Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

ager gabinus

Dionysius IV 58, 3-4 probably gives the correct answer for its segregation from the peregrinus in augural law. This is OR though, unless backed by some scholarship, e.g. Catalano's essay on ANRW 1972. I cite by memory I can be wrong.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Commentari augurales and libri reconditi

I see someone has added the mentions of the libri reconditi here. I do not object to the mentioning of these books in the article even though a vast majority of scholars considers them as belonging to Etruscan religion and being written in Etruscan.

However I cannot add a specification here under the entry commentari augurales as it would look ridicolous: we are talking of commentari and not of libri. Could the person involved please remove the mention here and place it in the right place (Libri augurales)? Thank you.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Linderski argues that libri reconditi is not a technical term for a specific collection of books. He examines the three passages in which the phrase occurs. Here he reviews the scholarship:

What then was the occultum genus litterarum? In their pursuit of neat order some nineteenth-century scholars postulated the existence of two distinct collections of sacerdotal documents, the libri and the commentarii. This view seems to go back at least to J. A. Ambrosch, the founder of modern studies in Roman religion, and B. G. Niebuhr, the founder of modern studies in Roman history. The libri would contain general rules and precepts of the ius sacrum, texts of the formulae, and various instructions concerning the performance of religious acts. They would form the "interior" and original core of priestly archives. The commentarii, on the other hand, would incorporate the results of sacerdotal interpretive activity, the responsa and decreta. But these scholars sought order where there was none; they disregarded the vagaries of Roman terminology. It was Ambrosch's successor in Breslau, A. Reifferscheidt, who in his university lectures attacked this simplistic view. Two of his pupils, P. Preibisch, and above all, P. Regell, provided a detailed refutation of the theory of Ambrosch and Niebuhr. They demonstrated that there was no difference between the libri and commentarii: the two terms were used interchangeably. This new interpretation was endorsed by Wissowa and extensively corroborated by Rhode; now it forms the communis opinio.

… If our guide is not opaque terminology but rather the form and purpose of sacerdotal documents, a lucid classification emerges: a division into those documents which were destined for the internal use of a priestly college and those which were destined for the external use. The latter category comprised above all responsa and edicta. The responsa were of two kinds: the official responsa of a college, which can also be classified as decreta, and the responsa of individual pontiffs or augurs. As both the collective and individual responsa were based on, and derived from, the "internal" documents, they offer us good insight into various tenets of the doctrine. The decreta were certainly preserved in priestly archives, but this will hardly have been the case with the "replies" of individual priests. In sharp contrast to the decreta they were not binding explications of the doctrine but merely opinions … . Most of them were given orally and were never committed to writing; a few became famous and found their way into various antiquarian books de iure sacrorum, de iure pontificio, de iure augurali, and other similar works. The authors of some of these treatises were priests: this is of importance, for as they had unlimited access to the documents closed to others, their works formed the major source of ancient knowledge about sacra and auspicia.

For Linderski, Cicero's De domo is central, and the two Servii somewhat problematic. However, De domo is fraught with rhetorical pitfalls because of its purpose, and so indirection sometimes prevails. Linderski notes that "Toward the end of the republic this Etruscan doctrine was making headway even into the College of Augurs: Appius Claudius Pulcher believed that the task of the disciplina auguralis was to discover in divine signs the praesensio … veritatis futurae." That is, contrary to augural tradition in which foretelling the future was not the aim, by the time of Cicero, who drew on Appius's arcane studies, the syncretism characteristic of the later empire was starting to occur. Linderski demonstrates that Regell and Thulin were wrong in thinking that the libri reconditi were only and distinctly the books of the haruspices, asserting that:

Thus Etruscan lore was indeed contained in the libri reconditi. Yet it is neither obvious nor necessary to assume that there ever existed a category of Etruscan books technically called libri reconditi. For what is the import of the enunciations of Servius auctus: "in libris reconditis lectum esse" and "hoc scriptum in reconditis invenitur"? Either the libri reconditi lived up to their name and in that case they can hardly have been consulted by a Vergilian commentator or they were reconditi in name only. Judging by the two passages of Servius auctus they treated of abstruse matters but hardly secret.

Linderski sees Serenus Sammonicus and Nigidius Figulus, who "mixed freely the Etruscan and augural elements" as sources for Servius auctus. Linderski concludes (I think; his goal is not to overdraw conclusions) that libri reconditi is a generic term for arcane literature on priestly subjects: "Thus in whichever direction we turn we are confronted with layer upon layer of antiquarian tradition. And when the libri reconditi seem at last to be within our reach they reveal themselves as another late and confused compilation."

At any rate, I think I agree with you more than you may realize. I see the problem as follows: there is every reason to regard the terminology as confused, and the neat divisions of the great 19th-century scholars as overly schematic. We've seen this with Wissowa's sharp dichotomy of indigetes and novensiles, which is simply not posed as such in the ancient literature. The material on libri and commentarii is not lending itself to a glossary format for individual terms such as libri pontificales, but rather to an overview of priestly literature. I've been mulling over solutions; do you have any suggestions? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I read Linderski's article and of course his views can be considered to represent a scholarly position on the issue libri and commentari: I think he is wrong on holding the view the two were not distinct, however this view is shared by many scholars. His article is too onesided and too short. Sini has written a book of more than 200 pages to prove, with detailed analyses of the primary sources, that almost in every instance they give us reasons to preserve the distinction, even in the cases that are usually invoked by holders of the opposite view. E.g. the passage I just edited from Livy IV 3, 9 which is often used to disprove the reality of the distinction, if attentively analysed gives on the contrary a confirmation of it: the plebeians were excluded from the knowledge of the commentari, this word being used not in a generic sense but in a technical one since in the words of Canuleius they are contrasted to the fasti. Though the tribune does not want to make a distinction on purpose, his words betray that in the Roman mind it was very clear. Livy is also a good source that points implicitly to the more recent charachter of the annales as compared to the commentari too: VI 1, 2.

Varro employs the word commentari in their technical sense in a famous passage of LL (VI 88) taken from the commentari consulares on the convocation of the comitia centuriata by the consul.

Another point is the obscurity of the commentari, reflecting the sacerdotal quasi-maniacal pursuit of technicality and secrecy as opposed to the antiquity of the libri (Cic. De oratore I 19: "plurima antiquitatis effigies...vetustas prisca..."; Varro "terra written with r uno").

The topic is a matter of which I think readers should get an idea here.

On the specific point of the libri reconditi I already expressed my view and quoted the bibliography before: Mueller, Bouche'-Leclercq, Regell, Thulin, Catalano, Pfiffig are all contra the assimilation of the l. reconditi and augurales. No matter what they were called by Etruscans and whether they were really secret or not, they were, originally at least, written in Etruscan.

You did a good job in editing lex with my original material, thank you.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Haploidavey deserves credit for editing lex. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I must add for the sake of faithfulness to the author and for completeness of the information of readers, that perhaps the main argument provided by Sini, at least in the view of the author, supporting a distinction between libri and commentari is epigraphic evidence:

Inscriptions that mention libri or commentari:

CIL VI 2104 a 4: ...[detulit Primus Corn]elianus publicus a comm(entariis) [fratrum arvalium];

CILVI 2104 b 30: Primus Corne[lianus pub]l(icus) [a c]omm(entariis) fratr(um) arv(alium);

CIL VI 2195 b: Ti. Claudius Natalis a libris pontifical(ibus);

Cil Vi 2312: Dis Manibus Myrini Domitiani publici a commentaris XVvir(um) s(acris) f(aciundis) Arruntia Doliche fecit coniugi carissimo;

CIL Vi 2319 b: ...lianus Flavianus a comme[ntariis sa]cerdoti VIIvirum epulonu(m).

This suffices to prove that til into the imperial age there was a clear difference made, at least in terminology, between documents named libri and other named commentarii. This evidence is even more striking as the epigrphic material refers to the nomen offici of the mentioned charachters.

Other evidence concerning libri is not connected to sacrdotal documents but it is supporting the existence of official documents thus named that normally referred to compilations such as registers or lists:

Tabula Heracleensis containing probably the lex Iulia Municipalis on the census outside Rome:

CIL I 2 2nd: ...censum aget finem populi censendi faciant eos adeant librosque eius municipi coloniae praefecturae...adierunt eos libros census quei abieis legateis dabuntur accipito sine dolo malo exque ieis libreis quae ibei scripta erunt in tabulas publicas...

This assumption is confirmed by by two later inscriptions on which are related official acts of the emperor and the senate and that mention a liber libellorum rescriptorum and of a liber sententiarum in senatu dictarum:

CIL3 12336: Bona Fortuna. Fulvio Pio et Proculo cns XVII Kal Ian descriptum et recognitum factum ex libro libellorum rescriptorum a domino n imp Caes M. Antonio Gordiano Pio Felice Aug.

CIL 8 23246: Senatus consultum de nundinis saltus Beguensis in Territorio Canensi, descriptum et recognitum ex libro sententiarum in senatu dictarum...

Clearly these were registers of the senatus consulta and the text of the requests to the emperor and the related rescript.

These documents point to the interpretation that the libri contained lists, a parallel to the info we have from Varro on the indigitamenta contained in the libri of the pointiffs.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Another relevant inscription provides another term libellus contained in passage of the acta fratrum Arvalium in which it is said the brethren resorted to these libelli to recite the formula of the carmen:

CIL 6 2104, 31-38: Aedes clausa est. Omnes foris exierunt. Ibi sacerdotes clusi, succincti, libellis acceptis carmen descindentes tripodiaverunt...Post tripodiationem deinde signo dato publici introierunt et libellos receperunt.

This passage is important support to the thesis that in the archive of the sodalitas were preserved ancient texts of formulae, prayers and ritual rules, collected in documents named libri: here libelli, small libri for practical purposes.

Liber has as its first meaning that of akind of support for writing: from the inner bark of a tree: this etymology hints to their antiquity and could easily be related to contents such ancient carmina and formulae of invocation. Later o.c. it took up a generic meaning.

This point established, what was then the meaning of commentari? It is well known that in Latin literature the genre of the commentari owes its original name to the documents of the sacerdotal archives that were devoted to a more speculative activity of interpretation and stress the content and the aim of the work, with no attention paid to the writing support. This is proof of their more recent charachter. Naturally they must have been present almost since the beginning as in them was collected the speculative and normative activity of the colleges. Thence the relationship between libri and commentari was that among a canon of sacred texts and a code for its practical usage, i.e. explicative documents. This interpretation is supported by tradition: Livy I 31,8 first names the commentari Numae (not possessive but definitive genitive) when he relates the death of king Tullus H. and then when again in I 32, 2 when he relates the decision of king Ancus M. of exposing in public the commentari. These probably and plausibly were not the libri but texts containing their interpretation/explanation for practical use. Thus they were named commentari by Livy.

In conclusion my impressionis that one can safely assume they were distinct, of course it cannot be that the coomentari were simply a collection of decreta and responsa. But they must have included them, i.e. those of public import.

On the issue of mutual influence between Latin and Etruscans and Etruscomania in Rome since the late republic I think this is a big topic. There is now a new coolective book edited by L. Bonfante, Etruria and Rome.

Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, you can operate on these assumptions in furthering your own knowledge of the subject, but please remember that our job here is to summarize scholarly views, and in fact all scholars don't draw the same conclusions. Linderski is used to excess here by me because he's the leading English-language source, and regularly referenced by others. It isn't our job as WP editors to say he's wrong; we have to say things like "Although Sini maintains that libri and commentarii are to be distinguished strictly, Linderski argues that the usage of these words in ancient sources yadda yadda." Cynwolfe (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course the opinion, reasons and conclusions of any reputed scholar is to be presented objectively.

As far as the topic is concerned: I think that since libri and commentari included also those of every other collegia, and there are fragments extant of the libri saliorum, of the comm. XVvirorum, fratrum Arvalium and septemviri Epulomum one could create two single entries under which discuss the topic.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

nefas

OK, I'm stumped here:

Livy records patrician objections to the election of a plebeian consul on the grounds of lack of religious knowledge as nefas in the words of tribunus plebis Canuleius, in the early times of the republic, to which he retorted by holding the patricians responsible.

Presumably this mean "Livy records patrician objections to the election of a plebeian consul as nefas on grounds of religious knowledge" etc. I don't know what the last phrase means: does it mean that the patricians objected that a plebeian didn't possess the religious knowledge as was passed down through the patrician generations? Or does it mean that the patricians claimed to possess a specific knowledge of religious law that forbade a plebeian to become consul? I don't know what to do with Canuleius (calling him "plebeian tribune" or "tribune of the plebs will do in English), and his retort, either. (I deleted everything after nefas pending clarification.) Cynwolfe (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The first interpretation is correct: do you remember catch 22? It was the same situation: the patricians held having a plebeian as consul would be nefas as he would lack the required religious lore. The tribune retorts this is due to the secrecy of such lore enforced by patrician priests.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Quite clear now. Good example of Catch 22. Cynwolfe (talk)

Actually, which of the nuances of nefas is the patrician/plebeian debate an example of, do you think? Now that I see why we're dealing with Canuleius here, it all makes perfect sense, but not as an example to follow the homo sacer passage. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that this is based on my original edit but is not as/how I wrote it: thus as it stands now there is not clear logical consequence. Simply this is an instance of the use of nefas i.e. the religiuosly uncorrect in political struggle.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

auspicia privata

Please make sure I haven't misunderstood the sentence that depended on the regalia exta entry in Festus. The original sentence was "Such techniques implied a transposition to the private sphere of the interpretations: e.g. Festus sv. regalia exta writes to privates they would mean inhereting." English needs for "private" to modify something here, as there are only two uses of "private" as a noun in English, and I don't think either one is meant. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I did some editing: the meaning however is that what would mean a highly favourable auspice to a king or magistrate means the coming of a heredity to private people.Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this still doesn't make sense in English: Regalia exta would mean an heredity. I don't know what to make of it, as it isn't how I'm reading Festus. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

...humilioribus heredidates... is nothing to do with 'a heredity' or 'privates' (any meaning thereof). It means '...to those of lowly birth...' quae is applicable to both parts of the sentence, appellebant from appello - speaks to (not writes to), quae...to that with which they are concerned. So the regalia exta addresses to the powerful, the promise of unexpected (promotion to) high office, and to those of lowly birth, a baby boy (born to) the head of the house. What he is saying is that this is an augury that always portends something good, but according to station. The patrician hopes for high office, the poor man desires a son to carry on the family name.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the privates in the presence of exta were distracting. Thought Mutunus had wandered in. The "according to station" is good. I think this problematic little entry of Festus's raises more questions than we can reasonably answer, whatever its probative value for auspicia privata, and probably needs to be relegated to a footnote at best. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait. After Elen's edit, the only question that remains is regalia — why they are "regal" exta. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

'regaliter' - splendidly. They are the 'splendid exta'. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I have to contradict you both, Festus is clear: ...humilioribus hereditates.. means exactly that to them (the lowly or poor) the regalia exta portend the inheriting of a fortune.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Aldrasto. I'm sure your Latin to Italian is good, but you are suffering because you are not rendering it into English intelligibly. Its a while since I've done a Latin translation - incidentally, if there isn't a published translation, any attempt to interpret the meaning by translation is probably Original research, and we should really not be translating these things ourselves. I have tracked down an online copy of Savanger's French translation here (scroll down) which is REGALIA EXTA. On nomme ainsi les entrailles des victimes, qui annoncent aux puissants un honneur inespéré, aux petits des successions, au fils de famille les droits de maître. I know his translation is not these days viewed as 100%, but If we want to use this, we can ask on the translations page for a french translator rather than using a machine translation (unless one of you guys is fluent in French).Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think my point would be this: the passage is adduced to show that auspicia privata existed, and that they were auspices taken for guidance on important matters. The precise interpretation of regalia exta doesn't really affect that. I think it needs to go in a footnote along with the secondary source that cited it. It's implied here and here that it's a technical term for a certain configuration of entrails. If the phrase needs to be explicated in the Glossary, it goes under exta or in its own entry.

About translation, Elen: this is a point that vexes me. WP policy seems inconsistent on this. I'm allowed to use scholarship in other languages, and am told that an English translation should be provided as needed; however, if I'm using, say, a French source, it's because (according to WP policy) no English source is available. Now, if I'm using a passage from a Latin author who lacks a good modern translation, why would it be OR for me to provide my own translation, based on my knowledge of Latin, the explanations of commentaries, and the old-fashioned translations, but OK for me to translate a contemporary French scholar aided only by a dictionary and my own mediocre ability to read it? This makes no sense to me. My Latin translation, written in what is intended to be clear modern English, can be checked against some misleading musty Victorian's who had to avert his eyes from irrumator, say, or who used English words that have changed in meaning or who translated Latin concepts or institutions as equivalents in his own time that are no longer applicable. As an aspect of WP:V, this is where (to my mind) WP has gone astray, because the original idea was that you had to cite information likely to challenged, not a perfectly innocuous translation. Now people demand citations for anything and everything: for instance, the statement "Orpheus is an important figure in Greek myth" evidently requires the support of no fewer than eight footnotes. Eight, all lined up in a row to disrupt the smooth reading of the article's beginning, to support a statement that no one who had the slightest knowledge of Greek mythology or Orpheus would dream of challenging. End of digressive rant here. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I based my first editing on Dumezil's own translation (as translated into Italian). Then I read the original on the link provided: humilioribus hereditates: hereditas means what one inherits from a deceased, you can check on OLD or any other LE dictionary. Having a son would be heres/heredis. Succession in French too means to inherit, get an inheritance.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, hereditas is the abstract "inheritance," heres, heredis the person who inherits, the heir. My point is that this passage raises its own questions; it's positive evidence no matter how you interpret it for the existence of auspices that were privata as distinguished from publica, but beyond that I don't think it needs to be discussed under the entry auspicia privata. It goes under either exta or its own entry regalia exta, I think. Do you see what I mean? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ius

There is a sign asking to improve citation style: I am baffled, what do you want concretely? Are the citations here considered insufficient?

Please consider that, here as almost everywhere, I have to the deal with the remains of Cromwell.

Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this has mostly been addressed now with fuller information. We should avoid abbreviating the names of authors and their works whenever possible, because abbreviations assume that the reader already knows the full name. Sometimes titles vary; if you use the abbreviation of a title that happens not to be the one used in the WP article, this becomes an obstacle to the reader. Abbreviations may be conventional among professional scholars, but at WP providing full names is one of the things we do to help people just learning about a subject. Also, providing the full name helps editors who may be looking for articles that mention a particular work, because they've added an article on the work and may be looking for articles to link to it. You should go ahead and remove the tag, if the full info is now given and the full names and titles spelled out. Good luck in dealing with the remains of Cromwell. :) Cynwolfe (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Indigitamenta

I discovered that my last edit was once more deleted and the info reinterpreted in a way that fits the views of another editor. I find this behaviour unacceptable. I invite the person in question to restore my last edit, which is fully quoted and aims to make an important point on the topic. And BTW is supported by mainstream scholarly views including G.Wissowa. On this point he is still the last word.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The interpretation of Robigo as an indigitation of Mars lacks any serious scientific backing. I invite the editor who wrote the passage to deal with the problem other I shall delete the passage altogether. BTW nobody, not even the ignorant scholar Buttress has ever said this.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea who this Buttress person is you keep talking about. This is from Fowler.[1] I hold no opinion as to what's correct. Scholars don't agree as to whether the indigitamenta are epithets, that is, "indigitations" of major gods, or are minor deities as catalogued and mocked in patristic literature. Scholars also don't agree as to whether indigitamenta (when referred to in regard to priestly texts) are simple lists or prayer formulas of invocation, or whether there's much of a distinction, given the importance of complete naming in invocations. You have a view of which of these is correct, but WP does not exist to resolve scholarly debates. I might've thought you'd be a little more cautious about asserting that your writing is clear and accurate, after the "privates" gaffe above. You no doubt know quite well what you're trying to say, but that doesn't mean that when you express it in English prose, it says what you intend it to, as privati are most certainly not "privates." When you write a sentence like "On the above grounds it is therefore possible to explain and understand Ulpian's definition of ius that divides the ius publicum in the three parts," you're demonstrating that you don't get the difference between doing scholarship and writing an article for WP. The language "it is therefore possible to explain and understand" is how you frame the presentation of what WP considered OR. Yes, it is possible, but you're supposed to be summarizing statements from scholars, not presenting your own synthesis and argument. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It is my habit to discuss a topic under its own heading and not to stray from it. If you have objections concerning other entries I edited please start a new section. My point here is very clear: the indigitamenta, never mind what they were and how we may be able to define them, concerned the whole range of Roman deities and were not restricted to minor gods (i.e. act gods or Sondergoetter). This point has been coclusively proved by Georg Wissowa and his arguments are presented in the entry of the Encyclpopedia of Religion and Ethics edited by John Hastings, from which I quoted. The name of that scholar is Burriss: I wrote perhaps 3 times to you here or another talk page (flamen Martialis) as well as your personal talk page that this person did not read Ovid's Fasti as he/she says that the flamen officiating at the Robigalia is the Martialis while Ovid says it is the Quirinalis: thus this person is unquotable. On personal attacks I leave it to other readers to judge by themselves: since I started editing my first article flamen quirinalis I made it clear my English is far from perfect and I welcome other editors to correct my mistakes. It would not be difficult for the honestly sympathetic reader to understand that in that contexts privates means private people/citizens. And for that I do not feel I made any gaffe. Again I shall leave it to readers to judge by themselves who here and also in that particular instance (auspicia privata) made gaffes. Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted my comment as irrelevant to topic and will merely observe that Cynwolfe has made no personal attacks in her post above. Haploidavey (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the only thing I've ever done to flamen Martialis is place the "Priesthoods of ancient Rome" template on the page (I didn't even read the article), I'm confused about what this has to do with the indigitamenta entry anyway. I didn't mean to belabor the point about any specific infelicity of usage, but rather it was my intention to suggest that an editor can't insist that what he writes is perfectly clear, while making such errors and (to be fair) even acknowledging that the English might not be up to par. This is something we can work with, but not if Aldrasto insists that what he writes is self-evident, and that his sources, which are good and valuable, must exclude other scholarship that takes a different view. We're presenting the views, not deciding which is correct. When it comes to explaining two-thousand-year-old religious practices, there's very little that can be asserted beyond a doubt. The entry doesn't assert that indigitamenta were "act gods"; it states that this has been one scholarly interpretation of who they are. It also says indigitamenta have been interpreted as epithets of major deities. I'm not seeing the problem here, in terms of carrying out WP policy. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Paludati and referri

These two entries have been deleted even if relevant and fully quoted.

Such behaviour is unacceptable and only reflects the ignorance on the topics of the concerned person. They are highly pertinent/relevant words in R. Rel.: paludati with the augural law concerning the military mores and referri to the dispositions on religious matters and augural supervision on them.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So much so that wikipedia has a page on the topic of paludamentum.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Again you miss the point, which is that WP doesn't exist so you can have a place to display your research. Did you cite an English source for either paludati or referri (see WP:RSUE)? How is the user of English WP likely to encounter this term? In the case of paludati, did you link to the article paludamentum? Did you establish the notability of the term as it pertains to a glossary on religion, other than to say that it appeared in the augural books? We already said that the Glossary can't simply list every word found in priestly literature in a specialized or technical sense (see WP:LENGTH and WP:LSC, for instance).

As for the entry referri, to what article or glossary entries did it link, if it's such an essential term? How is it notable? Moreover, the entry needed editing. Could the meaning be clearer if some material were moved to footnotes (did the body of the entry really need to say "Veranius in his Auspiciorum libri as cited by Festus")? There were at least five untranslated Latin terms (see again WP:RSUE), some of which could be linked to their respective articles (comitia, lustratio). The illustrative value of the 89 BC example was not made explicit, and the syntax of the first sentence was either defective or unclear. You complain when others edit your material, and yet you leave such things for others to edit. You can't have it both ways. Either study the formatting and presentation of WP articles rated as FA and do likewise, or expect that others will do the copyediting. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's occurred to me that the so-called Salian virgins mentioned by Festus performed their rites paludatae; that would be both a point of religious interest, and would provide a link from this entry to another article. I'll also provide English-language sources. It would spare us all a lot of grief if you would do this for each entry as you contribute it: link to other articles and entries, and find English sources to supplement any others you have. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I am asked to be brief and I had been. I may have been too short and failed to elaborate. Paludati has an important religious meaning as the soldiers had to attend the ceremony of the sacramentum and taking of the auspices paludati before leaving Rome: an augural requirement. On the importance of military dress there is certainly a vast literature of which I am aware only in French (e.g. D. Briquel). But I suppose wiki.en has much in the Roman military section.

Referri too has to do with augural prerogatives and in the instance given between them and the auspices of the censors.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Fas and nefas

There is somebody who keeps editing these entries according to his/her personal views although already discussed and agreed on. In the case of nefas with no backing from any source: this person is kindly asked to delete or correct the errors and the creative interpretations. If he/she shall not comply I shall edit away what is groundless and wrong. In the case of fas I shall restore former agreed text as lastly edited by Haploidavey.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I must insist that the person who made these last edits tries and improve his/her knowledge of the meaning of these words using whatever material he /she wishes. On this page these issues have been discussed at length and exhaustively: one just needs have alook back. My original edits too would prove informative.

Particularly and poignantly misleading is the discussion of nefas: nefas always and inherently carries with itself the idea of taboo, that which is religiously forbidden. It belongs to the sphere of the imperative i.e. it is always meant in compulsory sense, as duty not to incur into the ira deorum. The very idea of leaving something to the discretion of anybody or of interpreting it as not a religious duty is utterly wrong and the fruit of the creative interpretations of an editor who apparently has not researched the topic.Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop insulting other people. These problems arise because you don't edit your copy properly, and others try to do it for you. The solution is for you to make yourself clear and to cite English sources. For instance, when I checked an English translation for a citation you had from Dumézil, it said exactly the opposite of what you had written. I don't know whether you misread it in the first place, or failed to convey it accurately in English, but it's extremely uncivil of you to blame this on the ignorance of others. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not think I insulted anybody and it was not my intention. However I must stand by what I wrote. The concept of nefas is utterly misrepresented. From fas has been edited away the part that had been agreed upon. As I already said I contributed a (long) original on nefas and later we discussed at length on fas and on nefas. I do not know what to do: other people feel free to edit what I write but blame me if I point out their errors. Should I just rewrite myself the entry facing the risk it be deleted as it happened thrice with indigitamenta and twice with fas?

The basic concepts of Roman law are tricky and difficult to grasp without the aid of good literature, absolutely one cannot rely on one's imagination: frankly I do not know whether there is a good presentation of fas and nefas in English. The work by Schiller looked passable as far as I remember but it seems it does not deal with these religious or philosophical issues.

If you find a mistake in my interpretation of Dumezil or any other author, please do not hesitate to let me know at once: I am ready and willing to discuss everything.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

A google search under nefas and ne fas gave just two relevant results: one from a site of a Catholic univeristy and one of a online dtionary. The first one is fine for a defintion.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Lex

There is a note within brackets that says my reading of Morani seems inaccurate: below I will translate what he writes on word lex:

"Latin lex corresponds to ancient Indo-Iranic terms such as Vedic (locative) rajani 'under the law of' and Avestic razan-: but these two terms denote religious law, whereas the Latin term denotes human right. Note (22): Some traces of the ancient religious value is nonetheless remained in the expression legum dictio by which the requirement of the augurs to the gods is denoted (Serv. Aen. II 89) or in formulae such as quaqua lege volet by which it is left to the offerer freedom to celebrate the sacred action as he best pleases."

If I misinterpreted his words please explain how I did it.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I'm not certain of this, but I probably left that hidden comment while working on the longer Glossary version of Lex – maybe a year ago? It's not a challenge of anyone's translation – that would merit a visible tag – it's a request that my own short summary of Aldrasto's much longer entry be checked against the cited source. In other words, I'm asking "is this single sentence an accurate summary of the cited passage?" If all's well, the hidden comment can be removed. Haploidavey (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Salii

WP has an article Salii. The Glossary should not duplicate articles, though for ease of reference and completeness it can and does cross-reference to main articles. The glossary should also not be used for POV forks. In addition, for reasons of length, the following material should be copyedited (please use spellcheck) and integrated into the article Salii (please check redlinks; there is an article Carmen Saliare, so you need to check why yours came up red):

The Salii were also present at Tibur and considered sacerdotes of Hercules, according to Macrobius. The Salii were all patriacians, divided into two groups of twelf members: the Salii Palatini and the Salii Collini (from the site of Porta Collina on the Quirinal). The first were established by king Numa Pompilius and were dedicated to god Mars, the second were established by king Tullus Hostilius and were dedicated to god Quirinus. Every year in March for several days they went along the streets of Rome dancing and singing the carmen saliare in a ritual procession that visited many public and private places.

The material you refer to has been there for 3 months. Since there was a clarification tag I provided the relevant sources in a note these last days. I do not know why you refer to POV forks: there is no POV as everything is from ancient sources, if anything one can talk of OR. Thus I just added such info in a note. On the Salii of Veii there is a note on Dionysius relevant text by Mr. Thayer. I doubt I can cite him.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The clarification was requested for the statement "The Salii were also present at Tibur," which was not originally amplified to this extent. What does the sentence mean? Does it mean that the Salian priests also conducted rituals at Tivoli? Does it mean that Tivoli had its own collegium of priests called the Salii? This would seem to be one of those instances where you think you've made yourself perfectly clear, but in fact the sentence itself does not convey your meaning. The desired meaning would seem to be rather simple, something like "A body of priests called Salli also existed at Tibur." There's a different nuance in English in saying "were present" and "existed." The sentence might even have been clearer if it had omitted the "the" and said "Salii were also present at Tibur." I'm assuming now that it should read "Salii also existed at Tibur." Clarification is not the same as amplification; it doesn't mean piling on more information to digest, but rather explaining what you already tried to say. This requires a writer to imagine occasionally that the reader's stupidity may not be at fault. If you see no appreciable difference between "The Salii were also present at Tibur" and "Salii also existed at Tibur," then that would indicate why we have trouble communicating. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I see I misinterpreted the request. I had not realised the sentence could sound ambiguous to the reader. There were Salii at Tibur and presumably many other places, not just Veii. However I think this might be of interest to readers and I shall add some info here: in Rome it was believed Salio one of Aeneas companions, had brought from Samothrace the institution of the Salii, they were considered the Latin equivalent of the Religion of the Mysteries (Plutarch Numa XIII; Festus sv. Salio). But according to other versions they had been introduced in Rome by the Etruscans from Veii or by Salia daughter of the Etruscan king Anio, eponymous of the river Aniene (Serv. Dan. Aen. VIII 285; Virgil Aen. V 298 ff.; Pseudo-Plutarch Vitae Parallelae 40; F.H.G. (Mueller) III p. 230. Dionysius also mentions that Myrsilus of Lesbos had written the Etruscans practised the cult of the Cabeiroi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldrasto11 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Interpretation and use of sources

From Aldrasto’s post, a couple of sections above this one: “If you find a mistake in my interpretation of Dumezil or any other author, please do not hesitate to let me know at once: I am ready and willing to discuss everything.”

Glad to hear it. I take it we're agreed on the basics of Wikipedia editing; in particular, that article entries accurately reflect their sources, not personal preference or opinion. Could we apply the same rigorous principles to talk-page discussions of authors, works and conclusions? Whether on or off-topic? I checked an English-language author roundly dismissed in the 2nd Indigitamenta discussion: "The interpretation of Robigo as an indigitation of Mars lacks any serious scientific backing. I invite the editor who wrote the passage to deal with the problem other I shall delete the passage altogether. BTW nobody, not even the ignorant scholar Buttress has ever said this." Then we have: "The name of that scholar is Burriss: I wrote perhaps 3 times to you here or another talk page (flamen Martialis) as well as your personal talk page that this person did not read Ovid's Fasti as he/she says that the flamen officiating at the Robigalia is the Martialis while Ovid says it is the Quirinalis: thus this person is unquotable."

It seemed unlikely that anyone could deal with Robigalia and somehow escape reading Ovid, so I looked up the work in question, cited at the Flamen Martialis article and available via this convenience link. As one might expect, Burriss’ text and footnotes are full of Ovid’s Fasti; how could they not be? I’m not here to defend Burriss or his scholarship but his dismissal as “unquotable” because he “did not read Ovid’s Fasti” can’t be taken seriously. Perhaps I’m nit-picking here, picking up on something said in the heat of the moment; that might well be so, but we really can't build an encyclopedia on ill-justified statements of personal preference. Let's stick to secondary, scholarly sources to illustrate whatever points we wish to make in debating sources and content. Haploidavey (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I checked the material and I must stand by my word. Burriss did not read Ovid's relevant passage:

1. Ovid writes the rite took place at the 5th mile of the Via Nomentana whereas Burriss writes he says it took place on the Via Claudia. (Ovid is considered mistaken here).

2. Ovid clearly states the flamen Quirinalis performs the ritual whereas Burriss writes it was the priest of Mars.

Conclusion: Burriss did not read Ovid.

As for the content of its article it may be of interest but it is highly subjective. I read a bit above. He writes in case of draught the magistrates took off their purples and the lictors reversed the fascae and prayed the gods: this he considers proof of their enacting a ritual of sympathetic magic which would be acting outside religion. Is this not highly opinable and speculative? One might well say that this act was meant rid the themselves of the honores as an act of humblenbess from men towards gods: when facing hardship human or secular signs of power are out of place. But of course this is off topic, just a personal view on the value of what this follower of Frazer and Fowler speculated. Also the episode of Faunus and Picus calling down Iuppiter from Heaven in Ovid II is misinterpreted: Ovid once again does not say this is done to induce rain: please do check by yourself. Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's just ridiculous: perhaps you mean to say that Burriss did not read Ovid correctly. But you can't factually assert that he never cracked open a text of the Fasti; that's just leaping to certainty that doesn't exist. You may draw that conclusion, but what matters is whether you can produce verifiable secondary sources to correct the error. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No I mean what I say. This gent. actually did not read Ovid. Presumably he read Fowler's and Frazer's works and elaborated on them. Here lies the importance of actually reading primary sources. You may get away with it for some time among Anglophone readers but not with serious scholars, or Latin people who can easily read Latin. On the episode of Numa I must apologise to readers as yesterday I had no time to check the citation. The famous episode of Picus and Faunus is in book III (not book II) of the Fasti vv. 284-392. Now here is the absolute proof that Mr. Burriss did not read Ovid: in his article he says what caused the distress of the Romans and Numa's trick to capture Picus and Faunus to help calling down Iuppiter from Heaven was draught, wheres Ovid writes it was prolonged torrential rains and thunderbolts, i.e. exactly the opposite. Of course the March Spring thunderbolts. So on the basis of the 3 points mentioned I can positively claim that Burris did not read Ovid because one cannot have misread this last episode.

Moreover clearly this gent. cannot be used in the article on the flamen martialis as his remarks are based on a misreading and all the thereupon construction falls apart.

Let me add a final consideration: there are indeed many excellent Anglophone scholars: Bailey, Pease, Ogilvie, Broughton and even Corey Brennan. While do you not use their works and quote lesser quality ones? Cornell too is good. I do not want to make fun here of other fashionable scholars, not my style, but it is a pity some ignorant people get high positions in the academic world and thus can do great harm to the general level of knowledge in their own Countries. Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, WP editors correct errors made by scholars by citing other more reliable scholars. I have no idea who you mean by "fashionable" scholars (if you mean Linderski you're plainly mistaken), and I've used all the scholars you mention in various articles. What Broughton's prosopography might have to do with this topic, however, is rather beyond me. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Maia and Bona Dea

The text of this entry contains another error, apart the already discussed ones. It is Bona Dea that is an indigitation of Maia and not viceversa. If Fowler said this it means he did not read carefully Macrobius. However Wissowa in the Hasting's Encyclopedia is clear.Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean the indigitamenta entry? I took a look at the linked Macrobius passage; my Latin's near non-existent, but you seem to be right. Please, just tag it for attention, or else just go ahead and fix. You can simply drop the Fowler-related content and citation and substitute both with Hastings, if you wish. Whatever you do, please make sure you provide an edit summary that refers to this post. By the way, these issues are much easier for fellow-editors to track if you title your entry-specific talk-page queries per Glossary entry (as you know, we've no theonym entries here). Haploidavey (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That isn't how I'm reading Macrobius. But don't take my word for it: see this. Brouwer says Macrobius contradicts himself. I've given up on trying to explain the purpose of an encyclopedia, however, and how writing an encyclopedia article differs from writing scholarship. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there you go; another red herring and no changes required. (Insert: no, what am I saying? We use Brouwer, of course: put otherwise, we use a reliable secondary source). As for me, I've almost given up on things here, but not quite. Seriously, let's just represent the scholarship. Is that really so hard? These close readings of original sources and the drawing of independent conclusions based thereon seem to serve little purpose in building the Glossary. Haploidavey (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if you are satisfied with what any scholar writes then wikipedia can be filled with nonsense. I read the two pages of his and it is obvious this guy is the kind of those who try and make simple things complicated in order to have something to publish and be able to get on in their carreer. His presentation of other scholarship too is biased. My interpetation is based on literal reading and backed by Wissowa. I already urged you use quality scholarship and not the last book published. Macrobius states clearly Bona Dea is an indigitation of Maia but this is known only to few: (in occultiore...). Keep also in mind that Maia is probably present on the Piacenza Liver while Bona Dea is not. Ops Fauna and Fatua of course here her epithets cited by Labeo. Ops probably is the real clue: even though used as an epithet of Bona Dea this name may be revealing of the true identity of this goddess and link to Kore. I shall reread Macrobius to look for the interesting identification with Persephone, at the moment I do not remember it. Be as it be Bona Dea is an indigitation of Maia and nobody can prove the opposite true: certainly Brouwer did not prove anyhting with his convolutions. I am still waiting for the deletion of all references to Burriss here and in Flamen Martialis.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I must add: never mind how mangled are the 2 pages in question, Brouwer actually does not say Maia is an indigitation of Bona Dea, on the contrary he maintains Bona Dea is just an epithet. Of course he is unable to make head and tail of the sources (and particularly Macrobius) as he lacks the intellectual passion and attention the subject requires. The identification of Maia with the Great Mother and Kore (Terra, Ops) is BTW a subject of interest. I went on reading this book and Brouwer aims at being scientific and comprehensive. However as happens to other scholars too he looks unable to find a thread and coming to any conclusion. Though at the beginning of the chapter in question he is quite clear in stating Bona Dea was originally not a name but an epithet: and an epithet of course can only be an indigitation, not a god. I am very disappointed by the attitude of other editors here who apparently are not striving for knowledge but prefer to offer readers wrong information. Brouwer is unclear, fine, so why not using other sources? As quoted by Brouwer Cicero said it was just an epithet, no?Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The point may well be that if a scholarly book published by a reputable press 'mangles' this, why should it be treated in an article for a general encyclopedia, let alone in an entry in a glossary? This is why in several entries I've questioned the inclusion of overly detailed (= technical) information. There needs to be some sense of proportion and relative weight regarding the overall topic. The only exempla that should be included in the Glossary are those that immediately and directly illuminate the definition at hand. If the example can't do that efficiently, it should be reserved for a more discursive treatment in an independent article. Lucid writing does not require dumbing down content, but professional scholars and graduate students don't do their research on Wikipedia. Keep the general reader in mind. The neutral, outside editor User:DESiegel in early March graciously presented tips for writing this article. I'm going to take the liberty of copying them from your talk page below (with a few typos corrected). Cynwolfe (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sources not in English are perfectly acceptable, although when there is an equivalent source in English it is preferred, as it will be useful to more of the readers. When a non-english source is used, it is useful if a relevant short quote can be provided in English translation. The citation templates have provision for indicating the language of a source, providing translated quotes, and translated titles.
• Language that addresses the reader, such as "We therefore conclude..." are in my view best avoided in Wikipedia articles.
• Abbreviated references like "Liv. 1, 24, 7" will not be clear to all readers, remember that this article, as a general overview, is aimed at least in part at readers with little knowledge of the subject.
• Quotations in Latin should if possible, be translated as well as giving the original.

I hope these comments are helpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 21:39, 1 March 2010

You seem to forget the entry we are talking about has not been edited by myself. It is someone else that here is contending Robigus is an indigitation of Mars and Maia of Bona Dea. Moreover there is wonderfully succint presentation of this issue in J. Hasting's Encyclopedia, article signed G. Wissowa. Brouwer is undoubtedly a serious scholar even though he is unable to make head and tail of the abundant material he presents. But I am afriad your invoking him to support the present statement that Maia is an indigitation of Bona Dea is void/untenable since actually he does not say this, full stop.

Thank you for your quote from DES 's kindly advice. Would you please let me know where Iam going against it?Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Verba concepta and verba certa

I must make it clear that this division or opposition is a figment of Linderski's imagination. Frankly I cannot figure it out on what sources he constructed this view: there is no evidence supporting it. On the opposite all sources commonly quoted from, e.g. Varro LL VII 8 on the teplum augurale, Festus sv. Praeiurationes for verba concepta; Varro LL VI 53, Cic. de Nat. deor. II 10; Festus sv. Fanum and sv. Minora templa for veba certa; Livy XXXVIII 48 14, for sollemnia, Seneca Epist. LXVII 9 for conceptibus et sollemnibus, Plautus Bacch. 1028; Pseud. 352 for conceptis verbis; Petronius 113 etc. all show that these expression were absolutely synonymous, meaning fixed formulae (Instances quoted from Cancelli La giurisprudenza unica dei pontefici).Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

See note 55 for a capsule summary of this issue with additional references. Unless you produce secondary sources that assert that concepta and certa were synonymous, your interpretation of the primary sources is OR. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well this is Linderski's interpretation. It is highly personal and of course I shall try and prove it is untenable using relevant scholarship. It is high time this obnoxious scholar is cut down to size other he will pollute the Anglophone scholarship on this and other topics for centuries to come: everybody there quotes his words as an authority, and is dragged into absurd views (who others will parrot) .Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't up to you or me to "prove" anything. None of this is "highly personal." Jerzy Linderski is an acknowledged expert in this field; his WP article lists 73 articles, including the massive ANRW article on augural law. However, experts disagree with each other all the time, or scholarship would simply cease to be produced: we'd just say "this is right for all time," and nothing further would be thought or written. Your job as a WP editor is to find secondary sources that state opposing views, and then to write a sentence that says "Although Linderski argues that yadda yadda, So-and-so and So-and-so have demonstrated that certa and concepta are synonymous." Please don't dump massive amounts of undigested primary source material into the article and ask the reader to analyze it — that isn't what an encyclopedia is for. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I must acknowledge the difference Linderski makes is not his own. He quotes two other works (particularly an article by C. Gioffredi "Su Gai. 4, 30" SDHI 44 1978 434 ff.) and makes reference to a commonly accepted distiction among Roman Law scholars. I verified this is true both for English and Italian scholarship. It seems it was determined by the opposition between leges actionis which employed verba certa and the formular actions used by praetor peregrinus to suit foreigners who were unable to use the fixed formulae. However the book I cited above (F. Cancelli Milano 1996 pp. 36 and 39) recalls this distinction in doubt. It is also noteworthy that Linderski himself acknowledges the formula concepta i.e. changeable in the case of the templum augurale, was indeed a fixed one for any particular place or situation, and that the distinction is "well known in Roman civil law" not in religion. In the note he also remarks Norden does not make this distiction in his Aus altroem. Priesterbuechen.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

ius

The section on ius has gotten way out of hand. Please reduce it to a clear summary of appropriate length, or move this material to the existing article ius. It's redundant to have an entry this long when an article exists. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

None of the issues for which the entry was tagged (September this year) have been addressed. The article-length entry becomes harder to read with each new addition. A reader looking for a reasonably straightforward English translation, context and definition now has to wade through two paragraphs of elaborate, discursive and obscurely circumstantial prose before they find it. Then wade through more of the same. We're dealing with complex issues; but we're here to clarify them for the benefit of an ordinary readership with a reasonable grasp of English and what might be a passing, general interest in this specialised subject. I hope we can all take this on board, 'cos if we can't, we really shouldn't be editing here. The entry's important. If its problems aren't addressed soon, I'm going to strip it down to a previous version and rewrite it, comprehensively and, I hope, comprehensibly, using whatever sources I've access to. Haploidavey (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Davey: I asked what the tag wanted (see above) and you failed to answer. Cynwolf said it was all right by then. I added content as somebody put a note within brackets asking for expansion in regard to political power connexions. I understand now the entry is too long and will try to rewrite it somehow, but I am afraid that whatever I shall write it will not up to your required standards. Because to me it is readable and quite clear as it is. You can put the initial sentence (starting with Ius) above or do other any changes you like but if you want to explain what is ius in Roman religion I doubt it can be stated much differently.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Aldrasto, you don't need to meet my standards (god forbid you should aim so low), but you do need to meet the requirement of the average reader for information on the topic. None of us should worry when others offer to mercilessly rework our own hard-worked prose. It's painful, but we get used to it, and eventually, readers will benefit. My own precious prose has often emerged leaner and healthier for a through and bloody savaging - and invariably, my hardest-worked stuff has been first to go under the knife. We've all been there. What reads to us as something ripe with tantalising questions reads to others as tangled shrubbery and pointless deadwood. Sorry for all those mixed metaphors, it's compulsive...

The somebody who added the hidden note was me: the connections between ius, lex, pontifical and political power are of course essential. This is probably best tackled in the article ius, but it also needs a glossary entry, and the latter requires a particularly tight, disciplined, summary approach to content and organisation. That's not easy, especially when dealing with complex material. But it's both possible and necessary. At some point, you need to stand back and decide, with an utterly dispassionate eye, what should be included and what must be discarded.

Some observations on the tagging, de-tagging, re-tagging of the entry. The original draft was too long, detailed and unclear to serve as a Glossary entry. Once the draft had been re-worked to more appropriate length and detail, the tag was removed. At some point, I added the hidden note in response to suggestions here and elsewhere that the entry didn't adequately describe or explain the relationships between ius, lex, pontifical and political power. I think the tag was restored because the material you added to address the deficit wasn't incorporated as part of a Glossary schematic (see above); so once more, the entry began to reacquire the recently shed burdens more appropriate to an article in progress on a user-page, with all the marks of a passionate (dare I say obsessive?) interest in ferreting out the Truth.

Well, scholarship's full of shrubbery, sources are brambled and Truth's a quagmire best avoided. The whys and wherefores of history and belief are buried somewhere inside all that. No matter, because we're not here to improve or rescue anything - except articles of course. And we can't base what we do here on our own appraisals of the scholarship, sources or material. I'm not sure you're getting this. Haploidavey (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Aldrasto, my main point is simply that an article ius exists, and therefore this entry needs to be just the most concise one-paragraph summary. You should integrate your stuff into the existing article. (Just noticed that we smartypantses apparently can't alphabetize either, duh.) I think Davey's point might be that when we ask for clarification, we mean that the point is unclear — not that you need to make the statement more complex by adding more information (this would be a request to "expand" in WP terms; I might use the word "amplify"). Clarity means that you may think you've stated something clearly, but to our Anglophone ears it's ambiguous or vague (see our discussion of "Salii" above, which hinged on a mere the and the nuance between "exist" and "be present"). Cynwolfe (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. That's it, really. Haploidavey (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me make it clear that the tag on citation style has been there long before I started to add new material. Nothing to do with my later editing. You can verify the times of my previous post to which only Cynwolf answered saying it was all right by then and comparing that of my edits.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Always a good idea to make sure we're on the same page and discussing the same things, so I've done as you suggest. Here are the diffs that clarify the development of ius, which started as no more than a link to the main article Ius [2]. On 21 March 2010 Aldrasto expanded it, as shown by this diff. Cynwolfe tagged it as unclear on 24 April. On 25 April I appended a hidden note to say I was editing ius on a user-page to reduce the chance of edit conflicts. On 27 April I replaced the entry with a version "cropped down to essentials (as I understand them)". I removed the tag asking for clarification and added the hidden note asking for expansion of ius as an aspect of pontifical and political power. From then on very little activity at that entry, until Cynwolfe tagged it for unclear citation style. Not for content, not for clarity; citation style. As the citations in question weren't mine, I let them be - perhaps I should have removed them? That would probably have been better editing practice. Between 21 September and 15 October, Aldrasto11 added further material to ius. On October 16 Cynwolfe added the talk-page note that began this discussion. See above. Haploidavey (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(Inserted comment) Tracking such changes is not made any easier by the complete absence of even the most cursory edit summaries: Aldrasto, you really must provide edit summaries; that's a rule, not a personal choice. Haploidavey (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

At some point, I noted that the difficulties with citation style had been fixed, and that the tag could be removed. I don't recall why I didn't remove it myself. May have been in a hurry, and thought whoever was actively editing the entry could do it. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications. I see someone just forgot removing the tag. If so why Davey says here above his request of September has not yet been met?

(Inserted response:) You've lost me here. You mean in the Glossary entry? I inserted a hidden note in July, asking for expansion of ius in relation to pontifical and political power (as per the linked diff above), but nothing since then. (The following added as the light dawns) Ah, you're talking of the tag for clarity and whatnot. I didn't add that; but I agree that it's justified. I must've misread that. So many tags, so little time... Haploidavey (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This said I think the rewriting of this entry is a task that trespasses my intellectual and physical capabilities. I had a look at some Anglophone literature and there are too many conflicting views. Since the times of Buckler, an author I like and quoted, the mainstream view sees an abrupt change from the religious law of an archaic era of which almost nothing can be said, to civil law since the XII Tables: which is not so acceptable for me and a great part of Italian contemporary scholars, who stress continuity and persistence of religious ideas and interpretations also in the civil/private field. So I invite other editors to address the task. However I think since this entry concerns ius in Roman religion it should give space to the religious origin of the Roman legal system. And also state the 2 great divisions: 1) ius concerning things divine and things human; 2) ius concerning public and private matters. For a neutral anodine definition one could use Berger 's dictionary who quotes from the Digest: Ulpian and Paul.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, my suggestion would be that you not dump your undigested notes or rough-draft material into the article space in the first place. You can create a user page for drafts. This might help you practice formatting and wikfying. In a sense, all Wikipedia text is a "draft" in progress, but there might be fewer conflicts here if you organized and worked through the material first, so that it took form as expository writing and not just a collection of notes. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting this, I see that the article ius is still without an introductory section, and could use a section following to explain all the stuff that was formerly here. (To reiterate: nobody said this wasn't potentially good stuff, just too much of it left undigested for the entry when an article exists in desperate need of attention.) I'm putting a link to a passage in Ulpian here, just for convenience and future reference. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

regalia exta

Sorry guys, I know this has been a subject of, ahem, vigorous discussion, but I still think the regalia exta are either a digression or TMI in trying to define auspicia privata succinctly and clearly. If we must have our regal entrails, they either need a separate entry, or should be tacked onto exta. Here's what I deleted:

The Regalia (regal, i.e. splendid) exta were always viewed favourably, but interpreted according to the station of the recipient: so a patrician might view it as a promise of promotion to high office, while the head of a lower household might look for an inheritance. Note: Festus, sv. regalia exta p. 382 L 2nd (p. 367 in the 1997 Teubner edition).

Regalia in this technical sense is a descriptive term for the nature of a received sign, and could be applied also for instance to lightning. Both Weinstock and Linderski deal with regalia exta in articles I haven't read, because I don't have access to JSTOR to see what they say. There are a couple of other tantalizing glimpses of articles, as here. But for me the question of regalia exta only obfuscates the definition of auspicia privata; it's a piece of evidence scholars use to show how auspices can pertain to privati, while raising other questions more pertinent to a discussion of either exta or regalia. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the entry's clearer without it. As you say, regalia's a descriptor here, belonging to exta. Haploidavey (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The material you link above are anonymous snippets and as such not usable here. Moerover the second snippet has no subject of the sentences: what is the author talking about? Exta or fulgura? If one reads Festus one can find pestifera auspicia referred to exta. Finally this author is not a serious researcher: the fulgura and the exta belong to different kinds of divination each with its relevant doctrine. Specialists were at least in theory different. In Etruria (netshvis=haruspex versus trutnvt frontac=scrutinizer of lightning) and of course in Rome too.

The previous discussion has only been caused by Cynwolf's unableness to translate humilioribus hereditatem correctly.

Dumezil's use of this issue is relevant in that it helps readers understand that the auspicia privata worked exactly as the public ones as far as the techniques were concerned, while of course the scope and significance of the result would change in accord to the situation, which is BTW common sense. But I think (and hope) readers must have already realised here is no use in talking of common sense with some people.

However the final and decisive point is that it is not an argument to delete something from an entry since it belongs or could be also discussed elsewhere or as a separate entry. Anybody can understand that technical words such as ius, auspicia, lex and exta can appear under any entry and there is no reason, let alone rule, that states their occurrence must be confined to their special entry.

I also wish to stigmatise once again the behavour of user Cynwolf wh, with the consent of user Haploidavey (which she can take for granted as the above discussions have shewn), takes the liberty of deleting the material I had edited, even though relevant and referenced. If this pattern of behaviour is not dropped I shall have to study wikipedia rules and take appropriate action, since it is obvious to everybody that if there is no mutual respect among editors it is impossible to do anything constructive. As I wrote many times as a rule I avoid deleting what has been written by others even if I disagree, whereas here these two people feel free of deleting my edits or even of using an pushing language towards me, as readers can ascertain by themselves. Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't characterise honest editing as pushing, or a personal attack. Cynwolfe removed the material from article apace because she thought it "either a digression or TMI in trying to define auspicia privata". As far as I'm concerned, if "regalia" describes exta, then surely the regalia exta material belongs with exta. The pertinence of regalia exta and exta to augury can be discussed demonstrated in the main article Augur.

You have had ample time to study Wikipedia's rules; perhaps an earlier reading would have spared you some of your difficulties; this in turn might have reduced your tendency on this talk-page to respond to criticism as if to personal attacks. An article talk-page is not the place to express or redress your personal grievances. You have a lot to offer; but articles are written for readers, and a Glossary should be clearly, succinctly written. Please, for the good of this article and the good of the encyclopedia, stop placing such accusatory, self-justifying screeds on this talk-page. That is disruptive and unconstructive; and it's becoming predictable. Every editor here has acted in good faith. Others assume your good faith; please assume theirs because without that, we haven't a hope of editing in a collegial and productive manner. If you really can't cope with having your work edited, you might be well advised not to submit it. So. lest we forget; where in this article do we place the material pertaining to regalia exta? Or do we place it in another article? Haploidavey (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think any discussion of regalia exta belongs either in its own entry, or in the exta entry, as a category of the kinds of messages exta could deliver; that is what Weinstock's article seems to be getting at, though I'm still in the process of reading it. He's talking about lightning, but says similar categories existed for exta. (I also think Aldrasto may be confusing me with Elen, who gave the translation above, so I'm not sure his aim is true in choosing a target.) One can know what the passage in Festus says without knowing what it means; that's why reams of scholarship can be generated from a single phrase. This phrase regalia exta, however, is too obscure to have generated reams. Weinstock says:

One could group together the monitoria, pestifera, ostentanea and regalia as giving prognostics; the fallacia, ostentanea, peremptalia, attestata as contrasting terms; the postularia and obruta as concerning cult; the hospitalia and auxiliaria as concerning magic.

These are kinds of fulmina, but Weinstock says exta could offer the same kinds of messages. No doubt Weinstock is as "edgy" on this as he usually is, and open to debate and criticism. But the point is that these have nothing to do with the distinction between public and private; public signs could be of these kinds, and private signs could be of these kinds. That's why a discussion of regalia exta is an obfuscating digression is providing a definition of auspicia privata; the passage from Festus is evidence that the exta could be used for private matters as well as public, but its evidentiary value for privata is unrelated to the modifier regalia. If there were a similar passage involving monitoria, for instance, that showed monitoria could be public or private, that would be evidence for the existence of auspicia privata too, regardless of the specifics of what monitoria are (W. considers regalia a subcat of monitoria, if I understand him correctly, with muta and monitoria being a dichotomy of signs that don't tell you anything and signs that do). Weinstock seems to understand regalia exta as I do; originally, this would have been a particular configuration of exta that pertained to kingship, but it underwent reinterpretation after the era of kings passed and rex became a dirty word to the Romans. Instead of pertaining only to kings, its application was broadened in line with republican sociology. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Having thought through this as I cleaned the bathroom (seriously) for an impending onslaught of teen-aged Halloween partiers, I can see the value of the regalia exta as an example here if they are explained elsewhere; that is, in a succinct sentence along the lines of "For instance, the [[Glossary of ancient Roman religion#exta|regalia exta]] indicated such-and-such if consulted pertaining to public office, but such-and-such in regard to the private family matters." It's about proportion and direct relevance. Sorry if this seems contradictory; I was thinking of the entry as it stood. If regalia exta are explained where it's appropriate, then certainly it's an apt example of how a set of indications were read depending on the nature of the inquiry, in this case private as disinguished from public. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Halloween, party, onslaught, teenagers, regalia exta, bathroom-needs-cleaning, all in one sentence. Scary evenings ahead... Back on topic, I missed the earlier point on public/private; your suggestion seems fine. I suppose the entry would link to augury, auspices, and the public/private aspects of each. Haploidavey (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)