Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion/Archive 1

Suggestions

I couldn't resist it! The list seems thorough - so many red-links! I think each entry should offer a brief summary and context. I'll be happy to help with expression, just to make things as clear and simple as possible for the benefit of the average reader (whoever she is); for example, what's a theonim? - it needs saying, but in English, this is theonym. You might check some of the redlinks using a different case - I seem to remember that Italian and English language scholarship can differ in this. I can't do so myself as I've no Latin (I'm learning, but in fits and starts, and slowly). I've put this page on my watch-list, so I'll respond (in time) to any queries here. Haploidavey (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Templum as a technical term of Roman religion

A notice requesting the deletion of this article was speedily declined by an administrator. The deletion may have been requested because currently, templum redirects to Roman Temple; but a "templum" is not the same thing as "a Roman Temple". It's a sacred space, created by augur. Every Roman temple was once a templum; not every templum was a Roman Temple. Roman Temple should probably deal with this (and other matters), but doesn't. So the redirect is inappropriate and the Templum entry in this article serves a useful purpose. Haploidavey (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That was indeed what caught me out. In which case, do you want to repoint Templum to here? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Elen, I don't know how to do that; it would be much appreciated. Haploidavey (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have done so. You could do with putting the A-Z section into a table - it looks a bit of a dog the way it is currently displayed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can get some help with that; it's an unruly pup... Haploidavey (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Attributions

Many of the sections seem to have been copied directly from other wikipedia articles. This violates the attribution rights of their contributors unless {{copied}} is used to indicate each such source article and the relevant edits. (Indeed in its current state the article is technically a copyvio.) DES ^(talk) 02:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the creator of this article (who's also by far its main contributor) has contributed similar material elsewhere: so I suppose I'm saying that I don't really see this as copy-vio. Much of it's far too detailed and technical for the single general-readership overview article Religion in ancient Rome, and is more usefully elaborated here than elsewhere – especially when there is no "elsewhere" but duplication is of course pointless. The current format's not right; DES' suggested merge might work. Dunno really. The material itself needs quite drastic tightening; and might benefit from reliance on less contentious scholarship but these are separate issues. Haploidavey (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick PS to DES: I might have misunderstood you: do you mean the entries are straight translations from a non-enwikipedia? Haploidavey (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No I mean that at least some of the content is copied from other articels on en-wikipedia. That is fine if the copying is properly acknowledged -- the normal way is by using the {{copied}} template, although other ways are possible. But it is not acceptable to just copy text from another Wikipedia article with no indication of source. If there are copies from other projects, i don't know of them. DES ^(talk) 15:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought I had found direct copies of some of the sections from some of the articles linked in the upper list. But I can't confirm that now. I think i must have been mistaken. Perhaps i was fooled by a redirect sending me back to compare text with itself. In any case, what I said of this being a technical copyvio now seems to be incorrect. DES ^(talk) 15:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not taking part in the discussion til now. I have been busy editing. Nothing in the article is copied from Wikipedia. I created the article because I think Wikipedia does not deal with the topic I present and discuss it in a systematic way. I think I give here to the interested reader a thorough presentation of the topics while in existing Wikipedia articles they are unspecifically dealt with. In many instances: compare sacer, sanctus etc. I also quote always the sources and they are mostly Italian authors or Dumezil.Aldrasto (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, you see, I thought it was all copied, which was why I tagged it for A10, but at least where Templum is concerned, that isn't true. DES could perhaps point to a couple - if you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, under the terms of the license, you must credit the other article so the history is traceable. The layout needs a serious think, but that's another problem. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would add that if a person does assemble content from multiple other articles into a co-ordinated larger summary article, or an article that treats the same content from a different poitn of view, i don't think WP:CSD#A10 applies. There was a recent discussion of this on WT:CSD. DES ^(talk) 15:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Organisation

Also, as a survey article or annotated list, the discussions of the terms should probably be reduced to short summaries with links to the relevant articles where fuller information is given. Moreover, having two lists, one of bare links and one of content is confusing, thes should IMO be merged. DES ^(talk) 02:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

An list of short summaries would be useful. Some terms (see my previous above) probably require new articles. Haploidavey (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've split this into two sections, as the attribution needs to be dealt with urgently and definitively, while the organisation is something to discuss. What I would do is

• structure the article as one list, so the table of contents covers the navigation
• have a couple of sentences on every topic, with a link to other articles if there is one
• split lengthy content out and either create a new article or else find an existing article that the content ought to be in.

So you would get

Aardvark

Desert animal sometimes thought to represent the deity Set.

Isis

Main article: Isis

Major Egyptian deity, wife of Osiris, mother of Horus. Famed in legend for searching for her husband's body after it had been dismembered by his brother Set. Also tutelary deity along with Neith Selkis and Nephthys, believed to protect the body of the deceased in the tomb.

Does this make sense? Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely, and thanks for the example. See my previous, near-edit-conflict response above. By the way, I've posted the various concerns expressed here (plus a couple more) on the article creator's talk. Haploidavey (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is more or less the sort of organization i had in mind. DES ^(talk) 15:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Lede

I think the article needs a lead-in paragraph. DES, you seem to have removed even the one sentence that was there - is this because you don't think it needs a lede, or just because it got lost in the move round? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That was not intentional on my part -- I'm not sure just how it happened. i have restored the previous lead section with the exception of the Wikipedia self-reference. Since many of the entries at present are not "brief" i have removed the statement that they are. DES ^(talk) 17:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Translation

Dear English reader, I am translating all the Latin quotations into English. I have almost finished. I apologize for the inconvenience. Of course some texts are almost impossible to translate because they are mutile or their meaning is still obscure, as in the case of the passage of Cicero De Legibus 2, 21. However I did my best to try and give an insight into its main meaning.

I also apologize for the repetitons and some inconsistence of the entry fas as I edited it in two differernt times/steps using two different sources which are not totally at odds but have some minor differences. I shall make an effort to overcome the problem.

Just a note from one of those English readers: not a problem. If you attribute different interpretations to their sources, you're doing just what a wikipedia editor ought to do. Haploidavey (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have translated almost everything and made alterations to the article on fas to make it readable without the impression of repetitions and changes in the line of thought. The section on signa and prodigia could be split into minor entries, I do not know. I hope the additions to libri augurales is welcome by the readers. I shall edit on the pontificales soon with a discussion of the indigitamenta.Aldrasto (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Templum" articles

They're breeding, and in triads! Aldrasto, I didn't want to remove any, as I don't know which is your most recent version. I've disambiguated elsewhere, and removed links that have no target article. (But have left red-links). Haploidavey (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Very sorry for not solving the problem myself, I am clumsy.

The first is the old version, the last two are identical. This incident was due to loss of session data.

Today I finished libri pontificales and wrote sacramentum.Aldrasto (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That's good. I'll just remove the first templum and one of the duplicates. Haploidavey (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Length

This article has now hit 153k, so is heading towards 'too long'. I can see five entries that are moving towards the 'long enough for an article of their own' category - in addition, Fas already has an article, so should not have the lengthy entry here. I'd move the content in Fas around, but I'm not confident in my knowledge of the subject. ETA the article did have a 'main article = Fas' tag, but that just pointed to a dab page that doesn't list an entry on the topic, so I've removed the template.

At the same time, it would benefit the article if the topics that are just linked to a main article had a one or two sentence summary of their meaning, for the benefit of folks who start here looking for 'the right word for...', as well as those who have the word and are looking for its meaning. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Haploidavey (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm comfortable doing the add-ins, but I'm reluctant to start shifting another author's content out to its own article.

Me too. I'll post Aldrasto a message. Haploidavey (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to agree in general with the comments of Elen and Davey. I think this could be an extremely valuable page, but should be more like an index or survey. That is, each entry should only be a paragraph, very clear and basic, linking to main articles. If the term is usefully and adequately dealt with in a single paragraph, however, then this page will serve as a reference for those that don't need a separate article — but might also cause digressions in other articles to explain them fully. In other words, I see these as functioning somewhat in the manner of Bill Thayer's SMIGRA index pages; for an example, see here — except that even the linked terms would each get a paragraph summarizing the main article. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that some potentially good articles, such as mundus (one I've had my eye on), will get off to an irretrievably chaotic start if simply hurled out of a hastily done entry. Maybe I just think this because I know it would take me a month of focused work to produce even a modestly thorough and well-organized article on mundus. I'm not convinced of the value of throwing out a bunch of undigested ingredients just to say 'there, I did that.' I think it's better to have a clear and simple stub of a couple of paragraphs than too much confusing text that represents a collection of information rather than a clearly structure overview. I find the longer entries here to be hard to read and follow, even though I know the subject matter; how then will they appear to the casual visitor? Also, foreign language sources (to which I am not at all opposed!) are relied on too often when English sources are widely available on the topic, even online. I do think that English Wikipedia has an obligation to present the state of Anglophone scholarship, with intelligent reference of course to international scholarship. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope we all agree on Cyn's observations here. The longer articles in the list (and some others to which it links) will benefit from thorough attention to their structure and readability, rather than the addition of more material. That might be less intrusively done elsewhere (perhaps on a user-page); we all seem to agree on the development of the list itself as a clutch of stubs. Aldrasto acknowledges difficulties with his organisation of material and is OK with its rewriting. That's a positive and collegial attitude. But I've never yet been able to re-write anything using sources not available to me. It can be utterly exhausting and lately - life being short and all that - I find myself less willing to try. Instead, I do the research and represent the scholarship as best I can. I'm willing to do what I can with the presentation and re-organisation, but like Cyn, "I do think that English Wikipedia has an obligation to present the state of Anglophone scholarship, with intelligent reference of course to international scholarship." (Unlike her, I'm a shameless plagiarist of well-constructed comments). Haploidavey (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the aim here has to be to produce a summary - no more than a couple of paragraphs. If it starts exceeding that, then it's time to start building an article in someone's sandbox. And I know what you mean about the rewrite thing - and I agree with Cyn about Anglophone sources. There's enough English language information out there that could be added, not to have to rely on Italian sources.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to everybody for the interest in the article I started and the critical observations.

I am a very inexperienced editor and I did this work basing it on some material that looked practically usable and at the same scientifically sound and well referenced.

The fact the sources I used are in some entries mainly Italian is casual: as I said I found these works, which are available on google pdf, to be handy and fitting to write part of this vocabulary.

Moreover I decided to use them because they are largely based on primary sources and I believe the work of a lexicopgrapher cannot leave aside the most exhaustive analysis of such sources. I think I do a service to readers by providing relevant quotations. However this job must strike a balance between presentation of sources and readability. I appreciate that the fact I did not use Anglophone sources seems unappropriate to Wiki.en, also for the convenience of readers. Everybody is welcome to contribute to the article directly or indirectly. I would also appreciate that the editors who have suggested the use and stated the availabilty of English language sources leave me a note: til now I have not found works that deal with the specific lexical items or issues to be treated here, apart from A.S. Berger dictionary of Roman law and A. A. Schiller's book on 'Mechanisms of development of Roman Law'. There are very good works such as the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, the etymological dictionaries of Scheid and Ernout but they are not available on line. When possible I quote Skeat's Etymological dictionary which was a very good work of Victorian Britain, as the dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquitites, which has many very good entries, although sometimes outdated in details.Aldrasto (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing edit queries

Do we need the following? It seemed to be hanging (in augurales libri) with no context and for no particular reason:

'Everything unjust, nefas, faulty might the augur say, it shall be non-ritual and impure; everyone who will not appear (in court) shall be liable of a capital crime'. Haploidavey (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(Have re-instated the above as summary as per Aldrasto's message on my talk. Haploidavey (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC))

Also the following: we're English wikipedia. We can assume that most readers come here to read about these particular Latin words - namely, those offered in the alphabetical order list - in clear and concise English. Can we please keep the Latin to a useful minimum in the main body of text? Haploidavey (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree and shall do my best to be more concise. I thought of quotations as a help to illustrate the matter, but I aknowledge I have been too longwinded in some entries.

Lexicography is perhaps one of the most difficult tasks as you are confronted with a quantity of information you must select and of course you are afraid of leaving important information out.

At the end of all the discussion I decided I shall stop editing til I have found better tools by myself or by other editors's contribution.Aldrasto (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't stop editing! I don't think anyone wants that. But editing is not the same as merely placing undigested content on a page. I wonder whether you would consider the following steps:

1. Add content to this page only on a need-to-know basis for now; that is, if an article elsewhere uses a term that could benefit from a lexicographical entry here, provide it in the form of a single succinct summary paragraph.
2. Treat this page as a kind of index or list page; Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so your use of the word "lexicography" raises questions for me. You can't expect to turn this article into what would be a book-length "Dictionary of Terminology of Ancient Roman Religion." The value of this article (to my mind) is the capacity for cross-referencing to other articles, and for defining terms that wouldn't sustain development as a separate article, or terms that lack an article at present.
3. Use your editing time in a focused way. Choose one preexisting entry here to work with according to the suggestions on this talk page. It may take one or two weeks just to have an entry on templum that serves the purpose — because you'd probably need concurrently to develop an independent article on templum as well; the vocabulary item here should only be a paragraph. An article on templum would require at least six English sources to do properly; by "English sources," I don't mean English translations of primary sources. I mean you need to read more Anglophone scholarship as a model for how to present the subject matter.
4. My concern finally is that you're taking on too much at once. The article Leges regiae, for instance, still needs major work. (Since the structural and methodological problems of that article infect this one as well, my comments apply to both.) Most paragraphs in Leges regiae consist of a single sentence. This is a sure sign that an article is a mere accumulation of data, and not an organized presentation as a series of developed topics. It still doesn't incorporate enough English sources; if you have command of the subject matter primarily from reading Italian sources, it should be a fairly easy matter to use Google Books to look for Anglophone scholarship that deals with the same subject matter. For leges regiae, you can start here; in particular, look for anything titled Cambridge Ancient History. I also recommend Lintott's Constitution of the Roman Republic as a good model for how to write clear English on these arcane topics.

Speaking of which, a more focused, slow, methodical approach might improve sentences like the following (from leges regiae):

According to the content of fragments found in Pomponius and other authors on the subject, they were deliberation both of the curiae and of the senate which were approved by the rex with the support of the pontiff.

I have no idea what this means — and it's the first sentence of a subheaded section. There's no antecedent for "they". And how can "they" plural, whatever they are, = "deliberation," a singular abstract noun? "According to the content of fragments" seems to mean simply "According to fragments", but these are "found" in Pomponius et al., so are they fragments of other legal authorities? Fragments of the leges themselves? These "authors on the subject" — what "subject" are we talking about? There's an awful lot of this kind of writing. I can't follow it. I don't know what it's trying to say. That's why I'm advocating focus and quality, rather than mere quantity.

Most Wikipedia articles on Roman law suffer from archaic diction and tortuous syntax, as they seem to have been lifted from some 19th-century source, and the subject matter not that well understood by the editor. So at a quick glance, I haven't found one to recommend as a model. Nexum is not bad, though, so you might take a look at that. Best wishes, Cynwolfe (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and the links. I think I would have to do a lot of reading. It is fine if the works are available pdf, but frankly spending hours reading on the screen and writing down notes will be a very tiring and time consuming job.

As for the sentence you mention I agree there is a mistake as it should read deliberations in the plural, or 'a' deliberation, ie an act of deliberation however its meaning is clear enough. It is obvious the sentence refers to the leges regiae, that we are talking about them, that the fragments are fragments that directly or not contain their statuitions and since the quality of the sources is left undefinite they may come from souces of whatsoever kind. If one reads the article he shall see that many of these fragments are to be found in historians such as Plutarch, Dionysius of Hal., Livy...

I agree that the writing style is poor however it is a big improvement in comparison to the Italian version I translated.

As for the single sentences and the apparent disorganisation I can agree only in part. The author has to make a choice whether writing an essay by choosing instances that he includes into a structured exposition or giving the reader the complete set of information available. As I said above for this article too I believe it is best first to give readers all the primary sources available compatibly with the length allowed here, and leave the interpretations afterwards. But I do not know whether this is accepted in wikipedia. If we just write on the interpretations of scholars, without giving readers the basic information on which every serious scholar must work I do not know whether we do the reader the best service.

Since I am straying too much from the topic here I would just like to hint to the fact that as scholarly works are countless every nutty idea may find its way to these pages on such grounds.

I do not wish to sound polemic but just pose a question for which me too I have no a clear answer.Aldrasto (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue here, I think, is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Its content - for a scholarly article - is intended to be a summary of the present state of scholarship. The difficulty here is the inclusion of a great deal of primary material without much interpretive text which is sourced to good secondary sources. Might I suggest as a model some of the excellent featured articles of the Military History project such as Battle of Cannae and Third Servile War which face the same issue of presenting information for which the primary sources are fragmentary, non-English, and open to multiple and disputed interpretation. You are right about the risk of nutty ideas - the solution is to amass reliable scholarship.

According to the content of fragments found in Pomponius and other authors on the subject, they were deliberation both of the curiae and of the senate which were approved by the rex with the support of the pontiff.

...Should probably be rewritten as (delete where appropriate)

A few/several/numerous Roman authors, chiefly/most notably Pomponius,include fragments of the Leges Regiae in their own writing. Examination of these shows that they includethe deliberations of both the curia and the senate, and that these deliberations were approved by the rex with the support of the pontiff(add secondary source which supports this assertion) Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

distressing

This is a potentially valuable page, but it's distressing to see it still in need of the most basic copyediting (I mean, like abundant spelling mistakes). It doesn't seem to have been worked on in two or three weeks. It can't be left this way.

I added a couple of sections I need to link to regularly — terms that wouldn't merit a separate article, but for which a full explanation might be disproportionate or digressive in other articles . Several entries are far too long and should be moved to their own page if they deserve this much coverage. This list should be a quick reference to (mostly) Latin terminology. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's an appropriate sub-heading. Some of the material's utterly confusing to me, some's downright incomprehensible - that includes some of the longer sections I've tried to edit down to little effect. Readers should not have to scratch their heads over interminable debates within undeveloped articles that reach no conclusions. Let's boil it down, shall we? I think we've consensus to go ahead. And I think it's reasonable to use whatever sources are available to us. Haploidavey (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I seldom hanker after rules but in the face of this baffling, unattended overgrowth, we might adopt some entries as models - Collegium, Do ut des and Piaculum are particularly clear and efficient to purpose, with useful context and links elsewhere for further expansion. Actually, Do ut des seems the best illustration of what we should be offering here; straightforward, contextual summary; no discussion of scholarship required, no Latinity and no etymologies or other shrubbery. It truly distresses me to say this, but I believe the longer entries should simply be cut out and started again - and I'd be against their further development (or rather, elaboration) in anything except user-space. Enough's enough. Haploidavey (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

page moved

I just discovered that there is an existing category "Glossaries of religion," and that the glossary is a recognized type of list page. See Wikipedia:Lists#List articles. Therefore, I renamed the page to conform to other glossaries of religion. I'll also correct the links to the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

See particularly Glossary of Islam and Glossary of Japanese Buddhism. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

reformatting

Davey, since I know you're at work on this: I began reformatting the entry subheads to be smaller; thought that looked better. Also think that the capitalization should reflect usage (common or proper). Unexpectedly interrupted in the process; you may work on it, or I'll finish it when I can. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That's so much better, Cyn. I'll pick away at it from time to time. Haploidavey (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

excised entries

Is there anything we could do with these large swathes of excised text, other than placing them on the talk page? Any sort of Special page that could be created, and then a list of such passages here so they could be easily accessed? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's gotten very scruffy. I didn't want to dump anything; and didn't think it right to put it in a user-page. I tried to create one of those blue "Hide/Show" collapsable/expandable thingies in a sandbox last night but completely messed it up; and besides, that's not what a talk-page is for. I was hoping someone more competent than me would drop by. What about archiving? Haploidavey (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we tip them out into articles, or are they too chaotic. Give me a mo and I'll collapse them for you, that'll be a start. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You're so welcome! They're just too chaotic as a basis for articles, I'm afraid - but yes, still useful. Haploidavey (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I dislike deleting stuff. I'd thought of dumping them into articles, but I just felt they made bad starts. I just find their obfuscation very offputting. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Davey, are you looking at other prolix entries to move here under the handy-dandy collapsible rubrics? I keep getting distracted by adding other entries for terms. Very addictive. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Handy dandy prolixity! I think everything you tagged for attention should be collapsed. Some interesting patterns and relationships emerging in the list. At some point, you may come across my hidden note under ius - I've been working it off-page - but if you want to go ahead with that one, please do. When we reads stuff and writes articles, we learns, so nothing will be wasted. I know you've an interest in the development of mundus, and I don't intend fiddling about with what I really and truly (rather than mostly) don't understand. Haploidavey (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

All tagged entries now copied and pasted here. Haploidavey (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in mundus and devotio (the latter because I'm also working on human sacrifice in ancient Rome). Mundus is extremely hard to research because of the ubiquity of the word in its ordinary meaning of "world", particulary in medieval and Renaissance Latin. This has been an obstacle. I have Wm. Warde Fowler's 1912 article on mundus patet, and not much else on hand, it seems. All work here by everyone is much appreciated, as I think this will turn out to be a very useful page. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Le mundus et le Comitium : représentations symboliques de l’espace de la cité (Humm) [1] might be of use, or at least offer pointers elsewhere. Haploidavey (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this article is quite good. However I remember in my original article there was a note containig a complete bibliograpy, which is now unretrievable. Catalano's article on Spacial aspects of the Roman juridical-religious system in ANRW 1974 should be read if someone can access it. Dumezil offered a solution to the puzzle by making a clearcut distinction between the mundus at the centre of the original city and the other ones within the grounds of temples of Ceres. He also argues that the underground altar of god Consus is not a mundus. While this assumption is correct I feel there are too many correspondences and similarities between the ideas of a connexion of the nether world, the storing place for grains and the sacrality of the couple Ops and Consus: as Fowler pointed out the underground barns for selected grains were opened at certain dates, ie those of the three days in which mundus patet, among them the Consualia Aestiva . Also in the wiki article on Lapis manalis it is said that this stone was supposed to propitiate rain. If you read Festus's glossary he writes sv manalis this means that the spirits of the deceased filtered through it (original meaning of manare: compare Eng. to emanate, promanate etc.) Ability to filter through material things is btw the original meaning of di manes. See also Festus's entry Mundus patet.

Dumezil cites in a note the existence of a work on the etymology of mundus: E. Evangelisti "Una congruenza latino-indiana a proposito del mundus sotterraneo" in Studi in onore di Vittore Pisani 1969.

Please consider also the famous deities sacred to the life of the individual: Semonia, Segetia, Tutilina (and the Semones and Semo Sancus in other contexts) which all bear the meaning of the origin of (human) life from a seed and its return to it. Also present in the regia beside the altar of Ops. Quoted in Macrobius book I and Augustine. Ops herself is the Mother Earth and is worshipped under a number of names or indigitamenta: Terra, Tellus (and its family), Bona Dea (on the last one see Macrobius I: Bona Dea is an indigitamentum of Terra, Maia, Maiestas and is qualified as Ops, Fatua, Fauna etc.)Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing on wikipedia's irretrievable unless permanently deleted by an administrator. The original references are embodied in the collapsed text - they don't show because this page has no ref-list code. Text can be copied (not cut, please) from anywhere here, and from any version stored in the article history, then pasted into a user-space. If a reflist code is added to the bottom of the page, references will be displayed. Haploidavey (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fas and some of the following entries are now impossible to open, thus the citations are no longer retrievable.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No, nothing is deleted, unavailable or irretrievable. Open the collapsed material (as if to read it) then Click on the "edit" icon to the right of the "Temporary paste-ins" header. Fas is there. So are its citations. It can be selected, copied and pasted into a user-page. If you add a reflist code to that page while its open for editing, the refs will show when the page is saved. Haploidavey (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Imanaged to open the page.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

omen

We need to spin off the "omen" section to its own article, if we can determine that omen, omina is both the most general word in, but also meaningfully limited to, Roman religious terminology to refer to what in English we call an "omen" or "sign". Signum, I think, would not make for an article title, because it too many Latin uses that are non-technical, and I'm not sure it even has a technical meaning that's more than lexicographical (hence suitable for the Glossary).

I say this because of the several interesting examples of omina given. A couple of examples might be fine as concrete illustrations for a Glossary entry, but too many and it becomes a discussion out of proportion to the other entries.

There is a general article Omen, with a tiny section on ancient Rome that could have a "Main article" link to an article called Omen (ancient Rome). If omen is an umbrella term, there could be sections on the more specific forms of omens. But I haven't researched this question. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, a main article would be best. I'll start one. The technical terminology's not without problems and seems used inconsistently across the subject area by modern authorship; but it does seem to be accepted as an umbrella term for signs indicating future events. Haploidavey (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You have done a good job but have also deleted or misinterpreted much useful information. I cannot login as I forgot my password, however omen is a signum made up by words, as it was explained in the original. Fas is not divine law, as was explained at length in the original. The etymology too was not superfluous! Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The omen entry is already too long for a glossary - please note the remarks above. It's likely to be reduced even further and linked to a new main article. Regarding the meaning: I fully acknowledge the difficulties in knowing what was an omen and what wasn't, especially when primary (and secondary) sources show a range of different uses. Etymology is not meaning, and hardly ever determines doesn't constrain usage; the suggested etymologies are in an article footnote. I may well have "misinterpreted" the material left for others to read or edit but please consider their and our position: the material was disorganised and unclear - we're entitled to use our own sources to help clarify matters. I've cited each example. Rüpke, a respected and specialist academic on the subject, describes Marcellus' avoidance of the sight (sic) of any harmful omen (Italicised in the original as a technical Latin term). Haploidavey (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't respond to the comment on fas. I agree, an etymology might illuminate the meaning; the derivation from fare (thus "words spoken" in lawful formulae) was interesting but I'd rather have third opinions on its general acceptance in scholarship and how best to use it in this Glossary. Haploidavey (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Your contributions are appreciated, Aldrasto. Our aim is to bring this glossary in line with other WP glossaries on religion. Many entries were too long, often of article length. The information was not deleted; it's preserved in locations Haploidavey can point out. The long entries were very confusing to read even to someone familiar with the subject. This is not simply a matter of length, but of logical development and clarity of language. Compare Glossary of Islam or Glossary of Japanese Buddhism. I don't think this one needs to be so bare-bones as those, but it shouldn't present entries of article length. It also shouldn't be a dumping ground for the raw materials of articles.

I agree that some entries need to have etymologies. Fas is one of them; I don't think there's much controversy that it belongs to the same semantic group as for, fari. Like everything else in the glossary, an etymology should be succinct and to the point, not a wander through the lost mists of time. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The most probable etymology of fas is not from fari but from facio in the original meaning of I set. Compare Greek Themis from tithemi: the first God is Themis. This was explained very clearly in the original. Fas and jus are perhaps the most important terms of Roman religion. They have been reduced to nearly nothing. On this point it seems you both have not even read the original article.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read the original because it was incomprehensible. The Oxford Latin Dictionary says that the etymology of fas is dubious, but probably connected to for, fari. This is the most common semantic field within which it is considered in English scholarship. A glossary entry is the not place to argue for, much less assert, an alternative etymology. This is not the place for you to discover the "truth" that lies hidden beneath the veil. If you want to write an article on fas, go write an article. But take time to actually write an article; don't just throw a bunch of stuff in a verbal heap. This page is under construction and has a long way to go. But before you edit it, PLEASE look at other glossaries of religion on Wikipedia. I linked examples above, and will do so again: Glossary of Shinto, Glossary of Islam, Glossary of Japanese Buddhism.

You are also inclined to make sweeping assertions because that is what strikes you as true at the moment: "the first God is Themis" — to whom? Not to the Orphics. Not to Hesiod. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this as an example, this is a the quotation of a common saying, I am fully aware that from other points of view the question would look different. This is a charachteristic of ancient poytheism, it is not something like aristotelic yes or no, black or white logic!

I would also appreciate it very much if you could kindly refrain from personal observations and more or less open attacks and nasty/patronising remarks.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Aldrasto, of course you think it's clear: you've read the original material and you know what you mean. I fear I haven't, and don't. PS: by "original material" I mean the various sources you've used for articles. Haploidavey (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"The first God is Themis", as far as I know, was invented by Jane Harrison in the twentieth century. It is not a statement within mythology; it is a claim about mythology: that the group divinizes its own habits, deriving deities from ritual. Like many statements of that vintage, it is now held to be an oversimplification, although containing a large element of truth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I appreciate that J. Harrison is a great scholar. However I based my article on the works of G. Dumezil and the two Italian scholars F. Sini and M. Morani, available on line. The statement that Themis is the first god is by no means modern, here are two relevant quotations:

Ausonius, Techn. 8, de diis, 1: Prima deum fas quae Themin est Graiis;

Paulus, Fest. ep., p. 505 L.: Themin deam putabant esse, quae praeciperet hominibus id petere, quod fas esset, eamque id esse exstimabant, quod et fas est.

See also L. Rocci Dizionario Greco-Italiano Rome 1943 sv themis: neuter uninflectable noun, later feminine [Latin fas, Sanskrit dhaman] justice, right, law, use. Dumezil, Fugier, Coli and Morani's preference for the etymology on IE root DHE is well grounded. But I agree it is not certain.

Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

religiosus, sacer, sanctus

These are not clear to me. The distinction between religiosus and sacer seems to be that the former describes something the gods have decided to make their own (but why then a cemetery?), whereas as sacer describes something humans have decided should be devoted to the gods (perhaps by means of a sacerdos?). The second paragraph of sanctus is unsourced; does it really mean "virtuous" in the bland sense in which we use that word in English? Or does it mean something more like English "pious": devoted to what's right in terms of religion (which is not about 'virtue' in our sense of the word), conforming to standards of conduct? "Scrupulous" is one word the OLD suggests for the more generalized meaning of sanctus. Also "upright." It strikes me that the way sanctus becomes the Christian title "saint" is because of how saints conduct themselves (leading for some all the way to martyrdom), not just that they're "good" people. They're unassailable, from that original sense of "secured by religious sanction, inviolable," no matter what's done to them; this would be a Christian development of the sanctity that attended, say, a tribune, which one might see in fact violated (and so in the Christian argument would mean this state of sanctity was actually profane, subject to violation, whereas the true sanctity of the soul in God would lay beyond violation).

I think I'm feeling that the entries are better off risking oversimplification than confusing readers with too much nuance:

• religiosus: that which has been divinely marked as devoted to the gods.
• sacer: that which has been devoted to the gods by human beings.
• sanctus: that which is inviolable by virtue of its conformity to religious scruple.

But I could be quite wrong in my impressions of these, as I've not researched the terms. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Nor I. The entry as it stands is my attempt to boil down the previous. It relies on the primary sources as supplied, some not-very-satisfactory definitions culled from the online Lewis and Short, and the few bits and pieces of modern commentary I was able to half-way understand. The rest was beyond me. Clarity every time; please go ahead and change as you see fit. Haploidavey (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Your definitons are quite good:

religiosus: that which has been appropriated by god and is beyond man's reach or grasp. See also religio in the sense of taboo (eg carry the dialis or magister populi by horse). The graveyard: death as well as some illnesses were considered due to the action or decision of gods (I wrote this in the article).

sanctus: that which is in conformity or has reached conformity with the sphere of the divine (fas or sacer) either for its inherent nature or for its science (knowledge or insight of / devotion to) the divine. Of course the Christian use of the word stems from here.Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

vitium & piaculum

I hadn't grasped the difference at all: as you say, vitium needs clarification and context (as does its plural vitia, ahem!); and should not point to piaculum, which aims to prevent impiety, not to compensate after the act. Haploidavey (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable

I started this article, I worked on it tirelessly for two months and I think I did a good job.

I presented the matter as clearly and as thoroughly as possible, given its complexity and uncertainty (and the fact that I have no access to a good library).

It is frankly unacceptable that other wikipedians, who BTW cannot even read Latin, completely undo what I wrote and alter the meaning of the entries without having any knowledge of the topic.

I wrote time ago that I acknowledge my English far from perfect and I welcome corrections of mistakes (misspellings or other) and other linguistic improvememts.

I even agreed in advance to others's summarizing and simplifying the longer entries (eg religio) however on the condition that the meaning of the original would not be altered.

I did not mean to write a glossary in the first place and in fact I called the article vocabulary as I intended to offer readers a good introduction to the scientific study of Roman religion through its own terminology, one of the best ways.

As the above discussion between users Haploidavey and Cynewolf shows they do not muster any of the most important concepts of Roman religion, be it fas, sacer, sanctus, religiosus, religio.

How can these persons be allowed to take away the right of readers to the much more complete overview I offered?

They claim my contributions were unreadable, however on rereading my work on fas, sanctus, sacer I find it perfectly intelligible. I do not think this is a linguistic problem since my writing was at least passably intelligible: it is the matter that requires some ability of abstract thinking and of course some basic information on Roman civilization. Everything I wrote comes from published works of specialists: how could it be classified as hard to understand and confusing? I object to the use of these templates over my entries.

Therefore according to wikipedia rules I shall ask for a mediation on the question.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I repeat, the creation of this list is much appreciated and so are all contributions to its development. Articles are drafts, and each draft is stored in the article history: your most recent drafts are duplicated in the expandable boxes above. These "original articles" have been edited since. Anyone can edit here; they don't have to read Latin to do so; they might wish they did, of course... but we do our best, and allow other readers to judge the quality of our efforts because we write for them, and not ourselves. If you doubt Cynwolfe's edting skills and grasp of Latin, you might care to check her user-page and contributions.

Quote: "I even agreed in advance to others's summarizing and simplifying the longer entries (eg religio) however on the condition that the meaning of the original would not be altered". No - and please read wikipedia policies on this and other points - no-one owns anything on wikipedia. That applies to something that's been several years in development, or several days. Goodwill and consensus are evident in the development of this article. If other editors find the work unclear, they're free to tag, edit and clarify. By the way, I personally use "original" to mean the source works used to develop drafts. Tags on articles refer to their content, not their editors.

The change of title is, I think, entirely appropriate to the content as determined by consensus (see various posts above this section). And of course, you are free to disagree with any of this. Haploidavey (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in edit wars. I appreciate that you honestly believe you have done your best to help improve the article. However you will agree that the changes have been sweeping and the meaning of the most important terms is now not discussed in any detail and even arbitrarily offered as certain. At the same time you both aknowledge you have no specific knowledge of the topics. I think a mediation is the best solution we can choose.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to take this article to mediation. I encourage you also to involve the Greece & Rome Project, as this is an important page that potentially pertains to a number of other articles under the G&R aegis; the talk page is here. And no one has suggested that you shouldn't contribute to the glossary.

When you stopped editing the article for two or three weeks, it was left full of misspelled words, typos, and syntactically incomprehensible sentences. I don't particularly care what it is you think you "know" about ancient Roman religion; what matters is what ends up on the page, and how accessible and useful it is to readers. The article has now been edited to be more like similar pages on Wikipedia. Many of your entries, for instance, were of article length; let me repeat for the umpteenth time, if you wish to write an article on fas, you should go write an article on fas. There are WP guidelines on article length, and this glossary can't be a collection of articles. It can link, however, to your separate articles.

As for your wanting to write an article on technical vocabulary in ancient Roman religion, that is not what you wrote. You wrote no introduction about why the Romans thought religion was something that required a technical vocabulary, nor an overview of how this vocabulary is preserved, or other theoretical or theological issues pertaining to the concept of the priestly or ritual 'word'. You created the article as a lexicon of terms. There is a category for glossaries of religion. The entries as they stand now are already longer than those in any other glossary.

Hapoidavey, please read what you yourself wrote here above in this discussion, when you started to offer your help (that I welcomed): you said you would not alter the main meaning of the original.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Haploidavey has been working for months on two major articles that demonstrate his understanding of the major English scholarship as it pertains to this subject matter: Imperial cult (ancient Rome) and Religion in ancient Rome. I also stand by the work I've contributed; here is a list of articles I've created. Although personal claims of expertise are not to the point on WP, and are discouraged, I take issue with your claim that I can't read Latin; I've done doctoral work in Latin. Since most people can't read Latin, articles have to be comprehensible to people who don't have direct knowledge of the language, and also to people who don't have experience in reading the ancient sources even in translation. You say you don't have access to a good university library: I do. If you think that scholars who specialize in Roman religion are agreed on all the nuances of what these terms mean, then you haven't read very widely in the scholarship.

I'm truly sorry you feel frustrated. But if editors who regularly delve away in this subject matter can't understand what you're saying in a given passage, how can it be expected to help a far more casual reader who encountered a term and went to look it up? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is clear: I do not object to others contribute to the article, however this should be a constructive contribution, not a destructive one. Even though my article could have been written in poor English I do not think it was unintelligible: and if it was I welcome others to improve the language. Another matter is to delete most of the essential concepts and related semantic questions and give simple but arbitrary definitions instead. It is exactly because I am aware of the complexity of the problems involved that I think the article as it stands now is unacceptable and unfaithful to the spirit of the original.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want to argue with you, Aldrasto, and I apologize if what was formerly encouragement has taken on a more snappish tone. If errors have been edited in, you should correct them. If you feel, however, that a given entry needs to be amplified beyond a couple of paragraphs, you should write an independent article on that; in the glossary, you should summarize clearly and concisely. Complex thought can be stated with clarity. If you're writing an encyclopedia article about a theory of Derrida, you don't ape Derrida's elliptical and oblique manner, and you don't indulge in obscure noodling around: your job is to present a clear summary that answers directly the questions the reader is likely to be bringing to the article.

I've found this glossary to be a highly useful article to link to already. I'm not satisfied with some of the entries, particularly in the fas/ nefas semantic field. Whether or not this is a fair judgment, my impression when I read your contributions is that you haven't fully digested the material; I feel that the writing is still in process, that it's still an excited first draft of ideas. (A further indication of this is your article leges regiae, where many "paragraphs" are single sentences; it's often written as a list, not as exposition, and it's unduly long and prolix.) An encyclopedia is supposed to deliver handily packaged info, not serve as an essay that teases the reader into mulling over what it means. Maybe it would be noble for other editors to work this out for you, but it makes more sense to me to read the scholarship itself and summarize that.

I think the glossary is a great addition to Wikipedia, like similar glossaries of religion, and you should be congratulated for sparking its creation. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Only a few remarks on the leges regiae:

1) could you please in future place your comments on the discussion page of that article?

2) the article is a translation, not a single line or thought is mine, I wish to be faithful to the original, which BTW I like.

3) there is no way to change a list of laws into something more organised. You can discuss the value, meaning, scope and relevance of every law, group them under a number of categories etc., omit some, however they are what they are.Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

consecratio, aedes and just a little templum

Interesting distinctions made by Ulrike Egelhaaf-Gaiser on p 206 of A Companion to Roman Religion, Wiley-Blackwell, 2007. They seem to imply a sequence of events not very clear to me, nor clear in our glossary.

"Roman antiquarian literature distinguishes between templum and aedes sacra" (she cites Fridh, A. 1990. "Sacellum, sacrarium, fanum, and related terms," in Greek and Latin Studies in Memory of C. Fabricius, Göteborg, 1990, pp 173–87. Might be of service to some here but not to me as on-line access is zilch and the original seems to be in German).

The templum is sort-of as we have it in the Glossary though we're missing something and I'm not sure what it is. Aedes sacra "refers to the temple building as the seat of the gods, which could be erected in the cult precinct. As the rightful inhabitants of the building, the gods were entitled to the rear, offset part of the temple interior (cella). Wide doorways allowed them an unhindered view of the open-air sacrificial altar (ara, mensa), where the food was placed." A sacred domus, in effect. I find this curious and more than a little confusing. Does this mean that augury creates a window between the earthly and heavenly realms, and the gods somehow "move in" once an earthly house is built for them on their sacred property? I guess it does, but that's not clear in the templum entry.

Consecratio transfers the ownership of land to the deity, releases it (the land) from any public claims and removes it from secular access. "Once consecrated, cult sites and their furnishings are protected for all time; potentially damaged cult items and votive offerings must be stored or buried in the cult precinct. Inscriptions therefore sanction the short-term removal of votive offerings for restoration purposes, or the removal of dead trees from a sacred grove, or the felling of trees as part of the annual festival of sacrifice" (citing CIL 12.366; 9.3513). Haploidavey (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, not to be a dunderhead, but don't we already distinguish between the aedes as a building that houses the deity's image and the templum as a ritually marked out space? What's unclear to me in templum is terrestrial v. celestial templa. The aspect of consecratio that Linderski has confused me about (and which he says is often gotten wrong) is who does it and how it relates to dedicatio and inauguratio, the relative roles of augurs, pontiffs, and magistrates. Your revision doesn't clarify this.

Your definition of consecratio ends up being all about the after-effects, and not what consecratio is as a ritual act within religious law; that is, your definition describes routine maintenance of the precinct after the fact, which would be carried out by temple priests of lower status, and doesn't explain the technical term consecratio, which is the point. You use the English word "dedications," for instance, as if it were synonymous with "properties that have undergone consecratio," which is confusing in company with the term dedicatio (the relation of which to consecratio is already a fine and confusing point).

I don't mean to sound overly adamant about this, but a glossary is not a place for conceptualizing essays; it's supposed to define terms. Examples are sometimes illuminative. But consecratio referred to a particular act for which certain public figures were responsible, not the locus sacer that was created by it. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Be adamant by all means. As I said above, I'm more than a little confused and the last thing we need is more confusion in article space. I'll restore the previous version. Haploidavey (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't need to revert it just because I was cranky and churlish. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No... you were cranky but it was better before my eager tinkering. Enthusiasm's no substitute for critical thought. Haploidavey (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Templum is something per se connected to augury, ie it needs the direct intervention of the augur and it serves the purpose of augury. It might also become a building but it is generally known as a templum.

As explained clearly in the original article a templum is defined both in terra and in caelo. In terra it is a quadrangukar space which is cut out. In caelo it is a well defined space wherein augural obseravation must take place: fines in terra et in caelo. Ullaber arbos...ollaner arbos. In this conregione, conspicione, cortumione within this space I clearly perceive the templum is going to be established. Please spend a second and read the original quotations.

Aedes sacra, sacellum etc. are not necessarily a templum, and can be dedicated by anybody, provided they have the preemptive approval of the Roman people (Cicero Pro domo mentions two responsa contained in the Commentarii pontificum on the matter of the ius publicum dedicandi), even so they must be consacrated by a pontifex. All this is clearly stated in the original article and BTW in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Anitquity London 1875, available online too.

See also Cicero Pro domo: the consacration was ineffective because pontifex L. Pinarius Natta had acted irritually and moreover without books (sine libris).Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good example to show what consecratio means; discussion of a failure can often show what was supposed to happen. Agreed that material explaining terrestrial v. celestial templa should be in there, but the original material went about explaining this in a murky and prolix manner. (I think we're all straight on templum not originally referring to a building, though even in Latin it acquired that meaning — without, however, losing the original meaning.) Cynwolfe (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Help sought from the G&R project

• I've posted a message at the G&R talk page, inviting input. The debated/disputed issues relate to this article and no other, so could we please discuss them here, not there. Haploidavey (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

indigitamenta

I've been meaning to add an article on indigitamenta, but this entry will have to do for now. When the article is written, the entry will be condensed, and some specifics removed. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

On the question of the scope of the indigitamenta: I had pondered it too, it seems they are just names specifying the power or function of a larger entity, however they are sometimes the name of great deities as in the case of Ops, at the same time an indigitamentum of Bona Dea and a major goddess. This is a case of circularity as Ops is Terra and again Bona Dea (along with other names as Maia, Maiestas), is an indigitamentum of Terra.

Another point of interest is that of the indigitamenta concerning the child, Vaticanus, Picumnus, Abeona, Potina,... seem all to be indigitamenta of Juno: compare Juno Iterduca and Juno Domiduca.

On the red dogs, Robigo and Mars: I think the connexion is not Mars here but wheat. It is wheat which is related to red dogs. See Pliny's words on the augurium canarium. Ovid too was not clear on this as describing the rites of the Robigalia he has the flamen quirinalis tell him this is due to timing, ie the sun in the constellation of the Dog. However this would leave unexplained the sacrifice of red dogs on the augurium canarium which occurred later. Also the Volcanalia or Consualia Aestiva had to do with dogs, if I am not mistaken. So the connecting element should be wheat.

On the question of the secret names: it seems only some indigitamenta were secret, as those we are talking about here obviously were not. I put a post on this point on the discusssion page of di indigetes: ie indigetes means two different things, one is a highly revered essential deity, other are epithets of a god designing some aspects of it.

Finally I think one can safely state that the indigitamenta can be ascribed to king Numa, who gave the exscripta to Numa Marcius.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Indigitamenta presumably included secret or arcane names, but all indigitamenta were not secret (the logic goes: 'all cocker spaniels are dogs, but not all dogs are cocker spaniels'). I hope that's clear in the entry. However, even the supposedly secret name of Rome raises a question: if it was uttered in public prayer, it was no longer secret, so it would fall into the category of "public secret" (p. 85).

Of the many articles I have going on at once, I'm working on "Dog sacrifice in ancient Rome", which will include the augurium canarium, and hope at some point to put together an overview on the childbirth and infancy deities ("Childbirth deities in ancient Rome"?), which make more sense when viewed collectively than scattered in their minuscule articles. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

votum

After insisting that entries be kept short, I have produced a quite long one for votum. As with indigitamenta, this is one I'd been needing to link to, and hoped to produce an article. But here's this much for now, and if an article ever takes shape, the entry here can be reduced. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions

I have read the entry verba concepta and I noticed it has been edited in a way that is unrecognizable and moreover unrefenced. Who says they are revealed or inspired by gods?

The last paragraph on Augustine 's use of the expression has clearly nothing to do with this concept in Roman religion and its usage in this context.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sacramentum has been edited in a way that makes it undistinguishable from votum. I think this article should avoid confusions as it was started precisely to make readers acquainted with the concepts of Roman religion and law, which are strictly related and both highly specialised.

On words ending in -mentum there is a bibliography that now I do not remember. However the word sacramentum has a definite technical meaning and in the original article I gave two concrete referenced instances (sacramentum militiae and legis actio sacramentum in rem/personam). Now the entry is a vague conglomeration of different all and sundry.

Even a person without specific knowledge of the subject can guess that sacramentum is another thing from votum.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In commentarii pontificum Libri reconditi as opposed to the commentarii: Lindersky quoted here is wrong, it were the libri pontificales that were secret even if much of their content was known by the time of Varro (eg the fasti had been published by Cn. Flavius in 304 BC). The phrase Libri reconditi refers to the books of the Etrusca disciplina.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Linderski's massive article on "Augural Law" in ANRW is a standard piece of scholarship on the subject, perhaps the standard in English-language scholarship, judging from the frequency of its citation, and his article on the libri reconditi is concomitant. You may disagree with him, but this is irrelevant unless you provide sources that outweigh his auctoritas.

I don't know what you mean by the entry verba concepta being unsourced; every bit of it comes from the sources that are cited in the two footnotes.

The introduction to this article clearly states (with citation) that the vocabulary of ancient Roman religion influenced Christian usage; this influence is one of the reasons the Glossary may be of broader interest. Therefore, it is appropriate to point out not only English words derived from the Latin, but borrowings into ecclesiastical Latin and by the patristic writers who take terms and either "reform" them for Christian usage or secularize them for philosophical use.

I agree with you completely about sacramentum; this is why I spent some time doing a too-long entry on votum. I'm thinking devotio is causing some of the confusion; devotio seems to be a case of both sacramentum and votum. Please recommend secondary sources in English that we can use to make the entry on sacramentum what it needs to be. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Verba concepta: on the libri reconditi,yes I agree I have to provide sources and I shall comply. I do not think that any scholar has the prerogative of having his point of view established as auctority never mind how recognised he might be in any particular academic milieu. I suggest that you read again my original article, it was far more precise and documented. As far as Augustine there are two problems: 1) clearly his use of the expression has nothing to do with that in Roman religion (or in Christianity either), ie he his use is simply a case of omonimity. 2) I disagree and strongly object to this article giving meanings of these words other or irrelevant to their use within the context of Ancient Roman Religion. Any use of these words by Christian authors should not be dealt here as this article has been started strictly and exclusively as a tool to explain the original words and concepts of Ancient Roman religion. Please do this in articles on Christianity if you are interested.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Fas: the article is now full of (unreferenced) nonsense. At the end it states too that festivals/holydays were fas, ie marked F on the calendar! I wonder how a person who has even a little acquaintance with the topic can make such a blunder: it is exactly the opposite, feasts were all N(efas). Moreover the references are still the original ones given by myself linkedto a totally different exposition. Please do not attribute to them all this nonsense.Fas is not a law, let alone a law of gods or imposed by gods on men...Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we please keep our cool here and use this talk-page to address issues of substance? Per the "fas" entry: if it's wrong, it's wrong: please correct it and give your reasons in an edit summary. The Christian inheritance of Roman religious terminology (in matters religious and profane) seems entirely relevant to me. Haploidavey (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

… because there was a period in Late Antiquity when the Empire was Christian.

Aldrasto, your initial comments in this section don't mention fas; you specified other sections as unreferenced, and they are not. Please edit the article or provide English sources that we may use to do so. As explained ad nauseam above, we mostly couldn't understand what you were saying in your initial contributions, which often presented detailed arguments among scholars — a battle of names — rather than basic definitions of immediate use to readers looking up the term. Obviously, if there is no scholarly consensus, competing views should be presented clearly and in summary, with minutiae given in footnotes. Reviewing verba concepta, you are right; I didn't notice at first that when I added English sources I also retained the preexisting notes. I'll rewrite that entry using only sources that I know directly from my own reading. You, of course, may amend it.

Keep in mind that it is WP policy that English sources on a topic should be used unless they don't exist. Sources in other languages may also be used in conjunction, or solely if no English sources are available. English-language sources on this topic exist in abundance, and many are easily accessible in full or in preview online. I usually provide direct links to these, but because of the length of this article, I didn't want to make it more confusing to edit by having a jumble of URLs appear in edit mode. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for my last post on fas here above as it sounded angry/aggressive. I acknowledge the topic is complex and needs a long discussion to enable readers to have some grasp of it. It would be misleading to call it a law or divine law unless proper clarifications are appended.

It is my view that to introduce presantation or discussion of Christian usage of these words would create a risk of confusion (as this use is more or less our everyday use) and introduce an unnecessary burden on an article that on the opposite is striving to recover and present readers the original specific meaning of the terms by putting/presenting them in their proper original cultural context/milieu. Particularly (as I stated above) the case of Augustine's use of verba concepta has nothing to do with Christianity or religions.

The claim made by user Cynwolf that the Italian sources I used are unavailable is groundless: they are all available on line. I already wrote on this page that I have no access to a good library...

Finally on verba concepta and the references: the entry has been edited off and I spent time trying to retrieve it. It seems the references are still the same I gave with one addition (Klindgardt), but the content has been changed. I did not state these words were revealed or inspired by gods, so I would like to know who says this, it is certainly a matter of some consequence, whatever the reason or authority.

On Linderski's opinion that the libri reconditi are the or a part of the libri augurales (not pontificales as I wrongly wrote above), there is much to write on. The texts in question are mainly two:

Cic. De domo 39: Venio ad augures, quorum ego libros, si qui sunt reconditi, non scrutor: non sum in exquiriendo iure augurm curiosus...

Serv. Danielis Aen.I 398: Multi tamen adserunt cycnos inter augurales aves non inveniri neque auguralibus commentariis eorum nomen inlatum, sed in libris reconditis lectum esse posse quamlibet avem auspicium adtestari, maxime quia non poscatur.

The first passage has led J. Marquardt (Roemische Staatsverwaltung, III, 2nd ed., Leipzig 1885) to conclude that in the archive of the augures one could find, besides the libri and commentarii augurum, also the libri reconditi, "of whom however he was unable to provide a convincing definition"(Sini Documenti sacerdotali...cit.). It looks in the passage Cicero is simply saying that the books of the augurs were hidden or secret, not naming them as reconditi.

In the second Servius D. is saying that in the augural science swans were not considered aves augurales nor is their name to be found in the augural commentaries, but in the libri reconditi it is said that whatever kind of bird can give auspices, especially if not solicited. It looks he is talking about two different bodies of lore, ie the augural as opposite to another one (cetainly the Etruscan).

Scholarly authorities are as follows (as quoted by Sini):

Contra identification of l. reconditi with l. or c. augurales( they all say the libri reconditi are Etruscan books):

C. O. Mueller Die Etrusker Breslau 1828, II p. 113;

P. Regell De augurum publicorum libri Vratislavae, 1878, p. 35;

A. Boucher-Leclercq Histoire de la divination dans l'antiquite' IV, p. 182;

C. Thulin Die etruskische Disciplin III, Goetheborg, 1909, pp. 109 sq.;

P. Catalano Contributi allo studio del diritto augurale Torino, 1960, p. 80;

A. J. Pfiffig Religio Etrusca Graz, 1975, p.45

The view opposing the identification of augurales and reconditi is further supported by two other passages by Servius Danielis: Aen. II 649; VI 72. Somebody can check, I cannot...Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, Aldrasto. From where I stand, any disagreements on sources and their interpretations are secondary to the need for consensus on what this article/Glossary/Vocabulary should aspire to. I'd say "clarity and utility". You say above: "I acknowledge the topic is complex and needs a long discussion to enable readers to have some grasp of it." How long a discussion did you have in mind? And to what end? Seriously, the Glossary (or Vocabulary, if you wish) already has close on 120 entries and is still nowhere near even notional completeness.

Your original entries are potentially useful, but they're more notebooks than articles - interesting? yes, of course. What I'm trying to say here (I think) is that at some point, one's notes and raw material must somehow be transformed into articles; the more complex the material, the greater the demands for clarity of expression and organisation. This is emphatically not an accusation. I've notebooks filled with this and that on various topics in Roman history; they make perfect sense to me but they're little use to anyone not already thoroughly immersed in the material, no matter how interested they might be. One can know a topic inside out and make perfect inward, subjective and self-evident sense of one's own notes - that doesn't make them articles, and (unfortunately) their essentials can remain impenetrable to others. I think we seriously underestimated the enormous editing task here - I know I did - but then, I edit because I enjoy it. At the end of the day, we're all part of a community of editors. I'd rather leave the community to decide where all this should be going. My own opinion's already clear enough. Haploidavey (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What I wrote above concernes mainly the entries fas, sacer, sanctus, religio, religosus. Other cases are simpler.

Namely fas cannot be defined simply as divine law, law imposed by god on man, unless there is an appropriate explanation appended. You want a quick definition? The sphere of action which is allowed to man by god. Also in some instances a course of action which gods hint they would support, encourage or expect to be undertaken. But this is still partial as for the ancient it implied the idea that there was an underlying supporting setting, a disposition of the invisible.

Of course I cannot rewrite or edit what others have written when it has been changed the essence of what I was trying to say.

If you go back in your memory you may remember the article originally had a Lede. Then you shortened it. Then someone put a template saying it was too short. Then you added something. Now you or Cynwolf added the Christian issue in the Lede. I already expressed my opposition and Cynwolf answered the adding of discussion of Christian terminology is in accord with the Lede you or she wrote (and I did not). Frankly how can I edit an article when there are two or more people that agree on different lines against me?Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Aldrasto, if something is wrong, then of course you can rewrite or edit it. That first sentence is unsourced - provide something taken from a good source. If you are concerned about being reverted, let's discuss the proposed change here and iron out what it should say. That's how Wikipedia works - by consensus. It says in the screed below the text box if you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here You will never edit a Wikipedia article in which all the contributors are in agreement with you - I can guearantee that.Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Ellen. Of course the above was directed to Haploidavey. As I already wrote the problem here is that some people started (in good faith I believe) to edit my earlier contributions changing completely the contents while not only did not provide new relevant references, but left the original there. So now it looks someone has written things that he did not write, as in the case of fas and verba concepta. Moreover they offered wrong or misleading information, ie that the festivals are marked F(as) when the opposite is right or the verba concepta are revealed by gods, something my sources do not say, but what are theirs? On the concept of fas I can of course give sources for my defintion, but many scholars would not agree or have slightly different definitons. To list them all would require too much time and effort. Many would also agree that fas is simply divine law: however in my view it is a misleading definition, ie one that requires proper qualifications. We should be aware that we live in a culture heavily influenced by Christianity and if we just say divine law perhaps most readers would be misled into thinking of something similar. This has been the worry of many contemporary Romanists such as Riccardo Orestano: we use the same words, ie law here, or god, but the ancient had a different idea. Ius and fas were originally similar ideas and all had to do with religion, later ius changed into a mostly juridical concept and fas retained its religious content: thence the opposition of divine law fas and human law ius, ancient but artificial and trompeuse. This should be explained to readers in my view.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, to try to unpick this somewhat. First, you say that an edit has made it appear that your source is saying something that it does not. This is something that you need to correct, as you are the one with access to the Italian source, and it does need to be corrected.

Secondly, you say that the calendar marking is an actual error. Again, if you have the source for that (I'm presuming any textbook would say it?) it should be corrected. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thirdly, you make the point many scholars would not agree or have slightly different definitons. To list them all would require too much time and effort. Many would also agree that fas is simply divine law: however in my view it is a misleading definition, ie one that requires proper qualifications. Now, while I can understand your feelings here, it does raise some concerns with me. If there is no one agreed definition, we (all of us) should not be presenting that such a definition exists. A catalogue of slight differences would indeed be tedious, but your definite objection to Cynewolf's definition leads me to suspect that we are not talking about differentiating between shades of beige here. Also, while I do understand that you feel that 'divine law' is misleading, if twenty significant mainstream academic sources use that term, then any discussion of its proper qualification belongs in a longer, better sourced article. To include it in the short text here would violate WP:UNDUE

Finally, there is the Christianity debate. I agree with you that going on into discussion of how a term is used in Christianity is not for here. We already have articles on many terms taken over by Christianity, eg Feria. I would say that where something can be learned of the older usage from the way the word transitioned into Christianity in the 4th century, then this is a legitimate addition, but if the meaning is quite different, it is sufficient to state this without more ado. I do not think that Cynewolf was wrong to state that many words went on into Christianity - this is an uncontentious statement. What I do think though is that the lede should explain that although this happened, the meaning of the words could change substantially, so that interpretation of earlier meaning should not be based uncritically on the later usage.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(Elen posted while I was writing this; I've not yet read what she has to say). Aldrasto, I'd rather not be involved in this adversarial approach to editing. No-one's against anyone. Let's please move things forward from interminable post-mortems on who said or did what. If you take some time to find your way around the workings of Wikipedia, you might also not "credit" me with edits made by others. It doesn't particularly bother me that you do, but I'd far rather you saw yourself as part of a general alliance committed to the best possible editing. Disagreement's par for the course and agreement doesn't make a faction. Quality, accuracy and clarity of editing impress me more than the personal or scholarly credentials, convictions and beliefs of others (or myself, come to that).

Re: your last remark - no-one is saying these matters shouldn't be explained to readers. To quote you: "we use the same words, ie law here, or god, but the ancient had a different idea. Ius and fas were originally similar ideas and all had to do with religion, later ius changed into a mostly juridical concept and fas retained its religious content: thence the opposition of divine law fas and human law ius, ancient but artificial and trompeuse." Not sure about "trompeuse" but if you were to reconstruct the entry with the same clarity you've shown here, and provide appropriate citation, we'd have a concrete basis for productive discussion and further development. Please, edit.

And please note in particular the small-print section of Elen's post: in view of your re-iterations above, I'm not sure you've taken it in. Everything on Wikipedia belongs to the community. It can be painful to start an article with clear ideas of what it ought and ought not to be, only to have it changed by others. We've all been there; any long-term editor must learn to live with that. So, how about some input on the Glossary? Haploidavey (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Why Christianity is relevant

I wonder whether anyone has actually followed the link in footnote 1; it is part of Schilling's conclusion in his survey of Roman religion. Few books on ancient Roman religion don't end with, or take into consideration, the transitional period of the 2nd-4th century. Here are the reasons some reference should be made to Christian usage of these terms:

• Without acknowledging the direct transition to Christianity in the later Empire, the study of ancient Roman religion has merely antiquarian interest. This strikes me also as a matter of WP 'global perspective'.
• The relation of ancient Roman religion to Christianity is vital in the history of Western civilization.
• The relation of ancient Roman religion to Christianity is much more 'documentable' than its hypothetical links to an Indo-European culture for which no shred of archaeological evidence exists.
• From the 2nd to the 4th centuries, Christianity and the traditional religions coexisted; from the conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine to whenever one wishes to date the "fall" of Rome, the Empire was Christian. There is no magical cut-off point when Latin stopped being the language of Cicero and became the language of Augustine: there is no barricade, only an evolution over time. Augustine deliberately and systematically appropriated Latin terms from his classical sources, sometimes Christianizing and sometimes secularizing them.
• Because English-speaking readers will be more familiar with Christian usage of words like "devotion" and "consecration", it seems important to point out the mediating role of Christian writers, so that readers can understand why the original concept is so different from the meaning they're familiar with.
• Perhaps most important: The two major articles on Roman religion — Religion in ancient Rome and Imperial cult (ancient Rome) — conclude by discussing the transition to Christianity; therefore, the glossary that complements these two articles needs to address this too. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• An example of this can be found in the last paragraph of the entry votum, where the public vota evolve over the periods of Republic, Empire, and Christian Empire. (And of course when I said "books on ancient Roman religion" above I meant books that treat the subject as a historical whole — surveys, overviews — not monographs on specialized topics.) Cynwolfe (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And a last proposal …

If this article shouldn't be a glossary, but should be restored to its original intentions (I'm not clear on what those were, since I entered the picture only after it had been constructed as a glossary, and only after I thought it had been abandoned), I would like to take the much-despised material I've contributed and make a glossary, which I've found to be a highly useful thing to have.

The entries I created are: aedes, ara, auguraculum, auspicia impetrative, auspicia oblativa, caerimonia, carmen, commentarii pontificum, coniectura, delubrum, devotio, dirae, disciplina Etrusca, divus, do ut des, evocatio, exta, fanum, hostia, invocatio, libatio, litatio, miraculum, mola salsa, monstrum, observatio, ostentarium, ostentum, piaculum, popa, precatio, prex, servare de caelo, sodalitas, spectio, verba certa, victima, victimarius, and votum. I also added all the images in the article. Otherwise, I was trying to work with what existed in terms of basic copyediting. If Aldrasto wishes to revert this article to an earlier version, I am happy to start a "Glossary of ancient Roman religion" with these items, as I wish for him to feel free to explore his topics as he wishes. I'm extremely unhappy, however, of being accused of misusing sources and perpetrating erroneous information and general sloppiness. I don't think this is at all a fair reflection of my contributions. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. Cynwolfe has, as ever, edited here with great precision and scrupulous attention to sources. Entries with uncited statements or conclusions are likely to be mine. Haploidavey (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

But you were willing to take on a difficult and apparently thankless job. There was a large amount of material to deal with. If you don't have access to the original sources, it's hard to rewrite for clarity and check for accuracy. "Access" here is whether English sources are used to support statements in addition to sources in other languages. Elsewhere I've defended perhaps too testily the use of non-English sources in the field of classical studies even on Wikipedia, but these should be used within the guidelines detailed on non-English sources here, and not instead of Anglophone sources. I'm also wary of using too many 19th-century sources, even the "greats," because these often have their own biases and assumptions that should be balanced by scholarship from the last 30 years — another problem with some of the original material in the article. This aspect hasn't been discussed as much, but the fervor for advancing the Aryan origins of Roman religion, one might have noticed, cooled considerably after the 1930s, and scholars such as Arnaldo Momigliano and Bruce Lincoln became wary of IE-mania and some of the implications of Dumézil's theories. I now notice that there is a thoughtful section in the Dumézil article on this problem; it renders his many insights into Roman religion problematic. Here's one criticism from a source on Roman religion regularly used on WP; here's a nicely balanced criticism from an interesting new book I've only just dipped into. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Informal Mediation

Hello, I saw that this article was submitted as a case on the Mediation Cabal list and thought I would come and help out. I will be listing myself as mediator on the request. If there are any objections to this, please inform me on 'my' talk page. Ronk01 (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this is a highly useful article, and Aldrasto deserves credit for beginning such a large undertaking. I have been adding entries as they come up in other articles, and trying to rewrite other entries on the basis of Anglophone sources. Haploidavey, one of the driving editors of the related articles Religion in ancient Rome and Imperial cult (ancient Rome), has also been trying to streamline and clarify entries. Since these initially referenced almost exclusively Italian sources to which neither he nor I had access, some misrepresentation is bound to have occurred. For ease of retrieval, Elen and Davey removed the material we all found confusing but placed it on this talk page; see collapsed sections above. My view is that some of the entries are of independent article length, and that the original editor might want to use them as the basis of such; however, general editing and wikification problems also abound. Again, thank you very much for offering your time and attention. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me like the majority of this debate is misunderstanding. I have reviewed the deleted material, and found it to be useful, but I am not sure if it belongs on this page, perhaps, as you said, it could be wikified and placed on its own page? Also, I believe that the original author may have had an incomplete understanding of wikiformatting, so this may have been a part of the original problem. Also remember, any source that can be validated can be used on Wikipedia. Further, I would like to hear exactly what you would like me to do here. again, questions can be posted on my talk page, or the mediation casefile.Ronk01 (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have placed a section for opening statements on the casefile page, all parties are requested to place opening statements there. (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-07/vocabulary (now glossary) of ancient Roman religion)Ronk01 (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, after leaving a long narrative about working on this page at the mediation site, I've decided life is too short and I don't need this. I haven't done anything wrong here, I haven't done anything to this article that's contrary to WP guidelines or policy or to the spirit of Wikipedia, and I'm not going to waste my time defending myself. I prefer to stop editing the page. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way (I hope it was not beacuse of me) If there are not any objections, I will close this mediation, as I see no reason that the current editors of this page can, manage themselves in civil discourse regarding the subject manner.If there are no objections, I will close the case, and post my reccomendations on the casefile. Ronk01 (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no, it wasn't you! You're doing your job as you should. It's just that if there's no consensus on what this page should be like, and if my edits have been the product of misunderstanding the purpose of the page, I don't feel comfortable continuing to edit it. I started because it had been left in a mess, and in looking for ways to salvage it, I thought it belonged in the category "Glossaries of religion," and edited accordingly. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Closed

I have closed the mediation case for this article, my reccomendations can be found on the casefile page.Ronk01 (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Fas - new wording

Can we knock out a different wording for the definition of Fas, that is sourced and everyone can agree with. I understand (in general) Aldrasto's concerns here. If I have an area of specialist knowledge, it is Egyptology, and I have seen at first hand the results of attempts to explain some Egyptian religious concepts to persons whose 'religious model' is western Christianity. We need to be careful that all that we say is well sourced, and that we do not resort to a shorthand that has an unintended implied meaning. Judaism believes it received its laws direct from its G-d, carved onto stone. Rome has no such entity, and therefore even the phrase 'divine law' may need a little unpacking to prevent it conveying a false idea.

As a starting point, Aldrasto sources the following paragraph to Dumezil (not a quote) Thus in both religious and legal meaning fas does not indicate a law of the gods, but more appropriately the principle that rules the relationship between man and the realm of the invisible or the gods. In such a perspective it is the corresponding term of ius as far as human interpersonal relationships are concerned. Dumezil remains as a source in the current version, but it doesn't say anything like that any more. This needs fixing, so can it be said that the sentences above do reflect (a) Dumezil's view and (b) the view of other scholars. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Some sources: an interesting new book; a tidy statement on etymology here (see also p. 92 for Schilling's defintion as "religiously legitimate"); connection to Roman law here; Fowler here et passim; interesting observation from A.N. Sherwin-White here; fas in Jerzy Linderski's heavy-duty ANRW article on "The Augural Law"; defined as "divine law" by Mary Beard et al. in the basic survey text Religions of Rome here (with, I might point out, reference to its usage by a Christian emperor); tidy little definition here; Arnaldo Momigliano arguing against Dumézil's tripartite conception here via dichotomies, among them ius and fas. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected a miscopied link to Linderski in the preceding. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in quarrelling with other wikipedians. It is clear the remarks made by Cynwolf in her last posts here (now deleted) are more or less unacceptable personal attacks. I have no interest in discussing my views on Dumezil once again either, as I have expressed them many times. I appreciate his contributions and having read his book I know his achievements and limits. This is not the case of many Anglophone academics (Beard included) who critise him without having read him.

It is impossible for me to contribute to this article (which I started) in an atmosphere of open confrontation.

Cynwolf 's views expressed here above speak by themselves and do not need any comment. It would be a waste of time to argue, make a list of the absurdites she has piled up and rebutt them.

But I see she has edited some nasty reamarks off in the meantime!

I wish only to point out that any person that has not been brainwashed can agree that Romans/Italics had their own original religious ideas, that these were the issue of the long history of IE peoples and closely related to the Greek ones as well as those of other IE such as the Celts, Indoiranians etc. On the contrary Christianity belongs to a totally different tradition that did not influence the formation of Roman religion. The two came into contact late in the history of ancient Rome, ie since the end of II century CE. The use Christians made of Roman religious vocabulary is an issue that does not belong to the topic of Roman religion and as I said above deserves another article, because the meaning of the same words has totally changed in most instances: nobody would argue that pontifex, sacramentum, devotio and even religio etc. have anything in common in the two religions.

I will not start a new article on archaic Roman religion as by using this adjective I just meant to stress the originality of Roman religion, not put a limit of time. To me Macrobius (who wrote in the V century) is an ancient Roman. On the contrary Roman apologists and other Christians by choosing to embrace this new religion put themselves outside (and deliberately against) Roman religion and Rome's religious tradition.

Now on fas:

all the discussion in the Romanist doctrine seems to have started from Vergil's Georg. I 268-9:

Quippe etiam festis quaedam exercere diebus

fas et iura sinunt

Even in the festive days there are some activities which both fas and ius allow.

Servius commented:

Fas et iura sinunt id est divina humanaque iura permittunt: nam ad religionem fas, ad homines iura pertinent.

through this comment Isidorus Origines V 2 wrote:

De legibus divinis et humanis. Omnes autem leges aut divinae sunt, aut humanae. Divinae natura, humanae moribus constant; ideoque haec discrepant, quoniam aliae aliis gentibus placent. Fas lex divina est, ius lex humana...

On the grounds of these texts the contemporary Romanist scholarship has created the theory that among ancient Romans, since the times of the origins, there existed two different systems of rules: one, put under the fas, was the direct expression of divine will; the other, was made up by the ius and consisted in the whole of the precepts set up by men. The major representatives of this line of thought were: L. Capuano, Napoli 1878; M. Voigt, Leipzig, 1883:v. Ihering 1886; P. Kruger, Leipzig 1912: S. Perozzi, Roma 1928; V. Scialoja Roma 1928.

It was Riccardo Orestano that in an article published in 1939 proved that this view was groundless: fasdoes not express a system of rules but the general concept of that which is, religiouly speaking, allowed. He has moreover argued against the existence of an/the opposition of the fas with the ius, because this last word, both semantically and for the concrete subject matter involved, was equally connected with the sphere of the sacer in the archaic age. (R. Orestano "Dal ius al fas" Bullettino dell'Istituto di diritto romano 1939, p. 244; I fatti di normazione nell' esperienza romana arcaica 1967). His conclusion have been widely accepted in the Romanist doctrine but there are exceptions. A. Guarino, J. Paoli and most other agree, P. Noailles does not.Aldrasto11 (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Aldrasto, please calm down and take care what you post here. You accuse Cynwolfe of posting absurdities, personal attacks, and "nasty remarks" since deleted. That's quite a serious accusation and runs very close to a personal attack in itself. This talk-page has a history, impossible to falsify. Every edit ever made here is available to scrutiny. I've found no evidence that Cynwolfe has ever made or edited out any "nasty remarks"; nor would I expect to find it.

Regarding fas: I've re-written but not yet posted a small re-write, more-or-less along the lines suggested by Elen, using only the sources available to me (mostly those provided above by Cynwolfe) and removing all that have been misrepresented in the article text. It's therefore brief and incomplete: as things are so heated, I thought it best to let you know my intentions. Please expand as you see fit, using whatever sources you think appropriate. By the way, I hope you're not seriously suggesting that Beard et al haven't read Dumezil's work. Haploidavey (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My own partial revision is now posted into article space. Haploidavey (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's simply a falsehood to say that I posted nasty remarks and then deleted them. Unless Aldrasto is a mind reader. Please show me where I've posted anything about Aldrasto as a person that was nasty, and I will certainly apologize.

I have repeatedly encouraged Aldrasto to edit, particularly anything he sees as baldly wrong. I have never once doubted the validity of his sources, only that they are too infrequently in English, too often reliant on the distinctive theory of Dumézil without regard to English sources, and sometimes lean heavily toward 19th-century scholarship, which I clearly stated was fine and ought to be respected, but balanced with current scholarship of the last 30 years. His use of sources is demonstrated in his last post above: not one is in English, most are pre-1930s, and none is later than 1967. He has made no effort to incorporate the English sources that can be found online. I have spoken elsewhere of what I called his 'passion' for the subject matter, which I find admirable, though not a substitute for the patient building of an article with correct formatting (including appropriate links, which require become familiar with preexisting WP material), spelling, and grammar. I've never doubted the depth of his knowledge, only his clarity and succinctness in conveying it. Only now am I given pause by an ahistorical narrowness that seems to involve some notion of "originality" ("true" religion?) that never changes from the semi-legendary Numa who consorted with a nymph to Macrobius, pace for instance the Augustan reforms and as if Constantine weren't a "true" Roman emperor.

If Aldrasto decides to make contributions, my main suggestion is that he take a moment to review the policy on the use of English sources in English Wikipedia: here it is again. I've stopped editing this article because I wanted to give him an opportunity to steer it in the direction he envisioned. If in a week or two Aldrasto has decided he doesn't want to take an active role in the article, but perhaps wishes to direct his considerable energies toward developing other articles, I'd like to return to the Glossary, as I think it's very valuable. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A religion is a living entity or in modern scientific jargon a system. It has its origin, development, and an end or death. Until it is dead it is still living: if there is one man that knows his workings and wishes to puts them to use it is alive. So the last Roman believers lived in the V century. You may try and find a book I read 30 years ago: The conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the IV century written by a British scholar I do not remember. Among other offers a quite interestying example of how Roman religion and Christianity worked. A senator had knowledge of a ritual who could ensure military success: in a dangerous situation for the city that was threatened by some barbarians (perhaps Vandals) he suggested that Roman youngsters before going to battle perform this ritual. They did so, fought and won the day. But Catholic priests after hearing this news publicly criticised the practise and forbade it. Nobody dared to disobey of course.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Aldrasto, I must insist that you withdraw your accusation against Cynwolfe, or else prove it. And don't come out with any nonsense about the edits being 'deleted'. The only way to remove items from the history is for an administrator to oversight it - and it then leaves a trail in the history showing that the edit has been oversighted. There is no evidence in the history that Cynwolfe has ever altered any comment (one edit altered a reference). You on the other hand, did go back and alter a comment that had already been responded to by everyone. We can all see these things in the history.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving on from that, I too can see an issue with the age of Aldrasto's posts. As I stated previously, my speciality is Egypt, not Rome, but the same issue arises with Egyptian sources of the same era. Basically, scholars from this period have great difficulty in perceiving, accommodating, or finding language with which to describe beliefs which are not found in Christianity. Rather, scholars of the period -consciously or not - tend to describe by analogy with Christianity. An absolute classic example is the translation of maa kherau as 'victorious' 'triumphant' or 'vindicated'. The words mean 'a true voice' and literally means that what one says will come about - but the underlying concept bears no relation whatsoever to the Christian concept of being saved from sin, having overcome Satan through faith in Christ. The Kemitic Egyptians had nothing that equates to the Christian belief in the need for salvation. The reason for the choice of words appears to be connected to Matthew 17, where Jesus drives out a demon that his disciples had been unable to exorcise, and tells them that with even a little faith they could command mountains to move about. A man who had passed the test of the judgement hall obtained power in Amentet, such that what he commanded to happen would happen, therefore according to the Christian model, this must be because he had in some way achieved the status of a Christian saint.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologise but the fact is that, yes I did make a mistake, Cynwolf's comment has not been deleted, it is still there! Implying that by asserting the thesis of the existence of a IE heritage a scholar is part of the 1930s aryomania and has something to do with nazifascism is indeed a very nasty remark. Its implications are very seriously harmful to scientific research and debate. I will not bend to attempts of earmarking the legitimate effort to reconstruct Roman heritage, be it religious or cultural or whatever, as connected in any way with political issues. Neither to the attempt of watering down the specificity of Roman religion into a sea of various other beliefs and cults that flooded Rome since it became a mediterranean power. I did add the words or expected as this part of the explanation of fas in some instances. I did not know one cannot correct his posts to make them more precise, if you have something to comment on my post after the addition you can do it here. Among material offered by Cynwolf there is a citation from R. Schilling that is in accord with Orestano's explanation: religiously licit. That's it. On the etymology of fas: Dumezil was not the first modern scholar to give DHE as root, C. Ferrini, U. Coli, C. Gioffredi and H. Fugier had already stated it.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to be careful with the accusations. I presume you are referring to the fervor for advancing the Aryan origins of Roman religion, one might have noticed, cooled considerably after the 1930s, and scholars such as Arnaldo Momigliano and Bruce Lincoln became wary of IE-mania and some of the implications of Dumézil's theories. You have totally misread what Cynwolfe is saying - she is noting that such theories were dropped or watered down because scholars did not want to be associated with Mussolini. Not because they were themselves fascists. Dumezil fell out of fashion because of Fascism, but she does not suggest that he himself was a fascist. That same phenomenon is observed throughout the scholarship of Europe. Sadly, scholarship does not exist independent of the environment it occupies, and that includes the political.

All this makes it even more imperative that you utilise modern sources, and incorporate scholarship from the rest of Europe and the New World. Scholarship pre 1900 frequently interpreted through a Christian lens, for one thing. For another, as Cynwolfe was pointing out, the IE approach was madly fashionable, then was dropped, then there was a lot of emphasis on localisation as the explanation for everything, then the 'new archaeology' was everything etc etc. What the article - or ideally a much longer article on Fas, which clearly needs it - requires is an overview of all this. Has the passage of time, and all the intervening work, shown that Dumezil was on the right track - or have new theories superceded his?Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid here somebody is thinking Roman studies can be compared to modern science. Many books written by Niebuhr and the excellent contributions his pupil Leonhardt Schmitz has made to Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities are still perhaps the best we can read on many topics, same with Wissowa. Sini (my main authority) finds unsurpassed a work on fetials written by Brissonius in the XVI century. Numa-Denis Fustel de Coulange's La Cite' antique 1864 is still quoted and commented by scholars. On the other hand the works quoted by Cynwolf above are not all very fresh of press either. Linderski, Beard, Schilling, Fowler(!!!)... And BTW Linderski here says the same thing that Catalano, Sini and Orestano ie that fas and ius were originally strictly related semantically. I tried to work through the links Cynwolf and Haploidavey kindly offered. I gave up as none of them is focused on any of the subject of our research. They do not offer dedicated, complete and in depth work on a particular lexical issue, they are interested in more general or historical issues, they may offer some passing remarks as in the case of Beard. I could not access Jorge- Ruepke as it offers almost nothing but tiny snippets in the preview.

I am not using outdated sources, the book I have been quoting from here appeared in 1991. I would suggest that you read again more carefully my post: the works quoted are from 1878 to 1928 are the background and represent the points of view of the most important romanists that maintained that fas is divine law. Orestano wrote his seminal article in 1939 and afterwards most romanists have adopted this point of view. Besides Guarino Catalano and Gioffredi. Please note that Catalano is still active now. He contributed at least an article on ANRW in 1978 (Spacial aspects of the Roman juridico- religious system, in Italian. Orestano's last works are from the late 80s.

I am aware of the political implications that someone may perceive, however a scholar must be free (and capable) of doing research according to his mind and his interests. Dumezil's works are for the most part written later than the 30s, his History of Roman archaic religion was published in 1964 or later. I shall reread the passage carefully to try and understand its real meaning. If I have misinterpreted it once again I offer my sincere apologies.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am by no means comparing roman studies to modern science. However, as an archaeologist, I must point out that the entire approach to the interpretation of evidence has changed drastically over the last 60 years. Pure textural interpretation is no longer sufficient - philology has changed so vastly that I doubt JRR Tolkien would recognise it as the discipline he studied. The move is away from looking just at what writers SAID, with the focus more on using archaeology to identify what people DID.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Elen has expressed the issue well. I appreciate Aldrasto's calmer tone, but this earlier statement greatly concerns me: I will not bend, Aldrasto writes, to attempts of earmarking the legitimate effort to reconstruct Roman heritage, be it religious or cultural or whatever, as connected in any way with political issues. Neither to the attempt of watering down the specificity of Roman religion into a sea of various other beliefs and cults that flooded Rome since it became a mediterranean power. This is hardly a disinterested POV as required by WP neutrality, nor does it reflect consensus (see Wikipedia:Consensus). Are you saying that religious developments after the Punic Wars aren't really "Roman"? Hellenistic religions or, say, Pythagoreanism (Varro wanted a Pythagorean burial) contaminated the pure ancestral religion? Hm. At best, you're saying you're interested in the subtopic of Archaic or early Roman religion, not for instance religious practices of the Late Republic, the Imperial era, or the transitional Christian Empire.

At the risk of becoming tiresome in repeating myself, no one ever questioned the validity of your sources, Aldrasto. You were asked to provide citations to supplement and corroborate them with English sources, which yes — EUREKA! — are often based on or summarize your non-English sources. That was precisely the point. Your wild misreadings of comments, however, does raise questions of accurately representing other POVs. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The points made in Elen's and Cynwolfe's posts above are supported by major, contemporary scholarly sources which address and largely dispose of the problematic notions of "original Roman" or "purely Roman" culture and religion, using a very broad swathe of ancient and modern sources (including many if not all of those cited by Aldrasto), historiography and findings derived from recent archaeology.

Beard, M., Price, S., North, J., Religions of Rome: Volume 1, a History, illustrated, Cambridge University Press, 1998, supported by Beard, M., Price, S., North, J., Religions of Rome: Volume 2, a sourcebook, illustrated, Cambridge University Press, 1998.

For the Archaic cultural context, in which Aldrasto seems most interested, there's Cornell, T., The beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000–264 BC), Routledge, 1995.

Rüpke, Jörg (Editor), A Companion to Roman Religion, Wiley-Blackwell, 2007. This has been used for many of the Glossary entries.

Cynwolfe has provided links (several posts above) to other modern works that address this issue and draw similar conclusions. The first under this subheading seems especially relevant; read the introduction and see who and what it addresses. Haploidavey (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish just to explain my point clearly here. You should know very well that I have always stated that Roman religion did not come out of nothing: Italic and Greek (Mykenean)culture/influences have literally made it up. However since Rome was founded it became proper to Rome and in some way or to some extent exclusive to Rome. This was explained very well by a quote of H. Fugier made by Sini. Furius Camillus told the plebeians that if they settled in Veius they would leave Rome and thence the divine protection it enjoyed (the Penus Vestae, the augustus augurius etc). Could you please tell me what are the links Cynwolf gave you hint to? The work by Ruupke is not on preview.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe Haploidavey is referring to Lipka. This describes fas in terms of Romanicity - Roman custom. Fas was what the Romans did. I find your quote above, with its suggestion that the Roman religion may originally have been a cult of place, fascinating, and would like to see it included in an article on Archaic Roman religion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know archeology has become fashionable, and it can give much useful info. However it remains to be seen how it can contribute to the topic of religious terminology unless through... epigraphy?!? Unfortunately we have only the Lapis niger and the inscription of Satricum. Also the inscriptions quoted in a work linked by Cynwolf here above may be of some interest, though very limited. Other epigraphic material is sometimes interesting (Neuna fata, Neuna dono, Parca Maurtia dono mentions two of three Parcae) but to understand the meaning of fas we must rely on literary sources. I do not know in what way the works quoted by Cynwolf here above are different (I do not wish to judge their academic value here) from the ones I quoted, apart that they are written in English. Some are even older, some are by French scholars (Schilling).

On the question of neutrality: I wish to make it clear that to everybody outside the Anglophone world, when one says Roman religion one means precisely Roman religion, ie that which is specific of/from Rome. The religion of Romulus (auspicia) and Numa (sacra), of the augurs and the pontiffs. It happens that in India and China there are to be found (or have been) almost all the religions of the world, however nobody would say that Christianity or Islam are the religions of India or China. Perhaps this question is a problem in contemporary Anglophone culture, not elsewhere.

So I do not want to deny that in Rome there were many religions at some point in time of its history and that this is a legitimate field of studies, however one should call it with its own name, ie not Roman religion but Pythagorism in Rome, Orphism in Rome, Mithraism in Rome etc. Of course Pythagorism is an exception as it could be argued that it was an intrinsic, constituent element of the autochtonous religion, but this changes the terms of the problem.

I also think that it is a legitimate right to do scientific reaserch in whatever area one likes without the mingling of other factors. And it is just normal that Italians, Frenchmen and other Latins are proud of their heritage and wish to research, reconstruct and preserve it. If this right is denied it would be a case of discriminatory practise. Of course what matters is the scientific achievement, and nothing else.Aldrasto11 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

On fas I cannot edit what Davey has written, it is so well referenced...and all recent titles too. It remains to be seen who will remeber these people 50 years from now. I do not wish to start edit wars but clearly it is useless that I write anything here. I cautioned against the use of these words, ie divine law and I gave my reasons, but of course this is useless. I am only sorry for English readers who are denied their right to be informed completely and neutrally.Aldrasto11 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Aldrasto, either edit it or stop moaning about it. Wikipedia is not a receptacle for The Truth (TM), but it should contain all the relevant information. If you have respectable, recognised sources in Italian that disagree with the English ones, it is quite acceptable to cite them and point out that Italian scholarship disagrees with the Anglophone in this area. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Fresh start, or not

Thanks for fixing the page, Elen. It was hard to see what could cause the repetition. Four points, and I'll sign each section in case a comment is inserted:

1. Aldrasto writes: On fas I cannot edit what Davey has written, it is so well referenced.

Properly cited statements shouldn't be deleted, but they can be countered or balanced with other properly cited statements. I happen to agree with you that fas is not best translated or conceived of as "divine law." Why not say something like: "Athough fas is sometimes defined as 'divine law,' [citation here] So-and-so has demonstrated that blah blah blah.[add citation here] A more accurate translation would be 'religiously legitimate'" [citation here, Schilling's I think it was] — or whatever you think it ought to be. Just do it. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

2. You mention, Aldrasto, that Schilling is French. Therefore, English-language sources don't limit you to the views of scholars within the English classical tradition, since some major pieces of scholarship have been translated. Some classicists who fled Germany or Italy during World War II wrote a great deal in English. Dutch scholars, who contribute brilliantly to the study of ancient religion, often write in English to make their work available to a broader audience. As you also indicated, your sources are often standard works that are cited and summarized by Anglophone sources; cite the former, then also point English-only readers to the latter for summaries or discussion of the point at hand. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

3. I know archeology has become fashionable, and it can give much useful info. However it remains to be seen how it can contribute to the topic of religious terminology unless through... epigraphy?!? Unfortunately we have only the Lapis niger and the inscription of Satricum.

I'm not sure why epigraphy is punctuated so alarmingly, and you think archaeology is some kind of intellectual fad? Seriously? In the first place, epigraphy and archaeology are separate disciplines, and you seem to conflate them. In the second, you again make clear that your interest lies in Archaic or early Roman religion, as there are volumes of inscriptions pertaining to both public and private religion for the Imperial era. The solution would be for you to write an article on "Archaic Roman religion," but you've already said you don't want to confine yourself to a time period. And yet you say there are extremely few inscriptions that pertain to the study of religious terminology, which suggests you want to exclude Imperial inscriptions. So where is this timeless Roman religion to be found? I have to agree with what Elen said about Truth. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I know we have many inscriptions for the imperial times, far fewer for the republic, only since the II century. However what matters here is the fact that these do not contribute much to our knowledge of religious terminology, apart the question of the existence of libri, ie official records for the republican times. Specifically we cannot hope to find pointers to a definition of fas or sacer, sanctus, ius. I do not believe archeology will ever be able to solve any mystery of the history of religions, let alone religious lexicography. Best example? The Etruscans: we have an abundance of archeological data and do not know almost anything of their religious beliefs, theology, rituals, festivals, lithurgy etc. What we do know about their religious practices or beliefs comes from Latin written sources, I'll spare you and me the citations.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Have to disagree with the first part here (no arguments about the Etruscans). Without a textual source, with only artefacts, it is nearly impossible to reconstruct a belief system (although Francis Pryor has done a good job for the Bronze Age in England). But with only the written texts - which are largely in this case either legal or philosophical - one can have little idea of how the beliefs are interpreted/followed by the mass of the population. It is only because reforming zeal accompanied the invention of the printing press that we have such a fulsome record of how mediaeval christianity was viewed and applied in practice - the surviving manuscripts make little reference to marriage at the church door, sales of indulgences, church ales etc.

Here, one can define fas all one likes from textual sources, but that would be to ignore other indicators of what people actually viewed it as - such as the collections of curses trawled out of various rivers and lakes. Endless variatons of 'Holy Minerva, please cause Gallo's willy to drop off for seducing my Helena' provide a catalogue of 'offenses' that people believed the deities would intervene in - thereby offering evidence as to where the average Roman citizen drew the line between fas and ius, and when they thought it appropriate to cover all bases.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Have now wiped the giggled coffee off my laptop, and will try not to get distracted by poor Gallo's impending loss.

Surely Aldrasto doesn't mean that religious terminology doesn't appear in Imperial inscriptions. Language pertaining to dedicatio and votum, for instance, is ubiquitous, pertaining to both the official establishment of temples (in the English sense) and the private fulfillment or making of vows (magic being one important part of private religion). Sanctus is an interesting example; as noted in the entry, even after sanctus is adopted into Christian usage to mean "saint," it continues to appear in epitaphs to describe those who, based on the religious evidence of their burial such as grave goods (I believe this is called "archaeology"), had not converted to Christianity. (See my argument for including material pertaining to the 2nd–4th centuries and even as far as the 6th, when the new religion and the old coexisted). Cynwolfe (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(Offers laptop a tissue). That's my point exactly. We have a lot of inscriptions that show how these terms were employed in general usage, and we can learn from that. Incidentally, sanctus in Ecclesiastical Latin is also an epithet of God - sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, dominus deus sabaoth - holy holy holy, lord god of hosts.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The question of the use in Christianity of Roman religious terms is a big issue and requests knowledge of: Jewish religious lexic, Greek religious lexic and Latin religious lexic. This is only the basis as it provides the grounding knowledge necessary to interpret what happened in history, ie a discussion of the existing documents. Of course this work has been done by many Christian scholars. I am not interested in the issue and I do not think it belongs to Roman religion. If one has time one can starts another article: the formation of the lexic of Roman Catholic Christianity.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A hanky for me too, please. Yes, it's all Roman religion. From "Gallo's willy" to "sanctus, sanctus, sanctus" - spot on! Haploidavey (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Passes box of Kleenex. I am fascinated by the suggestion raised in the quote from Aldrasto above (Furius Camillus told the plebeians that if they settled in Veius they would leave Rome and thence the divine protection it enjoyed ) that earlier Roman religion could be viewed as a cult of place. If so, a goodly number of elements must have undergone a radical change in Imperial times, particularly if Lipka is right, and a substantial element of fas is simply doing stuff according to Roman custom. Are there sources that have looked at this aspect? Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(Reverts to her usual snotty formality, requiring a punning tissue:) The importance of the ritual establishment of templa as a space may well suggest this too, though I think something similar could be said of druidic Gaul (hence both the Romans and the Christians built shrines over preexisting Celtic sites), given Caesar's peculiar mention of the druids as boundary judges. If I could make a leap into utter OR, I would suggest that the Romans' success as an Empire was perhaps enabled by this very ethic: the cultivation (cultus) of place. We tend to see their expansionism in modern moral terms, but a Roman may well have conceived of this as an ever-expanding network of templa that were right (fas) because they were created in alignment with the celestial templum and toward a mirror of that unity and order. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Gezundheit! Interesting thought. An example of where evidence of the use of a word or concept over time can give an insight into larger cultural events. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

4. to everybody outside the Anglophone world, when one says Roman religion he means precisely Roman religion, ie that which is specific of/from Rome. The religion of Romulus (auspicia) and Numa (sacra), of the augurs and the pontiffs. It happens that in India and China there are to be found (or have been) almost all the religions of the world, however nobody would say that Christianity or Islam are the religions of India or China.

Again the notion of stripping away the accretions of the centuries to reveal the "true" religion of Romulus, spawn of a god and suckled by a she-wolf, and Numa, consort of a nymph. And before you say that historical figures lie under the mythic accretions, I say: maybe, Euhemerus. Now, of course the augurs and pontiffs are essential to Roman religion; but they are also representatives of the political elite, and therefore don't reflect the whole of Roman religious practice and belief in the everyday life of the people, which was of interest to Ovid in the Fasti. As for China and India, before making assumptions you might want to take an actual look at the article Religion in China, which does indeed have sections on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. See also Religion in India (Christianity appears in the second paragraph)— which according to your approach should perhaps include only Vedic religion, and not the later "watering down" of other religions. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind Romulus and Numa were historical figures or not what matters is that they are considered the founders of Rome and of its religion, for the good reasons I mentioned. The calendar and the festivals too are very ancient and many Roman antiquarians attributed them to Romulus, Numa or Servius or anyway to the regal period. Please refer to Macrobius book I. (this para by Aldrasto)

Isis and Osiris are considered the founders of Egypt and its religion. It doesn't make it any more TRUE(TM). One can certainly say "the Romans believed that their city was founded by Romulus, suckled of a she-wolf". But one cannot say 'Rome was founded by Romulus'. These are two different statements in English, and I believe Italian would support the same nicety. By all means, identify that some concepts are very ancient, and appear to go back into the unrecorded regal period, but no modern source would simply assert that it was the result of one legendary figure.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Amen. The competing founding myths and the contortions in Roman literature to reconcile R&R and Aeneas indicate how these traditions were shaped for political, religious, and aesthetic purposes. T.P. Wiseman's book Remus is good on this. "Religious practices attributed to Numa" is a different statement from "Numa established."Cynwolfe (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

About India and China I think my example fits very well: of course I myself stated that there one can find all the religions of the world, this already include the ones you mention. However, even though they are there and have been for longer than a millennium, when talking of Indian and Chinese religion(s) nobody refers to them. If one wants one says Indian/Chinese Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Indian religion(s) is/are the offspring of the Vedic: Hinduism in its manyfold forms and schools down to contemporary Vedanta and Shivaism and even Buddhism is part of it, even if the last is an offspring that orthodox Hindus consider a false doctrine. In China it is ancestral cult, Daoism, Confucianism and perhaps Buddhism which in China became a new national religion, although many Chinese scholars of the Song dynasty would object to this. However the Chinese Buddhist Canon includes many works that are strictly from the Chinese tradition of self cultivation.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not seeing the distinction between the construction of an article and its content. The point was simply that the article Religion in China includes sections on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. I infer from your reaction that you think these sections don't belong in the article; the point is, the WP community of editors has decided that they do: while they are not the dominant or most important religious traditions, the editing consensus was that information on religion in China would be incomplete without taking note of them. The article might fail to answer significant questions that its users might bring to it.

Your long articles, Aldrasto (and forgive my bluntness), are poorly constructed not because you have nothing to say (you have quite a lot to say), but because you haven't paid enough attention to how this encyclopedia is edited, which is a different process from composing prose or presenting an argument. Whenever someone tries to help you participate as an editor by giving you examples of how articles are constructed, you begin to present an argument or POV about the content, as you did with the example of "Religion in China." And then you proceed as if we are arguing with you over content, rather than basic editing practice. If you read my comments carefully, you'll see that I've argued over content on only one overarching issue: that the Glossary of ancient Roman religion should be complementary to the major articles on Religion in ancient Rome and Imperial cult (ancient Rome) and thus cover all historical periods: Early Rome, the Republic, the Empire, the Christian Empire, with attention to proportion.

Formatting, creating sections, adding images and templates, making sure your links go to the most appropriate articles — these things may be tedious, but getting the hang of them improves one's articles enormously, as I know from experience and watching other newcomers go through the process. I used to make some really stupid editing blunders, and I'm still not a fluent editor from the technical side, for which I have limited patience. But the editing parameters compelled me to present the content I had to offer in a more accessible, structured way that I could defend. If you leave the majority of editing tasks to others to clean up, you may not be happy with the results, as you've learned. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you if the article is titled Religion in India/China, I would not if it were titled Indian/Chinese religion.Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Archaic Roman religion

I just saw a remark by Aldrasto that stated his original intention was an article on Archaic Roman religion. Why don't you write that article, Aldrasto? That sounds interesting, and would solve all the problems here. My suggestion would be to call it something like Archaic Roman religion, and in the first sentence define very clearly that it covers from the period from prehistory to ... whenever. End of the Regal period? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

citations needed, and links

A number of entries are currently without citations. I think this is OK for very short entries making utterly innocuous statements that summarize main articles and serving primarily to direct users to those (Arval Brothers, lustration, and such). Davey, I think you may have offered an explanation for this already somewhere above, so just to clarify.

Also, I've been doing something that I'd like to mention. One of my interests in this article is to have a place to link to for terms that might not merit an independent article, but may require more explanation than would be proportionate to a given article in which it's used. These are terms, like exta and different words for "shrine, temple," that might turn up in several articles, so that the material would be repeated. Because I think the Glossary would be visited most often through links from other articles (though probably also through the "Ancient Roman religion" template), I've been treating each entry as if it were an independent article. If I arrive at exta by clicking on the link in Publius Cloelius Siculus, I won't have seen any previous references to litatio or disciplina Etrusca, so I need to have the links right there. Does that seem OK (or maybe I should say fas)?

This is true also in terms of citations. I can't get the hang of the way you're supposed to do citations (and in fact vehemently object to pilling up five sequential footnote numbers at the end of a sentence, since some of these will need to 'talk' to each other; and also dislike clicking on a footnote to read it, finding it marked abcde, and having no idea which one to click to find my place in the text again), but aside from this personal failing, since the Glossary is written incrementally, for my own ease I've again been treating each entry as if it were an independent article. Not saying this is a good thing. Though I would argue that the linking for each entry as if independent is a good thing. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. This is a glossary, so people will come to read just one entry. if they stay to read the lot - great, but it has to make sense one entry at a time. We can link within the glossary if necessary. Re footnotes/references - don't use named referencing and you wont get the abcd's. In any case, named referencing is unsuitable if referring to different pages in a book source - Harvard referencing is better. Also, mea culpa - I wrote a fair bit of the unsourced content, which is cloned from other wikipedia articles (I wrote a lot of the entries that cover where we have a longer article). This is fine for some, but Feria is entirely sourced from the 1917 Catholic Encyclopaedia, and I should be able to do better than that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Fas est. Or "yup to all". Haploidavey (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Very good. A difficulty when we just provide a little encapsulated version of the main article (which as I said I'm not concerned about footnoting) is whether the main article is itself correct and sufficiently cited. The word "Sisyphean" comes to mind. So a stop-gap measure for me has been, if I'm ambivalent about the main article, I might provide more my own sourcing here — frankly without paying much attention to what the other article says. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)