Talk:Santa Pudenziana

Request to merge
''It is proposed that Palatium Britannicum be merged with this article. Discussion follows.''

Oppose : Having read the discussion at talk:Palatium Britannicum, I remain quite unconvinced that there is any credible evidence to support the theory that "Palatium Britannicum" ever even existed, let alone that it was on the site of Santa Pudenziana. To merge that fantasy into this article about a real place would be to lend it a credibility that it does not deserve. --Red King 12:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose: Red King expresses my thoughts exactly, although I would try to use gentler words to express them. Nonetheless, the Palatium Britannicum is a tradition of uncertain origin & age, & I would like to see an argument set forth to show that knowing about it is important to understanding the history of Sta. Pudenziana. -- llywrch 20:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * (To avoid misunderstanding and needless offence, let me clarify that I intended the word "fantasy" to imply "myth" rather than "delusion"). --Red King 00:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose: As far as I know, the Palatium Britannicum is, at its best, an ancient (19th century) forgery. This article refers to a real building. --Panairjdde 10:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

As the editor who proposed the merge, I agree that the "Palatium Britannicum" is probably a forgery. Ideally I'd rather have an exposé of that forgery here rather than a separate article for the Palatium Britannicum that is written from a credulous point of view and is allowed to stand and mislead people. --Nicknack009 10:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * According to me, the whole matter of Palatium Britannicum, Rufus Pudens Pudentianna and Claudia Rufina should passe under peer review, and later proposed for deletion.--Panairjdde 12:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly delete Rufus Pudens Pudentianna, as there doesn't seem to be any evidence he existed and he doesn't even have a possible Roman name. Claudia Rufina comes from Martial and is an authentic ancient Briton from Roman times (although the Christian connections are dubious) so I don't see any reason to remove her. The Palatium Britannicum doesn't seem to me to be an authentic Latin name (Palatium being the Palatine Hill) and has no evidence in its favour, but it's all over the web, so a refutation here might be useful. --Nicknack009 13:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If we really need a page to refute the Palatium Britannicum matter, just keep its current page and states it is a hoax or whatever. I think that putting the Palatium matter in this article would be a way to strengthen it. --Panairjdde 15:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The identities of the two women in the Mosaic of Santa Pudenziana
I would just like to point out that most recent scholarly work* identifies the two women in the Pudenziana mosaic as personifications of the Jewish and Gentile components (ecclesia circumscisione and ecclesia gentibus) of the Christian Church. The notion that the women in this work represent two possibly fictitious persons (i.e. Pudentiana and Praxedis) is probably unfounded and there are no references cited to verify that theory. If anyone can produce references to that effect, it would be appreciated.

Jewish History 23/24 (1997/98): 405-17.
 * Pullan, Wendy. “Jerusalem From Alpha to Omega in the Santa Pudenziana Mosaic.”

46, (1992): 276-95.
 * Schlatter, Fredric W. “Interpreting the Mosaic of Santa Pudenziana.” Vigiliae Christianae

209.74.66.152 07:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello! I think I've found the source of the identification of the women as "portraits" of the possibly fictious sisters.  It's the writings of a German art historian in 1918; I just have to comb through my notes to get the exact source.  I'll be back! Nonnabede (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, Ecclesia and Synagoga still seems the main and most likely identification. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Template Problem On Page
Down near the bottom of the article:

Santa_PudenzianaTemplate:Coordinates Articel is all in red, indicating a typo in laying out the coordinates of the place. I tried to research how to fix this and failed. I do know replacing the parantheses with [[ and such makes it look somewhat better, but it still has a lot of silliness in it if done.

Lots42 12:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)