Talk:Avitus

Place names

Where is "Viernum"? I can't find a reference to it anywhere else, aside from copy-and-paste websites using this Wikipedia page as source. In the past, I read that Avitus was confirmed as Emperor in Ugernum (Beaucaire) near Arles by the Gauls, though I can't find that reference now, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeliff (talk • contribs) 08:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

For the Early Life section, in SIDONIUS ON THE REIGN OF AVITUS: A STUDY IN POLITICAL PRUDENCE by Ralph W. Mathisen, he cites two sources for a summary of Avitus' early career "For a discussion of these events see, inter alios, J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire (London 1923) 323-30, and C. E. Stevens, Sidonius Apollinaris and His Age (Oxford 1933) 19-40". I'm not sure of the xact reference for each claim, but if anyone has access to these sources there are probably a good few points to compare. TechnicalityBlip (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

From the article:

His grandson was the poet Avitus of Vienne.

I received Tuesday from Amazon the Schanzer & Wood translation, Avitus of Vienne: Letters and Selected Prose, & there is no mention of any such claim. The two scholars do provide proof that Avitus was related somehow to the Emperor Avitus' son-in-law, the aristocrat & poet Sidonius Apollinaris, & also mention published speculation that the younger Avitus' mother may have been Sidonius' sister.

In short, is there a source for this assertion? I'll be happy to tag it if no one has a source at hand & wait for an answer. -- llywrch 20:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Name of Avitus

A website is not a source. The names M. Maecilius and Flavius are not attested. See Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire and Consuls of the later Roman Empire. --Μίκυθος (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Seven websites - and more, if you want -, specially numismatic and fundamented ones, ARE a source, ARE seven or more sources!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading books, no websites. Read Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire and Consuls of the later Roman Empire. Give me a historical source for the names M. Maecilius and Flavius. You will not find --Μίκυθος (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the error. Sadly the PLRE is no good as a resource here, giving only a referral to Rossi, I.795 (which I've no current access to). Mikythos, could you amend the footnote as well as just reverting my edit? At present, it gives that "M. Maecilius Flavius" is attested in literature. Note also that the error carries through even academia, viz: Brehier, L. (1930) Un empereur romain à Brioude, Flavius Eparchius Avitus. Almanach de Brioude pp.39-55.

Also, as I've lately been on a drive to standardise emperors' nomenclature. In doing this, I've listed only proper names (as well as Caesar and Augustus), without titles and honorific and victory cognomina ("imperator", "pius", felix", "invictus", "dominus noster", etc). This includes their pre-accession nomenclature as well as their ruling names. See Commodus for the best example. Hence can we lose the "Dominus Noster" from Avitus as well, to make it more in line with the other emperors? Many thanks.Catiline63 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates around fall of Rome

This article gives the death of Petronius Maximus as 22 May. The article on Petronius Maximus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petronius_Maximus says 31 May. Neither article explains what source provides such specific dating evidence, so I have not ventured to correct them, but they can't both be right. Would be great if someone who does have this information could correct the entry that is wrong and cite the source. 82.71.104.222 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Victoria

I've turned up references to a few dates online, but the cites to 31 May are more authoritative. I've seen a few references to Petronius ruling for 77 days (beginning March 17), which would be consistent with the 31st. The entry from the video series on the emperors produced by historian Adrian Murdoch points to the 31st: http://adrianmurdoch.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/04/63-petronius-maximus-emperors-of-rome.html ; and Encyclopedia Brittanica Online also cites the 31st: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/370593/Petronius-Maximus . Perhaps not definitive sources, but would seem to put the onus on whoever claims it was the 22nd. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avitus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070826163557/http://home.casema.nl:80/marcelkuyper/sidonius_bestanden/sid_carmen_vii.html to http://home.casema.nl/marcelkuyper/sidonius_bestanden/sid_carmen_vii.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Name revisited

Summary of actions taken so far
Reviewing the claim that "In older literature the names Marcus Maecilius Avitus and Flavius Eparchius Avitus were reported, but now only Eparchius Avitus is accepted", I find that there is no source cited, nor has there ever been since this change was made. I Googled for any matching statement in available literature, and failed to find anything along these lines. I therefore removed what appeared to be an unsourced statement in conflict with much existing literature back in July. Μίκυθος, who apparently initiated this change back in 2008, reverted this change yesterday, giving as his explanation, "what shoud that ! see notes". Unable to make head or tails of this, I undid the reversion, restating the original reason.

Shortly thereafter, Μίκυθος reverted it again, stating: "look in the Secondary sources. PLRE; how stupid". This was the first indication of any kind of source, although without proper citation it would have been impossible to know that this was the basis for Μίκυθος' assertion (minus the "stupid"). PLRE volume II isn't widely available on-line, but I was able to find the pages cited through a Google preview. Although the names "Marcus Maecilius" and "Flavius" do not appear in this reference, neither does it state, as it should, that they are incorrect or "no longer accepted". PLRE does give a citation to Rossi for the name, but I have not yet identified or located a copy of this source to see what it has to say on the subject. Since PLRE doesn't state what Μίκυθος cited it for, I undid his reversion again, giving the lack of a corroborating statement in the source named as a reason. Subsequently, Μίκυθος reverted the change for the third time, giving as his reason, "nonsens", which to his credit is better than "how stupid".

Now Haploidavey has stepped in, undoing the reversion and calling upon Μίκυθος to provide something more concrete, but Μίκυθος continues to revert the change. I decided to bring this to the talk page so that the issue could be threshed out properly, instead of continuing in the form of an edit war with explanations required to fall within the Twitter character limit . . . I'm aware that Μίκυθος is a long-time contributor to classical articles and don't want to resort to calling for administrative action if this debate could be resolved peaceably.

Discussion of the underlying issue
So, what are we to make of the claim that "Marcus Maecilius Flavius Eparchius Avitus", as found in much literature, is "no longer accepted"? PLRE is a valuable and important source; there's no denying that. But should the use of a shorter or partial name by PLRE be interpreted as an explicit rejection of the longer one? Given that its subject is prosopography, that interpretation is possible, but I'm not sure that it can be considered definitively so.

A question of the full name of a late Roman figure is always uncertain, since there is abundant reason to believe that for most of Imperial history many Romans had much longer and more complex names than they used on a daily basis. More than three hundred years earlier it was common for Roman politicians to have names stringing together the various names of both paternal and maternal ancestors, often in non-traditional and counter-intuitive ways. By the time of Avitus, praenomina were frequently omitted or dropped, and it is difficult if not impossible in many cases to tell whether a particular name is a nomen gentilicium or some other name falling into the catch-all category of late Roman cognomina. Flavius was so widely used (due in part to the vast numbers of freedmen under the Flavian emperors) that it was treated a bit as an honorific that could be included or omitted at will.

At the heart of Μίκυθος' argument seems to be the assertion that the names "Marcus Maecilius" and "Flavius" are "no longer accepted" because PLRE does not contain them, and that they must therefore be proved by positive evidence of their use in ancient sources. This seems to invert the normal rule, which is that information found in reliable secondary sources (i.e. encyclopedias, modern historians) should not be rejected (even by footnoting) unless a reliable source demonstrates that it is in some form inaccurate. And we don't have that.

I see some German sources stating "Marcus Maecilius" and "Flavius Maecilius" are found on Avitus' coins, while "Flavius Eparchius" is attested from inscriptions. For instance, Ersch & Gruber, Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, vol. Appellation – Arzilla, pp. 505–508 (Winterhalder). Absent a clear explanation for why these names should be rejected, their mere non-appearance in PLRE does not seem very persuasive.

A number of reliable secondary sources and recent publications continue to give "Marcus Maecilius Flavius Eparchius Avitus". His name appears in this form in J. B. Bury's History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius I. to the Death of Justinian (1923), Michael Grant's The Roman Emperors (1985), Bunson's Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire (2002), Luttwak's The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire and Kiminas' The Ecumenical Patriarchate (2009), Sellars' The Monetary System of the Romans (2013), and Adkins' Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome (2014).

I realize that not all of these are of equal authority or value to this debate, but they do demonstrate an important point: namely, that "Marcus Maecilius Flavius Eparchius Avtius" continues in widespread use, at least insofar as sources attempting to give Avitus' full nomenclature are concerned. Given his limited importance in history, it's understandable that this is a relatively small number. For instance, the "Chronicle of the Roman Emperors" refers to him only as "Avitus", disposing of the successors of Valentinian III in two rather densely-packed pages. So the fact that the disputed names are still widely used in published sources seems to give the lie to the assertion that they're no longer accepted. Can anyone point to a scholarly source that actually says that these are wrongly attributed, and can explain why they should be rejected notwithstanding their appearance on coins and in inscriptions? P Aculeius (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Acueius, what coins are you talking about? From the fake coins as a drawing in the Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste? oh no. I just say: I want to be a proof of the name. As source, inscription or papyrus. Not from old books. If the names were real, he would have been in the PLRE. --Μίκυθος (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mention any drawings, nor were any shown in the article. Did you look at it? It's easily available through Google Books. Do you have any basis for asserting that coins mentioned in this source are "fake"? The article and work in which it appears seem to be appropriate scholarly material. Is there any reason to doubt its accuracy other than that it is an "old book"? You appear to be repeating the assertion that if a name doesn't appear in PLRE, then it must be unattested/erroneous. What is the basis for this assertion? Can you point to some scholarly source that says, "any name not appearing in PLRE is rejected by modern classical scholarship"? P Aculeius (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Roman Imperial Coinage volume 10. not Maecilius, nor Flavius. Where should I take the sources when there are no sources? Only Eparchius is attested. How often? --Μίκυθος (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that volume 10 of RIC includes all known inscriptions, and that therefore anything not appearing in it is wrong? That doesn't seem like a reasonable interpretation. Do you have any reliable scholarly sources that make such an assertion? P Aculeius (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ric is the standard work of Roman coins. If there were coins with "Maecilius", they would stand there. If what is this? Are you kidding me? --Μίκυθος (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The article you linked about RIC says that it's a British catalogue. While it claims (without citation) that it's "the standard work", it nowhere claims to be thoroughly exhaustive, nor have you said that it makes an assertion about Avitus' nomenclature, beyond stating what appears on coins included in that catalogue. There have been quite a lot of works written on Roman coinage over the last five centuries, most of which weren't in English. Are all of them completely incorporated in RIC, except to the extent that mistakes have been corrected? There's no way to judge from the article. Being a "standard" work doesn't necessarily mean that it includes all known coins of whatever type from all published collections.

We have a scholarly source stating that the disputed names are found on coins and in inscriptions. These names are still included in modern scholarly works and common reference sources. There are no scholarly sources that state that such coins or inscriptions do not exist, or that the names are not found in any source and therefore must be rejected. The fact that some sources do not include all parts of a disputed nomenclature, without any explanation or discussion of that nomenclature, is insufficient to give rise to the inference that the names in question are unsupported by any evidence or that they are rejected by modern scholarship. Your claim is that they are no longer accepted, but their continued use shows that they are. In order to justify removing them from the lead and making any statement to the effect that they are not accepted, you need a positive assertion in some published scholarly work that these names are wrong, imaginary, unsubstantiated, or otherwise unreliable. The mere absence of the names in some sources, without any clear and precise explanation, fails to meet that burden. P Aculeius (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. To begin with, this particular edit has been made & reverted FOUR times in 24 hours. Mikythos, you are now formally warned: revert this edit one more time & you will be blocked from editing the English Wikipedia.

Okay, I took a look at a couple of authoritative sources online. First, Martin Heinzelmann, "Gallische Prosopographie (260–527)", Francia, 10(1982), which is a more up to date prosopography of Late Roman Gaul than the PLRE. Its article on the Emperor provides the name "Eparchius Avitus" with no note of alternative versions, nor any discussion of the name. Second, Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, another authoritative source, is available on de.wikisource, & its article on Avitus also calls him "Eparchius Avitus", but with a note that "die Münze, welche ihn M. Maecilius Avithus nennt, ist nur durch Banduri beglaubigt und vielleicht nicht echt, Eckhel VIII 193. Cohen VIII² 222" (auf Englisch, "the coin which calls him M. Maecilius Avithus was authenticated only by Banduri, and perhaps not genuine, Eckhel VIII 193. Cohen VIII² 222"). So it appears that at the time the article was written (1896), one primary source for the name M. Maecilius Eparchius Avitus was considered suspicious.

As for the name element "Flavius", I'm skeptical that Avitus adopted it: by the mid-5th century, except for the few people who claimed ancestry from the gens Flavia it had become a title indicating its bearer was previously a general or officeholder in the Imperial bureaucracy. I can't imagine an Emperor incorporating it into his style any better than an English noble being known as "Mr. the Earl Nigel Smith." But if it was in the original draft of this article, it should not be removed without some kind of investigation that it was never used; burden of proof for changes like that fall on the editor. And besides, we are not under a deadline to finish articles.

However, P Aculeius has found several secondary sources that use the "M. Maecilius" form, so it is still accepted by some authorities, likely for other reasons than a problematic coin. (If J.B. Bury accepted it, his authority is sufficient to entertain suspicion there might be other evidence out there; the others he mentions are not experts in that period.) Thus we have an instance where there is more than one opinion, & our duty as Wikipedians is to report all reasonable opinions in those cases. Stating that only one is right, then expecting other editors to do your research that confirms your edit is not how Wikipedia works. Further, my own experience has shown that identifying & obtaining either secondary & primary sources for 5th C Roman history is a challenge, so it's a disservice to ones fellow Wikipedians to make changes without providing proper citations.

I've mentioned this problem to you, Mikythos, before: You are obviously knowledgeable about this period, but you need to provide proper citations for your changes. Once upon a time, one could make changes to articles as you have without too much worry about citations, but that time has long passed. Unless you learn to provide a source for your facts, you will find contributing to Wikipedia an unrewarding hobby. -- llywrch (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion and sources, I've attempted to implement a compromise, returning to the former full nomenclature, but with an extensive note discussing the various names, attributions, doubts, etc. with sources and both internal and external links, so that anyone wanting to research the name can go to those sources and make up their own minds. Won't you take a look at it, and tell me what you think? P Aculeius (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

That's more like it. Though I've nothing at all to contribute on prosopographical issues here or elsewhere, your note (or is it a booklet?) is much appreciated. It seems clear, accurate, unobtrusive and a reasonable compromise. Haploidavey (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks to your note, P Aculeius, most notably removing the quotation of an inscription because its relevance was not explained, & superfluous to your note. The other changes was to improve the citation of Pauly-Wissowa's Real Encyclopädie. FWIW, there is a second reference to the "M. Maecilius Flavius" version to his name being used in the scholarly literature on the talk page above which someone might want to add, but your edit stands either way. On that far-off day, when I have both time & access to the proper references I may re-write that note into a proper discussion of his name & place it in the article, but until then this should do. -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The inscription you mentioned wasn't part of the note, it was a reference for the name, although it probably is superfluous. It was there when I started, and I didn't see any benefit to removing it without a clearer idea of its relevance, so I left it in case another editor wanted to keep it there or use it someplace else. I didn't link PLRE since it's linked elsewhere in the article, and wasn't sure which version of Pauly to cite to, so thanks for adding that. No complaints on my part. P Aculeius (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The fictional names "M. Maecilius Flavius" should not be written in fat. Some people do not read footnotes. Keep the name for true. I would write fictitious names in the footnotes. --Μίκυθος (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Mikythos, those name elements are not fictional; it is some expert's opinion that they are part of his name. As mentioned above, J.B Bury & L. Brehier believed it so. Unless you are willing to take the time to carefully research this issue and provide your findings with sources, I suggest you let this issue go. There are over five million articles on the English Wikipedia, & at least 16 thousand of which related to Classical studies: there are far more important things needing done than arguing over this. -- llywrch (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Back to the 19th century. I'm done here. In the English Wikipedia is running something wrong. --Μίκυθος (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Requiring adequate citations is wrong? -- llywrch (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm done here. If you are more familiar with books from the 19th century than books from the 20th century, I am wrong here --Μίκυθος (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: @Llywrch: @Haploidavey: I'm aware this discussion is nearly 4 years old, and I don't know if everyone here is still active, but using the shortened form Eparchius Avitus seems safer and less likely to be incorrect. That the OCD, PLRE, PW and a couple others above-mentioned should all omit 'Marcus Maecilius Flavius' is itself very telling, and these are all good sources. It was mentioned how most of those which display the shortened form do not elaborate on it, but neither do, apparently, the sources which give the larger name (I haven't checked all of them).

The inclusion of Flavius, as Llywrch has already mentioned, is almost certainly wrong. There's this book, Consuls of the Late Roman Empire (1987) by Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz and Worp, which, incidentally, also gives the emperor's name as "Eparchius Avitus" only. The authors don't explain why they adopted this nomenclature for Avitus specifically, but wrote a chapter explaining the use of 'Flavius' in ancient records. The book says that at times 'Flavius' functioned almost as a courtesy title, and its mere appearance in papyri and inscriptions is not sufficiently reliable evidence to it being actually part of the subject's name. 'Flavius' generally only appears followed by a single name (as in Fl. Maecilius and Fl. Eparchius, already provided above), and never within the subject's full name. "Marcus Maecilius Flavius Eparchius Avitus" thus seems to me a Frankenstein elaborated by Bury in 1923 to reconcile all varying name forms. Bagnall et al. argue against doing this, at least in regards to the inclusion of 'Flavius'. Note that Wikipedia's List of Roman consuls also displays Avitus without it.

The PLRE gave a "Rossi" as source for the form "Eparchius Avitus", which Aculeius had unsuccessfully tried to identify; it apparently refers to this. It's an inscription (no. 795), which is supposed to read Locus Geronti presb[yteri] / depositus XIIII Kal[endas] Iul[ias] / cons[ulatu] Eparchi Avith[i].

We have, thus, Eparchius Avitus attested by an inscription and by several good sources. Inscription evidence also points to Fl. Eparchius, but, as said, the use of 'Flavius' must be treated with caution. M. Maecilius and Fl. Maecilius seem to come from coins of doubtful authenticity. It is true that some modern works give the larger form, but, judging by their titles – Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, The Monetary System of the Romans and Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome –, they don't seem like sources who would specialize on a topic like this, and they appear to elaborate no more on it than the ones which give the reduced form. Putting simply Eparchius Avitus, followed by a footnote exploring other possibilities, seems the safest and most logical thing to do. Avis11 (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, Avis11, I'm still active, as is P Aculeius, although it appears that Haploidavey has taken extended leave. (I would have responded sooner, but I saw your comment late Friday night here, had to take the time to refresh my memory about this issue, & I had to take my youngest to the park to play first.

First, I'd like to compliment you about finding an online copy of Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae Septimo Saeculo Antquiores, what may prove to be a useful resource. It may also help resolve this matter.

As you may be aware, Wikipedia does not allow primary research; were we to allow that, then anybody could add their own pet theory, no matter how bizarre or unlikely. The goal is to assemble the best of the secondary literature & work with that. However, limiting our citations to only secondary sources leads into a number of problems, for instance determining what is the mainstream consensus & what are fringe views. There are a number of ways to handle this problem, but after years of struggling with this I have to say the only good way is to immerse oneself in the subject, & evaluate both the primary & secondary sources with the goal of determining criteria such as what does common sense dictate, & which secondary sources reflect the general consensus & which advocate fringe beliefs. This is not a quick process, & it can often result with the wrong outcome in some cases temporarily, but it is the same process that experts use beyond Wikipedia.

So how does this pertain to this problem? Well, in this case were we to simply accept the opinion of experts, we would retain the extended name Marcus Maecilius Flavius Eparchius Avitus, call it a day & find another article to edit. Or another matter to argue over. After all, J.B. Bury is a widely-acknowledged expert, no one has found another expert who explicitly states Bury is wrong about this name, & it is likely Bury has access to information we don't. (Ars longa, vita brevis, after all, & none of us have unlimited access to the same research library Bury had.)

However, in the years since this discussion came to an end, I have learned a few new things about Roman naming practices. (I won't presume to speak for P Aculeius, but I would guess he has too.) One thing is that I did see the exact same essay about the nomen Flavius. Another is that by the life time of Avitus, praenomena like "Marcus" had largely fallen out of usage -- & I can provide a cite for that. So with two of these three name units impeached, the likelihood Eparchius Avitus also had those other 3 names is low.

Let's look at this issue from another angle: does any reliable primary source provide Avitus' complete name? The literary evidence does not use that style; I found it hard to find even one source that included "Eparchius". (The inscription you linked to is one of the few that does.) And an authority I have cited in other situations -- Alison E. Cooley, The Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy (Cambridge: University Press, 2012) -- omits to mention him as emperor. The next place to look would be coins -- since they are official productions of his administration, it is a reasonable assumption they would provide his name exactly as Avitus chose. But looking at several examples online -- including one conserved at the British Museum -- I found all used the same legend on the obverse: DN AVITVS P RP F AUG which can be expanded to D(omini) N(ostrus) Avitus P(ater) R(e)p(ublic) F(elix) AUG(ustus). The nomena "M. Maecilius Flavius" is attested on one coin of questioned origins.

At this point, the matter might still be decided in favor of what Bury wrote simply because everything I've listed falls under WP:NOR: we must not come up with novel conclusions based on synthesis of primary sources. Here is where your citation from Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae Septimo Saeculo Antquiores may tip the balance, for on the page facing the inscription you referenced is the information that the three extra names are based on the work of Caesar Baronius, Lodovic Antonio Muratori, & Jacques Sirmond, all reliable experts, but reliable experts who flourished in the 17th & 18th centuries. In other words, if these names are based on a coin seen back then, when forgeries were rife, then common sense dictates that he likely never was known as Marcus Maecilius Flavius Eparchius Avitus, only Eparchius Avitus.

But I would add a note that older authorities referred to him by the longer name, based on the legend on a coin of dubious authenticity. And I would also wait to see what P Aculeius thinks of my lengthy comment. -- llywrch (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I have learned to be wary of gainsaying Llywrch's opinions. But what we have here is an extended nomenclature that is not inherently implausible (praenomina, while scarce by this period, were not altogether unknown), nor susceptible of proof or disproof by any unimpeachable source. I am less versed in the opinions of the authorities than either of you, but I note that Michael Grant gave the nomenclature as "Marcus Maecilius Flavius Eparchius Avitus" in The Roman Emperors (1985), so I would say that this form still has some currency in literature. I am therefore hesitant to discard it based on what are effectively guesses, inferences, and the unresolved question of the authenticity of a coin: if it's authentic, why is it the only source for this nomenclature? If it's not, then was the inscription an invention of the forger—and why did the forger come up with a name that was both plausible and improbable at the same time?

I doubt anyone is in a position to resolve the question of Avitus' full name at this time. The one thing I think we can take for granted is that it wasn't just "Avitus". So the question for me is, why do we have to pretend that Wikipedia knows the truth of whether this name or that is correct? Why isn't the existing footnote—plus or minus amendments based on some of this analysis—a reasonable approach to the matter? Of course, we could expand it from a footnote to a section or subsection of the article. But at this point I think my preference would still be to keep the full thing in the lead, and then explain the doubts and controversies about its individual elements in either a footnote or a (sub)section. And I find it mildly disturbing that Avitus' name seems to be the only thing about this article that has ever generated a significant amount of discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both for the replies. @P Aculeius: note that I explicitly argued in favor of keeping the footnote elaborating on alternative forms. @Llywrch: Cooley does, in fact, mention the emperor. It's on page 484, in the consular list, where he is displayed as... Eparchius Avitus.

What I'm proposing is simply something like this:

Eparchius Avitus (open footnote) This is the form followed by PLRE, RE, OCD, RIC and other modern secondary sources. Ersch & Gruber's [...] reports that "Marcus Maecilius" and "Flavius Maecilius" are found on Avitus' coins, while "Flavius Eparchius" appears in inscriptions (...). RE (...) notes that one such coin, bearing the inscription M. MAECIL. AVITHUS (sic), Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum Veterum viii. 193, was authenticated only by Banduri, and perhaps suspect. The 19th-century DGRBM gives Marcus Maecilius Avitus. J. B. Bury (1923) suggested Marcus Maecilius Flavius Eparchius Avitus, which still appears in some modern literature. (close footnote)

Note that I kept Bury's full form in the footnote and followed it by a comment that some modern sources still use it. But, given all the evidence from both primary and secondary sources cited above, only 'Eparchius Avitus' can be said with a reasonable amount of certainty to have been his name (again, "Flavius" is especially suspect), whence I introduced him with only that name form outside the proposed footnote. Avis11 (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

(Sorry for the delay in responding.) This is in line with how I'd like this handled. I'll also admit that I came to embrace removing the first three elements from the opening after seeing the longer, possibly dubious, form given in a number of online coin catalogs. (Not by the British Museum.) I have this gnawing suspicion, based on the principle people will do as little work as possible, that these extended names are based on this article, & rather than verify if Wikipedia has the correct name form they just copy it over. If people are going to be that lazy, we should make the effort to get this right.

And a PS to P Aculeius: the reason so much attention is spent on the name over the rest of the article is more than just bike-shedding: Avitus is one of those subjects about whom it's a challenge to uncover more information than what we have already. And IIRC, there's not been much discussion over the facts of his life, let alone expert attention. (The fifth century is full of notable subjects ignored by experts, sad to admit.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

a 2A02:C7D:22B5:300:BC21:30DA:795E:5124 (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

really interesting read 2A02:C7D:22B5:300:BC21:30DA:795E:5124 (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)