| Revision as of 09:44, 5 June 2017 editAnonMoos (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers71,937 edits →fastus, nefastus, and festus definitions← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:18, 10 October 2024 edit undoCynwolfe (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers39,017 edits →"Arbores fanatici": I'll just fix itTag: Reply | ||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| |archive = Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|1= | |||
| {{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months }} | |||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Mythology|importance=Low}} | ||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|importance=Mid}} | ||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject |
||
| {{WikiProject Glossaries}} | {{WikiProject Glossaries}} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| Line 25: | Line 24: | ||
| *]}} | *]}} | ||
| <!-- Do not implement auto-archiving, read Talk:Glossary_of_ancient_Roman_religion#Talk_page_length --> | <!-- Do not implement auto-archiving, read Talk:Glossary_of_ancient_Roman_religion#Talk_page_length --> | ||
| {{Broken anchors|links= | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Late Republic) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Late Republic","appear":{"revid":3825745,"parentid":3825551,"timestamp":"2004-06-01T17:09:27Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":374238565,"parentid":374225885,"timestamp":"2010-07-19T02:45:47Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Late Republic) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Late Republic","appear":{"revid":3825745,"parentid":3825551,"timestamp":"2004-06-01T17:09:27Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":374238565,"parentid":374225885,"timestamp":"2010-07-19T02:45:47Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Supremacy of the New Nobility (287–133 BC)) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Supremacy of the New Nobility (287–133 BC)","appear":{"revid":429238491,"parentid":429211984,"timestamp":"2011-05-15T14:36:44Z","replaced_anchors":{"The Patrician Era (509–367 BC)":"Patrician Era (509–367 BC)","The Conflict of the Orders (367–287 BC)":"Conflict of the Orders (367–287 BC)","The Supremacy of the New Nobility (287–133 BC)":"Supremacy of the New Nobility (287–133 BC)","The populares party and the optimates party":"The populares and the optimates","Pompey, Crassus, and the Catilinarian Conspiracy":"Pompey, Crassus and the Catilinarian Conspiracy","The First Triumvirate":"First Triumvirate"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":844597666,"parentid":844588573,"timestamp":"2018-06-05T22:02:06Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"very_different":"42≥42","rename_to":"Plebeian nobles and commoners (287–133 BC)"} --> | |||
| }} | |||
| == |
== structure into concepts == | ||
| ⚫ | I am about to translate the article into French. I find it (sorry for the criticism) ''messy''. I would reorganize it into concepts (as promised in the introductory chapter), for example ''abominari'' goes under ''omen'', ''exauguratio'' under ''augur'', ''effatio'' , putting ''arbor, lucus'' and ''nemus'' under the same concept of "wood". --] (]) 09:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC) | ||
| I believe the first sentence-period of the lead should be as neutral as possible, i.e. fully centred on the topic in itself, Roman religion. Stating in the same sentence that the language of anc. Rom. rel. influenced later religious traditions and especially the language of the Western Christian Church is clearly a fact that does not belong to the topic in itself. In aristotelian language this is an accident and not the substance. Hope I made my thought understandable...] (]) 23:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Suggestion: Refs and notes? == | ||
| ⚫ | Looks like the ref section might benefit from the more scholarly approach of having notes and references be separate. There are lots of repeated refs to different pages in a limited number of sources (e.g., Lintott). Lots o' work though. - ] (]) 21:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | ||
| in feria is Latinae really a species of fish ? was there no page for paganalia ? ] (]) 21:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ==fastus, nefastus, and festus definitions== | ||
| :Thanks. That should go to ], and I'll fix that. ] redirects to ], for reasons that are mentioned there—but I've been meaning to look at that more closely, since the treatment seems inadequate. Will fix the links, and thanks again. ] (]) 22:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | According to Agnes Kirsopp Michels' book "The Calendar of the Roman Republic", the official calendrical classification was between ''dies fasti'' (days when the courts are open), ordinary ''dies nefasti'' (when the courts are not open), and special ''dies nefasti'' (marked "NP" on ancient calendar charts) which were more commonly known as ''feriae'' or ''dies feriati'' (i.e. reserved for public religious ceremonies). The words ''festus'' and ''profestus'' don't actually fit into that classification scheme, but refer to "cheerful days which should be enjoyed" and the opposite. Ordinary ancient Romans were often not fully aware of abstruse calendar technicalities, so there was already a little confusion in ancient times, and some people used the phrase ''dies nefasti'' to refer to unlucky days of ill omen etc. (and other people, such as Gellius, considered them ignorant for doing so). I'm not sure that all this is very well explained in the article as it now stands... ] (]) 06:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
| P.S. In the above remarks, I wasn't distinguishing ''dies comitiales'' from ''dies fasti'' (another issue discussed in the Agnes Kirsopp Michels book)... ] (]) 09:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == point of this page == | |||
| == Nero's dies imperii/decennalia Oct. 13, 64 AD == | |||
| "glossaries", or rather non-lists, non-articles, non-glossaries, non-dictdefs such as this one are a disaster, or they would be if they were not almost entirely unknown and unlinked. | |||
| <nowiki>Nero observed his dies imperii/decennalia - the 10-year anniversary of being emperor on October 13, 64 AD.<ref>https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/PETEMART.HTM </ref></nowiki> ] (]) 18:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| I stumbled upon this because somebody linked ''exta'' "entrails" to this page. | |||
| :Funny you should mention that. I just removed that from the article and came here to explain why. | |||
| Now ''exta'', like all the other terms in this "glossary" are encycylopedic ''topics'', or subtopics under the general topic of "ancient Roman religion". Either ] is a topic notable and substantial enough for a standalone article, ''or'' it should be treated as a sub-topic, section or paragraph organised ''topically'', i.e. under "animal sacrifice in ancient Roman religion", and not alphbetical in some forgotten "glossary". The reason is that topical coverage is supposed to evolve and develop in topical context, including merging and splitting of topically related pages, not some strange "alphabetical" approach to a heap of loosely related terms. | |||
| I will try to fix the "exta" problem, but I really don't see any non-harmful potential for this page as a whole. --] <small>]</small> 14:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :'''A''') There's no reason to provide {{sc|]}} attention to Nero's decennalia out of all the other ones under the empire aside from dating a particular saint's supposed death as in the original source. It doesn't belong in this article even if it were an accurate date. | |||
| :Please see list of incoming links to the article. The benefit is that technical terms of Roman religion can be explained without offering a digression in the main articles. I've written many many articles on Roman religion, and found this glossary an invaluable resource to link to. The introduction suggests why terminology is a particular problem of ancient Roman religion. On your personal preference that such list articles not exist, please see ]. Or take it to ]. Tagging doesn't do anything to reduce article clutter. However, this glossary has indeed served as an incubator for independent articles: ] began that way, for instance. Obviously others could be created. A disambiguation page is most certainly not what's needed: perhaps you mean a ]? ] (]) 19:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''B''') A ] and a {{lang|la|dies imperii}} weren't the same thing. People think they generally aligned but they frequently didn't. A decennial date has no business in the {{lang|la|dies imperii}} entry. | |||
| == No entry for numen or genius? == | |||
| :'''C''') The source is a random (dead) webpage about one guy's conjectural retro history based on early Christian hagiography and the guy provides no further sourcing of any of his claims. In the absence of more context about how famous this guy is for his renown and cautious scholarship, it's closer to something written on a bathroom wall than to reliable sourcing. | |||
| These are both extremely significant concepts in roman religion and should have sections.] (]) 04:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''D''') On the basis of his own account, the rando hagiographer seems to have simply assumed that Nero's decennalia must have been on his {{lang|la|dies imperii}} just cuz, meaning the date is entirely conjectural on his authority even if he had any (which he doesn't) and even if it belonged in the article (which it doesn't). | |||
| They both have their own articles, and mainly this is a glossary of technical priestly vocabulary, but readers should probably be directed to these topics. Last time I looked, though, neither ] nor ] was satisfying as a treatment of these concepts in Roman religion. ] (]) 15:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''E''') If someone stops by and has reliable sourcing for Nero's decennalia, add it to Nero's article and to the Decennalia article and to the 13 October and 64 AD articles but don't restore it here to the entry on a separate topic. — ] 09:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == structure into concepts == | |||
| == "Arbores fanatici" == | |||
| ⚫ | I am about to translate the article into French. I find it (sorry for the criticism) ''messy''. I would reorganize it into concepts (as promised in the introductory chapter), for example ''abominari'' goes under ''omen'', ''exauguratio'' under ''augur'', ''effatio'' , putting ''arbor, lucus'' and ''nemus'' under the same concept of "wood". --] (]) 09:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC) | ||
| Why not "arbores fanaticae"? Is it non-classical usage? ] (]) 19:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Suggestion: Refs and notes? == | |||
| ⚫ | Looks like the ref section might benefit from the more scholarly approach of having notes and references be separate. There are lots of repeated refs to different pages in a limited number of sources (e.g., Lintott). Lots o' work though. - ] (]) 21:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | ==fastus, nefastus, and festus definitions== | ||
| ⚫ | According to Agnes Kirsopp Michels' book "The Calendar of the Roman Republic", the official calendrical classification was between ''dies fasti'' (days when the courts are open), ordinary ''dies nefasti'' (when the courts are not open), and special ''dies nefasti'' (marked "NP" on ancient calendar charts) which were more commonly known as ''feriae'' or ''dies feriati'' (i.e. reserved for public religious ceremonies). The words ''festus'' and ''profestus'' don't actually fit into that classification scheme, but refer to "cheerful days which should be enjoyed" and the opposite. Ordinary ancient Romans were often not fully aware of abstruse calendar technicalities, so there was already a little confusion in ancient times, and some people used the phrase ''dies nefasti'' to refer to unlucky days of ill omen etc. (and other people, such as Gellius, considered them ignorant for doing so). I'm not sure that all this is very well explained in the article as it now stands... ] (]) 06:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
| : |
:Good question. That is how it appears in the secondary source (Filotas, ''Pagan Survivals''). I will try to track down the Latin reference in Caesarius of Arles. ] (]) 12:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::So far I've failed to track down the Latin text of this sermon (53). However, I feel fairly confident that the secondary source was misled by the ''-or'' suffix into thinking the word is masculine like agent nouns in ''-or''. In other sermons by Caesarius I've found in Latin, he knows that ''arbor'' is feminine as reflected by 1st/2nd-declension adjectives modifying ''arbores''. I'll fix this, while hoping to live long enough to go through and improve the references in the whole glossary … ] (]) 14:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:18, 10 October 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glossary of ancient Roman religion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Resources The following subpages contain information from the article, mainly primary sources and translations, preserved here to facilitate the creation of articles on some of the subjects |
 |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
|
structure into concepts
I am about to translate the article into French. I find it (sorry for the criticism) messy. I would reorganize it into concepts (as promised in the introductory chapter), for example abominari goes under omen, exauguratio under augur, effatio , putting arbor, lucus and nemus under the same concept of "wood". --Diligent (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion: Refs and notes?
Looks like the ref section might benefit from the more scholarly approach of having notes and references be separate. There are lots of repeated refs to different pages in a limited number of sources (e.g., Lintott). Lots o' work though. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
fastus, nefastus, and festus definitions
According to Agnes Kirsopp Michels' book "The Calendar of the Roman Republic", the official calendrical classification was between dies fasti (days when the courts are open), ordinary dies nefasti (when the courts are not open), and special dies nefasti (marked "NP" on ancient calendar charts) which were more commonly known as feriae or dies feriati (i.e. reserved for public religious ceremonies). The words festus and profestus don't actually fit into that classification scheme, but refer to "cheerful days which should be enjoyed" and the opposite. Ordinary ancient Romans were often not fully aware of abstruse calendar technicalities, so there was already a little confusion in ancient times, and some people used the phrase dies nefasti to refer to unlucky days of ill omen etc. (and other people, such as Gellius, considered them ignorant for doing so). I'm not sure that all this is very well explained in the article as it now stands... AnonMoos (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
P.S. In the above remarks, I wasn't distinguishing dies comitiales from dies fasti (another issue discussed in the Agnes Kirsopp Michels book)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Nero's dies imperii/decennalia Oct. 13, 64 AD
Nero observed his dies imperii/decennalia - the 10-year anniversary of being emperor on October 13, 64 AD.<ref>https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/PETEMART.HTM </ref> 2601:580:109:FFC7:3045:DC70:7800:8964 (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- Funny you should mention that. I just removed that from the article and came here to explain why.
- A) There's no reason to provide WP:UNDUE attention to Nero's decennalia out of all the other ones under the empire aside from dating a particular saint's supposed death as in the original source. It doesn't belong in this article even if it were an accurate date.
- B) A decennalia and a dies imperii weren't the same thing. People think they generally aligned but they frequently didn't. A decennial date has no business in the dies imperii entry.
- C) The source is a random (dead) webpage about one guy's conjectural retro history based on early Christian hagiography and the guy provides no further sourcing of any of his claims. In the absence of more context about how famous this guy is for his renown and cautious scholarship, it's closer to something written on a bathroom wall than to reliable sourcing.
- D) On the basis of his own account, the rando hagiographer seems to have simply assumed that Nero's decennalia must have been on his dies imperii just cuz, meaning the date is entirely conjectural on his authority even if he had any (which he doesn't) and even if it belonged in the article (which it doesn't).
- E) If someone stops by and has reliable sourcing for Nero's decennalia, add it to Nero's article and to the Decennalia article and to the 13 October and 64 AD articles but don't restore it here to the entry on a separate topic. — LlywelynII 09:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
"Arbores fanatici"
Why not "arbores fanaticae"? Is it non-classical usage? 195.187.108.130 (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Good question. That is how it appears in the secondary source (Filotas, Pagan Survivals). I will try to track down the Latin reference in Caesarius of Arles. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- So far I've failed to track down the Latin text of this sermon (53). However, I feel fairly confident that the secondary source was misled by the -or suffix into thinking the word is masculine like agent nouns in -or. In other sermons by Caesarius I've found in Latin, he knows that arbor is feminine as reflected by 1st/2nd-declension adjectives modifying arbores. I'll fix this, while hoping to live long enough to go through and improve the references in the whole glossary … Cynwolfe (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)