User talk:Cynwolfe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Quid quod ista liberalium artium consectatio molestos, verbosos, intempestivos, sibi placentes facit et ideo non discentes necessaria quia supervacua didicerunt? Quattuor milia librorum Didymus grammaticus scripsit: misererer si tam multa supervacua legisset. In his libris de patria Homeri quaeritur, in his de Aeneae matre vera, in his libidinosior Anacreon an ebriosior vixerit, in his an Sappho publica fuerit, et alia quae erant dediscenda si scires. I nunc et longam esse vitam nega!

Tellus

On the issue of Tellus, Tellumo, Tellurus: Dumézil has two notes I think important to recall. He remarks that Augustine's passage mentions a sacrifice to Tellus and to some male indigitations (Tellumo, Altor, Rusor) of hers (CD VII 23, 2). It is thence not legitimate to isolate Tellumo from the list in which he appears and make of him a male counterpart of Tellus as Augustine does. Tellurus in Martianus I 49 looks like an archaic genitive of Tellus (on this second point I cannot agree with certainty).Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a highly interesting passage in Augustine, isn't it? I hadn't looked at it in its larger context before. Having done so, however, I find it hard to see what Dumézil is saying: Augustine does isolate Tellumo from the implied list containing Altor and Rusor, and says explicitly that Tellumo is the masculine counterpart of Tellus. (The argument incidentally reminds me of a current WP discussion on whether the trinity makes Christianity a polytheistic religion: one might've thought this settled some time ago, but if not, exactly what would 'polytheism' mean?) Augustine is pretending not to see the difference between Tellus as goddess of the earth and Proserpina as a chthonic goddess, as just before he had failed to see why there should be both a Tellus and an Orcus: Ita enim totum, quod ipsa erat, in duas istas partes deosque diuisum est, ut ipsa tertia quae sit aut ubi sit inuenire non possit; nisi quis dicat simul istos deos Orcum atque Proserpinam unam deam esse Tellurem et non esse iam tres, sed aut unam aut duos; et tamen tres dicuntur, tres habentur, tres coluntur aris suis, delubris suis, sacris, simulacris, sacerdotibus suis, et per haec etiam fallacibus prostitutam animam constuprantibus daemonibus suis. Adhuc respondeatur, quam partem terrae permeet pars mundani animi, ut deum faciat Tellumonem? Non, inquit, sed una eademque terra habet geminam uim, et masculinam, quod semina producat, et femininam, quod recipiat atque nutriat; inde a ui feminae dictam esse Tellurem, a masculi Tellumonem. Cur ergo pontifices, ut ipse indicat, additis quoque aliis duobus quattuor diis faciunt rem diuinam, Telluri, Tellumoni, Altori, Rusori? De Tellure et Tellumone iam dictum est. Altori quare? Quod ex terra, inquit, aluntur omnia quae nata sunt. Rusori quare? Quod rursus, inquit, cuncta eodem reuoluuntur. He's been going through a chain of fragmentation (if Tellus is the earth, what is Orcus? And if Proserpina is his consort, don't her functions compete with those of Tellus? And what about the masculine counterpart of Tellus, Tellumo? And if there is a Tellumo, why do you need to fragment divinity further with more specific gods such as Altor and Rusor?). A ui feminae dictam esse Tellurem, a masculi Tellumonem seems pretty clear to me. In 4.10 he wonders why the earth should be Terra, Tellus, and Tellumo; the agricultural "helper gods" are not in proximity. So the cited source Woodard seems to me to be reading the passage correctly, but it was interesting to look at it more closely. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D. is saying that Tellumo is just one of the indigitations of Tellus such as Altor and Rusor and has been arbitrarily isolated by A. for polemic purposes. The passage seems to me correctly interpreted. It is A. wording that has been schemed on purpose to give the reader the impression there is a Tellumo outside the pontifical list of indigitations. At any rate it is clear that Tellumo is the force of the Earth as working in male creatures, and this is not an indipendent deity, just, quite correctly, an indigitation.Aldrasto11 (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CE - Law school of Berut

By any means please do! I'm not very pleased with my own copywriting and I'm a bit short on time. I'm always available if u have any questions. Thanks buddy -

+ 16:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Hey there, i left my notes on the article's talk page. I also need a bit of help with rewriting the curriculum section; the method of teaching is discussed in this book, the passage reads

Of the method of instruction the Scholia Sinaitica and the Scholia to the Basilica 5 give some idea. A classical text was taken as the basis, and the lecturer added notes of his own, which consisted of references to parallel passages or imperial constitutions, the formulation of general principles, the statement and solution of difficulties. and illustrations from practice.' It was in fact a development of the ancient methods used in schools of rhetoric,' and differed widely from the system of classical times when, after the student had mastered the elements, his further education consisted chiefly in the discussion of cases.

Also found in this book, this is what it reads

Legal education in the law-schools was based largely on the study of the extant works of the classical jurists and collections of imperial constitutions. In the schools of the East legal instruction was given in Greek, although knowledge of Latin was necessary for the study of the classical texts. As to the method of instruction adopted, this was similar to that followed in the schools of rhetoric: the literary works of the classical period and imperial constitutions, as found in various compilations of law, were discussed and explained step by step and, when possible, compared to or contrasted with parallel texts. On this basis general legal principles were formulated and then applied to resolve specific problems of law emerging from actual cases. The teaching was done by professional law-teachers, not by practitioners, and the courses offered were fitted into a fixed curriculum. At the end of their studies, which lasted up to five years, students were awarded a certificate which entitled them to serve as advocates in the courts or to join the imperial civil service.

I'm afraid my editing does not convey the correct intent and meaning. Also do you think curriculum is acceptable as a header?
+ 21:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi, Elie plus. I'll try to be of more help tomorrow, as I did only hasty copyedits for a couple of sections. If I get distracted, and you need help with suggestions made at the DYK nom, please drop me a reminder. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again, you can call me Elias or Elie. I have revised the section and I think it's much clearer now. I'm still not very happy with the header though. I relly appreciate your time and effort. Why are you so interested in Classical era stuff? -
+ 10:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
That is a really big question. I'd have to write my autobiography to answer it fully, so I'll just say that I studied classical studies (though before that I did graduate work in English) and have continued to love it even though the academic world felt constrained to me and I decided not to structure my life within it. I read Latin literature for pleasure. So I contribute here to maintain my knowledge of the subject matter, and because I believe in what I see as the goals of Wikipedia. I have an article I'm working on that I feel for various reasons that I should prioritize, but I will try to help with yours as soon as I can. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK :) the article is still expanding anyways, I will be adding to it once I get some time to read the new sources i obtained. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR GA :D -
+ 05:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Slavery in ancient Rome

The citation needed was for Roman slaves "technically not being allowed to own property" which struck me as a strange statement to make, and, if true, one that I could've used a citation to learn more about. It seems like it could mean so many different things... That courts would not enforce property rights on their behalf, etc. Clearly, slaves can own property in some sense, but you claim that in a "technical" sense they could not...what does that mean? Jhartzell42 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Slavery in ancient Rome article is very hit-and miss, sadly. But that sentence had two citations: the "technically" was part of it. It meant that in the eyes of the law, slaves could not own property, because they were property themselves (so "technically" is used in a sense similar to "he got off on a technicality"). They had no legal rights; they lacked legal personhood, so they had no right to own property. In practice, however, a slave recognized by his master as capable and trustworthy was given leeway to conduct business, and might even travel independently. Not only did he need money to get around, he might be "incentivized" by being allowed to generate profit on the side for himself. He'd get a cut, or build a bonus for himself into the deal. This money was put into an account (peculium) for his use, but legally (technically) he couldn't own it. Rather like a parent who opens a bank account for a child, except that even a minor can have her name on the account jointly with the parent. It seems entirely possible to me that a master would be an ass and take your hard-earned money, since even as a supposedly "free" person I've never known an employer to think he's not overpaying you. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it's clearer now...I definitely feel like I have a better understanding of what's going on reading it...especially with what citation goes with what.

Jhartzell42 (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The master could probably take it even after you were freed; the relation between libertus and patronus was not equal. He would be an ass to do so; but we know several rich Romans who were regarded as asses by the Romans themselves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I'd known you were coming, I'd have baked a cake to go with that fire and water. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter

Thank you very much for the link to the article in the Oxford E. by H. F. Müller. Its reading confirmed me in the view that I wrote a very good article as he writes more or (better) less the same things. Of course I did not finish the article and I admit I normally do not edit on the literary traditions. You might do it if you wish though.

I also noticed this source can be used in order to prove the non originality of my editing on the origin of the god. Frankly speaking I am a bit disappointed that you did not suggest it to me during the discussion with the reviewer on the talk page...Aldrasto11 (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I have the energy I would like to add a section on the first secessio of the plebs and Valerius augur and dictator, who has no article!Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salus

When you have time have a look at Salus. I tried to fix formatting but failed. The additon was in poor state but the info and poem is interesting.Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article has bothered me for a long time, and I'm glad you added to it. (Actually, for a long time it didn't exist, except maybe as a redirect to
Virtus (virtue)
. In literary contexts it can be hard to tell whether the deity or the abstraction is meant. Even when the concept is discussion in a purely philosophical context, as it might be in Cicero or Seneca, it still seems better to deal with the topic as a whole within Roman culture, in a single article.
The depiction of one of these divine qualities on a coin seems to me to be intended not only to represent the deity who was the recipient of cultus, but also to evoke or "advertise" the quality itself. Some of the earlier deities such as Salus or Bonus Eventus seem to have been deities, not mere abstractions; some of the ones who appear on Imperial coins may be more personifications (though many are attested in inscriptions as receiving altars or vota, or even shrines). I've found Anna Clark's book Divine Qualities to be somewhat useful, though ultimately disappointing.
I'll try to look at Salus soon. Some time ago, I began working on Felicitas, was surprised by the quantity of material, and reluctantly turned to higher-priority articles. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did some more editing and fixed citations.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have doubts about the orthography of the inscription, it should be checked with the original source. It is very interesting that a military writes these lines which prove Salus is primarily safety.Aldrasto11 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as in "thanks for saving my neck" or "thanks for getting me out of that mess"—that seems to be the sense in the slave banter in Plautus's Asinaria, for instance: nam ego tibi Salus sum! And the vota pro salute rei publicae: that isn't "health", but more general wellbeing and security. Salus would be the tutelary of the Department of Homeland Security (sorry for the American joke). Cynwolfe (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Janus

I expanded the lead somewhat, do you think it is all right now to remove the tag? Thank you for the attention.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok.Aldrasto11 (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's fine and will remove the tag. Please feel free to yell at me if you hate my copyediting. One minor and unimportant change, for instance, was I changed "two-faced" to "having two faces", because "two-faced" has that other meaning of "duplicitous, double-dealing, deceitful". I added a sentence about the doors to his temple, because that's a fairly famous thing that some readers might have in mind when they look up this figure. Oh: when linking to the god Portunus, you'll need to pipe it as [[Portunes|Portunus]] if that's the spelling you prefer, as Portunus goes to the crab genus. Januarius goes to the bishop, and Ianuarius to the month. I have a hard time remembering that one. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think the job you did here is very good. I must learn how to write leads yet...Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You had all the elements there. I just reordered them a bit, and made a couple of connections more explicit for those who come to the article without any previous knowledge of the subject. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are the links you wrote about?Aldrasto11 (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to my edit summary? Some common words such as "god" and "door" were linked (I'm guessing that was done before you edited the article); per
WP:OVERLINKING, we don't link common words that don't illuminate the article. Instead of god, which leads to the Judaeo-Christian God, I piped the link to List of Roman deities, for example. Above I mentioned that I fixed the link to Portunus, which goes to the crab genus instead of the god. It's OK to use the spelling Portunus for the god if you think that is the correct one based on your sources, but when linking on first reference you have to create the link as above. Farther into the Janus article, I think you had linked Januarius, which goes to the bishop, so I piped it to Ianuarius for the month. I may've misunderstood your question, however, so please ask again if I have. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Pls. refer to my talk page: you wrote about some new interesting link...Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry for rambling. I was tired and foggy at the time and had forgotten about that. I just thought you'd be interested in
Door god (recently added to the "See also" section to Janus) because you've been looking a bit at comparative religions. They come in pairs, which reminded me of the confusion in coin iconography between the Dioscuri and Janus—I see two-faced images on coins at Commons identified as Janus when they may be the Twins. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes thanks for this interesting link, it is a common feature in China and India. More like a Janitor... as Limentinus perhaps?Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an apt comparison. I think we need an article on both actual Roman doors (architecturally speaking), and their cultural significance. Look for me to do that by the year 2020, though. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fan letter

A few months ago, I idly was musing that I might write a WP article about Pascalis Romanus (on whom I did some work in grad school long ago), assuming that he was sufficiently obscure that one probably didn't yet exist. When I discovered that you had anticipated me, I was suitably impressed. It's gratifying to know that others are as devoted to supervacua as myself and old Brazen Guts in the caption at the top of this page. Keep up the good work. Deor (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't revisited that in a long time. Most people associate antiquarianism with pedantry; to me it's more like poetry, this big crowded fantastical storeroom. In the dichotomy posed at the beginning of this article, I'm definitely in the "meaning" camp. I also recently learned that I'm an idler. I should have a synthesis contest for the thing at top: who can come up with six degrees of citations (or fewer) that would link the quote and the image? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mmm hmmm

I'm just a helpful sort this morning! Probably because I can finally have all the windows open and the birds are a manic choir. But let's be honest: how much effort will actually follow my initial interest? We've all seen the sequel to my enthusiasm before. Regarding our queer old friend of many names, do you think that bit about the tongue and the ass was actually a homophobic slur? I've been trying to decide whether or not he would actually stoop to that (and whether he would remember the sexual orientation of an editor).  davidiad { t } 15:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been mistaken for so many things I never presume about sexual identities. I've been taken for a straight man (because I'm interested in military history, or as I've been told I "write like a man"), a gay man (because I've contributed to history of sexuality articles that deal with homosexuality), and a lesbian (because I had a Xena Warrior Princess action figure on my desk). If I were any of these things, I would be forthright and proud, and while I don't go around shouting "I'm a happily married heterosexual woman with a gratifying number of ex-boyfriends," neither am I furtive about who I am in this arena. I actually like Many Names, but he so often goes on and on about the ease of fabricating online identities that it's hard to generate trust. If he feels like a posse of one, it's because he wanted to be. I've seen him fail to bite only one hand that was extended to him, and that hand belongs to an editor of exceptional grace. He dislikes it when someone suggests that maybe Wikipedia isn't the place to work out one's issues, so I don't feel at liberty even to express humane concern for him. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sacrificial charcuterie
Recent memory tells me that any discussion of your sexuality begins and ends with a trip to the delicatessen. The funny thing is that I can remember my father (he's from "classic New Jersey", the part where the stereotypes survive in numbers large enough to be the norm) using that phrase on me when I was 16 and my reaction was almost identical to yours. I'm working on my own stuff right now and feel that I need to write amicitia papyrologorum (there are RS, believe it or not). It is absolutely unbelievable how supportive and prompt with efforts and responses they are compared to our strictly classicist colleagues. Just absolutely beautiful nerdish people. If you ever have a pressing concern, write your local papyrologist before you write your Congressperson.  davidiad { t } 19:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you refer to my recent work on the Cybele article? Which brings to mind another thing I've been called by implication. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My drafts and computer are now soaked in coffee. I'll be sending you the bill.  davidiad { t } 20:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. It looks so alarming I think I should take it down. I found it when I was looking for a way to reply courteously or jokingly to that remark, and thought visuals might be best. While Haploidavey is gone, I've been plotting I can get this delightful instrument into the Cybele article that he's been working so hard to make sober. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been classic, but then that fella would have had a whole new slew of things to say about your motivations, I'm sure. Davey would probably approve of that instrument's presence on the page. Horseplay article is with the redactor. I'll send it your way when I'm off work so you can see how much more tortured my writing is in the real world.  davidiad { t } 16:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mars (mythology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Condate and Craon
Ultio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Vengeance

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantium

Thanks for your input at the talk page. I was wondering if you would be willing to submit some suggestions and/or a draft for rewriting the lead (and any section tweaks which might accompany that). I'll understand if you don't want to put yourself in the middle of what very easily can become a battlefield, but I'd rather build off someone else's input rather than my own in this case. I feel my reverts of statement "The Byzantine Empire (or Byzantium) was the continuation of the Roman Empire …" can give an impression of a conflict of interest.  —

Sowlos  16:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

You are very courteous after that outburst of mine, which I'd been holding back for months. I would reduce the first paragraph to:

The Byzantine Empire had its capital in Constantinople, also known as Byzantium, from 330 to 1453. In its earliest history, it was the predominately Greek-speaking Eastern Roman Empire. After the Western Roman Empire fragmented and collapsed in the 5th century, the eastern half continued to thrive, existing for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. During most of its existence, the empire was the most powerful economic, cultural, and military force in Europe.

I would move the nitpicking over the name to the section "Nomenclature," which I would rename "Nomenclature and periodization". In the second paragraph, I would reduce the first two sentences to:

In the transitional period from the 4th to 6th centuries, several events mark the east-west division of the Roman Empire. In 286, the emperor Diocletian etc

(As a good Roman would, I object to using capitalized "Emperor" as a title before the personal name, as one does with a king, but am never willing to shed blood over it.) The third and fourth paragraphs are OK, but the intro may say too little about what makes the Byzantine Empire culturally distinctive. it has a very old-fashioned focus on names of rulers and dates. And of course I balk at "Roman polytheism", since it wasn't just the "religion of Numa" that was displaced (which at any rate should be called "Classical Roman religion" or some such, not "polytheism"), but rather it was the entire religious ecosystem, aka religious pluralism, that was displaced. But I wouldn't go into that with this other stuff in the air. Anyway, this is just off the top of my head. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, well, people are so used to Byzantine controversy on Wikipedia that some have decided to skip directly to the rants. ~___~
In the hopes of making something productive of the discussion, I've finally added my suggestions based on what you said. *crosses fingers*  —
Sowlos  22:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Good luck! I think your revision reads well. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. People at least seem to be acting civil. Whether it goes anywhere only time will tell. However, I have a feeling that article receives too little attention to benefit from the input of editors not yet married to one opinion or another. The endless list of controversies around Hellenic culture and history really doesn't help with the head count.  —
Sowlos  14:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
There seems to be a dogged misconception that "Byzantium" is a modern name, perhaps because pointing out the centuries it existed as a Greek city prior to Constantine's refounding and renaming would undermine the contention that this really is just the Roman Empire. There's an overwhelming passion for merely titular claims, and little interest in Byzantine culture and what makes it distinctive. Somehow it reminds me of the wackiness regarding the non-existent lance when Walter Horn recovered the regalia of Charlemagne. What seems strangest to me is that usually in such discussions one can detect some kind of nationalist impulse, but here there's nobody insisting on the continual Greekness of the area. I can't participate in the discussion civilly because it makes me want to exclaim "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," this taking of sources out of context. I applaud your ability to remain diplomatic, and Future Perfect's insistence that we call this entity the name by which it is best known. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalism is a good point to bring up. Whether any of them are participating at this moment or not, it's been my observation that much of this controversy is the result of opinionated individuals who are in some way tied to one of the two Roman Empire splinters — if you will. Claiming proper continuity with the Roman Empire is a prestigious thing (as you know). No one has to make any claims per se if the information leads readers to the desired conclusion on their own. That is why the leads of articles such as this grow so much; they're essentially multiple leads (each with their own POV derived key points) interlaced. Unfortunately, even less passionate parties have difficulty seeing how to simplify a description when it has been bloated for so long.
I understand your frustration and I know many others feel the same way. That is the irony. Most of the people who could help don't want to come near this and they probably out number the emotional few.  —
Sowlos  16:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
If it goes nowhere, I'll suggest committing the the less controversial changes (everything but the first paragraph). Maybe even everything but the first line can pass, that was my most notable addition to your suggestion anyway.
Something is better than nothing.  —
Sowlos  16:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Ancient Roman cuisine

Some of the information currently on the page is incorrect or misleading, as unsourced content on the ancient world often is. To choose an example, the page says ridiculous things "Pulses such as fava beans ... were only appreciated by peasants, smiths, legionaries and gladiators," which is flat wrong: "That wealthy Romans ate fava beans is ... strongly suggested" by recipes attributed to Apicius; "even in the most extravagant of cookbooks, beans had their place." The page states that "Fish was served only in earlier periods," which is ludicrous.

In any case, the

the burden of evidence always lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Neutralitytalk 23:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

That's true. I'd forgotten how utterly deplorable it is. I believe it also says Roman women weren't allowed to drink wine or attend dinner parties. I'd like to delete the whole thing and start over, but have never had the patience to sort through what's worth keeping and what isn't. Hence when I was working on
Food and dining in the Roman Empire is probably an illegitimate content fork. Just don't link me to Apicius as if I've never heard him. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll work on the food articles later. (Later may be a few months or so....). Sorry if I seemed peevish before. Not my intent! Neutralitytalk 01:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune

I left a note on the article talk page but I found that Bloch poses the problem as far as Poseidon is concerned. He does try to answer from a classicist's point of view, making some hypotheses:

1. Poseidon mates with Demeter under the form of a horse in the Argive myth, and they beget the unnamed daughter of those mysteries (story in Pausania).

2. Poseidon is the god of Earth and springs come from beneath the earth, this is also a metaphora or better a figure of the origin of life on earth.

3. Poseidon is the god worshipped in the main temple of the Isle of Atlantis in the myth narrated by Plato in the Timaeus and Critias; there was also a hippodrome nearby.

4. The island was swallowed up by an earthquake caused by Poseidon himself. This factor would connect the power over earth and that over waters. The Greek had a memory of the explosion of the Island of Santorini and of the seaquake it provoked as well as other consequences affecting climate.

Well this is Bloch's research and could be cited but I am afraid it deals only with Poseidon, not Neptune.Aldrasto11 (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aldrasto11&oldid=549689540"

However, I think there's scholarship that links what you've said above to the "Equestrian Neptune" associated with the Consualia, and perhaps with the Dioscuri watering their horses at the Lacus Juturnae. If I see such things I'll let you know. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-assessing articles

Hi Cynwolfe! As you know I am currently rating the unassessed articles in the Wikiproject Classical Greece & Rome. Following a number of additions from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (see the bot log somewhere halfway down), I had the luminous idea of auto-assessing these "low importance" articles (as well as for example the "Legio ...", Milecastle, Classis, Cohors, "Battle of ..." and Lex articles). I think the TinucherianBot may be able to do this. The method could even be extended to articles in certain categories. What do you think about this? Bahnheckl (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do know, and good for you. I don't do bots, though I adore luminous ideas. I can see why that list of papyri would wear a person down. I'm told somewhere above on this page that papyrologists, as it may be, are the most humane people on the planet, or at least superior to members of Congress, which is on second thought setting a very low bar. (Where was I?) So you're thinking that any individual legion, and especially all those bloody papyri, will automatically be low importance. Quite so. Don't tell Davidiad, though!
Joking aside: I thought that bot auto-assesses on the basis of preexisting ratings by other projects. What if there is no other banner? And doesn't the bot auto-rate quality on that basis as well? I'm ignorant of bots, so feel free to enlighten me. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think most of those P.Oxy. articles should be deleted! Not notable and just dreadfully thrown together.  davidiad { t } 03:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
I would suggest a merge as a list article, but that already exists, does it not? I turned a bunch of very stubby, poorly sources articles on Augustine's throng of little gods into lists and such. They made more sense in context, since most are just names he makes fun of (makes up in some cases?). Cynwolfe (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask the bot himself! Bahnheckl (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being a
Sowlos  23:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
As another stalker, I think most manual assessments are based almost entirely on article length, and without making any distinction between large & small topics. There is also a big question as to how much assessment produces useful results, ie does anyone act on the assessments to improve articles. In most projects I fear they do not. But it may be different round here. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When the Women's History project started (which I've sadly neglected the last several months, thanks to getting sucked into the Roman Empire), we discussed auto-assessment at some length. One of the goals of the project was to integrate women's history into overview articles; one example at that time was the scarcity of women in
American Old West, except for a passing reference to (of course) prostitutes. Some of us objected to auto-assessment for quality ratings especially, since an article might be well done otherwise while lacking relevant coverage of women—and identifying these deficiencies was the point. Since the only purpose of project importance ratings is to prioritize work (a C-class top-importance article is an embarrassment), those ratings need to be project-specific too. I fear I've infected Bahnheckl with one of my own concerns for most-visited articles. Although I don't think Spartacus is a more important topic than, oh, dozens of others I could name under the G&R aegis, last time I looked it had surpassed even Julius Caesar in popularity. So I do think we have an obligation to make sure these high-traffic articles aren't disasters, and traffic is one factor in prioritizing. I've been trying to concentrate on existing articles with more than 30,000 monthly visitors, though I find it more relaxing to write on obscure topics. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
How 'bout we move this to the project talk page... Bahnheckl (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:"illegal religion"

Thanks for your message on my talk page about the reference to "illegal religion" in the Diocletianic Persecution article. I was not sure you would see a reply on my talk page so I am leaving this note here.I was probably too hasty in removing the "clarification needed" notice - it is so refreshing to me to see a well-written, NPOV, well-sourced article on the subject of Roman persecution of Christians on WP that I wanted the article to look "clean", as it were. But I definitely see what you mean. There are other problems with that sentence also I think "From its first appearance to its legalization under Constantine, Christianity was an illegal religion in the eyes of the Roman state." In fact, the earliest evidence we have would indicate that the Romans did not consider Christianity to be a religion at all, since the provincial governor Pliny the Younger and the senator Tacitus both use the word "superstition", not religion, to describe it. The recent book The Myth of Persecution by Candida Moss discusses this and says "being designated as a superstitio meant that Christianity ... wasn't a true religion or philosophy; it was foreign and inherently anti-Roman." How about changing that sentence with the reference to "illegal religion" and replacing it with something like ""From its first appearance to its legalization under Constantine, officials of the Roman state were reluctant to concede that Christianity was a religion at all?" sourcing it to Pliny, Tacitus and Moss?

PS: I feel compelled to try to do a more or less complete re-write on the article Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire. This will take me some time but I would appreciate it if you would put it on your watchlist if it is not already, just keep an eye on what I am doing over the next weeks and let me know if it looks OK to you or not. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is by far the best of the persecution articles. Balanced and thorough. The problem with changing the tagged sentence is that it has a precise citation, and is very closely paraphrased from Frend. I don't think it can be altered to say something else. But the sentence does seem at odds with the consensus statement in the intro that makes a more limited claim. In this case, there may be a subtle but important difference between illegitimate or bogus (in that sense see superstitio) and illegal ( "officially banned, outlawed") religion, since in the context of his chapter as a whole, Frend can't possibly mean that Christianity was officially outlawed from its beginnings up to Constantine. If that's what he meant to say, he contradicts himself at several points. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP Classical Greece and Rome in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you're doing it wrong

Here, have a little drink and calm down

Regarding this:

The purpose of article message templates is not to vaguely communicate your desires to the originator of an article-- that is the function of talk pages. The purpose of article message templates is to communicate with the reader of the article. You've been here long enough that I really shouldn't need to explain this to you.

Please be more conservative in your use of article message templates in the future. 2602:100:4759:4D52:406E:C3F1:54C9:FE16 (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How rude. I'm sure you've investigated to see whether I top-tag routinely, or whether this might not be an unusual circumstance? Or perhaps you don't know the difference between "did" and "doing"? In this case, the article began with a major factual inaccuracy that seemed to be one of its main points: that this site was discovered last month. In fact, it was discovered and a series of reports issued beginning in the 1960s. This was a big enough error to cast the general reliability of the article in doubt, since at least one other editor challenged the science. So indeed I thought it merited a caveat lector. Nor was this a "vague" drive-by tag: I explained in detail on the talk page what was wrong, and since it was a new article gave the creator the chance to address the problem first. Please be more conservative in your choice of ungulate to emulate. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consus and Neptune

This is perhaps one of the tangled and challenging points of Roman religion. I agree with Dumézil on the etymology from verb condere to store (from put within, insert, thence also found) and not from coserere. This is close to hide too cf. abdere, (abs)condere. This derivation is certain, but I checked De Vaan on the etymology of consilium (as Consus is related to it, Consus consilio...Lares +covillo potentes in the inscription of the circus by Tertullian, which may be archaic too considering covillo and external factors) and it is very uncertain where consulere-solere, the head word, comes from, although very probably not from consideo. The ancient sources were very fond of the connection Consus-consilium, Festus included. This power of hidden councelling held by Consus seems to be related to the concept expressed by Dionysius and Plutarch that he is the holder of the Earth, an idea that makes of him a parallel to Poseidon. So while it is certain that condere and consulere are from two different roots it looks the character of Consus as hidden master of the Earth was at the basis of the identification. If you find anything relevant please let me know.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional curiosity I hit upon by chance: the Latin WK article Neptunus carries a piece of info which is of high interest about Saturn (unfortunately unreferenced): Cronus was forced to vomit his children by Zeus using a potion made with satureia said to be a poisonous plant. Though in fact the herb we call satureia (santoreggia) is not toxic, it is a great and possibly decisive find about the etymology of Saturn Satre, as it BTW confirms the intuition of the great scholar from Catanzaro Giovanni Alessio.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selene riding sidesaddle?

Parthenon Selene Horse

Hi Cynwolfe. Can I impose on you for a bit of Latin help? I am trying to decipher Servius' note to the word bigis at Aeneid 5.721, proprie modo: nam “rorifera tenuaverat aera biga” abusive est.

This is by way of my trying to find what literary sources there might be for the claim that Selene "rides through the heavens on a horse (or steer or mule, or even a ram)" facing sideways with both legs on one flank of her mount.139 (with note 139, p. 608, saying: "The artistic record is more helpful on these matters than literary records, but see for instance Pi. Ol. 3.19–20, Ov. Fast. 4.374, Serv. Aen. 5.721".) I have the Pindar and Ovid, plus others, including Pausanias, 5.11.8, but I've found none that have her riding sideways or her steed being a steer or ram. Any light (moon or otherwise) you could shed on Servius' note would be appreciated. Thanks, Paul August ☎ 17:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Paul, won't be able to look at this in detail for several hours or maybe not till tomorrow, but none of it sounds familiar. As I recall, mounted goddesses are pretty rare among the Greeks and Romans; some images of Artemis on horseback, maybe, or these may be Amazons. This is one reason why the sidesaddle-riding Epona is so distinctive. Helle and Phrixus are carried on the "Golden Fleece" ram, but otherwise riding on a goat or deer or such sounds like the mythology of Northern Europe to me. Various animals could be harnessed to the biga, though. Just ramblings till I can look. Servius doesn't seem to be talking about riding sidesaddle, but explaining Vergil's reference to bigae (poetic plural). Puzzling.Cynwolfe (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, but don't spend a lot of time on this, as it's not worth much. Paul August ☎ 18:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go (scroll back to p. 221). Cynwolfe (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, this may be the "carried away" motif, as with Europa and the bull, since Selene seems to have been "wooed by Pan in the form of a white ram". Cynwolfe (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Paul August ☎ 21:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I didn't check all the literary evidence, but it (as well as most art) seems to hold with the conventional chariot, and the evidence is visual for the rider. Thank you for the horse head too. I think. Unless it's from the Musée du Corleone. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The British Museum I presume, but I thought it went well with the donkey vase? shown above. Paul August ☎ 23:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are both very handsome. I have a windowsill our horse friend would look great on. But I'd love to drink out of the jackass at my next party. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BM sell resin replicas at various sizes. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should also have Trimalchio's asellus cum bisaccio to serve your olives in. Wareh (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It'll go with Sow udder (Roman cuisine), which I swear I'm going to post one day. I'm staying away from these high-profile articles for a while, and remaining in the realm of the obscure. I was completely horrified to learn while searching the shop that the BM sells a replica of the Warren Cup, which I consider a cursed object. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Byzantine Empire#"Continuation"

They both have beards and a name that starts with J, so that's all you need to know!!!!!!!!!

You are invited to join the discussion at

Sowlos  22:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Surely there's a more informative first sentence than the tendentious "the Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire!" That's just a silly sentence, and "continuation of" isn't much better.Cynwolfe (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree. There is no need to strip the intro down like that. I'm sure many readers would then wonder why the two articles aren't merged.
And, great images! :D  —
Sowlos  19:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Once again, I appreciate your ability to maintain a diplomatic composure. But don't say the "m" word: as you know, some would have it so. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You flatter me. I feel as though I've only barely managed diplomatic composure. And, yes, that word shall most certainly not leave my finger tips (again).  —
Sowlos  22:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Editing

I have done some work on Neptune, Saturn , Jupiter and Angerona. If you are interested have a glance (and give me your feedback if you so wish).

On Jupiter I reinstated the section on J. Latiaris which I consider essential in the article.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the work on Jupiter's notes in order to make them all based on the secondary sources. The sections you edited I would very appreciate if you would make them compliant yourself as I do not know from where you cite/quote. E.g. section on flamen dialis. Thank you very much.Aldrasto11 (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help, but may find it difficult to do so as soon as I'd like. I have a new article I'm trying to get off my plate, and family demands in the last month have taxed my concentration. I may in fact be taking a break soon to attend to an outside project. But I'll try to keep these articles in mind as I can, and I appreciate that you're trying to respond to reviewers' suggestions. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, fingers crossed for your new project! But you might enjoy Dumezil's versions of Angerona and Feronia...hehe...Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Just want to say thank you for your message on both mine and Aldrasto's talk pages. Reading through my messages to them, I can see that I might have been a little blunt in my use of language, but it was all done in the spirit of cooperation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you ever crossed a line. You haven't said anything Aldraso hasn't been told dozens of times already, and I hope he will forgive me for saying so. I learn interesting things from him all the time, but I've also spent two or three hours editing just a single paragraph or two, trying to understand what it said and how to verify it. In sum: the content is valuable, but often presented in a manner that requires editing to conform with policies and guidelines intended to make it useful to the reader of a general encyclopedia. It isn't dumbing down; it's communicating with the right audience, who are not scholars. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed

I left many notes on our work topics here in the last few days and you either ignored them or answered evasively. I believed you were very busy editing or about other business but hit upon a chance within a few seconds since another editor left a message on my talk page you left an impertinent comment to support his behaviour. Never mind what the matter is between him and me I think you should make the effort to understand that it is none of your business, even if, quite wrongly, you think the opposite... I wonder whether you have ever been taught basic manners when young.

Moreover you should be able to appreciate that I am no native speaker of English and I work in good faith to the best of my ability: I would be happy to possess the ability to write in a more brilliant and clearer style, but my proficiency in English does not include the mastership on style and my teachers of English always told me style is the most difficult thing to muster for foreigners. Moreover we write on a very specialistic topic and what seems clear and terse to us Romance speakers may look difficult, odd and stilted to English speakers: I do hope you can get this.

On the other hand as I said many times, if somebody is willing to rewrite what I contribute in better English prose he is very welcome, provided he does not alter the meaning of what I wrote in any way...but I have not yet seen such a thing happen unfortunately. Hope you enjoyed at least Angerona...Aldrasto11 (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Aldrasto, I haven't meant to disregard you. It's just that your posts require a depth of attention that I'm finding a bit hard to achieve at present, for reasons that have nothing to do with editing Wikipedia as such.
I don't know how often or variously I can say that I value your contributions. I'm aware that English is not your first language, and I hope it won't sound condescending (a fault to which I'm unfortunately prone) if I say that your ability to write English has improved significantly since you first began editing. I say that with sincere admiration. But let's be honest: you don't take it well when editors try to work with you to express your content more clearly. Reviewers who have never interacted with you before have offered the same kind of criticisms that I have for years (Haploidavey too, and at one point Elen of the Roads). Even though it's a specialized topic, it needs to be presented in a way that's accessible to general readers. Really, you may think I'm an ignoramus, as you've often stated or implied, but I assure you that I know far more about Roman religion and culture than the average person, even if by your standards what I know is poor. If I don't know what you're trying to say, Wikipedia's target readership certainly will not.
I'm sure that it's true that when your copy is rewritten, there are times when you think it no longer says what you intended. On some occasions, I've been puzzled as to why you think that, since I see no loss of content (or sometimes content has been diverted to other articles, to keep the length of the main article in line or to stay on-topic). In some cases, the original statement was indeed misunderstood: I can think of a couple of reasons why that would occur, but if a sentence lacks specific citations, or if the sources used aren't available online, it can be hard to rewrite it accurately because a lack of clarity is what was wrong in the first place. I've advised you in the past to slow down and concentrate on crafting your prose with citations more carefully, so it won't need to be questioned and edited as much by others. In my experience as a professional writer and editor, Wikipedia has been the most painfully slow kind of writing, because it requires not only a high level of precision, but excruciating documentation beyond even academic writing, so as to avoid the impression that one might have an "original" thought. I know you're looking at other articles as examples, so I would recommend a recent promotion to GA under the G&R project aegis, Catalogue of Women. This is a densely informative article that beginners are unlikely to seek out, so it can afford to be a little more sophisticated than articles on major figures of mythology (which are likely to attract young teens).
I'm interested in your contributions and over the years have developed a positive affection for you, but nobody's paying me to do this and I don't want to argue about the necessity of serving readers first and foremost. I'm sorry I've disappointed you, but I've had a rather taxing month in my personal life (nothing bad or sad, just a lot of beyond-the-norm family duties), and sometimes I like to edit Wikipedia just for my pleasure. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. As you often lament, here above once again, that you cannot understand some passages in my contributions and spend perhaps one or two hours trying to make out the meaning of a sentence (perhaps with no good result which leads to later conflict), why not, instead of wasting so much time, dropping me a line like this: "in your article x, paragraph y, I find sentence (or period) z hard to understand. Please explain its meaning/ clarify it to me on my talk page". This way would avoid misunderstandings and conflicts when/if you rewrite the passage/paragraph. Simple enough I hope. Best wishes for your undertakings.Aldrasto11 (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done this a million times, though mainly on the talk pages of articles. I stopped asking because it upset you so much, as Haploidavey could attest if he weren't away attending to vital matters. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry for Hoaploidavey, a real gentleman and a very good person from whom I received help and learnt something about our subject. On the issue I do not remember you ask me to explain to you the meaning of a passage, apart from the instaance of my use of the word exhaustive in reference to ager. But this is irrelevant. If you want to pose questions the way I have outlined here above be assured I will try to comply as far as I can.Aldrasto11 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for College of Aesculapius and Hygia