Jump to content

Talk:Antinous

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2804:7f7:dc80:408c::1 (talk) at 00:00, 22 November 2016 (→‎Bisexuality the norm in the upper echelons of Roman society?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Antinous Mandragone?

I have deleted the image captioned "Antinous Mandragone" for several reasons. Firstly, although it has some resemblance to Antinous images, the hair arrangement makes it fairly clear that it's a woman. Antinous may have been a catamite, but he wasn't a drag queen. Secondly, a Google image search for "Antinous Mandragone" does not turn up any independent verification of this work, nor does a search for "Antinous Louvre". A general search for "Antinous" turns up hundreds of images, but not this one. Thirdly, if this an Antinous bust in the Louvre, its striking qualities should make it at least as well known as the other Antinous busts in the Louvre, in the Vatican and at Delphi - and it isn't at all well known. Fourthly, I went through the Louvre looking specifically for Antinous images, and I certainly didn't see this one. Of course I may have missed it - it's a big place - and I may be quite wrong. But I'd like to see some sources for the assertion that this is Antinous. Adam 00:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm the author of this photograph. This bust stands in the new « salle du Manège » which was opened some months ago (immediately on your right when you come out of the escalator). This hall is dedicated to French copies or casts of Greek antiquities.
The hair arrangement doesn't strike me as particularly feminine, at least not more than other male statues. As for the caption, it's a mispelling. It's Mondragone, from the Mondragone Villa in Italy, near Frascati. 30 hits in Google with "antinous mondragone". Jastrow 00:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

The bit about the mythological character should be merged with Antinous son of Eupeithes. --LakeHMM 08:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the irrelevant material to Antinous son of Eupeithes. Will try and do the merging later. 62.31.128.13 03:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did Hadrian and Antinous met in 123 or 124 for the first time?

Uncited section about modern 'worship'

I removed the following, as it is uncited and seems quite doubtful.

Today, many young Pagans and Wiccans (especially males with homosexual orientation) have revived the worship of Antinous. In Cyberspace, several virtual temples have been dedicated to him. In Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston, he is the main deity for several covens.

Please feel free to discuss and cite. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your action. Adam 21:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are many pagans (of many ages) who are actively worshipping Antinous, but they are not Wiccans. You'll note the websites of several of these in the links which have been added.-Alfrecht 07:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can say this that yes there are many Pagan's worshipping Antinous,I am one and everyone that I have met have not been Neo-Pagans but Recons. Remeber that Antionus' religion in the ancient past was Syncretistic just as it is today,but that did not make the ancient worshippers of him Neo-pagans or wiccans either,just as it does not make modern worshippers Neo-pagans or wiccans! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.102.20 (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

We're using more space for images here than text. Rendering lots of media on a subject is the purvue of Wikimedia Commons. I think that four images here has passed "distracting" and well into "cluttered". Jkelly 01:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - but I think one image doesn't really describe the depth and breadth to which Antinous has been captured in various cultures. Perhaps something a bit more less drastic (2-3 images)? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't recommend going with more than two until we expand the text. I have a strong preference for Image:Antinous_Mandragone_profil.jpg (due to its being featured on Commons), and a mild preference Image:Antinous-osiris.JPG (to show that "depth and breadth" you mention). Thoughts? Jkelly 01:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I also have a liking for the photo I took, and consider it to be largely redundant with the bottom bust. So I'd prefer 3 images. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have again deleted the Mondragone Antinous, since it appears from the above discussion, and other opinions I have been given, that it is a modern work. Adam 02:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, have you read my answer to you? If you can read French, please read the Louvre cartel, which clearly states "ca. 130 CE". This bust is mentioned as an antique work in Winckelmann's work as well as in Haskell & Penny's Taste and the Antique. Please clarify which opinions state otherwise. Jastrow 08:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that having a twelve-thumbnail gallery here is excessive. That's what Wikimedia Commons is for. Jkelly 20:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... why do we need so many images for such an unimportant person?
  • I don't - while we sadly lack data to elaborate the text, he happens to be an important theme in art, precisely because he's believed to be the most beautifull male mortal in all Antiquity, a 'real life adonis', and his life determined by this reputation : a subject simply crying out for images if ever there was one Fastifex 03:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antinous unimportant? Are you kidding, he is possibly the most known face from antiquity.

I have removed a picture: Image:NAMA Antinoüs.jpg|From Patras, from Hadrian's Villa in Tivoli, because it cannot be both from Patras and from Tivoli, and the tag in the picture itself says the bust is from the NAM in Athens. --5telios 11:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blank images or blank text: it puts you in bad company. I have returned the image, and corrected the caption, something which 5telios might easily have done. --Wetman 12:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for the blanking - unaware that it is frowned upon. I might easily have repaired the caption, had my knowledge of the statue's provenance been better. As it is I saw a picture labelled with two mutually exclusive labels, something any visitor to the page, regardless of specialist knowledge would find strange. --5telios 13:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This gallery is incredibly valuable to those learning the subject. Please do not delete these, I even hope that more are added, as Hadrian had so very many, it is great to see as many as practical to comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.11.59 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal to delete the gallery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries very clearly states that galleries should not be put on article pages if they are just a collection of images that have nothing else in common except that they illustrate the subject of the article. As for the gallery's usefulness to users, it can be moved to commons and made easily available as a link -- which is exactly what the policy calls for. Strawberryjampot (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with proposals to delete the gallery. His primary claim to fame is the large diversity of art works from antiquity representing him. Nothing portrays that diversity better than a gallery of pictures. Rwflammang (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderello

"Another version has it that Hadrian had the empire searched for the most beautiful youth, and chose Antinous." Oh. Doesn't even the most gullible Wiukipedian recognize the Cinderella motif in this? Claptrap. --Wetman 22:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hadrian's Lover

I agree with the above poster, in addition, it is not proven that they were lovers. It has been suggested that because of the frosty relations between Hadrian and his wife that Hadrian saw Antinous as a son he never had. All views and opinions should be presented, and the reader should be allowed to draw his own conclussions. In any case, personal relations should not figure into the introductory paragraph in my opinion, especially since it is a debated subject.MarcusAntoninus 20:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As for the IP's view below me (please sign your posts even if you are not registered user), perhaps you would like to prove that Antinous was indeed "H"adrian's lover? Who are you to say that there could not have been something else than romantic/-erotic relationship and call these possibilities as silly joke? --Kurt Leyman (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antinoüs was a slave. If a Roman wanted to have an adopted son, he could only adopt a free man. It is obvious that the relation between Hadrian and Antinoüs was erotic. That's a silly joke to say that he was not Adrian's lover.

He wouldn't have been a slave, being younger and of a lower social position he would have been the Eromenos of the two and Hadrian the Erastes, but that doesn’t make him a slave. Their relationship would have followed the standard Greek pederasty tradition, likeiest the Athenian version to be specific, meaning the relationship would have been mutually consensual. Although if the emperor makes a pass at you its probably not a good idea to shoot him down.

Please sign your posts with ~~~~. If you have any sources for your statements, such as a scholar Dr. Jim Smith of This-or-That University, we would be grateful. Actually this discussion page is about the article content. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 21:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty silly. A Roman who wanted a son adopted one, as did 4 of the 5 emperors of the Nerva-Trajanic dynasty. Indeed Hadrian adopted 2 sons, Lucius Aelius Caesar and Antoninus Pius. Antinous is nowhere described as a slave and in any case Roman law permitted manumission and permitted the adoption of freed slaves. It is, however, extraordinarily unlikely that the Roman elite would have accepted a provincial of Greek origins with no connections to the dynasty as an adoptive son because that would have made Antinous an at least presumptive successor.

On the death of Lucius Aelius Caesar, who actually was an adoptive son, Hadrian did none of the things, deification, city-naming, temple-building, that he did on the death of Antinous. The 'son he never had' theory fails. The vast majority of ancient and modern authors describe Antinous as a lover not a putative replacement son. The article should reflect this view. --Alan (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does any-1 know that galleries s*cxs? (!!!) There are 19 images of that Antin-guy, in the gallery, about 16 too many. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 21:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a call to {{Cleanup-gallery}} in section Gallery, more people like me hatesss galleriessss... (My precious!) ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 21:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the galleries alone. They enrich and add a very nice touch to the article,and let us come to our own conclusions about interpretations of 'the best known face from the ancient world'.If Hadrian loved his friend,so what? There is little enough love in the world,ancient of modern.Even the Vatican seems happy to leave a Roman emperor's gay lover in pride of place! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frglee (talk • contribs) 08:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries, which notes, among other things:
Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text ... Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. ... However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. ... One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. (emphasis added)
The gallery in this article very clearly is exactly the sort of gallery which Wikipedia policy discourages: it is "a collection of indiscriminate images of the article subject" titled just "gallery". One may disagree with the policy, but currently it is the policy, and under it any editor should feel free to revamp or delete this gallery. Personally, I feel it should be moved to Commons, though someone with the proper knowledge might be able to revamp it to, for instance, illustrate Antinous specifically being portrayed as various deities, along with expanding the text to explain the motives Hadrian had for portraying him this way. Such a more limited and specific gallery, with a title something like "Antinous Identified with Gods", would, I think, be within policy. Strawberryjampot (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nerva–Antonine family tree

The Nerva–Antonine family tree would be a nice thing to have in some article in which it would serve a function, but it does not do so here. There is no blood relationship between Antinous and anyone in the family, which makes the family tree quite irrelevant to the subject of the article. I suggest it be moved to some article where it will be useful.

Yes, it's clearly out of place in this article, and since it's available in the article on the Antonines, I've just taken it out. Strawberryjampot (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Revert to 416592041

"The secrets of the imperial bedchamber must for ever to denied to us, and, in view of all the hideous and speculative publicity about their love, Hadrian and Antinous are surely entitled to keep this ultimate and intimate secret." Lambert, op, cit., p. 98. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt - but if Antinous has any notability at all, it's in his relationship with Hadrian. We can discuss that without getting into pornography. Incidentally, the fact that Lambert could describe homosexuality as "hideous" is enough to cast doubt on his objectivity. PiCo (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the "hideous" has to do with speculation that Hadrian had Antinous sacrificed. Murder, not nookie, is what bothers Lambert. Consider his attitude toward Trajan's drinking and boyfriends, which he he regards with impartial equanimity as weaknesses of the flesh. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a relief. Now for suggestions: the sections heads references inn pagan sources and ditto Christian sources are not encyclopediac - we don't normally just collect great slabs of text from primary sources like that. What should be there is something about the reaction to deification (which didn't happen every day) in the ancient world. Antinous is at a turning point in history, with the Classical world-view still strong dominant but the new Christian world-view rapidly rising. We need to cover that, but as social history, not as a kind of scrap-book. What's your view?PiCo (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's OR, and besides, apart from the Fathers of the Church, there doesn't seem to have been any recorded reaction. As far as this place is concerned, we're finished except for warding off fools. Lambert read everything, of which there isn't much, so if it isn't in Lambert, it doesn't exist. Those "great slabs of text" rather annoy me; I don't think they belong here, but they do no harm so I haven't deleted them. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok if you want to leave them I won't argue. I see from earlier Talk that the gallery has been questioned. I rather like it, but I can see there's a point. The thing to do is probably to turn it into a review of the Antinous image-industry - actually discuss the images, don't just put them up for decoration. After all, these are supposed to be the last great original achievement of ancient plastic art - quite a claim to notability. (I could get a friend with more art-history knowledge to look at it). PiCo (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The gallery is probably pointless, and I added an external link to Wikimedia Commons. In what seems liked the reign of Henry V I got an AB in History of Art from Yale. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Fatidiot1234. I've read the Lambert; most of it is educated guess, and the author makes no mystery of it. I have access to articles about Antinous from a art history point of view. I can send them to anyone interested — it's been too long a time since I've researched the subject. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time to prune back Ancient Literary Sources?

For someone who only has eight lines of biography, having almost eight screens worth of ancient literary sources mentioning him, copied out in full, seems excessive. How about a few choice passages, with further links, if available, to the rest? Rootlet (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I came to this talk page to praise the complete coverage in this article. I think it is refreshing and illuminating to read the primary sources, rather than the hopelessly contemporary take of a consensus of editors. Rwflammang (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur to a degree ... Antinoos was a broad chested construct, so the appraisal of antiquity is the story. But we might organize and present them a bit better, and with the guidance of reliable secondary sources.  davidiad { t } 01:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My impression, after 6 years of editing, is that this place is not about primary sources quoted in extenso. That has a slight flavor of OR. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As should be clear from Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, it is against Wikipedia's policy to include vast tracts taken directly from primary sources, whether they are copyrighted or not. Thus I have gone ahead, been bold, and deleted the masses of un-referenced quotation from Roman and early Christian texts that currently litter this article. I have also added in referenced information from secondary (academic) sources briefly describing these texts. However, that is not to say that we cannot re-introduce select sections of these sources in future, if they are of obvious utility. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! Fatidiot1234 (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Era style

If you must add era tags, please keep the neutral "BCE" and "CE". I would prefer it in this form. Lupus Bellator (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ERA. You can't take a preemptive measure based on your personal preference. I haven't searched the edit history, so I don't know whether an era designation was ever established in the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hadrian's family tree

Why is Hadrian's family tree in an article about Antinous. Also, why is Antinous listed as Hadrian's spouse in that family tree? Regardless of the nature of their relationship, there is no evidence that they were ever considered spouses in the culture and society of their time, either by others or between themselves. 122.105.157.209 (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is basically irrelevent here. If there are no objections, I shall go ahead and remove it ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexuality the norm in the upper echelons of Roman society?

I think that it is entirely untrue that "bisexuality was the norm in the upper echelons of Roman society by the early 2nd century". Homosexuality, and "bisexuality", were entirely alien to Roman traditions, and certainly never the norm, or even common.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Fatidiot1234 (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Romans certainly didn't have modern sexual identity politics, so they wouldn't have identified themselves as homosexual, bisexual or even heterosexual in the sense of having identities based relationships with certain genders. Men were expected to marry women, but if an adult male had sex with a passive young male, particularly a slave, that was considered normal and just men being men. To our eyes, men who enjoy sex with males and females are bisexual.Gymnophoria (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about slaves or "young boys". Anyone who read the Satyricon, for example, would have no doubt that lots, perhaps a majority, of free adult men desired and had sex with each other. Male homosexuality in all its forms flourished among the Romans to an even greater extent than among the Greeks. Homophobic revisionism doesn't stand a chance against even a superficial reading of Roman sources or ruins. 2804:7F7:DC80:408C:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antinous. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antinous&oldid=750873849"