Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Revisiting fas

I wrote: never mind Romulus and Numa were historical charachters, Roman religion (auspicia and sacra) was considered to be founded by them. And BTW til anybody has proved these figures did never exist, one has to accept the tradition. However, although there are many accounts of Romulus's life, it would be difficult to prove he did never exist. About Numa we have the testimony of his laws, the pontifical books and even the discovery of his tomb in 181 BC on the Ianiculum. Various Italian scholars have recently proved, by analysing different accounts of the story, that the finds and the books contained in one of the two coffins were almost certainly authentic. If Ellen, who is an archeologist, is interested I'll give the exact quotes (C. Garbarini collected the stories and E. Peruzzi discussed them).

On the concept of fas the literature is so large that Dumezil in his Archaic Roman religion declines to enter the discussion and refers the reader to a doctoral dissertation published at Utrecht.

Here I shall quote what F. Sini writes on the ruling value of fas in the Roman religious-juridical system:

"...Some scholars give it a merely permissive value, as eg (French scholar) J. Paoli and A. Guarino (1980). The French scholar connects it to the Greek concept of osion and identifies the fas with the sphere of the activities permitted by gods to man. Guarino says: "Fas meant what the gods let men to do or not to do at their choice".

"Other consider fas to have an obliging value: eg E. Benveniste says "an enunciatiation in divine and imperative words... of what the gods want". R. Schilling too thinks the singular manifestations of fas to be "the expression of the will of gods".

"However R. Orestano's well known theses are prevalent.

"The famous scholar argues that: "Fas designs the licitness of certain acts and behaviours" connected mostly to the religious sphere. To this same concept of licitness would be homologous the ancient use of the concept ius, that only later, with the rise of the abstract concept of rule, would start to design also this notion, thus differentiating itself from fas, which stayed within the original meaning. But often, according to Orestano, to the notion of licitness, expressed with fas est, "it is not foreign the notion of necessity...thence the shifting value of fas from permission to duty". (Elemento divino ed elemento umano nel diritto di Roma).

"P. Noailles and K. Latte make a similar case.

"In the different acceptions of fas briefly exposed above, one can perceive the insufficence of the concepts of the modern juridical logic for the understanding of the categories of the ius divinum: deontic concepts as due, permitted, forbidden, prove to be inadequate and partial for the multiple contents that were related to fas in the Roman juridical-religious system. This worry had been already been perceived by P. Catalano in his study of the fas in relation to acts and procedures of the ius augurium. While he acknowledges the permissive value of fas in the inauguratio, and thence the general permissive value of fas...(exhortative) "one could use permitted in a sense that includes the obligation and the possibility... however this would still be insufficient as it should include the exhortative value too".

"In conclusion:

"A) The meaning of fas cannot be fully attained without reference to the opposite sign expressed by ne... fas: it is precisely to the definition of nefas that the Roman primitive community devoted its main cautiousness. First of all to preserve the pax divom, which relied on the perfect knowledge of that which could disturb it, ie acts that should never be accomplished, words that should never be pronounced. Thus one can define fas through the negative, all that which is not nefas(be it permitted, required, authorised, advised).

"B) The distiction between the human and the divine ... implies a defintory cautiousness and a universalistic approach of the pontifical science...

"...the opposition fas-nefas appears to be founded on the feeling that space and time belong to gods: thence the conviction of a divine regulation of relationships among humans and of humans with gods, through the manifestation of imperatives and permissions, that could be found time by time in every single human activity. Never mind they were revealed or requested by man (oblativa or impetrativa). It is noteworthy however to underline that the extension of the power of questioning gods ensured an ever greater sphere of freedom to men."Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Oh, sweetie, you're a hoot! Next you'll be telling me that they've dug up the arrow that Robin Hood shot to win the prize at Nottingham Fair. Unfortunately, these days, the modern rules of scholarship are that you have to prove that the legends exist, not the other way round. It makes it genuinely thrilling when such evidence does arise, even if it does place Solomon in the Bronze Age. I would be fascinated to read the Numa sources - his tomb has always been regarded as having similar status to King Arthur's grave at Glastonbury (the discovery was very convenient), so a re-evaluation would always be interesting.

Back to fas. You are gradually getting more and more material for an article - do you want to have a crack at starting it? In the meantime, how would you change or add to the definition currently standing in the article? It feels to me that some of the definition includes 'what fas is not' - it's not a codex of divine law (a la ten commandments), it's not a notion of 'universal truth' (as Maat is), it's not intended to cover how the state is ruled or governed (as is the case with sharia), it's not an established set of rites (as in the Roman Rite), it doesn't appear to define how a Roman should think (which is a significant emphasis in the Gospel), it doesn't wholly confine itself to religious things (it's not the equivalent of the Rule of St Benedict, it does not proscribe belief (it's not concerned with heresy).

It seems to have some affinity with the notion of halal, in that halal is defined as that which is not haram (forbidden), but halal encompasses a great deal of daily life (diet, trade and industry, commerce, sex, international relations), and its not clear to me that fas does. This is where looking beyond the philosophical can help. In one of your quotes higher up, you cite where a man is viewed as doubly condemned because he not only committed rape (a 'civil' crime) but he also offended the gods, either because the woman he raped was married, or because she was his brother's wife (sorry, couldn't quite figure out which option was the no-no from your quote). The curses I referred to above demonstrate that cursing someone by asking a god to punish them was OK, but I know from elsewhere that hiring a Thessalonian witch to curse them was a definite no-no.

My question I suppose is, was there anything except 'custom and practice' (as per Lipka) that established fas? Maat, like the Catholic conscience, was held to be indwelling, but I'm not getting the sense that this was believed of fas. So was it pronounced upon? Did the priests or pontiffs periodically announce X was fas? How did people know what was fas and what was nefas? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Just re-reading your comments. I note Schilling's sense of fas expressing 'the will of the gods', but then others moving on to it having a necessitous or exhortatiary component. St Paul often beseeched his unruly flock to consider this or that (I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord -Philippians 4:1-3). Are they considering this particularly in terms of ritual - given that it would appear that it was as easy to to worship a Roman god the wrong way as the right way, and the wrong way seems to have given rise to considerable civil anxiety? Or is there a wider exhortational element? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• We are all agreed, as far as I can tell, that the meaning and usage of fas and the words related to it is a topic large and interesting enough to merit its own article: perhaps called Fas in ancient Roman religion or something along those lines. Fas is already taken as a disambig page too lengthy to dismantle. When you write this article, Aldrasto, I would encourage you to copy your notes above to that talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ugo Coli states fas is nothing else than the Latin pronunciation of Greek Themis borrowed through the Etruscan, precisely and mainly for linguistic and phonetic considerations more than for its meaning. Those who suport this etymology connect fas to Sanskrit dhama(n). Rooted in DHE. Themis is the god of justice , right and custom. It means istitution as linked to the IE root of dhama (later in India dharma). There is a similarity in the development in India, Greece and Rome.

Uses of themis in Greek (from Rocci Greek-Italian Dictionary):

hee themis esti Il. II 73; (what is right)

themis gynaikos Od. XIV 130 (custom of women)

hee themis anthroopoon pelei Il. IX 134 (as it is use among men)

hee t. est' agore' Il. IX 33 (what is a right of the assembly)

teend' akoueis orkioon emoon t. Aesch. Agam. 1434 (hear the sollemnity of my oath)

themis, epei moi teen themin su pr' ou bales (it is licit, since you threw away anything that is licit) Sofocl. Troian women 810

phasi themis einai Plato Gorgias 505 (they say it to be licit...)Aldrasto11 (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Why it is objectionable to follow the tradition that makes a case for fas being divine law as opposite to human law (ius).

If you go back to what I wrote above, this tradition is rooted in Servius's comment on Vergil's words fas et iura sinunt as defining two different sets of rules, ie the human(ius) and the divine(fas). While this sounds appealing it is misleading since for the ancient there was no such opposition. Originally ALL RULES had to be in accord with the divine order and thus were in a sense divine: Vergil's phrase should be intended differently, ie the ius and the fas are in accord among themselves that some activities are allowed on the dies festi if they are necessary. So ius is the legal expression ie the translation into human words, of the fas, the underlying invisible setting that supports and guides the universe. Linderski commenting de legibus 2.21 in the link provided above makes a similar case (quoting Orestano, Santoro and Beherends) on Cic.'s use of iniusta.

Time ago I translated into English an article on Mos Maiorum that goes at great length into discussing the fact that law in Rome had for a long time been dominated by the pontiffs who resorted to interpretation and revelations of their books. I do not wish to discuss the political implications and the legitimacy of this fact, however it shows very clearly that law (ius) was grounded in religious lore.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

On the exhortative element: this is exactly the bridge among men and gods created in history, ie in time and space yearly in Rome. Man's time was ordered through the Roman calendar and its rituals. The comitia had to be held auspicato and the augurs supervised the political activities to ensure there occurred no vitia. When the inauguratio was considered valid it meant the gods were favourable, the political activities would enjoy the protection of the gods. Here lies the exhortative charachter of fas.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC) of the fas.

The question of the rape of the sister in law is contra fas because of incest. See Leges regiae a lex by Tullus Hostilius.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Having sex with a relative by marriage is not incest, and indeed the translation you used referred to 'adultery' (having sex with someone who is married) not 'incest' (having sex with a blood relative). In many societies, a prohibition on having sex with a blood relative is viewed as a 'natural law' because of the dangers of inbreeding, while a prohibition on having sex with your brother's wife (or your wife's sister) is a 'societal law'. The Abrahamic religions are an exception because of the belief that societal laws were all handed down by G-d, so I am interested to see that the Romans felt that having sex with your relatives by marriage was 'against nature'.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You ask a good question on how common Roman people knew something was fas or not. Perhaps Roman history was marked by this problem as obviously it gave rise to many questions and conflicts. The auspicia belonged originally to the king and the patricians, however as the comitia had to held auspicato the magistrates acted under the fas. Since the early IV century plebeians could be elected consuls and by 300 BC pontifex maximus. However the supervision of their acts was in the hands of the augurs that could maintain there was a vitium in their actions. See the case C. Flaminius who stealthily left Rome to avoid unfavourable auspices, C. Claudius Marcellus (senior) who proclaimed a plebeian dictator in 326 BC while in Samnium, act challenged by the augurs and many others related by Livy. The political fight between patricians and plebeians was centred on the question of who had the right to determine and enjoy the protection of the fas. Usually patricians accused plebeians of disregarding fas, ie auspices and sacra. Thus even if the person of the tribunus plebis had been declared inviolable (sacrosancta) by the lex Valeria Hortensia some patricians maintained they could not enjoy inviolability because they acted in the disrepect of the fas ie the sacra and auspices.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

auspicia maiora

This entry, which was redlinked in another article, has exceptionally scant online sources. There is no need to discuss the subject here, but if you have your hands on sources, the entry is badly in need of a simple description of what auspicia maiora actually are, rather than who has them. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The difference is the same as that between imperium and potestas: the magistrates who had the auspicia maiora (consul, praetor) could act within the range of their prerogatives without checks and in an immediately executive manner. On the dictio of the dictator the right of the consul was per se absolute, even if it could be challenged by the augurs with the existence of vitia.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but then how do we express what that difference is in terms of auspicia? The distinctions in imperium and potestas can be imagined, I think, because we're used to thinking of a military hierarchy or a hierarchy of offices in government. I'm not seeing how to express that for auspicia. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:46, 30

May 2010 (UTC)

On the question of auspices (maiora and minora) I suggest that you consult a dictionary of Roman Law, such Berger's.

Dumezil discusses the issue briefly in "Prelim. remarks XI" of his Archaic Roman religion ("On the pretended pontifical revolution") talking of the distinction between flamines maiores and minores.

The source here is Gellius XIII 15, 4 that quotes from Messalla's treatise De auspiciis. Also Festus p. 274-5 L2nd. The election of the magistrates holding auspicia maiora was held by the comitia centuriata while that of those holding only the minora was held by the tributa. Ie in substance originally the magistrates with auspicia maiora were patricians, with minora were plebeians.

Compare also Appius Claudius Crassus's words in Livy VI 40, 41 on the priviledge of the patricians on the auspices. Also Livy IV 3,9 and the comment by Ogilvie A commentary on Livy p.534.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's all good information (though Berger's dictionary is not always to be trusted), but I'm still not sure how to express that clearly. I understand that maxima, maiora, and minora express hierarchical relationships. Mostly the Glossary article treats auspicia as signs to be read, so that when we talk about a magistrate possessing auspicia maiora, does this mean that the auspices that attended his entry into office are qualitatively different, granting a sort of lingering aura of power that is maiora? In the context of taking auspices, does this then simply mean that auspicia taken by those on whom the auspicia maiora have been conferred have greater authority/power than auspicia taken by those who possess minora? However, it also seems to be the case that when auspicia were taken in regard to a particular enterprise, such as war, they are taken only by the man whose auspicium was greatest in the first place, thus there would be no competing auspices to 'hierarchize'. Therefore the hierarchy seems to have to do with a qualitative difference in the auspicium itself that attended on the creation of a magistrate; does that imply (a) different ritual procedures in the taking of auspices that attended one's entry into office, and (b) procedural differences in taking the auspices, depending on whether one held maiora or minora? The distinctions between the auspicia maxima as held by the consuls and by the censors, and the different comitial sources of their election, also raise the question for me of what this meant in practice. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The answer is simpler and in a way along the lines of your thought: the magistrates who had the auspicia were the consul, the praetor urbanus or maior and the censor (as well as the extraordinary magistrates ie interrex, dictator and consular tribune). The auspicia belonged originally to the king and afterwards they passed on to the consuls etc. who derived them through election by the comitia centuriata which included the patricians. The aedilis and quaestor were elected by the comitia tributa and were plebeian thus they did not possess any auspices by virtue of their election but received them from the consul and the praetor of the year (Messalla ap. Gell. XIII 15). Therefore their auspicia were named minora. I got this info from Leonhardt Shmitz's article sv augur in the Dictionary of Greek and R. Antiquities av. online.Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I read your entry on the topic. It is the other way round. The consul had imperium because he had the auspices (maiora), not the auspices because of the imperium. No lex curiata de imperio applies to republican magistrates, only to kings and later emperors. It was a law that any prince had approved to get absolute power. The auspices are everything and give everything. The magistrates without imperium (cum potestate) did not enjoy imperium because they had no auspices of themselves but received them from the consul, thence they were called minora.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So how can we rewrite this _{The right of observing the "greater auspices" was conferred on a Roman magistrate holding imperium, perhaps by a Lex curiata de imperio, although scholars are not agreed on the finer points of law.^[26] A censor had auspicia maxima.^[27] It is also thought that the flamines maiores were distinguished from the minores by their right to take the auspicia maiores; see Flamen.} (pasted here for ease of reference. The entry as it stands makes no sense, and would not be improved by the reversal suggested above by Aldrasto.

The rest of the auspices section deals with auspices that ARE - by divination of the flight of birds, sought in a ritual, arising unexpectedly without being sought. So explain to me what auspices maiora ARE - what kind of divination are they.

Then the question of who has the power to request them, and what implication the outcome of the divination has on the person who ordered it, can be discussed.

So are they divinations which are (a) requested by the prospective consul, censor etc, or by others or (b) appear spontaneously, prior to the inauguration of a Lord High PooBah (I'm not getting the impression this is the right answer).

Or are they the divinations (auspicia impenetriva) which are ordered up by LHPB. Can they (a)only be ordered by the appropriate LHPB or (b)only told to the appropriate LHPB or (c)only the appropriate LHPB can tell them to anyone else? Clearly the censor or other LHPB derives some of his authority from being able to get these divinations. If I understand correctly, in ancient times, the king could order up these divinations, and received great kudos because he could do so, AS WELL AS if they were good. Equally, the king was OBLIGED to order up these divinations on certain occasions, and take his chance if they were bad.

When kings were got rid of, the elected leading citizen(s) took over the right and obligation to order up these divinations. If I'm reading Aldrasto correctly, these people could then confer on certain other individuals the power to order up these divinations. This power was a symbol of their other powers (whether they could enact laws, make judgements on their fellow men etc), and these other powers were felt to be derived from the power to order divinations. At the same time, if the auspice (the outcome of the divination in english usage) was not good, what was the consequence for the LHPB who had ordered it up? Did it reflect badly on them. Did they have to resign?

Sorry for all the questions, but I really can't get my head round this and, given I have a reasonable grasp of both Catholic and Kemitic religious concepts, is probably because there's a piece missing in the explanation rather than for any other reason. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ay yi... just a suggestion here - perhaps the auspices differ only in terms of who performs them, and why. Poo-Bahness and Lordness, however acquired or justified, entitle a genuine LHPB to ask certain questions. Lesser lordlings are entitled to different questions. Does the Latin really infer otherwise? By the way, that's a genuine question, not rhetorical. I know this has been said above; I just think it's worth the reiteration.Haploidavey (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I could see that. Only the LHPB can ask the augurs "should we appoint Marcello Lippi as coach?" Then, once appointed, Lippi could ask "should I leave Totti out of the squad." Are we then saying that the hierarchy of auspices is related to the level of decision making authority that the postholder has? I think this is what Aldrasto is intending to say, except that when you describe someone in English as 'having' or 'taking' auspices, it all starts to sound a bit mystical.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally go along with that (and have added this comment to the following). The 'mystical' part is but one of many fractions that worry and confuse me. You might be interested in what Ittai Gradel has to say on the religious background to the Roman Imperial cult: not exhaustive, maybe even reductionist, but usefully firm-minded:[1]. Haploidavey (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This gets back to my initial question. When a magistrate is in-augur-ated into his office, auspices are taken; does the ritual procedure for those considered 'greatest' or 'greater' differ from the procedure for auspices taken for the inauguration of magistrates considered 'lesser'? Or do we even know? And then once a man is inaugurated and can observe auspices himself as a function of his office, are his observed auspices "greater" in terms of prioritized authority — that is, the observatio of his auspices takes precedence over any lesser auspices that might be observed (but why would others be observed? unless perhaps we're talking about auspicia maiora that are impetrativa vs. signs that show up unexpectedly, "oblative" signs, that might be spotted by "lesser" magistrates? Big question mark?) — or are the auspices observed by a magistrate possessing auspicia maiora "greater" because only such a magistrate is permitted (fas est) to ask certain kinds of questions, as I think Davey suggests above.

Real example (forgive my lack of imagination): Crassus cum imperio, in preparation for invading Iraq, er, Parthia, conducts the usual ritual vota made by a general on the Capitoline. Crassus is leaving office as a consul (maxima auspicia) and will hold imperium as a proconsul. And then Ateius Capito, a tribune, starts shouting about dirae, the worse kind of oblative signs. In De div, Cicero has both "Quintus" and "Marcus" go through great mental exertions about this case, which it only now occurs to me to look at more carefully in regard to this question. If Crassus's auspices were maxima and conducted correctly, why did Ateius's dirae prove right in the event? This must be why "Marcus" treats the problem as he does, though I haven't looked at the passage in ages.

Although censors held auspicia maxima, they couldn't, for instance, take auspices pertaining to starting a war (auspicia militiae), which points toward the possibility of different types of offices permitting the officeholder to ask different kinds of questions, that is, to seek different kinds of impetrative signs. It isn't the power hierarchy that I'm having trouble with; it's the nature of the auspicia as a ritual procedure. Versnel is particularly concerned[2] with what almost seems to me to be a chicken-and-egg problem of the relation of imperium and auspicia. If the right to exercise imperium only comes with the office, it seems a rather fine distinction to say with Versnel that a ceremony only recognizes a man's innate imperium. (Unfortunately there are important chunks of Versnel missing online; most pertinent to our discussion starts around p. 315; in light of the many competing theories, I feel the need to reassert that our job is not to pronounce which theory we find "right," but to summarize the nature of the question.) Anyway, in the real world (as distinguished from the world of operational mana or numen), you can't just go around saying "I'm full of imperium" and choose to command an army on your own accord; that's a revolution (see Catiline and Caesar crossing the Rubicon). Not so fas. Legal and religious procedure are as one here. If the properly conducted auspices indicate that the gods are pleased with your innate capacity for imperium (almost like litatio?), your right to exercise imperium is recognized as valid by your fellow senators, and you get an army and funding and all that. And your own right to observe various kinds of auspices, depending on your office.

It would be in the matter of oblative signs that the question of mysticism, or an ability for coniectura, might arise; hence Nigidius Figulus is concerned with haruspical art (and Pythagoreanism and all that), as distinguished from augural practice (dictated by observatio and rules of interpretation), which Cicero could stomach, because it was procedural and didn't require you to "believe" too much in ad hoc divine intervention: it was more a "reading" of the natural order and that sense of alignment with it. This difference is striking in the kind of stuff that Cicero wrote pertaining to religion in contrast to Nig Fig's.

The scholarly consensus about the vexing lex curiata de imperio (about which Versnel has some things to say ca. pp. 316–318, keeping in mind that his focus is the triumph) seems to be that while such a lex had little practical force in the Republic, and was not required to hold imperium, its passage was however ceremonial, and thus if one chose to make the ceremonial dimension important (Obama isn't really the POTUS because pontifex Roberts forgot to memorize his lines and committed a vitium), the lack of a lex curiata pertaining to a particular person's imperium could be played politically. Sources on the Republic do not omit discussion of it.

As for the entry being "backward," if I have misrepresented what the cited sources say, please change it, or present opposing views from other sources. The entry doesn't say that the auspicia maiora gave the magistrate his imperium, or vice versa; it says a magistrate holding imperium also had auspicia maiora, which were "perhaps" conferred by a lex curiata (follow the footnoted link), noting that scholars are not in agreement. I don't know how much blander and non-controversial the entry could be. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Addendum on the mystical element: Those of you who aren't from the U.S. (all of the other participants on this page?) are perhaps not accustomed to hearing your public officials declaring such things as "God has blessed me, and blessed this country." I can only envy you. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but we have a Queen, who was crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury and is the secular head of the Church of England. I don't have any problem with the idea that the appointment of senior officials was accompanied by a divination, although being a cynic, I would assume that there would be an element of fixing to it. The problem was my not understanding what was being meant by having or taking auspices - it carried a suggestion to me that the senior official was expected to see vision, or fall down in a fit and start speaking with tongues or some such. The Vikings preferred to sail with a man who was 'lucky'; Native American leaders are often credited with seeing visions or other strange powers. It just doesn't seem very 'Roman' - if you see what I mean.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What a great topic! I had a glance at Vernel's work, which is so informative. What a pity that some pages are not availble...Some scholars seem to be still influenced by primitivism (Wageenwoort, Haegerstroem use the word mana) but on the whole the discussion is spot on. Personally I must confess my deep ignorance as I did not know there was a lex curiata de imperio during the republic...

Of course I hold Schmitz's view as true: Rome was founded by Romulus through the auspices, Numa was proclaimed king after taking the auspices, and the patricians held the auspices too.

Consequently, I agree with modern scholars who think imperium stemmed from the auspices, ie divine approval or investiture: all ancient authors from Livy to Cicero, Ovid and Gellius (before emendation!!!) argue power (imperium) stemmed from the auspices. After kingship was disposed of the auspices remained in the hands of the patricians: it was not a case that the first plebeian consul was elected only in 367 BC. Appius Claudius Crassus's words in Livy VI 40, 41 are clear, Cicero's as quoted by Versnel too.

The auspicia were in itself the one thing that mattered ie the approval of gods for that what was questioned or undertaken. They gave the imperium, simply power. Auspices then had a secondary meaning, ie the auspices of the magistrate(s). Since some magistrates were plebeian and thence were not created through the auspices (auspicato) they had neither auspices nor imperium. They derived their auspices from those who already enjoyed them, thence their auspices were named minora and their power was only a potestas, ie a limited auctority within their limited jurisdiction.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A further clarification to answer Ellen's question. Auspicia may refer to the process by which magistrates are created, ie the holding of the comitia in which they were elected and had to be held auspicato ie under religiously regular circumstances as controlled by the augurs. Note the augurs were originally four and til 300 BC all patricians. They were supposed to have been created by Romulus: their no. 4 is supposed to be a reflection of the three tribes plus the rex, though some think they were 2 for Ramnes and 2 for Sabins.

Another thing, and the one presented in the article is the auspicia that pertained to magistrates after their creation. It could be seen as a process of transfer of power from the Roman people, ie the comitia centuriata, to the person of the magistrate who came to embody the sovereign power of the people through a process or procedure approved/sanctioned by divine disposition.

As far as the power of each magistrate is concerned the question is not clear as even the ancient did not agree. However it should be borne in mind that the consuls were the heirs of the king and thus their power was in practice almost boundless: I shall translate here the passage by Livy IV 3, 9:

...this is also the reson why, with satisfaction of the gods, they say it is nefas that a plebeian be made consul. I implore you, if we are neither admitted (to knowledge of) the fasti, nor of the ponfical commentaries, and we do not know even the things that all the foreigners also know, the consuls who have inherited the position of the kings would have neither any of the ius (jurisdictional rights) nor of the majesty, that previously used to be of kings?

Clearly the consuls enjoyed almost absolute power. This assumption is further supported by the episodes of the struggles and rebellions of the early republic, the secession of 493 BC and the creation of the figure of the tribunes of the plebs. It is noteworthy to mention that Rome had no written constitution and politics worked by the those religious rules codified in the archives of the pontiffs and augurs which were secret. Civil law worked on the grounds of mos maiorum or ius quiritium, the leges regiae were abolished in 509 BC and by all means they were not concerned with the question of the limits of the power of magistrates.

The religious nature of the consular power is proved by their priviledge to make (dicere) the dictator by reciting a secret formula, and the dictator was a religiously connotated figure, see eg the prohibiton to carry him by horse as the flamen dialis. Often the dictio of the dictator caused conflicts with the senate and the comitia as they too had the power of creating a dictator.

In this context are to be mentioned the struggles that around the middle of the V century brought about the writing down of laws with the XII Tables. I found a relevant reference in the facts of 461 BC (Dion. X 2; Liv. III 10, 5-7), quoted by Dumezil: the tribunus plebis Terentilius Harsa had a law passed by the comitia that limited the powers of the consuls. Then an extraordinary series of prodiges shocked the populace. It rained blood and flesh which did not rot, a youngster was surrounded by flames with no harm, for two years in a run a cow spoke etc. As a result the books were consulted and the decemviri read that all seditions should be avoided because of a danger of attacks from abroad. This provoked even greater trouble as the tribunes denounced it as a manoeuvre to stem off the new laws.

As for the article I object only to the wording that the auspicia of the consuls etc. were maiora because they were sanctioned by the lex curiata, I think they were grounded in the auspicia of the comitia of the Roman people (centuriata ie including the patricians) the main and resting point of everything. To make a comparison with modern constitutionalism: sovereignity (read: auspices) lies in the will of the people, the source of every power (never mind maior or minor) is there.

On the mystical element that disturbs Ellen and others: this is the essence of Roman hstory and of course religion. It is exactly what Ellen already noted above on Furius's speech: this is Livy's passage (V 52):

In seeing these such great proofs of the importance that in things human has the respect for the gods, do you not sense, Quirites, what an empiety are we going to commit, barely as we have avoided the sinking of the previous mistake and ruin? we have a city founded with regular auspices and auguria, in which there is no place that is not filled by sacred things and gods; for the solemn sacrifices the days and places have been established in which are to be performed. Do you wish to leave, Quirites, all these gods public and private?

H. Fugier comments: "In fact, the people could not exist if it were to lose the sacred milieu that nourished it as it were, by leaving the urbs founded with the acquiescence of the auspices and by an inaugural act; in more modern terms, it could not preserve the pax divom outside the only frame able to contain the regular sacrifices, by which that pax is preserved. These are the truths Camillus reminds them of in order to destroy the mad suggestion of the tribunes of migrating en masse to Veii."Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

From Elen, wrestling with the possible visionary aspect as to whether the senior official was expected to see vision, or fall down in a fit and start speaking with tongues or some such. … It just doesn't seem very 'Roman' - if you see what I mean. I absolutely do see what you mean. Look back at the diff between observatio and coniectura; the auspices deliberately taken (impetrativa) were very procedural, by-the-book: if you saw certain signs, they meant certain things. Even oblative signs were interpreted by a method, not through inspiration or vision. It occurs to me that the distinction is discussed (far afield from the topic at hand) at Unclean spirit#Pneuma pythona on the diff between the "prophet", who in Roman terms would be an augur or a magistrate entitled to take auspices because they possess a body of knowledge that can be applied rationally (and who are never women) and the "mantic," who speaks because inspired or possessed by a deity, like the priestess of Delphi, whose oracles were interpreted by the male priests. We wouldn't make the distinction that the former is rational and the latter is irrational; to us they both depend on a supernatural or paranormal belief system. Augury was considered a science because it depended on surveying (templum) and astronomy and mathematics; it was a reading of nature, and the presentation of divine signs within it, based on a body of knowledge, but it didn't depend on divine inspiration or any form of trance or ecstatic state. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolf, I read all of Versnel (and his quotations). I wonder whether modern scholarship has made any progress since the beginning of the XIX century: please read again Schmitz's article (augur, auspex...)and his thorough quotations from the primary sources. I think his understanding and exposition is high above all this chatter by various figures (De Franciscis, Catalano and Coli included), who advance peremptorily silly theories founded only on very personal and partial interpretations of the same (few) sources.Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Schmitz:

...auspicia publica or of the state. These could only be taken by the persons who represented the state, and who acted as mediators between gods and the state; for though all patricians were eligible for taking the auspices, yet it was only the magistrates who were in actual possession of them. As long as there were any patrician magistrates, the auspices were exclusively in their hands: on their entrance upon office, they received the auspices (accipiebant auspicia Cic. de Div. II 36); while their office lasted, they were in possession of them (habebant or erant eoroum auspicia Gell. XIII 15); and at the expiration of their office, they laid them down (ponebant or deponebant auspicia Cic. de Nat. Deor. II 3). In case however there was no patrician magistrate, the auspices became vested in the whole body of the patricians (auspicia ad patres redeunt Cic. Brut. 5, de Nat. Deor. II 3). This happened in the kingly period on the demise of a king, and the patricians then chose an interrex, who was therefore invested by them with the right of taking auspices, and was thus enabled to mediate between the gods and the state in the election of a new king. In like manner in the republican period, when it was believed that there had been a vitium in the auspices in the election of the cosuls, and they were obliged in consequence to resign their office, the auspice returned to the whole body of the patricians, who had recourse to an interregnum for the renewal of the auspices, and for handing them over to the new magistrates: hence we find the expressions repetere de integro auspicia and renovare per interregnum auspicia (Liv. V 17, 31; VI 1). It will be seen from what has been said that the Roman state was a speies of theocracy, that the gods were its rulers, and that it was by means of the auspices that they intimated their will to the representatives of the people, ie the magistrates. It follows from this that no public act could be performed without consulting the auspices, no law passed, no war waged; for neglect of the auspices would have been equivalent to a declaration that the gods had ceased to rule the Roman state.

There are still 3 points in connexion with the auspices which require notice:

The relation of the magistrates to the augurs in taking the auspices.

The manner in which the magg. received the auspices.

The relation between the different magg. to one another with respect to the auspices.

We can only make a few brief remarks upon each of these important matters, and must refer out readers to Rubino Roemische Verfassung p. 48...

(I omit quoting the discussion of the first point that is not essential to our discussion here).

...

But although the augurs could declare there was some fault in the auspices, yet, on the other hand, they could not in favour of their office declare that any unfavourable sign had appeared to them, since it was not to them that the auspices were sent. Thus we are told that the augurs did not possess the spectio, that is the right of taking the state -auspices. This spectio ...was of two kinds, one more extensive and one more limited. In the one case the person who exercised it could put a stop to the proceedings of any other magistrate by his obnuntiatio: this was called spectio et nuntiatio ( maybe also sp. cum nuntiatione), and belonged to the highest magg., consuls, dictators, interreges, and, with some modifications, to the praetors. In the other case the person who took the causes only exercised the spectio in reference to the duties of his own office and could not interfere with any other magg.: this was called the spectio sine nuntiatione and belonged to other magg., the censors, aediles and quaestors. ...

As to the manner in which the magg. received the auspices, there is no reason to suppose, as many modern writers have done, that they were conferred on them in any special manner. It was the act of their election which made them the recipients of the auspices since the comitia in which they were appointed were held auspicato, and consequently their appointment was regarded as ratified by the gods. The auspices therefore passed immediately in their hands upon the abdication of their predecessors in office. Two circumstances have given rise to the opinion that the magg. received the auspices by some special act.

The fist is that the new magistrate immediately after the midnight on which his office began was accustomed to observe the heavens to obtain an happy sign for the commencement of his duties (Dionys. II 6). But he did not do this to obtain the auspices...it was in virtue of his possession of them that he was able to observe the heavens. The second circumstance was the inauguration of the kings on the Arx after their election in the comitia (Liv. I 18). But this inauguration had reference only to the priestly office of the king and therefore did not take place in the case of republican magg., though it continued for the rex sacrorum and other priests.

The auspices of the different magg. were divided into two classes, called auspicia maxima or maiora and minora. The former originally of the king passed over to the consuls and to the extraordinary magg., the dictators, interreges and consular tribunes. When the consuls were deprived in course of time of part of their duties and separate magg. were created to dischrage them, they naturally received the auspicia maiora too; this was the case of the praetors and censors. The quaestors and aediles curules had only the minora, because they received them from the consuls and praetors of the year, and their auspices were derived from the maiora of the higher magg. (Messalla ap. Gell. XIII 15).

Excellent exposition, no mention of imperium as a relevant concept opposed to the auspicia and of any role played by the lex curiata in the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldrasto11 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

But this cannot be provided undigested as an encyclopedia entry aimed at a generalist reader. It is written for specialists, and its manner of argumentation is for professional scholars. Can you boil this down into a clear summary? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected mistakes for which I apologise to readers and typed in bold the eseential passages. I do not wish to maitain that Schmitz was certainly right, only that he made a flawless exposition based on precise and more extensive reading of the primary sources that all the crowd of more recent scholars who are discussed in Versnel's very learned exposition. It seems to me that they all miss the essential points.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I take it the answer to my last question above is "no." You should probably review the Wikipedia policy statement on original research; I can respect the fact that you have the depth of knowledge to assert that "they all miss the essential points" (boldface my emphasis), but you may be missing the difference between writing as a scholar yourself and compiling scholarship for a generalist encyclopedia as a Wikipedia editor. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the quality of exposition. The topic is vexed and Versnel's presentation is tediously off balance: anybody shows up with fanciful theories. I had not yet read C. Brennan's link: she is much more factual and down to earth. I do not wish to be an authority on anything, I care for the exhaustive discussion of primary sources but in this case it is a complex endavour. This is why I appreciate Schmitz's straight presentation: if he omits mentioning the imperium and the lex curiata perhaps he is doing it on purpose. On the consacration by M. Horatius of the Capitoline temple in 509 this is a famous episode. The fact the same lex which was used for the consacration applied to the driving of the nail by the so termed praetor maximus is intersting too (I think there is no need to suppose the text is corrupt ex lege is fine). That later in 363 Romans required the naming of a dictator for performing this ceremony, this seems to point to the fact that originally the two were one. And of course dictatorship had religious implications in Rome. It seems scholars do not believe Livy's account that two consuls were created since 509, however this is by no means strange as consuls were first created by Servius Tullius and indeed Livy states they were created in accord to the dispositions contained in the commentaries of Servius T.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this (all based on Schmitz) above:

Auspicia maiora were those that originally belonged to the kings. With the institution of the republic they passed over to the highest magistrates, viz. consuls and later praetors and censors, as well as all extraordinary magistrates such as dictators, interreges and consular tribunes. These magistrates normally received the auspices upon being elected by the comitia centuriata. The auspices as such were in fact vested in the whole body of the patricians. In the early republic higher magistrates were patrician only.

The auspices carried with them the right of spectio. Spectio was of two kinds: with or without nuntiatio (spectio et nuntiatio or cum nutiatione). In itself spectio concerned the right of the magistrate to take the auspices concerning the discharge of the functions of his own office. In the case the magistrate had nuntiatio too he had the right to put a stop to the proceedings of any other magistrate by his obnuntiatio ie declaration of the appearence of unfavourable auspices.

The questors and aediles, who were elected by the comitia tributa and were plebeian, as such could not receive any auspicia. Thence theirs were called auspicia minora, because they derived them from the maiora of the higher magistrates of the year.(Messalla ap. Gell. XIII 15).Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this fine for you?Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

fas again

It was my understanding that fas should be contrasted to ius, and that the best translation for fas is not "divine law." I suggested a wording above, something like "Although fas is sometimes translated as 'divine law,' " etc. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I edited the entry in that way, afterwards it was reedited. As it stands now it is better than before, although I do not agree on the last of the 3 defintions given (the part of gods in a votive or sacrificial contract). I explained at length above why following Servius's clearcut distinction between fas (divine law or, worse, rights) and ius (human law or, worse, rights) one enters into a dangerous lexical and semantic misunderstanding. However this is a POV and many scholars hold another POV. Isidorus is better than Servius when he glosses natura for divina iura. This is in accord with the original meaning of fas and does not mislead people into thinking fas was a set of rules of sort established by some gods once and forever. Ius was not in contrast with fas, it was/ should have been, its expression on another levelAldrasto11 (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, some of those omissions are down to me, who was editing with half a brain ('scuse the grammar) and is frankly a bit of a mess at the moment. Some of the scholarship contrasts fas and ius; this should be represented alongside points of view which hold that one emerges from the other. I'll work on it off-page for a bit. Haploidavey (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

rex sacrorum

To paraphrase Mark Twain (who was stealing from somebody else), sorry I wrote such a long entry, but I didn't have time to write a short one. The rex sacrorum article isn't up to speed, but it would've taken longer to address its problems as an independent article than to dash off an entry here. That's an article for somebody's to-do list. I may get to it while working on the Roman priesthoods article, but the lead section seems to contradict the fuller explanation later in the article. Cynwolfe (talk)

Since the king used to be one of the original 4 augurs, is it possible that the rex s. was an augur too?Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Observatio

What you wrote is shocking: were the libri augurales part of the Etrusca disciplina? Augury was Latin or Italic, not Etruscan.

Especially the observation of birds, but also of lightining and thunder was different in the two. Remeber above on the differences of the two on swans? The two bodies of lore were never confused: Etruscan are the libri rituales, fulgurales and haruspicini.

That the Romans used haruspicina is true but they always kept it divided from augury and anyway nothing of the libri augurales has to do with exta.Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarified the distinction between the two traditions a bit in the entry, but here's the source: [3]

Moreover: " Toward the end of the republic this Etruscan doctrine was making headway

even into the College of Augurs … in the poetic and antiquarian lore of the swan as a bird of prophecy there were mixed up in various configurations Greek, Roman, and Etruscan elements." Linderksi, "The libri reconditi," HSCP 89 (1995) pp. 230–231. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, divination by flight of birds is such a common practice (from Tibet to Tipperary) that I would hesitate to accept as fact any assertation that it was not associated with the Etruscans, no matter how firmly the Romans believed this to be true. However, I would agree that, given that the Romans did hold this distinction, the entry should be clear on that. BTW, 'shocking' is probably stronger than you intended here - 'wrong' would have been adequate.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually (since by coincidence I'm looking into an Etruscan topic at the moment), I don't think the Romans always did make a hard and fast distinction between the two traditions. It would in fact be contrary to the way Romans incorporated other cultural traditions to think that such careful distinctions were made or even desirable. Unlike, say, the Athenians, the Romans seem to have been unconcerned about notions of cultural purity; following the mos maiorum means holding on to what you are, yes, but through adding to what "Rome" is, not through exclusion, as Polybius and Sallust noted. Hence they were able to acquire and hold on to a vast and diverse empire. With a long history of dealing with the patrician/plebeian question, they seem to have been OK with being mongrels of a sort (the second king being Sabine, for instance), as long as Rome was "top dog" in the end. In regard to what we may know about Etruscan theology, Nancy de Grummond notes that It is a perennial frustration in studies of Etruscan religion that little about Etruscan prophetic or priestly texts can be confidently traced back earlier than the first century BCE, when in fact Etruscan civilization had become fully submerged in the dominant Roman culture. Much codification of Etruscan divinatory knowledge by or for Romans seems to have occurred in the context of or as an aftermath of the Social War in the Late Republic; political motives are not absent. Assimilation, acculturation, whatever one wishes to call it, was surely one of the goals. The main point, however, is that a great deal of what we label "Etruscan" is possibly of Roman manufacture in the first place — whether these libri were transcriptions, translations into Latin (opening up all sorts of interpretational possibilities), or outright fabrications. If it's impossible to ferret out "pure" Etruscan doctrine or procedure, it's equally impossible to ferret out a "pure" Roman tradition. A better question to my mind is: Why would you want to, if that doesn't reflect the historical reality? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I read the link: Linderski's expositon is a bit misleadng if his article is on augury. He tends to mix up things, ie every sort of divination practised in Rome at the end of the republic. One should bear in mind that Rome was founded by Romolus through augury and he also established the college of the augurs. However it must be credited to Linderski that he has this distinction clear in his mind (please refer to p. 2229), but he does not want to make it too clear to the reader. He correctly states there was no need of coniectura in augury as it was a clearcut set of rules recorded in the Libri augurales. What signs from the sky from what direction meant what, what birds in what part of the sky and what pitch of singing from them menat what etc. This was all set down and fixed once and for all and could not give rise to any doubts. The Roman state worked on this set lore for it was based on the auspicia. The authority came from auspices which were sent by Jupiter (Cic. de Div. II 34 aves internuntiae Jovis; de Leg. II 8 interprets Jovis Optimi Maximi publici augures).

On the opposite the Etrusca disciplina had a different approach to signs and there was scope for coniectura: ie the Libri reconditi said swans too, as well as any kind of birds might yield valid signs too. This is the essential difference between Etruscan and Italic interpretation of signs. There are examples outside the field of augural discipline too. R. Bloch La div. dans l'antiquite' cites an instance of the II century BC. When lightning struck a column in the forum the decemviri were asked to read the Sib. books and their responsum was a heavy set of expiations, which were regularly carried out. But the senate asked the haruspices too and they said since the column was made of the rostra of the ships from Anxur it was a good omen for Rome. Here is the difference of attitude to prodigy.

I think one should be careful to represent Roman items carefully distinguishing what pertained to Roman original religious traditon and what were later cultural borrowings, especially on a matter such as augury that was the foundation of the Roman state. That Etruscans influenced Roman culture on divination through haruspicina is true, but this happened only after the middle of the III century. Of course this is in a sense fortunate other we would know nothing of Etruscan religion. As Dumezil writes two generations of Etruscan antiquarians worked to preserve their cultural heritage writing down in Latin their sacred books.

If you google Sabina you can trace a link to an exhibiton held recently at Rieti where the most interesting item was a lituus: augury was definitly a common heritage of Italics.

Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I read again your article and as it stands it conflates Etruscan disciplina (named first!) and Roman augury. This is confusing and misleading as, I repeat, the two were different bodies of lore, belonging to two different nations and religions. If you want to define and discuss observatio you should first put into its right context, here two contexts. The reader is certainly confused by such a conflating approach and misled into thinking the two were more or less the same thing ie Roman augury was one with and/or based on the Etrusca disciplina, which is plainly wrong.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(Apologies for commenting out of sequence.) Aldrasto, with all due respect, I'm not your amanuensis. If you have corrections to make, make them. The entry (which is hardly an "article") was sparked by my interest in coniectura, which may have caused the material on observatio to be ordered in a way you find misleading. So fix it. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Aldrasto, you should bear in mind that the Romans at one stage believed (and for a long time afterwards continued to hold it as customary) that Rome was founded by Romulus through augury. That statement is not the same as "Rome was founded by Romulus through augury", a statement no more likely to be factual than "King Arthur's knights sat at a Round Table in Camelot." It's an enormously powerful part of the English identity; several English kings created "round tables" of their own on the basis of it; it's a key component of the code of chivalry etc - but none of that makes it TRUE (TM) or means that it actually happened. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Til tradition as preserved by Livy, Dionysios and Plutarch (among many other) is proven false there is no way of relegating Romulus to mere legend. You are wrong in thinking traditional lore is false: especially in ancient times when writing was not yet widely in use people relied heavily on mnemonic transmission. One of the best examples are Troy and Mykenes which were thought to be legendary stories til Schliemann unearthed both. As far as Rome is concerned the presence of Arcadians on the Palatine has been proved true, which was only based on the Argei, the flamen carmentalis and the legend of Evander in Ovid and Vergil. Moreover, even if this assumption were true it is a fact that augury was the foundation of the Roman state through the auspices of the magistrates. Even more true that augury dates back to times earlier to the foundation of Rome and it was already a set lore at the time of Romulus (or if you prefer the time of the foundation of Rome). The use of augury is well documented among Sabins, Umbrians and other Latins. And finally king Arthur was a historical charachter, his tomb was excavated in the XVI century. He was really buried on the (then) island of Avalon.220.163.7.98 (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd sort of sworn off commentary here, but whew...

Why the insistent true/false dichotomy? For the umpteenth time on this page, that's not how history works, and it's not how wikipedia works. I'm truly impressed by your precise technical grasp of the Latin sources, but when we use so-called primary sources to counter the broadly reasoned consensus of modern scholarship, that's Original Research. Which we don't do. It's not allowed. See above.

You seem to be saying, more-or-less, that if one part of something is true, why not all of it? It might seem tough but these days the burden of proof's on the believer, not the skeptic. Check out Elen's and Cynwolfe's several posts on this matter. And Schliemann excavated archaeological sites: not legends, stories or myths, which may well hold powerful truths of several kinds but are reconfigured and embellished in the re-telling.

Do you really mean what you say about the King Arthur's tomb business? What on earth are your sources? Haploidavey (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2010

(UTC)

I am sorry but I think you did not read this discussion from the beginning. It is not possible to mix up augury wuth Etrusca disciplina and even Linderski, who is making an unclear expositon, does not dare to hold this view. There are countless scholars that hold the opposite view, you can refer to the partial list I wrote above on the question of the libri reconditi.

If you are impressed by my grasp of the primary sources you should care more for the opinions of scholars that hold different opinions from the ones you deem so much. It means simply the people on whose studies I base my writings have done good ground work on the sources and perhaps their views should be more respected in Anglophone academic circles. Higher I wrote I appreciate very much Corey Brennan's work as it is clear and down to earth, ie based on an exhaustive discussion of primary sources.

Me too I repeat it for the umpteenth time, nothing that I write here is the fruit of original research, it all comes from published academic sources, mainly Dumezil and F. Sini (who quote largely from any relevant academic source), but also L. Schmitz a Victorian age scholar. From what you write it seems to me that some Anglophone academics lag one or two generations behind and still live under the influence of German hypercriticism. If one reads Livy, Dionysios, Macrobius, Gellius etc. one may have an idea of what may be legend and what is not legend. In this case namely that Romulus is not a legendary charachter, that he used augural art/lore to found Rome, that Rome was ruled through the auspices and that augury (a discipline obviouly more ancient than Rome) was different from Etrusca disciplina. It may be argued that tradition is incomplete and that there were more than 7 kings, however nobody now doubts that these 7 really existed.

On king Arthur's tomb I read a book many years ago titled The quest for Arthur's Britain by Geoffrey Ashe first published in 1968 by a serious British publisher and very scientific. The covering stone of the grave was depicted on a plate. There was a design and an inscription: Hic iacet Artorius rex Romanorum ...etc. I do not remember. With a google search you may be able to find it.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I read the whole thing avidly. On sources, I wanted to pick up on the need to identify "primary" source statements, disagreements and arguments within a context of secondary scholarship, rather than jump straight to Livy, Dionysius, or whoever. If this isn't done, any arguments or preferences of opinion (and they seem to be plentiful in this subject area) appear to be those of the editor. Looking now at what I wrote above - well, it could have been a lot more carefully written, so if I seemed to accuse you of actual original research, I heartily apologise. As for the rest, I wanted to know where you're coming from on broader issues of scholarship. You've made that clear, thank you, so I'll wish you happy editing and say no more. Haploidavey (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome and hope you enjoy the book on Athur. Sini frequently quotes Emilio Peruzzi's Le origini di Roma for his work on Micenean presence in Latium and influenes on Roman vocabulary. Also on the question of the authenticity of Numa's books discovered in 181 BC. Also the inscription on the cover is in keeping with Livy' s formula Numa Marcius Marci filius: Numa Pompilius Pomponi filius rex Romanorum.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Invocatio

Why mentioning Greek Christian invocations here? Also: Tullus 's Hostilius death was not caused by wrong invocations according to sources, but irritualities. I suggest discussing the topic other I shall edit unilaterally.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Because in discussions of Hellenistic religion and magic as practiced within the Roman Empire and by Romans, the terms invocatio and epiklesis will be used alternatively or in company; many magic texts are in Greek. To provide the term epiklesis as used in ancient Greek religious practices requires distinguishing it from the more common contemporary use of the term, which is Christian, and again indicates the extent to which a Christian vocabulary of religion was not original, but borrowed from a preexisting religious context. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

good edits on auspicia

Aldrasto, I'm happy to see you editing. Couple of comments (again, please note that these are about matters of presentation; I'm not questioning your knowledge, so don't get your hackles up):

• Please give fuller citations in your footnotes. In your edits to auspicia, you gave a footnote as "L. Schmitz cit." This places an undue burden on both editors who may seek to verify the material, or on WP users who want to use your source for further research on their own. Also, WP practice is not to use abbreviations (less common than they used to be even in footnotes of scholarly publications) such as op. cit. and ibid; see this link to the Manual of Style. Use the title of the book at least on the first reference within an entry, and always give page numbers.
• A consensus was reached above that because of the uniqueness of a Glossary page, each entry would be treated as an independent article in terms of linking and citations. The reasoning is that entries are likely to be accessed directly through links in other articles; this isn't the kind of article you sit down and read beginning to end. So it may seem redundant to keep giving a title with Schmitz if it appears in the entry just previous, but it isn't. And it's never redundant to give page numbers, even when summarizing a long discussion into a couple of sentences; give page ranges such as "pp. 119–136." If references are scattered widely throughout a book, you might cites pages for a key passage or two, then throw up your hands and say et passim.
• Google Books or other online resources can help you determine whether any of your sources are available in English. Then you can find the corresponding passages to cite in the English version, which may have different page numbers. Rykwert's book, for instance, is available in limited preview via Google Books; even if your material falls on pages that are unavailable, you can at least see what pages pertain for purposes of citation.
• I'm not keen on imprecise phrases like "in ancient times." What does this mean? To the modern reader, "in ancient times" means any time in antiquity, in the case of ancient Rome any time over a period of a thousand years. If you mean in Archaic or early Rome, say that. If you mean "in the Regal period and up to the Punic Wars," say that. Otherwise, editors who are into the Late Republic or Imperial period will protest that your statement is untrue for "ancient times" in general, leading to debate where perhaps none really exists.
• Try to give a little more of the title when citing ancient sources too. Remember, Wikipedia is for non-specialists who may not immediately know when referring to a work by Varro what LL means. Sure, they can figure it out, but why not offer maximum help in the first place?

Thanks for sticking with it. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

ager

The new entry on ager needs to translate some Latin phrases. (Remember, to an English-only reader, the meaning of these may not be as evident as they would be to a speaker of a Romance language.) It's unclear from the description what ager Gabinus is, partly because it's not explained what auspicia singularia are. Is there a particular reason for singling out Sicily as not included with the terra Italia? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

On auspicia maiora I complied with your request and summarised Schmitz's expostion, please look above. Since Gellius mentions the lex curiata only in relation to the magistrates minores it is possible to argue that this lex was relevant (only) to their auspices, minora.

On the ager gabinus I shall have to research the topic. Varro is not explicit and I have no acces to Catalano's work.

Sicily in augural law was not included in Italy. The ager Romanus could be extended only within Italy. This was relevant for the dictio of the dictator:

Liv. XXVII 5: in 210 BC consul M. Valerius Laevinus aiebat se dictatorem dicturum M. Valerius Messalla, chief of the fleet, and the patres denied that he could do so as he was then in Sicily, ie outside the ager Romanus, which in Italia terminari. On the question of the expansion of the a. Rom. within Italy there is much to discuss.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the request is for clear and simple translations of Latin terms such as auspicia singularia (unique or singular auspices?), ager Gabinus (Gabine lands? The ager of Gabii? - what's Gabii?), as well as explanation for the exclusion of Sicily from terra Italia (Italian lands?). Let's not assume that any reader knows Latin. Haploidavey (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My question about Sicily was just this: why single out Sicily as not included? Sincere question. I wouldn't assume Sicily was part of terra Italia, because it was administered as a separate province. I would be more likely to wonder whether (or when) terra Italia included Cisalpine Gaul — does terra Italia become equivalent to "the Italian peninsula"? — or how the term relates to Roman expansionism throughout the peninsula. Does the definition of either terra Italia or ager Romanus change over time to become more inclusive? An early hint is the designation ager Gallicus. This is interesting to me in light of Elen's question above about the cultivation of place; I speculated that this was part of Rome's version of "manifest destiny," that the drawing of boundaries and the incorporation of new territories has a religious dimension. I thought the entries on ager and finis were very interesting and illuminating in this way.

But yes, my main point is that Latin phrases need to be translated; sometimes Latin is utterly transparent to a speaker of Spanish or Italian in a way that it isn't to an English-own speaker. This request is not for me; I can read Latin. It's a matter of keeping the generalist reader in mind. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This sentence is still unclear:

The ager peregrinus was so defined a pergendo, that is, progrediendo, "advancing forth from one's original position," implying it was not considered for augural purposes totally foreign: the two both allowed to some extent preserving the auspicia.

What does "preserving the auspicia" mean? (Can you lose or not preserve auspicia?) And please don't give me a list of source passages; I'm not asking because I want to research the topic, I'm asking because the wording doesn't make sense to me. Despite the translation, it's still unclear why ager peregrinus is "not totally foreign" (then what is it? almost always better to make statements in the positive rather than by negation), since territory can't march forth (is it that the Romans marched forth into it?). I changed "standing" to "position", but now I think you may indeed mean "standing" in the sense of legal status? In which case it should be changed back.

The footnote on ager Gabinus doesn't help translate or explain the adjective Gabinus, as Davey pointed out. This one is a two-step process: the translation "Gabine territory" doesn't explain what "Gabine" means here. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As is stated in the text Romans divided space (outside the pomerium) into these 5 categories. The ager Rom. included the urbs outside the pomerium and the surrounding countryside to the sixth mile (see Ovid's Fasti II 629? on the festival of the Terminalia). The a. Gabinus, as far as we can say, is the original territory of the town of Gabii, to the East of Rome. As Varro says putting these words in the mouth of the public augurs: ab oppido Gabiis.

Peregrinus is defined as a. pacatus, ie peaceful, outside the Roman and the Gabine, quod uno modo in his auspicia servantur: this literally means that to some extent the auspices were preserved while a magistrate was on them. Dictus peregrinus a pergendo, ie progrediendo: eo enim ex agro Romano primum progrediebantur: it was that to which they first moved onto from the Roman.

Quocirca Gabinus quoque peregrinus, sed quod auspicia habet singularia, ab reliquo discretus: as far as the Gabine and peregrinus are concerned, as each has his own specific auspices it is kept distinct from the other one.

This the text: comments are free...!

I spent two hours yest. googling ager G. and ag. per.: there is more on the Gabinus: I have been lucky finding the work by R. D. Woodward. Also an article on the Classical quarterly 2003, 53, pp. 247 ff. by C. Gabrielli: L. Post. Megellus at Gabii: a new fragment of Livy, if Cynwolf can access it, only the 1st page is offered online. On the per. a good source is excluded from the preview. Else there is nothing noteworthy, including Linderki.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

PS The works by S W. Rasmussen Public portents in rep. Rome, in itself not very interesting for our purpose, quotes a work by P. Mourtsen 1998 that can be worth checking. The Book by Roberta Stewart Public office in early Rome is obscurated on the relevant pages.

Catalano's work on ANRW is not on preview but it has a detailed discussion of the agri and the mutual transformation Rom. Per. and viceversa. Finally there is a review in Italian by Rinolfi of the work by O. Sacchi The ager Campanus since the origins to 54 BC. Naples 2004, which is interesting on the augural and non augural definitions of land especially around the time of change from religious to lay approach to land during the 3rd and 2nd centuries.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to be able to answer Cynwolf's very important questions but I cannot. It seems this is one of the many topics about which we have insufficient info from the sources and consequently give rise to interminable debate among scholars. It is certain from what I read on the book by Sacchi that Campania after the deditio (surrender) of Capua in 211 was defined ager occupaticius or publicatus ie confiscated and Sacchi is uncertain whether by then it belonged to peregrinus or hosticus, though it was not ager publicus Populi Romani(Liv. XXVI 16-7; 33-34). This is confirmed by the fact that consul Crispinus to proceed to the dictio of the dictator had to resort to a fictio of ager Rom. Only in 165 praetor P. Corn. Lentulus proceeded to the centuriatio and the ager Campanus became A. publicus populi Romani. The question of the evolution of the limits of Italy in Roman legal view is important: Sini analyses this notion in his Bellum nefandum on Vergil's concepts of foreign politics and he refers the reader to the juridical and religious definitons analysed by Catalano in ANRW. It is certain Sicily and the Galliae were excluded. Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think some of your explanations above pertaining to Romanus, Gabinus and peregrinus can be incorporated into the entry. I'd like to try. (Though this effort may not take place immediately, as I will want to mull it over first.) And please understand that while your English, Aldrasto, is good, the subject matter is so intensely complex and nuanced that ambiguities may arise in your writing that you may not be aware of. I will be very happy if the result of the (ahem) lively discussion above is that we can all proceed with this page now in a spirit of mutual respect. I have no doubt that you know more about augural procedure than I do or would want to; I hope that you can trust that my aim is to present the material in a way that is clear and appropriate to Wikipedia.

In that spirit, what does "in an exhaustive way" mean in the ager entry? I deleted it earlier because it seemed redundant; to define space is by definition to establish its limits, or in the words of my laptop dictionary "to state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of." "Define" is certainly the right word because it preserves the concept of finis within it. My approach to editing is that the more difficult the concept, the less syntactical "flab" the sentence expressing it should have, so that the meaning stands out clearly and distinctly. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpfulness, but you want to flatter me: my knowledge of augural law is nil: what I write I draw on the writings of scholars. First I shall answer your last question: I reinstated exhaustive because it is important to make it clear to the reader that through this definition/division augural law exhausted all possible space on Earth.

As far as Gabii is concerned I had some new insights into the matter by reading F.Sini and W. Smith A Dictionary of Roman geography:

1. Gabii was the place where Romulus and Remus studied and learnt Greek.

2. The ceremony of the opening of the temple of Ianus as described by Vergil Aen. VII 601-619: the consul wears the Quirinalis trabea and is cinctuque Gabino. Sacrifices were also held without sleeves, in the Gabine manner.

Probably from here stem the auspicia singularia of Gabii.

On the question of the concept and limits of Italy, after reflection, it seems to be necessary to use a chronological approach: at the beginning Romans used this concept as referring to land on the western side of the Appenines, ie Tyrrhenian central and southern Italy. This is reflected in Aeneid where Vergil does not consider the first landing of Troians on the Salentine peninsula to have been a landing in Italy, ie only in Latium they reached Italy. The Ionian side was considered Greek and Celtic. See Appianus Annib. 8. Of course this is an anachronism for the times of Vergil. This limit though was still the common definiton in use at the times of Punic war II. He considers himself Italian as by augustan times the common perception of Italy included all the peninsula and the continental part to the Alps: see Georg.Laudes Italiae . This change of perception thence took place during the II and I century. For augural law purposes however one should do further research. However Sini notes that the libri Sibyllini already at the time contained a more comprehensive definition of Italy, the defence of it was often mentioned and was a recurring motive. Eg Liv. XXIX 10, 4-5:...quandoque hostis alienigena terrae Italiae bellum intulisset, eum pelli Italia vincique posse, si mater Idaea a Pessinunte Romani advecta foret. Whenever a foreign enemy would bring war to the Italian land, it would be possible to defeat and expel it from Italy if the Romans would carry in the Idean mother from Pessinunte. Clearly here the concept of Italy looks more extensive.

I read more of the book by Roberta Stewart and although some relevant pages are obscurated it is a good piece of scholarship in this sense because it analyses the settlements in the ager peregrinus and the related increase in the no. of praetors to 4 for administrative purposes in the second century.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Methodological issues

Here I shall offer some views on the value of ancient documents by the noted romanist marxist scholar F. Serrao Legge e societa' nella repubblica romana Napoli 1981 p. XXIII:

"Livy or Dionysios or perhaps their sources describe sometimes with terms, expressions and concepts mof their times and possibly borrowed from the constitutional and political vocabulary of the last two centuries the phenomena of the most ancient republic. With that they do not invent facts or phenomena never existed, but give of the happenings of a remote past an interpretation understandable to their contemporaries, as any historian does to some extent."

Mommsen was of a similar opinion concerning the quotations of documents such as treaties by ancient historians.

The Lapis Satricanus discussed in C. M. Stibbe Lapis satricanus... Rome 1980 has been recognised as referring to the Publius Valerius of the Roman tradition (see first Livy I 59) (consul in 509, died in 503) by M.Pallottino, E. Peruzzi and H. S. Versnel.

...eisteteraipopliosioualesiosio

suodalesmamertei

The sodales of Publius Valerius posted to Mamers.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"The mores gentium were traditions of the gentes that predated the foundation of Rome and connected it to the ancient locale of the pagi and the gentes. Their common heritage melted in the formation of the Roman civitas whereas the sacra gentilicia peculiar to each clan remained separate. The customary rules of the pagi and of the gentes survived only de facto and lost their juridical connotation." From L. Capogrossi Colognesi Cittadini e territorio. Consolidation and transformation in the 'Roman civitas'. Rome 2000.

Hi, Aldrasto, I'm called away to other things for a few days, but I'll get back to the Glossary eventually. And I wasn't merely flattering you above — it was a sincere compliment. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of ager and the dictio of the dictator it is relevant Livy VIII 23, 13-16:

(in 327 BC) Consul L. Cornelius while forced by the war to remain in Samnium sent a letter saying he was to appoint a dictator to hold the comitia (comitorum causa diceret). He appointed M. Claudius Marcellus. However the comitia were not held because a dispute arose on the fact that the dictator had been created faultily (vitione). The augurs upon being consulted answered him had been created faultily. On this the tribunes of the plebs made a fuss insinuating the augurs had acted suspiciously and outrageously: since it was impossible to determine in what vitium had the consul incurred in the dictio since he had appointed him while alone during the night and before informing anybody in any way of his action, clearly their sentence was due to the fact that the dictator was a plebeian.

This passage shows the augurs could invalidate any action of magistrates whether they were present and informed of it or not. Possibly in this case their sentence considered that the consul was outside the ager Romanus. However the case of 211 and perhaps others reflect that the law could be bypassed through a fictio of ager Rom. But apart the chronoligical distance it is possible that the augurs in such a case should support the consul.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

auspicia maiora again

I read C. Brennan's passages again however she is not arguing that the consuls or other major magistrates obtained their auspicia (maiora) by a lex curiata. She argues that military delegates of the consuls who were not magistrates had to get their imperium through this process.

For clarity and information of the reader I shall translate here relevant passages from Gellius XIII, 15:

In the edict of the consuls by which they establish on which day shall the comitia cent. be held, it is written in the ancient unchangeable form:" that no minor magistrate observe the sky". It is often asked who are the minor magistrates. ..I shall quote from book I of Messala's work De auspiciis: "The auspices of the patricians are divided into two powers (potestates). The maxima are (those) of the consuls, praetors and censors. And even among all of them are not the auspicia the same or of the same potestas, insofar the censors are not colleagues of the praetors or consuls, but the praetors are colleagues of the consuls. Thus neither the consuls nor the praetors mix up or avocate the auspices of the censors nor the censors do the reverse; but the censors among themselves and again the praetors and the consuls among themselves either vitiate or deprive. The praetor although he is a colleague of the consul, he cannot take to court either a praetor or a consul, as we lernt from our superiors or before our times it was observed and also as it is clearly stated in C. Tuditanus's XIII Commentary, that the praetor has a lesser imperium, the consul a greater one, and by the lesser imperium the greater or the greater (maior) colleague by the lesser (minor) cannot be sued. In our times we follow the authority of the ancient when the praetors create a praetor we were never in the auspice of these comitia. The censors equally are not called/asked (rogari) through the same auspice as the consuls and praetors.

Of the remaining magistrates are the auspices minora. Thus those are named minores, these maiores magistrates. The minor magistrates are created by the comitia tributa, but their iustus is given by a lex curiata. The maiores are made by the comitia centuriata.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In a bit of a rush, but I think the point you're referring to re: the lex curiata de imperio is from Versnel, p. 324 as noted. It's based on his survey of the views of various scholars, some of whom think the lex conferred the auspicia, some of whom do not, which is why the entry says something like "scholars disagree on the finer points" of how this worked. The link was here. I never got back to the entry; there's no reason to single out the censors for maxima, it's just what I had at hand. The stub article on Maxima auspicia needed some immediate attention, but I just did what I could at the moment. You might want to check into that one. (T. Corey Brennan is a guy: I point this out because his biography is rather colorful for a classicist.) Cynwolfe (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment and the link: I just reread the passage of Versnel linked here and he is quoting French scholar Combe's, who holds the silly view that the auspicia were due to the imperium and the imperium to the lex curiata. Immediately below Versnel cites Altheim who says the correct thing ie that only the auspicia minora were conferred through a lex curiata because these magistrates had no auspices in virtue of their election, since were elected by the com. tributa, ie he literally follows Messala's explanation which I translated (literally) above. After reading once Versnel's full exposition I was on the verge of cursing him because of the mess he has contrived to make of a quite clear topic. The auspicia maiora are by definition the source of the imperium and come from the auspical authority of the comitia centuriata. As L. Schmitz wrote before 1875 the creation of new magistracies made the question of auspices and imperium more complex, however the auspicia were originally one ie those of the rex which passed over to the consuls: for the creation of other magistracies there was the possibility of conflicts when magistrates held auspices of equal level (potestas).Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

History, tradition, legend, myth, hoax.....

Just returned from a week's holiday (in Venezia), noted Aldrasto's comments on Geoffrey Ashe and King Arthur. As it's a bit off-topic, thought I'd reply here, as it does explain a number of my concerns re Romulus et al.

Aldrasto writes "On king Arthur's tomb I read a book many years ago titled The quest for Arthur's Britain by Geoffrey Ashe first published in 1968 by a serious British publisher and very scientific. The covering stone of the grave was depicted on a plate. There was a design and an inscription: Hic iacet Artorius rex Romanorum ...etc. I do not remember. With a google search you may be able to find it" I have this book - I have a lot of books about the archaeology and history of the British Isles. In this case Aldrasto you are misremembering the context of what Ashe wrote.

See the Wikipedia articleHistorical basis for King Arthur for numerous sources, primary, secondary and archaeological. Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote the basis for the legend of King Arthur around 1140. In it, Arthur neither dies nor is buried, but is taken to the legendary Isle of Avalon to be healed - from whence comes the tradition that Arthur returns at times of greatest peril to Britain. In 1191 (as recorded by another chronicler, Geraldus Cambrensis), monks at the abbey at Glastonbury claimed to have found the grave of King Arthur, inscribed with the "Hic iacet..." inscription quoted above. (See the Glastonbury article)

Ashe (almost alone among scholars) believes that Geoffrey of Monmouth based his work on an earlier chronicle, which told of a 5th century ruler called Riothamus, and that Riothamus is King Arthur. Ashe, along with every single other scholar, believes that the Glastonbury gravestone (which appears to have disappeared at the time of the English Reformation if it existed at all) was created by the monks to increase revenue to the abbey (a common practice with the bones of saints).

As you will see from the main King Arthur article, the consensus of scholarship is that it is not essential for Arthur to have existed at all - that he may, indeed probably was, always a legendary figure. This may help to explain why, for several of us, your assertions of certainty about Romulus and other figures are problematic. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not remember Ashe states the gravestone was a forgery but I do remember it was reproduced as a plate. Avalon (Glastonbury) was an island as was separated by land by shallow waters. I read the book 25-28 years ago and I have no longer it at hand. I remember however it contained many photos among them one of the tombstone of king Vortigern which reads Vortigern protectori.

Of course we have no way to prove that the tombstone of Numa was not a forgery, even though the aim of such forgery is not clear as it would not yield much money. Petilius refused any compensation when the books were burnt. It is a fact though that contemporary sources mostly agreed that that the discovery was an authentic one. One of my teachers said history is all about a bundle of relationships as nobody can prove anything true or false. We cannot say anything for certain after 3 generations. If somebody says Napoleon never existed and is an invention of the French nobody can disprove him unless by piling up documents which in turn can to some extent be questioned. As for Romulus and the other kings of Rome there is the accord of the sources and the abundance of the acts they attribute to them to make them trustworthy historic figures.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah me, Aldrasto! This is hardly the place to argue about King Arthur, but really really, the grave monument of Arthur does not exist - if it did exist at one time, it was destroyed by the agents of Henry VIII, so there is no possibility of Ashe including a photograph of it in his book unless he has a time machine. See here for more information on it and other gravestones of King Arthur (there are at least four!!).

As for Napoleon Boneparte, having just returned from Venezia, I can confirm that there's enough "archaeological" evidence for him:) Of course there can be difficulties in determining what has a basis in history and what is an accretion of legend. There clearly was a first king of Rome - because there were kings of Rome at one time, just as there were Saxon kings of England for example. And yes, we say "King Alfred did this" or "King Ethelred did that" based on chronicles of the time - and the evidence of archaeology! All I am saying is that one must recognise a level of uncertainty - and more so as one goes further back in time, and what has come forward has become less 'history' and more 'legendary'. It is a matter of how one states things in the encyclopaedia, not what one chooses to believe in private.

If you wish to state in the encyclopaedia "Rome was founded by Romulus" rather than "according to the tradition of the Romans, Rome was founded by Romulus" then you must find good, reliable, modern secondary sources that support that statement. Just as I would if I wanted to say "King Arthur had a round table at Camelot" rather than "according to tradition, King Arthur had a round table at Camelot" Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a misunderstanding caused by my poor English: I wrote the book has a plate, ie a drawing, not a photo. The photo it does have is that of the tombstone of Vortigern!

I have not enough acquaintance with secondary sources in English, but Italian sources abound that state Roman tradition is scientifically acceptable. But on the whole I agree that one can say more safely say according to traditon Romulus founded Rome, established the manus of the husband on his wife, the patria potestas on his sons etc.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that makes more sense (about the drawing I mean). I should have realised that was what you meant.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Observation and Strong Suggestion

This is one of the longest and most informative talk pages I have seen. In some places the discussion was more informative than the object of the discussion.

However, because this page is very long, there may be some pressure to create an archive of “old” discussions. Please unite in opposing this pressure. I feel that even the discussions that seemed to be futile at the time provide context for later, more fruitful discussions. For the most part, this page is a model of what a talk page should be, a place to discuss improvements in the article.

Happy Editing! JimCubb (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Further insights into sanctus, sacer, religiosus

It seems the problem of the mutual relationship of the 3 terms is more organic and understandable if one reads on the glossa of Festus sv religosus which is usually quoted only in its 1st part: "the difference among sacer, sanctum and religiosum is very well expressed by Gallus: sacrum a building as it is consecrated to a god; sanctum the wall that surrounds a town; religiosum the grave in which a dead is inhumated, this is quite well known (to anybody); but thus the reason of this division (portione could be preserved or read as ratione) can appear (be regarded) as at times to be the same too." But Festus 's quotation of Gallus goes on to say:

"Anything that is sacrum, it is also considered to be sanctum for the law or the institutes of the ancient, so that it cannot be trespassed without penalty. The same thing is also religiosum, since it is something that men are not allowed to do; if one does it it appears one has done it against the will of the gods. Similarly on the wall and the grave one must consider that the same things become sacra, and sancta and religiosa in the same way as we have expounded about sacer".

Thus the concepts are not referred to objects in themselves but to the different point of view in the relationship with consecration and untouchability (taboo) and to the sanction (juridical consideration). Thus a res defined as sancta as the wall or religiosa as the tomb can be seen in the perspective of the sacer, sanctum and religiosum that can come to be coincident according to Gallus. The rights of the of the di manes are said to be sancta in the XII Tables. Here is for Festus.

Macrobius devotes one chapter to the discussion of the terms (III 3) in Vergil, which he states are the most frequent object of questions to the pontiffs. Citing Trebatius's treatise de Religionibus I he says it is sacrum what is considered belonging to the gods. On sanctum Trebatius book X states it is used sometimes for what is sacer or religiosum sometimes in another meaning; Macrobius starts with instances of this 1st kind:

Sanctas ad vos anima, atque istius inscia culpae /descendam. His anima soul, is not considered either sacra or religiosa but sancta in the sense of uncorrupted. As in the other instance: Tuque o sanctissima coniunx,/ felix morta tua. Here he means the honour of the chastity of his uncorrupted wife. And the same use is found for laws which must not be corrupted under the penalty of a sanction.

The same meaning as sacer on the other hand here: ...excutere et sanctos restinguere fontibus ignes. Here it refers to something divine. Tuque o sanctissima vates /praescia venturi. Vates is replenished by god and a sacerdos.

On religiousum then: Servius Sulpicius says that religio is said to be things which for their sanctity are as it were removed and separated from us, as if it were named from relinquendo (to relinquish)...Pompeius Festus considers religiosi those who distinguish the things which are to be done and those that are to be avoided.

Now on the origin of the word sanctus: it is remarkable that while there is agreement on the root sak, the same as for sacer, there is none on the way it came to mean protected by a sanction. Fugier thinks it is to be explained as garanteed by a sanction through an act sacer (of consecration?) Benveniste thinks it means surrounded by a defense and sanctio would refer to the punishment brought upon the infringer by the gods.

The concrete act of the sanctio was originally referred to the gods as in Aen. XII 200 audiat haec gentior (Jupiter) qui foedera fulmine sancit. Servius glosses that the approval of compacts was sanctioned by lightining which in ancient times kindled the fire by itself on the altars as a token of divine ratification.

However there is another interpretation possible as in the same place Servius writes: "sancire ...est sanctum aliquid i.e. consecratum, facer fuso sanguine hostiae: et dictum sanctum, quasi sanguine consecratum". This would support the explanation of sanctus as derived by sanguis blood, i.e. consecrated with the blood of victims. A further implication here is the role of god Sancus. Some authors derive verb sancio through the name of this god who has the function of ratifying compacts. Now Sancus has a root stem sancu- not sanc-i- as it is proved by its derivate adjective sanqualis (avis, Porta) and by the fact the noun belongs to 4th declension (genit. Sancus). On the other hand in Latin it is attested the form Sangus and it is a well known fact that g and c were interchangeable. In this case the root origin of Sancus would be that of sanguis blood sangu-en. Lydus mentions a Sabine god of this name Sancius as meaning heaven. Here we are.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating. I was catechised as a girl, and I am reminded of some of the explanations in the catechism, which are themselves predicated on another term which also has a specific religious meaning (a sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace would be an example of this). Ecclesiastical latin is, I feel, not helping us here. It renders 'sanctus' as 'holy' and 'holy' comes from the concept of a place which is marked out, or which one may not enter - may not be trespassed without penalty. Which would be fine, but I know from my Catholic history that this whole concept comes from the Egyptian concept (also found in Judaism) of a place which is at the heart (of a temple or other building), and which may not be entered except by the appointed person. The Hermetic invocation 'be far from us o ye profane' echoes this sense that one is deep within the temple complex when one enters the 'holy of holies'.

The idea of sanctus as the walls of a city, which may not be crossed without consequence, suggests a very different notion. The walls are protective, so there must be a sense in which sanctus is protective. Does 'sanctuary' come close to the concept - cue Ezmerelda and the Hunchback? But the idea of a place that may physically not be entered by eg the agents of the law. Part of the horror of the murder of Thomas A Beckett was that it took place 'in sanctuary'. By committing violence in the place, the murderers showed their disregard for the laws of G-d and man.

Surely there must also be a sense of 'in plain sight', as the walls of a city are always visible, whereas the holy of holies was hidden in the heart of the temple complex. It is hard within the Kemitic or Judaic religions to understand the concept of the wall being sanctus - and this I feel is partly because it is in plain sight. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well certainly there are similarities and also differences: in Roman religion the political or social element is stressed. The esoteric element was according to Varro and Macrobius the Pythagorean and Samothracian: see my post at di indigetes. The ancient grammarians connected sancitum and sanctum with sanguis/blood. However these things need not be sacred i.e. consecrated to the gods, simply they are put under divine protection, that may come through either the blood of a victim or lightning. The nature of the god who gives the sanction is the most interesting point. It is sometimes considered/called Jupiter, the supreme god, the god of heaven, and sometimes Dius Fidius Semo Sancus. This name is an accretion of two double theonyms: Dius has the same stem of Diovi- and simply means the heavenly vault. Fidius from Fides trust: trust belongs to heaven (1st function for Dumezil: his temples had a hole in the roof). Semo Sancus has a different connotation: he is the 1st ancestor of the people (Semo=Seed). Sancus can be derived from IE stem *sak same as for sacer (G. Devoto wrote it may be compared to Tocarian sakaar lofty) and could be related to heaven too. This would tally with Lydus's mention of Sancius as being among Sabins the god of heaven. However also from blood and this would tally with Semo as original ancestor. Latte thought the sanction given by this god implied inherently both Heaven and Earth. But as it appears from what Gallus wrote neither term is exclusive and it depends on the perspective: sacred places could also be considered sancti or religiosi e.g. the sacred groves, inaugurated temples (Festus s.v. tesca: "sancta loca undique (saepta dicu)nt pontificis libri ..." sancta places cut/divided from every side say the pontifical books): however it is true that in the Roman view sanctus as referred to objects primarily refers to notion of border, be it of a sacred place or not: walls, rivers, boundary stones etc.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

deus, dea, di, dii

It's highly uninformative to to say Varro classified dii as certi, incerti, praecipui or selecti without saying what those terms mean. Augustine is the source for Varro's classification but I'm assuming the mysterious and insufficiently cited 'von Domaszewski, Dii certi und incerti' is the source for asserting which of Varro's lost works this came from, and that it was 'certainly' (a modifier I deleted) based on pontifical doctrine. If it may be said to be 'certainly' and uncontrovertibly based on pontifical doctrine, the adverb is unneeded; if 'certainly' is the declaration of a particular scholar, then the note needs to go with that portion of the statement. As far as I can see, von Domaszewski is cited nowhere else on the page; I thought we had agreed above that sources were to be cited fully, and with page numbers, in keeping with WP policy. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it. The question would need further clarifications as we have not got the archives. The source here is Servius who seems to know that the distinction was pontifical, which is btw obvious. He attributes to Varro the definiton of such gods presiding over a single act/action as di certi. In my original article under entry religio I gave an instance of di incerti. And Augustine VI 3 has preserved this distinction too. The selecti or praecipui were probably the 12 major gods.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

deleted from indigitamenta

I deleted the following from the entry indigitamenta and wanted to explain why:

A distinction should be made between the indigitamenta relating to private cult, about which we are informed by Augustine's quotations from Varro and Servius about the deities of family life or the indigitamenta of Ceres/Tellus concerning agriculture, and those regarding major gods of public cult. Of the last we have only three instances: the indigitamenta of Maia as Bona Dea, ops, fauna and fatua (Macrobius I, 12,21); of Apollo as Medicus (Macrobius I 17,15); of the god of the river Tiber: Adesto Tiberine, cum tuis undis, Tibernus pater and flumen sanctum (Servius Aen. VIII 72; Ennius Ann. %4 V; Verg. Aen. VIII 72; Livy II 10, 11).

First of all, there is no secondary source cited; that is, I don't know who "we" are (an annoying locution). Second, it lengthens an already long entry. Third, it poses an implicit question and leaves it hanging: why should one distinguish between private and public cult in terms of how indigitamenta is defined? This is not explained. Are they two different things, or are we saying that although indigitamenta exist in abundance for agricultural deities or deities of family life, they are rare in reference to "major gods of public cult"? I also don't think you can sustain the statement that there are only three instances of indigitamenta for the latter; there are indigitamenta of Mars, and isn't Ceres a major deity of public cult? The statement seems to raise more questions than a Glossary entry can answer.

Also, don't give Latin quotations and leave them untranslated! Cynwolfe (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The question has been discussed by Dumezil and others. Of course the indigitamenta of minor deities, the so called action-gods differ from those of major deities which were often secret. See what Macrobius writes about Maia and Bona Dea. We means the people of today: do you know an indigitamentum of Ceres or Mars? If so please let me know! "Mars vigila!" was it an indigitamentum?Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The Latin primary sources you cite verify only that these were epithets of individual gods; they can't support the claim that these are the only three. You don't cite the Augustine passages. You don't cite the secondary sources implied by "we" (the royal "we"?). If a distinction should be made, then make it; the phrase is pleonastic. Moreover, this perceived distinction must be supported by citations from sources. Please review WP:SOURCE. You keep thinking that people are arguing about the substance or quality of your content when they are asking for either clarity or verification (specific citations of sources). Cynwolfe (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

We has nothing royal: In German, French and Italian it is used to express what is of common knowledge.220.163.11.117 (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I was joking about the royal "we." The collective "we" can be used in that sense in English too, but on the subject of "common knowledge," please review WP:CK. WP standards on what constitutes common knowledge are rather strict. Nothing pertaining to indigitamenta can be treated as common knowledge, because it's such an esoteric topic. My objection to the use of "we" in encyclopedia articles is twofold: (1) it usually leads to pleonastic sentence construction when clear and economic expression is desirable; and (2) it sets up a mysterious body of authorities who "know" something but are otherwise anonymous, thus it's contrary in rhetorical effect to the clear citation of verifiable sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree one can change we it to a general impersonal in the passive form. About the question you raised on the three known. My source is not highly authoritative. If one takes into account strictly only texts which expressly mention something as an indigitation then "Adesto Tiberine cum tuis undis" is not one, even if Servius shortly later says pontiffs use to indigitate the Tiber. On the other hand reading Macrobius again I found plenty of indigitations of Ianus (Iunonius, Geminus, Clusius et Patulcius etc.) used in the words of the authors during the sacra. So also he lists many epithets of Saturnus. One would also point to the many epithets of Iuno: Lucina, Pronuba, Sospita, Mater, Regina, Curitis, Covella etc.

The question here is not about the number three or five. It is about the quality of the meaning of the word that may refer to different things: at the lowest and most commonly known level the names of action gods belonging to the family of a certain great god (e.g. Iuno, Ceres, Tellus). The other level concerns more esoteric names and correspondences to/between certain great gods.

I left many notes under the entry Di Indigetes and Novensiles quoting relevant material but nobody has taken interest. Why should I be the only one here to do this work and with the risk of getting criticised?Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

length

I'm revisiting this article after a hiatus and was wondering whether we ought to address the issue of its growing length. There are some entries that may not be as useful as others; there are some terms that I doubt will ever be linked to. I'm thinking that we ought not add entries unless the term is used in at least two other articles. When you add an entry, do a search and be sure to link other articles to your new term.

Also, there are some entries that currently are sourced only by the name of an ancient author who uses or defines the term, without even a passage citation. Shouldn't each entry have at least one modern source? Cynwolfe (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I write what I find of interest to the readers who are seriously wishing to know as much as posssible on the vocabulary of Roman religion. I do not think you are an authority to decide what people should or should not know about.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What did I say that was authoritarian? Please review the following WP policies, in the context of which my remarks were made: on article length, WP:LENGTH; on linking, WP:LINK; on citing sources, WP:SOURCE. Since it was editing consensus that each entry of the Glossary be treated as independent, because that's the way it's most likely to be accessed (many articles now link to individual entries), the "orphan" principle also applies in the selection of entries (see WP:O). I might well ask why you should unilaterally decide that your content is excluded from these policies. So please drop the hostility. I welcome your contributions (In fact, I left you a note thanking you for the entry on "arbor felix" but inadvertently left it on the old account that you no longer use.) and am only trying to make this a readable, useful article. Again, I think an article on Archaic Roman religion, or the "religion of Numa," as you sometimes call it, would be an extremely valuable and interesting article, and encourage you to write it so you can explore these topics more discursively. The Glossary fills a need, as the number of links to it shows. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not know about links. I am not writing this article with link criteria in mind. Many terms are very specialistic and of interest to readers seriously wishing to understand what Roman religion was about. If one glances through Festus's glossary one can understand many things on it, many more than by reading many works of scholars.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ager

Problems in the entry on ager have still not been addressed. Take this sentence (please):

According to Varro, the ager Gabinus (of the oppidum of Gabii) was different from both the Roman and the peregrinus because they were different from each other in terms of the auspices allowed to a Roman magistrate standing on them quod auspicia habet singularia, ab aliquo discretus.

The Latin phrase is left untranslated; we've discussed this before, and it's simply contrary to WP policy on the use of languages other than English. The English portion of the sentence makes no sense: it seems to say something like "it was different because it was different."

Or this sentence:

The ager peregrinus was considered pacatus, "pacified" or brought under treaty, and so defined a pergendo, that is, progrediendo, "advancing forth from one's original position," implying it was not considered for augural purposes totally foreign: the two both allowed to some extent preserving the auspicia.

I get that ager peregrinus was territory that was brought under treaty (I'm not sure why we can't just say that, without muddying it up with pacatus), but then we hit "and so", implying that we're about to get some logical amplification. The a pergendo bit I take to be an etymological explanation (this is not made clear), but it comes across as Latin for the sake of Latin, and seems of incidental use to understanding the concept of ager. Why can't this read:

The ager peregrinus was territory that had been brought under treaty, and so for augural purposes was not considered entirely foreign.

I have no clue what "allowed to some extent preserving the auspicia" means. Preserving them from or for what? And what kind of limitation is implied by that very vague "to some extent"?

About Sicily: does this mean that except for Sicily, the ager Romanus could not be extended outside the Italian peninsula? Or does it mean that the ager Romanus could not be extended outside the Italian peninsula, not even to Sicily (that is, Sicily could also not become ager Romanus)? Cynwolfe (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You have a short memory. It is you the one who last edited this entry, I did not alter it. If you think it needs further clarifications I can write what I think on the topic (pl. refer to the above discussion). Ask a professor of Roman law to try and explain you the question of the partial preservation of the auspicia. The and so is a mistake, and should be deleted. Pacatus is an attribute of peregrinus. Sicily was excluded we already discussed this.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Your attitude is uncivil and uncalled for. I do remember our earlier discussion, and the edits you refer to are me trying to make sense of the entry, the problems of which have still not been addressed. As Elen, Haploidavey, and I have all said before, if editors who have some knowledge of the topic and regularly write about Roman religion don't understand what you're trying to say, the less-acquainted reader won't have a clue. Neither your knowledge nor mine is at issue; it's the syntactical and logical clarity of what's on the page. "To some extent" is simply vague in informational writing. My question about Sicily has to do with why Sicily is singled out for notice as beyond ager Romanus: why not say that Illyria was excluded, or the Balearic Islands? I'm trying to get at why Sicily is singled out for mention, whether this reflects some stated exemption somewhere in the Latin primary sources themselves, or what. Your English sentences are not always clear; we've all said there's no crime in that, but we need to make them clear if they're to be useful. And Latin passages, even two-word phrases, have to be translated, period. This is WP policy. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologise if I sounded unpolite. I think the question here is that my knowledge is limited, perhaps because the topic itself is impossible to clarify further. As you say you have access to a univ. library I suggest you to consult P. Catalano's Contributi allo studio del diritto augurale for further clues. Varro' s text says only these words : they are different because they ahve different kinds of auspices. In both the auspsice are retained to some extent. To know what it meant concretely one should have to collate the whole Roman history and look for what happened to magistrates when they were on these two agri.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

unsourced and linkless entries

There are a number of recent entries without any sources cited (or perhaps simply attributed to an ancient source without any passages cited or page numbers of editions); these entries also had no links to other articles or other entries. These include:

• auspicia privata
• lucus
• paludati
• pollucere
• porricere (evidently not porrigere)
• procuratio
• referri
• suscipere

If an entry has a main article and is just a short summary of that lead section, I think it may be OK not to source it, though the other article should probably be watched to make sure it doesn't change. Lucus has a woefully insufficient article. Some of these also raise the question of "notability," in the WP sense: will other articles (or even other Glossary entries) ever need to link to them? Cynwolfe (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall provide citations from sources, primary and secondary, OK.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The following is sourced, but doesn't meet notability requirements as presented:

Paludati. An adjective meaning armed and adorned. According to Veranius as cited by Festus [NOTE: Fest. p.291 n. 1 L] any military ornament was named paludamentum. The expression was to be found in the libri augurales. [NOTE: R. Del Ponte, "Documenti sacerdotali in Veranio e Granio Flacco" in Diritto e Storia 4, 2005.]

It's unclear to me why WP needs a definition of this word, since it appears nowhere else in the encyclopedia. Every single word that is thought to have appeared in one of the pontifical or augural books doesn't require an entry, especially since no context for usage is given: the word appears in non-religious contexts too. This is a matter of provisions pertaining to notability in list articles. The consensus among editors on this page is that entries need to be potentially useful to other articles; other articles should be linked to each entry. Before adding an entry, search WP to look for articles that can or should link to it. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

referri

Please rewrite the following entry for clarity and in light of WP:WIKIFY. Try to make the meaning of the word itself clear, and move some of the name-dropping to the footnotes so that the reader can follow it more easily:

The verb referri means to move to another date before the set one (dies prodicta) the holding of the comitia. Veranius in his Auspiciorum libri as cited by Festus states this is religiosus if done without the prevoius approval of the augurs. He also cites as an instance the decision of the censors L. Iulius Caesar and P. Licinius Crassus of holding before the prescribed date the comitia for the 66th lustratio (89 BC) which resulted in an outcome qualified as parum felix little fortunate, here an understatement. {NOTE: Fest. p. 366 L; R. Del Ponte"Documenti sacerdotali in Veranio e Granio Flacco" in Diritto e Storia 4, 2005.] Cynwolfe (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

clarity of citations

Once again I make a plea for clarity when citing sources. Here is what is currently footnote 191:

F. Sini Documenti sacerdotali di Roma antica I. Libri e commentari Sassari 1983 p. 22: S. Tondo Leges regiae e paricidas Firenze, 1973, p.20-21: R. Besnier "Le archives privees publiques et religieuses a' Rome au temps des rois" in Studi Albertario II Milano 1953 pp.1 ff: L. Bickel "Lehrbuch der Geschichte der roemischen Literatur" p. 303: G. J. Szemler The priests of the Roman Republic Bruxelles 1972

No punctuation separates the author's name from the title, nor the title from the publisher/place of publication. Page numbers are sometimes given, sometimes not. Elsewhere in citing ancient sources, abbreviations of both names and titles are used; this assumes that the reader already knows what the scholarly abbreviations are (these can vary).

There is a reference elsewhere to a de diis by Ausonius; the lengthy list of works by Ausonius in the WP article includes no such title. I happen to be interested in Ausonius and would like to look this up; since Ausonius was at least a nominal Christian, if a somewhat naughty one, a work called de diis would be, um, interesting.

New editors will make messes (I certainly did, and sometimes still get into fixes). But after several months of interacting with several editors who ask that certain standards be met for producing a clean article, it's expected that a contributor get with the program. It is common courtesy, as when flushing after using a shared facility, not to leave a mess for others. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Glossary content: criteria for inclusion

It seems we're still going the same slow, meandering and tortuous road. So, in support of Cynwolfe's observations above:

• I thought we'd agreed that the Glossary should function as a support for other articles. Unless an entry is linked from another article, I see no reason for it to be here at all. So can terms please not be added willy nilly?

• Appropos of which, why is Lex here at all? As far as I can see, no article on Roman religion deals specifically with the religious dimensions of lex. Nor of ius. I think they should, but surely that's the business of the articles Roman Law, Ius or better yet, as a subsection of another article as yet unwritten, Religious law in ancient Rome. I suspect that my dim, grumbling awareness of this makes my re-write of the entry fumblingly abstract, confused, turgid and most likely irrelevant to its sources. It drains me of all enthusiasm whenever I look at it.

• Can further content please not be added to any existing topic unless for the benefit of the reader? This is a wikipedia glossary, not a scholarly resource. For instance, do the most recent additions to indigitamenta help clarify the rtopic? Or is this just TMI? Just asking, really. TMI being something I tend to inflict on articles; I welcome its correction.

• Can we please find consensus to re-write some of these entries from scratch, using references to which we've access?

• Can undigested material please not simply be dumped in article space anywhere, under any topic whatsoever for others to deal with? The task of clean-up has already become overwhelming. At some point, any editor committed to adding content must commit to the discipline of representing raw research as lively, verifiable and readable prose. Editors can't expect others to do that on their behalf. Haploidavey (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree strongly on all points.

One minor (over-)refinement: since the entries are intended to be linked to from other articles, as per consensus above they should be treated to a reasonable extent as independent in the same way articles are. So if an entry can be linked to more than one other entry in the Glossary (for the purpose of amplifying certain terms), that should be OK. But yes, the entries should not represent all words that ever appear in technical connection with Roman religion.

Lex. I too would prefer that lex be lean: its etymological link to religio is highly pertinent, and then the connection between the laws of man and the laws of god in ancient Rome stated succinctly. There's also the concept of "augural law." What's wanting is lex sacra as an entry, or independent article. What roils the waters of leges sacrae is that the term is used most commonly for recorded leges sacrae of Greek religion. In addition, any specific laws that pertain directly to religion and that don't merit a separate article could go here, such as Lex Lucerina (if anyone has access to Bodel's article in American Journal of Ancient History on this, I'd love to get hold of it).

And last, permit me a shout. THIS IS ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA. That means:

• ALL quotations in other languages must be translated. And unless the exact words are important (because it's a two-word concept that requires a full sentence or more to 'translate' into English, or because the phrase is distinctive in some other way), just state it in English in the first place. Latin passages that say nothing more than "The Romans sacrificed a red dog for the Robigalia" don't need to be in there, since their content is easily conveyed in English. Use footnote space for longer passages that are open to interpretation and that Latin-readers would find illuminating.
• Use ENGLISH SOURCES when available. I'm grateful to those who can bring in material from other languages. I like to use French sources, particularly (as applies here) for Gallo-Roman religion. But when English sources are available (especially if they summarize sources originally published in other languages), it is absolutely necessary to use those first and foremost, and in addition. Please see WP:RSUE for the relevant policy. Note: This is a policy, not a suggestion. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:19, 9 September

2010 (UTC)

I can contribute what I know, not what I do not. To my knowledge there is no English scholarship that can help. But if you can find some e.g. on the subject of the religious value of word lex well please let me know. BTW the article on Roman law ( which I do intend to rewrite) has been edited probably by a Hungarian who has his bias... It may well be true it was founded on Etruscan law ...well...!

On indigitamenta I see my edits were reverted twice. I wish to point out that my aim was to show that they were not name lists of little act gods...as it seemed from the article. See also Latte p. 45-6 and 56 I quoted in my editing dii indigetes.

Dear Cynwolf, you must come to term with this fact: scholarship on Rome is in German, French, Italian and Dutch (in order of scientific value and relevance).Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, your edits weren't reverted, as 'revert' is the specific 'undo' action, not rewriting or editing. Please review WP:REVERT. Entries are being edited for readability and length, and to address the problems of tagged material, so some of your contributions may have been affected. I deleted some material I contributed as well. Second, the relevant policy on the use of non-English sources is WP:RSUE; please review it. This is not something I made up; I don't even necessarily approve of all the policies, but when you choose to contribute, you are agreeing to abide by them. Continuing to edit in deliberate disregard of policy that's been pointed out to you is considered disruptive editing: please review WP:DE. The English-language scholarship on Roman religion is abundant; it includes not only those scholars whose first language is English (and who often provide English summaries of the scholarship you use that was published in other languages), but also scholars who for various reasons choose to write in English, such as Solmsen and Momigliano, and several Dutch scholars. Some important scholarship has been translated into English; one source used often for the glossary is Schilling's work in Roman and European Mythologies. I don't know what you mean when you say it can't "help." The idea that there is no English scholarship of sufficient quality is absurd on its face, as it requires dismissing the work of Anglophone scholars en masse. Again, you need to read and follow WP:RSUE. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

'ritus graecia'?

Could 'ritus graecia' be checked as a phrase? Ritus is a masculine noun, and the adjective (as in ritus graecus) shouldn't have the i, which is however part of the noun Graecia, "Greece." So is this Graeciā, ablative, somehow? When I do an exact google search, my only results are from WP. I'm concerned we may be perpetrating an error here. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a straight error. John Scheid, "Graeco Ritu: A Typically Roman Way of Honoring the Gods", Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 97, Greece in Rome: Influence, Integration, Resistance (1995), pp. 15-31. The title speaks for itself. Scheid has on p. 10, "of the ritus Graecus"; "We do not even know what exactly a cult celebrated ritu Graeco is..."; No ritus graecia anywhere. I'll fix it. Oh, for a morsel of Latinity. Haploidavey (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Briefly

It has become really unpleasent for me writing on this talk page.

I never agreed to anything: I started the article with aim of listing and making known to readers relevant and/or peculiar concepts and words, naming it vocabulary. This after discussing the question with user Haploidavey.

Later this same person, under repeated appeals by user Cynwolf, deleted large part of what I had written and put forward the idea that the article should be a glossary listing (only) entries of which wiki has already an article that can be linked.

This was never my idea and I did never agree to it.

I think that such an article is useless if wiki has already a satisfactory entry on the same topic. But at the time it did not and this was the reason why I first thought of starting such an article.

I think the entries I add are all relevant and of interest to readers who wish to have a grasp of Roman religion at first hand or by direct contact as it were.

Readers can judge by themselves what is the attitude of these two editors here. They try and push forth and impose their view of what the article should or must be. I have different views. Words like lex, ius, indigitamenta, and also paludati, porrigere are all relevant and if one reads some Latin author one will find them often. On the primary meaning of lex: it meant simply a set binding formula: read e.g. Varro LL V on the original of Capitolium as Saturnium: "this name still can be read on the hind wall of private houses behind the temple of Saturn privata lege".

I am also getting tired of all this endless talk, a dialogue among deaf.

My edits on indigitamenta were deleted twice while they were extremely to the point: for an identical view cf. James Hastings Encycl. of Religion and Ethics s.v. Part 13 online. Also Latte, as I wrote above, is on the same line: i.e. these were not only lists of small act gods, but included major deities as Iuno (Covella). If someone here cannot understand the point I think he is cannot claim to be competent.

Last but not least: there are many articles on wiki.en on Roman topics that are below standards or even totally unreferenced: why do these editors keep harassing me instead of looking at much bigger problems elsewhere?

Let alone patronising and offensive hints.

I think readers must have already formed their opinions and would agree there is no need for me to keep writing on this page. Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel patronized and offended. The problem may be that you "never agreed to anything." If you have read WP:RSUE, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:LENGTH, WP:LSC, WP:Page numbers and WP:WIKIFY (all of which have been invoked here variously) and find that they have been misapplied to your contributions, you should defend your edits on that basis. But your contributions are not exempt from following WP policies and guidelines. No one doubts your knowledge of the subject matter, but it often doesn't transform into material that's well-edited and readable by Anglophone users of an encyclopedia aimed at non-specialists. It's as simple as that. Anyone can edit WP, but content is regulated by these and other policies and guidelines. I've tried to show you how to make your contributions to WP usable, and I'm certainly not harassing you. I agree that there are many articles on Roman topics that need improvement, and I generally make at least small edits to several every week. I have nearly a thousand articles on my watchlist, the majority of them relating to ancient Rome. The Glossary has proved to be a very useful article, but it is not aimed primarily at people reading Latin texts: it's aimed at people reading in English who encounter Latin terms they'd like to have explained. Some entries are worth developing into independent articles, but this article has been structured like similar WP glossaries of religion (except that the individual entries are already longer than most of those). See also Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. This Glossary complements the two main articles on Roman religion, Religion in ancient Rome and Imperial cult (ancient Rome), both of which cover the four epochs of Roman history (Regal, Republican, Imperial, Christian). You have been encouraged repeatedly to write an article called Archaic Roman religion in order to focus exclusively on your interests or if you feel overly confined by the list format. I'm not sure what it is you want. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

'leges sacratae' v. 'leges sacrae'

I'm not clear how these ought to be distinguished in translation. Leges sacratae (not translated in the article) may be a term more specific to Roman laws with a religious sanction? It seems to occur primarily in a Roman context in the scholarship, whereas leges sacrae turns up just as often, or more often, in a Greek context or later a Christian context. CAH translates "hallowed laws," which seems not right to me — but this may have to do with my sense of what "hallowed" means, as leges sacratae have to do with laws that if violated render a man sacer in the bad sense of homo sacer, that is, condemned, with a loss of caput in some sense? Whereas leges sacrae have to do with "laws" or regulations pertaining to cult observance, that is, religious laws. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Berger's dictionary confirms leges sacratae as pertaining to the homo sacer, and spares us any troublesome reference to "hallowed laws". Likewise Pound's Jurisprudence. Haploidavey (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Indigitmamenta

I made a a google search on the topic since other editors accuse me of using scholarship not written in English.

I found only three scholarly works:

1. an entry in the Encyclop. of Rel. and Ethics by J. Hastings Part 13: very good article in English written by G. Wissowa (BTW he says exactly the same things I wrote and were deleted).

2. Michael Lipka 's book on Roman relig. has half a page devoted to the subject, in which he says they were first established by Numa!!!

3. A recent book (2005) in Italian by M. Perfigli, which has received a rather positive review by Lindsay Driediger of Oxford Univ. While she too acknowledges they were not limited to act gods she mainly focuses on the analysis of these, it seems from the review.

I usually when I find something wrong (or imprecise or deficient) I let it know to the editor directly on his talk page or I leave a brief note on the talk page of the article.

I sent many messages to the persons who criticise my edits concerning problems in their articles but they have not heeded them or even ignored them entirely.

How can there be double standards? If someone writes something wrong, say, on Robigo he/she can get off with it, even if I made my remark.

On the other hand I am required to listen and to follow the directions of others. Is not this absurd?Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. There are more than three English sources available online for indigitamenta, but these would probably not come up unless you spell the word correctly (see subhead). It is not absurd to ask you to follow the same WP policies and guidelines that apply to everyone else's contributions. You have still given no indication that you've read any of the links above explaining how content must be formatted and verified. You're still arguing about the quality of your knowledge, which is not at issue. I don't know how else to say it. It isn't a matter of whether you know your stuff; WP has rules about how content must be verified within the article space and how it should be formatted. There are also guidelines particular to list articles. Again, anyone is welcome to edit, but the content of articles is regulated by policies and guidelines. I've had no hand in their creation, don't agree with some of them, but try my best to follow them. Have you read them, and do you agree to follow them, or not? And you might want to add the essay WP:DRAMA to your review of how to edit WP, as you are creating an environment that could be considered disruptive. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I spelt the word correctly then. Yes there is another work, i.e. the one I used!

The article on J. Hasting's Encyclopedia is written by G. Wissowa and I invite readers to refer to it. You cannot claim I did not read these Wiki pages, I did read them. I am not disrupting anything neither I am making drama. Simply it cannot stand by any rules or means that my edits are deleted and others feel free to write what they want. And ignore my polite messages on the deficiency or mistakes here or in other articles.

However I edit wiki for my leisure and I do not want to look like a Don Quixote: I have better things to do than keeping arguing with a certain person. Readers will note that my observations and suggestions are ignored, while my edits (supported by Wissowa's article) are deleted. No further comments. Is this disrupting? I shall devote my time to other articles and I do hope this person will stop harassing me.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you've read the WP links above, great. You should be able to defend your contributions on that basis. Other editors are not obliged to act as your secretary. Your citations are sometimes incomplete (often without page numbers), making it hard and time-consuming to track them down. For instance, one citation you've provided is "F.Sini cit. p. 110" (this is currently note 164); here we have a page number, but where's the rest of it? On the talk page, it's helpful when you provide a source that's available online to link to it. Otherwise, I'm not going to jump in my car, drive to the library, pay for parking, and track down your sources so I can add the material you want added. If there are errors, correct them.

The issue with indigitamenta was length of entry and organization within the entry. Some of the material you added simply restated points already made; it was redundant. Numa was already there, as was Lipka — I think I was the one who cited Lipka in the first place. I cut some of the examples, including some material I'd put in myself, which should indicate that I'm not 'harassing' you — I'm trying to clarify and simplify the entry as a whole. I didn't think your list of invocations made the meaning of indigitamenta any clearer (nor did Haploidavey); it just raised further questions that the glossary entry didn't address. Sometimes you have to summarize, and not just throw in every note you took on the subject. Your addition "indigitations were in fact a way of making the gods present with their own power through the magic force of a formula" is perfectly fine as a statement (except that "in fact" expresses a POV, because it asserts the exclusive validity of one position when scholars disagree) — but the entry already said that. The entry reads: "If formulas of invocation, the indigitamenta were probably precationum carmina, chants or hymns of address. A further point of uncertainty is whether these names represent distinct entities, or epithets pertaining to an aspect of a deity's sphere of influence, that is, an indigitation, or name intended to fix the local action of the god so invoked. The indigitamenta might thus be described as 'significant names which bespoke a specialized divine function'." How did your sentence add any information to that, other than a problematic use of the word 'magic' that predates the huge amount of work done the last couple of decades examining 'magic' in relation to private and public religious practice? I'm happy to restore your excellent citation from Paulus, and if you had integrated it into the existing entry at the point where it's relevant, it wouldn't have been deleted in the first place. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As usual you ignore the main points in question. Please do read Wissowa's article and meditate it! (BTW it is quotable here as it is in English: in J. Hastings's Encyclopedia). The main point in my addition was that from what you wrote it looked the I. are lytanies of little gods, which is wrong and is the main point of Wissowa's article too, by chance. He gives the same instances as my source plus two other : Genius in Censorinus and Numeria in Nonnius. Latte also includes Iuno Covella and others.

I made it clear that Robigo seems to have no connection to Mars and one of your authorities, a certain Buttress, did not read Ovid as he says the flamen involved is the martialis instead of the quirinalis. As for Lipka I mentioned him since I find his few lines to be a good example of irrelevant assertions: who doubts they were established by Numa and were used by the pontifices?

On the topic I find the bibliography given by L. Driediger in his review of Perfogli's book useful: cf. Bevilacqua (1988 Invigilata Lucernis 10: 21-33)'s assertion that they were meant to point out, i.e. designating with precision (old etymology proposed by Krestchmer from digitus). Driediger also expounds Wissowa 's view against the Sondergoetter interpretation.

As for Sini's and other faulty quotes I shall supply all the info: however you need not drive anywhere. Everything is online, just google his name or Diritto e Storia.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The material I provide for the glossary is sourced, and while I appreciate your sharing your bibliography, I'm not obliged to do the work at your behest. You don't seem to see that I'm not arguing with you about content. I'm trying to explain how content must be formatted, and how to present it for use (a) in an encyclopedia intended for general readers, not specialists; and (b) a list article on Wikipedia. If you're trying to clarify or correct how the entry's worded, suggest ways to state the point more clearly, or make those revisions yourself. But the aim is to achieve clarity and direct expression of the idea, not amass details for the reader to puzzle through. The entry states that there are two points of scholarly interpretation as to what indigitamenta meant in usage: the texts (and whether these were lists of names or prayer formularies, or whether there's really much difference, given the prolixity of invocational practice), or the names themselves (as name, an indigitamentum could be the epithet of a god, to "fix" the specific action desired for the occasion, or it could be that the indigitamenta were these minor gods as catalogued and mocked by the Church Fathers, that is, independent little deities). If you have reviewed WP:NPOV and other policies and guidelines, you know that it is not the job of WP to determine which of these interpretations is correct: it's quite beside the point whether you or I might think that an indigitation was an epithet or a separate minor god. Our job is to represent all significant views as present in the scholarship, with sufficient references. It isn't our job to pronounce which is correct. I'm not sure whether this is the sticking point here in our frequent conflicts, but I'm at a loss at the moment to figure out where the problem lies. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed I think every point of view of reputed scholars should be given, and this is exactly what I did with my addition, which happens to be supported by the views of Georg Wissowa. The issue is clearly expounded in his article which I invite you to read for the 3rd time: it is online and will take you 2 minutes.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still unclear as to what you think the entry omits in explaining what the indigitamenta are. In the body of the article, we don't list every single scholar's statement on a given subject, and their detailed technical arguments; a Wikipedia article is not a master's thesis, nor a bibliographical review of the scholarship. We provide digested information and summarize what the scholarly questions are. A list article in particular has length constraints. If you feel that Wissowa should be present in the entry, and that his explanation of indigitamenta isn't covered, then please add a sentence or two summarizing his views and how they're different from what's stated here (keeping in mind that it isn't your job to choose which scholarly interpretation you personally think is correct). However, the sources summarized and cited here themselves worked with or against Wissowa, so this may be a matter of noting Wissowa as their starting point in a footnote. The history of the scholarship on a topic sometimes has a place in an independent article; this is only a glossary of terms, like other glossaries of religion on Wikipedia. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)