User talk:Haploidavey/User's Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Haploidavey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

...and no problem about the reverts. :-) -- Menti fisto 02:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you'd like this? What do you mean by 'the template's locked up'? -- Menti fisto 04:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quick response. My reply at your talk page. Haploidavey (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiator

Hmmm...I think you may have mistakenly messaged me regarding some vandalism on the gladiator article. Much as I love busting some vandals, I've never edited the page. As an aside, if you're having some issues with an anonymous user, visit WP:AIV. They'll give 'em a nice time out. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 02:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure how you think removing a fact like "there are gangs in this school" makes it vandalism ?

just because you dont like something, it is still a fact.

Please leave your ego at the door, and leave the true facts as is.

Thanks

No, you've got the wrong end of the stick; it was a genuine thank you, even if offered mistakenly.Haploidavey (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I only realised just now that the unsigned bit after Pinkandelica's message is addressed to Pinkandelica,not me.Haploidavey (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Hey, that's yeoman work on gladiator. You're straightening out a lot of bad prose and providing a lot of citations. Carry on! DavidOaks (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this didn't cause you any headaches, saw you had to go in manually to fix things. (lookin' good by the way) — Ched (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks! I, unfortunately, am not very skilled in the splitting arts. I do know how to do the multiple source-thingie, but I think that in this case, because the citations all involve different pages (of a book), they should remain separate. I'm cleaning everything up now, though, so it should look good soon (the multiple-dealie is better for websites and sources that don't actually use page numbers). All the best! --Grahamdubya (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to the rewrites soon; I was able to clean up "Emperors as Gladiators" a little just by fixing the citations, but you're exactly right - it needs much more work. That whole section might be better off integrated into the article, or possibly we could pull some material from the earlier sections and do like a "Patronage" section. Also, my apologies for completely changing what I now realize was an established system of citation. No consensus, nothing... I just get bothered by all those years, and I suppose got a little OCD about it. Again, sorry for that. Back to work! --Grahamdubya (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sliced a lot out of the "Emperors as Gladiators" but think just a line or two might do. Mind you, he showed such an atypical and extravagant disregard... The "games" and "combat" is in dire need, and demands real severity. I'm also very, very doubtful about some of the popular publications reference. The (your) refs style is not a problem. "I'm Oxford, you're Harvard" post edit: uuugh!! that sounds so la-dee-dah! but I'll leave it in for hilarity. Haploidavey (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC); nothing wrong with either. We just don't want mid-Atlantic, it'd confuse everyone. As long as you don't mind translating for me - I've used (and misused) Oxford style so long now that they just come out that way. Regardings to you. Haploidavey (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC). Haploidavey (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HD -- you've done terrific work in improving expression and references. It is long, but most of the sections seem to me appropriate. Maybe there's an unnecessary level of detail in some?

DavidOaks (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - responding to message re Futrell's use of modern idiom - glad to hear at least that bit isn't yet another vandalism attempt by others to your hard work. 193.132.193.251 (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

... and thank you so much for taking the time to drop me a note! I really appreciate that - it made my day. ') — Ched (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leoš Janáček

Hi Davey, and thanks for your offer. I would be happily cooperate, since almost whole article is my work. I'd like to promote it as a good article in the future, but with my insufficent knowledge of English it's impossible for me. It ne eds section "critical appreciation" and "personality" - I own good sources, mainly in Czech, and I think it's possible to improve the article with your help. Have a nice day and... ask whatever! --Vejvančický (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My link to Leoš Janáček . Haploidavey (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long tea break coming

I'm away for seven days, starting.... now. Haploidavey (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

short tea break over

says it all, really.Haploidavey (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal fighting

Thank you for your kind message. I just wish the vandals would think more about us trying to keep the articles safe from damage.. Bobo . 02:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say it, but I reckon that's exactly what they think of. :( Haploidavey (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janáček again :)

Davey, I'd like to nominate Janáček as a good article in future. I think, that with your fantastic help it is possible to promote it, I just want to explain briefly, what a good article (an assessed good article) is. Here are some useful links: Wikipedia:Good articles (particularly the section "Music"), Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, another composer (more famous, I suspect), is currently a good article nominee, here is the review page. Here you can find the best composer articles on Wikipedia - you can compare, if you want. I don't want to preachify you, and I hope, that you understand me... Have a nice day, we'll meet at Janáček's talkpage :) --Vejvančický (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I'm preparing new sections related to his personality and to critical appreciation of his works. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frenchmen smashingly defeated

Hi Davey! Sorry for my stupid-hangover comment (I was with my ex-girlfriend and it was really funny party). Thanks for your offer, we can work together on other topics, but at first I want to finish the work on Janáček. I think, that our work should have some result/echo/evaluation. It's almost complete in my opinion, I've started the "Personality" section, I'll add few words to the "Selected works" and few other minor additions. I'm still not entirely satisfied with the Kundera's thought - I'll try to clarify that on the talk page. Check my last edits, please, and - ask whatever, as always! Have a great day. --Vejvančický (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

You're welcome! Glad to be of help. Nice work you've done on the article, too. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 00:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Your comment brightened my day. Thanks. Although toiling in obscure corners lets me avoid fruitless bickering most of the time, it's nice to get a positive response. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Ježek (designer)

Hi Davey, I'm back and we can continue on Janáček. In the meantime, I've created also this. It's just a basic info, and I'll continue soon. Would you mind to check my English, please? Thanks for your time --Vejvančický (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:Thanks

Heh, no problem at all, nice work on the page yourself :). Heh, my fav is the Last warning one xD. Anyway, thanks :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jaroslav Ježek (designer)

On April 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jaroslav Ježek (designer), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's really good! Thanks for letting me know. Haploidavey (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gladiator reference

You're welcome, and not a problem at all! Iblardi (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

Hey, you might want to leave a note on the talk page of the Classical Greece and Rome WikiProject. They seem to be pretty active. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on my dancing theory of history. I thought I'd check you out and I can tell from your user page that we are following similar grooves. I am tempted to recruit you as shotgun on an article I've been defending against Injuns as I can see that you are cool under pressure. However, it's ancient history, you might not be interested in it and maybe the worst is over. All the same, if you wouldn't mind adding another article to your watchlist, Solon gets interesting sometimes. Lucretius (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solon is now on my watchlist. Haploidavey (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hi Davey, funny coincidence :)) I planned to write you and ask you for help just now! I love Evald Schorm's films - it's golden age of Czech cinematography. Btw, would you mind to check also Svatopluk Innemann? Basic start article.. Thanks many times. --Vejvančický (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC) (I have better sources for music articles, but I think we can manage to accumulate correct info also in film articles) Ave Caesar, morituri etc. :))--Vejvančický (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Real life" got me a long time ago! Yes, I was two days in a pub - watching Champions league and recovering from horror show of Czech national football team... But I'm still here. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiator vandalism

No worries, I'm using Huggle which makes it very easy to revert vandalism. If you want templates to warn people with there are some one WP:V which you should find useful. Hope this helps, if not message me back. Smartse (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonín Holý

Hi Davey, it's me again. I've got something new here, would you mind to look at it and check the prose? It's absolutely different topic again, and really important in my opinion. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert in that area, but I thought it's a shame, that we don't have an article for such an important person. Thank you, and ask on the talk page, as always. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiator

Hi there. That's excellent work you have been undertaking on the above article. I was wondering whether you have plans to nominate it soon for Good Article status. If you haven't done that before, check out here: WP:GAN. One of my hobbies is undertaking GA reviews. If you were to nominate it, i would anticipate two areas of work. One is finalising something for which you have already done a fabulous job: ensuring all facts have references. The other is to add a section on the cultural legacy of the gladiator. The article covers their role in Roman art and culture, but the gladiator has been a tremendously influential cultural symbol through history I think, and in contemporary culture both directly, through for example the Russell Crowe film, and indirectly, influencing characters and storylines in other cultural artifacts (without doubt a favourite has to be the truly B-grade cinema experience of Salute of the Jugger, in which team members resemble certain gladiatorial figures such as the retiarius). I hope you will be considering taking the article through that process. Best wishes. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi Davey - thanks for help with Holý and also for another polishing of Janáček's article - I'll nominate it as GA soon, although I'm a bit afraid with number of Czech language refs. But - we'll see! Yesterdays I heard the broadcasting of CRO 3 (Czech classical music radio channel) with a long essay on Janáček by Miloš Štědroň (leading Czech specialist on Janáček). It was great pleasure for me, since everything what he said perfectly correcponed with our article :)

I can express my gratitude only with this:

File:WRCBarnstar.png		The Wikipedian Red Cross Barnstar
		I award you, Haploidavey, this barnstar for your excellent improvements and language fixing of Czech related articles here on Wikipedia --Vejvančický (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
		Simply add `{{subst:The Wikipedian Red Cross Barnstar\|PUT YOUR MESSAGE HERE~~~~}}` to award this barnstar.

Janáček references

Yes, it would work, but I don't have the access to English books. All important sources on Janáček (Czech and English/American musicology) are included in sections "References" and "Further reading". It would be possible, I guess, and I'll try to do more this week. I forgot to check one interesting place in my city. --Vejvančický (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiator

You dropped by my talk page and asked my thoughts about how to approach the Gladiator article in respect of 'legacy' type content (the inclusion of which I encouraged). You commented "Reconstruction and re-interpretation offer massive pitfalls to unwary readers". I think the key is the standard Wiki line of 'no original research'. I imagine there must be comments in books and papers about Roman culture etc that might talk about, for examples, how the gladiator has been portrayed in later historical periods; the use of the gladiatorial combat model in other cultures. Were there any 'serious' film reviews of the Crowe movie that talk about the portayal of Roman gladiators in this film, or the influence of that film on contemporary culture and/or other movie-making? Those were the sorts of thing i had in mind as sources to generate such a section. Reconstruction and re-interpretation are to be encouraged - it is just that Wikipedia should only be drawing on reliable secondary sources to write about it. I hope this helps. You've done great work. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ota Pavel

Hi Davey, I have something new, one of my basic start articles. Can you look at it, please? Thanks many times. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, funny family, I guess :))) Yes, I love "Closely Observed Trains" too - both book and the film are excellent (one of the rare examples of book perfectly transformed into another medium - film).--Vejvančický (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC) My respect for your old mum, Davey. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, I'll try to add more. (Jiří Menzel recently made another film based on a story by Hrabal - I Served the King of England. I don't like it so much, magic 1960s are over... --Vejvančický (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Antonín Holý

On April 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Antonín Holý, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marsyas and other heretics

I took your heresy as a compliment, so I didn't notice it till you pointed it out. I think actually if certain articles seemed like "mine" it's because I generally write on such obscure or narrow subjects no one else would want to spend their time contributing to them. I also tend to revisit and "tend to" articles I created, because I find that later I'll realize how illogically I arranged the material, or how infelicitously I expressed something, or ... I doubt this is psychologically healthy, so let's move on to your Marsyas question. I'd be glad to look over my files for additional sources and to keep my eyes open for more. You should try to dig up T.P. Wiseman's Roman Drama and Roman History (cited in the article) if you're interested in a very rich and detailed exploration of some of the points the article section touched on. Wiseman can be accused by his colleagues of being overly speculative, but I love his intuition and command of the source material, and will read anything he writes. As for me, the Augustan period was once my main focus in the study of Rome, but I've been spending most of my time on the Late Republic, the 2nd century, and certain aspects of late antiquity, so my sense of the mature Augustus is a little rusty. I think you're right to see Augustus as consolidating various forms of authority to secure his position and power. Religious "reform" (actually a combination of innovation and reactionary appeals to tradition) was one of his strategies; tactics included public art to present official interpretations of myth. (Here's where Ovid ran into trouble, since his take on myth was equally persuasive and not at all "official.") This subject of course would fill books, and has. The decline of free speech is one of the indicators of the loss of Republican ideals; under the emperors, Cicero and his acid wit would've lasted about as long as Lucan (forced suicide by the age of 30). On the other hand, Augustus, as distinguished from his successors, did maintain some balance between iron-fisted order and libertas in the form of pax (see the Monty Python bit on what the Romans ever did for us), or at least he maintained some necessary illusions. He was an unmatched political genius. In my opinion (since you asked, sort of), he is a much more important figure in Western history (for good or ill) than his Uncle Jules, whose military victories in Gaul could easily have come to nothing after his assassination. But I ramble.

Maybe you could leave a note for me on what specifically you're interested in pursuing, and I'll see what I have. Oh: though in some aspects problematic, C. Barton's book The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans: The Gladiator and the Monster (prevew online), if you don't know it already, has some amazing psychological insights into the relation between the loss of libertas under the Republic and the rise of the culture of martyrdom, seen not as the invention of Christianity, but as a Christian appropriation and "redemption" of the peculiar combination of despair and honor represented by the arena. Barton sees the gladiator as a kind of forerunner of the Christian martyr. It's fascinating stuff. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't pay sufficient attention to the "Imperial Cult" aspect of your query. So the two sources I gave are more to the libertas issue. Somewhere recently I made a note on a Talk page about distinguishing between divus and deus in regard to emperor worship; the article on Imperial cult does begin by addressing that, and I notice in the "Further reading" section sources I would use, Fishwick, Weinstock, Beard et al. on Roman religion. People seem very attracted to the notion that the emperor walked around demanding continuous worship; I'm afraid to wonder what this means. I've not read the full Imperial cult article yet. If you have access to the British Library, you very much have the advantage, as I use the library of large state university in the U.S.; very good in classics, though, and most of the time it serves my purposes. I like to use Google Books as you say for preliminary research and to see whether a book is worth putting hands on, and as a search tool even when I have the hard copy. With the Imperial cult article, you are tackling a subject much more challenging and far-reaching than I ever do. One element in the success of Augustus, according to a good source I can't place at the moment, was making sure the business interests of the equestrian order thrived. People will give up a surprising amount of liberty for wealth and the illusion of security. Also, you might look into the Marcus Licinius Crassus (consul 30 BC) who was the grandson of the "triumvir," as they like to call him here on Wikipedia. I have a note that he was the last person outside the imperial family to claim a triumph and even the rare honor of the spolia opima. Augustus's response to this Crassus's energy and ability established precedent in how he dealt with the nobiles and their ambitions. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just got your note. Was it Edmondson on public spectacles that you meant me to see? (The link took me to a Google search results.) If so, thanks, and if not, I look forward to reading it anyway. I've glanced at the Imperial cult article and see the progress. Romulus's ascension as precedent was good. A couple of random things came to mind:

If you are interested in Marcus Crassus (consul 30 BC), don't miss the Crassus chapter in Ronald Syme's Augustan Aristocracy (preview here). A scholar named J.W. Rich has made something of a specialty of writing on "Augustus and the spolia opima", for instance, an article of that title in Chiron 26 (1996) 85–127. Also the short "Augustus, the Poets, and the spolia opima," by S.J. Harrison, Classical Quarterly 39 (1989) 408–414, on Augustus narrowing the rules as a way to consolidate authority. I'm interested in the way honor becomes privilege rather than something you could reasonably expect to earn.
I don't at first glance see anything about Commodus in the article. I have a piece by M. Speidel, "Commodus the God-Emperor and the Army," Journal of Roman Studies 83 (1993) 109–114 that begins "In A.D. 192, the last year of his reign, Commodus threw restraint to the winds and had the senate declare him a god. He assumed such titles as Conquerer of the World, Roman Hercules, and All-Surpasser and named the twelve months of the year after himself." People like reading about Commodus because of the Gladiator connection, naturally.
Emperor cult in the West: Fishwick discusses, I think, the altar to Roma and Augustus at Lyon (Lugdunum). The article could perhaps be a little clearer about the cult of the emperor's Genius, which again puts a somewhat different spin on the notion of "emperor worship." I can't find my source for this, but some accommodation could be made for monotheists, or at least Jewish monotheists, who might pray for the emperor's wellbeing instead of participating in cult ritual. This was not a universal exemption for Jews, but a political accommodation made in certain times and places; however, I also seem to recall that Christians, or certain Christians, chose to make a point of their refusal in order to embrace martyrdom.
I notice that verification is sought for the point about Ovid looking forward to the deification of Augustus. It's how the whole Metamorphoses ends; are line numbers wanted? I'm just recalling this off the top of my head, but I believe Ovid wishes with his customary glibness that the day Augustus becomes a god should be in the far distant future. I at any rate find it hard not to read sarcasm rather than a pious wish for the good health of the princeps, but since the surface language is correct, he evades the free speech problem, and therein lies the slippery difficulty of tracking literary subversiveness. I'll keep my eyes open for a scholar who says something quotable about it. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the article looked like before you started, but currently it avoids the things I most want to grit my teeth against in articles on Roman subjects: Hollywood-induced naïveté, agenda-pushing (amazing how many people are still fighting the Gallic Wars), and video-game playbooks as sources. I probably don't have much more to contribute at this point, but now that I know some of your interests, I'll keep my eyes open for goodies. I really appreciate the kind of effort you're putting into this. I think it's a fantastic mission in a field like ancient history and culture to digest highly specialized work by the best scholars into a form that an untrained but interested person can read and benefit from. Students often turn to Wikipedia first, even when their teachers tell them not to. I wish they could feel confident recommending Wikipedia as a starting point. Off the soapbox now. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd vowed not to fill your page with more of my lengthy prose (to paraphrase Mark Twain, or Montaigne, or whoever said it first, "Sorry to write such a long letter, but I didn't have time to write a short one"), but I have to take the bait on Syme. Yes, his style is very mannered and often elliptical. The Roman Revolution, early in his career, is less eccentric than late Syme, which becomes very affected indeed. I didn't get him at all till it was pointed out to me that, after spending decades immersing himself in Tacitus, he began to construct English in Tacitean mode. Rare for an academic to have a distinctive prose style. Syme's political acuity, even when he's maybe wrong, is both subtle and staggering. I find that's true of many classicists who wrote or began writing in the WW2 era: they have a perspective that will always be valuable for the very reason that it's biased by their experiences. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never too late to learn Latin! If you're taken by the subject matter, you'd probably enjoy studying the language. Latin has been one of the great pleasures of my life. Right up there with a week of extravagant dining in antediluvian New Orleans. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trains etc.

Hi Davey, it's me again. I've added short synopsis to the Closely Observed Trains. It looks a bit weird for me, the plot will probably make no sense to the readers not acquainted with that topic, but that's how it was, I think. It's not the "usual" film dashing from the point A (Start) to the point B (End, dénouement). I'm used to write rather biographical facts and this was really hard :) I have also something new here. Would you mind to check it? I hope I don't bother you with my profane articles. I see, that you are expert on Ancient Rome and my articles may seem "childish" to you :) Thanks, friend. --Vejvančický (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

No problem! Good work on the article, by the way. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 02:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Thanks. Whenever I see an article so worthy of admiration, but lacking full technical compliance, I like to do a little tidying up. I may not be able to provide substantive criticism or commentary, but I do have an obsessive desire to sort out hyphens, ndashes, and mdashes. Every little bit helps, as they say. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Codex Theodosianus

I think it would be fine to link to the Latin, since there is no full English translation online. I'm not even sure if there is a full published translation. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ota Pavel

On April 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ota Pavel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bolek Polívka

On May 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bolek Polívka, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royal broil 03:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czech jazz

Hi Davey, thanks for you offer with Velebný, the basic version is finished. Could you look at it? I decided to organise "the week of Czech jazz" for myself, since jazz (and especially old Czech jazz) is a part of my heart. I created also the articles for one great trumpet player and for the greatest Czech bass player. They were unhappy people, living in disgusting régime, but their music is excellent, playful, funny, full of optimism. This is very strange thing - today I live in a free country, but I can't find anything as good as was the Czech culture in the terrible 20th century. Do we need some kind of oppression? Surely not, but I don't understand... I'll send you some links with recordings later today, now I have a limited connection. I hope you'll like my articles. Have a nice day and... ...ask whatever. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Icon

What do you make of this edit [1], which I have maybe ham-fistedly edited a bit? Any thoughts or edits welcome. Also the Severan Tondo pic may be useful. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the Missorium of Theodosius I, and a new one on the Gonzaga Cameo - see also the cameo category. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Karel Velebný

On May 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Karel Velebný, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davey. FYI, Bolek Polívka article received around 3 700 views during its appearance at the main page. Very nice, isn't it? Take care. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jiří Jelínek (trumpeter)

On May 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jiří Jelínek (trumpeter), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Luděk Hulan

On May 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Luděk Hulan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may have seen this ...

If you haven't seen it, I thought you might be interested in T.P. Wiseman's book on popularist politics (since he was one of the main sources for the section on Marsyas and free speech); Mary Beard's review is to be found here. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vercondaridubnus

We meet again. I didn't look at the edit history and didn't realize you were actually in progress — I was trying to edit while you had the page open. Drop me a note when you're done for the day. I'm going to add Xavier Delamarre on the Celtic name, and a note from J.F. Drinkwater, “The Rise and Fall of the Gallic Julii: Aspects of the Development of the Aristocracy of the Three Gauls under the Early Empire,” Latomus 37 (1978) 817–850. If you look at the timeline, it's quite possible that Vercondaridubnus's father received his grant of citizenship directly from Caesar in the immediate aftermath of the Gallic Wars. There are a number of Aeduan Gaii Iulii. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're working on this topic, maybe you could do some good at Federal sanctuary of the three Gauls, which ought to be renamed. For one thing, the Three Gauls (Tres Galliae), as you know, is a proper noun. I've read a little on this topic, and the phrase "federal sanctuary" strikes me as odd. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should've said I've read "ONLY a little" on this topic. Entranced by the polysyllabic name, I had drafted a Vercondaridubnus stub ages ago and forgot to go back and post it, which is why I had a couple of references at hand. For some reason, I made these additions after drinking two glasses of wine in uncharacteristically quick succession, and am now afraid to look back at it, since I noticed and corrected one egregious spelling error I'd made just before I hit "Save page". By the way, I changed "tribe" to civitas in regard to the Aedui, because I seem to recall that they're one of a certain number of Gallic polities who are always referred to as a civitas, and never as tribus. I could be wrong. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parentalia

I'm not so good with the technical stuff, but do you want to actually retitle the page (which would give me pause in this case), or are you intending to add a section to the Parentalia article on di parentes, to which you would then link? I'll be out for a while, so it may take me as much as a day to respond. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning for keeping the page as Parentalia would be that it belongs to the well-populated category "Ancient Roman festivals," which moreover has a directory template. The current Parentalia article says incorrectly that it was a festival to honor one's dead parents, rather than ancestors. If you create a subhead called Di parentes by way of explanation, you can link directly to the section. If the section on di parentes would contain too much info not relevant to the festival per se, but useful for other Roman topics, it could be a separate article. Strangely, the articles on Larvae (which I'm inclined to think should've been called Lemures), Manes, and Lares don't mention the di parentes. An umbrella article on "Ancestor cult in ancient Rome" (or even more broadly "Spirits of the dead in ancient Rome") would be interesting, especially since in Gladiator Russell Crowe carried around those little images and it would illuminate that. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Federal sanctuary of the three Gauls

Hi Haploidavey ! Thank you for your message on my talkpage. I'm interested in articles about Lyon and I would like to expand their content on en:WP. So, yes, I will try to translate the page but, unfortunately, my English is not very good (French is my native language)... It will be needed to check my translation... ;-) Regards, Europe22 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haploidavey ! Thank you very much, and congratulations for your nice work on this article ! I'm happy to see you understand the French-language more than you'd thought. Maybe this will give you the will to translate other articles from WP:fr... And feel free to ask me if you need a further help (if I can do it...) ;-) Regards, Europe22 (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here again..

Hi Davey, how are you? I hope that everything is all right and you are enjoying a great time with your family. I attempted to create something new today, it's probably more chaotic than my typical works.. (Monday is still very shaky day for my brain, even though I almost don't remember the last wild weekend in my favorite pub or wine cellar... Strange.. Am I getting older?) Would you mind to look at it? It would be great. Thanks for your time. Antonín Vejvančický (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to hear that the sunny England is OK and sober :) I'm a young person with passion for classical and jazz music, football, parties, wine and many other things... Forgive me my occasional immature comments, Davey. The basic version of Jiri S is completed, as well as Eva Olmerová - an excellent singer and woman, whose life was destroyed by alcohol. Have a nice day. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclean spirit

Bizarre stuff, isn't it? The article needs work, particularly a better intro. I found the most useful source (currently under "Further reading") only after I wrote the thing and was ready to post it, with no remaining patience for the subject. I hope you know that demonology is an intellectual rather than personal interest for me; I started into this subject matter from the perspective of ancient medicine. But I've learned many interesting things about early Christianity in the process. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten the gladiator's breath from Barton. Must look at that again. I suspect some kind of connection between the unclean and the damned there. The insufflation article (which I confess to having merely skimmed) rocks — in the sense of offering hardcore information without trying to advance an agenda. As for the unclean spirit intro, I will confess also that my strategy is to be as dry and technical as possible at the beginning of articles that might attract religionists, one of whom once stymied my efforts to broaden the doctrinal perspective of an article. Your remarks are always so encouraging to me. What you said about the section on animalism and liminality confirms my feeling, however, that a more capacious intro would be an improvement. Something more conceptually stimulating to balance the austerity of terminology. I'm waiting till I have time to make full use of the additional source. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Olmerová

On June 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eva Olmerová, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Vejvančický (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right Davey, the critical reception and her style should be mentioned. I started a new section called "Inspiration and style", but the content is rather a mix of opinions and informations. Thank you for reminding me that. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'Imperial cult' SOS

I see as recently as 5 June you threw up your hands in dismay at the Imperial cult article (I refer to your last note on the article's Talk page). It seems as if you've done a lot of good work, though, and I was wondering if you'd want to comment further on how you see the state of affairs. I still haven't been able to set aside time to read it carefully, but I do have one guess about the source of your (presumed) frustration. It strikes me that a lot of the article is occupied with a review of Roman religion; for all I know, the article "Religion in ancient Rome" doesn't contain the material you need so that you could summarize the background more succinctly and then simply cross-reference. No reflection on that article, which I haven't really read; just a comment on what often happens to me in trying to cross-reference. Therefore, the article runs the risk of TMI. I have some other things to say, and repeat the previous, which I thought was better posted to the article's talk page. I hope at this point you know how much I admire the work you've done on this article, and take my rant on 'paganism' and 'polytheism' in context. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a new message on the Imperial cult Talk page. And I'm sorry if I discouraged you! You did great work that I think just needs rearranging, moving elsewhere, or pruning. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the Imperial cult Talk page on your watch list? I'm trying to confine all comments to that page. I read the Cultish revision and think you should edit the actual article to conform to it. That was a massive amount of work. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a pdf I'd like to try emailing you. Let me know if it works. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be truthful, even when I dug out the Momigliano article after your work jogged it from my memory, I hadn't realized how thoroughly relevant it was to what you're trying to do. It was only when I started rereading it (still only half through) that I realized you might be in a situation familiar to me: I gather up sources, write an article, and then as soon as I think it's done, find one magical essay or book that would've brought the whole thing together if I'd found it in the beginning but now necessitates rethinking the whole subject beginning to end. Trying to take a break from contributing to Wikipedia, I still find myself sucked back in whenever I try to quick-reference something. Oh look, there's half an hour, or two, spent adding a paragraph to a subject because I looked up something in a news story, and found that the news story contained info that would supplement the article usefully. I see you have a nice note of appreciation in the next section; I'll just say ditto, and look forward to reading your latest. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and Re:

Re: Your message on my userpage. Thanks for your comments and thanks on my comments on Gladiator. Would that all solutions where so simple. I just now checked and saw your fantastic contributions to several ancient rome-related articles. As I never had any classical schooling but have found this subject immensely interesting of late I wish to thank you profoundly for your contribs. So thanks and keep up the good work! :) Mkruijff (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British scholar hunt

On a new tangent: I'm wanting to post a little article on our T.P. Wiseman, professor emeritus, University of Exeter. I've been unable to find a date of birth. Usually, if all else fails, you can get the date from any university's online library catalogue as part of the author's ID. None given for Timothy Peter. None visible online to Google that I can see. Do you happen to have EASY access to a directory of British scholars or some such that would have such info? I have his little autobio blurb from Exeter's classics department. There's also a Festschrift from his Exeter colleagues in honor of his retirement, which may have biographical data, but I haven't been able to get to the library to get it. May do that tonight. So please don't go to any trouble! Just if you have something handy. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now you know my secret: because of the Potter connection, I wanted to get it out before the next movie. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But here's what's bizarre: I had read the piece you linked to, but couldn't find it again last night when I went looking. There's a debunking exchange in The Guardian. Wiseman wrote a charmingly self-effacing letter. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to wonder whether that last name's a nom de guerre, eh? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've dashed off T.P. Wiseman. Not, I fear, a very profound assessment of his work, but I was tired of it sitting around in my "in progress" folder. Also not as well proofread as I like. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind words. Makes me feel somewhat better for railing idiotically on the Charon's obol talk page. Now feeling sheepish that I may have sounded as if my deathless prose shouldn't be touched by human hands. I hate it when the schoolmarm comes out, and I express passion for commas and conjunctions. If you find more on T.P., please haul it in. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the last message on my talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes me wish I'd been more patient and done a better job with his scholarly career. Or ferreted out a direct link to The Scotsman. I'm very curious about the calendar book; I ran across it for the first time just a couple of days ago. Are you a LRB subscriber, then? I get only the intro with an invitation to fork over money. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did Wiseman like Caesar's Calendar? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Res divina

I've done violence to both Imperial cult (ancient Rome) and Res divina. When you have a moment, take a look at the latter; I've not re-edited references, and I'm hoping these are yours and you can fairly easily fill them out (some now are just author's name and page numbers). As for the eviscerated section from "Imperial cult" on res divina et al., I don't know whether I've managed to preserve the salient points. I did feel that whatever salient points should have been there were not leaping out because there was a bit of, um, rambling off-topic. But it was time I stopped offering advice from the mountaintop, and helped with the shoveling. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a wonderful job. Let's be honest, there was a great deal of off-topic rambling in that section, and more to be dealt with in the rest. None of it comes easily to me, I'm afraid! What you see on my pages are a series of disconnected spoil heaps, which I then have to laboriously sift through for nuggets. You wield a skillful shovel. The results are in a different league and a delight to read. Haploidavey (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

something you might find interesting

"After the Barbarians: From Gibbon to Auden" Cynwolfe (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pontifex

I stumbled upon the issue of the pontifex page myself, which I moved to Pontifex (project). There was already a disambiguation page, and I redirected "pontifex" to College of Pontiffs, which discusses the position, and added an 'other uses tag' on it linking to the disambiguation page. Hopefully that helps resolve the issue. JW (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vespasian

The venerable Gruen has a review essay in Arion — downloadable here — that touches on Vespasian in a way that might be interesting/useful to you re: V's section in "Imperial cult." Under review is Martin Goodman's Rome and Jerusalem. Maybe nothing new for you, but nice and succinct. Not sure why I'm so fixated on the exception granted to Jews in this connection, other than it supports my view that the Roman Empire couldn't have lasted for a millennium through mere militarism and oppression, but might've actually been good at, yes, governing. Though of course here in the U.S. "government" is a cuss word. How are things with Imperial cult these days, as you see your progress? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gruen v. Syme

How could I resist an invitation to offer an opinion on Gruen v. Syme? I didn't answer promptly because I've been mulling it over, without arriving at much of a conclusion. Syme, as I said before, is one of those scholars who's interesting and compelling even when he's wrong; I think with Gruen, when he's wrong, other scholars are more able to present a point-by-point counter-argument. Syme's so idiosyncratic and oblique in his expression, it often seems people don't argue with him; they say "Syme says such-and-such" and then go on their own merry way. For me, as an amateur, I would read Syme on almost anything because of his flamboyance and intuition; Gruen I would read because of the subject matter, and would be incapable of arguing against him because of his depth and sure command. He's not dry, as the Arion essay shows, but he's more conventional. The truth is — it occurs to me after rambling — that since one of the hats I wear is "fiction writer," I find Syme's approach more stimulating to my imagination — it gives me more ideas. As for Gruen's Last Generation, I wasn't able to lay hands on it at the time I needed it; when I got around to it, I didn't need it as much, and had read so many of his articles that reading the book seemed to require too much time and patience for what I'd find new, so I only sampled it. Which is no criticism of the book at all. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

belatedly on Tacitus

Isn't learning to read Latin via Tacitus like learning to drive in a Lamborghini? I had a prof once, though, who said "Tacitus writes Latin the way it was meant to be written," and frankly I always found Tacitus much easier than the endless periodic sentences of Cicero. Cynwolfe (talk)

Hi Davey..

I just wanted to stop by, say hello, and ask: how are you doing? I've noted your expert work on Imperial cult and I have to say: I'm stunned. That's exactly how Wikipedia should work. Your concentration is admirable and I believe that you are at the right place here (though I have a little knowledge of this subject). As for me I'm still adding fragments of the Czech culture in the 20th century, small biographies and profiles etc. I still find it very enlightening, and it's a great joy for me to work here. People at DYK sometimes fix the grammar in my articles, sometimes not, but no one is accusing me of damaging Wikipedia, which is good :) I hope you are well, Davey. Keep up the good work. Cheers. Antonín Vejvančický (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vespasian in the news

… if you haven't already seen the headline. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feriae Augusti

Me again. I saw a reference to Feriae Augusti here on Wikipedia; the context is surprising to me. When I searched Feriae Augusti on Google Books, I didn't find anything very helpful, except for this, from Niebuhr's classic history in the mid-19th century. The festival of Diana mentioned in the Assumption article is the Nemoralia August 13–15; that article is, well, a fixer-upper. The Nemoralia precedes the date of Augustus's death by only a few days. But the Feriae Augusti are August 1, like Lughnasadh and the Feast of St. Peter's Chains. I'm unclear about what point's being made with Ferragosto and its continuation in Christian times. Do you have any sources from your Imperial Cult research that, I dunno, make sense of the whole complex of August holidays in Rome as they related to Augustus and 'emperor worship' and why that continued into the time of Placidia and Leo? Cynwolfe (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was having trouble formulating my question and still am. I thought of your work on "Imperial cult" (which is of such impressive scope that I'm still trying to get a grip on it) and its relation to Christianization when I read Niebuhr's note: it seems a pretty clear case of retaining a 'state' holiday while Christianizing its content. Maybe that's self-evident, but it also seems to imply a period of religious coexistence (rather than outright usurpation?). It's no longer scholarly fashion, though, to see a pagan holiday behind every Christian one, and I had tried to guard against the habit and just see calendrical coincidence. After all, August 15 is also the birthday of Napoleon Bonaparte (and me), which is mere trivia. I'm afraid I'm in the middle of one of those 'what is the meaning of what I'm doing?' phases. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are incredibly kind. Your words meant a lot. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grandazzi

Thank you for forwarding to me this very intersting contribution. I enjoyed reading it. I agree there is no trace in Roman society of the tripartite function, however the flamines were subject to a strict code of conduct and restrictions. See the Italian section of wikipedia on the subject. They were also chosen among patrician families as well as the vestals. As for the sodalitates too this was or may have been true. Luperci were diviede into Fabii and Quintilii, two patrician gentes. However what is neglected, quite amazingly, by Grandazzi (and almost all the other scholars), is that it is arbitrary and uncorrect to speak of Rome and of its religion as something separate from the broader historical and cultural context. This is partly due to/explicable because of our lack of sources about the peoples surrounding Rome. However we know that the Roman religion was by no means anything new and different from that of its neighbours, at least Latins and Sabins. Suffice it to say that Numa, the fonder of the pontifices and reformer of the calendar was a Sabin from Cures and Romolus's mother was a vestal of Alba. We are also informed of the existence of the Latin league which was a political and religious organisation. Alba was for long the dominating power and the sanctuary of the league was the temple of Jupiter on the summit of mons Albanus. Other Latin centres resisted for a long time to the rise of a Roman hegemony and founded their attitude partly on religious grounds, the most prominent and well known example being Falerii. The Umbrian too revered Mars as their father and had the 'picus' as sacred. The deduction of colnies happened under its guidance. See 'ver sacrum' and the the deduction of the Picenes. Sorry the length.Zanzan1 (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(moved here from user page)

Answer to your last mail

Thank you, I am very interested. Please let me have some useful links to valuable material on the subject of roman religion as related to that of other Italic peoples.Zanzan1 (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lemures

I noticed that last month you did quite a bit of work on the Lemures page. I was wondering if your sources (or another source that you might have access to) might be able to shed some light upon the etymology of the term? I have this source, which tells an interesting story, but isn't necessarily the highest quality source. If you have something that could confirm or deny the claims made by this source (that Lemuria is a corrupted form of "Remuria", which was originally intended to cleanse Rome of Remus' ghost), I would love to see it reflected on either of the two pages. The reason I ask is that I'm hoping to unveil a complete (and massive) re-write of the Lemur page, and I would love to include a better source than that above (or simply remove the story) for the "Etymology" section of the article. –Visionholder (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just keep what I found here - it'll be handy for an article I'm planning and for expansion of Lemures - [2] Haploidavey (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone else joined the discussion, I replied on my talk page. But in short, thanks! –Visionholder (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman triumph pics

Hello. I like to meet interesting individualists on the Internet. As I noticed when I was there Academia and its minions deal out such hate and abuse it makes you recoil in horror and just not speak to anyone anymore. Maybe it is a remnant of the great Texan-American dictatorship, I don't know. Its nasty little feelers and front-men creep everywhere. It appears to me empire is pretty much the same whether in ancient Rome or 20th-century America. Anyway thanks for your kind comments. We think alike I think. I would, however, deemphasize age, but if you choose not to, you somehow make it more interesting. I am not exactly sure what you are asking me to do and whether you actually want me to do it. The article you mention is not on my list but from time to time if I see a way to improve format I do it. I believe we are speaking of layout, am I correct? I rather like the cult article even though long and think it happens to be well-written. Pictures are great but they are no substitute for a good text. If I were to go over this article in detail I would actually start with the citations. They should be the templates cite book, cite journal, cite web, and so on. I copied some to one of my my user pages which you are welcome to check but you might also want to check the handbook under templates or look them up in the master list of infoboxes if interested. For the layout, well, it does seem a bit vanilla. I think it need a box in the upper right. If I were doing it I would use the box you see in Religion in ancient Rome. In the cult of the emperors as I see it the emperors were trying to go above and beyond the genius concept and place themselves among the known traditional deities. That idea made the emperor a pretty scary character, something like Jason in Halloween. Constantine I understand sat dead on his throne for days before his attendants dared approach. Probably the smell alerted them that emperors were not personally substantially divine. Or was it Constantine? One of them. Pictures aren't so formidable once you start doing them. Its the layout really you have to be concerned about. There are certain quirks you have to be aware of but you pick those up. I would say, try some working entirely in "show preview", which you can always back oput of without having to revert. Now, I don't have time for the cite fixes and this article is not on my list. I could try some layouts but I think you would enjoy doing that yourself. Pick out a few illustrated articles if you are so inclined and see how that effect is achieved and then start with a few pics. As I say the overall design is most important - where the pictures go, what size, the general design. Don't forget to change the page width a few time to see what effect that has. As long as you do not "save" you cannot mess anything up. So what exactly do you want me to do or shall I just look at what you are doing? This thing is obsessive, isn't it? But, if you are beyond perpetually lining up a date for the weekend and you don't care a rat's tail for politics anymore and you are an intellectually curious type this can be a pretty interesting thing to do. Ciao commilitione. Let me know, hey? I'm sporadic at the moment as I have some more work-like work to do but I will get back.Dave (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you have the idea of a layout so I'm going to move along now. Maybe it was just lack of confidence. Just because you asked for my assistance does not mean you have to accept anything I do. I put an example of a cite book in there so you can see what it does. Technically speaking we are supposed to use these templates but not very many people make an issue of it. Once in a while they don't really fit; otherwise, they produce a uniform look and encourage you to put in complete information. You can find plenty of pics on commons. To get there go to main page and click on the commons icon then search commons for your topics. Everyone has his own idea of a layout. Why should not yours prevail? I do these side things because I think I can produce a quick improvement but if it turns out to be something bigger then I move on. I have a list. Are you slow? My goodness. I take your word for it. Wikipedia policy is to take what the other editors say in good faith so I believe whatever you say, if I can understand it. The emperor cult certainly is a paradoxical thing, isn't it? The Romans could accept and insist on the genius and worship it and yet when Nero joined his house to the temple and started posing as a god among the statues, that was outrageous. I disagree about the servant of god business. Not this culture. The emperor didn't serve god, he was god. You didn't see any emperor, you saw god. We don't get any corny Roman emperors kissing the ground or having themselves whipped or kneeling before statues. They were the statues. Anyway what you or I think does not matter on Wikipedia so it is irrelevant. You have to back up everything you say with sources which has been done in both articles. Good luck with the layout. Interesting chatting. On with the show.Dave (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chew all the fat you like. I'm not unfriendly. I think we resolved the layout problem - if you can move pictures around you can surely lay the page out. The only thing tricky was the bottom box. I had to put in a width parameter. I notice on the genius article someone did not like the picture to the left of the TOC. It's a subjective thing. I can't really help you with your subjectivity, now can I? I can lay out the page all right but why when you and everyone else have their own ideas? We can't give references on layouts. There are a lot of ways to do it: TOC top, TOC right, suppress TOC, galleries, pic top right, pic top left. In my experience people are used to pic or box top right, contents left before 1st heading (even though it leaves too much space right), and aren't going to let stand much of anything else. For myself I find too much blank space unesthetic. I usually step in when the editor does not know how to get rid of it. By the way thanks for putting me onto the genius article again. Some pimple-faced pubescent had vandalized it out of spite. I guess his father was too overwhelming for him. Got any other fat in mind?Dave (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adventus

Aren't you starting to feel glad you immersed yourself in Imperial cult? Monumental results. Here's a thing you might be interested in, or it might be redundant at this point:

Sabine MacCormack, "Change and Continuity in Late Antiquity: The Ceremony of Adventus," Historia 21 (1972) 721–752.

Good on the Christian transformation of Imperial pomp. Will get back to you on the email, which requires introspection. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Want me to email you a pdf? Cynwolfe (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see either spelling in the Imperial cult biblio or notes. I take it you've received already? I don't know why I've become obsessed with the lemur question. Gives me short breaks from my book while not requiring body-and-soul attention. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nobilitas

Wondered whether you'd be interested in keeping an eye out for material to add to the article Nobiles, since it seems to touch on some of your topics. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

big link to Imperial cult

Did you see that the feature article today — Diocletianic Persecution — links to Imperial cult? See the single objection I permitted myself at Talk:Diocletianic Persecution. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me sound like less of a nut. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, vehemence is next to nuttiness. You're so right about introductions. I'm still having that problem with both "Unclean spirit" and "Charon's obol" — getting at the essence. Part of the problem is that Wikipedia articles don't (and shouldn't) have an argumentative thesis to state; an article's thesis statement in some sense is non-argumentative and has to emerge consensually from the process, which is by nature open-ended. And yet my days as an editor keep me aware that most readers won't get past the lead section. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Markers of uncertainty: well, these happen, I think, in avoidance of that Wikipedian straw man "Original Research," next to which I probably should've put a smiley face in my Talk comments on the persecution. I've recognized, though I can't seem to help myself, that the ferocity of my remarks on Talk pages are a reaction to being hamstrung in actual articles — prohibited from actually delivering the product of my research. And so the tendency for articles to be accumulated statements, rather than narratives or arguments in the broadest sense. Somewhere in the arcana I've remarked that the definition of OR seems to be a dodge on the real questions of scholarly method and neutrality. It seems to be perfectly OK, for example, for some reasonably intelligent person to pull the ancient sources out of Smith's entry and use these as references in writing a biographical article on a person from antiquity, even though interpreting primary sources directly constitutes "original research" in the field of classical studies. Avoiding OR is why I don't write or contribute to articles on broad topics, because while it may be obvious to me after ten years of researching the Gallic Wars that biographers of Caesar consistently "downplay" (in its correct sense) the psychological effects of his ten-year term there, I don't have a source to cite for the statement. (Some people do note that the Caesar myth overshadows the fact that going into Gaul, he wasn't really all that extraordinary for a popularist; if Ariovistus had dispensed with the ius gentium and offed him at their conference that first year, Gaius Julius Caesar would no doubt be of far less interest to us than Publius Clodius Pulcher, whose political career at home was far busier and more productive. Hence my weird comments contra Syme recently on when the Republic ended; if Octavian had choked on a chicken bone in 30, might not the apparatus of Republican government have chugged along as it did after Sulla retired? That's what I mean by hindsight; it makes things seem inevitable that weren't. Syme elsewhere waggishly places the end of the Republic at some ridiculously late date like the death of Nero; or as Wiseman says in his new book, a time of death for the Republic can't be pronounced till all efforts at resuscitation stop, about the time that Lucan despairs.)

So in my view articles become overly detailed as a result of fearing OR and "synthesis" — another bugaboo; what, pray tell, is an encyclopedia article if it isn't (a) original research; (b) a synthesis of existing scholarship; (c) frank plagiarism; or (d) claptrap? I would love to sit down and read Diocletianic Persecution with the care it deserves, but who has world enough and time? I suspect that the admirable main contributor, freed of the tyranny of footnoting every clause, could write an enthralling article of half the length that would be accessible to a greater number of readers and less bogged down in detail.

So the missing OR in Charon's obol is that clearly it needs to be discussed in the context of the mystery religions; the passage from Apuleius has been discussed as literary evidence for the rite, but not (as far as I've seen) for its implications regarding the role of Charon as gatekeeper to the afterlife for initiates (hence the obol is not omnipresent in burials), apart from the satiric elements particular to this text. As for gatekeeper, note the presence of this figure in the Celtic tale involving Manannán mac Lir and his self-renewing swine (Demeter's animal, and a host for 'unclean' spirits). I know of someone writing a book that treats Celtic religion in antiquity under the druids as a mystery religion, arguing on an art historical basis. That would be a long digression here, but his point, as I take it, is that cult initiation is the dominant form of "true" (or "personal") pre-Christian religious devotion; hence the skeptical Varro is said to have requested a "Pythagorean" funeral, when nothing else about him is very Pythagorean. I myself would like a Catholic funeral in Latin, which I am unlikely to receive since I'm not a Catholic.

Anyway, it seems to me that what we don't want is Opinion, and people shouting at each other about who persecuted whom (I don't mean the Diocletian article); the presentation and interpretation of evidence with careful adherence to scholarly method — explain to me why this is a bad thing, since anybody can edit. That is, an outrageous interpretation can be countered. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I feel better now have expended these energies, and plan to go back to meekly compiling my list of Roman governors of Gaul. That "explain to me" was more rhetorical than it may have sounded. Though naturally I'm interested in your views. (Also, I didn't think you thought I was a predator; I just feared I had sounded like one.) Cynwolfe (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"deeply anti-humanistic" — as usual you deliver a phrase that cuts to the heart of the matter. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppressive article

I'm working on an apparently endless article: Roman Republican governors of Gaul. "Governors", I'm learning, is euphemistic for "opportunistic military commanders." The article contains tedious tables, the compilation of which is turning me anti-Roman faster than anything I've ever done. Consul gets assigned to province, consul beats up a bunch of people, consul gets triumph. This is what I get for moving out of my Late Republican comfort zone. Why am I telling you this? I forget. Oh yes. Because I recently suggested that the Romans were good at governing. Not in the Middle Republic; they're only good at beating up people. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still grinning from the bear. In fact, I thought I'd called it a bear of an article. Evidently you read my mind. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman triumphal honours

You may have something handy to contribute to Roman triumphal honours, if you would care to; don't know whether you've seen it. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weeellll, I'm not entirely convinced this should be a separate article from the regular Roman triumph; is it not really just a subsection, like the so-called "Alban" triumphs? But I find there are often good reasons for people to break out such a thing into a separate page. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's my thinking too. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you see a bear ...

If you happen to look at this diversion from the bear, could you keep an eye out for a copyediting thing? I usually don't capitalize senate and people, but I'm becoming convinced, and here I made an effort to capitalize the People and the Senate as entities opposed. I 'spect this is done inconsistently. Also, I think there are some citations needed; please flag them, as this covers some territory in Gallic governors and elsewhere, and I may not have realized I didn't cite everywhere. Thanks! Cynwolfe (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

II'll look at the article again, now that the dust has settled, but the point is supposed to be that privati are NOT magistrates; they're private citizens granted imperium in cases of military "emergency." OK with you if I move your point to the Talk page?

In answer to your other question, I write mostly offline because, oh, I dunno. I have my Word preferences set up to autocorrect my most common typos; when I capitalize, I almost always capitalize two letters instead of one. But if I were to worship supernatural beings, I'd probably go with Athena. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman triumphal honours

Hi. I have no objection to merging the above with Roman triumph, especially if you are doing a revamp of the whole article. On this subject, I saw yesterday in a bookshop a new book on entitled "Roman triumphs" which you may find useful. PS: However, I do think Roman triumphal honours needs a distinct section of its own, and should not be woven into the main text. Otherwise, someone who wants info on the honours only will be stuck trying to extract it from a lot of background noise! Cheers EraNavigator (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is the title you suggest. However, I do not possess a copy and have not read it, so I can't comment on it. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

interesting section on adoption

There's an interesting passage on "adoption" in the article Lucius Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus (where Paullus seems to be spelled wrong in the title?), three grafs of it under Family life and descendants, probably the most detailed 'case study' I've run across on Wikipedia. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both spellings are attested, and psulus is the classical form of the adjective. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose the double L just happened to be favored by the sources I use most often, and is probably only slightly more common overall. Single/double L is used inconsistently within the article, hence the question mark. I've now sworn off caring about such things, anyway. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speechless

Please tell me that Judaism wasn't just brought into the Discussion That Won't Go Away at the G&R Project. Please tell me that this person is not equating the final -e to the Final Solution. I am going nowhere near that one. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather, if I hadn't just made an apology by way of bowing out, I'd be inclined to state that this crosses some kind of line. Though I don't know how to define it. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

today's feature article

Today's featured article on Mary Tofts has the best first sentence in the history of Wikipedia. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And naturally someone started mucking with it. The overworking to which Wiki editors are prone. I couldn't bear it and put it back; don't know whether it will stay. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Tomb

Thanks for your note, and I'm happy to know that you'll be working on an article on this topic. I have dredged up the deleted content for your amusement, so you'll know exactly why it was deleted as being nonsense: "~~Francois was gay~~ Francois was a bisexuall but he is sometimes called to be gay. He lived in 613 BC and he was buried in Francois tomb.He also Shot a goose" I'm not familiar with the topic, so I don't know if this bears any relationship to reality or not, but I rather doubt it. Best of luck with the article, and if I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Postumus Agrippa

Hey man, I heard about this ridiciulous paragraph regarding Postumus Agrippa that his son married Vespasian's little sister. But Augustus page correctly states Agrippa never married or had kids despite dying at 25. So should I reinstate the idiotic paragraph and restore the article considered for deletion regarding Flavia Vespasia. What do you think? Have you heard about a son of Postumus Agrippa or another sister of Vespasian that lived to adulthood? Blood3 18:12, 09 November 2009 (AEST)

LRT on Lares

On its way via email. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Bibulus

[3] Cynwolfe (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not encountered this bucket of dung before, and long to read the source. I'd love to write a satiric novel on the late Republic through the eyes of Bibulus, but in third person. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Phelps

You edited the article about Christopher Phelps and recently reverted edits by WFCarlton. The subject of the article has reverted and removed content that he objects to. This issue has been submitted to the BLP noticeboard, where you may like to comment. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article has reverted the addition of his run for the U.S. Senate as a Socialist twice more within 24 hours without discussion. To offer input and for details, please see the article's talk page.

Angelo

Thanks for your note. Angelo Sabino's almost done. I just want to pull out a passage from the letter from Ulysses, and I'm working on a section to add to Broteas to illuminate his Renaissance incarnation as Brotheus, which in turn led me to plump up the article on Ovid's Ibis, the work that I know least by the Latin poet I know best. (Actually that's no longer true; I probably know Catullus better now.) And then to Natalis Comes, where I tarried again. This all started when I was busy on the prosopography project, trying to pull out gens names and such from the constraints of disambiguation pages. I have articles in progress on the consuls of 39 BC, a Marcius Censorinus (these guys as you know have interested me before, in connection with Marsyas and young Publius Crassus) and a Calvisius Sabinus. In creating Sabinus (cognomen) from the disambig page, I noticed there was an article on Sabinus (Ovid). There I discovered Angelo, who has now obsessed me for a week and led to Onofrio de Santa Croce and Rutgerus Sycamber, each of whom I found interesting in his own right, the first rather tragic, the latter comic in a painful sort of way — wrote 140 works in a decade, and only got two or three published despite his strenuous efforts. This willingness to get lost in a labyrinth of connected hallways is how I have a folder of unfinished articles. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Subpages

No problem. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Best wishes for a happy, productive, and lively New Year. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leoš Janáček - incorrect date

Hi Davey! Happy New Year to you and your family! As for Janáček, it was a really good catch. This information was changed by an IP in March. It passed without noticing, which is weird. Someone stole him two days of his life :) --Vejvančický (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to do this again, but ...

The lead section in the article Religion in ancient Rome now contains the following sentence:

These religions were polytheistic, and as such are sometimes referred to as "pagan".

I'm not going to do another of my "pagan is an inaccurate term in antiquity" rants (am I? see talk page of Libanius et al.), so since you're working in this area I'm simply going to point out that the sentence makes no friggin sense. It seems to be saying that since these religions were polytheistic, by definition they are 'pagan.' Which, of course, only shows what an utterly useless word "pagan" is in talking about the religions of antiquity.

I realize that my campaign to have the word "pagan" used accurately is doomed, since the likes of Momigliano can be arrayed against me. But that "as such" was just fingernails on the chalkboard. Though I wouldn't use that metaphor on Wikipedia with most people, who aren't old enough to remember chalkboards. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the point is that the word says nothing; the passage from Peter Brown that I always quote sums it up quite well. Christian dualism required that the Other be a monolithic entity: hence the opposite of Christianity is cast as 'paganism'. This dualism is alien to the ancient Romans themselves, and in no way reflects their views of religion. Your work on Imperial cult shows very well that religion in ancient Rome was a sort of network of cults and belief systems. An individual's religion would look like some kind of very complex Venn diagram. The moment I stopped using the word 'pagan' to describe ancient religious practice was the moment I started to feel that I was gaining a more substantial understanding of it. But one of my resolutions for the New Year is to stop arguing with people and just stay in my esoteric corners. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to your last note, I myself would not want to do that, but wouldn't necessarily object to it being done. I know I can sound strident on this issue, but sometimes I get to the point where I just want to say to someone, "Are you incapable of understanding, or just willfully and gleefully ignorant?" The last note on the talk page in question is an assertion that "stupid rules," isn't it? One can't argue with that. Or at least I can't follow the other person's argument. It's an example of what Wiki-critics call mob rule. So discussing the matter on the Project page might be as fruitless and frustrating. It's become nearly impossible on Wikipedia to discuss content, because there's always this insistence that ignorance is a valid POV from which to argue. Or rather, not argue, but simply plant one's feet in the ground and say no, I don't have to learn anything about the larger context of the subject matter, I just have to quote some rule or assert the validity of ignorance. And when you try to see the other person's POV and incorporate it, often that's seen as conceding the entire point, rather than trying to arrive at a consensus.

Incidentally, though the term can be useful, I've also seen 'polytheism' criticized as inaccurate, because there are religious beliefs in antiquity that, while not monotheistic like the major modern religions, adhere to a principle of divine unity or oneness. I don't go with that line of argument mainly because it's a very fine point, though I'm uncomfortable using the term 'polytheism' because I don't understand what it means to call, say, Cicero a polytheist. I'd rather say things like Cicero was an augur, and what that would've involved, and wrote a damned-hard-to-see-the-point-of treatise on divination, and was a religious skeptic whose personal skepticism colored how generations of later scholars regarded Roman religion. It may only have been when I was writing one of my early articles (on Quintus Valerius Soranus) that I started to grasp how useless the word 'pagan' was to describe an individual's religious practice or beliefs in ancient Rome. I mean, in what way would it be illuminating, if one were creating an info box on Soranus, to identify his religion as 'pagan'? Pythagoreans, Stoics, Orphics, Mithraists, Galli — these are distinct belief systems, even though an individual might incorporate some combination of beliefs from them, while at the same time participating in Imperial cult, and domestic cult, and public sacrifices to the Olympians, and whatever. The point is, do we want to try to understand religion in ancient Rome, or do we just want to say, oh, they were pagans, and we all know what that means, even though I bet if you asked that person to describe what (given that he thinks 'pagan' is a perfectly serviceable word) Lollianus's religion consisted of on a day-to-day or month-by-month basis, he wouldn't be able to tell you a single concrete thing. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

link to cult

Just linked to Imperial cult (ancient Rome) from a new little article. Bravo for tackling Religion in ancient Rome. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I did open that religion terminology can of worms (which is not nearly so delightful an image as your piglets). But notice that I didn't use the "p" word. No need to set too many fires at once. Hope your trip was pleasant. I laughed out loud more than once at Tacitus's dry remark on J.C.'s bardic efforts. Am working on something else I'll want you to look over critically in a day or two — bears on Imperial cult (ancient Rome). Cynwolfe (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted a message on the Gratidianus talk page. I'll be trying to finish the section marked for expansion in the next couple of days. There seem to be more sources online now, because I wasn't sure how I was going to proceed without OR until I searched again recently and finally found scholars saying what I thought perfectly obvious. I should've got this done a couple of days ago, but when it finally came together in my head the fiction writer kicked in and truthfully I've felt almost physically sick. Some kook surely has run with a Jesus-Gratidianus parallel somewhere: they took a divus beloved of the people, paraded, tortured and executed him. In your face, populus. I sense a lost link to Marsyas iconography. Somehow this was my response to the recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that money is speech. Something tells me our M. Marius had more going for him than currency reform. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The conceptual connection to Marsyas would seem to be the arbor infelix; see note 44. Think I'll try to do a little article on this term, since it's used much also in Christian studies in connection with the cross. The Gratidianus article lacks only a paragraph or two now. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TWINKLE, and other ways to speed undos

Just noticed you did a piecemeal revert of edits by one user on Romulus and Remus. You might want to try using WP:TWINKLE or applying for WP:ROLLBACK permissions; either one would allow you to revert the most recent changes by a single editor, no matter how many edits they made, which would make your three WP:UNDO edits become a single rollback. Twinkle also allows you to apply a comment to these rollbacks (Rollback doesn't, and should only be used for clear vandalism, so it's less flexible in some ways). If multiple users have made bad edits, Twinkle will also allow you to restore a specific version of the page, rather than manually undoing each set of changes (this came in handy for me on a few pages that had been unwatched for months with multiple IPs messing with them; I just restored to the pre-vandal version in one stroke). I just thought I'd let you know, given you're clearly engaged in some vandal fighting. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: I've meant to do something about the Twinkling-Rollbecker business for some time now. The technical stuff here shouldn't scare me but yes, it does, and I also savour the occasional sardonic and personalised remark when reverting vandalsim. But yes, it's horrendously slow; and of course I'd rather be editing. So... yes, which of these critters is easiest to use? For one such as I who knows bugger-all? Rollback sounds good. Do I simply apply on the page-link you gave? And can I still personalise the tool with "firm and maybe even sarcastic but generally fair" commentaries on the offenders' talk-pages? Haploidavey (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback is a very specific tool: It rolls back without showing you a diff, without confirmation, and with a single message format, with no room for customization. And you need to apply for permissions to use it, while Twinkle doesn't require any (except maybe being autoconfirmed, which you should be by now). If you want to include your own messages, I'd go for Twinkle. It's pretty easy to set up (click my preferences at the top of any Wiki page, go to the Gadgets tab and check the box for Twinkle, then hit Save). It will add new options when viewing a page diff which are mostly self-explanatory. Just a note: If you want a personalized remark, choose the green (assume good faith) or blue (no faith assumed) rollback options. The red (vandal) rollback option will insert a standard message indicating you were rolling back obvious vandalism (similar to the way WP:ROLLBACK works, but a little more aggressive). In addition, when you roll back any edits with this functionality, it will bring up the user's talk page in a separate window to allow you to warn them; you don't have to do so (just close the talk page if it doesn't warrant a warning), but it's good practice.

If you do have any questions on the use of Twinkle, feel free to drop me a line, or ask on the talk page for the project. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: You don't need to insert the month headers yourself. Twinkle will do it for you. In a few cases it might get overzealous and insert a new header when one already exists (usually because ClueBot or other posts have interfered with the thread), but it won't completely omit one if it's needed. Sorry for "wikistalking", I have Ray Bradbury on my watchlist and noticed your edits; figured I'd see what you were up to. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one last thing. On Carl Sandburg, you used the "restore this version" link. The regular "rollback" links will automatically rollback all edits by one user, so unless there are multiple users making bad edits that need to be rolled back, you don't need to restore specific versions. If you use the rollback link, it has the added advantage of opening the user talk page automatically for a warning, if needed. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mutunus

Speaking of whom, a scholar I cited compared the nature of Mutunus Tutunus to the mysterious phallus that rose in the hearth to beget Servius Tullius. To my surprise, Servius's article doesn't mention this story; it's very Euhemerized, and treats Servius as a perfectly historical figure with legendary accretions, as if the reverse might not also be the case. And it says juvenile things like "Incidentally, Livy did not believe that Servius Tullius was born a slave" (nothing like "incidentally" to fake a transition) and "Servius did not invent the concept of class" (presumably we're talking about ordo). Anyway, if you're imperial cult-ing and have something at hand on the Servius Tullius legends you could add easily, that article needs a section with at least a paragraph on the myth of his birth and sexual visitations by the goddess Luck. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

… Seriously? Cynwolfe (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To balance the deletion of the section of JC's literary works, an editor with a brain made some very welcome and good improvements to Mutunus Tutunus, which had been a fairly sloppy little piece. Servius at the crossroads is extremely intriguing — as you imply, it would seem to have to relate to the compita and who the Lares are. Will keep my eyes open. Am officially done with Marcus Marius Gratidianus, and may compress the last section if I get around to writing a broader article on human sacrifice in ancient Rome and can cross-reference. Next time I want to get really depressed by an article … Cynwolfe (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Placed on a little trolley?' Thanks, St. Aug, for my giggle of the day. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vercondaridubnus

The sources are:

Colin Michael Wells, The Roman Empire, Harvard University Press, 1995, ISBN 0674777700, p. 129;
Greg Woolf, Becoming Roman: the origins of provincial civilization in Gaul, Cambridge University Press, 2000, ISBN 0521789826, p. 217;
S.R.F. Price, Rituals and power: the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor, Cambridge University Press, 1985, ISBN 052131268X, p. 74.

In general, "Caius" is the result of the wrong decipherment of the abbreviation "C." for a nomen, but no "Caius" nomen existed. --TakenakaN (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin West

Thanks for pointing that out. I was in rather a hurry - my understanding of the term 'Latin West' is that of the high medieval writers who called themselves the 'Latins'. Are you saying the meaning you are talking about (the pre-Christian one) is entirely different. Or is it that the article I redirected to is wrong? I rather think the latter - surely the idea of a linguistic distinction that divided the whole empire applies to both the pre-Christian and medieval periods?

I hope that's clear - what I am trying to say is that it is the link to Western Christianity that is at fault, because it does not capture the real meaning of 'Latin West'. I will rely on your judgment, I am not an expert on the pre-medieval stuff A history of the modern world (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The characterisation here is how I understand the term: a phenomenon that began as a linguistic distinction and became a religious and cultural one. "The Christian civilisation centred on Constantinople was Greek-speaking and used Greek for official purposes. the Christian civilisation that was emerging in the West used Latin for legal purposes and in the liturgy of the Church .. and Latin was the lingua franca of the educated. Communication between these two sister civilisations - which certainly did not think of themselves as separate - was profound, but it now depended on those who had command of both languages. See [4] A history of the modern world (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded with suggestions for disambiguation or de-linking - if the context of the term wasn't clear, it should at least not confuse the reader. An admin closed the user-page soon after; it had been opened to evade a permanent block. I was surprised to find all this editor's contributions and others' responses on his talk-page erased, as if in damnatio memoriae; I thought we evaluated contributions on their own merits. Haploidavey (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the article Greek East to Greek East and Latin West, and added a bit of content, (now expanded a bit by others), as an appropriate link for the term "Latin West" and re-linked the phrase in many of the articles which had linked the term previously. I hope this seems appropriate to you and others. Paul August ☎ 15:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yes I'm not User talk:A history of the modern world, as you may have thought at first. Paul August ☎ 16:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the same happened with this and would have happened to my article Eternity_of_the_world had not Paul August kindly saved it (thank you Paul). Sorry to have caused any confusion, Haploidavey. It would take too long to explain why I am in this situation. 86.184.133.167 (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it wasn't me who restored Eternity of the world, that was Lar [5]. Paul August ☎ 21:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm sorry you are right. Sorry Lar. 86.184.133.167 (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a useful article and a fascinating subject. Haploidavey (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I am not sure about "The Greek East and Latin West are terms used to divide ..." followed by the Chalcedonian division. Many historians use it that way but it is clear that the idea of peoples divided by an official and educated language predates this period (451 AD). Also there is a lot more to say about this than the current article states. 86.184.133.167 (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply here, rather than on a talk-page that may not be long for this world. It's good to have the short article; and yes, I'm sure there's more to be said on the topic, but if you are who I think you are, I strongly recommend that you put your case to whoever or whatever powers decide who's blocked and who ain't - you'll know them better than I. Offer flowers, incense, fatted calves and promises or whatever else you have. I'll wish you fair hearing and the best of luck. You obviously want to edit here but I doubt that back-door approaches are going to help. Be upfront, for your own sake. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but an unblock would be a compromise. I live on the margins here, creating articles on various subjects, then see them deleted. It's a form of performance art. Many of them don't get deleted. Medieval philosophy is still there and History of Logic, to name a few. I'm one of those people they just don't know what to do with, and I like it like that. 86.184.133.167 (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

!! I'd find that utterly exhausting, I think; life's so short and my curiosity is matched only by my ignorance. But disobedience and challenge can certainly be fruitful. Good luck with your endeavours - and by the way (as a PS) I've always been fascinated by what goes on at the margins of things. Haploidavey (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Caesar literary works

I think you watch Julius Caesar, but when I logged in this morning I found that someone had deleted the entire (utterly innocuous) section 'literary works', including the list linking to the articles on Caesar's extant works. I recognize the person's name, so this is a Wikipedian of long standing. It's true the section had no citations; but the correct procedure, especially in a highly trafficked article, is surely to tag the section to that effect. I mean, everything in the section is completely standard and common knowledge, except for one bizarre statement at the end that I tagged. Nothing drives me crazier than people deleting uncontroversial info because they're too lazy either to do the research to provide citations, or even discuss what the article needs on the talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I just sent you three emails in a row with no new content, just whatever the last message was. Apologies. Perhaps I will try again when I'm more clearheaded. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, am I OK? Good question. Haven't had a chance to see what was wrong with the email last night, as I was in a bit of a rush at the time. I'll try to get back to it soon, after I fulfill today's oaths. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lexical items in Roman religion

I noticed that Wikipedia has no special section for the language of Roman religion. Ie terms as fas, sacer, pius, pietas, sanctus, ritus etc. are not treated in a specific way. I would like to try and write someting but I do not know whether it would more apropriate to start a new section or writing under entry Roman religion or under sigle entries.

I would appreciate your suggestions.Aldrasto (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply. I think I shall start a new article under the heading: Vocabulary of ancient Roman religion.Aldrasto (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mos maiorum

I have translated a big chunk by the same author of the article leges regiae, if you are interested please have a look. The references are not so many though, but the content is passably informative.Aldrasto (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this need tinkering with?

From the article flamen:

"A fourth flamen maior was added after 44 BC dedicated to Julius Caesar. When the imperial cult got underway, further flamines were appointed to worship the divine Roman emperors."

Just wanted you to check it. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludi

I have so often needed to link to an article on ludi that I've hastily begun one. Not much of one. As you know no doubt better than I, it's of great relevance to two of your pet projects, gladiators and Imperial cult. So there 'tis. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A gift

Evidently one can download the entirety of Rüpke's Companion to Roman Religion free! Don't know whether this is an illicit limited-time offer that may vanish, but thought you might want to nab it. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genius (mythology)

Is the first sentence of this article right? It seems overly broad, and more like numen. Not to make you feel personally responsible for everything that touches on Imperial cult and Roman religion ... But maybe triage regarding the lead section. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully, I haven't read the whole article. I always assume, however, that most people will just read the lead section, so when I link to something I want the lead section to fill pretty quickly whatever gap of knowledge I assume caused them to go there. I don't know why I keep throwing these things at you, other than I know you have a grip on them already and I don't. I have a half-dozen near-finished related articles I can't seem to close the deal on, in part because I arrive at other articles when checking my links and start doing first aid. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vocabulary of ancient Roman religion

I have written something on this topic. If you have the time I would appreciate your comments and suggestions. Sorry for the trouble and thank you.Aldrasto (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest and helpfulness. My English is sometimes influenced by Italian. I have found interesting material on google by Italian romanist Francesco Sini, useful for editing here and rich in quotations and references. Aldrasto (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too I am wondering how to solve the problem of links and repetitions. The article augur is already acceptable, so I do not think I shall copy it here, and til now I have no access to better info. If you have easy access to a good library I suggest that you try and get the main books by Pierangelo Catalano, which according to what I read in F. Sini (apart Dumezil) are the best on the subject. Particularly these 3 titles: Contributi allo studio del diritto augurale Torino 1960, Linee del sistema sovrannazionale romano Torino 1965, Populus romanus Quirites Torino 1975. I cannot.Aldrasto (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found chapter III of F. Sini's book is an exhaustive analysis of the sources. I shall make some additons to the article on this and other info from his work.Aldrasto (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I cannot answer all your questions now, tomorrow maybe. I do not think what I draw on Dumezil here is contentious matter, I only draw in this article what is uncontentious, generally accepted knowledge. If English Wikipedia should be compiled with English language sources I shall have to stop editing since I do not have access to them. However I think it is a pity for the English reader since as for the article on leges regiae and mos maiorum I think Italian contributions have been good (and Vulcan , Vesta, Portunus, Caeculus, Fetial, flamen...). I think since I started editing Wikipedia I greatly improved articles I edited and I created (Ver sacrum, Flamen Quirinalis, Leges regiae, Vocabulary o. R. r.). Objectively I think if you compare what are the wikipedia articles and the info you can get reading what I wrote you can see an improvement. The authors I used are all published scholars. Sini is an ordinary of Roman law since 30 years. I shall welcome your suggestions for bibliographic sources in English. Sini quotes about 20%-30% in English. In matters of Roman religion and law the main sources are in German, French and Italian. Catalano has been reviewed many times on mags as JORS and is known worlwide. Unfortunately I cannot get his books!

While I was editing (completing the section on Temple) somebody has started drawing a line on what I was writing. Clearly somebody does not like what I write here and I cannot continue editing under such circumstances. Today I wanted to finish and revise some voices and i did not read your mail nor the discussion page in advance. I greatly appreciate your support and interest. I wish the English speaking readers can get some good first hand contact with Roman ancient religious culture and juridical culture. Me too I am an ignorant soul and I am learning a lot from what I have to read to write the articles. I had read mainly Dumezil and Bloch. However it struck me the intelligent distinction Sini makes between libri and commentarii: it tallies with what i learned at school. Commentaries were for the Romans are notes, mnemonical aids, as eg the famous Commentarii de bello gallico by Caesar. He purposedly used this title because he wanted to differentiate himself from the current historiography which was mainly oratory, thus he resorted to this title identifing what had become a genre. Libri are the canons, commentaries the records of acts and deeds. I shall read the material you gave me as soon as possible. Thank you very much again.Aldrasto (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help, explanations and comments. I understood the comments were yours as I had never wrote to Des and the message is not signed.

I wondered whether to transfer the section on the augurales libri to article augur. However I think it could also be left in this article and later included in a general section on the Libri, including the pontificales and other.Aldrasto (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to read part of the 1st chapter of Beard, though I do not think it may be of much help. Des gave me old books links.I read most of J. B. Carter and he is even less of help. I have yet to see Fowler. It would be fine to have access to a good dictionary etymological online dictionary. I found many times excellent articles on William Smith's dictionary by Lacus Curtius (mainly those written W. Smith and L. Schmitz), maybe I could refer there too. How to connect? for some entries they come up first on google but not all.Aldrasto (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for very much for your helpfulness. I am reading Fowler and Festus (on the French maracle) on mundus. It is interesting. Here is an email of mine you can use if you find interesting material: jerryjones1@hotmail.com.Aldrasto (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had some problems due to loss of session data while editing templum. Now the entry shows thrice and I am afraid of causing further damage. If you have a minute could you please fix it for me? Sorry for the trouble and thank you.

I also managed to read the index of the work on the subject by Catalano in AUNDRW (Aspetti spaziali del sistema giuridico-religioso romano. Mundus, templum, urbs, ager, Latium, Italia), here it is: 1. Generalities (Templum)

a) Concept: t. in caelum and in terris; locus designatus in aere and templum inauguratum.

b) orientation and division; definition

2. Locus designatus in aere

a) " " " " and Roman-Italic religiosity

b) " " " " and auguria et auspicia (auguraculum and tabernaculum)

3. Templum inauguratum

a) Inauguratio and dedicatio-consecratio

b) subjects competent to inaugurate

c) effectivenes of the inauguratio

d) elements " " "

e) Acts of magistrates and sacerdotes that are to be performed in an inaugurated templum

Aldrasto (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read your message. I understand there are technical problems with the Wiki software because the article is getting too long, and I have not yet edited a half of it. Indeed it was my aim to create a sort of more concise, dictionary-like article but I am a bad lexicographer and tend to write too long entries. If you are able and willing to do this job as you say I have no objections and I shall be obliged for it.Aldrasto (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help. It looks you have done a very good job. I just would like to ask you to control your interpretation of De Div. I 72 because it says what the text (and me) did not say. The speaker says that such matters are discussed in such works as the Etruscan haruspicini and fulgurales and rituales libri and in yours (intending Roman) augurales libri, not that the augurales libri contained anything Etruscan.

On the sentence that you detected as out of place pending there: it is the conclusion of De Leg. II 21 in which the responsibilities of augurs are outlined, this last sentence in the passage concerns the practical (faulty) explication of his activity which (according to Sini) was normally included in the commentarii. Here Cicero is making a general exposition of the responsibilities of the augur, thus this sentence is there at its place even if it was perhaps not in the libri. But of course it is up to the editor to decide on its relevance here.Aldrasto (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is me who should apologise, if I had more practise I would have used the sandbox, but a trial was unsuccesful and everything went lost.

About the question you asked on the last sentence of De Legibus II 21 I suppose what created misunderstanding is my addition in parentheses: does not appear (in court)... This is not in Cicero and when I made the translation I thought it was a logical interpretation for a faulty discharge of the augur's duty. However this is not likely: here Cicero probably means, whoever does not appear, ie turn up when he is summoned to discharge his augural duties.

As for your last request I have already been doing so in the last posts and I shall oblige in the future. For the libri augurales if I remember well I had added a translation below. I think there is almost nothing left untranslated now. (But perhaps I forgot something).Aldrasto (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpfulness. However I have a question: it is obvious that the complexity of the topics allows no detailed discussion, as any entry could well be the subject of a book. However my aim was to provide readers with some good first hand contact with the topics and an idea of their complexity.

I spent some time reading the scholarly works provided in the discussion page by Cynewolf on the leges regiae and I must confess I have not found anything that could substantially change that article or be seen as an advancement in comparison to what the author has written. Indeed these works look comparatively obsolete (eg the one by A.A. Schiller is based on Italian works earlier to those by Tondo and Franciosi). Thence it comes my doubt as to the relevance of much scholarship which is not strictly focused, dedicated. I think lexical issues are central to Roman religion as much or perhaps even more than to other ones.

As I wrote in the discussion page giving primary sources a place, although inserted in a critical presentation or overview, is in my view something worthy to readers.

An instance from the leges regiae: most of the authors linked argue that these were related to sacral law or to the mos: however if one has the opportunity of reading them in their entirety he shall see by himself that this view is not confirmed by evidences in most cases.

On another note, if somebody has objections to the views presented in my exposition I am open to discussion and indeed as I have said several times I warmly welcome contributions.

I see somebody has briefly edited on some entries. I am in agreement with everything, maybe I should make some little additions. However:

1) feriae: it should be stated that were religious occasions, not mere free days. Or better they were compulsorily free because dedicated to something religious (gods, rites etc.).

2) dium: the explanation given is not appropriate: it does mean the universe or cosmos as is stated by Varro in the quotation on the sacerdotes.

3) festus here is an adjective and means festive day (dies festus) connected to feriae. It could also be entried with its opposite profestus, ie not sacred to gods but allowed to profane things.

4) fasti: perhaps it should be expanded a little. Fastus is an adjective meaning allowed, belonging to, within, under the fas.Aldrasto (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swearing in of magistrates

It took place on Jan 1 ( Ov. Fas. I, 79 ff.). Since Ovid writes late in Augustus's reign and made additions and corrections after his death I do not think that this cerimony should have been moved to August 1.

However Dumezil writes that 'it seems that in the early period of the repubic it took place on Sept 15 (Idi) on the anniversary of the foundation'.

Thank you for the interest in the vocabulary.

About the leges regiae google has some interesting articles, one by L.L. Kofanov and one by Zika Bukalic. I have not yet finished reading them.

About Roman religion and theology Varro L. L. V is very informative, even if it is heavily influenced by Greek philosophy.Aldrasto (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sentence of the day

"It may have been as a genteel allusion to their long-haired Sabine origins that the patrician Claudii customarily had a 'mullet' haircut, as we know from Suetonius and from the sculptural busts of various Julio-Claudians." Cynwolfe (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, this is not currently embedded in Wikipedia; it is the work of a professional scholar-comic. I long to find a place for it in an article. The article Roman hairstyles (who knew that existed?) is regrettably sexist in assuming that only Roman women had a hairstyle. Clearly they were unaware of the Claudian mullet. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review of an article

(Cross-posted to Akhilleus, Adam Bishop and Haploidavey (at AB's suggestion):

I have just finished my first attempt at a rewrite of Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant. I would not consider myself a classicist nor a linguist. Before I submit the article to peer review, would you be willing to review it carefully and let me know any views and comments on its talk page?

Thank you!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Game

Have you seen on Wikipedia a discussion of the Lusus Troiae, the "Troy Game"? Equestrian event in which noble youth participated. I was sure I saw it somewhere. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was sure I had seen a sentence or two at least somewhere in an article, and possibly one within your sphere of activity, maybe gladiators (as an example of non-gladiatorial sport — but no, as it turns out) or even Imp cult. When one searches "Troy Game," however, one gets many many results, too many for me to have patience to sort through. I forged ahead with a little article (Lusus Troiae), though it would be interesting to have a bit more on the occasions of the Julio-Claudian stagings of it. If one were motivated to do so. Which I'm not. A drawing of the Etruscan vase could probably be found in a public domain book.

Dusios has turned out to be a headache. I thought I was limiting any claims pretty strictly; I've noticed that I was a bit more adventurous in putting together earlier articles. I think there's something pretty interesting lurking around these beings which becomes evident from the context and comparanda, as I say on the talk page. I don't want to stray into OR in the article, but I also don't want to present wrongheaded or outmoded scholarship. The 19th-century Celticists seem to have been on the right track, but (as we all do) shaped their interpretations by the temper of their time — all woodland and water sprites. It occurred to me that the patristic attitude was not unrelated to that section on the Delphic oracle in Unclean spirit. Currently the article on incubation (ritual) is an unsourced stub, and the article on incubus doesn't have a section on the Incubus in antiquity, where he seems to have to do as much to do with dream vision (or nightmare vision) as sex. It's like when I was baffled at the controversy over "Roman antiquarianism," I suppose — the article on antiquarianism doesn't have a section on antiquity, so I didn't realize this would seem out-of-nowhere to others when literary histories regularly call certain Latin writers "antiquarians." It seems obvious to me that Augustine, Tertullian, Arnobius, et al. call everybody else's gods "demons," so their use of the word has to be understood in context.

I can't begin to tell you how many articles on Roman religion I have nearly finished; I keep getting stuck on things like the Troy Game, where some explanation is required that would be out of proportion to the article at hand, but nothing exists to link to. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always for your note. Where is the passage from Livy you mentioned? Sometimes I like reading Livy, and sometimes he wears me out in a way that Tacitus never does. I haven't been reading enough primary material lately. Thinking of translating Ovid's Ibis, though. Seems as if it would be cathartic. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found the image for Troy Game, and more of interest besides. No OR, I swear. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ask: what is the best link for "Temple of the Divine Julius," aka Aedes Divi Iulii? A section in Imp cult or Roman religion you could recommend? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth did I enter as a search if I didn't find Temple of Caesar? There's even a redirect from Temple of Divus Iulius. Duh. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agony

Could you, wearing your Gladiator-editor hat (or helmet), take the quickest of drives through Stadium of Domitian? It's peppered with errors, but I wouldn't want to deprive you of the amusement of seeing them before I fix anything, and I thought you might have sources at your fingertips. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your immediate diligence on this. As for your remarks on my talk page, one appreciates wild flowers that grow in vacant lots. I'll take a look at Religion in ancient Rome soon as I can. I'm having some kind of modem problem — it cuts out on me unexpectedly. Very frustrating. Can't get anything done. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

too silly?

OK, is this image too silly? Does it make the subject matter more vivid, or am I just entranced by its cuteness? Cynwolfe (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well put! I love the bit about the god's name coming from wa. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Augustine seems to miss the fun of the old gods even though he finds Christianity superior. I like reading him; I can take most Church Fathers only in small doses before I feel utterly depressed. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually shun this acronym, but LOL. Uproariously. If she's still with us, thank her for the laugh; if not, I'll hoist a glass to her next time. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swedes and Janáček

Hello Davey, hope you are well :) The translation of our work is now a featured article on Swedish Wikipedia. I love this exchange of informations. That's one of the best things on Wikipedia! I believe that the content is correct, even though the article still isn't perfect :) Btw, a short time ago, some people on Czech Wikipedia led a furious discussion about Janáček's nationality, claiming that he was not Czech, but Moravian. I attempted to explain my point: every reliable encyclopedia calls him a "Czech composer", more because of the language than territorial affiliation. I think we resolved the problem quite well here, his inspiration and connection with Moravia is explained in detail. The debate was useless and crazy, because most of people there don't care about this complicated topic, they just want to push their personal nationalist opinions. I have to admit that I'm a proud Moravian patriot, but hopefully not a stupid one. Have a good day. Antonín Vejvančický (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to you both! Thanks to your excellent research and references my translation was appointed FA on Swedish Wikipedia. It was a hard work but worth while. I learned a lot. All the best, Rex Sueciæ ✎ 14:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your apt and inspirative remarks, Davey. Mostly, I consider the online disputes of hidden identities and egos here on Wikipedia as harmless. The real world is far worse. As a Middle-European, I observe the relations between Slovakia and Hungary and I can see the most stupid nationalist agenda and grudge between nations supported and inflamed by the top politicians, state representants and by a large part of nations. This is really appalling, and moreover, any solution seems to be impossible. Let's forget the sad things. Happy editing :) --Vejvančický (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Czech lands again

Hello Davey. I just created an article about an important element of the Czech medial scene, magazine Reflex. I often use their excellent articles on the Czech culture as sources, and I consider it appropriate to start here an article about the magazine. The problem is, that I'm describing recent controversies, and I would like to have my draft checked by another editor before I put the article to the main space. Would you mind to look at it and notify me about any problems, please? Thank you. With kind regards. Antonín Vejvančický (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lares and dog

Interesting image of Lares here. Dog generally chthonic, but here he looks up while being patted on the head like an ordinary pooch. (I'm working on dogs in magic and sacrifice at the moment.) Cynwolfe (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Womb veil (an irresistible phrase) came up when I was researching Di nixi. I like to dip into the 19th century occasionally. I'm working concurrently on a series of articles pertaining to birth deities, human and animal sacrifice in ancient Rome, revising some of the festival articles, and some minor bits of religious topography (I was delighted to uncover Columna Lactaria, with its charitable aspects). Maybe I should post these forthcoming pieces on my user page.

I see you've already seen the works at Glossary of ancient Roman religion. Handy to have found what sort of thing this is supposed to be. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you watch ...

Roman temple? The article had been written from a paganist POV. I deleted a bunch of stuff. And I mean stuff: like, they sacrificed outdoors so it would be easier to clean up. This is an article that really needs development. Eventually, it should be split into an article on Roman temples, and a List of Roman temples. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THNX! :D

I understand, thnx for the lecture. and the reference list did not work? i thought it did, i checked the links to check if they were active after i added the scroll box? well, thnx anyways. 序名三 (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK!

I will try to fix it at this moment, and i hope that any glitch that may have been caused by the edit disappears... 序名三 (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

little interesting thing

Here's an intriguing little essay on Imperial cult and the Book of Revelation (I've only glanced at it): [6]. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reflex (magazine)

... is now in the namespace and anyone can edit/fix possible problems. Thank you again for your time, Davey. I wish you good luck and a lot of fun with the Roman topics here on Wikipedia and I wish you good luck also in your real life. Let me know if you need anything in the Czech Republic :) You are an exceptional editor. Antonín Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

magnificent and maganimous

What a fine and unimpeachable statement you made on the talk page of the glossary. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia don't allow advertising! Please explain?

Dear Haploidavey Following your recent removal of my addition of a car rental company in Shanklin under transport in the Isle of Wight page, can you please expand more on your reason for deletion i.e. Wikipedia don't allow advertising? I note that other links to web pages with advertising exist already. I entered these details purely for information purposes as there was already a self drive rental company linked with cycle hire mentioned. If you decide to remove my link then I'm afraid you must also remove their link too. What is more important than anything is that we try to promote the Isle of Wight as an excellent place to visit. I look forward to an early reply. Regards greengolf17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengolf17 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:The cycle-hire link was also removed, though by another editor. Haploidavey (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Reflex (magazine)

On May 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Reflex (magazine), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Davey. My "tabloid hook" attracted attention of almost 7000 people. No questions, no copyediting. Btw, I added one of their controversial covers, it serves as a very good illustration of the magazine's style :) ... Okay, the general elections in my country start tomorrow, and rhetoric of the main characters (starring also in our article) become more and more funny, crazy, and scary. Good inspiration for any provocative and clever magazine! Best regards. Antonín Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what the ...

What the heck happened on the glossary talk page? I looked at the edit history; I don't even see how it happened. What now? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. My feeling is that talk shouldn't be edited unless there' some obvious minor correction that's misleading to others. (I particularly liked the remark that your entry couldn't be edited because it was so well-referenced, as if that were a bad thing.) But this is such an extraordinary thing. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you probably already watch this, but ...

Di indigetes is undergoing revision. As Aldrasto pointed out, the list of indigetes previously in the article didn't seem to be based on anything — perhaps on impressions that these were "indigenous" gods, which is not what indigetes seem to be. See email too. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Headless gladiators

Hm, me skeptical about headless gladiators.

The story doesn't say whether the skulls were around; if they were gladiators simply beheaded to put them out of their misery, as one source suggests, the heads surely would've been tossed in with the bodies. The story also doesn't say much about the disposition or arrangement of the bodies, if any. At any rate, a deliberate collection of headless skeletons would sound more like the work of Celts to me, like the sanctuaries studied by Brunaux where the heads weren't present at all and were presumably displayed elsewhere. There'd be no reason to display gladiator heads apart from the bodies, as they wouldn't be considered war trophies, or displays of warning against criminal acts or rebellions. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you find anything on this. Brunaux says that particularly in Belgica, headless bodies seem to have been strung up along sanctuary walls; my feeling is that this is related to headless demons (and headless Invidia) in the magic texts. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Prostitution

Ben Ammi (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm posting this message in the correct location.. Thanks for the introduction, I'll be sure to study the links and "pillars".

Still getting used to contributing to Wiki.

I'm glad you agree on some of the changes I made, I honestly felt as though that particular page was being used to propagate an unverified and biased interpretation of history.

Romulus

I read the article and left a note: I think Dionysius's version is the most complete, reliable and offers essentailly different versions of many facts.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ostentum et fulgura

Wonder what Livy would make of this? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statue itself was odd, like truncated figures scrunched in the corner of a pediment. But actually what it first reminded me of was depictions of the head of Orpheus prophesying up from the ground on Etruscan mirrors, though I can't find an example online at the moment. Or maybe the anguipede statues from Gaul (a not-very-clear example here). Why was he half-chthonic, half-concealed by earth? DId that iconography just not occur to anyone? Or was the idea of emerging from Hell the point? I'd never seen anything like that before. Interesting comments. As for cost, one can say the same of medieval cathedrals, and it bothers me that I find them so awe-inspiring. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Gaul, here's a fun site to get lost in, if you've never stumbled upon it. Does away with a lot of pre- and mis-conceptions about Gaul, or Mediterranean Gaul anyway. No anguipedes there, but the iconography of the critters in Gaul seems to have to do with the tradition that the Gauls were descended from the Titans or "Giants." I don't have a handle on it all; here's an interesting passage, and Commodus makes his appearance here, where it's related to Mithraism. There are Mithraic rock carvings in southern Gaul. I don't have a clue what any of this means, it's so poorly represented in literary sources. The riders, if I recall, can be Gauls themselves. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's the anguipede in magic, as on this gem. Varro said Iao was Jove. See also the densely fascinating article Abrasax, with its section on the anguipede and suggesting an identification with Cronos/Chronos, though the article is wrong to say that the two should be sharply distinguished, as they were conflated regularly as were Pluto and Plutus, Cronos = Saturn; one of my nuttier theories is that the "veiled" Saturn who is a kind of chthonic Sun — that is, the Sun which after setting in the West travels during the night through the underworld back to the East to rise at Dawn — is possibly equivalent to the Dis Pater Caesar said was the Father of the Gauls; the druids located the "birth" of time at night, not morning, according to Caesar, and some of this seemed to make sense when I was working on the "Death and wealth" section of Charon's obol, though less so at any given rational moment. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very stimulating article by Frederick Ahl that explores some of the play among Greek, Roman, and Celtic myth is “Amber, Avallon, and Apollo’s Singing Swan,” American Journal of Philology 103 (1982) 373–411. Guaranteed to make your head spin. At the moment, I'm more interesting in making poetic and imaginative connections than writing for Wikipedia, which perversely makes it the perfect time to return to those governors of Gaul. Requires little imagination and is kinda soothing like working a crossword puzzle, until they decide to start exterminating people or displacing families. But I must also tend to some mundane real-world tasks I've fallen behind in during my illness (mid-June, and I've only just got my tomatoes planted!). So I'm mainly just watching articles for vandalism, or things I can spot quickly. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verba concepta

Sorry to trouble you again, how do I retrieve my original text? It is not in the collapsed sections. Thank you.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. If I may add my comment on the relationship between Saturn and Dispater it is well reflected in the article by M. Hum on the mundus. He does not pursue the discussion to its end thoguh it is clear that the mundus was on the grounds of the temple of Saturn. Saturn was the god the aerarium and connected to the golden age and agricoltural plenty. The first meaning of Dispater is the rich father either. Jupiter also ordered the sacrifices of the Argei to the sickle bearer. So the chtonian connotation of Saturn after his dethronizing is apparent.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan War

Haploidavey, I noticed your edit to the introduction of Trojan War. You're right about the word "accused" implying uncertainty, although "took" is essentially the same as "stole". Can you discuss this on the talk page Talk:Trojan War please? (Huey45 (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Ex tripudiis

Oracle Octopus dissed by Dutch Church at peril ... Cynwolfe (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, JSTOR, me envy. I so miss my access. Ahl's article is a stream of associations; I keep it in my head like a Google Earth map, and as soon as I zoom in on the details, I lose the big picture and can't keep it all in view at once. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manes

Do you watch this little wreck of an article? Did you say once it was on your to-do list, or am I thinking of the Lares? The connection with the lapis manalis is left mostly unexplained. I did a few hasty edits, without actually adding any content. Let me know if you find a peachy source and don't have time to throw something more substantial in. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ho, yes. I try not to feel responsible for articles unless I wrote most of the content, or unless I find myself linking to them repeatedly. Must say: Aventine Triad is already a highly enjoyable article! It has a good narrative flow, hard to get in a WP article. If I happen upon any images, I may plop them in, but please delete them if you find something better. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stymied (as I now recall I was before) in my search for Ceres images; there's one headless mosaic that I placed a short time ago on mola salsa. As for other forms of headlessness, this is where it's at, babe; but if you look upward on the page, you'll see that I didn't actually rush out of the gate quite so frothing as it seems in medias. And don't neglect Greece, where an ideal of contentless articles is advocated. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?

Irony? I dare not link to it.

I had a French prof when I was a freshman in college who was having some kind of mental breakdown and I was too young and naive to see it. So I kept asking her questions about, oh, subjunctives or whatever, because I thought she was just of nervous temperament, and she scrawled away on the chalkboard until finally she just kinda melted away, never to return, at which point a Rabelais-lover took the place of Jacqueline and once, back in those days when we were blithe about sexual harassment, cornered me in the stairwell to relate a Rabelaisian anecdote involving moss stuffed into ... oh, let's not go there. And yet I love Rabelais. Obviously the strain of those iron pins is telling on me. Cynwolfe (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virginie Bovie

I know you often read my little articles, so if you glance at this one, could you keep a keen eye out for copyediting? I've not been fully focused during its incubation, and moreover my eyes are killing me. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Safe? Bleah, I spit on safety. Or safety pins. And at once I recall an article I have on file called something like "The Uses of Saliva in Magic." Envisioning an article called "Spit (magical)." Cynwolfe (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exit, pursued by bear. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miles

Thank you very much. I am no less thankful, but amused, to get this while having a copy of Miles (and Lancel's History of Carthage) sitting in front of me. If you see anything explicit about democracy at Rome in Miles, do let me know; the latest hobby-horse is that the two sides have to be called "democracies" in the same book. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Di Indigetes

I am trying to study the topic. There is an interesting quote of an inscription in the article, however it is not clearly referenced: might it be in the article by Rich. Gordon on the JRS ? How could I read this inscription? I found the article but it is available to the public.Thank you.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could insert a parenthetic "not" somewhere, else you'd not ask! but I've replied on your talk-page. It's a very interesting inscription, best given full transcription. Haploidavey (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind helpfulness. You are right, I missed the not...!

I think this is perhaps the only extant epigraphic instance, and perhaps the only in absolute, of an explicit mention of the names of some di indigetes. Festus writes: "Indigetes, gods whose names are not to be made public" so I supposed the epigraph should mention the indigetes along with the other gods listed. On the opposite it is apparent, if Gordon's reading is correct, that these di indicetes are in fact the mentioned ones. It is interesting the association with local natural things such a lake (Fucinus) and the tempetutes here, a river (Numicus) and a spring at Lavinium. As I wrote in the notes of the discussion Grenier's hypothesis was that the indigetes were the same as the Penates of Troy and then the public Penates of Rome, i.e. the secret patrons of the city. Their names were secret to avoid exauguration (Servius and Macrobius).

However the connexion with natural and underworld forces too is implied in Summanus, tempestutes , Fucinus. Fiscellus should be researched by use of a good etymological dictionary. Summanus is another name for Dis Pater or Pluton in his capacity of wielding nocturnal lightning. He too could be considered one of the Penates according to the Etruscan doctrine of the four kinds of Penates, one of whom is of Pluton.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info. As I wrote in the discussion of that article there is in fact another iscription from Sora near Arpino (CIL X n. 5779) which reads: "Iovi Airsii Dis Indigetibus..." however it is clear that they are mentioned along each other. I am reading Latte's manual online and he devotes one or two pages to the discusssion of the question of the original meaning of Indiges/indigetes and whether they were originally inherently connected to Iuppiter or not. He thinks they probably were not but the material is insufficient (if I understand him right, my German is poor). Grenier too seems to think that they were some primitive naturalistic gods. Both mention Dionysius's quote of the inscription on the Numicius: "Patros theou chthoniou os potamou Numiciou reuma diepei": "Of the nether father who rules the flow of the Numicius". Solinus too calls him Pater Indiges. Thus it seems it is connected both with inferi and superi as Sol Indiges. The temple on the Quirinal is atttested by the fasti(CIL p.324) quoted by Latte. Dumezil says Varro LL V cites this temple or place of cult but I have been unable to find it. Varro mentions only the temple of Quirinus. It is however interesting to note that the di indigets are always mentioned by augustan poets along with Iuppiter, Quirinus, Faunus, Vesta which makes them cognate with the generative power of the Roman locale. It would be interesting to know whether this inscription from Aletri is to be considered Roman or proper to the local religious environment. Preneste had his own Digidii or Depidii or Digiti as Solinus calls them: they were the uncles of the founder Caeculus.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed editing, I would appreciate your comments. Let me add this just for fun: I was thinking of who Fiscellus might be and thought of some Italians who have the surname Fiscello or Fiscella. But what could be original meaning of fiscellus? from fisculus, fiscus in Italian also fuscello a thin twig. Though fisco in Italian is the revenue office. So as I have on hand only Skeat's dictionary I looked up for fiscal that could be the English result. And there it was! Pertaining to revenue. Originally from fiscalis, from fiscus/ fisculus a basket of rushes or purse. Thence revenue office. So it might be that our fiscellus is the god of the purse or offers to the temple. As for the tempetutes it might also mean the times of the day: Solis occasus suprema tempestas esto XII tables. In the libri augurum tempestutes Varro LL 7, 51.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have come to the conclusion that Etruscan and Roman religion are essentially a branch of the Samothracian mysteric religion. Cf. Dionysius I 64-65 and other places in book I (Pelasgian immigration to Italy, Camilli as the boy ministers in temples, Penates of Troy being the same of Lavinium and Rome i.e. brought by Dardanus from Samothrace to Phrygia and Troy and from there to Italy by Aeneas) etc. Macrobius III 4, 6 ff. Benveniste on SE 1929 quoted by Dumezil p. 578 It. tr. on goddess AXizivir. Servius VII 678 on the indigetes of Preneste (Fortuna Primigenia, Digidii and sister, Vulcanus, Caeculus= the Kabeiroi Axieros, Axiokersos, Axiokersa, Cadmos).Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the same subject also Dionysius I 67-69 and II at length on Vesta. Fabio Mora has written in his work ithat Dionysius is afraid of giving away a secret and thus resorts to the quibble of quoting the historian Timaeus. And does not Pliny XXVIII 39 reveal the objects of the Penus Vestae? Interestingly those that were secret of the mysteries in Greece were not in Rome.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. On your suggestions: I think one must admit di Indigeges is just little more than a name. The concept is an extremely fuzzy one. Thus try and organise the material along any conceptual lines is impossible. You have already admitted that chronology or historical perspective are out of question.

There are some elements in the material that support Koch's interpretation as Stammvater. On the other hand other material would support Grenier's and Wagenvoort 's that they are the personification of natural forces (cf. inscription described by R. Gordon and Sol Indiges=Sanctuary of the Sun at Lavinium).

Koch's and latte's positions both incline to accept a kind of mixture of the two things. Anttilla too takes a naturalistic interpretation as the basis of his linguistic analysis.

However given the state of the sources it is possible to side with both postions. I.e. certain indigetes may be considered mainly Stammvater (cf. Preneste, Pater Indiges?) and other mainly god representing natural forces.

A third possibility, which is connected with the esoteric meaning of the natural forces as symbolising all life, human included, would be to take a middle synthetising interpretation. BTW was not this the idea of old folklorist scholars Fowler, Frazer, Mannhardt and Preller?

Let me make an instance: the high sacrality of the most ancient Roman cults, i.e. those of the valley of the Circus at the foot of Palatine Hill. The two Consualia of 21 Aug. and 15 Dec., both followed after 4 days by the two festivals of Ops (Opiconsivia and Opalia). Consus and Ops were the personification of agricoltural prosperity and fertilty according to Dumezil. The underground altar of Consus was sided by the images of the entitites Salus Semonia Seia Segetia and Tutilina. Ops Consivia had chapel in the Regia to which only the Vestals and the pontifex maximus were allowed (Varro LL VI 21). The Consualia too were officed by the Vestals and the flamen Quirinalis (Tert. V). Vesta and Quirinus are both of course strictly connected with the Penates publici. Finally why are all these deities so revered and sacred, especially Consus Ops and Tutilina (Pliny II 18, 8)? The mundus was opened the day before the Opiconsivia. As Fowler pointed out using Frazer's material this can only be explained as there was some sort of religious correspondence between the life of grains and human life. At Eleusis too this correspondence is attested in a passage that baffled many interpreters: "...the Athenians, in the initiation of Eleusis show to those who have been admitted to the highest level of it, the great and marvellous and perfect mystery vision of there: the ear of corn riped in silence." Hyppolitus Ref. 5,8, 39-40. Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some remarks on the discussion page of di indigetes. A good work that I wish to recommend to you is Danuta Shanzer's: Martianus Capella's de nuptiis Mercurii et Philologiae: a literay and philosophical commentary 1985 available at google books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldrasto11 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]