Talk:Secular Games

surely incorrect

This nicely done article makes a statement that is surely incorrect:

The night-time sacrifices were made not to the underworld deities Dis Pater and Proserpina, but to the Moerae (fates), the Ilythiae (goddesses of childbirth), and Terra Mater (the "Earth mother"). These were "more beneficent honorands, who nonetheless shared with Dis Pater and Proserpina the twin characteristics of being Greek in nomenclature and without cult in the Roman state".

"Dis Pater" is a Latin name; although the derivation of "dis, ditis" is not altogether undisputed, it is not Greek, nor is pater. It's also unclear what is meant by "without a cult in the Roman state". I'm assuming that means what it says very specifically, and not that these two deities were without cult on the Italian peninsula. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Antoninus Pius

Is there secure evidence that Antoninus Pius held games in 148? Censorinus makes no mention of the fact,[1] though he traces the recorded history of the games using a number of sources through 204. In this last year, however, he mentions that the games were held by "Septimius and M. Aurelius Antoninus", a.k.a. Septimius Severus and Caracalla respectively. I find no mention of games under Antoninus Pius in Zosimus, either.[2] (Nor for that matter does Zosimus mention games under Philip the Arab, which would be a curious omission if they had happened and Zosimus knew of them...) Q·L·1968 ☿ 02:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There are coins of Antoninus Pius and Philip the Arab indicating that they held Secular ... something. I didn't know this, you made me verify it, so thanks! So, why not mentioned by Censorinus and Zosimus? I don't know, unless in truth they were not really games but some other kind of celebration. Andrew Dalby 18:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This page by a numismatist seems to confirm that, but can't be treated as a reliable source. I'll put it on the page under external links. Andrew Dalby 18:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Secular Games → Saecular Games – They were not secular in the modern sense. We should clarify this in the title. See source in article

Formerly translated 'Secular Games', but recent scholarship prefers 'Saecular Games' to avoid confusion with the modern concept of the secular that implies disconnection from religious matters. See, for example, Rüpke, Jörg (2018). Pantheon: A new history of Roman religion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. pp. 193–203. ISBN 978-1-4008-8885-6. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 03:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This Google ngram indicates that "Secular Games" remains the usual formulation in English-language publications by a large margin, with no long-term trend towards "Saecular Games". I'm actually a little surprised by this result, because I perceive a trend towards hypercorrectness in modern English transliteration of Greek and Latin words—but evidently that hasn't been the case here; if anything, "Secular Games" is increasing its share of overall use. I note that my search was case-insensitive and could theoretically sweep in generic uses of the phrase; this was intentional, since it may not be capitalized in some sources. However, I cannot think of any context where the phrase is likely to be given a generic use, except possibly within the field of Classics. While there is a Fellowship of Christian Athletes, I don't think they're likely to distinguish between "religious" and "secular" games, since their members participate in athletics generally, rather than putting on "games" for a specifically religious purpose. P Aculeius (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not finding much of any references to "saecular" games. "Secular games" seems dominant. I sympathize with the OP, but then again, Romans have other weird things, e.g. "Social War", which to modern ears would have a different meaning. I guess moderns just have to deal with it. Walrasiad (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Walrasiad, and suggest restoring the lede to the original form ("Secular") as well. I'm not convinced that a 2018 journal article is really a powerful enough source to announce that nobody uses the traditional translation. SnowFire (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources for additional expansion

The main thrust of this article

• Satterfield, Susan (Autumn 2016), "The Prodigies of 17 ʙ.ᴄ.ᴇ. and the Ludi Saeculares", Transactions of the American Philological Association, vol. 146, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 325–348, JSTOR 26401761.

seems to be that at least Augustus's games were primarily concerned with covering his own decennalia in additional glory, particularly since—unlike later emperors—he went through the farce of abandoning his power each 10 years and waiting for the people to insist, no, they really couldn't live without him. — LlywelynII 02:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)