.edu/2406869/_Las_tres_fundaciones_de_Augusta_Emerita_ ), y otros en otras publicaciones posteriores (véase al final una sucinta relación). Luego he añadido otros nueve argumentos más, hasta 20. En este artículo los enumero todos, en forma lógicamente breve, y divididos en dos grupos: 1) argumentos histórico-epigráficos y numismáticos, y 2) argumentos de orden arqueológico, explicados lo más claramente posible y ordenados según el peso que les atribuyo, excepto los núms. 19 y 20, que considero de carácter fundamental y cierran las reflexiones (este trabajo, en Internet ya en 2004 y 2005 http://www.celtiberia.net/articulo.asp?id=1597 , está siendo objeto de una publicación en formato más científico). Véase tb., sobre dos réplicas, http://www.celtiberia.net/articulo.asp?id=1597#r21239 y http://www.celtiberia.net/articulo.asp?id=1597#r21615

An atlas of maps to accompany primary source readings in Ancient and Medieval Warfare, including the siege of Syracuse during the Peloponnesian War, the battle of Cynoscephalae, the Granicus, the Jugurthan War, Caesar's Gallic and Civil Wars, Fantosme, and Muntaner.

"Una volta finita la battaglia, allora sì che avresti potuto comprendere con lo sguardo quanto grandi fossero state l’audacia e la forza d’animo nell’esercito di Catilina. Infatti, quasi la stessa posizione che ognuno, da vivo, aveva assunto nello schieramento, anche ora, da morto, la ricopriva con il proprio corpo; e quei pochi, al centro, che la coorte pretoria aveva allontanato, erano caduti poco più in là, e tutti con ferite frontali; Catilina, invece, fu trovato lontano dai suoi, in mezzo ai cadaveri dei nemici, che ancora rantolava, serbando però sul volto la fierezza avuta in vita. Infine, in  tutto quello che era stato il suo esercito, nessun concittadino libero fu catturato, né in battaglia né in fuga: tanto poco tutti avevano risparmiato, alla stessa maniera, la vita propria e quella dei nemici. Né l’esercito del popolo romano aveva ottenuto una vittoria lieta o poco cruenta. I più valorosi, infatti, erano caduti in battaglia o ne erano usciti con gravi ferite; molti, spintisi fuori dall’accampamento per curiosità o brama di saccheggio, rivoltando i cadaveri dei nemici, trovavano chi un amico, chi un ospite, chi un parente; ci fu anche chi trovò nemici personali. Così, per tutto l’esercito, si agitavano la gioia, la tristezza, il lutto e l’allegria." (Sallustio, La congiura di Catilina, 61)

Così lo storico Gaio Sallustio Crispo chiude la narrazione della congiura di Lucio Sergio Catilina; il patrizio, che non era riuscito a sovvertire il governo di Roma, trovò infatti la morte alla testa della sua armata di ribelli, annientata dall’esercito regolare nello scontro all’ultimo sangue combattuto agli inizi del 62 a.C. presso Pistoia.
La vicenda della congiura, tra le più menzionate dell’intera storia antica, ci è stata tramandata principalmente dalla narrazione di Sallustio e dalle orazioni di Marco Tullio Cicerone, il console che la combatté con molta – e, per alcuni, troppa – determinazione. Entrambi gli autori, tratteggiandone il protagonista come uomo depravato e sanguinario, hanno influenzato l’intera tradizione. La critica storica, quindi, persino nei relativamente recenti tentativi di ‘rivalutazione’, si trova a fare i conti con un impianto che nasce con impostazione ‘manichea’.
Anche per questo motivo, gli ingredienti in grado di attirare l’attenzione non sono mai mancati. Un aristocratico, la cui malvagità resta dipinta in immortali ritratti letterari, si era rivolto alla parte più scontenta del popolo per tramare nell’ombra la rovina della maggiore repubblica mai conosciuta. Il tutto, quasi non bastasse, racchiuso in una cornice di orge, scandali e tradimenti, perpetrati da personaggi dediti a vizi di ogni genere. E, ancora, la repressione ciceroniana, avallata dal senato ma irrituale, resa possibile dalla sospensione delle garanzie ‘costituzionali’ del cittadino, difese – nel più noto dibattito senatorio di cui siamo a conoscenza – dal ‘popolare’ Gaio Giulio Cesare e invece sminuite dall’‘ottimate’ Marco Porcio Catone, il futuro ‘Uticense’, eroe repubblicano di ogni tempo.
Pare superfluo accennare alla varietà di letture e di passioni che tale materia ha sollevato. A livello retorico, dare del ‘Catilina’ agli avversari politici divenne da subito, già sulle labbra di Cicerone, un’offesa. Ma il nostro impersonò anche, in virtù della propria vicenda, una figura tragica, e in quanto tale fonte d’ispirazione per artisti e pensatori. La congiura stessa, intesa come tentativo di rovesciare la repubblica, è stata poi fertile terreno d’indagine politica, storiografica e, in tempi più recenti, economica e sociologica.
Chi fu Catilina? Come giunse a progettare e pianificare la sovversione? Quali furono i suoi obiettivi e le sue forze? Quali invece quelli di Cicerone, il grande ed eloquente avversario? Quale la posizione di Cesare? Come Roma e, in seguito, la cultura occidentale, hanno rielaborato l’inquietante vicenda?
A ognuna di queste domande il presente volume proverà a suggerire possibili risposte. Lo farà ripercorrendo la vita di Catilina – assai misteriosa sino alla ‘scoperta’ della congiura –, e ricostruendo le principali direttrici della successiva ‘fortuna’ del personaggio.

In “The Armstrong and Nuffler Heads and the Portraiture of Julius Caesar, Livia, and Antonia Minor,” John Pollini discusses two little known basalt portraits of high quality. The Armstrong Head, representing an older male, may be an uncanonical portrait of Julius Caesar, while the Nuffler Head, representing a younger-looking female, is identifiable as an image of Augustus’ wife Livia. Because neither portrait obviously and unquestionably represents the individuals proposed, this essay also presents a new consideration of the portrait typologies of Caesar and Livia, as well as Antonia Minor, to whom the female head bears some resemblance. The Armstrong Head seems to be a portrait of Caesar that was freely interpreted by a Hellenistic sculptor working in Egypt at the very end of the Republic or in the earlier Augustan period, while the Nuffler Head of Livia was probably created some time after the death of her husband Augustus in A.D. 14. Since various factors indicate that both heads may originally have come from the same context, the Nuffler Head, which appears to have been created at a later date than the other sculpture, may have been added to a portrait group that already included the Armstrong Head. Both images have suffered damage consistent with their having been intentionally defaced, quite possibly by iconoclastic Christians who attacked the images of the polytheistic
peoples of the Empire during the Late Antique period. Caesar had been worshiped as a god, so images of him with other members of the Julio-Claudian family, especially if set up in a shrine like the Caesareum/Augusteum at Alexandria, would have been all the more likely targets of assault.

Agrippa's Pantheon remains the subject of lively debates. A much-discussed passage is found in Cassius Dio's Roman History (53.27.2-3), which is most often treated as a stand-alone, self-explanatory whole. However, in order to be comprehensible, each text needs a broader range of reference points in order for meaning to be extracted. In this paper, I analyze part of that contextual spectrum (including Dio's attitude to the so-called imperial cult and the roles played in his narrative by the cults of both Augustus and Caesar), and I argue that we should view his account of the Pantheon with considerable caution. That account contains three different narrative threads: one based on the annalist tradition, but also one which drew on the author's own experiences, and one that constituted a literary and rhetorical overlay aimed at realizing the general objectives of the Roman History. In this account, the 'former Caesar' has been placed in between twice over: between the author's historical knowledge and his present circumstances, and between the realms of gods and humans. That imprecise nature of this expression was no accident. I believe the expression was not so much a reference to a specific statue as a figure of speech emphasizing the difference, fundamental from Dio's perspective, between the incumbent emperor and his deceased predecessor.

En el siguiente trabajo se presentará el análisis de las obras Julio César y Othello de William Shakespeare partiendo de la problemática de la elocuencia y el manejo del discurso como disparadores de la acción en las tragedias. Se estudiará desde diferentes ejes temáticos la relación entre lenguaje y acción y cómo afecta al desarrollo de la trama dramática y a los personajes. Los protagonistas de las obras en los que centraré el análisis son Iago y Marco Bruto, ambos se caracterizan por ser ambiguos y se expresa de forma literal que cada uno tiene la capacidad de hacer el bien o el mal, de degradarse a lo más bajo de la naturaleza humana o luchar por su redención, pero al final los personajes de las obras que forman parte de las disputas siempre acaban con un final trágico del que no hay retorno. Al abordar el tópico de lo romano, Shakespeare optó por tomar un material histórico que no sólo era bien conocido en la época, sino que desde hacía siglos que promovía el interés y el debate; así mismo la temática romana fue prodigada por el Renacimiento, llevado por el deseo de reexaminar las grandes figuras del pasado.
Bibliografía inicial:
- Bloom, Harold, Shakespeare: the invention of the human, Riverhead books, NYC, 1998.
- Tillyard, E.M.W., La cosmovisión isabelina, Fondo de cultura económica, México, 1984.

The inseparable relationship between the cult of Dionysus and politics in antiquity emerged as early as in archaic poleis and continued to evolve until late-antique times. Surprisingly enough, most monographs dealing with Greek and Roman political thought pay little, if any, attention to the essential role played by Dionysiac imagery. The only exception in which the name of Dionysus comes to the fore is the Bacchanalian affair, which has been widely discussed both in relation to Roman religion as well as in relation to Roman politics. Apart from that affair, however, Dionysus/Bacchus is seldom mentioned in mainstream research on Greek and Roman political practice.To date, no monograph systematically addressing the role of Dionysus in Greek and Roman political thought has seen the light of day. In existing studies, interesting and valuable as they are, the issue has been discussed only partially or in passing. The present volume fills this important gap by introducing the political importance of Dionysus into the academic mainstream. It brings together 11 contributions from an international team of scholars, starting with four top specialists in the field, Cornelia Isler-Kerényi, Jean-Marie Pailler, Richard Seaford and Richard Stoneman. The contributors develop an interdisciplinary approach to the subject by combining sub-disciplines and types of evidence: historiography, poetry, coins, epigraphy, art and philosophy, while the chapters also follow a chronological order. Thus, the reader can follow how the political ideas and motifs rooted in Greek classical thought were continued, adapted and developed in successive periods, from Hellenistic to Imperial to late-antique times. The book therefore casts a decisive light on a still underrated aspect of Greek and Roman theological refection on politics, and greatly helps to better understand the ancient thinking on the nature of ruling.

Quali istituzioni politiche hanno accompagnato - e in parte determinato - la straordinaria vicenda storica di Roma antica? Cosa conosciamo del loro funzionamento e della loro evoluzione? Quali sono stati i principali interrogativi della lunghissima tradizione esegetica della quale siamo debitori? In base a quali suggestioni, invece, per secoli si è reinterpretato, attualizzato e, non da ultimo, strumentalizzato il vincente – e avvincente – “modello romano” nelle sue varie declinazioni? Per quali ragioni la comprensione di concetti politici d’indubbia attualità non può prescindere dallo studio di Roma antica? Tenendo presenti questi interrogativi di fondo, l’autore propone una guida sintetica al complesso sistema politico-istituzionale romano: un sistema che, sebbene lontano, offre ancora molti spunti di riflessione

When the Early Imperial Roman writers imagined the cultural processes taking place in the newly-conquered Gaul, they frequently had recourse to a rhetoric that can appear strikingly similar to some later, colonial narratives of civilizational improvement and the abolition of nefarious ritual life. I will focus on the possible local informants of those Romans who, according to our literary sources (e.g. Pliny, Suetonius), rooted out the Druidic rites from Gaul. How did a Roman administrator recognize the forbidden ‘Druidic’ parts of Gallic ritual life? Who acted as the subaltern middlemen for the Romans in this process, and did they have any influence on the direction of the Roman gaze? This paper seeks to explore whether we might be able to use colonial analogies, particularly from British India, to aid us in distinguishing the knowledge-generation practices of the Roman administrators in the Early Imperial religious ‘middle grounds’ of Gaul.

https://www.belin-editeur.com/alea-jacta-est#anchor1

Le jour où César provoqua la chute de la République romaine

« Alea jacta est ». L’expression est désormais entrée dans le langage courant pour évoquer une décision irrévocable : celle que César prit en 49 av. J. C. lorsque, bravant un ultimatum du Sénat, il franchit en armes le Rubicon.  César et Pompée briguaient l’un et l’autre la charge de consul. César aurait dû se présenter dans l’Urbs, en tant que citoyen privé, après avoir congédié ses légions. Mais, César prononçant la phrase fatidique (alea jacta est – les dés sont jetés), il décida de marcher sur Rome. Comment en est-il arrivé à ce coup de force ? Que se passa-t-il pour que finalement Rome capitule ? Quel moment clé le passage du Rubicon représente-t-il dans l’histoire de Rome ?

Luca Fezzi reconstitue les événements et nous les expose avec souffle et intelligence. Il découvre pour nous les incertitudes de César, ses craintes, ses inquiétudes personnelles, mêlant sans cesse « privé » et « public ». L'auteur offre ainsi une enquête historique inédite et moderne sur l’un des épisodes les plus célèbres de l’histoire de l’Antiquité.

Het museum moet worden gezien als het medium van het geheugen. Dat betoogt Wim Hupperetz, directeur van het Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam, in zijn oratie als bijzonder hoogleraar Nederlandse Cultuurgeschiedenis.

Er moet meer aandacht komen voor de biografie en herkomst van museale collecties vanwege het feit dat deze bepalend zijn voor de betekenis en impact. Daarvoor moet meer aandacht worden geschonken aan de biografie van objecten en verzamelaars en kan er een beter begrip ontstaan van de complexiteit van waarden die juist verbonden is aan museale objecten. Daarnaast is het voor musea van belang om de impact van nieuwe technologie zoals ‘The Internet of Things’ op de positie van de curator/conservator te onderzoeken.

Rol van de curator verandert
Dit zijn de twee belangrijkste uitdagingen die Hupperetz in zijn betoog benoemt. De eerste is sterk verbonden met de actuele gebeurtenissen in Nederland zoals het naast elkaar bestaan van verschillende waardesystemen, die bijvoorbeeld tot uiting komt in de zwartepieten discussie. Hupperetz: “In feite is dit een overgang tussen de uitgangspunten van onze moderne samenleving en het postmoderne gedachtegoed, waarbij begrippen als ‘’waarheid’’ en ‘’werkelijkheid’’ geproblematiseerd worden en dat leidt tot veel onzekerheid en frustratie.” De andere uitdaging is verbonden met technologie zoals The Internet of Things, waarbij de rol van de curator onherroepelijk zal veranderen. Hupperetz: “Als museale collecties onderdeel worden van dat internet der dingen, dan wordt het selecteren en beoordelen overgenomen door de zoeksystemen die achter Amazon, Google en Facebook zitten en krijgen we een heel andere dynamiek.”

Vertaling post-moderniteit naar museale praktijk
Hupperetz bouwt voort op de ideeën van zijn voorganger Ad de Jong, die zich in 2009 al afvroeg wanneer de volgende kentering in het museale domein zou komen. Hupperetz: “Naar mijn mening zitten we nog steeds middenin die kentering tussen modernisme en postmodernisme. De reflectie op de aloude moderniteit is cruciaal maar ook problematisch als het gaat om de vertaling naar de museale praktijk.” De leerstoel betreft in het bijzonder de studie der voorwerpen vanwege het Koninklijk Oudheidkundig Genootschap (KOG). In zijn onderzoek wil Wim Hupperetz duidelijk maken dat voorwerpen het voertuig zijn van ons collectief geheugen en als dynamisch erfgoed is de betekenis daarvan altijd in beweging. Hupperetz: “Het is simpelweg met de tijd meegaan. Dat klinkt eenvoudig, maar het betekent dat we ons open moeten stellen voor verandering, dat we nieuwsgierig zijn naar de ander, gevoelig zijn voor de biografie en diversiteit die besloten ligt in mensen en voorwerpen om ons heen. En dat is wat ik bedoel met het museum als medium van het geheugen.”

Two well-known icons of modern French culture: the Gauloise cigarette packet and the Asterix strip cartoon. Why is the former, in effect, a right-wing nationalist symbol, but the latter, to generalize a little, a left-wing version? To answer this, we go back to the period of the French revolution, and trace the way in which the ancient Gauls have been expropriated by different political groups for patriotic ends. We shall be dealing with three peoples – the Gauls, the Romans and the Franks – together with their respective leaders (according to popular mythology) – Vercingetorix, Julius Caesar and Clovis. The other ingredient in the consideration of French nationalism and its symbols is modern French history, with its rapidly shifting political climate and succession of Empires and Republics. In addition to internal history, a vital factor was the threat of war, specifically war with Germany on three occasions – the Franco-Prussian War, World War I and World War II. Germany also had nationalist symbols from the ancient past, such as Herman (Arminius), which were important as a foil for French propaganda, and as a catalyst for change in the perception of France's own national origins and symbolism.

Campaigns of Germanicus, AD 13-16 describes briefly the campaigns, joint and combined ops., tactics, strategy, foreign policy, espionage, intelligence gathering, and strategy between ca. 60 BC and AD 150 with particular focus on Germanicus' campaigns.