Talk:Quintus Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus Mavortius

No such thing as a 'pagan' in antiquity
Let me repeat here what I've said on several other pages. Nobody in antiquity called himself a pagan; what you mean is that Lollianus was not a convert to Christianity. There was no such thing as "paganism" in antiquity; there were the various religions traditionally practiced by the Romans and Greeks, and those imported from the East, some of longstanding, such as that of Cybele. You might have been an initiate into a form of the mysteries such as Orphic, Mithraic, etc. You might have offered sacrifices to the Olympians. But you did not practice something called 'paganism', certainly not Paganism, which is a modern-era religious movement. To use the term elides the great diversity of religious practice that existed in antiquity not as a monolithic system like Christianity, but more like interconnecting networks. Educated people who had not converted — such as the Emperor Julian, Libanius, and Symmachus — often called themselves "Hellenes", if they needed to clarify their religious status. From the perspective of religious history, what is interesting is that Lollianus (and others) who had not converted still held posts in the newly Christianized empire; another was Siburius.

Please see this definition of "Pagan" from Peter Brown, from which I give an extract:

The adoption of paganus'' by Latin Christians as an all-embracing, pejorative term for polytheists represents an unforeseen and singularly long-lasting victory, within a religious group, of a word of Latin slang originally devoid of religious meaning. The evolution occurred only in the Latin west, and in connection with the Latin church. Elsewhere, 'Hellene' or 'gentile' (ethnikos) remained the word for 'pagan'; and paganos continued as a purely secular term, with overtones of the inferior and the commonplace.''

Therefore, by definition the use of the word "pagan" violates Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral POV. More important, it is an historically inaccurate representation of whatever religious practice Lollianus maintained. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mavortius
The etymology of Mavortius, even with the faux qualifier "incidentally", can't be used to support an assertion of Lollianus's religious standing. What about St. Martin? His name derives from Mars too. The word "invocation" is incorrect; it means a "prayer." Cynwolfe (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum: What I mean to say is that I'm assuming whoever said he was a 'pagan' is right that Lollianus was not a Christian convert, but a source on his religious status is needed. If a source cannot be found, then of course the statement should be deleted. The etymology of his cognomen is not evidence of anything, and therefore doesn't belong in a footnote that looks as if it's providing a source for his religious status; either present the etymology as an interesting piece of information about his name (such things are often included in 'early life' sections of articles), or leave it out altogether. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The source for Lollianus' religion is:
 * Michele Renee Salzman, The making of a Christian aristocracy: social and religious change in the western Roman Empire, Harvard University Press, 2002, ISBN 0674006410, p. 248.
 * Here he is called "Pagan"; and I would stress that the common, contemporary name for people believing in a polytheistic religion is actually "pagan". --TakenakaN (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, this gets us into the issue of accuracy vs. what's common. Contemporary name, as you say: not what is accurate for talking about antiquity. It's my view that Wikipedia should provide correct information, even if it's contrary to the common view. DId you read what Peter Brown said in the link above? (DId you see who Peter Brown is? A Christian historian.) This is a case where the 19th- and early 20th-century scholars were taking the wrong approach; they lived in a less diverse society, a more homogeneous Christian society, and their own beliefs biased what they said about Roman religion. Over the last 30 years, the increasing religious diversity of Western society has also caused scholars to rethink ancient religion and to try to look at it with fewer modern biases. For instance, I was always taught that Roman religion wasn't "real" religion. But obviously it was to the Romans. The word "pagan" was created by Christians to create a dualistic 'us vs. them' mentality; that isn't how Roman religion worked.
 * But yes, you will still find the word 'pagan' used unthinkingly by recent scholars, as you will find it used by great 20th-century scholars such as Arnaldo Momigliano — we can't always escape the biases of our time, and scholars in future will reveal our own unexamined assumptions that affect the information we're providing to Wikipedia now. My point is that when you use the word "pagan" for a person's religion in antiquity, you're not saying anything; you're taking an exclusively Christian POV and using the word simply to mean "non-Christian." In some cases, as with the Emperor Julian, we know something about the person's religion: Julian was initiated into Mithraism. We know that Varro requested a Pythagorean funeral, even though he wasn't a Pythagorean. We know that Decimus Brutus offered libations to the dead in December, instead of February as did most Romans, and that this was his family's tradition. These things tell us something about the individual's religious practice. In the case of figures like Lollianus and Siburius, the historical point is that they hadn't converted at a time when there was a certain amount of pressure to, in the wake of Constantine — and yet, even though the Empire was officially Christian, these men held office. That says a lot about early Christian tolerance. At other times in late antiquity, non-Christians were not tolerated. That's why I find it interesting and important to be as accurate about this as possible; it can tell us so much about changing attitudes, and how issues of pluralism were handled at different times. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I do not share your point of view: according to me writing something like "he is not known to have converted from traditional Roman religious practice" when all you know from your sources is that he was pagan is as POV as writing he is pagan, if not more. However, I have provided the source, could you please remove that request for sources from the article? --TakenakaN (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read what Peter Brown had to say in the link above, and have you reviewed his article to see why he's an authoritative source? 'Pagan' is historically inaccurate; it only becomes an accurate term for someone's religious practice much later. If a source uses a term inaccurately, we are not obligated, and should not, replicate the error on Wikipedia. Unless you can argue with what Brown actually said, I'm not going to be convinced that you understand the issues of religious history involved. You seem to be stuck on the fact that your source used a particular word, rather than on whether that word was correct. I don't believe that Wikipedia editors should just pass along a single statement from a source without evaluating the accuracy of that statement in the broader context of the relevant scholarship. A perfectly reputable scholar may frame a statement incorrectly when bringing in information that's slightly outside their expertise, and you don't say whether E.J. Kenney or Settipani is your source. Kenney is primarily a literary critic, translator, and literary historian; Settipani is a genealogist. Neither is a religious studies specialist. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you going to remove the tag, now that the source you requested is present?
 * Do you acknowledge the fact that, in common English, Mavortius can be defined a "Pagan"? --TakenakaN (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In conversational English by non-specialists, of course. My point is that the label is incorrect for an encyclopedia. The factual statement is that Lollianus was not a Christian; we don't know, evidently, what religion(s) he practiced. The article has no footnotes, so I don't know what you mean when you say you've provided a source. "Citation needed" means providing a footnote with a source, preferably with a page number, if it's a book, or a link if it's a web site. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible" (What Wikipedia is not), so you interpretation of how an article should be written is not the right one. --TakenakaN (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What's technical or academic about saying "He was not a Christian" or "He had not converted to Christianity"? The language is clear, simple, and most important accurate and unambiguous (which 'pagan' is not). Cynwolfe (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You admitted that for a reader, defining Mavortius a "Pagan" would mean exactly what we are trying to mean. Therefore, your modification is useless. "Not Christian" is a negative characterisation, as it says what he is not; "Pagan" is a positive characterisation, as it says what he was. --TakenakaN (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, he was not a 'pagan' because there was no such thing in antiquity. Some common beliefs are false, and surely it isn't Wikipedia's job to perpetuate inaccuracies. And it's quite significant politically that a person who held office after the Christianization of the empire hadn't converted. It says a great deal about religious tolerance and early Christianity. If you haven't bothered to read what Peter Brown said about the use of the term "pagan" and why it isn't helpful or accurate, then you would seem to lack a genuine interest in the issues of religious history involved, and are just arguing for the sake of trying to have the final word. If you've read the linked explanation and haven't understood it, I respectfully suggest that you edit articles that deal with subject matter you understand. In any case, since it's so desperately important to you to preserve ignorance and inaccuracy, I have better things to do: I'll take this off my watchlist and leave it to you to say what pleases you. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Brown's opinion doesn't matter here, he is a scholar while we write for the common people, and the common name for Mavortius' religion is "Pagan". And your opinion does not become stronger if you mock me. --TakenakaN (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)