Talk:Vesta (mythology)

Prostitution?

The Vestal Virgins were prostitutes??? Certainly some people have claimed so, but haven't others maintained they were indeed virgins? Which of these two classes of people is better informed? Having intercourse with a Vestal Virgin could result in a death sentence in Rome. I wish I knew more about this, but surely the claim that Vestal Virgins were prostitutes is not universally held and should be attributed? Hoping someone can educate me... -- Someone else 02:04 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)

I suspect modern fantasy as well here. There were several groups of sacred prostitutes in the ancient world, but I've never heard such a claim made about the Vestal virgins. It just doesn't fit in with the character of the deity in question, either; sacred prostitutes worshipped Aphrodite, or Astarte, or Cotys, but not Hestia/Vesta. -- IHCOYC 02:33 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

More to the point, um, they could hardly be both (v. and p. I mean). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The fire

"It burned until AD 394." Why did the fire go out? --Jen savage 19:18, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The roof leaked. Actually, in 394, Emperor Theodosius forbade public pagan worship, and so the temple was forced to close. Smerdis of Tlön 20:06, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

391 actually (I fixed the date): the "Theodosian decrees". The "prostitutes" thing must have been pubescent humor. But this is quite serious I suspect: "The Vestales were one of the few full time clergy positions in Roman religion. " Oh my goodness gracious!

Now recite these galloping dactyls aloud:

Higgledy-Piggledy venerate Vesta, the Goddess of hearth, on the ninth day of June. Priestesses known for their Vestal-virginity tended the flame and kept Romans immune.

— Wetman 01:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Really virgins?

The Vestal Virgins were incredibly high class in Roman society. I think they could get away with really being virgins.

Tell that to Rhea Silvia. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation, from a novel no less!

"Goddess of the Hearth she was the symbol of the home, around which a newborn child must be carried before it could be received into the family. Every meal began and ended with an offering to her:

Vesta, in all dwellings of men and immortals
Yours is the highest honor, the sweet wine offered
First and last at the feast, poured out to you duly.
Never without you can gods or mortals hold banquet.

Each city too had a public hearth sacred to Vesta, where the fire was never allowed to go out. If a colony was to be founded, the colonists carried with them coals from the hearth of the mother-city with which to kindle the fire on the new city's hearth."

This entire section has been directly copied from Edith Hamilton's novel Mythology with the exception that the word "Vesta" has replaced "Hestia". I see that it is referenced at the end of the article but that DOES NOT make it okay to copy the complete section without putting quotation marks. I don't mean to sound overly critical, I just don't want to see anyone get in trouble as this currently infringes on copyright laws set by the publisher. I suggest that this be changed immediately, either by changing the wording or by adding appropriate quotation marks. Until this is changed, I will place a tag over the above mention section where it appears in the article. This shouldn't be too difficult to do; I'll try to fix some of it though I would really love if someone could help. Thanks. --France3470 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

On the note of Edith Hamilton's Mythology as well, it certainly cannot be the only reference for all this information as she barely talks about Hestia/Vesta at length. I believe the references section might need to be expanded as information of Vesta is hardly common knowledge. Maybe some footnotes could be added to help improve the credibility of the article. Since I know a bit on this topic I'll see what I can do to improve the article.--France3470 22:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

just one thing you don't have to have sex to be a prosstitute there are alot of other things that can be offered.86.131.236.173 (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Vestalia

The article is not correct, the sacrifice of an unborn calf by the Vestales happened in the festival of the Fordicidia, on April 15th. Same mistake in the French article.Aldrasto (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

French has same word for unborn as it does for newborn; the latter being the correct translation in this case. Actually, there are different words for each, but for some reason foetus is often used for both in French works (whereas in the case of a newborn they just explain that it's "freshly" born). Psychotic Spartan 123 22:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the Vestals were involved in the sacrifice, but the OP's right about the festival. It's the Fordicidia. Haploidavey (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I know. I'm just explaining why the French would seem wrong due to misleading terminology in the French Wiki's article. Now I'm paranoid about sacrifices in the article lol. Psychotic Spartan 123 22:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh no! Tell me about it... Haploidavey (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

When I looked into Vestalia further I found a holiday Virgo Vestalis parentat which eventually replaced Paternalia by 354, but in veneration to Vesta and engaged in by the Vestals. I also found several lists of random sacrifices during the days of June, but unrelated to the holiday, and is what I mistakenly accepted as proof at first glance (per above - good that I was wrong). The Virgo Vestalis parentat checks out, though its own holiday. I'll do more reading tomorrow, and hopefully I'll be given access to Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press materials sometime shortly, which will help greatly. The "Mythography" section as it is just gives a brief overview, but I have sources with in depth analysis regarding them. In the meantime, I've got a lot of stuff ready to expand on the article Temple of Vesta, and then I can compress the "Temple" section here (which I think has about as much information as the temple article itself). Psychotic Spartan 123 19:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice work! I've a dim, possibly mistaken notion that Virgo Vestalis parentat is simply a decription used in the Calendar of Philocalus for Parentalia - or rather, the openng day of the Parentalia, rather than renaming or replacement. Will check. Sources-wise, "sometime shortly" might apply to OUP, which doesn't have that much to offer; not so with CUP, on both counts. I've some material to add, using sources other than those used so far in the article - but not much, and will wait until you're more-or-less done. I'm not sure how best to deal with potential overload of sections, other than compression. While the Vestals and Temple of Vesta have their own articles, Vestalia doesn't. Haploidavey (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Just checked, and Virgo Vestalis parentat is the same as Parentalia (a very long festival, in which Vestal participation is often implicit, rather than stated in the various Fasti). See Salzmann, in Rüpke, Jörg (Editor), A Companion to Roman Religion, Wiley-Blackwell, 2007, p.115 ISBN 978-1-4051-2943-5 for equation of the one with the other. Warde-Fowler has a nice account in his Festivals of the Roman Republic, almost ancient lit. in itself but fine scholarship and very readable. He has a nice sense of humour. Here's a link Haploidavey (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the Calendar of Philocalus should not be taken as neccessarily representative of "official" calendars for that or any other years. The few known calendars (or fasti) of the Roman world show considerable variation; this one is likely unique in dealing with both traditional ("pagan") and Christian significant dates (including Easter and Christmas). We can't be sure how much of it, if any, should be considered prescriptive, other than its construction as a sort of "agricultural almanac" (when to sow, till the gound, plant or harvest grapes, wheat etc. and to honour the deities most relevant to these activities. Vesta's importance as a unifying and agricultural deity should not be underestimated; official calendars - and probably all but the most committed Christians - observed her festivals right up to her official abolition - and probably beyond that, to judge from the later attempts to impose a ban.) Haploidavey (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Will clarify which calendar is being mentioned, and will begin work on Temple article so we can compress that section here. I'll start the Vestalia article later, because it definitely does merit it's own article, but our section on it here isn't overly huge when compared with that on the temple. Nice finds, especially regarding A Companion to Roman Religion and Warde-Fowler. Psychotic Spartan 123

References and sources

I am new to Wikipedia and I am not accostumed to the use of the relevant software, I apologise to the reader for not giving quotations and citations in the usual way. I see somebody, perhaps the administrator of this page, asks me to improve the article because it does not give citiations. Frankly I am puzzled as I have started by saying "according to Dumezil" and "Ovid says" below. Before I made the additions the article was totally uncited , but nobody put the request for sources above it. Now I have given the relevant biliographic info on which I based my additions at the foot of the page in the notes section and somewhere in the text too. I wonder whether there is a certain selectivity here as totally unsourced articles are let alone but as something new comes by it is asked for citations even when they are stated rather clearly.Aldrasto (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC) BTW who is the administrator? would you mind dropping me a line here below? Thank you.Aldrasto (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is almost completed. I shall refrain from editing parts written by ealier contributors. Due to a loss of session data and mismanoeuvering I was not logged in during my last editings.Aldrasto (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I find this discussion of a Roman Goddess is instead a false history by someone with a politcal agenda. How? The entire article is about some spurious connection with Vedic sources for Western mythology. This is an example of the progressive "historians" to denigrate and minimize western civilization. Keep your eastern influences in context. Say, maybe in the Vedic articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.53.212 (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

" This is an example of the progressive "historians" to denigrate and minimize western civilization. Keep your eastern influences in context. " 68.42.53.212, you are an Idiot.

You have no clue how rich is the Vedic "inferior" (non semitic latino) culture... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.116.61 (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps in disorder?

Dumézil stuff in section Theology paragraphs 2-6 seems more like comparative religion than theology. It doesn't fit in the beginning of the section, since the reader expects Roman theology/mythology/whatever – not Vedic. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This entire article is a fiasco. The Vedic stuff has no place in it, the writing is atrocious, and the citations are insubstantial. This is an important piece of Roman history and should not be treated so cavalierly. Can't it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.82.47 (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Vedic history is rich, but why is it here? It is completely distracting, especially if someone is attempting to accumulate accurate historical information on the history of the Vestals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.82.47 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This entire article kind of a joke.

Honestly, it's in complete disarray. More than half the article (yes, really) focuses on comparative Vedic practices, more specifically, that of the now somewhat discredited Dumézil (in the field of religion, that is); obviously, someone is a fan. The Latin is sloppy; it uses non-standard forms, from different periods. I came here looking to read about Vesta, not see veneration of Dumézil (who is a philologist), and a hodge podge of original research. There also seems to be several editors with religious agendas; a look at the talk page lists some of the more obvious vandalism (i.e. prostitution), but I'm quite sure there are other less noticeable insertions we've overlooked. I'll sort through it when I have time, but almost everything I have available to me is a primary source, so I'm not sure how much I could help, given the need for secondary sources.

Who authored the bulk of this article? And inserted the prostitution thing? I'd dare say these peoples' edits should be watched carefully from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.154.10 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, way too much Dumezil. Also, what's with "theology"? It's not like there was a "systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious ideas" in antiquity that we're tapping on here, was there? - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Dumézil was a comparative philologist which means he noted the similarities in Greek/Latin words and Indian ones, because they share a common ancestor language (proto-Indo-European), but not that there is a direct connection between Greek/Latin words/gods/beliefs and Indian words/gods/beliefs. With this in mind, are there any objections to the vast removal of Vedic crap from this article and replacing it with relevant information? Psychotic Spartan 123 16:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on my comments just above, I of course agree with reducing the amount of Dumezil (who went way beyond philology) all over the Roman entries on WP. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup to all. Grim reading. Haploidavey (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm doing a lot of reading, but it looks like a lot of the stuff I moved to the Temple section is invalid and so a whole rewrite is gonna be needed there. I was hoping I could salvage most of it, but gotta do what I gotta do. Psychotic Spartan 123 23:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Everyone like the changes so far? I haven't heard any complaints yet, but if there was anything I removed that should have been kept let me know. Also, I think the "Mythology" section should be renamed, but I can't think of what to call it. Psychotic Spartan 123 11:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Going OK so far; Vesta's "mythology" is problematic, for various reasons. Some of the difficulties relate to her uncertain position in Roman mythology, where the latter is understood as "pertaining to ancient Rome's legendary origins and religious system, as represented in the literature and visual arts of the Romans". The source material is itself somewhat contradictory. In later Roman sources (and perhaps earlier traditions), Vesta's cult - and thus Vesta herself - is implied as essentially "Trojan" (brought to Alba Longa by Aeneas, along with cult objects such as the Penates and Palladium); others claim - as the article also points out - that her cult was instituted by Romulus, or by Numa. My point here (I think) is that we need to clearly distinguish between modern interpretations of the significance and background of Vesta's cult, and what the Romans themselves said about it.

We should treat Ovid's account with great caution; it's humorous, inventive, entertaining and scurrilous, almost certainly not to be taken as explanatory mythos: likewise, in all probability, the donkey. Ovid liked to be outrageous. Generalist modern sources tend to take these poetic accounts rather over-literally. And the likely source for Vesta's surrender of her position to Liber or Bacchus is a Greek speculation that seeks to explain why Hestia is included in some Olympian lists (but not Dionysus), and Dionysus is included in others (not Hestia). Haploidavey (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on contradictory sources. It might be best to explain in detail the opposing views to lend due weight to contrary views. Her status as being Trojan is undoubtably a later concept, and I hope to make that clear in the article. Now that the irrelevant information is completely flushed from the article it should be smooth sailing and just a matter of sorting the information out. I'm thinking of merging "Attributes and description" section with "Mythology" and renaming the new section "Depictions". Then I can give outspoken sources, such as Ovid, his own section.

I'll seek to verify the surrender of her position to Liber/Bacchus. Regarding the donkey I guess I found it easy to accept to donkey narrative after verifying accounts of the phallus in her myths. My next task then should be to filter the page as it is and worry about adding information when the page is given proper context.Psychotic Spartan 123 12:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, not give Ovid a whole section, but be sure to clarify his statements from the accepted narrative of modern scholars, and from others of his own time. Psychotic Spartan 123 12:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It'll take time. It's actually quite a difficult article to source, and therefore to write, especially as there's so little scholarship on Vesta herself (lots on the Virgins, of course, and their role in Rome's religion and politics). And in case it's not already clear, what you're doing here is much appreciated. Haploidavey (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Those favoring the move make the argument on long term significance, but those opposed disagree. Clickstream data show that more people who come to the dab are looking for the asteroid than the mythology topic, with the goddess receiving fewer than 30% of clicks. Therefore, I'm not seeing any consensus when looking at the arguments made. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

---

• Vesta (mythology) → Vesta
• Vesta → Vesta (disambiguation)

– Primary topic by longterm significance. The other items on the disambiguation page are named after the goddess. The asteroid, 4 Vesta, the most notable secondary topic, is explicitly named after the deity. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Primary topic. T8612 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Actually, I would say the matches are probably the most notable topic after the goddess, but they're usually known by their full name Swan Vestas. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support - apart from the asteroid, friction-lit matches were generically known as lucifers or vestas (thus, vesta cases to hold them; collectable then and now). And that's about it. (mythology? what mythology?) Haploidavey (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I agree that the goddess is the primary topic. Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, original meaning as the primary topic. Avilich (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

*Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• • Oppose per Paintspot Infez, doesn't look like there's a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. In this instance, the goddess is the primary topic. -- Calidum 15:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• OPPOSE (strongly, actually). (Ceres is another good example of a similar dynamic – it's totally fine to have a dab page at the basename.) Even though the asteroid Vesta is named after the goddess, it consistently gets more pageviews than the goddess just about every single day. Among the top 9 things that are often solely called Vesta linked on the dab page (the goddess, the asteroid, the manufacturer, the car, the matches, the case, the ship, and the asteroid family) – the goddess literally only gets 28 PERCENT of the pageviews see here. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That sort of thing is why the long-term significance criterion exists. Over the course of this year, Pink (the color) has 128,379 views. Pink (singer) has 1,497,894 views - over 11 times as many. Just between those two topics, the color gets slightly under 8 percent of views, and yet it's the primary topic, because of course it is. Pageviews are much more useful for primary topic questions when none of the topics can really make a long-term significance claim. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Understandable, but: The asteroid is a Level-5 vital article. The goddess isn't even on the Level-5 list. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Pink should probably be a DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support pageviews aren't really a good criterion here. When everything with a name is named after something with that same name - obviously that thing is the primary topic. As is the case here. It may not have the most views but a disambiguation page at basename doesn't make as much sense as the article itself. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• support Makes sense to me SpartaN (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Cannot be moved much as a classicist I'd like to see Juno Vesta and Terminus re-enthroned, but the long status quo is to dab, and we have to accept that Rome has passed and any admin or non-admin moving this despite This is just going to get overturned at Move Review. I support the emotion, but not the reality. This and the other 2 would just become mislink magnets. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The asteroid is the only other serious candidate, IMO, and it's of interest primarily in a limited field of astronomy. I happen to like astronomy, but a space rock named after a deity shouldn't be the primary topic for the title instead of the deity. P Aculeius (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)*
• Oppose. Could we first please finally get one thing out of the way: being the original source of a name is not "obviously" an indicator of a primary topic, it's something the guidelines explicitly rule out as not determinative. Two factors are actually determinative here: long-term significance and usage. With respect to significance, one can argue either that there is no primary topic, or that the primary topic is the second-largest asteroid (as pointed above, unlike the goddess, it's on the vital articles list). As for the second criterion – usage – we've got direct data from the Clickstream, and it shows that the among the links on the dab page, the goddess received under 30% of all clicks, which is less than those for the asteroid, which got about 52%. Again, this can be used either as indicative of the absence of a primary topic, or, less plausibly, as pointing towards the asteroid being one, but there's no way it could justify the goddess being primary. – Uanfala (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"Not determinative" is not the same as "irrelevant". The fact that most or all of the other uses of a name are directly based on its original use is an important factor to consider: much more so in a case such as this, where in each case the name is chosen due to the character of the namesake. We can probably argue ad nauseam about usage, since the asteroid is occasionally in the news due to recent space missions, which is probably the only reason why most people have heard of it, although I suspect a lot more people learned about the Roman goddess in school. While both mythology and astronomy are taught in school, I don't remember anything I might have learned about the asteroid belt in school—and if the asteroid Vesta was mentioned, it could only have been in passing, since to schoolchildren a list of asteroids would be utterly forgettable. But with respect to long-term significance, there's no contest: the asteroid was only discovered in 1807. It seems to me that if long-term significance is clear, but usage is arguable, the argument should weigh in favour of long-term significance. P Aculeius (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per Paintspot, although it looks like most of the meanings derive from the goddess it seems that the meanings are quite distinct meaning many readers may not know this and "vesta" appears to also be widely used for a wax match. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Uanfala/Paintspot. The claim to being primary per long-term significance is weak (compared to the asteroid), and the usage case is even weaker. Colin M (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Much as I oppose the whole idea of primary topic, if we're going to have it then this is a case in which we should. The goddess is the most significant by a large margin, as evidence (not proof) of which is the naming of these other things after her. Andrewa (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.