Talk:Esquiline Treasure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I'd suggest dropping this, as it confusingly relates to only the Projecta Casket, or converting it to cover the whole hoard, which may be messy. Nice article, but please use more inline refs. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


I'm proposing to propose this at DYK - moan now .... I can see it is going to be a a quality article and it now has nearly enough refs Victuallers (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You can get most from the BM pages, & I can add, probably this evening. Will be ok to nominate until Boxing Day, & they will probably be indulgent if its a bit late, given Xmas. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I think all have them now. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Pope Damasus' epitaph?[edit]

So what is this text? Being able to read it would provide another scrap of information about this person to the curious. Is there a translation, or has it been published somewhere? (Hopefully in one of the more accessible periodicals or reference works.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

See Orazio Marucchi, Christian Epigraphy; An Elementary Treatise, with a Collection of Ancient Christian Inscriptions Mainly of Roman Origin (1912) p. 407: QVID LOQVAR AVT SILEAM PROHIBET DOLOR IPSE FATERI | HIC TVMVLVS LACRIMAS RETINET COGNOSCE PARENTVM | PROIECTAE FVERAT PRIMO QVAE IVNCTA MARITO | PVLCRA DECORE SVO SOLO CONTENTA PVDORE | HEV DILECTA SATIS MISERAE GENITRICIS AMORE | ACCIPE QVID MVLTIS THALAMI POST FOEDERA PRIMA | EREPTA EX OCVLIS FLORI GENITORIS ABIIT | AETHERIAM CVPIENS COELI CONSCENDERE LVCEM | HAEC DAMASVS PRAESTAT CVNCTIS SOLACIA FLETVS | VIXIT ANN·XVI·M·IX·DIES·XXV·DEP·III·KAL·IAN·FL·MEROBAVDE·ET·FL·SATVRNIN·CONSS. She died aged 16 years 9 months and 25 days in the year 383. Marucchi thinks that she must have been the pope's great niece because his epitaph is so full of affection for her. BabelStone (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Then again, Damasus is described by Alan Cameron at the start of the article used as a ref here as "the first society pope", and was clearly something of a smoothie. Her being the daughter of a very important official indeed might have been enough. Thanks for this, which I'll copy over. Do you want to try a full translation? Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
My Latin is not up to it, but there is an English translation in Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy by Arthur Ernest Gordon. I think that it would be acceptable to use Gordon's translation with suitable attribution under the WP:FAIRUSE guidelines. BabelStone (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course, the fact that the epitaph says Projecta was married to Primus, but the Projecta Casket inscription has her married to Secundus suggests that these are two different ladies. On the other hand, Primus and Secundus is a bit of a coincidence -- perhaps she first married Secundus who died, so then she married his elder brother Primus (a lot to do before she's even 17, but not impossible). BabelStone (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the translation. Cameron & Shelton go 12 rounds on the "Primo" issue, which I have summarized. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that is interesting. Good to see the improvements you are making to the article. BabelStone (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I can send PDFs if you are interested. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes please, my email address is my user name at gmail. BabelStone (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence?[edit]

The last sentence in the lead para. reads, 'It has been proposed that the majority of the major surviving late Roman silver hoards are in the British Museum.[5]' Does this mean that Kenneth Painter (in the cited article, which I do not have to hand at the moment) is suggesting that the majority of the significant late Roman silver hoards should be in the BM (in which case, I, for one, would take issue with him. Not for the first time... ), or was he merely observing that the majority of them are already in the BM? Is it, in any case, an observation significant and relevant enough to include in the introductory para.?

Apart from that; great article, with fine pictures! Congratulations! AgTigress (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice to meet you again, if only virtually. (We met at the Hoxne Challenge, and this article is not dissimilar!). Thanks for taking the trouble to have a look over the article @AgTigress. I think the second meaning was the one that was intended. My understanding was that he was saying that it was where the majority was, not "should" be. If you would care to add a sentence or two to the main article then it would always be welcome although we would need a ref as thems are the rules. Best wishes. Victuallers (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not really proposing any change, only seeking clarification, because I wasn't quite sure of the meaning of that sentence. Perhaps replace 'proposed' with 'observed'? I remain a very amateur WP editor myself, surfacing only occasionally to get Johnbod to help me out when I tinker a bit. Every time I return, I have forgotten again how to do everything. I find many of the rules very daunting, although I know they are necessary. AgTigress (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "observed" would be better & I will change it. This has been the subject of some comment already when it was used as the "Did You Know" hook for the main page. The waters have in any case been rather muddied by discoveries since Painter originally wrote - the first page of the cited article, with the relevant passge, is on a page linked in the note (paras 1-2, with a reference to C. Johns also). Maybe we should move it down or cut it altogether. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)