Talk:Bacchanalia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 12 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Classicaldisappointmentuno. Peer reviewers: B Betts0312.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Bacchanalia
Bah je bio poznati kompozitor i pijanista u oba značenja te reči. Često je svircao na dvoru i to su bile super svirke ukoliko se prethodno nije bavio pijanizmom šnapsa, vina, piva i ostalih maligana. S obzirom da mu je mera bila dobra (pije dok se ne ...), posle tog pijanizma o nekim drugim svirkama nije bilo ni pomena nekoliko dana. Zbog toga je car naredio da žandari čuvaju Baha od tog popodnevnog pijanizma. Elem, jednoga dana, nekim mangupima je pošlo za rukom da prošvercuju do Baha raznorazne maligane. Sve su popili, Bah se ... koliko se napio, a žandari pojuriše mangupe i jedan povika za njima:" Pa što BAHA NALISTE toliko, majku vam... mangupsku!" Ulicom je odjekivalo "BAHANALISTE, BAHANALISTE." "Koga to jure žandari?" zapitaše se građani, a neko im odgovori "Ma neke BAHANALISTE, to je neka grupa razuzdanih mangupa što voli da se odaje piću i orgijanju. Od tog doba one koji vole da piju i da se razuzdano ponašaju svet zove BAHANALISTI, a po njima skupove na kojima se to ludilo i dešava - BAHANALIJE.

Bad Grammar
This 'sentence' is not a complete sentence: "According to a theory proposed by Erich Gruen, as a display of the Senate's supreme power to the Italian allies as well as competitors within the Roman political system, such as individual victorious generals whose popularity made them a threat to the Senate's collective authority." Can someone who knows the intent of this string of words please edit it? Tmusgrove (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed... I second this. It makes the sentence appear to be nonsense. At least I can't find any sense in it.

Theshowmecanuck (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Jiarui Liang (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Thanks for revising the sentence, now it is much clear.

Contradiction?
So Livy is wrong about political conspiracies, but then a reason given for the decree is political conspiracy. All right. gogo wikipedia!

Nonsense
This entry insists that the Senate was wrong for suppressing the Bacchanalia, then says that it was a bunch of slaves trying to overthrow the Senate. Someone has a bizarre and outdated agenda here, and it's resulting in contradictions in the same entry. Funny to watch, but stupid. 72.144.60.229 01:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Date?
"The festivals occurred on three days of the year /---/, on March 16 and March 17." Now I may count March 16 and March 17 as many times as I wish, yet I never get more than two days. Also, the article on Saint Patrick's Day refers on Bacchanalia as being on March 17, so maybe the possible connection should be mentioned in this article, too. --Oop 23:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If the Calendar starts he it's day differently from ours, 2 days can become 3, I love Catholics think their Friday Crucifixion Model fits the definition of "3 days and 3 nights" I could accept getting 3 days out of it, but certainly not 3 nights.  It's not even 48 hours much less 72.  But back on topic, I'd heard other contradictory reports this was a Winter Solstice Holiday, not Spring Equinox.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.34.210 (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

'Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus' was discovered in Calabria and not in Apulia region
Bacchanalia were very practised in this region (Calabria), the Senatus consultum was made to stop those ancient ‘experiences’ coming from Greece. 193.252.25.110 09:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting
Drastic, sourced from scholarly articles and imminent. Haploidavey (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then, quasi-imminent. Not sure what should happen to this article, as a Roman-based Bacchus article is needed. Haploidavey (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What happened to this article?
Things have changed for the worse since I last looked at this.
 * When did the Greek god Bacchus (or Dionysus) become solely a Roman god?
 * What about the history of the Dionysia before the Romans?
 * Who decided you could equate Bacchanalia with "Roman orgy" and where does it say they're the same thing?
 * The article is now written as if the Romans thought it all up for themselves (even the god), instead of modifying what the Greeks did before them.

This is what Britannica says: Bacchanalia: also called Dionysia, in GrecoRoman religion, any of the several festivals of Bacchus (Dionysus), the wine god. They probably originated as rites of fertility gods. The most famous of the Greek Dionysia were in Attica and included the Little, or Rustic, Dionysia, characterized by simple, oldfashioned rites; the Lenaea, which includeda festal procession and dramatic performances; the Anthesteria, essentially a drinking feast; the City, or Great, Dionysia, accompanied by dramatic performances in the theatre of Dionysus, which was the most famous of all; and the Oschophoria (“Carrying of the Grape Clusters”).

Introduced into Rome from lower Italy, the Bacchanalia were at first held in secret, attended by women only, on three days of the year. Later,admission was extended to men, and celebrations took place as often as five times a month. The reputation of these festivals as orgies led in 186 BC to a decree of the Roman Senate that prohibited the Bacchanalia throughout Italy, except in certain special cases. Nevertheless, Bacchanalia long continued in the south of Italy. Myrvin (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference to University Culture usage removed pending reference
I am attempting to include an informative line concerning the use of the term "Bacchanal" in University culture (specifically those that tend to have a traditional and well-established culture usually modeled on the 'Ancient universities' (see below). I know for a fact that the term is used sufficiently widely (interestingly enough despite the fact that many people don't seem to know what it means) in many university events that it should be noted somewhere in the article for those attempting to better understand the reference.

As I have suggested below - perhaps this is actually best handled by an article involving University culture or terms... Commissar Mo (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC) ---

To page editor: I take your point about the reference (though the article overall is very sparsely referenced, including the 'modern usage section,' where most of the entries are un-referenced), and I will find one - my main impetus in editing the article is that many more traditional universities use Greco-Roman terms to refer to ordinary events, such as university celebrations, as 'Bacchanal' - since the term was obscure to some, and I know it is in sufficient usage to be merited, I wanted to have it mentioned on the entry.

In terms of the 'Ancient Universities,' - I was referring, correctly, to Ancient university, and I suppose it should have been made clearer that these universities ARE in Europe, but New World universities which follow their traditions very closely are nevertheless not considered part of the term (nor should they be since the oldest, Harvard, is only founded 1636).

I will endeavor to find a reference, though I suspect these types of references could always be tricky - since there are so many usages of terms from classical antiquity in the old universities (or those that emulate them), perhaps it would be better to link out to a (new?) article which deals with the many specialized 'terms of art' if you will, used by these educational institutions.

I suppose there could be a notability issue, but I think the institutions are sufficiently large and involve sufficient numbers of people that notability should be present.

Haploidavey edits
Haploidavey: Thank you for the big rewrite here. It's a lot of work that I guess is not finished yet. I have a few notes: Myrvin (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We have lost the Enc Brit citation that says of the Bacchanalia: "also called Dionysia, in GrecoRoman religion, any of the several festivals of Bacchus (Dionysus), the wine god. They probably originated as rites of fertility gods."
 * The Livy reference should have page or section numbers. This was there before your edits. It is a big book. The actual link there leads to a Google book we can't actually read. I'll do some checking. There is this:
 * I think a citation in the lead would be useful, especially with the Enc Brit one gone.


 * Hi Myrvin; thanks for that. Yes, nowhere near finished - particularly in matters of the cult itself, which should really be the purpose of the article, rather than what one might call the Livian "Bacchanalia Affair". I thought I'd given the relevant Livy sections - my bad. I'm relying on scholarly, secondary commentary on Livy, rather than Livy himself, but the reader should be able to check. Not sure about needing a lead citation; by the time the article covers the essential bases (soon, I hope, though one never really knows) all the main text should have sufficient scholarly support. Haploidavey (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * On the EB; things have moved on since then... "fertility gods" only up to a point. In more up-to-date scholarship, and certainly in the mystes of Bacchus (and probably Liber), the Dionysiac cult elements are unclear. Oddly enough, Liber can lay clearer claim to being a fertility deity - at least in his probable earliest form - than Dionysus, whose multiple cult strands might be more neatly tied as an "arriving god". It's tricky stuff. Bacchus, as a foreigner, is also an "arriving god"; a Liberator, essentially threatening to the status quo. But although Liber's an equivalent, in some ways; he doesn't "arrive" in Rome; he's already there. Much safer... Hopefully, that'll become clearer as rewriting progresses. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added an accessible source for Livy, but it is old. Myrvin (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See what you mean. I've swapped it for fordham's dedicated selection from a 1906 translation; a bit more recent (though not exactly recent, and unreviewed of course). Haploidavey (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

OK - we should look for later ones.

I have the Blackwell Companion to Roman Religion, which says: Many features of this episode remain obscure, because Livy, our sole literary source, has included many details unlikely to be true in an effort to portray the repression as a reaction against the sudden infiltration of too many Greek elements into Roman worship. .... the cult had had worshipers in Italy for many years prior to 186 and Greek elements continued to find a home in Rome even after this date. More to the point, Bacchus continued to be worshiped after 186 I await a chance to use it. Myrvin (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please just go ahead. I've had a mass of edit conflicts anyway, and will take a break. I have that Blackwell Companion - an excellent resource - and I assume you're making reference to Greek influences, or rather, official anxieties over the creeping Hellenisation of Roman culture, and the need to control it. As far as I can recall (without a search) the rest already in place, and cited - I could be wrong about that, of course. Haploidavey (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if "Reform" should be "Reform and supression by the senate" or suchlike? Myrvin (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with the shorter heading, personally. The cult is repressed by the senate; but it's a suppression aimed at reform, not abolition; the suppression only of particular aspects of the cult. An official Romanisation, if you like. The section needs expanding - or else we need another section on later developments, into the Imperial era. Looks like this article's going to end up with multiple content forks. Or do we put the material into a new, separate article on Bacchus? You wanna do the honours with the Orlin passage, above? Haploidavey (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Cut and paste from article - can't make it work, so it might not belong in the first place. Dunno.


 * The acceptability of foreign cults was determined by the political-religious elite, the final arbiters of Roman values and morality, obliged to investigate and address any possible threat to the state. If an official investigation found a foreign cult acceptable, it was usually promoted as both exotically foreign and traditionally Roman. Less acceptable elements were adapted, or constrained, to suit Roman taste and morality. The whole was framed by public sacrifice, performed in traditional Roman style by a Roman magistrate, to show that the "foreign" cult was certainly foreign, but had been contained by Rome, and was dedicated to the benefit of the Roman state.

According to Livy?
According to the Roman historian Livy, the Bacchanalia were originally restricted to adult women, but were subsequently corrupted by a priestess who introduced frenzied rites and sexually violent initiations, involving both sexes, all ages and all social classes, we say in the first paragraph.

This is actually not according to Livy. It's what Livy says a possibly coerced sex slave, essentially, accuses the cult of as prelude to the suppression of 186 BC. It certainly isn't a temperate description that classicists and historians of ancient religion would give of the Bacchanalia. I'm sure Haploidavey knows the context of this comment, as I'm too weary today to flesh it out: we can provide a better introduction. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course Livy's neither temperate nor objective in what he says about the Bacchanalia. The introduction needs a deal of work, and so does the article. All I can say is... it's early days, and I'm weary too. Writing here's become more compulsion and addiction than pleasure. I doubt that's a good thing. Haploidavey (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)