French Prometheus

The standard Alexander coins depict Hercules and Zeus plus the traditional "of king [name of king]" that is so common on Greek coins. Before Alexander, there were coins in the name of his father and right after him, coins in the name of his brother. Your hypothesis would imply that for a few decades, Greek cities and the recently conquered Persian empire decided together to mint coins in the names of a non-existing dynasty. Besides, coins depicting the actual face of Alexander appeared shortly after his death. I have one struck by Ptolemy c. 305 BCE. That's one of the last Egyptian issues in the name of Alexander before Ptolemy took the title of king and had his own name written on the coins.

ynquirer

Fine. This is good argument for me to change my mind and rejoin.

I shall presently deal with the implied charge that I have invented a false etymology I dare to “peddle” in hidden entourages (“elsewhere”) but not “in the open” (this forum) very briefly. This is what Wikipedia “peddles” as well:

This is basically the etymology I am supporting here: a procurator is someone that acts in the place of a curator, and the latter word heralds the former accordingly. A number of online encyclopedias buy into what Wiki peddles: answers.com, biocrawler.com, news-server.com, Help.com, icyclopedia, arikah.net, and many others. (Just google either “procurator” or “promagistrate.”)

This, of course, does not prove that the etymology curator -> procurator is true. It is evidence that neither have I invented it, nor do I alone “peddle” it. It rather seems quite universally endorsed.

Furthermore, your bizarre etymology procurare -> procurator with no relationship to curator - the boot is on the other foot: cura + curo(are) + curator -> procurator + procura + procuro(are) - quite strongly suggests that you ignore basic Latin language, in addition to acknowledged ignorance of Roman law. :banghead:

spin

I'm sorry, ynquirer, but even I have written a little bit of Wiki material. I'm also sorry to disillusion you further, but it is not my etymology you are railing against. I merely consulted a dictionary to check it, Lewis and Short. The error with the Wiki article you unfortunately depend upon is called overgeneralization, as in the case when a child says "goed" instead of "went" after having learnt a rule that past tense in English is constructed by adding "-ed".

Yes, this does raise a smile.

Etymology is proving a difficult subject for you. You can happily argue that "procurare" is derived from "pro + curare", and I'd have to agree with you (as do Lewis and Short), but you strain yourself to claim without any foundation that "procurator" must be derived, not from the existent verb "procurare", but from "curator". Here Lewis and Short do not agree. Consult a few etymological dictionaries as well here and here. If the etymology is bizarre, then you'll have to take it up with the linguistic community. The very first website here google produced for "procurator" said: derived from the Latin verb procurare. Look at it.

But think, ynquirer, how many of the promagistrates you refer to can have their title derived from a verb as in the case of "procurator"? Yep, none. See the problem with the analogy made between "procurator" and these promagistrates? You are not dealing with a full deck. If Plautus can use the verb "procuro", then the word is obviously old in the language. Promagistrates and their titles are as old as the earliest provinces. (Sicily was the first Roman province, 241 BCE.) The term "procurator" is not of origin related to provincial administration, so the analogy with provincial magistrates is inappropriate.

It would seem that the only person who really finds the etymology bizarre is you. You certainly need to widen your horizon of source materials. Until you do, I must reiterate:

I suggest you peddle false etymologies elsewhere and spare us the bs.


spin

andrewcriddle

I agree that there is effectively conclusive evidence for the very basic facts about the life of Alexander the Great.

However beyond those basic facts the evidence is less conclusive.
For Example it is a central part of the Alexander story as traditionally told that he killed his colleague Cleitus the Black in a drunlen quarrel. Although this is in all probability true, the earliest surviving evidence comes IIUC from centuries after the time of Alexander.

Andrew Criddle

Laura D.

Fair enough,

If you wanted to include an historically accurate, verifiable three paragraph biography of Alexander the Great for a ninth grade children's history textbook, how would it read?

On another note,

I enjoyed Richard Carrier's review of Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ. His review is the first I have seen where a qualified ancient historian opines on the state of the evidence as to the ahistoricity of Jesus.

It also illustrates how two scholars can look at the same source materials and arrive at different opinions regarding the evidence, e.g.:

"Doherty repeats Wells' mistaken claim that "procurator...was the title of [Pilate's] post in Tacitus' day, but in the reign of Tiberius such governors were called prefect" (p. 202). A few years ago, correspondence with Wells on this point inspired me to thoroughly investigate this claim, and my findings will eventually be published. But in short, this sentence is entirely wrong. It seems evident from all the source material available that the post was always a prefecture, and also a procuratorship. Pilate was almost certainly holding both posts simultaneously, a practice that was likely established from the start when Judaea was annexed in 6 A.D. And since it is more insulting (to an elitist like Tacitus and his readers) to be a procurator, and even more insulting to be executed by one, it is likely Tacitus chose that office out of his well-known sense of malicious wit. Tacitus was also a routine employer of variatio, deliberately seeking nonstandard ways of saying things (it is one of several markers of Tacitean style). So there is nothing unusual about his choice here. But despite being wrong about this, Doherty's conclusion is still correct: ...."

Given his credentials and demonstrated commitment to this area of ancient history, I found Carrier persuasive when he wrote,

"I have to conclude it is at least somewhat more probable that Jesus didn't exist than that he did. I say this even despite myself, as I have long been an opponent of ahistoricity."

God bless,



Laura

ynquirer

The way you use dictionaries is fun. Lewis and Short do not say what you mean they say. If one checks the word procuro here the first thing one sees is “pro-curo,” in bold type, which quite clearly indicates that the word is a compound of “pro-” and “curo,” a verb that means “to take care of.” If you read Italian you would know this very well, since that language has preserved both the word “curare” and its meaning “to take care of.” In any event, the importance of Latin “curo” vis-ê-vis “procuro” is paramount, as shown by the length of Lewis and Short’s definition here.

Your other choices don‘t do either. The first one - oh, an Italian dictionary: after all it seems you read Italian - here defines “procurêre = lat. PROCURÀRE composto di PRO a favore [in the behalf of] e CURÁRE aver cura [to take care of] (v. Cura)” .

The next one is a dictionary of English etymologies, which is a poor proxy for Latin etymologies. Still, in here one can find the etymology for “to procure,” and it reads: from L.L. procurare "to take for, take care of," in L., "manage, take care of," from pro- "in behalf of" + curare "care for."

And your last one is not even a dictionary, but an encyclopedia entry. Certainly, it is an encyclopedia that seems focused on ancient Rome. But look on a significant detail: it has a long series of Roman posts on the right of the screen, still “curator” is totally missing. I wouldn’t trust that encyclopedia very much, not against the evidence provided by Lewis and Short and others, included modern Italian, that “procuro” is a compound word.

And you will agree with me that a “curator” must have been someone important in Rome, since both Julius Caesar, Augustus, and Augustus’ son-in-law M. Vipsanius Agrippa where “curators” at a moment in their public lives - Agrippa even died a curator aquarum in charge of the aqueducts of Rome after being a praetor, a consul, and Augustus’ ablest general.

Irrelevant.

You have a little confusion of dates. The first Roman aqueducts, called the Appia and Anio Vetus, were built in 312 and 272 BC - fairly ahead of Plautus and Sicily. Sicily from 241 needed aqueducts and other public works, like highways - Julius Caesar was curator of Via Appia, for instance. If for legal reasons a curator might not be appointed in Sicily to take care of such works, a procurator to act in his stead would apply. And Plautus (ca. 254 - ca. 184 CE) could produce “pro-curo” as a neologism from making with procurator a parallel with curator - curo.

spin

As I said:

You can happily argue that "procurare" is derived from "pro + curare", and I'd have to agree with you (as do Lewis and Short)

Reading is not one of your specialities.

Se avevi imparato leggere meglio, non avessi fatto questa sciocchezza. Ovviamente il latino "procurare" e' derivato da "curare". Non era mai in discussione.

Don't shoot yourself in the foot by arguing what I've already indicated.

You told me to google procurare and I g ave you the first entry that appeared. It's a shame you didn't take your own advice and you wouldn't have poured out this logorrhea.

Oh, sure, but as you say:


In case you didn't understand, the discussion was about the derivation of "procurator" not the fact that there were curators before 241 BCE, nor the fact that "procurare" is derived from "curare". Not one thing in your last post attempted to deal with your claim. In fact you simply ignored the material I supplied which stated in each case that "procurator" was derived from "procurare". As I've said twice before:

I suggest you peddle false etymologies elsewhere and spare us the bs.


spin

Chris Weimer

I am so confused. Can you both define your positions in a clear and concise manner so I can determine which is false and which is more false?

spamandham

Thanks! I won't simply take this man's authority on the subject as 'gospel', but I do think it relevant to a layman that Doherty's position is capable of withstanding skeptical criticism by at least some in position to offer it. IMHO, these type of statements reinforce the position that the burdon of proof is on the HJers, which should be obvious anyway but for some reason isn't.

spin

Hell, you're a lazy sod. Hopefully the following helps.

ynquirer has apparently given up trying to defend the claim that Tacitus would have called Pontius Pilate a procurator and gone off on a tangent about the etymology of "procurator".

spin (#158):
What is this "rank of curator"? The term "procurator" comes from the verb procuro (procurare), not from "curator" (given the model "consul -> proconsul" etc). Before Augustus, a procurator managed an estate. Augustus used the title for those who administered his finances in the imperial provinces. Claudius gave them legal power, that their decisions would have "the same force as his" (Tac. A. 12.60). That was when procurators had the power you want Pilate to have had as "procurator" under Tiberius. Procurators didn't have the power then and Pilate, as we know, was officially called a prefect.

ynquirer (#159):
Really? So you haven't heard of the Lex Plaetoria, have you? That is tantamount to saying that everything you have been writing here on "procurators" is mere hearsay.

spin (#160):
The role of a curator regards the tutelage of a minor or an imbecile. So, what is the "rank of a curator"??

ynquirer (#212):
This is basically the etymology I am supporting here: a procurator is someone that acts in the place of a curator, and the latter word heralds the former accordingly...

Furthermore, your bizarre etymology procurare -> procurator with no relationship to curator - the boot is on the other foot: cura + curo(are) + curator -> procurator + procura + procuro(are) - quite strongly suggests that you ignore basic Latin language, in addition to acknowledged ignorance of Roman law.

spin (#213):
You can happily argue that "procurare" is derived from "pro + curare", and I'd have to agree with you (as do Lewis and Short), but you strain yourself to claim without any foundation that "procurator" must be derived, not from the existent verb "procurare", but from "curator". Here Lewis and Short do not agree. Consult a few etymological dictionaries as well here and here. If the etymology is bizarre, then you'll have to take it up with the linguistic community. The very first website here google produced for "procurator" said: derived from the Latin verb procurare.

how many of the promagistrates you refer to can have their title derived from a verb as in the case of "procurator"?... If Plautus can use the verb "procuro", then the word is obviously old in the language. Promagistrates and their titles are as old as the earliest provinces. (Sicily was the first Roman province, 241 BCE.) The term "procurator" is not of origin related to provincial administration, so the analogy with provincial magistrates is inappropriate.

ynquirer (#216):
Mostly arguing the point that "procurare" comes from "curare".
But check it out.

So Chris, are you less confused now?


spin