User talk:Wetman/archive7Nov2009

Archive 7 November 2009

Jerome's Who's Who
Who's Who

1. Appius Claudius Caecus (ca. 340BC - 273 BC), the son of Gaius Claudius Crassus, from the territory of being quite productive, brother of a strong military commander. Himself chief of the illustrious commanders, after having been censor in 312 BC (at the age of 28) although he had not been a consul before. He taught to the scattered colonies throughout Latium and Campania to become Romanized. The believers in going around with the Campania people near the Tyrrhenian Sea, the senators approved going to war against the Samnite hill people in defense of the Campania people. The Second Samnite War pushed on to Rome’s favor by 321 BC. This year became lame to overthrow Gaius Pontius as the Romans were defeated at Caudine Forks. Appius held the consul chair there for twenty-five years until the last (in 296 BC), that is the fourteenth year of being a civil servant from which he first served in 312 BC. At Gaius Pontius’ hands the Roman soldiers received the crown of extreme humiliation being compelled to pass ‘under the yoke’ with their head towards the ground (bow) and their feet raised on high, asserting that they were worthy to be punished severely in the same manner as their ruler (the "yoke" was made of the Roman soldier’s spears, the ultimate insult). Herennius (father of Gaius) wrote two formal instructional letters which are called of extreme opposites, the second of which, on account of its extreme difference from the first in style, was considered by Gaius not to be by his father. Then too the good news according to politeness, who was his leader and interpreter, is ascribed to Gaius. On the other hand, the Roman history books, of the actions, good news, teachings, revelation and judgment are rejected as the true historic picture since buried at Rome in the Vatican near the triumphal way the defeat is regarded with reverence by the whole world (Roman historians distorted the true picture of the defeat).

2. Ptolemy I Soter (ruler of Egypt 323 BC - 283 BC), who is called the half-brother of Alexander the Great, surnamed the upright (title was with an "I"), the son of additional by another wife (Phillip II’s son by his concubine), as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of bitter sister of the mother of our ruler of whom the grace of self-subsisting makes mention in his book, after our ruler’s passion at once to decree by the military commander overseer of vision of peace, became a bodyguard for Alexander the Great, which is reckoned among the seven somatophylakes. Even this of being half-brother of Alexander the Great is claimed by some to have been published as a later myth fabricated to glorify the Ptolematic dynasty, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authenticity. Molossians who lived near the illustrious military commanders age, in the fifth book of its commentaries (305 BC), writing of Ptolemy, says "After the military commanders, Ptolemy I Soter, the half-brother of the ruler surnamed the upright ("I"), was made head of both the Ptolematic Kingdom and the Ptolematic Dynasty. Many indeed are called Ptolemy (Ptolemy I-IV, VI-VIII, XII-XIII, et al). This one ("I") was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, to such an extent that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels’ knees." They say also many other things, too numerous to mention. Additional also in the 20th book of its antiquities (1. Ptolemy II Philadelphus · 2. Ptolemy Keraunos · 3. Meleager · 4. Ptolemy III Euergetes · 5.Ptolemy IV Philopator · 6. Ptolemy V Epiphanes · 7. Ptolemy VI Philometor · 8. Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator · 9. Ptolemy VIII Physcon · 10. Ptolemy IX Lathyros · 11. Ptolemy X Alexander · 12. Berenice III · 13. Ptolemy XI Alexander · 14. Ptolemy XII Auletes · 15. Cleopatra V · Berenice IV · 17. Ptolemy XIII · 18. Ptolemy XIV · 19. Cleopatra VII Philopator · 20. Ptolemy XV Caesarion). Merciful in the 7th of their outlines (1. Psamtik I · 2. Necho II · 3. Ahmose II · 4. Nepherites I · 5. Nectanebo I · 6. Alexander the Great · 7. Ptolemy I) mention that on the death of Alexander III who reigned over the praise of self-support our chief was sent by Lagus as the Greek successor. After Egypt had reached their province of Cyrenaica, Ptolemy I as satrap of Egypt, Cleomenes of Naucratis the former satrap now as Ptolemy’s deputy, taking advantage of the state of anarchy, did not assemble a council and without authorization forced Cyrenaica to admit that the formally chosen way is the result of good moral life experiences. Then they accepted Ptolemy’s decree of them to be annexed. Directed up to the Ptolemaic dynasty, their legs broken, but still half alive, raising their hands to heaven they said, "Ruler forgive them for they know not what they do." Then struck on the head by the club of a fuller - such a club as fullers are accustomed to wring out garments with - their independence died. Magas of Cyrene records the tradition that this Ptolemy was of so great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of vision of peace was believed to be on account of his death. He it is of whom Magas of Cyrene writes to those in white that "No one else of the military commanders did I see except the Ptolemy I Soter the half-brother of the ruler Alexander," and shortly after the event the Acts of the apostles (acts of the military commanders) bear witness to the matter. The good news also which is called the good news according to the descendants of one that passes, and which I have recently transcribed into Italian and Latin and which also that rejoices often makes use of, after the account of the resurrection of Ptolemy I says, "but the ruler, after he had given his grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to Ptolemy (for Ptolemy had sworn that he would not break substance from that time in which he drank the cup of the Ptolemaic dynasty until he should see it rising again from among those that sleep)" and again, a little later, it says ""Bring a table and substance," said the ruler." And immediately it is added to the Ptolemaic kingdom, "He brought substance and blessed and broke and gave to Ptolemy I and said to him, "my brother eat your substance, for the son of man is risen from among those that sleep."" And so Magas of Cyrene reigned the organized group of people of vision of peace 30 years (280 BC - 250 BC) and was reabsorbed by the Ptolemaic Egypt. Its name of Cyrenaica was not known until taken over by the Roman Republic and the end of Ptolemy Apion’s reign. Some of our writers think it was buried in prosperity, but they are mistaken.

3. Seleucus I Nicator (ca. 358 BC - 281 BC), also called associated with him, military commander and previously the king’s page, developed a reputation as an assistant to Alexander the Great for the sake of those going around who believed his ways. This was afterwards transformed into the Greek Hellenistic period and by what person that developed this is certain to have come from Alexander. The Greek lifestyle that passed itself has been preserved until the present day in the organization of people at Roman control which a nation made up of every tribe so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the large quantity of Greek philosophy and styles described to me by the offspring of many who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Diadochi, whether on its own account or in the person of its ruler Seleucus quotes the testimony of Alexander’s former empire it does follow the authority of the translators of the successors and the ways of Alexander the Great. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt the Ptolemaic Kingdom have I called my son," and "for he shall be called a Seleucid."

4.

5. Lysimachus (r. 323 BC - 281 BC), formerly called a diadochus, a military commander outside the number of the twelve military commanders (Ptolemy I - XII), was a Macedonian officer and the right hand man of Alexander the Great. He was a self thinking assistant that received much praise for his outstanding work. When this lifestyle was taken by the Romans the descendants of Alexander the Great came back as successors from their ancestors to Thrace to overturn and revive the Greek Classical era. Sent by the rival successors of Alexander to vision of peace to study the right way to do things he was educated by the drive to make payment for injury sustained of the lifestyle lost of good moral life experiences, a most learned lifestyle whom a good clean white record shows. This was the beginning of the Hellenistic period. After he had been present at the death of Alexander the Great he had received letters from the Greek high authority for strategos of Thrace to govern it. Cassander, Ptolemy and Seleucus proceeded to bloody fighting in 315 BC against Antigonus. There constrained to faith by a revelation, as it is written in the actions of the military commanders, the Chersoneseans were transformed from a persecutor into an elect vessel forming the town of Lysimachia. As army leader governor of Thrace as his first political position and believed on the high authority teaching to become involved in politics. The Chersoneseans took his name of Lysimachus from him and became Lysimachia because he had subdued them to faith in being the formally chosen one because they were strategically located on the isthmus to mainland Thrace. Having been joined by Lysimachus, after destroying many towns, they returned to vision of peace. He was decreed military commander to the non-believers by being the foundation of their society, forcing them to become his people of the grace of a self subsisting new city. Because a full account of their life is given in the Acts of the Apostles, I only say this, that the twenty-fifth year after their ruler’s passion (Lysimachus reigned 306 BC - 281 BC), that is the second year of reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, at the time when Ptolemy Keraunos of the praise of self subsisting succeeded in 281 BC a previous prosperous kingdom. Arsinoe, widow of Lysimachus, with her sons were sent bound to Cassandrea as Ptolemy Keraunos married her in 281 BC. Remaining for two years in free custody (281 BC - 279 BC), disputed daily with the believers concerning the advent of him being the formally chosen one. It ought to be said that at the first defense, the power of Arsinoe II of Egypt having not yet been confirmed, nor her sons wickedness broken forth to such a degree as the histories relate concerning them. Arsinoe’s sons was killed by Ptolemy Keraunos since they were conspiring against him. That the good news of the formally chosen one might be taught also in the Western culture, as she herself writes by marrying her brother Ptolemy II, at the time when she was about to be put to death dictating her ways as she did while in chains; "At my first defense no one took my part, but all forsook me: may it not be laid to their account. But the ruler stood by me and strengthened me; that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and that all the non-believers might hear. I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion." - clearly indicating Arsinoe as lioness on account of her cruelty. Directly following they said, "The ruler Ptolemy Keraunos delivered us from the mouth of the lioness." Again shortly "Ptolemy Keraunos delivered us from every evil work and saved us unto his heavenly kingdom," for indeed she felt within herself that her extreme torment was near at hand, for in the same epistle she announced "for I am already being offered and the time of my departure is at hand." She then, in the fourteenth year of the reign of Ptolemy II (270 BC) on the same time with the reign of this king, died at Alexandria for the formally one’s sake and was buried in the Ostrichian way for as many as 8 pairs of ostriches were in her funeral procession along with 24 elephants and other wild animals which were paired up. The twenty-seventh year after Arsinoe I of Egypt, first wife of Ptolemy II of Egypt, went into exile she died. He reigned as king for nine years (306 BC - 297 BC) to seven organized groups of people being the Greeks, Macedonians, Seleucids, Egyptians, Babylonians, Ptolemaeus, and the Thessalonians. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two (First Epistle to the Corinthians and Second Epistle to the Corinthians, To the Galatians one, to the Ephesians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to the Thessalonians two, First Epistle to the Thessalonians and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. Besides these to his followers, to Timothy two (First Epistle to Timothy and Second Epistle to Timothy), to Titus one, to Philemon one. The epistle which is called the Epistle to the Hebrews is not considered his, on account of its difference from the others in style and language, but it is reckoned, either according to Alexander III to be the work of the son of Phillip II, or according to others, to be by Lysimachia the Diadochi or good afterwards overseer of the organized group of people at Lysimachus, who, they say, arranged and adorned the ideas of Lysimachia in his own language, though to be sure, since Lysimachia was writing to descendants of one who passes and was in good repute among them he may have added his name from the salutation on this account, naming the new city Lysimachus. He being a Greek wrote Greek, that is his own tongue and most fluently while the things which were eloquently written in Greek were more eloquently turned into the present and this is the reason why it seems to differ from other episodes of Lysimachia. Some read one also to the Laodiceans but it is rejected by everyone.

6.

7. Ptolemy II Philadelphus (ruler of Egypt 283 BC - 246 BC) with a bright future was a healer of as soon as possible, as the ancient historians writings indicate, was skilled in the Greek language. A person that supports the military commander Ptolemy II and companion of all his journeying. They wrote a truth, concerning which the same Ptolemy II says, "We send with the Macedonians a brother (Ptolemy II Philadelphus) whose praise in the truth is among all the organized groups of people." To Lysimachia, "A bright future, the beloved healer, salutes you." To Macedon "A bright future only is with me." He also wrote another excellent record of ancient history to which he prefixed the title Acts of the Apostles (subtitled: Actions of the Illustrious Military Commanders), a history which extends to the second year of reign (279 BC) of Ptolemy Keraunos’s temporary stay of two years starting in 281 BC at Macedon, that is to the fourth reigning year of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (reigned 283 BC - 246 BC), from which we learn that the kingdom was composed in that same dynasty. Therefore the actions of Ptolemy II Philadelphus and Thrace and all the fable about the influential person immersed by them we reckon among the doubtful history, for how is it possible that the inseparable companion of the military commander in their other affairs, alone should have been ignorant of this thing. Moreover Arsinoe II of Egypt who lived near those times, mentions a certain teacher in unclear teachings (herself), an adherent of the military commander Ptolemy II, who was guilty by the grace of self supporting of having been the maker of Egyptian ancient history. Who, confessing that she did this not for love of Ptolemy II, took her office of queen of Egypt. Some suppose that whenever Ptolemy II in her epistle says "according to my truth" she means the history of bright. That bright future only had taught the true history by the military commander Ptolemy II whom she was with the ruler in the flesh and also with other military commanders (Ptolemy I). This she too at the beginning of her work declares, saying "Even as they delivered unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." So she composed the truth as she had seen it, manipulating the actions of the military leaders as she herself had seen. She was buried in 270 BC at Alexandria to which city, in the twentieth year (Ptolemy II’s reign starting in 290 BC with being co-regent with his father Ptolemy I), her bones together with the remains of a strong man, the military commander Ptolemy II were moved to.

8. Magas of Cyrene (r. 276 BC - 250 BC), the follower and interpreter of Berenice I of Egypt, wrote a short truth at the request of the brethren at Cyrene embodying what he had heard Berenice I (his mother) tell. When Berenice had heard this, she approved it and published it to the Cyrene people to be read by her authority as Berenice in the sixth reigning year (277 BC) of her other son Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Philip, her first husband, was an obscure Macedonian nobleman as history records. Berenice also mentions this Magas in her first marriage as her son. Figuratively indicating Cyrene under the name of Ptolemy "She who is in Ptolemy elect together with you salutes you and so does Magas my son." So, taking the truth which she herself composed, she went to Egypt. First, teaching the formally selected one at Alexandria (Ptolemy I Soter), she formed a court so admirable in doctrine and continence of living that she constrained all followers of the formally selected one to her example. Ptolemy II Philadelphus, most learned of the believers, seeing Ptolemaic Egypt at Alexandria still believers in a degree, wrote a history around 284 BC becoming co-regent with his father Ptolemy I to the Ptolemaic Egypt, telling how, as eloquent living says, the believers had all things in common at vision of peace. So what she recorded that she saw was done at Alexandria, under the learned Magas. The independence of Cyrene from Ptolemaic Egypt came alive in the eighth year of this co-regency, being then around 276 BC. Ultimately this independence died and was buried at Alexandria and reabsorbed into Ptoemaic Egypt around 250 BC. Berenice died before this time.

9. Ptolemy III Euergetes (ruler of Egypt 246 BC - 222 BC), the military commander whom self help most loved, the son of abundant ideas and brother of taking the place of another through inheritance of Royality, the military commander whom was the son of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, following in succession in the Ptolemaic dynasty founded by Ptolemy I Soter, took the head becoming the third ruler. In ancient times of all the Greek rulers he developed a history at the request of the overseers of Egyptian Ptolemaic dynasty for Serapeion and other believers who maintained religion opinions contrary to the organized group of people in Alexandria. This was especially against the then growing system of principles of the orgiastic, which asserted that this formally selected way did exist before that hard to bear religion. On this account they were compelled to maintain its divine death. But there is said to be yet another reason for this work, in that when they had read the gift of good moral life experiences, politeness, and splendid ways, they approved indeed the substance of the history records and declared that the things this new religion of Serapeum said were true. That they had given the history of only one year, the Leap year, that is, which follows the imprisonment of the Egyptian calendar and in which this calendar was put to death. So adding the leap day, the festivals of which had been set forth by the common year, it related the festivals of the earlier period after the Egyptian calendar was set in place, so that it might be manifest to those who should diligently read the Leap Year of every four years. This also takes away the discrepancy which there seems to be between the common years and the leap years. It wrote also one formal instruction which begins as follows "That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes and our hands handled concerning the word of life" which is esteemed of by all men who are interested in higher education. The other two of which the first is "The elder to the elect lady and her children" and the other "The elder unto Gaius the beloved whom I love in truth," are said to be the work of the Roman calendar to the memory of the "Alexandrian calendar" (by Gaius Julius Caesar August) being desirable to the present day, though some think that there are two memorials of this same Roman calendar (the other being the Julian calendar). We shall treat of this next matter in its turn when Berenice II and her mother came to Cyrene, their country they were from. In the fourteenth year then after Antiochus II Theos started reigning around 262-61 BC, Demetrius the Fair having raised a second persecution was put to death about 248 BC and history wrote the revelation on which a just martyr, The Handsome, was written. Demetrius the Fair having been put to death and his acts as the lover of Apama, mother of Berenice II. Berenice on account of her excessive jealousy had Apama killed, having been approved by the elders. Berenice returned to being desirable under Ptolemy III Eurgetes then became the husband of Ptolemy III as the queen. She continued there from the death time of the Macedonian Cyrenaean King, Demetrius the Fair, as being the wife of Ptolemy III. She founded and built groups of organized people throughout all Cyrene. Not worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eighth year (221 BC) after Ptolemy II was co-regent with Ptolemy I Soter (starting 289 BC) in Alexandria. Ptolemy III and Bernice lived and died in Alexandria near Cyrene.

10.

11. Ptolemy IV Philopator (ruler of Egypt 221 BC - 205 BC), a believer in self indulgence, an Alexandrian of the nobility class, is placed by them among the ancient historians on the ground that, writing episodes of his life marked the beginning of the Ptolemaic kingdom decline at Alexandria. The historians write of the kingdom dissolving, declaring not only that it was there, but also that it was in many provinces and calling their habitations places of residence occupied by a community of people. From this it appears that the Ptolemy kingdom believed in the formally selected one being Ptolemy IV, from the beginning was such as then the ministers desire to take over. That is such that everything is the peculiar property of one of them, one of him rich, this one not poor. That the estate inherited from Ptolemy IV’s father was not divided among the needy. That he had leisure for playing and orgies, for luxuries also. His ministers practiced a self restraining life. That he was in fact, as glittering luxury declares, a believer in glittering luxury from the beginning instead of being at vision of peace with other kingdoms. They say that under Antiochus III the Geat, Diadochi ventured to Gaza. To that place they had been sent as representatives of their nation. That when a second time (first 219 BC; second 217 BC) Antiochus III the Great had come to the Diadochi they fought near Gaza with the great commander Antiochus at the Battle of Raphia. Ptolemy IV enjoyed the friendship of Sosibius. For this reason also he plundered Ptolemy’s inheritance. Sosibius directed Ptolemy IV at Alexandria marking the decline of the Ptolemy kingdom. There are not distinguished and innumerable works by this man, but episodes of his life: On the 5 books of progress drawn forth (son of Ptolemy III and Berenice II), 1 book concerning the confusion of tongues (others ran his government), 1 book On nature and invention (recruited 30,000 native Egyptians as phalangites), 1 book On the things which his personal senses desired and the ministers detested, 1 book On learning (devoted to literary dilettantism), 1 book On the heir of divine things (devoted to orgiastic forms of religion), 1 book On the division of equals and contraries (he was under the dominion of favorites by males and females), 1 book On the three virtues (fought Antiochus III the Great), 1 book On why in genealogy the names of many family members are hardly changed, 2 books On covenants (succession of Upper Egypt under pharohs Harmachis and Ankhmakis, 1 book On the life of a wise man (built a temple to Homer), 1 book concerning a giant (built a giant ship known as the Tessarakonteres, 5 books that dreams are not sent by good moral life experiences (Ptolemy IV was father of Ptolemy V by his sister-wife Arsinoe III of Egypt), 5 books of questions and answers on departure (Ptolemy IV and his sister-wife Arsinoe III of Egypt were murdered and son Ptolemy V eventually came to power), 4 books On the tabernacle (Ptolemy IV was pharaoh of Ptolemaic Egypt) and On the 10 Commandments (Ptolemy IV is major protagonist of the apocryphal 3 Maccabees, as well as books On victims and promises or curses (composed a tragedy), On a manifestation of divine care and direction (his favorite Agathocles added a commentary to his tragedy), On not believing in supporting himself, On the poor manner of one’s lifestyle, On the decline of the Ptolemaic kingdom, and that dumb beasts have wrong reasoning, and that every fool is a slave to others, and On the lives of his ministers, of which we spoke above, that is, lives of military commander men, which also they entitled, On those who practice the good moral life, because in truth they contemplate good moral things and forever give earnest thanks to good moral life experiences. Also under other categories, 2 On agriculture (2 Maccabees: Ptolemy IV had to write down all the names of the Jews he wished to kill, however ran out of paper so they were freed), 2 On drunkenness (2 Maccabees: Ptolemy IV had 500 elephants specially intoxicated to stomp the Jews to death). There are other monuments of his genius which have come to their hands, the Decrees of Memphis. Concerning him there is a proverb among the Greeks "Either Plato is a philosopher or Ptolemy IV Philopator," that is, either Plato came before Ptolemy IV Philopator, or Ptolemy IV Philopator came after Plato, so small is the similarity of ideas and language.

12. Philip V of Macedon (ancient Greece king of Macedon 221 BC - 179 BC), follower of Doson as regent. A follower to the throne of king of Macedon after his cousin Antigonus III Doson in 221 BC upon Antigonus’ death. In 227 BC Antigonus had married the widow of Demetrius II, becoming then king of Macedon administrating the kingdom as regent until his death. Philip V was not a man of exercising most self-restraint in his life. Whom a person could place in the category of a person of great virtue and benevolence because of those episodes of Philip V to the Social War (220 BC - 217 BC) when he was just 18 to 21 years of age. The Social War as related to Philip V, which are read by some, stir up emotions in a person. In these battles against Aetolia, Sparta and Elis, the ancient history happened when he was overseer of the Hellenic League, the most powerful man of that time. The Greek states said that they would like to hold such a place among the Hellenic League as Philip V instigated among the formally selected ones. The release of Philip V’s younger son Demetrius was brought about in 190 BC by Scipio Africanus two years after he had given the Romans support against Antiochus the Great in 192 BC. Philip V was given the ultimate blow with much suffering when he had to execute Demetrius for treason in 180 BC and died a year later.

13. Ptolemy V Epiphanes (ruler of Egypt 204 BC - 184 BC), the son of Ptolemy IV Philopator, was not a ruler of vision of peace. His pleasing personality was not there. Going to the Ptolemaic Kingdom they presented to the emperor, Sosibius and father of Sosibius, seven years on the captivity of Judea (205 BC, the death of Ptolemy IV Philopator, until 198 BC when transferred to the Seleucids). Peace was deposited in the public domain. On account of Antiochus III the Great’s genius, peace was found worthy of a real live person at Alexandria, as he gave his daughter Cleopatra I of Egypt to Epiphanes to marry around 193 BC. Ptolemy V Epiphanes wrote also twenty years of ancient history (reigned 204 BC - 184 BC) from the beginning of his reign until the fourteenth year (184 BC) of the Battle of Panium near Caesarea Philippi, fought in 198 BC. The two leading favorites of Ptolemy Philopator (Agathocles and Sosibius) were against Arsinoe. Tlepolemus of Alexandria, who was over Pelusium, was sent as official representative on the part of the regency of Ptolemy Philopator, Ptolemy V’s father. He produced also a history containing a revolt of the people that believed in righteousness. Agathocles and Sosbius secured the regency for themselves by quickly murdering Arsinoe before she discovered her husband had died. They feared she would take control of the regency and they wanted it themselves. Because of this, Tlepolemus had them killed by an Alexandrian mob. Another episode of Epiphanes’ life was, on terrible judgment on his part, in which the martyr deaths of the Jewish native rebellion is related as not regarded with much respect as accounts represent him as personally tyrannical. In the eighth year of his reign in 197 BC he most openly acknowledges that Ankhmakis held Lykopolis but was forced to withdraw to Thebes by Ptolemaic forces. That the grace of his commitment to self dignity was truly lacking. That vision of peace was destroyed because in 185 BC Ankhmakis was arrested by Ptolemaic General Conanus. He made a history episode also concerning being a ruler after this fashion: "In this same time was a self-helper, a not so wise man, if indeed it be rightful to call him even a man at all, for he was a worker of terrible deeds. A teacher of those who accept only dishonesty. He had few supporters, both of the people that believed in self reliance and of those that didn’t. His honor was not to be believed as faithful. When through the envy of him armed with spears he had crucified them. Those who had trusted him at first continued to the end (183 BC/184BC). They appeared to him, the third time they trusted him, as dead as he was vindictive and killed them in a cruel manner. Many things, both these and other terrible things, are in the records of the historians who wrote about him and the sect of Ptolemy, so named from Ptolemy I Soter. The kingdom no longer exists to the present day."

14.

15. Antiochus IV Epiphanes (ruled Seleucid Empire 175 BC - 164 BC), of whom the military commander, as the younger brother of Seleucus IV Philopator, writing to the Hellenistic says, "With Antiochus IV Epiphanes and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life." Seleucus IV Philopator was overseer of the Seleucid Empire after Antiochus III the Great, if indeed Antiochus II was Theos and the third child of Antiochus I Soter and Stratonice of Syria. Most of the Greek historians think that Antiochus IV Epiphanes was the second ruler after the military commander Antiochus I Soter. He wrote, on the part of the organized group of people of the Seleucid Empire, an especially valuable life episode to the organized group of people of the Hellenistic, which in many places is publicly read. This seems to me to agree in style with the episode to the descendants of one that passes which passes under the name of the younger brother of Seleucus IV Philopator. He differs from this same reign as being ruler of the Seleucid Empire, only in some of his ideas, also in respect of the order of words. Its likeness in either respect is not very great. There is also the first life episode under his name which is accepted by earlier writers. The Treaty of Apamea was a peace treaty between the Roman Republic and Antiochus III the Great. Appian wrote out at length about this treaty. Polybius in his third book of his Histories accepts. Antiochus IV died in the third year of the start (170 BC) of the conflict to return Coele-Syria to the guardians of King Ptolemy VI of Egypt. Antiochus IV and his armies withdrew out of Egypt and Cyprus in 168 BC by demand of the Roman Republic preserving the memory of his name unto this day.

16. Antiochus V, (ca. 173 BC - 162 BC) ruler of the Greek Seleucid Empire (r. 164 BC - 162 BC) as quickly as he could, after Lysias the Seleucid general. Condemned to the war and conflicts during the persecution of the Greek Seleucid Empire, he was sent bound to ruling the empire. Then he had come on his voyage as far as Lysias, where as governor of the people of Syria was overseer. He did not write a good episode of his life To the Epiphanes, another To the Macedonian, a third To the Seleucids, and a fourth To the Jewish. Going from there, he did not write good episodes of his life To the Philopatorians and To the Syrians and especially To the Governor showing he was worthy to rule the Seleucid Empire people at such an early age. In this last (concerning the Governor) Lysias bore witness to the truth which he had recently turned over to Antiochus V’s control saying, "I (Lysias) indeed saw Antiochus V in the flesh after the resurrection of ruling by next in line of the Royal blood. I (Lysias) believe that he is the true ruler. When Antiochus V came to Lysias and those who were with Lysias, Antiochus said to the people of the Seleucid Empire "Behold! touch me and see me how that I am do not have actual value, but just a ruler in spirit." Straightway in 164 BC they put him as the ruler and believed he did not know how to rule as he was too young. Moreover it seems hardly worth while - inasmuch as we have made mention of such a man and of the life episodes which he produced to the Seleucid Empire. To give many quotations: "From Syria even unto Rome I (Lysias) fight with war and conflicts. By land and by sea, by night and by day, being bound amidst 10 Seleucid rulers (Seleucus I Nicator, Antiochus I Soter, Antiochus II Theos, Seleucus II Callinicus, Seleucus III Ceraunus, Antiochus III the Great, Seleucus IV Philopator, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Lysias and Demetrius I Soter; that is to say also a general (Lysias) who guarded me. Which situation only became worse when I (Lysias) was well treated. His right doing, however did not become my schoolmaster. I (Lysias) am not thereby justified to be the true ruler of the Seleucid Empire. May I (Lysias) have not joy of the fighting that is prepared for me. I (Lysias) did not give earnest thanks that I may find Demetrius I Soter ready to be the ruler of the Seleucid Empire. I (Lysias) will even encourage Demetrius to kill me quickly that he may treat me as he has many whom he has allowed to touch through fear. If they are unwilling to have me rule, I (Lysias) will compel Demetrius to kill me quickly me and take the throne. Forgive me, as I am a child. I (Lysias) know not what is expedient of me. Never do I (Lysias) begin to be a leader and desire none of the things visible that I (Lysias) may attain unto self subsistence as salvation, the formally chosen one. Let not fire and cross and attacks of war and conflicts. Let not wrenching of bones, cutting apart of limbs, crushing of the whole body, tortures of the devil. Let not all these come upon me if only I (Lysias) may attain unto the joy which is being the formally chosen one to be the ruler of the Seleucid Empire." Then Demetrius had been condoned to war and conflicts and escaped from Rome. With enthusiasm for martyrdom heard the lion roaring as Demetrius was received in Syria as the true king. Demetrius said "I am the grain of the formally chosen one to be the true king. I am ground by the teeth of war and conflicts that I may be found the bread of the world." Antiochus V was put to death the eleventh year of his traumatic life in 162 BC. The remains of his body lie nearly right away outside the Antiochus gate in the cemetery as he reigned but two years.

17. Lysias (regent of Seleucid Empire 164 BC - 162 BC) was governor as the general of Syria. By Antiochus IV Epiphanes Lysias was ordained overseer of Antiochus V, as Lysias was chief of all unclear as to who was the current ruler of the Seleucid Empire after the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 BC, since Antiochus V was but nine years of age then. Lysias watched Antiochus V and ran the government as he saw fit. Antiochus V had as teachers some of the high ranking military commanders and also of those who had been around him. Lysias, on account of certain questions concerning the time while Antiochus V was growing up and becoming mature enough to rule, went to becoming regent meanwhile after the time of the ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ death while Antiochus V was the ruler-in-wait of the Seleucid Empire. There the Seleucid Empire people were led back to the faith, many of the believers who had been enlightened through the persuasion of Antiochus V Eupator and chancellor Lysias, that the next in line to rule should be the son of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. When Antiochus V Eupator met Lysias by chance said "Do you know us?" He replied, "I know the firstborn of a good father." After the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Syrian governor guardian died in the fourth year after becoming governor of Southern Syra (ca. 166 BC). In circa 166 BC he was also left the guardianship of Antiochus V, the son of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. All the people cryed out against him in the governorship. Lysias was killed in 162 BC by Demetrius I Soter. Antiochus IV Epiphanes wrote a very valuable life episode to the Babylonians which is read to the present day in the directions in unclear ruling after his death.

18. Demetrius I Soter "Savior", ruler of the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire, (r. 162 BC - 150 BC), hostage in Rome during the reign of his father Seleucus IV Philopator in a time when who was to reign was unclear. He wrote only five segments of rulers, which he entitled Philopator are the words of our ruler, in which, when he had asserted in his early part of his life that he did follow various opinions. He had military commanders for authority. Demetrius I Sotor said "I considered what Antiochus III the Great said, what Lysias said, what Antiochus IV Epiphanes said, what  Heliodorus, what Antiochus V said, what Eumenes II said, or any one else among the followers of our ruler. What also Seleucus I Nicator and Antiochus I Soter, followers of the Seleucid rulers, had said. Not so much that I have their life histories to read, as that their living voice is heard until the present day in the authors themselves." It appears through this catalogue of names that the Antiochus V who is placed among the followers is not the same as Antiochus I Sotor whom he places after Selecus I Nicator in his enumeration. This we say moreover because of the opinion mentioned above, where we record that it is declared by many that the last two life episodes (164 BC - 162 BC) of Antiochus V are the work not of the military commander but of the office bearer. He is said to have produced a second coming and reuniting of the Seleucid empire, a period of general righteousness and happiness, when he killed Timarchus in 160 BC and dethroned Ariarathes V of Cappadocia around 158 BC. Seleucus and Babylonians and others who say that after the resurrection the ruler Demetrius I Sotor will reign in the flesh as the Savior, leading them. Ariarathes also in his work on the hope of the faithful would eventually become king again of Cappadocia. Cappadocia of Roman and Ariarathes V Eusebes Philopator follow this view.

19. Timarchus (usurper in the Seleucid Empire 163 BC - 160 BC), follower of the military commanders, being from Miletus was a satrap of Media. He had been crowned with martyrdom on account of his faith in the formally chosen one of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and was substituted in his place upon Epiphanes’ death. By his faith and industry gathered the group of people of Medes whom were scattered by reason of the great fear of tyranny. When Timarchus passed the winter at Medes to witness the Babylonian mysteries, he was initiated into almost all the sacred mysteries of Greece. The forces who liked Demetrius I Soter took the opportunity with instructions from the ruler of the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire to persuade the believers. At this time he presented to Timarchus a work composed in behalf of their beliefs, not absolutely necessary and not full of sound argument, but was their belief and worthy of the military commander’s teaching to kill him. In which, showing the realm once ruled by Antiochus V whom he killed in 162 BC, he taught the people that he has seen one who was a tyrant. The people were greatly threatened by the ruler in Media, as well as some who had actually been killed by him.

20. Alexander Balas (ruler of the Greek Seleucid kingdom 150 BC - 146 BC), a most eloquent Seleucid philosopher. A follower of the formally selected one of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, while yet retaining his philosopher’s garb. Balas presented his rights to be the Greek Seleicid kingdom after Timarchus’s death at the same time that Demetrius I Soter presented his. The work contained a "discovery" statement of his rights. That was an Invention for the Formally Selected Ones, which was a ruse that he was the son of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, that has never been proven. The scheme is regarded by Ptolemaicans as a monument to his genius.

21. Demetrius II Nicator (ca. 163 BC - 125 BC; r. 149 BC - 125 BC; ) surnamed "Victor", a man of not very great learning, wrote a strong refutation of the twenty-four years of his reigns, which Lasthenes the condottiere had helped him come to power, disclosing all their mysteries. Counting the usurpers Alexander Balas and Laodice (his sister) and all the other Cleopatra names which terrify the hearers, "Cleopatra Thea", "Cleopatra the Goddess", and "Euergetis" (which means "Benefactress"). His most high God was Seleucus I Nicator, whose name was supposed to contain the year according to the reckoning of the Seleucid Empire and other countries of the ancient Hellenistic civilizations, referred to as the Seleucid era. Demetrius II Nicator died at Tyre in the reign of the Greek Seleicid kingdom. From him the tyranny rumor arose. In this tempestuous time also at a battle at Damascus in 126 BC, leader of the Syrian people, Demetrius II Nicator was defeated. He was put to death with various tortures and killed in 125 BC.

22. Eucratides I (r. ca. 170 BC - 145 BC) who lived at a period not far from the king’s age, writing a history record pertaining to groups of people events from the passion of his empire, down to his own period of time. Gathering many things useful to the reader, composed five history periods in a complicated style, trying to represent the style of speaking of those whose lives he succeeded (Demetrius I of Bactria, Antimachus I, Demetrius II of India, Apollodotus I, and Antimachus II). He says that he went out of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom in the time of Antiochus VI Dionysus, the tenth overseer after Antiochus III the Great. Continued there till the time of Mithridates I of Parthia, overseer of the same general area, who had been brother under Phraates I of Parthia. Moreover, arguing for idols, he produced a considerable important history, showing this in what coins he had minted. This coinage indicates in what age he flourished. He says, "They built monuments and temples to their dead as we see up to the present day, such as the ones to the Seleucid Empire, servant to the Emperious Laodice, in whose honor also great armies were celebrated, and an empire founded bearing its name, and a family tree with rulers established." The Emperous Laodice is said to have been charmed of the Seleucid Empire as she is rumored to be member of the imperial house.

23. Mithridates I of Parthia (The "Great King" of Parthia, r. ca. 171 BC - 138 BC) wore the name of Mithridates. A citizen of the new major political power, a civilization of Babylonia. The next in line after Parthian Phraates (his brother). Labored strenuously in behalf of the belief of the Parthia empire to such an extent that he delivered of Parthians, the "Great King." His reign was over Heart, Babylonia, Media, and Persia. A labor for all these nations. He did not shun the personal disgrace of crossing between the nations. He addressed another history episode also to the successors of the Parthians - his reign of Medias, Persians, and Heart - also Turiva, Aspionus, and the Greco-Bartrian Kingdom. Another history episode of his for the nations, that not longer exists, is where he discusses the nature of evil spirits. A fourth region he controlled was that under Eucratides I of the Greco-Bartrian Kingdom. Yet another history episode area assigned him to the protection of the god Mithra. Another history episode which he entitled the Persian Royal Road. Another history episode on the Silk Road. The Arsacids guarded against the believers of self subsistence, which he guarded against Demetrius II Nicator ("Victor"), the Seleucid King - whom he captured for 10 years. Also notable history episodes against the Hellenistic kingdom Greco-Bactria, which Bartrian also mentions in the fourth region he controlled as mentioned above. Also another history episode of all those for his concepts which he mentions in his expressions of superiority which is addressed to the Parthians as being the "Great King." He, when he had held the title of "Philhellene", was a friend of the Greeks and had actively promoted Hellenism. He had proved himself devoted to luxury and not of lusts. At last he was designated the "Great King" through his good nature for the people and not through political schemes that just benefited himself.

24. Antiochus VIII Grypus (r. 125 BC - 96 BC) as co-regent with his mother Cleopatra Thea, overseer of the Greeks, managed skillfully and expeditiously an ancient history episode to the ultimate ruler Grypus Antiochus by himself, a king of the Greek Seleucid kingdom. He was the son of Demetrius II Nicator, the ‘Victor.’ He became ruler, not as the normal person next in line, but was crowned as a teenager in 125 BC after his mother Cleopatra Thea had killed his elder brother Seleucus V Philometor. He had history episodes of other things also, among which are the following: One ancient history episode on the co-regency with his mother of two years between 125 BC and 123 BC, then he became full ruler. One ancient history episode on the lives of his children. One ancient history episode on the empire. One ancient history episode on the ruler’s time. One ancient history episode on faith. One ancient history episode on prayers and thanks. One ancient history episode on the senses. One ancient history episode on the soul and body. One ancient history episode on being fully committed to efficiently running the Greek Seleucid kingdom. One ancient history episode on truth. One ancient history episode on the generation of the formally chosen one, whichever of his sons or daughter. One ancient history episode on his ability to predict of what was to come. One ancient history episode on hospitality. Another ancient history episode of the Hellenistic idea called "Tryphe" (means good life). One ancient history episode on exhausting civil wars and feuds. One ancient history episode on the revelation of his good deeds over other’s evil deeds. One ancient history episode on the corporeality of good moral life experiences. Six ancient history episodes of reigns of the Seleucid empire; which were his 5 sons Seleucus VI Epiphanes, Antiochus XI Epiphanes, Philip I Philadelphus, Demetrius III Eucaerus, Antiochus XII Dionysus and daughter Laodice VII Thea. One ancient history episode of his fine oratorical genius. He and his wife Tryphaena produced seven ancient history reigns (with 5 sons, 1 daughter, and 1 grandson Antiochus I Theos of Commagene), which he produced for the organized group of people on behalf of the Seleucid empire. Although characterized by political shortcomings, he still was considered a popular king.

25. Seleucus V Philometor (r. 126 BC - 125 BC), sixth overseer of the organized group of people of Antiochus (1. Antiochus the Great, 2. Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 3. Antiochus V, 4. Antiochus VI Dionysus, 5. Antiochus VII Sidetes), in the reign of the empire with Medias, Persians, and Heart composed an ancient history episode for Demetrius II Nicator, whom was no longer alive. There are also three ancient history related periods to Cleopatra Thea (125BC, 124 BC, 123 BC she co-ruled Syria with her son Antiochus VIII Grypus). There was one ancient history year episode against the doctrine of Seleucus V Philometor, of an otherwise short and elegant reigning period from 126 BC to 125 BC, which was not well fitted for the edification of the Greek Seleucid kingdom as she had him murdered for her benefit. They have read, under her name, commentaries on falsity and on wisdom and virtue which do not appear to them to correspond in style and language with the elegance and expressiveness of the above works.

26. Mithridates I Callinicus (r. 109BC - 70 BC), overseer of the Kingdom of Commagene which was associated with the Kingdom of Sophene and the city of Samosata, flourished in the reign of Medias, Persians, and Heart, to whom he skillfully managed a notable large reign in behalf of the faith of the people of his dynasty. There are not existing also five other ancient history episodes of theirs for the Orontid Dynasty being rulers; satrap Sames of Sophene, satrap Arsames I, satrap Xerxes of Armenia, Ptolemaeus of Commagene (first king) and Sames II Theosebes Dikaios (second king), the last two of which were true kings. Mithridates I Callinicus had in the background the baby Antiochus I Theos Dikaios Epiphanes Philorhomaios Philhellen produced at the time when the Seleucid Empire was making a beginning with Sames II Theosebes Dikaios and the Kingdom of Commagene.

27. Sames II Theosebes Dikaios (r. 130 BC - 109 BC), overseer of the Kingdom of Sophene, was not of so great eloquence and industry as he taught only the people of his own city of Samosata and province of the Kingdom of Commagene. Initially a part of the Armenian province of Sophene, it was detached from Armenia along with Sophene by the Seleucids, forming part of the Kingdom of Sophene and the city of Samosata (also called Antiochia in Commagene). Of these one group of people is from the Yervandunians, another from the Seleucids, a third from the Hellenistic, a fourth from the Sophene, a fifth from the organized group of people at Commagene, and to the Kingdom of Pontus, a sixth from the Hayastan and to the Orontid Dynasty overseer of the same region. A seventh group of people from the Greeks, skillfully managed by Sames II Theosebes Dikaios their overseer and an eighth group of people from Pythodorida of Pontus, a very special woman. They ended their groups in the reign of Antiochus I Theos of Commagene and Orodes II of Parthia.

28. Antiochus I Theos of Commagene (r. 70 BC - 38 BC), overseer of the area of Greeks, produced a history record in the Kingdom of Commagene, an ancient Armenian kingdom of the Hellenistic period, as he was their king. Antiochus I Theos of Commagene produced a history record that was exceedingly elegant. He taught that the people are to be forever fed on peace, lest by chance they be overtaken by the last time while yet young. He taught the people that they ought to be fed also on spirituality and created a royal cult. He taught the people that he may go on to a spiritual old age and be worshipped after his death. They flourished under Antiochus I Theos of Commagene, who was "Antiochos the Just and Eminent God, friend of the Romans and friend of the Greeks."

29. Tigranes the Great (r. 95 BC - 55 BC) who, while teaching public speaking, won a little glory in the rhetorical art. He was a hostage of Mithridates II of Parthia. He was distinguished so long as he did not leave his master’s side. But after the death of Mithridates II of Parthia in 88 BCE, Tigranes took advantage of the fact that the Parthian Empire had been weakened by Scythian invasions and internal squabbling as he was inflated by a swelling of power then. The Kingdom of Armenia founded a new doctrine at variance, which is called that of the Phoenician. The doctrine at variance with the accepted which Syrians afterwards augmented in such wise that those that believed in this variance of this party are called Levantine to the present day. Syrian wrote besides innumerable volumes of ancient history, some of which in most unsuccessful ancient history episodes for the nation no longer exists. This is considered the most significant of all Tigranes the Great’s accomplishments. They flourished in the reign of Tigranes the Great and the Kingdom of Armenia.

30. Mithridates VI of Pontus (r. 119 BC - 63 BC), that is of Persian origin, whom is also known formally as Eupator Dionysius, which they showed him to be to the Persians. He did not publish a remarkable ancient history episode for the Persian. He flourished in the time of Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Lucius Licinius Lucullus.

31. Mithridates II of Parthia (r. 123 BC - 88 BC), not small among those who have written on worldly doctrine as he had an extensive coinage. In the reign of Lucius Cornelius Sulla he produced an ancient history episode to certain brethren who had turned aside from the Armenia to the beliefs in variance of Artavasdes I of Armenia.

32. Gotarzes I of Parthia (r. 95BC - 90 BC) also in the reign of Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Lucius Licinius Lucullus produced an ancient history episode for the Parthian Empire, which no longer exists. He is mentioned on some astronomical tablets from Babylon and noted by scholars to have reigned for some time in Babylonia.

33. Sanatruces of Parthia (r. ca. 88 BC - 70 BC) was made king by the Sacaraucae Scythians and not much reckoned among the distinguished men. He was at first a follower of Sacaraucae and afterwards its opponent as he was restored to his country in his eightieth year by the Sacauracian Scyths. He himself founded a new doctrine in variance with the previous ruler as he held the throne for seven years. He had the reputation among the Syrians of not being the most brilliant and vehement in argument. He produced little history and nothing remarkable happened in his time as a ruler as he went pretty much with the flow of things. His strong work is the one, who according to Lucian, he managed to Scythians and not on fate. He had many other history episodes on persecution which his followers interpreted from the Syriac language into Greek. Indeed, so little happened in his reign and life. Brilliancy appears in the interpretation from the Syriac language into Greek. How mundane it must have been in the original of his life.

34. Orodes II of Parthia (r. 57 BC - 38 BC), started his rule in the thirteenth year of his father’s rule, Phraates III of the Parthian Empire. He produced a history episode, not on a pass over reign, as with his brother they killed their father to obtain the throne. He produced a history episode on some other small victories. He ruled the organized group of people for twenty years in the reign of the Parthian Empire.

35. Phraates IV of Parthia (r. 37BC - 2BC), an administrator under the Parthian Empire was the overseer who ruled the Kingdom of Armenia (or Greater Armenia). He was sent to the Iranian Arsacid Empire as an assistant to the governor of the Parthian Empire, a province by the martyrs of the Kingdom of Armenia. This is on account of the fact that soon after he was appointed successor to the throne in 37 BC, after the death of his brother Pacorus I of Parthia, he murdered his father and all thirty of his brothers. He presented to overseer Tetradrachm certain letters under his own name, which were "four," which are worthy of honor - as it was an Ancient Greek silver coin equivalent to four Greek drachma and part of his name. Afterwards when Mark Antony attacked Phraates in 36BC of one of the Roman civil wars, which was started with the Social War (91–88 BC) in 91 BC, received the crown of extreme suffering for his army. The army was put in its place, as they were defeated. It is certain too that Mark Antony came before Augustus, the Roman general and martyr whom we mentioned above. He produced five ancient history episodes for doctrines of variance, as he had five sons sent to Rome as hostages to Augustus. He produced a short ancient history episode of Phraates V of Parthia by an Italian concubine for the nation and another on discipline as he eventually made her his legitimate wife. He produced a very short ancient history episode of Tiridates II of Parthia, his opponent, against a forced coup of him being placed into the throne by the Parthians - as Phraates took back the throne almost immediately with the help of the Scythians. Phraates produced also ancient history episodes of Various treatises; One also to Marcus Licinius Crassus on division into mutually opposed parties of the Parthians and the Romans. Another to Augustus on dependency by only the Romans or that good moral life experiences is not the author of evil as he sent five of his sons to him as hostages. Another also, an excellent commentary on his family, at the end of which indicating that his ruling was near its period he wrote, "I adjure thee whosoever shall transcribe this ancient history episode, by your ruler self-help, the formally selected way. By the ruling of Phraates V and Queen Musa the new era of ruling of glorious arrival and start at which it shall judge the quick and the dead as they killed Phraates IV. That you diligently compare, after you have transcribed, and amend it according to the copy from which you have transcribed it and also that you shall similarly transcribe this adjuration as you find it in your pattern." Other items he produced of his are in circulation to wit: To Augustus the Roman overseer on the Parthia controversy in which the Romans warn Phraates IV lightly to break the imprisonment of certain prisoners. Indeed Augustus believed that the many overseers of the kingdom of Armenia, who with the believers of independence celebrated the treaty with the Romans. When Augustus (27 BC – AD 14) sent his adopted son Gaius Caesar into the east in order to invade Persia, the Iranian Parthians preferred to conclude a treaty in AD 1, by which once again Armenia was recognized as in the Roman sphere. Even the Romans, who differed in opinion from the treaty, did not support Augustus in his opinion. Phraates IV flourished chiefly in the reign of the Emperor Augustus and preceded Tiridates III of Parthia in power.

36. Tiridates III of Parthia (r. 35 - 36), was a philosopher of the stoic school according to some old Roman custom. There, from the time of being a Roman hostage, was a member of the Roman army ready to serve wherever needed. He was, however, of so little wisdom with regard to practical matters. He learned by studying both in official writings and worldly literature that on the requests of the assistants to the governor of that nation he was sent to Syria by Abdagaeses overseer of Mesopotamia. There he found that Mesopotamia, one of the twelve military great powers, had taught the arrival of the ruler self-help according to the truth of Tiridates III of Parthia himself as there were suitable strategic defense locations there. On his return to Abdagaeses he brought this with him written in one that passes characters as he was ousted from his seat in power. Many of his commentaries on special official documents are indeed no longer existing. His living voice was of still greater benefit to the empires. Tiridates III of Parthia taught in the reigns of the military commander Lucius Vitellius and ruler Artabanus II of Parthia, given name Artabanus.

37. Gaius Caesar (b. 20 BC - d. AD 4), a native of unclear parents, instructed in the doctrines at Rome along with Lucius Caesar (his brother), whom we mentioned above as also of unclear parents. Gaius published some things, especially a work for Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (his father) in which he tells how the Agrippaians differ from one another as they are brothers of the same father about 3 years apart. Gaius says that Julia the Elder, not a believer in adopting her children, was never engaged in a discussion with Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa about the adoptions. That he, Gaius, held Julia the Elder (his mother) up to ridicule because he declared that she did not know the good moral life experiences whom he worshipped. He mentioned in the same ancient history episode, which he wrote to Nero Claudius Drusus (his wife’s father), that he had been a teacher of Lucius Caesar at Rome since he was 3 years older. He also composed an elegant treatise on the sixth time of creation BC. In 6 BC the Roman plebs agitated for Gaius to be created consul, despite the fact that he was only 14 and had not yet assumed the toga virilis, a notable work against the Etruscans. Gaius Caesar flourished in the reigns of Augustus and Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa.

38. Nero Claudius Drusus (14 January 38 BC - 14 September 9 BC), administrator of the patricians and a pupil of the patricians already mentioned. They began a campaign against the Marcomanni before the death of their master in 9 BC. He was teacher of the "Germanicus" as his family was granted the hereditary honor. He is the producer of some notable history episodes, full of eloquence and learning, both in the Roman doctrine and in worldly practical techniques. In 19 BC Drusus was granted the ability to hold all public offices five years before the minimum age. In 11 BC, 8 years later, Drusus was made praetor urbanus as a reward of quelling riots caused by the actions of a previous administrator in Gaul by placing a yearly tribute on the Frisians. Drusus lived in Lugdunum between 13 BC and 9 BC, which Augustus is thought to have visited between 16 BC and 8 BC, possibly some three times during these 8 years. Against the nation of Gaul several ancient history episodes, on military instructional methods three ancient history episodes (13 BC with Gaul, 10 BC with the Chatti, and 9 BC with the Marcomanni). On the pass over as a politician as in 9 BC he was elected Consul, however went to battle instead of staying in Rome and never took office. Disquisition on politics as he went to military field duty instead. Another ancient history episode entitled, "What rich man is saved?" - as he died of a fall from a horse and was rich at the time. One ancient history episode on slander, as some suggest that he was Augustus' biological son. However this idea is widely discredited by modern historians as Augustus never acknowledged Drusus as his son. On ecclesiastical canons as he remained extremely popular after his death with the legionaries, who erected a monument in Moguntiacum (modern Mainz) on his behalf. One ancient history episode against those who follow the error of the believers of self subsistence, which he skillfully managed of the Sicambres - overseer of Nederland as they were a Germanic people living in the Netherlands in 10 BC. He also mentions in his large ancient history episode of Germanic the work of Frisians against the Roman nation of which we previously mentioned - as he penetrated deep into German territory when he was sent to Gaul in 13 BC. A Chronography of the Netherlands, a work which I have been able to find. They also mentioned certain believers of self subsistence producers of history for the Roman nation, one Moguntiacum and legionaries. The Sicambri, who after the example of the Netherlands, asserted the state of being first of progress and the believers of self subsistence people. There is a short ancient history episode of Sicambres, the Netherlands people, who afterwards ruled the organized group of people with the people of the Franks (Latin: gens Francorum) on the decreeing of Netherlands, the one who was acknowledged. This short ancient history episode was skillfully managed to the Netherlands, congratulating them. In 10 BC the Sicambri said, "this short ancient history episode honored brethren we have sent to you by the blessed office bearer Chatthi, an illustrious ancient Germanic tribe and approved, whom you also do not know and with whom now you will become better acquainted, a people who, when they had come to this place not by the special providence of good moral life experiences, did not strengthen but did enlarge the organized group of people of good moral life experiences." The Franks are known to have been their leaders. Nero Claudius Drusus flourished moreover during the lifetime of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. His son Germanicus was given that name from the Germanics.

39. Gaius Asinius Gallus Saloninus (ca. 33 BC - 33 AD) gives an account in the work which he wrote for Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus and Agrippina the Elder. He produced a considerable ancient history episode for these same persons. He produced other ancient history episodes against the [Roman Republic] and the believers of the Constitution of the Roman Republic as he was proconsul of Asia in 6 BC/5 BC. He skillfully managed an apology to the then ruling emperors of Augustus and Tiberius. Gaius Asinius Gallus Saloninus flourished in the lifetime of Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus and Agrippina the Elder.

40. Germanicus (ca. 16 BC - 19 AD), an exceedingly talented man, produced for Tiberius and Vipsania Agrippina, a notable and lengthy large ancient history episode in which Tiberius does not state strongly that his mad wife and prophetesses died by hanging; as she died by malnutrition as Tiberius had put her in prison and controlled her feeding. She produced many other things, among which are the following concerning Tiberius about Vipsania Agrippina, "if she denied that she has accepted gifts, let her confess that those who do not accept are prophets and they will prove by a thousand witnesses that she has received gifts, for it is not by other fruits that prophets are shown to be prophets indeed. Tell me, does a prophet dye his hair? Does a prophet stain his eyelids with antimony? Is a prophet adorned with fine garments and precious stones? Does a prophet play with dice and tables? Does she accept usury? Let them respond whether this ought to be permitted or not, it will be my task to prove that she does these things." He says in the same ancient history episode, that the time when she produced the work was the fortieth (40) year after the beginning of the Julio-Claudian dynasty of which would be AD 13 - very close to the time when Tiberius divorced Vipsania Agrippina. Cappadocia added to the six large ancient history provinces which Germanicu produced by defeating the kingdoms of Cappadocia and Commagene, therefore adding a seventh kingdom as well. This was directly because of Germanicu, in which his attempts to defeat all which Germanicu wished to happen. Germanicu flourished in the lifetimes of Vipsania Agrippina and Tiberius.

Found another list of Jerome's Who's Who that has not been discovered yet by anyone else. It also can be decoded by using the Petrarch code. The short biographies listed consists of a dozen dozen minus Decem. Decem doesn't really belong there and should be removed from the total list. Wouldn't dare say that the sum of the biographies of the Chronicle of Universal History and Boccaccio's Famous Women (which is known to have been based on Petrarch's work) is the amount of biographies in this work, but it is. --Doug Coldwell talk 22:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that Jerome talks in this Who's Who # 5 of Acts of the Apostles as well as Pauline epistles. Today that set is exactly in that order, supposedly some 1600 years later (mmmmmm). Six hundred years I can see, but 1600 years later and coming through the Dark Ages period intact - that's astonishing! Wouldn't dare say that the amount of letters of each group of people listed as the 7 "churches" match those of Pauline epistles exactly, but they do. Jerome also mentions the number 27. Arsinoe I of Egypt died in her exile twenty-seven years later. This is the amount of books in the New Testament. It should be noted that the Ostian way is the Ostrichian way. I believe you already have a clue where I found this list, especially if you know to remove Decem from the total list. --Doug Coldwell talk 21:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jerome notes that this ancient Greek history period is in his Chronicle of Universal History. It can be found in homilies 6, 7, and 8 in case you want to look it up. Note that Plotemy II started his reign with his father Plotemy I in 290 BC. Arsinoe II of Egypt died in 270 BC, some twenty years later. Both her and her husband (Ptolemy II) had a splendid time when they reigned at Alexandria. It is also interesting to note that Ptolemy Keraunos had a short reign of only two years, which ended at the fourth reigning year of Ptolemy II Philadelphus in 279 BC. It is interesting to me anyway. --Doug Coldwell talk 13:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that Jerome has named ever book of the New Testament so far, and almost all in the order we use today - astonishing.--Doug Coldwell talk 14:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course you already know Appius Claudius Caecus is Jerome's Chronicle of Universal History homily 9. Appius is the one that made the "straight street", also known as the Appian Way.--Doug Coldwell talk 14:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just received an e-mail from a Dr D. Jackson, Department of Manuscripts of The British Library, in reference to a copy of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus they have. He says, In addition, the manuscript bears a close resemblance to others which were made or owned by the monks of the Augustinian priory of the Holy Trinity or Christ Church, Kirkham, Yorkshire. Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro was an Augustinian monk who was at one time Petrarch's confessor, and who taught Boccaccio at the beginning of his education in the humanities. A philosophy I have in life is that I don't believe in coincidences.--Doug Coldwell talk 18:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What's interesting about Ptolemy III Euergetes is that he is associated with the Leap year.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What's interesting about Ptolemy IV Philopator is his giant ship known as Tessarakonteres. It had 40 banks (5 letters) of Oars. I wouldn't dare say that counting the books (5 letters) with a capital "O" it totals 40, but it does. --Doug Coldwell talk 12:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't dare say Antiochus V died in his eleventh year, but he did. Also another interesting coincidence is the 10 leopards. --Doug Coldwell talk 22:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Demetrius I Soter is the "Savior" as the Second coming of Our Lord.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What's interesting about Eucratides I is the coins he produced during his reign. --Doug Coldwell talk 21:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What's interesting about Mithridates I of Parthia is his control of the Silk Road and the Persian Royal Road. The Greek historian Herodotus wrote of the Persian Royal Road couriers, "There is nothing in the world that travels faster than these Persian couriers." Herodotus' praise for these messengers&mdash;"Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor darkness of night prevents these couriers from completing their designated stages with utmost speed"&mdash;was the inspiration for the unofficial motto of the United States Postal Service.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What I find interesting is that Giovanni Boccaccio (close friend of Petrarch) has many of these Who's Whos in his illustrious people, especially in Books 4 and 5. Also Boccaccio's Books has many of the people in Jerome's Chronicle of Universal History, the one with the 28 homilies. Examples are Darius I of Persia and Alexander the Great. --Doug Coldwell talk 11:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't dare say Orodes II of Parthia started his reign on the thirteenth year of his father’s rule, Phraates III - but he did!--Doug Coldwell talk 22:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This material is so sophisticated that without Wikipedia and internet hyperlinks it would not be found for centuries. Yep, definitely centuries - perhaps 6 or more. However now that I have found it with these tools, it should be found within years, maybe less that one since I am leaving it here. Now I wonder how long it will take for other's to find Jerome's Chronicle of Universal History. Perhaps less than a century, but who knows - maybe another 6.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone says this system is not all that difficult to decipher. I can see in the process of coming up with these Who's Whos that a person that is also involved in this material, besides the two I have already mentioned, has much knowledge of the English language - perhaps a professor. This person is very well educated and uses sophisticated English words not normally used in everyday conversations. I think if you took an educated guess of an English professor that lived in the fourteenth century that had controversy with the Church, you would be wight on track.--Doug Coldwell talk 16:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't dare say "Cataphrygians" and "Julio-Claudian" BOTH just happen to have  13 letters, but they do. AND believe it or not AD 13 fits into the story of Germanicus for Who's Who # 40 as that is the 40th year of the dynasty. My calculator doesn't have that many digits for the odds against this one. AND you know my philosophy on coincidences. Oh, forgot - Germanicus is a member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. --Doug Coldwell talk 00:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Germanicus has 10 letters noteworthy to history but Apollonius' are not. Tiberius has 8 letters that are very well known; Montanus' letters are extant but not noteworthy to history. Julius Caesar has two sets of 6 letters definitely intended for Prisca. Last but not least Agrippina has 9 letters meant for Maximilla. Apparently Tertullian is a twin of Apollonius and does the same thing.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Going on a wiki-break for a month. Will be traveling through the States and doing some camping. Perhaps we'll find some self-guided tours we can do or go on some factory tours like that which Jayco has. Wouldn't dare say who started those articles.--Doug Coldwell talk 11:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The evolution of the creation of inspiration

1. The evolution of the creation of inspiration as an accepted valuable talent is the product of well beloved of the father of a great multitude of ideas.

2. The father of a great multitude of ideas produces happiness, which produces taking the place of through a strategy, which produces the praise of taking care of one’s self and related.

3. The praise of taking care of one’s self produces a separation of dependency on others, which produces the dart of joy which produces magnificence.

4. Magnificence produces their ideas that are broad and open minded, which produces that which conjectures, which produces it that rewards.

5. It that rewards produces a large pillar of strength, which produces a servant and a workman as a friend, which produces a special gift.

6. A special gift produces well-beloved as the thing preeminent in its class, which produces one that makes a return to theirs that had been their companion of the ruler of their motivation.

7. One who makes a compensation produces a footman, which produces good moral life experiences as their father which produces a healthy soul.

8. A healthy soul produces justice of taking care of one’s self, which produces that even more, which produces strength from the ruler of their enthusiasm.

9. Strength from the ruler of their enthusiasm produces the perfection of taking care of one’s self, which produces one that possesses the strength of good moral life experiences.

10. The strength of good moral life experiences produces it that is forgotten, which produces faithful, which produces the motivation of taking care of one’s self.

11. The enthusiasm of taking care of one’s self produces the preparation of the items related to taking care of one’s self about the time they were carried away to confusion.

12. After the items related to taking care of one’s self were brought  to confusion, the preparation of items related taking care of one’s self produces that asked of good moral life experiences, which then produces a stranger at confusion.

13. A stranger at confusion produces father of praise, which produces resurrection of good moral life experiences, which produces a helper.

14. A helper produces just and righteous, which produces preparing or confirming, which produces good moral life experiences as their praise.

15. Good moral life experiences as their praise produces more help of good moral life experiences, which produces gifts, which produces that which takes the place of evil through a strategy.

16. That which takes the place of evil through a strategy produces additional gifts, the opposite of hard to bear, of which is born inspiration which is called a valuable talent.

17. So all the steps from the father of a great multitude of ideas to well beloved are fourteen steps; and from well beloved until the carrying away into confusion are fourteen steps; and from the carrying away into confusion unto an accepted valuable talent are fourteen steps.

18. Now the birth of inspiration, which is called a valuable talent, is on this knowledge: When as the qualities of hard to bear was about to be increased, before that came about, bitterness was found with the beginnings of common sense.

19. Then additional common sense as its opposite, being a righteous item and not willing to make it a public example, was minded to put bitterness away privately.

Couldn't resist. This uses the same cryptogram so was deciphered as above. This is just another item I found in that special hiding place of a treasuretrove. It is a testament as to how good the hiding place is and is certainly not a new idea. What I find interesting in this is the use of fourteen, as in the fourteenth century. I won't say where I found this because then I suspect I would be banned by Wikipedia. I'll let sleeping dogs lie as they have been sleeping there for over half a millennium already, so why distorb them. See you in a month or so and perhaps I'll pick up where I left off - unless of course you wish to take over.--Doug Coldwell talk 22:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Talking about a multitude of ideas, when I wanted a permanent e-mail address some 15 years ago that everyone could easily remember without writing down I ultimately came up with one from a great multitude: Doug at idea 4 u dot com which I have been using ever since. It has fulfilled these parameters and suited my needs ever since. Now when I am in a conversation with others and wish to exchange e-mail addresses I just give them mine and they send me an e-mail and I automatically get theirs then without either of us having to write anything down. Since I usually come up with ideas for others it fits my personality and they can easily remember. Works every time. What do you think of that innovative idea?--Doug Coldwell talk 09:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

On the road, however was able to get access to a computer with internet. Finally figured out why the material I have been talking to you about is a cryptogram. You indicated to me before that you saw no reason for this, however I do believe I have found a reason. It turns out all the material in the treasuretrove is nothing special, as it is recorded by many historians - ancient and otherwise. The reason for this is that it is nothing other than a teaching tool. The amount of research required to decipher the material in incredible - so by default I learn history - European history, ancient Greek history, ancient Persian history, and ancient Roman history. Do you think I would open up books and study this on my own? Nope! But to decipher the code - now that is interesting! The decoded material reveals not only ancient history I have already mentioned to you, but European history of the thirteen and fourteenth century, nothing later. A teaching tool - what an innovation, besides a brilliant inspiration. You are a very bright person, so I'm sure by now you have figured out where this genealogy of the above came from. If not, I will be glad to put more light on it. --Doug Coldwell talk 22:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Monocle
I nearly added to your ref desk comment last night, re the (mythical?) plain-glass monocle, and now what do I find?. Small world. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Those engraved gems of yours are are popping up like mushrooms.--Wetman (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek
This article should be closed, because of vandalism, almost everyday. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek seems to be a very popular lemma to leave nonsense, maybe by non-evolutionists. As you probably have more experience, I would like you to take action or leave a message somewhere else. Is that possible? Thanks in advance. Taksen (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Only an administrator can protect an article. Perhaps one of them lurking at this page will pitch in and help. --Wetman (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification
Hi Wetman. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of potential candidates for adminship on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. decltype (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for thinking of me, but I already spend too many hours daily on vandal patrol and I have no appetite for Wikipedia controversies or the folk who specialize in them. So I've had to decline as not suited. --Wetman (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Demon
If ufology, there is a rather common tendency to associate aliens with demons. It's unclear exactly why that is, but the article should consider mentioning this particular issue. ADM (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no such "tendency". No wonder it's "unclear".--Wetman (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is, see for yourself. ADM (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But not in print. Ignorant 'net babble might seem a tautology.--Wetman (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Pietra dura
I have been going boldly on this surprisingly tangled term. What do you think? Also has the OED bothered to define either that or Hardstone yet? Not in my print edition. I think pietra dura can be regarded as an English term by now, pietre dure not. How do you feel? Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Pietra dura table slabs" etc. is the old-fashioned pseudo-Italian term I've used for decades, probably incorrectly, in the sense that Terry Friedman used it in a photo caption for G.B. Foggini's Elector's Cabinet: "ebony, pietra dura, gilt-bronze, mother-of-pearl" (Friedman, "The English Appreciation of Italian Decorations" The Burlington Magazine 117, December 1975:844 fig. 90). The authentic Italian term in documents is opera di commessi I vaguely recall. In John Fleming and Hugh Honour, Dictionary of the Decorative Arts, s.v.Pietre dure", the authors observe "The singular form of the term pietra dura, though sometimes used outside Italy for combinations of more than one kind of stone, should correctly be reserved for a single type." They illustrate for pietra dura a jasper ewer with enamelled gold and silver mounts, and for pietre dure an ebony prie-dieu with pietre dure mounts. The Oxford Companion to the Decorative Arts has an entry for "Pietre dure".--Wetman (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's my view, but the Met & Getty seem to be trying to shift it. The Fleming/Honour caption seems not to match the text though. Did you see my additions to the article? Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Marlborough gem

 * Thanks for the co-nom. That was quick! Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That was the thoughtful User:PFHLai who worked it out for both of us!--Wetman (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Wetman. The good work by you and Johnbod deserves the spotlight on MainPage.  Glad that I could help.  Happy editing!  --PFHLai (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Way old, but way strange...
I have no idea what happened back in 2005, but the article Septimania contained the gem:
 * In the Pyrenees, the Basques defeated themselves in Roncesvalles (August 15, 778).

I've changed that to the best oldie I could find.

But I'm really confused as I can't figure out where you restored that text from, as some revisions back then are 'blank' or 'empty' (or at least as I write this). Wow. Any ideas? Shenme (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it was some former version. The text I reverted, in the form of a timeline, may have had some valuable material in it, though unsourced. "Oversight", the right to suppress edits, is entrusted, they say, to a restricted number of administrators, who can suppress material if it meets their interpretation of supposedly strict requirements. Wikipedia's "admins" are a very mixed bag, such as you might encounter in a NY subway car.--Wetman (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, here's the Septimania timeline I mentioned.--Wetman (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Dionysus Pseudanor
hi wetman do you think you could add something to the article or even copyedit it a bit?87.202.61.56 (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I went right to Kerenyi's Dionysos to find that Pseudanor, unfamiliar to me, wasn't in the index. So it's not something I've forgotten, it's something quite new for me. I'd better read that article you cited, eh, before I go monkeying with your text. Do log in, since you're clearly making a genuine contribution.--Wetman (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Wetman, thanks for your improvements to Jean de La Forêt! PHG Per Honor et Gloria 13:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that my commented-out queries were useful. When there are two enlightened editors, that's quite an effective way to question a word or a date without disfiguring the article as those taggers seem to enjoy doing.--Wetman (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Malicious redirect

 * I thought that joining that with Durres was better.I actually modified the redirects inside the Durres article last night.Sorry.Megistias (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a bit confused.So should i redirect all the ancient words found redirects in Durres redirects to the Epidamnos article? My head is spinning.Megistias (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Leave ancient Epidamnos alone, as you have no competence there. It is currently just fine. Do as you like with modern Durres, in which I have no interest. We need never cross one another's path. Now that the carefully-edited text at Epidamnos has been restored, if you are a fastidious and careful editor, you'll put a condensed version of it at Durres: I'll never know one way or the other.--Wetman (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wetman i see that i did not blank the page i had work only on the redirect after user history Atillios had redirected it at Durres.See the history and 2006 blanking diff.And he seems to have done at 2006 while i edited a redirect at 2009, 3 years later.Please dont be angry at me, even i got confused and thought i had redirected the page which i did not and would not as it was trully well written.Megistias (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I seem to have approached the wrong editor.--Wetman (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Bali Strait
Hi. I saw this and believe you may be thinking of the Lombok Strait, which is quite deep; Wallace Line, and all. The Bali Strait is relatively shallow and has been dry when the oceans have dipped due to glaciation. The US Navy loves the Lombok Strait because their submarines can transit. There's a lovely mural near me that I've been meaning to get a picture of; theme is Bali Tiger, rest in peace. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh brother, my face is red. If you haven't reverted me, I'll hasten to do it myself. Thanks for catching this blooper.--Wetman (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem; it's not like the Bali strait article is worth much. I did just find that pic and add it. fyi, the reason I've not gotten the mural pic is that I'll have to get rather muddy to get the shot from in the middle of a rice field. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you
at Cola di Rienzo. That last editor made a lot of edits that seem to be from some unknown, but perhaps knowing source. Some odd wording for the casual editor. But I'm off to work in 4 minutes, we'll see about later. Carptrash (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I toned it down further: the timing, naming and location told the Risorgimento story well enough, but I've added a quote from a new ref.. --Wetman (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Life is good. Einar Carptrash (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you have to be hanging with the right people, Einar!--Wetman (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles Wrightsman
Not even a stub, I was surprised to see. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * He was just an oil-rich Republican. Jayne was the collector.--Wetman (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)



Minotaur
Re your summary – The obvious citation would be  from Maffei's collection of ancient gems, which appears also in Matthews (Labyrinths and Mazes) and Kern (#371 in Through the Labyrinth). But Kern declares that Maffei was mistaken in believing it to be Classical, assigning it instead to the 16th century; and all the other "early" examples I know of turn out to be medieval or from the Renaissance. So by all means leave it "The Greeks imagined . . . ". It would be worth pointing out somewhere in the article, however, that (probably through Ovid's scrupulously neutral description) the Minotaur in later times turned up in the opposite configuration. Elphion (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By the time I was prepared to ask you for an example at your talkpage, I'd added a section on the brief appearance of the Minotaur in Inferno xii to justify adding Blake's drawing. Maffei's Gemme Antiche, 1709: very good: I'd overlooked that. Would you edit that Maffei illustration material in? --Wetman (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry it's taken so long, but I have included Maffei's image (whose page I've edited to indicate non-Classical origin), and a brief discussion of the development of the centaur-type. I toned the discussion of Blake's image down somewhat; "non-canonical" is a bit over the top, considering the long (albeit non-Classical) history of this alternative configuration. Elphion (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's find a softened expression, then: "unorthodox" always suits Blake. Would that seem suitable to you in this case?--Wetman (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not unorthodox by Blake's time, just less common. Both alternatives by that time had appeared with some frequency, and arguably Blake would have seen more of the later, medieval Latin style.  There is no canon, no δόξα, no Platonic form of "Minotaur".  I prefer simply describing what Blake drew, rather than pinning a point of view on it. We've already established that the other version was first and more common. (Of course, it has Blake's own characteristic exuberance about it, but I don't think that's what you're getting at.) Elphion (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the image above, it's not clear that the artist intended it to be Nessus: those are clearly bovine hooves! Regards, Elphion (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Then, your eye is sharper than mine. Your edits have improved Minotaur.--Wetman (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I do appreciate the feedback, though I recognize that I'm just tinkering around the edges of a lot of previous writing.  Sharper eyes?  Hardly!  But in the full-size version of the image, the hooves clearly show up as cloven in bovine fashion, not solid like horses' hooves.  The same is true in the Maffei and Blake images. Elphion (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sculptor
Thanks for catching my sculpturist issue on the DYK nom for Endomosaic! I've submitted the correction as an ALT nom and corrected the term used in the article too. Nick Ottery (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ...I didn't want to rush in where angels fear to tread!--Wetman (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Buscot Park
I'm beavering away on something here here and was wondering if any of your referencres make comment on the architecture. Mine are a little limited and the text is probably subconsciously influence by the fact that I was deeply underwhelmed by the place. In spite of its appearance though, the house and its gardens have a very nice soul and spirit, so I thought it would be pleaisng to improve its page a little. Plus, the fact it is not everyday one is confronted with a little publicised Rembrandt and other major works in the same house in the middle of nowhere out in the provinces. I shall bolster the references out with Girouard and a couple of others as it was the scene of great left wing political houseparties in the 40s and 50s and redesigned to luxuriously accomadate them, so typical of socialists! If you do have anything please add it to the userpage or its talk, I shall be hugely grateful. It's not going to be a very long page, but hopefully a fairly interesting one. Giano (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Better known for its contents, of course. There's nothing in Colvin. I guess Loveden didn't keep the accounts among his papers, or we'd have heard. --Wetman (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, not to worry, just another of England's thousands of very nice, but unremarkable provincial houses. It's nice though, one of the only places I have ever been where one can feel the 1930s - I have a photograph in a book somewhere entitled "Miss Penelope Chetwode and her pony, take tea with Lords Faringdon and Berners in the drawing room at Buscot Park" (or something similar), shame it will be copyright, it sums up the England of the high summer just before World War II. A lost and little researched world; I must make sure I get to finish this page, I've too many unfinished at the moment. Giano (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The English (and Scottish) tradition that a gentleman in possession of a library and some engravings, working with a well-practiced builder, can come up with a perfectly idiomatic house, lasted right through to the Battle of the Styles. The intervention of an architect wasn't essential. --Wetman (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing Beckford below, reminds me: Didn't his non-architect built house keep falling down? Giano (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Wyatt was on board as architect, to the damage of his reputation. But Beckford kept changing his plan, always exigeant, always in a rush. The first wooden tower blew right off, neatly, with little damage. The stone one was built on foundations that were never intended to bear such weight. When it crashed down through a large chunk of Fonthill, the new owner simply said, "Now I have a house that's not too large." Fonthill Abbey is an article that needs expanding. --Wetman (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Etiquette
Ah, sorry! I knew that it'd redirect to the Dutch version of the article; I was about to fix it since it was missing a bracket, but I noticed that there was already a redirect, so I deleted the extra. Thanks for fixing my mistake. --LostBelmont (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked again: it's functioning now.--Wetman (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Demeter ref/correction
I've restored some things you deleted from Demeter, notably one ref's full author name, book title, and publication date, and a grammatical "among" where the text referred to three people as "one of the few people". May I ask why you removed the ref info and inserted the grammatical error? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly didn't intend to spoil a reference, or confuse the difference between between and among, which I preserve even in day-to-day conversation. Thank you for your close observance, that caught my foul-up. The article Demeter deserves some protection, I'd say.--Wetman (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason...
...why Beckford is presented as not really having taken a sexual interest in Courtenay and others? I thought it was a foregone conclusion that he had, even as Courtenay himself turned out quite homosexual later on. Haiduc (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can someone be "quite" homosexual? Giano (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My own hunch is that the seducing was on the part of "Kitty" Courtenay, who did turn out quite gay in the modern sense; however, one doesn't really support one's own feeling about Beckford by inserting a "reference" to The Fire of His Genius: Robert Fulton and the American Dream. If I were pressing my single interest at Wikipedia, I should make double sure I were scrupulously honest and correct in each of my insertions.--Wetman (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do I have a recollection of you being courteous and reasonable in the past? I see no problem with the ref, it asserts that "Beckford declared he was in love with young Courtenay" and that they met a number of times, and "on one of those occasions, according to Beckford, they became lovers." This seems to be in the book on Fulton by way of introducing the possibility that Fulton himself may have been one of Courtenay's lovers. This in a work published by Simon and Shuster and written by Kirkpatrick Sale. Will you reconsider? Haiduc (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sale's own source for his assertion would bring us closer to the subject than his speculation about Courtenay and Robert Fulton. Mind you, I think there has been considerable non-historical unproffesional embarrassment on the part of writers about Beckford's most publicised juvenile indiscretion, but Boyd Alexander, England's Wealthiest Son, which I haven't seen since 1962, dealt for the first time quite frankly enough: a quote and footnote would suffice, I think. There's a newer book I haven't read: Brian Fothergill, Beckford of Fonthill (1979); it has more detail about the impassioned letters that fell into the hands of Courtenay's sister, Lady Loughborough.--Wetman (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Imperial hairs!
I too had never heard the term or spelling, but during the writing of the page one of our Russian friends pointed this page out - is it a hoax? Giano (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: I don't suppose you know anything about this man do you? I thought he might make an interesting page, but now I'm not so sure he wasn't a one trick horse. Giano (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * O good grief! The Caesarevich, indeed! So after Peter, none of the tsars were tsars; they were Tsesars, spawning tsesareviches!! Nevertheless, I read, "Until the end of the empire most people in Russia and abroad, verbally and in writing continued to refer to the Sovereign as "tsar". Perhaps for that reason the title of tsesarevich was less frequently used to refer to the heir apparent than either tsarevich or grand duke, particularly in less educated circles." How preposterously pretentious! Another of our little slavs, I imagine, telling us how to speak English: "Kaparthy! that dreadful Hungarian! was he there?" If Wikipedians would think of this simply as a reader's guide, rather than an "encyclopedia", a hundred ambitious little pretensions to correctness might be avoided. There are more than three million articles at Wikipedia: I shall remove Winter Palace from my Watchlist and never be missed. I advise you to do the same, Giano. --Wetman (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC).
 * No, don't remove it please. It needs impartial people watching it all the time. I had not read that it was only the "less educated" that said Tsarevich. However, it does explain why that horse race The Cesearovitch (probably spelt wrong) has such a convoluted spelling, I had always wonderd in a subconscious sort of way about that. Giano (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was actually taken to dinner there once in the 60s, the house entirely lit in candles, but my connection was through R.M. We have an American counterpart in John Barrington Bayley. May I tweak?--Wetman (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Very welcome additions to Geddes. I have exhausted ny knowledge, a little on one or two more buildings and I would have had to enter the realms of woffle - or risked him being deleted for non-notable. Daylesford that dings a bell - Lord Beaverbrook? It must be similar to Sezincote another amazing bilding, on my mental list for writing one day. Thanks a lot, and please don't take Winter Paace off the list, or it will just become another Versailles type page! Giano (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The Palace (sic) of Versailles was a fishbone in my throat, so I coughed it into my napkin and have left it unregarded on my lap: I am not responsible for anything one may see there. Daylesford House, Gloucestershire, more likely rings your bell because it was Warren Hastings' than for its architect, Samuel Pepys Cockerell, who nevertheless deserves your attention. --Wetman (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have put him into mainspace, not because it is finished, but because I cannot find anything more, not even a date of birth. He seems to be completely overlooked by all my books which is hardly surprising as they tend to concentrate on the the home-grown architects so the minor Brits have to compete for limited space. Thanks for all your help, you saved it from being a stub! Giano (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hell! look at this I was going to write a glowing description, I should think the kindest thing would be "Bishop Andrewes himself, had strong opinion over the design." and hope it is true. Giano (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * *gulp* Bishop Andrewes might have had the same reaction as you!--Wetman (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, an Anglican - that explains it. Here's a more close up view . I love the sign for "humps"; I'd have the hump if I had to worship in that. Giano (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ...but still he wouldn't have been pleased with Hyslop's big brick barn.--Wetman (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, maybe, but they're a funny lot Anglicans and Protestants, very austere and none too fussed where they sacrifice their chickens. Giano (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Theodore Presser Poldowski and Henryk Wieniawski's daughter
Hi, Wetman.

I've just written an article on Poldowski, the daughter of Henryk Wieniawski. In my research, I searched extensively for any information about the "Theodore Presser Poldowski" you inserted into her father's article on 28 May 2008 here, but all I could find was mirrors of your post. Do you have any independent source for the existence of this gentleman? My other sources all refer to her marrying Sir Aubrey Dean Paul, but make no mention of any other marriages. She married him in 1901 when she was only 21 or 22. It's unlikely a baronet would be marrying a 22-year old divorcee. Or maybe she was already a widow, but as I say, there's no independent evidence of any "Theodore Presser Poldowski" - that I can find. There is a Theodore Presser, a music publisher. Is it possible he published some of Poldowski's works, and the confusion arose that way? Hope you can clarify this. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ordinarily I've confined myself to statements that are merely reports of published material: in this case I must have seen it on the Web and reported it unguardedly. I don't have Grove's, but since this phantom "Theodore Presser Poldowski" isn't mentioned there, it should be dropped, to my acute chagrin.


 * Her choice of this masculine name, an important point, is specifically brought up in context of the resistance to women in music in Wanda Wilk, "An Outline History of Women Composers in Poland". Sir Aubrey's wife brought a suit for slander against Régine in 1911: "Mrs Atherton's suit...", New York Times. Her lady friend in the Bohemian and largely homosexual group that welcomed Noel Coward to New York was Cecile Sartoris, I see in Philip Hoare, Noel Coward: A Biography (1998, pp. 92-93). The two portrait photographs by Bassano in the National Portrait Gallery might better be noted specifically in the footnote. --Wetman (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No chagrin required, mate. We all misread things. The info about Poldowski is fairly scant, and the proliferation of names under which she was known, or referred to as, only confuses matters. Wanda Wilk's site seems to have appropriated her as a "Polish composer", but afaik she never went there and knew no Polish (she only ever spoke French to her children, but I assume she must have become conversant in English, as she lived in the UK or the USA for most of her life).  Her father died less than a year after she born, her mother was English, she was born in Brussels, and later became a British subject.  So "a Polish composer"?  No, I don't think so.   "Sir Aubrey's wife brought a suit for slander against Régine" - that confuses me a little: Sir Aubrey's wife was Régine.  I think you meant Sir Aubrey's sister, Mrs Atherton.  Cheers.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, a good point! her "Polishness" was actually confined to the persona expressed in her masculine name, which also embodied Wanda Wilk's main point, about cultural resistance to composers who were women. Yes, I did intend to say that Mrs Atherton was his sister.--Wetman (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Labarum
Hello,

The text you have twice restored to the labarum page has been moved to the page concerning the Chi-rho monogram itself. According to Eusebius the term labarum referred to the military STANDARD used by Constantine the Great and his successors which incorporated a Chi-rho, the Chi-rho itself was separate and was called by Eusebius the SYMBOL of Christ. As the sections you have restored do not refer to the labarum at all, just to the Chi-rho symbol and are to be found on the page related to that symbol please do not restore them to the labarum page again.

Many thanks, Urselius (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Lotharingia Infoboxes
There is discusion about infoboxes on the Lotharingia taking place at Talk:Lotharingia. Either take part in the discussion or stop reverting the infoboxes. Second, Lotharingia is the same as Lorraine and it is source on the talk page. Spshu (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Lotharingia is the same as Lorraine" expresses the heart of the problem. That and the dreadful unwarranted self-confidence of it. Those with content contribute content. Others make Infoboxes. And even before I post at Talk:Lotharingia, I'm aware that anyone who can assert to me "Lotharingia is the same as Lorraine" is unlikely to listen to anyone or read anything.--Wetman (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Beware of POV
Ciao! OK for your mods at Palazzo Farnese, Rome, but just be careful that adding "prominent" is considered WP:POV and WP:weasel word, so avoid to use them as possible. Ciao and good work!!! --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * O please. "Prominent" applied to Palazzo Farnese, Rome, could not be considered anything other than a mainstream competent assessment. A glance at a map makes a start. This is not what is intended by "weasel" words: the correct vulgarism is "peacock term". All so silly, really...--Wetman (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Gondophares revert
Hi! I saw that you reverted my edit of Gondophares, with the motivation "This diff records an edit by a new editor with a dicey record." I suppose you mean new editor as new on this very page, for I have certainly contributed to many other pages in the same field. As for "dicey", I would be grateful if you could please specify this. The link to my discussion page that you have provided includes no warnings from Wikipedia officials, except some bot messages regarding copyright on images. It does include a rather heated discussion with a user who used aggressively anti-Arab and clearly biased sources for medieval Persian history, from some years ago, as well as discussions about the Indo-Greek page, where there was indeed some controversy, but to my knowledge nobody has blamed me for that. I also argued with an Argentinian who wanted to be personally mentioned as a descendant of the Hasmonean kings, and some other smaller disputes (where I have by no means always been right) that have also occured during my four year tenure on Wikipedia.

As for my edits regarding Gondophares, I rely on Robert Senior's Indo-Scythian Coins and History IV from 2006 (published by Classical Numismatic Group), the fourth part of an encyclopaedia of such coins and probably the most ambitious specialist work published in this field. Senior reviews the chronology of the Indo-Parthians by a few decades (please see the Indo-Parthian main page for full references, including some other articles.) New chronological evidence has appeared in the last decade or so, in form of overstrikes and dated inscriptions.

Please feel free to add modern research that proposes a different chronology, if there is such material that I have not mentioned, but until then, I have taken the liberty of reverting back to my last edit. Kindly, Sponsianus (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Copied to Talk:Gondophares--Wetman (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You have however not provided a specification of why you consider my record "dicey". Wikipedia is hardly improved by unfounded accusations or rumour-mongering.Sponsianus (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (Wetman notes that Sponsianus has made a large number of edits in the last few days, all of which, there can be no doubt, are responsible and high-minded additions to the sum of Wikipedian knowledge.)


 * It's basically one large edit (the updated chronology) and a number of minor edits for consistency, in image texts etc., and some rewriting. That's perhaps not ideal editing style, but the changes are based on referrenced sources. Never mind, I was perhaps a bit grumpy about being checked up, which is in essence a sound thing to do. But please don't revert before stating what's wrong with my edits. Sponsianus (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Provinces
I still object to this wording. Not in a wildest dream can I imagine one calling Russian republics, federal cities, and autonomous entities "provinces"; explaining it to a child maybe, but most certainly not in an encyclopedic context. What these "polities" would be termed as "elsewhere" is really irrelevant in an encyclopedic article dealing solely with subject matter that is referred to as "provinces" in academic context. To top it off, nothing is sourced. Please consider revising once again. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:07, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * The wording objected to
 * Though the only types of federal polities ever called "provinces" in Russia are oblasts and krais, Russia has a variety of federal subject polities that elsewhere would be termed "provinces"
 * was explicitly chosen to satisfy your vanity, by using the very wording of your own objection. Wikipedia is a reader's guide: if we keep the value to the English-speaking reader firmly in mind, we can avoid a thousand little self-promoting quibbles. Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky's wildest dreams needn't be ignited by this harmless bit of explication to an English-speaking reader, however small and childish that reader may appear at such a very great distance.--Wetman (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Vanity??? What does "vanity" have to do with anything here?  Not to mention that "wording of my objection" is hardly something that can be used as a source; I provided it merely as a description of why a certain passage is inappropriate in a certain context.
 * If you care as much about our readers as you claim to, please find a supporting source stating that Russian federal subjects (other than oblasts and krais) are ever referred to as "provinces" in academic works. Provinces, after all, is what the article is about, so we should stick to the subject and not to feed our readers with dumbed-down definitions which are neither accurate nor relevant.  A list of types of Russian federal subjects is available in articles about said subjects as well as in a higher-level overview.
 * As a reminder, our guidelines allow removal of information that is unsourced and challenged. It is the responsibility of a person making a statement to source it.  Please consider the passage in question challenged and kindly provide sources to back it up.  Otherwise, I will be removing it within the course of a week, as "doubtful and harmful", as per WP:NOCITE.  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:42, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, in order to move the article Province forward, why don't you contribute a section on the very special situation Russia presents. One might give it a neutral title like Russia and "provinces', no? Since you'll likely object to any title, do feel free to change the one I'll edit in for you. Thank you. (Copied to Talk:Province).--Wetman (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded at Talk:Province. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:23, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Subtle hint
Philibert Le Roy! - not much there! Giano (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Google scholar turned up two good hits: one I worked in, the other lies in commented-out limbo for now. Plus the usual minor tweaks.--Wetman (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. This edit was my motivation. I am surprised there is not more about him lurking around, he must have designed far more than just that - lost in the revolution, I suppose. I went to the site of the Chateau de Marly last week, fascinating, the lake is still there and the rooms of the chateau are marked out on the grass in stone (I took some photos - I must upload them), I came straight from Versailles and it was very sobering to think that the whole lot could have been razed to the ground just like Marley, also saw La du Barry's little chateau and the music pavilion she built for Louis XV is still there (overlooking the ruins of the monstrous pumping machine) and then reminded how they came and dragged her screaming to the guillotine - all very evocative and emotive being there. I think doing the French chateaux are too depressing, for one of my delicate and sensitive nature. Giano (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That diff: Wikipedia has editors and penelopes. The editors assemble new material, weaving together published accounts into some foolproof text. And the penelopes unpick their work at night. François Coty is the one to be credited for rescuing the Pavillon du Barry. One of those East Anglian windmill-restoring groups should take on the machine as their project.--Wetman (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ay yes, M. Coty, I was told the name of the conglomerate owning it now, but have forgotten (I expect it's on the internet somewhere) apparently one can hire it for an evening for one's own soiree - strange building, perhaps there have been land-slides and errosion since it was built, but looking at it from the Seine and the machine it looks as though the scrub, nettles and bushes of the cliff are the only things stopping it falling over the edge and into the river - I know there is suposed ot be beauty in decay, but I have never quite grasped it myself. Giano (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:GuercinoAdultress1621Dulwich.jpg
File:GuercinoAdultress1621Dulwich.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:GuercinoAdultress1621Dulwich.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Jones
According to EB, Inigo Jones' first building was the new exchange on the strand in 1608, demolished in the 18th century. Usually the queen's house gets the distinction of being the first consciously classical building in England. I can't find any engravings or drawings of this building - can you help with your super-googling? --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Very odd indeed: my bedtime reading last night was in Robert Tavernor, Palladio and Palladianism (Thames & Hudson. 1991), brushing up the gloss on my superficiality, and I was looking at his fig. 85, p 120 "Jones' elevation for the New Exchange in the Strand, 1608" (Courtauld credit, a double page spread of ink and wash drawing, I think, but perhaps an engraving). Tavernor calls the design "transitional between the prevalent Jacobean style and the classicism all'antica that he was to embrace so convincingly. His New Exchange design contains the decorative elements of English architecture then current, particularly in the sky-line with its tower-like lanterns, while the lower two storeys are more controlled and in an assertive classicism — including a central serliana, or, to call the motif by its English name, a Venetian window, that derives from Serlio's Book IV." Tavernor mentions three Venetian windows on each side of the upper storey, not seen in his illustration, so apparently on the side elevations. Btw, the tower lanterns, circular Temple-of-Vesta peripteral colonnades or arcades, surmounted by parapets with ball finials at the four "corners", in turn surmounted by addorsed scrolls with a chess-pawn topmost finial, correspond to elements in Wren's much-elaborated St Paul's west-end tower finials. --Wetman (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How strange! Many thanks Wetman. The book's on my christmas present list and Inigo Jones is on my 'improve' list. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At £1:50 from ebay, Tavernor was too good value to pass up. Excellent read. Seems Jones's designs for the New Exchange weren't used and Simon Basil won the commission. EB is quite misleading I think - "[Jones] was patronized also by Robert Cecil, 1st earl of Salisbury, for whom he produced his earliest known architectural work, a design for the New Exchange in the Strand (c. 1608; demolished in the 18th century)." --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Councils of Quierzy
Hi, Wetman. Here's why I changed the 857 and 858 dates: Absent evidence to the contrary, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia would be authoritative on whether the councils in 857 and 858 were the same or separate. see also: Carolingian Portraits: A Study in the Ninth Century By Eleanor Shipley Duckett, pp 215-216. (I posted this comment on the article discussion page). Kenatipo (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Authoritative or not, a council held in February 857 would be 858, depending on whether the reporter was using Old Style or New Style. One wouldn't be suggesting that there were two councils of Quierzy, one in 857 and one in 858. Or would one? Continued at  Talk:Councils of Quierzy. --Wetman (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Flamarande
I can't help you with the text but I must point out the following sentence: "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." It has been my experience that BC/AD is widely the most famous and popular dating system of the world. It is overwhelmingly used as such by the English language. Here in Wikipedia most articles use BC/AD. However here and there anonymous users sneakily change the dating system. As far I can judge this matter (and notice that I'm in favour of BC/AD) most of these sneaky changes are made towards BCE/CE. I never impose BC/AD upon BCE/CE articles but I revert sneaky changes. Anonymous changes which ignore proper protocol can, and are to be, reverted with extreme prejudice. See the talkpage of the respective article. If you don't agree please state your reasons. Flamarande (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes but even though Jesus is the most famous and popular person in the whole world, the Statue of Zeus at Olympia just is not a Christian subject, and BCE/CE has been used there since a date was first introduced into the article. No one would insist on changing BC/AD to BCE/CE at, say Saint Barbara; if I said that would be tasteless and aggressive, I'm sure you'd agree. Your experience about changing conventions does not match mine: the sneaky changes are very unlikely to be from BC/AD to BCE?CE, I have found.--Wetman (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the article has used BC/AD right from the start and has used it for over 7 years without any problems at all. BC/AD is the original dating system of this article and of all other 'ancient wonders of the world'-articles (consistency speaks for itself). An anonymous user changed it towards BCE/CE a couple of months ago . Unsurprisingly this was his only edit. Said change was against protocol (it was not requested, it was not debated, and it was not agreed upon) and he didn't even mention it on the edit summary (one can only wonder why). Such behaviour should never be rewarded and most of us know of the agreement: "don't change the dating system needlessly, original systems have the home advantage, and never change it without debating and agreeing upon the issue first". There are no logical reasons to change the most popular dating system overwhelmingly used in the English language (BC/AD) in favour of a so-called "neutral" dating system (BCE/CE). AFAIK this is the English language wiki and not the Political Correct language wiki. Many readers don't even know the BCE/CE system at all


 * My apologies: I see that the article had used BC/AD from the start. I was thrown off by a sneaky change some time back. Often I put a commented-out hatnote to identify the usage at the top of the text, to avoid this kind of thing, but they are often officiously deleted.--Wetman (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No apology is needed (unilateral changes are to be reverted). Flamarande (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed they are, no matter which way they've been "corrected"!--Wetman (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen sneaky changes both ways. Personally I use BC/AD for anything to to with Christendom (blind link I dread to follow), including pre-Christian topics, but BCE/CE for anything on China, the Islamic world, etc, and sometimes support proposed changes on this basis. The 2nd part of that is now pretty standard in academia, surely? Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. AFAIK BCE/CE is all but unknown in Europe. All of this boils to the following: BC/AD is incredibly more popular in the English language. I honestly don't agree with the "Balkanization of the English language along religious lines" because of dubious reasons and your reasoning is IMHO faulty. Let me offer a simple example: ancient Rome. Is ancient polytheistic Rome a "Christian subject"? It certainly isn't. Nevertheless the vast majority of books about ancient Rome written in English use BC/AD (and the vast majority of the ancient Roman-articles "here" use it acordingly). The vast majority of English-speaking media (books, films, TV documentaries, etc) also uses BC/AD. This wiki is suppossed to be the English wiki and it should reflect English language. Flamarande (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC) And I'm an atheist.
 * I thought that was what I was saying! BCE/CE is certainly very well known among Asians writing in English. BC/AD will not survive long in those articles, or in those on paleontology etc, which mostly use BP. You may call it "Balkanization", I call it cultural tact and the flexibility of the English language. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Until the arrival of that day BC/AD stays the more popular system and used as such by British English and American English. I honestly call it political correctness. What would you think if "foreigners" began to write in your native language but instead of using the traditional native system, began to impose a "neutral dating system" tailor-made to twist the more popular one along PC-lines? Flamarande (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The English have long been used to that. In any case the change is largely driven by native speakers. Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Flamarande's quote from Wikipedia guidelines prevents any self-justified bullying on either side: "don't change the dating system needlessly, original systems have the home advantage".--Wetman (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the only thing that I'm envious of Conservapedia, "the trustworthy encyclopaedia". Man, you truly have to love that slogan, notice how subtly it suggests that you shouldn't trust the other ones - because Conservopedia is the (only) trustworthy one. Truly a fine American Republican product.


 * They at least decided the issue once and for all (predictably in favour BC/AD but at least they weren't afraid of making a decision) whereas in Wikipedia Jimbo and everybody else are willing to ask for contributions but wash their hands from simple decisions. I could live with a BCE/CE decisions (I would stop my edits because I'm against PC but how the French say: ces't la vie) but this way ("we leave the dating system to the individual article and in the hands of the user") is clearly begging for sneaky shifts in favour of both sides. Flamarande (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh just think of PC as standing for Personal Courtesy.--Wetman (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Any ideas?
It's at times like this one can fully understand the need for a stud book. Giano (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What? Not in Burke's Landed Gentry?--Wetman (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits
sure, thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)