Jump to content

Talk:Anicia gens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]
See also Talk:Anicia (late Imperial family)

Factual issues

[edit]
from Talk:Anicia (late Imperial family)

There are numerous factual issues with the claims made by this article:

  1. I can find no reference to gentes named Amnia, Pincia, Auchenia, or Proba. None of them is so described by the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, or any other source with which I am acquainted. Probus is a cognomen in any event, and does not even look like the name of a gens. There was a gens Petronia which had existed since the time of the Republic, but it is not clear that any of the others constituted gentes.
  2. Nothing in the article about Bassianus, either on Wikipedia or in the DGRBM, suggests that he was a member of the Anicia gens. If he was related by marriage, that would not make him a member of the gens. But as he married a sister of Constantine I, who was not a member of the gens, I do not see how he was related to the Anicii by marriage either.
  3. The fact that Constantine's sister is traditionally known as Anastasia does not mean that the Anicii were involved with the veneration of Saint Anastasia, or the construction of the Basilica of Saint Anastasia, which, according to that article, may predate the ascendance of the Emperor Constantine. And even if there were such a connection, that fact would not connect the Anicii in any way with Pope Liberius, who became Pope some time after the erection of the basilica and is not said to have had anything to do with it in either his article or the one about the basilica.
  4. Nothing in the article about Cassiodorus identifies him as one of the Anicii. The article on Pope Felix III specifically states that, "Nothing certain is known of Felix until he succeeded St. Simplicius." There is nothing about a connection to noble Roman houses of any kind. And if, as tradition suggests, he was the great-great-grandfather of Pope Gregory I, that does not connect Pope Gregory with the Anicii unless Pope Felix III was himself one of them. There is also nothing in the article about Pope Agapetus I to connect him with the Anicii.

Controversial information

[edit]

It is probable that this family was particularly devoted to Saint Anastasia and probably cooperated with Pope Liberius in the erection of the Basilica di Sant'Anastasia in Rome.[1] A member of the family, Bassianus, married a sister of Constantine I known in the tradition as Anastasia.

If the Anician descent of Justinian I and Benedict of Nursia is legendary, that of Boethius, Cassiodorus,[2] Pope Felix III,[3] Pope Agapetus I[4] and (by the maternal line) of Pope Gregory I[4] is based on more solid records.[5]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Rita Lizzi Testa, Senatori, popolo, papi: il governo di Roma al tempo dei Valentiniani, Edipuglia, 2004, ISBN 8872283922, p. 118.
  2. ^ Arnaldo Momigliano, "Gli Anicii e la storiografia latina del VI sec. d.C.", Secondo contributo alla storia degli studi classici, Ed. di Storia e Letteratura, 1984, pp. 242-247.
  3. ^ In 483 Felix married an Anician woman called Petronia (Dirk Henning, Periclitans res publica: Kaisertum und Eliten in der Krise des Weströmischen Reiches 454/5-493 N.Chr, Franz Steiner Verlag, 1999, ISBN 3515074856, p. 181).
  4. ^ a b Robert Austin Markus, Gregory the Great and his world, Cambridge University Press, 1997, ISBN 0521586089, p. 8.
  5. ^ Carmelo Capizzi, Anicia Giuliana, la committente (c. 463-c. 528), Jaca Book, 1997, ISBN 8816435046, pp. 18-19.

Reformatting

[edit]

Please stop reformatting this article to suit your editorial tastes. The format was decided on before you began adding content. The "see also" section belongs immediately after the content. Please stop moving it to the end. Entries for individuals should include filiations. Please stop deleting them. Filiation does not have to be attested by inscription when the name of the person's father and grandfather are known. Words and phrases that already have links to related articles do not require new links each time they occur. P Aculeius (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of filiation for late Romans is unattested. Something like "Flavius Anicius Sex. f. Hermogenianus Olybrius" is never seen, please stop adapting a Repubblican and Early Imperial practice to Late Antiquity. --TakenakaN (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft shows filiations for some of the Anicii at least as late as the time of Constantine the Great. Amnius Anicius Julianus is described as "M. f. Sex. n." A later example is Quintus Aurelius Q. f. Q. n. Symmachus, consul in A.D. 446. I am aware of no statement by the standard authorities to the effect that filiation ceased to be used at any specific time between then and the end of the classical period. P Aculeius (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
  1. Why you think it is important to hide the fact that the Macedonia War was in fact the Third Macedonia wa?
  2. Why, in the case of Anicius Auchenius Bassus, you want to remove the specification that he was praefectus urbi of Rome?
  3. Have you got even one attestation, for any of the Anicians of the Late Empire, of the use of filiation?
  4. Why you want to call Sextus Petronius Probus only "Petronius Probus"?
  5. Where is the source for the names "Aurelius Anicius Symmachus" and "Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius" for the two sons of Boethius?
I put back the section "See also", as you are right on that matter, but I do not agree with the above modifications, please give a good reason for them, before reverting them. --TakenakaN (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)"[reply]
  1. I am not "hiding" the fact that it was the third Macedonian war. It is described simply as "The Macedonian War" in the source material, because it was the principal war by that name in Roman history, and it is already linked to the article three lines earlier, with the same year. It is apparent from the material that it is the same war, especially as no other Macedonian War is mentioned.
  2. As the article praefectus urbi makes perfectly clear, this title referred to the prefect of Rome, and only later and by extension to the prefect of Constantinople. It is therefore redundant to call a person "praefectus urbi of Rome", since that is assumed unless you make clear that you are referring to Constantinople.
  3. I've already shown an example of filiation at a later period of the Empire than the persons in question, as well as one in this family. Filiation should be given when the name of the father and grandfather are known, unless there is a reason not to give it. None of the people in this family are known to have changed their names due to adoption; therefore, the filiation should not have been deleted.
  4. Sextus Claudius Petronius Probus is already linked right above the entry that refers to one of his children. It is not necessary to give his full name a second time or link to his name a second time, which is specifically discouraged by Wikipedia policy, and which I already stated above.
  5. The source for the names of the sons of Boëthius is the article on Boëthius in the DGRBM, the source cited for them in both instances. My index to the Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft confirms this. P Aculeius (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The father of Quintus Aurelius Symmachus was called Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, therefore it is possible to call him Quintus Aurelius Q. f. Q. n. Symmachus; on the other side Anicius Hermogenianus Olybrius' father was Sextus (Claudius) Petronius Probus and for this reason you will not find Anicius Sex. f. Hermogenianus Olybrius. As the use of filiation is not common in Late antiquity, if you want to put filiation, find a reference. --TakenakaN (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1&2 We should not expect the average reader of this page to know that, even if we write "Macedonian War", there were several of them and that the one fought between 171 and 168 was the third. For the same reason, we should not expect that same reader to know that there were two (and once even three) praefecti urbi and which one was Bassus.
3 You have provided two secondary references for the Constantinian age, what I am asking is a primary reference, possibly also for later times; I provided you with an example that the naming conventions of the Late Empire were quite different from earlier ones (Sextus Petronius Probus and his son Anicius Hermogenianus Olybrius).
4 There are two "Petronius Probus" (Sextus and Anicius), and the Petronius Probus to which the entry about Anicia Proba refers is not the closest one, which is above Proba, but the furthest one, four lines above. In general, I think that it is important to be clear, rather than stick to rules at the cost of ambiguity.
5 The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire gives only "Boethius" and "Symmachus"; if this is a mistake by PLRE's authors (but I doubt), you should provide primary sources, so that I can modify also the relative articles. --TakenakaN (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The average reader doesn't need to know which Macedonian war is referred to when the words link directly to the article about the war in question, and that is the one generally meant when the words "Macedonian War" are used without any qualifier.
  2. Because the article praefectus urbi explains that it refers to the prefect of Rome and those words are linked directly to that article, it is not necessary to explain that someone was praefectus urbi of Rome. Again, the principal use of words or phrases does not require explanatory notes. Only a use other than the principal use needs to be distinguished. One might as well describe all popes as "Pope of Rome" merely because there were popes elsewhere at some points in history.
  3. Your reasons given above for nos. 3 and 5 are mutually incompatible. You rely exclusively on one secondary source, yet refuse to acknowledge the validity of two others that have been the standard for research in this field for many decades. You are the one removing filiations which are clearly justified by Roman practice and extant information about the families in question. The burden is upon you to show that this practice is wrong. You must produce a source more reliable than the Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft that states that filiation was not used in the final centuries of the empire. As far as I can tell, the only reason for its scarcity is that praenomina were generally ignored or omitted from most inscriptions and epigraphic material from this period. There was never any point in time when it became improper to use filiation.
  4. The four lines following Sextus Claudius Petronius Probus all refer to his children, and this was apparent before you removed their filiations. The only reason why his daughter is so identified separately is because she held no office, is not described in another article, and so this is the simplest way of describing her.
  5. The issue is not whether the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire is a reliable source. It is no more a primary source than the Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft or the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. You should be familiar with the tendency of different sources to omit one or more names, change the order in which they occurred, or the spelling used, depending on the editorial preferences of the compilers. The fact that a long name is abbreviated to one name in one source does not itself justify removing all of the other names provided by other reliable sources. P Aculeius (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Why not? Why should you go as far as writing [[Third Macedonian War|Macedonian War]], thus effectively hiding the information?
  2. The article tells that there was also a praefectus urbi of Constantinople. The removal of the specification should be supported by a good reason.
  3. They are not incompatible, as they refer to two different cases. In the case of Boethius' sons, there are two secondary sources stating different things, and therefore I am asking for the primary source; and, please, note, even if the two secondary sources are one century apart. In the case of the filiations, you are assuming that, as a secondary source presents the filiation in one early case, then all the subsequent cases should be handled in the same way; the burden of writing filiation for late empire people is on you who want to introduce it.
  4. (a) the filiation is uncorrect for late Empire (b) the fact that their father has the same name does not indicates that they are brothers (they are, actually, but the partonimic could be a clue, not a proof) (c) still, with or without filiation, there is no need to keep the ambiguity just to avoid repeating the name.
  5. The Prosopography is in general very accurate about the names, stating which forms exist in the sources and where are to be found. If it says that someone was called "Boethius", it means that in the sources it is called "Boethius", not "Something Boethius Somethingelse". Therefore, as we have two incompatible sources, and ignoring for the moment that the DGRBM is a 19th century book, while the PLRE has been written a century later, and as the DGRBM states that it knows what are the complete names of those consuls, it would not harm to present this evidence. --TakenakaN (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this article; I added the entries to it; they were properly supported by reliable sources. You should not be deleting portions of people's names that correctly identify them and are supported by well-established and authoritative sources, merely because another source which you consulted did not include them. You should not be removing filiations that could properly have been used during this time period and which are supported by the relationships of the individuals in question. You were given perfectly good reasons for the use of [[Third Macedonian War|Macedonian War]] and for not stating redundantly "praefectus urbi of Rome" and you chose to reject them because it is not how you would have done it. But you have no right to substitute your judgment for everybody else's just because you happen to disagree with them.
Over the past week, you have made perfectly clear that you would not accept reasonable edits made to your submissions, but you expected other people to accept your edits to their articles, and you insisted that your sources be accepted even though most of us writing for English Wikipedia have never had the opportunity to see or examine them. If you want an article that contains nothing but the material you think it should contain, phrased the way you think it should be, and presented precisely as it is in your sources, and not in other sources the authority of which you have repeatedly questioned, there is a remedy, suggested both by myself and Cynwolfe. Write another article exactly the way you want it, and leave this article alone. P Aculeius (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Who wrote the article is irrelevant.
  2. If you want to add filiations you must provide a source for them, otherwise is original research.
  3. This is an article written also for common people, therefore there is no reason to hide the fact that the Macedonian war is actually the Third and that the urban prefecture is of Rome.
  4. If 19th century secondary sources say something while a 20th century source says the opposite, it would be logical to trust the most recent scholars, but, instead, I asked for primary sources, show them I will gladly accept the modification.
You also misrepresented my behaviour. You say I want to dictate what to put in article and how to write it, yet the current division of the article has been decided by you, the position of the "See also" section has been indicated by you, several statements whom you did not trust have been removed. So, please, stop complaining and remember what is written below the "Save page" button: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." --TakenakaN (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You would have done well to remember that before you reverted most of my edits to your extensive revision to the article I wrote, and reverted many of the other edits since that time. You have no justification for most of your decisions; they are based on your style and your opinion, and have no place on Wikipedia. You have no right to excise properly sourced and relevant information merely because you would not have written it that way, or because you won't trust sources that have been established as authoritative for generations, while many of your own have not undergone a similar degree of scrutiny or stood the test of time.
Just a few days ago you insisted that numerous claims be respected because they were found in books that you cited... very recent books that are not available in English or in most libraries, even though this is English Wikipedia... and now you have the nerve to delete other people's contributions to articles that they themselves wrote and formatted, on the grounds that the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology and the Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft are not reliable, insofar as any more recent source fails to mention some detail therein! Your attitude throughout this entire affair has been inflexible, uncompromising, uncoöperative, and thoroughly unpleasant!
Your superior attitude, summed up by the quotation above, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" would be good advice for you. Apparently you think that was designed to give you an excuse to do whatever you want to other people's work, but that the same principle should not apply to yours! I have made every effort to achieve a reasonable outcome in this matter without harming, deleting, or modifying your content in a way that was unacceptable to you, but you have persistently failed to reciprocate when it comes to the content for which I am responsible. It is perfectly clear that you have no respect for the work of others, and that you cannot accept any viewpoints other than your own. You have already made me regret the effort involved in writing this article. I have had to spend many times as long arguing over your additions, deletions, and other changes as it took to prepare the article. I sincerely hope that there are not many more like you in the Wikipedia community. Your attitude is enough to discourage anyone from believing in the spirit of coöperation. P Aculeius (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the informations from "very recent books that are not available in English or in most libraries"? You are accusing me of having inserted them, but after you challenged them I removed them, didn't I? The formatting of the article is the one you pushed to have (mine was a global division among the two periods, do you remember?), isn't it? This shows my will to cooperate, but you require unconditional and unmotivated acknowledgement of your opinions: this is not cooperation! --TakenakaN (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To return on the matter of this discussion:
  1. to insert filiation in the nomenclature of Late Imperial people, when such practice is very rare, sources are required;
  2. the names of the two sons of Boethius are indicated in the PLRE (the standard reference in late imperial prosopography) as Boethius and Symmachus; "complete" names should be supported by recent secondary sources of the same level or by primary sources;
  3. there is no reason to hide the reader the fact that the "Macedonia war" referred to is actually the Third and that in the two occurrences of the urban prefecture it is of Rome, not of Constantinople. --TakenakaN (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the names of Boëthius' sons

[edit]

The earliest source I have been able to find for the full names of Boëthius' sons is in Fabricius' Bibliotheca Latina (1697): Notitia Literaria de Severino Boethio, ex Jo. Alb. Fabricii Bibliotheca Latina. Here the names are given as Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius and Quintus Aurelius Anicius Symmachus. The biographical details here are cited to Procopius, who does indeed mention Boëthius' sons, but does not give their names. The source for their names is unclear; however, the former name is identical with that of the father, while the grandfather's name was Quintus Aurelius Memmius Symmachus, so these names are certainly consistent with Roman practice.

The same information is subsequently found in Nicolas Lenglet-Dufresnoy, Chronological Tables of Universal History (London, 1762), p. 232; and in the Grand Dictionnaire Universel du XIXE Siècle, M. Pierre Larousse ed., Paris (1867), which states: Boëce en eut deux fils: Aurelius-Anicius Symmachus et Anicius-Manlius-Severinus Boethius, qui devaient être élevés en même temps à la dignité consulaire en 522. The latter source omits the praenomen Quintus, in the name of the second son; the hyphenation here is the French custom for persons with multiple personal names. The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology gives the names as Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius and Aurelius Anicius Symmachus, also omitting Quintus. However, the 1910 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica restores it, and exchanges Memmius, the grandfather's cognomen, for Anicius in the name of the second son. The article on Boëthius in the current version of the Britannica is much shorter and does not name the sons.

The Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft describes the first son simply as Boëthius, and does not otherwise discuss his name. I have not yet retrieved the volume containing the entries on Symmachus, where the second son should appear, and where the names of one or both might be discussed. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire lists them only as Boëthius and Symmachus, but evidently does not discuss their names, or dispute those found in earlier sources.

The criticism of these names is that they are only found in sources that are quite old. On the other hand, the only reason why most of the sources cited above were found in the first place is because they were old enough to have entered the public domain. No systematic attempt to find the names or a discussion thereof in later sources has yet been undertaken, nor has any scholarly work been located asserting that the any of the names listed in the above sources is incorrect. P Aculeius (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The PLRE clearly states that in the sources the name are either "Flavius Boethius" or "Boethius"; the same happens for Symmachus.
  2. All of the recent scholarship (works in the last 100 years) I am aware of call them "Boethius" and "Symmachus"; as we are to adopt the names with represent the consensus of modern scholarship, the "Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius" and "Aurelius Anicius/Memmius Symmachus" are to be rejected. --TakenakaN (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was an update on the investigation, not an argument for or against inclusion. However, I note that you refer to a consensus of modern scholarship, despite the fact that you have cited only a single source that is acceptable to you, and that source, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, is completely silent on the issue of the names. Merely listing someone under a particular name does not constitute proof that other names given for the same persons are inaccurate. No source has yet been identified explicitly addressing this issue. In order for there to be a consensus of scholarship, there must be an opinion supported by evidence and shared by a number of different sources.
A single source that doesn't even address the issue in explicit terms cannot be said to express an opinion. If it stated, "this is the correct name and that is not", there would be an opinion. It doesn't do that. If it said, "these are the only names that appear in sources of that period", or "there is no support for this name", or "these names appear to arise from confusion between X and Y in medieval manuscripts", there would be an explanation. Nothing of this sort has been identified. And without any sources addressing this specific issue or providing some kind of explanation, there can't possibly be a consensus. P Aculeius (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no recent secondary source supporting long names, no primary source supporting long names, yet we must have long names because a 19th century source says so. Answer this question: why no recent source uses those names if they think they are right? Why you can't find the primary sources on which your 17th and 19th century reconstructions are based on? --TakenakaN (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not required to prove that the sources cited were correct. According to Wikipedia's own policies, it is not a forum for original research. Wikipedia defines encyclopedias and similar reference books as tertiary sources that compile information, often from secondary sources. The history of Procopius, for example, would be a secondary source. Boëthius' own manuscripts would be primary sources. And, as I have pointed out repeatedly, nobody has gone looking for sources discussing this issue that are not yet in the public domain. Nobody has determined whether there are any more recent sources containing the same information. One cannot infer the absence of such sources merely because nobody has been able to undertake a thorough search for them.
Dismissing scholarly sources as "speculative" or "reconstructions" merely because you do not believe that there was any valid basis for their statements, without providing any basis for this opinion, other than the lack of corroboration in your preferred source, is itself speculative. More importantly, the task of proving that one name is correct and the other is not, would clearly constitute original research. If even one scholarly source explicitly stated that one was right and the other wrong, and explained why it so concluded, that source's conclusions could be included on this page. But the burden of finding such a source rests squarely with the person seeking to include such conclusions. P Aculeius (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me re-word my position:
  1. primary sources support shorter names;
  2. modern secondary sources support shorter names;
- for the above two reasons, the articles must keep the shorter names. --TakenakaN (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has been presented as a conflict between scholarly sources published from the 17th Century to 1910 (and perhaps beyond; this has yet to be established), and a consensus of modern scholarship. But in fact there is no conflict, because the only more recent source provided in this debate says nothing more than that Boëthius' sons were named Boëthius and Symmachus. This does not conflict with any of the other sources from the 17th century onwards. All of them say that these were the sons' names. If the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire said, "these are the full and complete names of Boëthius' sons, and this is how we know that," then there would be a conflict.
But it is extremely unlikely that any scholarly source would make such an assertion. Boëthius himself had at least four names according to every scholarly source, and perhaps as many as six. He was at least Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius and perhaps Flavius Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus Boëthius. His eldest son (at least, for the sake of simplicity, let's call him the eldest) was named after him in some fashion, which is presently being debated. His younger son was named after his grandfather, whose name was Quintus Aurelius Memmius Symmachus. I do not mean that his name was exactly the same, only that he was his grandfather's namesake.
During this period of time most members of the Roman nobility had at least three or four names. In the family of the Aurelii Symmachi I find one entry with three names, Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, as well as an Aurelius Valerius Symmachus without a praenomen, but also Quintus Aurelius Memmius Symmachus, Quintus Aurelius Symmachus Eusebius, Quintus Aurelius Fabius Memmius Symmachus, Marcus Aurelius Naerius Symmachius, and Lucius Aurelius Avianus Symmachus Phosphorius.
It would be extraordinary if the sons of Boëthius had only a single name each, or a single name prefixed with Flavius. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire does not claim that these were their full and complete names. It doesn't even address any of the names found in other sources. So there's no conflict at all in the materials. There's also no consensus, because in order for there to be a consensus, there has to be a definite opinion. Not one published opinion about this specific issue has yet been identified.
The "primary sources" don't support anything; Boëthius' work, as far as we know, doesn't say what his sons' names were. I haven't actually found their names in any secondary sources, such as contemporary historians, either. All of the information we have been discussing comes from tertiary sources, according to Wikipedia's definition, and it is not at all clear from any of those that there is a significant conflict. You keep describing "modern secondary sources", plural, as if more than one source had been cited. And that source doesn't take a position on this issue.
You deleted the names because you couldn't prove that they were accurate. But you haven't proved they were wrong, either. Wikipedia editors are entitled to rely on the assumption that scholarly sources are accurate unless they can be shown to be erroneous, and even then the content should not simply be deleted, but instead placed in the proper context. The names should be restored with an appropriate explanation of such uncertainty as there is in the footnotes, written from a neutral point of view. P Aculeius (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"If the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire said, "these are the full and complete names of Boëthius' sons, and this is how we know that," then there would be a conflict." It says that those are the names in the sources!
"His eldest son (at least, for the sake of simplicity, let's call him the eldest) was named after him in some fashion, which is presently being debated. His younger son was named after his grandfather, whose name was Quintus Aurelius Memmius Symmachus. I do not mean that his name was exactly the same, only that he was his grandfather's namesake." These are speculations that must be supported by recent scholarship.
"I haven't actually found their names in any secondary sources, such as contemporary historians, either" False. It is in primary sources such as the inscriptions referred to them (and also in Procopius, if I recall correctly).
"But you haven't proved they were wrong, either." You are right, but I didn't want to prove them wrong, I wanted to prove, and I proved, that they are not supported by recent scholarship and by primary sources. --TakenakaN (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire nowhere claims that the names contained therein are the "full and complete names of every person, without exception, omission, or error." It seems perfectly obvious to me that many people mentioned in the book must have had names that the editors didn't find or didn't choose to include for one reason or another. They may have questioned the sources, as you have, or they may have attempted to resolve conflicting sources. But obviously there wasn't enough room to devote whole pages to every name that exists in more than one version.
If your contention is that every name found in this source is complete and accurate, and that other names or variations found in other sources are inaccurate and should never be preferred, or even treated on a par with that authority, I think you will find very little support in the academic community. As previously explained, it is extremely improbable that either of Boëthius' sons had only a single name, or a single name preceded by Flavius. The best explanation for the lack of other names in this work is that the editors were not satisfied as to the authority for other names. But since the book is completely silent on this issue, we cannot know their reasons, and without those reasons it would be improper to treat their silence as the rejection of other names. We cannot even assume that they were aware of the other names.
It is not speculation that Boëthius' son Boëthius was named after his father, or that his son Symmachus was named after Boëthius' father-in-law Symmachus. It is self-evident fact. I clearly stated that this fact did not prove that either of them had exactly the same name as their father or grandfather. I merely stated that it made it more likely that they had multiple names, which were long traditions in both families, such as the names assigned to them by the five sources I have already identified. The reason I did so was not to prove that their names were, in fact, "A", "B", or "C", but that they probably did not have only a single name, and that the absence of other names in your book does not prove (or even assert) that they had no other names.
I thought I had made perfectly clear that primary sources are those given by the person himself. Neither the history of Procopius nor inscriptions from the period of Boëthius are primary sources. They were not written by Boëthius or his sons; they were written by other persons using the information as they knew it, or which they chose to record, and this makes them secondary sources. The history of Procopius does not, as I recall, name either of Boëthius' sons, nor does any surviving writing of Boëthius, as far as I know. There may well be inscriptions or other sources mentioning their names. But inscriptions are often abbreviated and incomplete (even those which have not been damaged). The fact that only part of a name is found in an inscription or even several inscriptions does not mean that it represents the complete name.
Your entire argument boils down to your source being newer than all of the others. But a basic principle of scholarly research is that any significant change must be supported by clear and concrete data. It's not enough that a book says that something is so, if it doesn't give any reasons for its conclusions. But in this case, the book doesn't even make any assertions that contradict the earlier names. Mere omission is not contradiction, and contradiction without any explanation is not evidence. So there are no legitimate grounds for excluding names found in older sources, merely because a single recent source does not contain them.
Nor can you reasonably assert that something is not supported by modern scholarship if you haven't undertaken any kind of search for other scholarship. It's difficult to believe that The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire is the only modern scholarship that has a bearing on this issue. But if it were, then there wouldn't be even one source explicitly refuting the earlier names... and without that, there is no grounds for rejecting them. P Aculeius (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I state that ancient sources (call them primary, secondary, tertiary or whatever you like) do not give long names: you can confute this producing even one counter-example, but you didn't, therefore, for the time being, we must assume they do not;
  2. I state that modern scholarship (call them primary, secondary, tertiary or whatever you like) does not give long names: you can confute this producing even one counter-example, but you didn't, therefore, for the time being, we must assume it does not.
  3. All of your arguments are a handful of 17th and 19th century sources, which give the long names without even bothering explaining where they come from, when contemporary sources like RE give the shorter names.
For all of the above reasons, the longer names are not to be rejected, as there is no ground to insert them to begin with. --TakenakaN (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anicia_gens&oldid=1235529500"