User talk:Cynwolfe/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, 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 Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

DYK? nom
Hi. I've nominated L'Année philologique, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know, where you can improve it if you see fit. Congratulations on making such an informative article about a helpful collection,  CB ( ö)  04:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:A.M.W. Stirling.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:A.M.W. Stirling.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 18:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:Isle of Dogs pulpit.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Isle of Dogs pulpit.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 18:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still quite a dummy about some of Wikipedia's ins-and-outs, so while I think I'm entitled to remove these two warnings now that I've corrected the problem, I guess I'll just leave them. They were the result of my bumbling around trying to use images when I hadn't before. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Colchis
Thanks for reporting the problem with Colchis. Apparently the messed up formatting was due to a change made at the template History of Georgia. Even though that change was reverted, sometimes changes in templates don't get propagated to the pages that use the template until that page is edited. Just a weird quirk of how Wikipedia works. It should be all fixed now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Commentary (philology)
I noticed your wikifying of references to Commentary (philology). Per WP:MOSHEAD, section headers should not normally contain links. Please keep that in mind. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

mee too
You said


 * "I look for that author’s user page and hope to find a list of other articles."

I do the same thing. It seems to be that in trying to be more professional, there are now a bunch of well meaning but ill-qualified "wiki bullies" that slap tags on articles of which they know nearly nothing about. As you stated in your discussion on greek paparyi (sp) people seem to enforce rules like some people quote the bible, as they see fit. Some will challenge notability, because they do not know it. as if their arrogance of knowledge is so vast they feel there is nothing they can learn. I tend to write articles on people or topics I feel are notable, and often search far and wide for proof. The current trouble is almost circular. If there is nothing about it, it cannot be written about. But, many editors only use online sources. There is a huge information bubble or black hole of stuff that was common knowledge even 30 years ago, and now the people that know it are not online to blog or write about it. The 60s everyday events are an example. Beatniks and hippies sure. I have found google online book search to be invaluable in my easy chair scholarship. sorry for this treatise,  I just feel I found a kindred spirit when I read one of your posts.--K3vin (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Greek Magical Papyri
Thanks for your comments on Greek Magical Papyri. I should be able to track down a historical version of the page (I hope so anyway, as I didn't keep a copy for myself). I don't think there was anything non-encyclopaedic in the original article, but I guess this is WP not a real encyclopaedia. Gabrielbodard (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Androcydes (disambiguation)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Androcydes (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * unneeded Dab: article exists on physician, but non on math guy, nor any lk to him -- he has the ring of someone mentioned once as the author of a now lost work; perhaps i'm wrong & an article will be created, but we do not tolerate Dabs for the sole purpose of distinguishing article subjects from topics we have no reason to expect to become article subjects, and we can recreate the Dab if and when.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Thanks for the article, and for being diligent by worrying abt Dab issues. You would learn some useful things if you review my edit of the page; ask me questions as you find useful. Jerzy•t 23:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Remove the ProD tag, and keep at the articles. Let's wait until we're in a position to evaluate the three against each other, but if the Dab needs to be at the unsuffixed title, you'll probably need an admin to do a deletion, and (being already somewhat acquainted) i'll make myself available, so rattle my cage. Thanks again, --Jerzy•t 23:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Not locked
That article you recently referred to as being locked, is actually only semi-protected, i.e. only locked against newbie and anon edits. Also... if you enable e-mail (its a setting in your preferences), I'll whoosh you a work-in-progress for review and input. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much; I feel foolish for not having noticed the distinction. Just saw the lock icon. I decided for my peace of mind to avoid that talk page for now. I would be glad to look at anything you wish, if I can restate my reservation: I'm not qualified to judge the validity of any content regarding the linguistic or ethnological uses of the term "Aryan." I do know that in a private email exchange a couple of years ago, a linguist who works with Celtic (and who has significant publications in the field) stated to me that "Aryan" was abandoned because of the connotations it had acquired, in favor of "Indo-European" or a narrower label when appropriate such as "Indo-Iranian." Not to rehearse what I've beaten to death on the relevant talk page, but I came to the "Aryan" page first as someone who needed to link, and then second by trying to imagine what contexts would lead someone who actually didn't know the term (like my hypothetical young student) to visit the page. I found the intro insufficient for both purposes. Otherwise, I have no special interest in the topic. Also, I'm an ignoramus about most technical aspects of Wikipedia, so I'll look into your suggestion regarding my preferences. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your reservations are fine! They distinguish you from the dimwits whose opinions plaster the talk page and the article's edit history.
 * I've whooshed you the work-in-progress that I had mentioned. Your opinion is appreciated. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Classical Scholars
Thank you for the message on my User page; I'll add the three names you suggest onto my agenda, although I can't promise anything soon. Elizabeth Rawson will probably be the candidate I go for first as most of her career was at Cambridge. For recently deceased scholars, the on-line edition of the Independent is probably the best source of basic biographical coverage in their obituaries section.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Following your message I did some preliminary on-line research on Rawson, but, while there are thousands of references to her, there is very little of a biographical nature. She died before newspapers went on-line! I have established her dates of birth & death, place of death (a university in China!), university colleges (New Hall, Cambridge and Corpus Christi, Oxford) and a list of published books, but not much more at this stage; it would be the barest of bare stubs. I shall persist. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Good article on Elizabeth Rawson; I've added the few additional facts I have discovered with references.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Greetings! I notised the change to the paragraph I wrote on textual critisism. You are indeed corect. I apologize for not messaging you sooner about this, but I have been rather busy lately. The location of the paragraph is much more appropriate. Good call, and thanks for telling me. --GodSpeed and God Bless! Devon Jones (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added an additional fact to your T. P. Wiseman article. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Diana Nemorensis
Excellent coin images at Diana Nemorensis: they make the text comprehensible! --Wetman (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Lucius Valerius Flaccus (consul 195 BC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lucius Valerius Flaccus (consul 195 BC), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Lucius Valerius Flaccus. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Triple Goddess
Your work on the antique triple goddess is great. I'm happy to discuss edits on an individual, case-by-case basis, although article talk pages are probably more suited to that than user-space. Of course I respect your position on these matters. Also I have not deleted (nor will I delete) anything that was properly sourced, but the content may have been moved to another article. The removal of Roberts was due to her use of the MMC /TG as a feminist mythology, as pointed out by critics. While she may draw on ancient texts, the conclusions she reaches are seen through the filter of goddess-feminist doctrine. For example The Shakespearean Wild [p.175]: "As the aspects of the Triple Goddess shrank into commonplace cliches about women, patriarchal society easily assimilated the young virgin etc. etc." I would seek to avoid making the same error as Graves made in his "the Greek Myths" - by presenting Gravesian concepts as genuine scholarship of the antique and misleading readers. Graves influence goes far and wide, but it is not accepted as serious scholarship, and those that use his concepts (like Roberts) have their own agenda to push which has little to do with a scholarly understanding of the ancient world, and more an attempt legitimising a feminist mythology. In response to a situation where an antique work that inspired Graves was then interpreted using Graves models (apart from the circular reasoning this must involve) without seeing the source material I cannot make any reasonable statement about it, by all means add it. Further to this, we must be careful that the article does not end up suggesting the various different goddesses that have triplism belong to a single 'Triple Goddess' concept. We must be careful to deliniate exactly which concept is being discussed in the source rather than just saying "the triple goddess" or treating it like it is a single idea. For example, Hecate is mentioned in Midsummer Nights Dream, not the Gravesian/archetype 'triple goddess'. --Davémon (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

appreciative note
I'm very impressed by the quality of your editing, and thought I'd let you know it. Regards! Haploidavey (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination
Hi. I've nominated Gello and aetites, two articles you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the articles here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks --Bruce1eetalk 10:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pictures would be nice. I had a brief look on FIST but didn't find anything pertinent. I'll keep a lookout for something. --Bruce1eetalk 06:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Willem van der Horst
The Dutch article is similar to the English, with the exception of this paragraph: The Affaire Van der Horst His farewell speech on 16 June 2006 at the University of Utrecht, entitled "The myth of Jewish cannibalism" caused much controversy. The speech was about the anti-Semitic myth of Jewish cannibalism, which originated in ancient times, played a role in the Christian Middle Ages and in Nazi propaganda, and is now making inroads in the Islamic world. The directors of the University of Utrecht, made aware of an early version of the lecture, thought Van der Horst should not highlight the Islamicisation of anti-Semitism, and forced him to modify his speech, stating that if he did not, the university could not vouch for his security. In the eventuality, no actual threats were made. The episode cast a negative light on the University, which was accused of dhimmitude, self-censorship, and violating academic freedom. A similar case occurred a half year later in Leeds, where the university with an identical argument prohibited German scholar Matthias Künzel from discussing the Islamicisation of anti-Semitism. I leave to you the decision of whether this merits inclusion. If you want to see the article for yourself, Google translate actually does rather a nice job with Dutch. - 69.125.166.7 (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Shedim
Your reorganization of Shedim was very helpful.

I have the impression that the original sources are included as links in Further Reading. Perhaps the editor who created the article did not know how to include inline refs. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Salvito
Thanks. I do but not immediately. I have a quota of articles I can work on at one time and Salvito will be in it but not right now. I will keep your note there for reference. As you know, working on Wikipedia is like getting lost in a thicket. If I start Salvito there goes everything else. Best.Dave (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Marsyas and the "Imperial Cult"
Hello Cynwolfe. I was enjoying a browse through your articles and came upon "Prophecy and free speech at Rome". I was struck by the identification of Marsyas with subversion and plebs, and with augury. I'll get to the point - do you have any sources or insight on the relationship between plebian Marsyas and Augustus' claims to superior augury as justification of Imperial cult? Your article contribution offers a tantalising glimpse of opposition. Best Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to recant my heresy regarding "your" articles - of course, they're not "your's", are they? On the other hand, some editors don't own some articles less than some others. Oh dear... Haploidavey (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I retract my recantation. The compliment was intended, of course, and I enjoyed your courteous and eminently readable responses. All were relevant to the matter at hand, which is a thorough re-working of Imperial cult (ancient Rome). It was festering quietly but incorrectly away, all by itself. As you seem to have guessed, I'm seeking a balance of material on public and private responses to Augustus ("Godfather" to a whole gens) and the cult - in particular, popular reactions rather than those of the cultivated elites, and whether the Augustan "reform" was as effective as its propagandists claim. I know very little of him, really - but have the impression of an exceptionally ruthless and able politician who managed to seem all things to all men - or least seemed to seem that way, which in my book is the core of political genius - and to cap it all, managed to die at a ripe age, peacefully in his bed. I've no idea why Augustus receives less attention than JC. Insufficient demonstration of heroic hubris, perhaps.


 * Anyway, yes: I'll chase up as you suggested. My overall resources are a few (a very few) good quality recent specialist publications, none of them adequate to the task in hand. I've popped my intended reading list into the "further reading" section of the Imperial Cult article. Google previews are very useful as a start, but for more than those glimpses allowed, there's only the British Library - which I visit for reading intensives a couple of times a year and to which I'll soon migrate with a gargantuan reading list and several pencils. My heart sank a little at your mention of Barton: in what now feels like a previous incarnation, I edited Gladiator into its rather turgid and still incomplete current form, using the resources of the Brit.Lib. Yes, I read the Barton entries, drew a great deal from them and entirely failed to take notes on the grounds that this was all too arcane for Wikipedia. There's a lesson or two here somewhere.  Haploidavey (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And I need lessons in making links. 4th attempt! Haploidavey (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, an entirely relevant response. I do get the impression (and at this stage it's no more than that) of the Principate as providing the advantage of social mobility for plebs and equestrians alike, and a general feeling that most were quite willing to trade libertas for pax and cash. Of course, it's a monarchical system, but what else is it? By the way, have you dipped into Gradel on Imperial Cult - he disposes of "cult", "worship" and sundry modern terms as wholly misleading and false equivalents. I'm inclined to follow his lead in what I think is the section after "background". Google-books allowed me a glimpse of the problems inherent in conflation of divus and deus. Try telling that to Cyprian...


 * Why do I do it? Gladiator as a first article, and now this. Oh, and the Roman Triumph. I'm sure there's something else I committed to, and have mercifully forgotten. There's something unhealthy in this habitual head-first nose-diving into deep material. Haploidavey (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I left your page a bit untidy, and thought I'd clean up my mess - and thank you specifically for the information on Crassus grandfils: you've actually provided me with a wealth of leads. All will be useful. I don't know if this might be of interest to you - perhaps you already know it. Small, but nicely formed... Best regards. Haploidavey (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindented) Yes, the link was meant for Edmondson's article, which I'd already downloaded. I've a poor grasp of of these things! And yes, the Imperial Cult article needs very substantial revision. The "Background" is as far as I've gone, as yet. I was hoping to clarify precendent, socio-religious context and terminology - genius, numen, divus, deus, religio, honore et al - though not in that order in the next (as yet empty) section, which I'm preparing offsite.

Honour as privilege under the Principate, rather than as rewarded merit (cf Romulus, the proto-triumph and apotheosis) is exactly right, imho. The tagging of the remainder speaks for itself, but I was very taken with your deft and lucid handling of the "slippery" issues of subversion in Ovid. It really deserves inclusion. Yes, analysis and commentary - and a little Latinist deconstruction - are definitely sought.

I noticed the comment in (and yours on) Fishwick and the qualified exemptions for (some ) Jews. That really is fascinating, especially in the light of Augustus' "messianic" claims. Gradel (and I think, Price) have a deal to say on it. More later! Haploidavey (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Commodus is indeed problematic. Again, the nature and copious sources tend to re-iterate the same judgements, of which I'm rather skeptical.


 * And thank you for the link to Syme - exactly what I needed. That's a book worth scouring the second-hand bookshops for (razor-sharp but d'you find his style sometimes odd? - stilted?). I feel very honoured by your positive appraisal of my all-too-obsessive efforts. [post-edit: I've no idea what I meant by "the nature and copious sources" above, regarding Commodus.] Haploidavey (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "they have a perspective that will always be valuable for the very reason that it's biased by their experiences." That's too good not to respond to - I vaguely got it halfway through reading, then it sank in. My screen's now constellated with droplets of coffee...


 * You write exceptionally well and with wit. You're very welcome to do so on my talk-page whenever the mood takes you. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, by the way, I've no Latin to speak of (or with), which as you might imagine is very frustrating. Humph. Haploidavey (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe I'm capable, though my short-term memory for even the simplest things is extremely short... Lunch in New Orleans, nice idea! Haploidavey (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Lucifer of Liège
Hi, Bellatrix. I was looking at pages that linked to the image file for the so-called Lucifer sculpture by Guillaume Geefs, and found your user page. Thought you might be interested in the recently created article on the sculpture, under its formal title Le génie du mal. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Cynwolfe. You thought right : I am very interested. Good work ! As soon as I have time enough, I'll translate it (or at least I'll try to translate it) in french. Thanks for your message. Regards, --Bellatrix Black (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Post-Scriptum : I suppose that in french the article will be titled Le Génie de Liège with a « big » G (french conventions on titles).

Marsyas redux
Thank you so much - and no, I'd not seen it. But I shall. Best Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Google books allows an unprecedented 18 consecutive pages. And then some more. Marvellous stuff! Haploidavey (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Caius Julius Vercondaridubnus
Hello! We're talking about the minuscule new article, yes? I was stuck with the Celtic etymology (having found a tertiary but unconvincing source) so I'm done for the day. Delmarre, yourself and all your cohorts will be most welcome.

While I'm here - do you know how to change an existing page title - or even whether such a thing should be done? Wiki has a very stubby and incomplete parentalia, but I need to expand it as a link for di parentes (begotten from Imp. cult - it's a monster, I tell ye). Haploidavey (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC) (restored your mail sequence to proper order - I'd misplaced this one above my previous)


 * Re parentalia and di parentes, I suppose an internal link would do, rather than re-title, which would probably break all sorts of things... Haploidavey (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * re tribus or civitas, you seem to be right (I somehow felt you would be). Caesar's comment on the Bellovaci has amicitia civitatis Haeduae fuisse - I've now lost the page ref. Haploidavey (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

di parentes
Thank you for a much earlier reply than I expected - your suggestions are excellent. A separate article would serve multiple purposes - I'll prepare most of it as a userpage, which shouldn't take long. I too was very surprised to find nothing at all for di parentes in Wikipedia - and by the way, I think you're right about lemures. (The whole category is rather a mixed bag - Religion in Ancient Rome also needs updating, especially the earliest parts). Haploidavey (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Tres Galliae
I see what you mean. There was Asterix and Obelix... I can never remember the third one. Fishwick (vol 3, 1, 12) simply talks of a federal concilium, but probably has a great deal more on the subject. Beard et al, (p353) have two concilia, one early and mixed (for provincials and Roman citizens) and another for AD 220, explicitly for Roman citizens (which makes perfect sense).

By the way, you've done a very fine job with our Romanised-Gaulish-priestly friend's wonderful name. I cleaned up a bit - my own misinterpretation, that is. Handwritten notes are best when legible. I do this a lot, you know. Haploidavey (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you look at the history of Federal sanctuary of the three Gauls? The article history seems to contain another, French article (whose source I can't tell). As my other brain cell is entirely devoted to coping with English (just about) -  and I suspect you've several devoted to French -  would you care to take a look? There may be prospects of salvage. Or not, in which case I'd rather just start from scratch. The article as it stands seems to have been abandoned a while ago. PS: My french must have improved overnight - the "hidden" article's quite informative, and cited to boot.


 * As to egregious errors - I count mine by the paragraph. In vino vitium (please correct at your convenience). Haploidavey (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Unclean spirit
That's an extraordinarily riveting article. Haploidavey (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I liked the introduction - perhaps it's less a topic intro than an excellent background to the etymology and concepts. The section on animals and liminality brought it all together for me - I then re-read it and the whole made more sense. I don't know why that should be, except that liminality (by that or any other name) is a personal preoccupation. I've recommended the article to the Haplogavey genii and daimonions (which are legion). We love the way you deal with these things. Haploidavey (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bang on here, but... One of the things that really fascinated me in Barton (gladiator & monster) was the liminal status of the arenario within and without the arena, but especially that of the gladiator and his transcendence in extremis with an outward, expiring breath - the breath of the crowd collectively held, anticipating the moment. Haunting and deeply disturbing. Haploidavey (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I sometimes feel I go on too much - so thank you for the assurance. You do extraordinary work in lonely outposts, and render with clarity what would otherwise remain obscure. But enough of that. I just read insufflation - excellent piece of work, stripped to the bone but the life within the subject makes the treatment exactly sufficient - anyway, I noticed Augustine's appeal to the traditional establishment of baptismal rite as justification and post hoc explanation (contra More, with a decent interval between). Brilliant! Assuming that's not a mere quirk of translation, it seems a very traditionally Roman parcel of attitudes - pace religionists, of course. Haploidavey (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Simulacra
I wanted to say thank you for your work and also to thank you for learning me 'Pareidolia'. I just added a section on Simulacra and iconography. After I noted your text in Simulacra's Discussion, I resloved to send u a note. B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 07:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Monsters of Imperial cult
This is vaguely a copy of my reply to your response to my helpless squeal on Imperial cult (ancient Rome), but with additional fats and proteins... Those are valuable insights. All make more sense than the article! You'd be so welcome to edit, and as mercilessly as you thought fit - you've no idea how sincerely I mean that. In the early section (citing Tacitus out of context) I've tried to objectively summarise the viewpoint of early modern scholarship - perhaps prematurely, and any such remarks would be best left for the section on legacy, assuming they're even needed.

My major difficulty arises - as you guessed - from a need to provide an adequate background for "Imperial cult" as a civil-religious-political development. The more I've read on the subject, the less patience I have with "Imperial cult" as a category, and the more frustrated I've become with the modern terminology available - none of it is adequate. I hoped to avoid the rocks and shoals of "pagan-polytheism" and thought I'd done so - unfortunately, "traditional Roman religion" explains less than it avoids. Or rather, it presumes a background. (By the way, Tacitus' disparagement of adulation is often taken out of its context and interpreted as a general condemnation: I thought I'd made that clear but maybe not!)


 * I'll do as you suggest with the messiest, most disorganised sections, which currently look more like a demolition site than a construction project. I might also copy the whole article into a user-page and try some bold re-arrangements. As ever, my sincere appreciation. Haploidavey (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No! you're anything but discouraging! You've made the best - OK, I'll be honest, the only suggestions anyone has made for improving the article. But what an enormous kettle of Imperial worms it is. Haploidavey (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a brief note - I got your message, for which I thank you. Imp Cult talk is on my watchlist - I'll transfer to there. Haploidavey (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I got the e-mail, straight through to my address. No pdf as yet but would it be possible to send through normal channels? Best regards. Haploidavey (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I ran out of steam about two hours ago, and have been irritably picking at my dreadful errors and misunderstandings ever since, to moderately disastrous effect... ho hum, much trimming to be done. This is a hello, really - but also a thank you for introducing me to Momigliano and his integrity - oh yes, and to avoid more trouble at the Cult, I was thinking of starting an article to include the rite of apotheosis (which at this stage of my ignorance seems like a very posh Roman funeral with an eagle on top). It would make sense to place such a snippet at one end of a general article on funeral rites in Ancient Rome - at the other end, dragging with a hook, assuming that's the worst. I know you've an interest in the subject ( and have little opportunity at the moment). Best regards. Haploidavey (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In yesterday's feeding frenzy I somehow overlooked your appreciative comments on my talk-page. I am now rather bowled over - thank you so much. Haploidavey (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

British Scholars
The omission of birthdates surprises me. I'm in London in two weeks or so, and will have access to "Who's who". Other databases might include university, electoral and census rolls. Either way, finding out would be no trouble at all - indeed a pleasure, even if challenging in a small way, which is entirely another thing. I'll do what I can and post as-soon-as. Haploidavey (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, my rash promises... I'll check the following if you prefer (there'll be a 2 week wait, as I said) but meantime this was keeping company with the wee fish at the bottom of the net:

His entry in Who's Who reveals that he was born on February 3, 1940, and was educated at Manchester Grammar School and Balliol College, Oxford. He lectured at Leicester University between 1963 and 1976 before joining the University of Exeter as Professor of Classics in 1977. (taken (apparently) from an article in the Scotsman by the author of the following: ). Haploidavey (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wiseman is mighty. He effaces even your browser-cache. TrembleHaploidavey (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC) and bow down...


 * I was amazed to find not a single biography of Wiseman online - apart from the few academic summaries in university pages - so yours is an overdue and welcome addition. I think you've done the good deed by him and look forward to more on his work (oh, what an unsubtle man I am!), which I've come to admire very deeply, as much for its kindness and sympathetic imagination as for its bold dealing with the stuff beneath the skin. And you'll proofread and edit your own far better than anyone else could - not that anything jumped off the page in this respect. Haploidavey (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're being a bit hard on yourself over the Charon's obol changes - I admit it, I stalked the page (or rather, it's been on my watchlist) - and I thought your comments fair: infinitely more fair and reasonable than some I've made. Sometimes editors look for things to edit and sometimes they look for things that need editing: sometimes they don't see the difference - this can produce what I think of as casual or "wanton changes"... (steady on now!) They're the hardest to address, because most readers simply won't have the original editor's grasp of the material. How could they? But I honestly believe they should be addressed, for the sake of the encyclopedia and all its editors. Shouldn't we extend the same courteous but stringent reasoning we expect from others to the work of others? Haploidavey (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Res divina etc
I just replied on my own talk-page - tut. You've made a wonderful job. Let's be honest, there was a great deal of off-topic rambling in that section, and there's more to be dealt with in the others. 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)

DYK nomination
Hi. I've nominated T.P. Wiseman, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Bruce1eetalk 09:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yee-hah! Obviously chosen for the Beard connection, eh? I thought I'd also let you know I read Wiseman's review of Feeney's Caesar's Calendar, etc. at the hallowed London Review of Books online portal. I looked for more by (or on) T.P. Not a lot there but LRB's own google-search led me straight to... (wait for it)... your article. I was chuffed. Haploidavey (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure where to put this post, but anyway - I subscribe to the paper version of the LRB - an expensive fortnightly joy among the sundry grimness of the "letterbox portal". The subscription also gives unlimited online access, but their online archives only go back to 2001 or so. Pity. But if you want anything looked, do ask. Haploidavey (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I daren't summarise based on my abysmal recall (PS - and spelling), so give me a while - I might forward you what I can via your email, all things permitting. Otherwise, I'll stick my neck out here. By the way, I registered with The Scotsman but even then couldn't access the Wiseman-Potter article so it's likely been blocked due to swamping. Haploidavey (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In some ways, yes: Feeney "very nearly succeeds". I think Wiseman would have taken a very different approach. (I've scrubbed the rest of my "summary" here as irrelevant). Look out for post in your email. Haploidavey (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link
I've not heard of Dirda, but he seems to have chosen some of my more contentious favourites and a few I've been meaning to read when the opportunity arises. His take on Brown will be interesting, I think - I only know your excerpts of his work - Bowersock I know first-hand only through "Dionysus as an Epic Hero" (which I read quite a while back). The essays look well worth tracking down, so thank you. Haploidavey (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

E. C. Osondu
Ok I see now what the meaning is that you want to get accross. It would be very difficult to combine those two ideas smoothly into one sentence, unless you know the title of the first story he submitted for the 2007 Caine award. I can see several possiblities though. I would suggest omitting the 2007 submission. Or, "Osondu was a finalist for the 2007 Caine Prize; in 2009 he won for his short story "Waiting".  Even with the commas seperating the 2007 event, it is confusing as to what it means.  I guess it is gramatically correct but because of the time lapse and the two different stories, I read through it thinking you were infact talking about the same story for both years.

--Baumgaertner (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nigidius Figulus
Thanks for your thoughts on Nigidius Figulus. Indeed the first I heard of him was when I read the Britannica article I edited for Wikisource. Politics seemed important to him, and he was certainly involved, but my moving the paragraph on his reputation back into the body of the article took too much emphasis on his scholarship from the intro. Still the paragraph seems too wordy for the summary. I thought it was interesting to see a scholar so involved in politics. I'll leave the article with your reversion. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Vespasian et al

 * Welcome! To both you and the article, which I just read aloud to a rapt maman Haploidavey. It held surprises for both of us, and Gruen writes splendidly. Your thoughtful dispatch is much appreciated. It has opened things up once more (always a Good Thing), and not just for the culty business. Every now and then, I read something - or more usually re-read it after a long-ish interval in which other things get read and written - and things fall into place, like the tumblers in a horrendously complicated lock. Then the door opens. And I behold a strained metaphor...


 * Isn't it an altogether amazing and inexhaustible subject area? I spent three days at the British Library with a booklist of five, of which I managed three. Sadly, Brent's work on the early Christian church up to Cyprian offered no translations for its copious Greek quotations: very frustrating. Of course, the article that dare not speak its name is a battle but makes increasing headway. Every swathe of undergrowth cleared reveals the trees within. The rest proceeds piecemeal but the pieces begin to fit and those that don't are course no loss (they're mulch for other articles). The "Augustus" section's dreadfully otiose but I expect to drown a little in the details for a while longer and there'll be merciless hacking from time to time for that and the rest. In short, things seem to be going quite well, especially with this irresistible impulse to express just about everything through dreadfully unoriginal and long-winded analogy. For some reason, the article (and only that article) won't let me edit at the moment. I've asked why at a help-place. (PS - I just know someone's developed a bot that prevents long-windedness and everything else that comes easily to me) Haploidavey (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Though as you ask - I'm having a remarkably difficult job finding more than the most generalised information on post-Decian cult. A major omission. Haploidavey (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, have you read Gruen's "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic"? I haven't, but was thinking of tracking it down. So I was wondering what you made of it, especially in relation to Syme's work on the same period. Haploidavey (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, you fell for it, and told me something new. Not that I'd ever cast you a line, but somehow I thought you'd be a practised writer of something more than gardening tips. I like what you say about Syme and Gruen, and I think you've hit the nail. Syme is mesmerising... um... sort of Roman baroque. All those near-interminable, elaborate, forwards and backwards, spiky streams, and then a great lump of masonry to finish it off. Bang. Fabulous, oracular stuff. I might disagree but wouldn't dare argue, let alone cross-question him for it. As you say, "Syme says this" and there's an end to it. I've been trying to read Tacitus in the original (with a lot - really a lot - of help from Lewises and the Shorts and the rest). Of course, its beyond me really, but Syme's right there in the orthography. It occurs to me that I never question Tacitus either; just listen then slope respectfully away and do my things in a corner where he can't see me. Haploidavey (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Cathedral architecture
I responded to your comment by reducing the intro to make it more architceturally specific and adding an extra section, which gives people the option to simply skip an explanatory preamble if they chose to. Amandajm (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

An Túr Gloine
Well done! I have observed the difficulties of scraping info together. I'm located in Australia, which means I haven't got access to anything local. Amandajm (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer
Having glanced over your article creations, I have given you the "autoreviewer" status. It's not a badge or a barnstar, and it does come with some strings. Basically, community members no longer need to (waste time) patrol(ling) your article creations - they are assumed to be good. In return, I hope that you will keep up your own high standards of article creation, even now without the safety net of a guaranteed look-over. It may be wise to make sure that you review policy / guidelines if in doubt, particularly on the sometimes tricky area of notability. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Cheers, - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 19:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add that AFAIK does not offer any advantages re. image uploads, but I could be wrong. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 19:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)oghini

The great belated Tacitus
Yes! That's exactly how it feels. I love knowing I'm trying to navigate something hugely respected and both superbly and quirkily crafted. That's a great motivator. Even if I can't find first gear. Haploidavey (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

...and the late Vespasian
Thank you! It had completely escaped my Imperial radar. Haploidavey (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Augusti
You've found one of my major sources of frustration: everything to do with transition to Christianity. The short answer is "no", but en route to offering you nothing of substance, I'm not sure what you mean by the point (if any) sought in connection of Mary's heavenly birthday with that of Augustus (or imho, the Augusti, despite the Latin). Possibly none, other than a neat fit (not made in the article) of one over the other in the Calendar and Roman conservatism in all things Roman. Could you clarify?

For what it's worth, one thing that really really annoys me about Imperial cult scholarship is the Imperial cult as a specific category, which it wasn't (see Beard). The other is the impossibility of studying it other than categorical terms (see Gradel). Fishwick's earlier work on Imperial cult is much more adventurous than his later work in matters of synthesis and equivalence - remember Vercondaridubnus, August 1 and Lughnasa? Haploidavey (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Usurpation! Yes, and no more traumatic or revolutionary than any other usurpation in Rome's history. In my own strictly amateur and guffy opinion, the transfer of power from a "pagan system" to a "Christian system" becomes difficult to see only when looked at from perspectives presumed opposite rather than antagonistic. In the context of "Imperial cult", Christianity is another cult, baffling, subversive and a major pain. But of course, that's just Rome as-it-was, to which the self-identity of Christian perspective was neither here nor there. Christianity regards itself as the radical fulfillment of everything that's gone before: that is a Christian viewpoint, not Roman. Christian festivals, saints, you name it, are absorbed by a Roman Calendar, and become Roman. Rome becomes a Christian Empire, and what follows is another chapter, but it's still Roman. It's a conservative ideology but a brilliantly organic and yielding system. And sometimes (I remind myself), older scholarship is much more helpful than modern. Haploidavey (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've every sympathy with your frazzle. Deconstruction's healthy, even if it gives one a headache, but I think it's more about the nature of questioning and knowledge than about problem solving. Maybe the burn-out's a signal that enough questions have been asked - time to go back to telling the story. Your advice to me on Cult was excellent - whose story, how does it unfold, what happened next. And thank you for the compliment - though the Cult is perhaps a little too broad. We'll see. (I took the liberty of rephrasing and separating this paragraph and adding a little. Also, thanks for linking me to another festival requiring attention. Working on those bijou articles really helps clear my head.) Sincere regards. Haploidavey (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Syme
If I were actually offended, I would have made a much more pointed demurrer. I last read Syme some years ago, and he certainly leaves the impression that he thinks the death of Hirtius and Pansa is a Machtergreifung. I do not recall, and cannot be bothered to look up, his exact words. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Translation
Appreciate articles about Lucifer. Left info. on Lucifer section. Native Americans said "many moons", but didn't have telescopes. Jupiter, Saturn. Charlie Brown. Football, Psychology. Lucy75.203.112.55 (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

adventus
That's just what I'm after - she co-authored something perceptive in another of the refs I used. And your compliments are much valued. Bless you. No hurry whatever on the email, which was but a well-intentioned blurble. Or else an attempt to bump-start two stuck writers. Haploidavey (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC) PS: Calling myself "blocked" after an interval of ten years or so seems a bit optimistic! But at some point I'm going to try again, and this time I'll know not to force it. So yes, I really am glad to have stuck in there with cultus. It has taught me more about people than any other writing project I've taken on. Haploidavey (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * MacCormack's adventus is not excerpted online: but a title search turned up quite a broad swatch of scholarly references to it in other works, via google books - I'd best use those, I think. MacCormack seems a major player in the field. Once again, my thanks for that and other thoughtfulness. Haploidavey (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that really would be useful! I really wasn't trawling you there... Haploidavey (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC) :Sorry, nothing new. I just fixed my error in the author-name - I'd spelt it MacCormick: a curious slip, as MacCormick [sic] has a book on pretty similar topics, and cites guess-who. Such a small world. Haploidavey (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just got it and had a quick skim. It looks spectacular. I was wrong about her co-authorship - she's cited in one of my bookmarked googlepages, (the MacCormick, quite recent) which I intended to use but has key pages missing in pre-view: and is no longer required thanks to you. Haploidavey (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobiles
Yes, very happy to do that. Hope things are going OK for you. Haploidavey (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have next to nothing, but have posted what I can on nobiles talk and will of course keep a look-out.

Persecutions
Thanks for notifying me - I added my tuppence worth. It's a difficult subject: and I've noticed myself that once I've "finished" with an article the introduction always needs disinterested attention because the article has outgrown the original plan. Haploidavey (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh!? You didn't sound at all nutty. You made a reasonable and rational observation - didn't you? - on the introduction to a topic that's bound to draw flak. Haploidavey (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I guess it's likely that most will just read the introduction to something offered on a plate at page 1 - for the most part, that's likely a casual readership. Personally, I tend to skip introductions - which is probably why my own tend to be unsatisfactory - because most of my reading's directed towards the substance and searches for cited authorship. Everything here is potentially loaded with whatever the reader brings to it, to say nothing of the writer. If even the apparently innocuous genius is potentially fraught (see my talk-page) I don't think any article titled "Persecution" (of whoever or whatever - and how else could it be titled?) can fail to provoke debate and dispute... which is healthy. And of course none of this obviates the requirement for actively critical reading. Caveat lector, every time.


 * And again speaking personally - out of habit - I think that your uncertainty regarding the intros to Charon's Obol and Unclean Spirit might be markers of your uncertainty somewhere in the main text. Or a striving for certainty (cf Keats) where there's none to be found? I have to say, neither is apparent to me - but then, I draw my own conclusions and would be hard pressed to express these as other than emotional. I think sometimes one must be content with the reportage of mystery, not its explication. Least of all its solution, which would be most unsatisfactory. I hope I don't presume too much here. Haploidavey (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. Different ball-game, but only sort-of. One's predicated on the other. That needs a lot more thought than my usual lazy stream-of-semi-consciousness. I'm re-reading a few times before I respond... Haploidavey (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindented, just in case) Smileys! How about a "smiley of uncertainty"... or a "smiley of skepticism". A "smiley of hamstrung creativity and elucidation" would be a quite Sardonic Smiley, I believe. I'd definitely go for a "smiley of Original Thought and bugger the consequences". Narratives. Yes, that's one of the reasons why I do my damnedest to avoid details that don't move the narrative onwards. So many dates, bloody battles, who won, who lost, who was the emperor, when was the empire, yes it was, no it wasn't, yes it was, that's POV!!!!!! Was he gay??? I heard he was! Jeeeeez... who needs it? Of course the Big Fiction on these here pages is that as long as we're dutiful drudges of others' scholarship and keep it squeaky clean "in our own words" we serve The Purpose. That's a more serious problem because, well, no we don't. Books are touchpaper. Of course its much easier with broad, extremely well debated and disputed topics where a form of original synthesis can happen through patchwork. The result is a hybrid, with a peculiar life of its own - which is pretty close to Original Thought, which to me is damn close to Original Research. But then, I'm not a scholar and if I seem to gravitate towards big topics its because they're very much in evidence. I shy away from deep, obscure and narrow fields partly because I don't even know they exist until someone like you writes about them.

So it's difficult for me to do other than hear what you say. You're dealing with arcane and difficult material at a level I simply can't match, even if my occasional intuitions prove useful. I hate the Original Research bar when it stymies the development of articles like yours - or any, really. And it's an absurd evasion of the real problems in historiography. Cripes. Eheu... (yes, at last I've learned to sigh in Latin. It's a personal landmark though I'm also listening to Beethoven's 9th so the eheu's rhetorical - impossible not to feel good with the 9th).

I have to say, I'm amazed at what seems to me a fairly common and scarily naive presumption that Livy is a sounder bet for the "facts"(!) than a modern published "secondary" authority and that either is preferable to an intelligent and articulate interpretation based on a grasp of both. Depressing and fallacious professionalism, arguing from authority for a position that's actually based on belief - or, if you will and more accurately, disbelief. And so widespread - creeping paranoia and mistrust. It's why the British educational establishment is obsessed with testing and measuring - (they call this evaluating; but don't let me start on that. Quite scary). Though actually, I have started, haven't I? Because in the end, it's the same thing, and deeply anti-humanistic.

This is just a smidge because I write very slowly and then have to check for my habitual typos and crapitty grammar. More anon with reference to history not actually moving backwards (like William Holden in Sunset Boulevard), the cult to Pillars of mellifluous wiki-Goodness and most of all, initiation - which I'm sure will strike me as spot on just as soon as you offer me a citation in triplicate from the HA. Haploidavey (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I knew you'd not take that on, but I thought it might be read against intent... back to your list now. By Monday without fail. Haploidavey (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I like the motto! Haploidavey (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Bear-hugged by topic
Well, I've been taking sneak previews. Beautifully written and it lucidly explained to me just what a governor was in those circumstances: that's a first. But yes, the List! and after all that's what it is and I don't envy you the task - shows Rome at its least likable. What a bunch. The Middle Republic reeks of neurotic insecurity and I've never been able to cope with even trying to understand it. Actually, I linked out from the article to some of the basic status and social terms and concepts (good to see your crucial link to Other) in Roman society and it confirmed what's really lacking in Wikipedia's Romanoid topics: the difficult and essential stuff of social relationships, things that happen between the lines rather than the power-badge identity stuff. Plebs, citizenship, clientage, you name it. It never ends, does it? Haploidavey (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Triumphal and other honours
Thanks. How did I miss that? Or maybe I just forgot about it. The Roman Triumph article's a chronic itch. At some point, I'll have to give in and deal with it. No balm otherwise. At the moment it makes me shrivel up inside, but I do find it useful sometimes (especially when stuck) to read and edit around the subject. Beard's book is splendid for all manner of things - did I tell you I bought it? - superbly indexed and very broad in scope. I'm only just discovering how best to read it: which in my case means reading and re-reading it with all the ignorance I can muster (that's lots, therefore easily done) and none of that ferocious intention to "do research" (kills a good creative read stone dead). Haploidavey (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think one of the best reasons would be not having to deal with Roman Triumph! I agree that at some point, these two might be usefully merged - but for now why not see how they both look some way down the road? EraNavigator developed the Triumphal honours article, and I don't know whether or not s/he's put it to bed. I'll drop EraNavigator a line. Haploidavey (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Minding the S's and P's
Very happy to oblige: I don't see how they could be other than capitalised as entities. Consider any attentions reciprocal - you've a luscious-seeming reference there on Triumphal debate in Livy. Where do you hide your articles-in-progress? They seem to spring forth fully gestated, like Herself. Haploidavey (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, all's well with the article and I see no requirement for further citation. One thing only - and it might just be me being thick - but the grant of imperium to magistrates while still privati had me baffled. Less baffled now I've read the promagistrate article: but it still seems a remarkable sleight-of-propriety. Heigh ho, live and learn. Haploidavey (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to move my comment - though I must say, it's based on my own misunderstanding rather than your text. Athena's gifts to me were just stocking-fillers, alas. Haploidavey (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Only an iota's difference
« τρίκτυπε, τρίφθογγε » shows on my screen as lowercase tau-rho-(English letter "i").... In edit mode I can see that you typed « τρικτυπε, τριφθογγε » with accented iotas, but it doesn't display that way in browse mode. My display font is Wikipedia's default choice, DejaVu Sans. Should I be using a different "skin"? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A source for triple goddess stuff, if you read German
If you're comfortable with German, you might want to look at T. Hopfner, "Hekate-Selene-Artemis and Verwandte in den griechischen Zauberpapyri und auf den Fluchtafeln," Pisciculi (FS. F. J. Dölger, Münster, 1939), 125-45. He examines several magical papyri, including PGM IV.2785ff., the focus of so much discussion lately. I'm never happy when I have to read German, so it will probably be a long time before I get to this one, but it seems like it might help in the development of Triple goddesses in antiquity... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can understand bowing out; I tagged as a way of doing so myself. But it's bad luck to let go of a wolf's jaws. At least you didn't do it on a Tuesday. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope you do find the time to edit an article on how contemporary classicists treat the epithet formation away from the discussions of Theosophy, 19th C. pseudoscholarhip, goddess feminism and neopaganism. I'd certainly enjoy reading it. Thanks for both your erudition and clearheaddedness in the subject so far. Davémon (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaius Cassius Longinus
Thanks for jumping in there. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Lucius Valerius Flaccus (praetor 63 BC)
I am no expert on this - or any - LVF, but I have had a look at Appietas's draft, and it seems to have plenty content and references to make a decent article. There is a bit of work needed to get it into the right style, and it reads as though there is some OR that would have to be trimmed, but I think it would be a waste not to get it over into mainspace soon.

I have had a go at the lead and first section (Birth etc) at User:Grafen/sandbox. It gets a bit trickier after that, and I would be delighted if you were to finish it off (or start again if you think you can do better). But I hope we can get it launched one way or another. Grafen (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for the delay replying, but I've been too busy with work and various projects to log on to Wiki for ages. I've not lost interest in the Flacci. On the contrary "Valeri Flacci and their clients" has become chapter IV in a book I'm presently writing focusing on Republican coinage, genealogy and their interrelationships. The main thing is that too much of my articles here contain original material which needs to be argued in article or book form, and is expressly contra Wiki policy. A lot of my stuff has been interfered with or wiped off this site for that very reason, which is why I've lost interest. The site rules do make it clear that wiki is not the place for new ideas. Ergo, stick to the standard texts on the Valeri Flacci. I won't be finishing my L. Flaccus pr. 63 article here. Incidentally the name of Appuleius Decianus the prosecutor is a modern error, repeated until it's become factual. The sources show clearly enough that he was Canuleius Decianus. But again not the sort of thing Wiki permits. The traditional error must be repeated because its published norm. Appietas (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both messages. All points taken. I shall leave Flacci alone for the time being. Grafen (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Adoption
Well found and thank you, C. That's probably the longest and most thorough I've seen anywhere. And you've done great work at Ambitus, I see. Haploidavey (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sucks teeth"
...is as near candid as I'll allow myself, but yes, the underlying issues have surfaced. Remember Truth? Plus Deity? Obscurely yours, Haploidavey (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it a major transgression. 'Cept of reality: so, business as usual. Haploidavey (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: The H Word
Well, I wish you'd stick around the article, Cynwolfe, because your suggestions are quite reasonable. Certainly more reasonable than this:. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, there was Mary
Oh, wonderful stuff. Isn't that just the bees knees? Haploidavey (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Give me a Tums
Well, it could be worse - and if we leave it, it will be. Some Latin I student will insist on magister equita (it's plural, isn't it?); or at least on accent marks.

The difference from mother-in-laws is that mother-in-laws may, however irrational, be usage. This has no such excuse; all of these hits appear OCR blunders (equitum 5 from an index, equitans, equitibus ( [sic]!)).Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Roman, however, is redundant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem, after looking at the article is that there are at least three offices involved:
 * The assistant to a dictator, which appears to be all the present contents.
 * The relatively short-lived office under the Dominate, standing CinC Cavalry.
 * The British (and other modern) offices called Master of the Horse.


 * (2) can only be and eventually will be.


 * (3) makes ambiguous (although I would like it). If I had the switch, a great cat including Rupert of the Rhine and Gaius Servilius Ahala would be cute.


 * So how about and   for list of magistri equitum, after ? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I had two proposals; (1) may be simplest. But something must be done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) One big cat called to cover everybody.
 * 2) covers the present cat, leaving  for Rupert and  for Constantine's cavalry generals.
 * If there is going to be a cat for the fourth-century generals, it must be, both because historians say that, and for consistency with , which exists and which it would be silly to move. But upon reflection, I don't expect such a cat soon, since the articles don't exist; if someone writes them, let that editor make the cat, as a subcat. I therefore commend one big cat , which can have subcats as necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 11:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an admin power; if (like me) you ain't one, you tag the cat with subst:cfd and explain at WP:Categories for discussion, to which the tag will link. If that isn't clear, I'll do it, and you can follow my edits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Renominated, as the closer suggested. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Baebius Tamphilus
Hey -- I've reviewed your article Marcus Baebius Tamphilus, and I noticed that you're using Wikipedia as a source (sources 3, 28, and 30). It is a commonly accepted fact that it is inappropriate to use another Wikipedia article as a source. See this RSN discussion. Just thought I'd let you know! [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (This user was notified that these were not citations of sources in support of information provided in the article, but amplifications of the text and 'see also' links for readers who wanted additional background on related topics.)

Greek love
I came across your edit while scouring the recent talk page of GL - a breath of fresh air, if I may say so. Your refs were very much a propos, and I am sorry that the current editors did not sufficiently recognise the pertinence of your comments. The version of the article I worked on for over three years [earlier version], was directed to exploring the subject rather than the history of the term. Re the (Cicero) refs to 'amor amicitiae' and 'more Graecorum', I wondered if there exists anywhere the phrase 'amor amicitiae Graecorum' (in Cicero or elsewhere), which happy combination might satisfy the 'literalists'! Can you help? Dominique (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your interesting reply with refs to your own work - I couldn't help thinking that the level of specialisation within WP contributions is in inverse proportion to interference by meddlers! I'm afraid a topic like Greek love attracts a motley band of enthusiasts and well-intentioned contributors, each with an 'agenda', but I'm encouraged by your interest in finding connections with the Romans and their perceptions of GL. Yes, I suppose one has to be realistic about narrowing down or defining the title, though for me the subject is paradoxically quite specific in its relation to its classical context while its spirit has spanned the milennia. I know little about the subject of your article, though the presentation is immediately compelling - I do hope it attracts the attention and admiration of the informed reader. Kind wishes Dominique (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see by you comments on the talk page that you have a pretty good grasp of things. I have seen this article returned nearly completely back to a way I thought had been fully discussed and worked out enough at least to try and stay accurate without original research and in a way that at least began to acknowledge the history of the term through Roman times....considering it is how most of the writings were preserved.


 * I have returned the article back to it's October version and begun heavily editing it down again. Much of it was removed anyway recently so there is no reason to keep much of that version, but as an editor with major contributions I was not made aware of the complete rewrite that returned the article to an essay again with far too many quotes from contemporary and recent past authors that may have been inspired by Greek love, but should not be the main emphasis of the article.


 * At any rate I welcome your edits if you wish to contribute. I share your interest in the Roman Republic and would like to work with you on bettering the Greek Love article.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I really think that any good article has some specialised information. Even a little bit of everything if it's relevant. I confess I am merely a history buff and not well educated, however my main hobby these days is research, and more specifically research into the late Republic and especially on the figures you mention.


 * In all of my recent work I have found several references to the fact that the Term "Greek Love" was not used by the ancients and yet I find a great deal of commentary on the Roman view of the Greeks as a classic revival. Similar to future revivals in history that conclude (whether right or wrong) that a Socratic and platonic relationship existed sexually as well as educationally. No doubt many works are missing but what is available surely has relevance.


 * Especially relevant to most readers would be the more well known names. I know that Cicero.....was harsh to Marc Antony in his famous orations. It is a period I am absolutely fascinated with. I spend much of my time on obscure structures from the period but in my research i believe I did read about a claim Cicero made of Antony in his Philippics and I am aware of something about an affair with a young Jewish Prince I think.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cicero in popular culture culture
popular culture sections are frowned upon if they contain no meaningful information like this one. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * show me a FA of a historical person with an in popular culture section who was not an artist. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving on swiftly...
...and reeking ripely all the way home: but that's a stylish pontifex. Holland's quite deft about it, isn't he? Haploidavey (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I came on it in Holland; I have the book, which is certainly not dry - Holland is self-assured and the narrative's filled with colour, pathos and farce - but I'd forgotten most of it, so that was a nice refresher (probably not the most apposite word in this case). By the way, do you want the source? post edit: sorry, course you do. Holland's not a great one for footnotes or citing sources, but I'll see if I can turn it up. Haploidavey (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, here's ordure but no pontifex and no bucket (somehow it's the pontifical bucket that really does the biz for me) in Plutarch, Cato Minor, 32.2: the Loeb has basket, but apparently the Greek equates to "vessel"  but Dio omits all these - such a spoilsport. Quite an H.A. type story, don't you think? Haploidavey (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Two things...
...both splendid to me: your most recent user page text and your simmering Angelo Sabino. Haploidavey (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So. Just twiddling your thumbs, eh? And here's me, reading Syme in an armchair and all, a-sweat from the effort. Haploidavey (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation Frustration
Going back to your trouble with Tiberius Claudius Nero, I thought you might be interested in seeing the dismaying reception I got from the MOSDAB tidiers when I took my case to them: here (related to the previous couple of sections), following on from here. The problem seems to be that any MOSDAB revisions will be up to the MOSDAB-orderliness brigade, some of whom care about an ordinary user's experience or the cumulative content value of Wikipedia, but others of whom are in a strange world of absolute definitions more reminiscent of Euclidean geometry than any pragmatic attempt to make an encyclopedia. (I was brought into the discussion by undoing JHunterJ's "improvement" of a dab page, so I guess the result with him is not surprising.) Wareh (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can see that some people are ready to "educate" you until you give up so that the hectoring stops. Wareh (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Additions
I see you interested in Roman subjects. I am new to Wiki: in the last few days I made some integrations and additions to some articles including Janus, Vesta and Diana, based on Ovid and some of Dumezil's views. However I met problems as my addition to Janus's etimology, though well referenced, got deleted by an unknown person. My addition to Vesta too got a request for citations whereas everything is all well cited even if not in the normal wiki format as I do not undersdtand enough of relevant software. I also worked two hours typing addtions to the Diana article on the etimology and theology of the goddess but was unable to save and post them, perhaps because of technical problems or perhaps for other reasons. Do you know who are the administrators? How should I proceed? Thank you a lot and sorry for the trouble.Aldrasto (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And a happy New Year to you too
So nice to find your message, especially after my dreadful shambolic and definitely weirded-out mail (quirky would be an over-polite description) - therefore I'll amend a little - an excellent New Year to you, C. Haploidavey (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And that was such a lovely compliment on the Roman Religion talkpage. Probably the best I've ever had - it made me purr. Haploidavey (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

oh yes you are...
Ah, what can you do... Cyn, I'll be frank: until you pointed out the issue - almost a year back - I'd found the term only, um, mildly inadequate I suppose. With a few miles of reading under my belt since then, I agree with you - on both counts - as of course I would because (a) academically it's a quite useless term outside a very specific and very narrow context and (b) I don't think it's going to change anytime soon. Which is not to say it won't, but I think many here interpret what you say as a cleaving to the etymological fallacy - patently it's not, despite recent claims to the contrary implied, if not overt, on recent talk-pages. I'm busy as ole' buggery with them pesky Lares at the moment but believe me, Religion in ancient Rome is on my long-term hitlist, and some minor slaughterings would improve it no end - perhaps a sniping or two over the next few days, hm? Haploidavey (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * DYK... that this particular edit has been there since early 2008...? And uncited! Fair game, then. If it's held to be common knowledge or truism, then it doesn't need saying. YeeHar... Haploidavey (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it that's a wise resolution and sure to stave off the onset of the wiry grey ones. But I was trying to think of a parallel in historical context and all that came to mind was the politely insulting "non-white"; which is not quite right. It's all Other. I think that's what I mean. Haploidavey (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And...
I found and followed the discussion at Talk:Lollianus Mavortius; the discussion there seems spent, but the terminology issue remains. I'd like it resolved if at all possible but I'm reluctant to add incendiary fuel to that smouldering page, so why not open discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome; of course it may have been brought there before without resolution. What do you feel about this? To your knowledge, has it been subject to broad discussion? Haploidavey (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It should go without saying that even without appeal to P. Green's scholarship, the argument's sound. "Pagan" is a catch-all-catch-nothing evasion of essential subject matter, and if we avoid it we can deal with the religious in its own terms - pervasive, firmly embedded in the personal and political, and above all, entirely meaningful. Which for writers is harder work, of course, and requires a more critical evaluation (values, hm, yes...) of sources; which can make the difference between an article that tepidly serves the sources and one that fires the imagination: one that truly informs the reader. You probably have no idea how much your approach - in your own articles and talk-page comments - has opened up these issues and sharpened my critical thinking. And not just mine.


 * So in case you wonder, your passion on this point is not unreasonable to me and your reluctance to open up the discussion elsewhere is understandable in the circumstances. And yes, I'm probably still going to take it to the project though I'm fairly sure little will come of it, other than bruises.  Best, - Haploidavey (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Input request
Your input would be appreciated at Reference desk/Humanities. Thanks for your input at lex Junia Licinia.--Doug Coldwell talk 14:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

IF you care to, would you like to amplify on that of the 11 dictators of multiple terms at Reference desk/Humanities. I see a 51 to 62 relationship of the Roman dictators that started around 501 BC and going through Marcus Junius Pera. Then there was a 120 year gap to Sulla in 82 BC (being the 18th year of that century) and he was the last ruler of the Roman Republic. The first emperor of the Roman Empire was Augustus. I'm sure you will have a better understanding and handle on this then I do and can explain in layman's terms. Thanks again for your help on this ancient stuff.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Piglets
Hi Cyn, and thanks for the note. I'm back from Cornwall and elsewhere at last, and have now read your well-formed piece on JC's pomes - I particularly enjoyed Tacitus' on their literary merit; no foibles there! Religion in ancient Rome is of course a real porker. It's that prodigious sow again - far too many nipples but still not enough for all those piglets and herself fatally over-larded from indiscriminate gobbling. Still, that's pigs for you; therefore its very good to see you've opened up debate on some of the issues of attendant terminology. Or is that attendant issues? Both, I guess. Another long, long haul ahead. Haploidavey (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * When you asked about matters pertaining to Imperial cult (ancient Rome), did you mean your admirable reworking of Marcus Marius Gratidianus? Which I've been enthusiastically pillaging for several days?


 * And while I'm here, congratulations on your, um, deft handling of Mutunus Tutunus. What a DYK that would make! Haploidavey (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed the disembodied phallus rising from the hearth in Plutarch - quite startling, as I was actually pursuing the Lar, hearth, servitude and fertility connections for current work on Lares; which in turn has quite a way to go. This of course feeds back into Imp cult., the Gracchi (living or dead and filled with lead), poor de-jointed Marcus Marius Gratidianus, servility, the later co-option of the politics of "the least" and capricious, shaggy, flayed Marsyas. Don't even start me on sacrifice - I wonder how Livy handled this one?? I've ordered Lott, by the way, on the Neighbourhoods of Augustan Rome. He seems thorough and quite intuitive, and I note you used him a little but it's so tempting to channel Wiseman at this point. Remus has had an enormous impact on my thinking.


 * The Servius article needs a serious strip-down; so does higgledy-piggledy Romulus and Remus; both will, I think, receive attention but as overspill rather than dedicated editing. For the time being, anyway. Haploidavey (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK: Mutunus Tutunus
Hi. I've nominated Mutunus Tutunus, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thank you for the interesting article. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep! Amazing, huh? Haploidavey (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That last one really cracked me up; my eyes are all watery from it. Something wicked this way comes on a little trolley. Haploidavey (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

lex regia
I contributed this new article. It is a translation of an article of the Italian Wiki. I found it very interesting. However there are some problems with links.

I am not an expert of Roman law. Probably there are improprieties in language but there should not be big mistakes.

If you do not mind and have time, I would appreciate your opinion.

Thank you. Aldrasto (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I tried to contact the author but he did not reply. Many concepts we encounter in Roman history are rooted here. Augustus and other emperors too based on the lex curiata de imperio their authority. I happened to read the episode of Cipus in Ovid's Metamorphoses book XV. Maybe it is this that angered Augustus and caused the exile of Ovid.Aldrasto (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A simple google search has yielded something interesting:

A. Watson Roman private law and l. r. 62 1972 JRS also a book by the same title.

S. Riccobono FIRAJ I Firenze 1941 (very informative and exhaustive list of quotations.

Kofanov Sacral law and the evolution of the so called l. r., in Russian but the recension is sufficient to show what are the results of the author's work.Aldrasto (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Marius Gratidianus and the arbor infelix
Whew... thanks for the note. You've turned that article into something exceptional and truly useful. It has an extraordinary charge to it, much like the Marsyas article. So much hidden away there, just on the edge of vision, shards and strings leading off somewhere very dark and not at all comforting. I'm so glad your intuitions have at last been confirmed. It's such terse, dangerous stuff and it racks up the subject by several notches. Haploidavey (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Something I've been meaning to ask for a day or so, possibly related to sacrificial murder, plebians and servile classes, and the Compitalia shrines. In Livy, Servius Tullius is killed at or very near a crossroads area, street or ward later identified as vicus scleratus; some place near the curia. Anyway, this set off several bells, or perhaps my own inner jangling - who knows? But if you come across any scholarship on the matter, I'd much appreciate a note. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My congratulations for the excellent article. I found a link to the arbor infelixon wiki under the entry crucifixion. There it is cited in note 39 the paper by William A. Oldfather on the "suplicium de more maiorum". Link to uchigago is provided. It is based on Livy I, 26. It looks this punishment consisted in flogging perhaps to death the culprit suspended at a tree, or something similar. I met mention of the arbor i. while editing leges regiae, ascribed to T. H.Aldrasto (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by deletions
Yes, Julius Caesar's on my watchlist but I missed this morning's slaughter of an entire section. Extreme and unconstructive. Is this what's meant by "deletionism"? If so, it's a worrying habit. Well undone. And as a PS (I seem to be indulging in these in proportion to my forgetfulness) to presume the best articles as those measeled with citations seems a shade naive.Haploidavey (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing's come through email. You OK? Haploidavey (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, just got it - that's slow for email - and yes, 'tis a blank! Haploidavey (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Servius Tullius
I reviewed some notes and found somethig that might be interesting about him. Frazer writes that the Alban dynasty of the Silvii wore an oak crown meaning to emulate Jupiter, who dwelt on the mount nearby (Monte Cavo). Jupiter Latiaris antiquissimus in monte. However Servius's mother Ocresia came from Cornicoli and at Colle di Carne Diana was worshipped as diva Cornisca. Livy has Tanaquil tell his husband that the child would save their vacillating power as he shew his divine nature by being unharmed by fire surrounding his head, notably Tanaquil was endowed with divinatory skills for interpreting the episode of the eagle. Later Servius is accredited for dedicating the temple to Diana on the Aventine at Rome.Aldrasto (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

mos maiorum
I have translated a big chunk from the same author of leges regiae, if you are interested please have glance.Aldrasto (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Flamen
Duly tinkered with. Thanks, Haploidavey (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Patricians
I share your impressions, both regarding the best solution and the state of confusion of the matter. I suggest we state what is our preferred solution and, if no one complains, go ahead with it. --TakenakaN (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason why Category:Patricii] is empty is that a bot passed to empty it, moving the articles to Roman patricians. I think it is better to announce what we want to do, then have this bot blocked, then start move the holders of the title to the right category. Bye. --TakenakaN (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludi
You amaze me - "hastily done", eh? Splendid work, and thanks for letting me know. Links ahoy! Haploidavey (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Freebi
Oh you star! I've been busily spending someone else's money on hefty tomes and Rupke was about the 6th in line for delivery. D'you know how much dosh you just saved me them? I wonder who makes these available - some months back I downloaded a Weidemann; same kind of painless deal. Much appreciate your note. Haploidavey (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Genius (mythology)
No, I don't think it's right but have not challenged it. Yet. Triage is probably a good idea; Dave/Botteville has meticulously used particular sources for the article. Haploidavey (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't think I'm tiring of the subject in any way. The linked article was one of many reasons for my expansion of themes within Imperial Cult (ancient Rome). For the rest, my sympathies. It just seems to happen, doesn't it? I've been sidelined by a clutch of related articles, and the juggling is difficult. This is particularly true in Religion in ancient Rome, where I've begun to dig into the middens of magic and whatnot. Oh boy... it's worms again, but no can, and they're tricky things to juggle with, are worms. Worse still, I've a nasty feeling it's worms all the way down. I'd rather it was turtles, which at least have shells and sort-of-smiley faces. Haploidavey (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note on leges regiae. I just wrote something on "Vocabulary of ancient Roman religion". I had a look at the article. The first part is objectionable. I wonder why some people write on Roman religion using categories such polytheism or paganism. Why not referring only to relevant scholarship? Every religion should be treated as such without any interference of ideas proper to another one. Romans were very free and matter of fact. No revelation just experience and tradition. Some concepts such as the philosophical ones were left to individual choice. Interesting the sanctus referred to tiber by Horatius Cocles.Pontifex maximus Mucius Scaevola expressed these points clearly. Another good source for anyone interested in how Roman looked at religion is is Varro LL V,X.Aldrasto (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Friedrich Solmsen
I've just seen your outstanding revision of this article. Thank you very much! I've just finished writing the German Wikipedia version. There's also an article about his father Felix Solmsen. Yours truly, Jonathan Groß (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed that the English article stated 1905 as year of birth. According to reliable sources, 1904 is correct. I changed the date accordingly. BTW: I use to write articles on classical scholars. Do you too? Jonathan Groß (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

arbor infelix
I found interesting info on the original meaning of this expression: R. Bloch "Prodiges dans l'antiquite' Etrusques" writes it was a binary classification of trees of Etruscans. He quotes a passage of Macrobius that says trees were classified as felix or infelix mainly according to the colour of the lymph: white felix and purplish red infelix. This feature connected them to the upper or nether worlds. The problem is that it seems the custom was introduced by Tarquinius P. and this does not fit with the tradition that ascribes it to Tullus H.Aldrasto (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Granius Flaccus
Thank you for the link. The article is exhaustive and very well written, congratulations. I doubt that he invented the ius papirianum however this seems to be one of the many mysteries in Roman history when something that looks of enormous relevance pops up only at late times. Probably the pontificial traditions were known to everybody by the time of Cicero. The leges regiae are certainly ancient laws known to everybody. Somebody wrote them down first and it happened to be very late. Google has two noteworthy articles: L. L. Kofanov Sacral law... (in Russian but the summary is already informative; Zika Bukalic L. r. pro et contra very exhaustive and balanced.

On G. Flaccus's religious ideas: I find him much less intelligent than Varro (LL V, VI). How can be Minerva the Moon and the Lar the Genius?Aldrasto (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the exhaustive explanations. I shall have a look at Dumezil's section on Etruscan religion for the comparison of the Piacenza liver and Martianus 's classification. I do not believe they are directly related neither do I think that they are much relevant to original Roman theology.

However if you read the lists of the gods classified as Novemsiles and Indigites you shall easily see that the important gods are the Novemsiles and the Indigites are almost all minor gods, except Dispater. The point might be that all of them did not receive a distinct cult or have temples. It is disputed what the two words mean, my guess is that Novemsiles means nine or ninefold and of course it cannot mean new. Indigetes are gods connected to something, other gods or places, as their function.

Christian doctors have an apologetic intention and their information is late and almost always biased. But it is important. Sometimes one can compare Augustine and Varro and see how the first misunderstood the other.

About the connexion between Lar and Genius: the spirits of the dead were the Manes not the Lares. Lares were the spirits of places, including homes and hearths. That the genius of a person became identified with the Manes after death too is doubtful: the Manes have no definite identity while the genius even after death has, for a long time, possibly the span of some lifetimes. Sorry at the moment I do not remember the source where I read this info.Aldrasto (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Me too I do not buy Dumezil's ideas, I only find that his work is a very well informed and good manual. My words here above must be interpreted in this sense: I shall read him as I could read any other manual as a sourcebook. I think he could have gone further, and perhaps did but I do not have all his books on hand, unfortunately. It is though a strange coincidence, neither my fault nor his, if on most points (eg the novensiles) what I think happens to be Dumezil's point of view too. Varro's Lingua Latina is here for us to read. In my view it is the a very good exposition of Roman theology.

Indigites and Novensiles: I stand by my word on what I wrote, Indigetes are minor gods, so Novensiles cannot mean 'new' and Indigites original or autochtonous. It is my habit to always use my judgement and good sense in writing anything, even if in this case Wissowa's opinion was different. If a position is untenable no authority will make it sensible.

On the specific of Martianus's classification too I stand by what I wrote: these theological or theosophical speculations have little or nothing to do with original Roman or Italic religious thought, if there was ever one really 'systematic'. They probably come from Egypt or Mesopotamia through Syria, Asia Minor and Greece. The triads are another matter as they are clear and certainly archaic: they are as follows:

Saturnus, Ops, Lua Mater. Juppiter, Juno, Minerva. Neptunus, Salacia, Venilia. Mars, Nerio, Moles. Quirinus, Hora, Virites. Diana, Egeria, Virbius. etc. Finally Dumezil's analysis on the subject of Martianus's classification and the comparison is a balanced and prudent presentation, I think he has identified what could be safely stated on the matter. I wish to add that Ovid mentions 12 houses in Met. I 170-176. Also interesting XV 858:"Sic et Saturnus minor est Iove: Juppiter arces temperat aetherias et mundi regna triformis''. Aldrasto (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I owe you an apology as some of my judgements expressed here above may in part be wrong. I was not informed of the classifications and partitions made by Varro in his lost work Antiquitates, described by Augustine. By chance (perhaps) these too result in sixteen parts, ie 15 plus one (the original oneness). I have not yet mustered it. One for man is four, for gods is five, and for every element space, time, subject, and action are considered. These specificatitions are clearly of Pythagoric inspiration and scholars have long speculated they might have influenced or be reflected in the pontifical theology. However there is no trace in the fragments of sacerdotal books concerning a similar classification. I am reading a work by romanist Francesco Sini (Documenti sacerdotali di Roma antica available on google) and he is unclear in the end of his presentation. Augustine 's (Civ. Dei 6, 3) passage as I reread it too is obscure: what he says is four multiply four first, but immediately afterward he talks of three and five collocations, equal 15+1. At any rate the problem is complex as it is acknowledged by many scholars there was a Mycenean influence on Latin culture. This puts once again the question of original Italic and Latin religion. There can be an influence in Latium but it not credible for Umbrian and Sabins. Ovid's 12 houses are a Greek hellenistic influence too.

Aldrasto (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have started a new article on the lexic of Roman religion. While rereading the links you kindly gave me I read on right hand side blue box appearing when I point the mouse there the phrase: novemsiles the ninefold gods. I know you are already working on this article, however I am interested in knowing about the source. I shall have to write on the topic indigites novemsiles too and as I wrote to you earlier my idea has always been that novensiles has something to do with nine. Namely 3 mult 3. Editing my article I am using works by romanist F. Sini (available online) who supports the thesis that the books of Numa burned in 181 BC were authentic. The anachronism of Pythagoras is in my view apparent, since Pythagoras did not found pythagorism which should be a much older doctrine spread on many areas of the Med. It seems that prehistoric Italy was not at all primitive. Many stereotypes have already been dsiproved by archeology.Aldrasto (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear: you sent a link to a book by Nancy De Grummond, Etruscan myht... on which there is a plate of the 16 section chart by Martianus C. Now whenever I point the mouse at the top of the cursor there appears a box starting with P. 268

7)Ninefold gods (Dii Novemsiles) 151 Nocturnus (God of the night) etc.

However I have not been able to find this reference in the text. What made me curious is of course the fact that the interpretation of the author of Novemsiles is the same I gave (above in a previous mail of mine here).Aldrasto (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I found what the author says on the subject, finally! Yes it does not throw much light as this epithet is important. Other why should they be mentioned first in the devotion? Varro writes that they are a Sabine denomination, so it should mean that they have nine seats sedes, given the Sabin pronounciation.Aldrasto (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Carmen Priami
I'd still much prefer the image to be on the right. At a decent screen resolution the references section is somewhat messed up. However you make a valid point, so I will leave it be. Good article by the way.  Jujutacular  T · C 19:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Mugilidae (gens)
That's particularly splendid. May it never suffer editing; I might make a wee catalogue of these gems you send me. Haploidavey (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Clearly they were unaware of the Claudian mullet." Hm. I'm sure we can fix that... Haploidavey (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And I'm pretty sure there's a graffito of Nero with mullet. Haploidavey (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Papias
I'm not terribly concerned about the diffference between B and C, both get taken to GAN. As an occasional rater of articles I'm happy to rate articles that I know little about (and which I'm not in a position to judge the use of sources) to C level if they seem fairly thorough, but I thought in this case that a picture might be useful. Obviously it would not in this case be the subject, but something connected to him, such as a picture of the manuscript of his dictionary. Anybody could rerate this B and probably nobody would complain.--Grahame (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dusios
Hello! Your submission of Dusios at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip the Arab and Christianity
Hello, Cynwolfe. You probably don't know me all that well. I am the primary editor on Diocletianic Persecution, an article you raised some concerns with after it made TFA. We had some dispute over the word "underplayed". I have few presumptions for myself: I yield to your well-polished wisdom and knowledge. I have no credentials or special expertise in the field I pursue here. I am a simple layman, and have no Latin or Greek letters. I understand that you are well-appraised in these things.

I am now working on an article titled Philip the Arab and Christianity. Since you list your interests in "interactions of the traditional religions of Greece, Rome, and Celtica with early Christianity", I thought you might have something to say here. It is presently mired at Good Article Reassessment, where fellow editors have raised concerns about the article's clarity and scope. I was wondering if you could cast your eye over it, help mediate between the general and the technical, help me better it. It is no trouble if you refuse&mdash;after all, you do not know me very well, and your interests are Republican rather than Imperial. But the article has been left quite a while in administrative limbo, and it is in want of an engaged review.

Whatever your decision, thank you for your time. G.W. (Talk) 21:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Further note: the peer review is open here. G.W. (Talk) 06:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your positive comments at GAR ("non-ideological"! that gave me a weird and special joy). I've simplified the argumentation in the lede on your recommendation. G.W. (Talk) 06:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Troy Game
I don't recall a discussion of this but remembered that Rehak & Younger have a line or so on it, in relation to Augustan ideology (his honour's development of the Campus Martius) -. I doubt that's much use to you. Well, maybe.

Wonderful work on Dusios, by the way. Oh, those figgy fauns! Haploidavey (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "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."


 * Blindingly obvious, and sublunary is as sublunary does. Hang on in there. And (might I say), if a reader's predisposed to take Arnobius on face value, you've already lost them. I think you've been as explicit as the material and sources allow. Though as you say, your handling of Unclean spirit seems to have been more confident. Dusios seems complete to me but does it perhaps need a little shuffling?


 * Alas, Roman religion is one of wikipedia's most bottomless pits. Not only because it echoes here, there and everywhere - or rather, it should echo but doesn't, so one has to provide - but now and then it throws up something utterly sad and ghastly. A week ago I read Livy's account of Punic prodigies "expiated": I can't get the four-year-old hermaphrodite's fate out of my head - perhaps I shouldn't try, poor creature. Haploidavey (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The basics are in Livy 27.11.1-6. Haploidavey (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Livy's not really my idea of a good time, but I'd be very interested to read your translation of Ibis when it's done. A bit o' catharsis ne'er goeth amiss. Haploidavey (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Lusus Troiae
That gave me the same kind of jolt I've had from handling ancient artefacts. The pictures are an ingenious and essential addition. What with the additional text, it's suddenly dense, vivid, um... close up, present and tangible, and vastly mysterious. Marvelous work, Cyn. Haploidavey (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Temple of the divine Julius
Ah, d'you mean you'd like to link elsewhere from "Temple of the divine Julius" in Lusus Troiae? Couple of problems; he's quite the oddity, even among the divi, therefore (or so goes my excuse) I left him stranded somewhere in the Early Augustan stuff. You might try the "Temples" section there - but I doubt there's much worth linking to. Perhaps there should be, and I could work something in. Same goes for Religion in ancient Rome. On the other hand, there's this, which "needs work" as we seem to say here quite a lot. Haploidavey (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Anaesthetics of ancient Rome
Ah the splendour! The time-travelling! The horror, the horror...! My chariot lost a wheel at the first bend.

Cyn, I wouldn't normally dream of doing it, and I hope you don't mind, but I deleted the rest of my response - it was a particularly frantic and unfunny embarrassment to me and of benefit to no-one. If you're inclined to take a look at Religion in ancient Rome, I'd much appreciate any feedback, particularly on structure. Haploidavey (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It somehow seems appropriate to reply under this heading. You're a magnanimous soul! and thanks for what you've done in the lede at Religion in ancient Rome - that already helps with the rest. Sorry to hear about your modem - it must be hellish frustrating. We're so horrendously dependent on these things. By the way, are you sure your modem's at fault? Wikipedia's servers haven't been doing too well over the last day or two, at least not on this side of the Big Water. I've lost quite a few page changes, mid-edit. Haploidavey (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Vocabulary of Roman religion
Thank you for your comments. I shall do my best to limit the length of entries. However as I wrote on the discussion page I feel that by giving readers some contact with primary sources may be woth its while.

I do not trust very much scholarship that is not grounded in the punctual examination of primary sources.

In the last days I read most of the links you provided on the leges regiae, however I did not find one who has made serious direct work on the sources.

One (the Cambridge Hellenistic history) makes a statement on Numa's laws looking more archaic than Romulus's without offering a discussion, instances etc. This view sounds very odd as Numa instituted the framework of a criminal law system (eg through the quaestores parricidii).

It is true that we cannot say whether these laws or the ius papirianum are authentic though it is highly probable since historians support this view and we know the pontifical archives were reliable.

Schiller's work looks more detailed however he too confines himself to quoting ealier Italian work: Guarino, De martino, Grosso, Luzzatto.

I am totally ignorant in Roman law however the article I translated reflects more recent work, however questionable (Tondo and Franciosi). Either I reject the whole article or I must accept what it says. It does not make sense to question its content on authorities that do not deal specifically with the subject.

Ealier I sent you a message citing an article by Kofanov and one by Bukalic which are focussed, of course they are not Anglophone.

German articles too do not seem to add much too, but I am slow at reading German...Aldrasto (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Vagitanus
Yes and thrice yes, put leave it in! Seriously, I think a pic like this is an excellent reminder that Roman religion's an everyday and vital business. Irresistable cuteness is just babies, innit? Haploidavey (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, wa is lovely. I do like Varro; and I like Augustine's respect for his work, even as he tries to shred it. Haploidavey (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just had to share my mum's comment on Augustine: "He tucks into his porridge because he knows its good for him but he just can't stop talking about interesting recipes and fine wines." Haploidavey (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC) She's pretty frail but very much alive! She can't manage a keyboard so on her behalf, thank you. Haploidavey (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Cornelius Gemma aurora.pdf listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cornelius Gemma aurora.pdf, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Cornelius Gemma aurora image
Hi I nominated it not because of any deficiency with the image or the source per se, but the fact that it's a PDF. If it was a JPG, that would be better. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Replace the pdf? It's an orphan; no replacement is necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Prosopography of Ancient Rome
I have nominated prosopography of ancient rome for renaming to prosography of ancient rome. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Esse quam videri
Not only words, but actions! I applaud you for finding energy for the actual task. Wareh (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Sorry I can't be more helpful right now, but maybe when I have less to do in real life... --Akhilleus (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Rome renaming
Thanks Frankly, some of the resistance to the proposal is nonsense. It's so frustrating to me to have inconsistent names (and it's entirely unprofessional in an encyclopedia.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice work on the womb veil article
Saw your post at the Feminism Task Force and decided to have a look. I think the article is a great addition to Wikipedia and I hope you'll write more like it! Don't get too discouraged by the critics. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Arf!
Thank you Cyn! Cute and perky little bowser, isn't he; born for stick-fetching, and might help me loosen the logjams in a couple of articles, even if he brings back the wrong stick. Like they do. Or perhaps I'm throwing the wrong stick in the first place; I'm not at all sure I've any sort of handle on chthonic... I always feel I'm missing something vital. Which is possibly hidden in plain sight on that marvelous coin.

I see you've a diverse heap of current projects, some of which are utterly beyond my rather narrow editing range and are fascinating reading - "Womb Veil" in particular, which I seriously feel is as it should be, and should not be incorporated into a larger schema in any but its own terms. Wonderful phrase. Does your other batch-in-progress need any umbrella-articles for sub-topics in Roman religion? Most urgently (for me): Sacrifice (there's currently TMI in that section of Religion in ancient Rome), Superstitiones, Medico-magical-religious cultic practice, and Funereal practices in toto (still on my to-do list but one of the few that's likely straightforward in the writing). I'm stuck fast and bogged down without them. I've also noticed that most of the deity/mythology articles offer much on myth and lamentably little on cult. But that's nothing new.

Woof! Haploidavey (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Temples of Doom
Ooh, it throbbed with dire; it's now on my list for vigils. As you say, separate articles are badly needed. And thanks for the link; a more lucid and, I believe, insightful presentation than the two sources I used for the relevant section of Imp. Cult. I'll peruse at leisure.

And congratulations on Robigalia, probably the best Roman festival article current on wiki. Haploidavey (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Glossary
Thank you for that lovely note. For the rest, I'll say this just the once and not mention it again - I really hope you change your mind. Haploidavey (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Gotten a bit chewed up.... several duplications. Not sure where the latest response was intended to be, as it responds severally. Shall I just go in and sort it? It's not as if I'll be changing substance, and can invite A to reposition as he pleases. Haploidavey (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Extraordinary but not unique. A similar thing happened in the early days of the Vocabulary (sic), when Aldrasto accidentally reduplicated an entry in two pre-edit versions and one post-edit. It was rapidly fixed, with his permission; but under present circumstances, I'd best not tinker. I'll just send him a note. Haploidavey (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And yes, the fas business gave me a smile. But even then, I don't get it: that's a bare-bones entry. Not well phrased, out of sequence, lacks context and etymology - why not edit? Haploidavey (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Caput mortuum
...yes indeed, incautious. Someone seems to have lost their own head to enthusiasm and may well be speaking, as a friend of mine memorably and unkindly put it, "through the mouth of the bottom". Standard arena despatch for the mortally wounded was a wallop on the head or a sword into the chest cavity; this seem more consistent with corpses of soldiery salvaged for honourable burial after "head-hunts". Thanks for the link: I'll update myself now and then, to see how this pans out. Probably be a couple of years before the forensics are published. Haploidavey (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Gabii
The object is of a late date, it represents the 12 gods praecipui in the Hellenistic interpretation.

Please bear in mind that Gabii was reduced to a meaningless place by the 3rd century. It was resettled by Roman veterans various times. See W. Smith and the article by C. Gabrielli.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

winning the Trojan War
This is an excellent solution to what seemed like a hopeless debate. Nice work! --Akhilleus (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor figures in Roman history
Just out of curiousity - what do you think of Harris' Cicero novels?--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Gens Iulia
Maybe you can help me with that. I'm looking for reliable and recent family tree of the Iulii, since there some inconsistencies in older sources (turning cousins into uncles or vice versa). In particular I'd like to verify or correct the family tree displayed in the German WP. Regards.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Romulus
I read the article and as I have written there I see that the editors have not taken into account Dion. Hal.'s version(s). I recently read Livy and Dion. and I find the latter to be much more complete and careful or accurate if you prefer. He offers essentially different accounts of many points of the story.

The mysterious object from Gabii might be a pulvinar but it is just a guess.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Red dogs
The Robigalia are related to wheat growth as the augurium canarium (see Pliny). Now the red dogs are conected to Vulcan and the Vulcanalia preceeded the Consualia aestiva of just 4 days. I read Buttress but he has not read Ovid as he says the flamen in the Robigalia is the Martialis instead of the Quirinalis. I think there might be link between red dogs - wheat - Vulcan, not with Mars.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ira deorum
What a story! Meanwhile down at the forum (and I hope this link works for you) the comments fly - "vitium! vitium!". Haploidavey (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as a literalist, folksy-definitive image, appropriate for an evangelical "Solid Rock Church". The "Orpheus resurrecting" images are amazing. I've not seen those before and now my brain's in a ferment. (PS: yeah, well... it's Jupiter, not Orpheus. I assume he's the rider, and the little earth-bound figure's being trampled? Duh, I guess... but then, that's even more surprising.) Haploidavey (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your links and joined-up thinking slipped a lithe ferret into the smug old warren. And put a cat among the pigeons. And a horse into the St Leger. And stuff. Something has clicked - to do with Roman theology, cosmology and cosmography. More anon, when I can see past the loose fur, feathers and um... riderless hosses. Thank you for that. Haploidavey (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)