Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

Emmett L. Bennett

I don't have time to do anything about this but thought I'd mention it here. We seem to lack an article on Emmett L. Bennett Jr., whose New York Times obit is here. Additional material here. He currently has only a tiny paragraph at Linear B#Emmett L. Bennett. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I see the Times has misunderstood what their sources were telling them again; there's a difference between no Greek-speakers being in Greece and the language not existing.

But As meticulous as Professor Bennett’s work was, it once engendered great confusion. In 1951, after he sent Mr. Ventris a copy of his monograph, a grateful Ventris went to the post office to pick it up. As Mr. Robinson’s biography recounts, a suspicious official, eyeing the package, asked him: "I see the contents are listed as Pylos Tablets. Now, just what ailments are pylos tablets supposed to alleviate?" should be in an article - without meticulous, by choice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Cute. Alansohn has created the Emmett L. Bennett, Jr. article. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 21:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Moirae

A few months ago I posted a plaintive question at the talk page of Moirae about the headword. Not a bite. As an insufferable pedant, I am fated to barely bear the mixed transliteration. Does anyone have thoughts on moving this to Moirai or (shudder) Moerae? — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 09:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No question in my opinion that it should be Moira or Moirai. Wareh (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of inducing a migraine, Cardiff Chestnut should check out the strange promiscuity at Hospitium. Not orthography, but a different sort of Greek-Roman muddle. (You might also want to fix the articles that link to "Moirae"; I just correctrf it to Moirai in the Parcae article.) Cynwolfe (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yikes! That's just a teardown: unadulterated Britannica gibberish. I'd be willing to tag-team it with someone who cares about Rome in the semi-distant future. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 18:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I could knock out something semi-coherent on hospitium without distracting myself too much from another off-wiki project I've got going. But I'd forgotten we also have Xenia (Greek), to which theoxenia redirects. Might the solution be to treat the two concepts separately, according to article title? Although plenty of RS equate the two, I'm not convinced that hospitium in the so-called "central" period of Roman history (2nd century BC to 2nd century AD) has all that much to do with xenia in, say, the Iliad or myths involving the sacredness of the stranger received into one's home. The xenia article, at any rate, emphasizes hospitality as an ideal given mythological character, and perhaps out of ignorance, that's what I too think of in regard to xenia. Hospitium, however, seems to be primarily a practical social institution of the usual Roman "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" sort, best discussed in relation to amicitia and clientela. What would anyone think of simply moving any xenia content from Hospitium to Xenia (Greek)? Or deleting it, except for the conventional "the Greek equivalent is" and summary background on how (or if) the two concepts were explicitly seen as a continuity in ancient sources. If this is acceptable, and Cardiff Chestnut would volunteer to do it, I could cobble together a few basic paragraphs for Hospitium. And I suppose we should copy this discussion to Talk:Hospitium? (BTW, surely "cheerful" is the word needed above, not "insufferable".) Cynwolfe (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Moirae is no more. I've copied over the hospitium bits to that talk page.

As for the xenia situation: that article does need to develop beyond Homer. Already in early lyric we find "real world" applications of the system codified in archaic epic, and in later (5th/4th c.) civil and political discourse the word/concept has clearly split into related interpersonal and interpolisical connotations, both sometimes laden with Homeresque solemnity, sometimes shading nearer to what Cynwolfe describes for Rome. RSS are pretty easy to come by, and most fairly recent, because of the reciprocity craze of the latter half of last century, so I'll intermittently tinker soon, firstly by adding bibliography. Beware, Cynwolfe: I will also probably engage in some preventative soft-core "pornography" to prevent etymologitasters from unproblematically deriving ξένϝος and hospes from a common PIE root. Theoxenia really does require its own article that also goes well beyond poetry, but this will require some heavy lifting. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 02:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that theoxenia merits its own article. Can't remember why, but I've needed to link to it a couple of times. As for Cardiff Chestnut's mischievous allusion, few of us would not be lying if we claimed to shun it, but unless one is a professional who makes a career of it, it's best not to rely on it obsessively. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Proxeny already has its own article, which may help with the structure here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Gaius Marius the Younger was adopted?

Hi - checking out the Gaius Marius the Younger article, it makes the claim that he was Gaius Marius's adopted son. The modern source for this statement seems to be the 1870 Smith Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. It in turn cites Livy and Paterculus, but checking the appropriate passages, neither Livy (Book 86) nor Paterculus (ii. 26) seem to say this. My limited search of modern sources did not come up with an answer. Does anyone have an answer on this? Oatley2112 (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Plutarch says nothing about the younger Marius being adopted, and implies at one point that he was not—he says something about Marius wanting to educate his son in military matters. As you probably know, at this level of society most "adoptions" were of men who had at least come of age, since the adoption was done to carry on the family name (and property) in suitable fashion when there was no male heir. Jane Gardner in Family and familia in Roman Law and Life omits the Marii here in talking about prominent adoptions in the Republic. This would seem to be an important one, and see note 62 on page 139: I suspect this could be the source of confusion, if there is one. That is, it's possible that the younger Marius is being confused with his cousin Marcus Marius Gratidianus. G. was the son of the elder Marius's sister (that is, he was the nephew of Gaius Marius); G. was then adopted by one of his (two?) maternal uncles, the brother (Marcus) of the elder Marius (Gaius). Gardner otherwise doesn't mention the Marii, and though the argument is ex silentio, I find it hard to believe she would mention Gratidianus and omit the more famous father and son. If you've checked Livy and Velleius, that leaves Appian calling him first "son" then "nephew"; don't have time to check Appian at the moment, but is it clear that he wasn't using "son" to distinguish Gaius Marius the Younger as the son of Gaius Marius from his cousin Gratidianus, hence "nephew" of Gaius Marius? There are other points of confusion involving the two figures. I'm finding several references (including good ones such as Gruen) to the "adopted son of Marius," though. Still, it seems hard to put together a family scenario in which Gaius Marius had a brother Marcus, and Marcus adopted the son of their sister and her husband Gratidius, and Gaius adopted some other nephew from somewhere. Please do report what you find. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked Appian previously, and he does refer to the Marius who was consul alongside Gnaeus Papirius Carbo as Marius's nephew, but only as his nephew, not as an adopted son (Appian I:87). Previously he refered to Marius's son, also named Marius. (Appian I:62). Only a few modern sources refer to the younger Marius as Gaius Marius's adopted son; the majority just refer to him as his son. The older sources do seem more consistent in describing the younger Marius as adopted, but this must be a misreading of Appian I:87 - and given that his nephew Gratidianus was not the consul named Marius in 82 BC, Appian's account cannot be taken at face value. Certainly Appian is wrong in I:65 when he refers to the younger Marius as joining Lucius Cornelius Cinna when Cinna fled Rome - this must be Marcus Marius Gratidianus, as the younger Marius was with his father at the time. My view is that Appian has confused the two sons of Gaius Marius, one natural, one adopted, and conflated them into one person.

I agree with your reasoning about not adopting the younger Marius at such a young age, and also about adopting two sons, especially as one (Marcus Marius Gratidianus) followed the traditional naming conventions of retaining his birth name after adoption, whilst the younger Marius did not. In the end, we must go back to the sources, and Appian's confusion notwithstanding, none of the other extant sources (Livy, Paterculus, Pliny, Cassius Dio, Plutarch, Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, or the Fasti) refer to the younger Marius as being adopted. I am also happy to be led by Jane Gardner's silence on the matter. When I get around to it, I shall update the Gaius Marius the Younger page to correct this. Oatley2112 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: there is a single ancient source that merely implies Gaius Marius the Younger was adopted because it identifies the consul of 82 as Gaius Marius's nephew? And this source is of all people Appian (who had trouble sorting out other Marii of the time)? The translation of Appian 1.62 at LacusCurtius just calls GM the Younger the son of Marius, and nothing about adoption. But to clarify my ramble, I'm constructing the family scenario as: we have three Marian siblings, Gaius, Marcus, and the sister who marries Gratidius. Gratidius dies, and his son is adopted by uncle Marcus, who evidently had no son. This implies to me that Gaius's son was his natural son, because it's unclear where he would've come from as an additional nephew (another sister?). So I agree with you that it's extremely likely that Appian calling the consul of 82 the nephew of Gaius Marius is a slip caused by the political shenanigans for 82 and the presence of the Marian nephew Gratidianus in the mix. Since the only reason GM the Younger got the nod that year was his status as the great Gaius Marius's son (he met none of the requirements for the consulship, and the nephew Gratidianus did, cult following and all), it also seems likely that if GM were adopted, his status as an adopted heir would've been considered noteworthy in the sources. There must surely be an Appian commentary somewhere that elucidates this. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Even the identity of which brother adopted Gratidius has adherents for both brothers - I've seen sources which state that he was the adopted son of the great man himself (eg. Thomas Rice Holmes "The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire, Vol. I", pg60), and others by his brother Marcus. The modern consensus seems to be that it was Marcus Marius who adopted Gratidius, but this is by no means universal. Oh, and by the way, just to complicate matters, the fasti in the Chronography of 354 AD states that for the year 672 (82 BC), the consul alongside Carbo was "Gratilliano" (Gratidius), which may have also contributed to the confusion about the younger Marius (as this supports the statement in Appian I:87). Oatley2112 (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That's extremely interesting work you've done there. I'd have to agree that it couldn't be Gaius Marius who adopted Gratidianus (if he had a natural son, he wouldn't have adopted him, and if he didn't, he wouldn't have adopted two sons), or surely it would've been the better-qualified Gratidianus and not GM the Younger who got the consulship. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Should dead languages be omitted from some linguistics articles

...because our knowledge of them is "speculative"? See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Dead_languages_in_phone_tables. Wareh (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be a discussion for that project.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Which presumably is why Wareh provided a link there. Just to clarify the scope of this project, the languages of "Classical Greece and Rome" are ancient Greek and Latin, which are sometimes labeled "dead" languages even though Greek clearly isn't. Therefore, Wareh probably thought that some members of this project might have an interest in how the languages we're trained in or culturally interested in are represented from a linguistic perspective in the encyclopedia: it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Greek love removed from project

Due to the lack of information that makes the article a part of this project and the extreme ownership issues and edit warring there I am removing it from the project.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What edit warring? Whom are you accusing of edit warring? And please point to a policy or guideline that says if a member or members of a project do edit war (diffs, please), then that project should be barred from placing the article within its scope. Or cite any policy or guideline that supports your unilateral action, which I am undoing, since the relevance of the ancient background is hardly tangential to the subject. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It fits under our project. If the article is beset by one or another kind of special problem, then that would be all the more reason to retain the listing, which is effectively an invitation for editors interested in classical antiquity to have a look and improve where possible. Wareh (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Right now I am still removing it from the project. There has been no consensus to place it back as of yet. Simply being two against one is not a consensus and I do believe that placing it back requires that the editor doing so explain why they believe it should stay. Questioning the editor who made the bold edit is not explaining why it was placed back.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Greek love falls within the scope of this project because it deals with the reception of classical antiquity, which is the focus of this project. Ownership and edit warring are behaviors of individuals that should be reported to the appropriate notice board. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it fits under our project because (1) the subject is deeply and obviously connected to Classical antiquity (you may also feel that reception studies don't belong in Classics Departments, but in fact people study the classical tradition in the academic discipline of Classics, and we're not here to reinvent our definition of the subject), (2) the article has been a matter of extensive discussion here before, demonstrating the interest in project members and observers in taking note of its developments. Either reason would be adequate by itself. The editor placing the banner back has hereby "explained why he believes it should stay." If a consensus finds me to have acted rashly, I'll accept correction graciously. Wareh (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You did that pretty graciously already and I will leave the article in the project unless anyone else finds the subject unrelated. Thank You.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Precipitous archiving

A couple of ongoing discussions that I felt were still open were just moved to the archive. Is it possible to retrieve at least some of this? Why was it done? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The archive is also mislabeled, since it contains discussion dating earlier than this month. And discussion from this month should not of course be archived yet. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I just did this. Precipitously. If anyone objects they can fix it, but I felt we might still have a couple of live issues there. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all...unless you are discussing ways to improve articles you are just chatting. Please take those chats to your personal page. What has been returned seems legit to the articles so no problem returning those. Second, there hasn't been an archive made here in some time.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In what ways are the discussions conducted this month just "chatting"? One section was a suggestion for a new article; one dealt first with an issue of orthography and then with the content issue of how to treat xenia/hospitium; the other dealt with a vexed and complex point of article content. Why should a two-day-old discussion be archived? The oldest content on this page was from November 2011 and dealt with Otium, an article that until quite recently was still undergoing active editing. As far as I'm concerned, all Wikipedia users are welcome to post here and discuss anything that might interest project members, or anything that project members might conceivably help with in building the encyclopedia. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what your point is. No, members may not discuss anything that might interest them here or on any talk page. The use of the talk pages as a platform for discussing the subject itself or the authors/writers opinion unrelated to the article itself is an attempt to push others away from the discussion. I have even seen some telling editors that they are out of their depth or lack the knowledge to even be in the discussion. This is considered a disruption problem.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say editors should discuss anything that happened to interest them here, but anything that one might reasonably assume members of a project called "Classical Greece and Rome" might be interested in as regards building the encyclopedia. In order to arrive at a clear presentation, it may be necessary to discuss a topic in some detail and to share and evaluate sources. Not every discussion here will be of interest to all or even most project members. Not all project members have an interest or expertise in the same topics. But every WP editor, project member or not, should feel welcome to come here to discuss a topic that falls within the scope of the project. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You said exactly that. There are no limits to who may post on even the project talk page, but the conversation is limited to improving specific articles or discussing ways to improve the project itself. This is NOT a forum for discussing the subject and members are NOT welcome to take up the page for permanent ongoing discussions of subjects just because they fall within the scope of the project. Talk pages have a specific reason for being and that is not for a general discussion of topics. It is here to discuss ways to improve articles and on the project here, it is for discussing the articles/problems and or ways to improve them and improving the project itself. Please limit you discussions here to that.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I was vague the first time I meant what I said when I clarified. Sharing sources and evaluating them is certainly a valid way to use a talk page, though the specifics of a discussion should be copied to the article's talk page, agreed. But please stop trying to bully people into shutting up and doing what you want. You don't want people to discuss anything you're not interested in, and then without any discussion you and you alone decide what the project should collectively focus on this month. It's a good topic and one that needs attention, and I applaud the choice, but why didn't you phrase it as a proposal? That's what collaboration is. Not dictating what others can and cannot talk about. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point you are doing exactly what I stated, disruption. I am not bullying anyone, but your words may certainly be taken as such. I have been helping run this Project for years and if you suddenly have a problem with sticking to Wikipedia policy and guidelines you are welcome to use another project. AGAIN, this page is for the discussion of improving articles not discussing the subject itself. I will tell you point blank. You are the bully and you are not welcome to continue berating the Project members to make this your personal space. Do you understand that?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, you have a wealth of knowledge and your contributions are truly welcome and in many cases are extraordinary, but you also have a way of being extremely uncivil which creates an atmosphere that is simply unacceptable. All I ask is that you move forward in a manner more fitting this encyclopedia. We want to be inclusive not exclusive. There are going to be people that do not agree with assessments about a number of things but we attempt to form consensus with all contributors one way or another. Let's move forward with that in mind.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed my name from the list of members at your request, and will no longer trouble the project. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The new collaboration for the month is Agora

Please help expand this stub into a C or B class article. Thank you!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a really good idea. Thanks for calling attention to it. It's surprising that such an important topic is still a stub. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was actually very surprising to me as well. A good article to expand I think.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)