Talk:Portunus (mythology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Portunes)
Jump to: navigation, search


The 17th day before the calends of September is August 16th, not August 17th. See [1]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rwflammang (talkcontribs) 18:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC).


The reason why Portunus was conflated is in his identification with Palaimon, the son of Leucothea. Since Matuta the goddess of dawn had been interpreted as Leucothea her myth implied the story of her and her son Palaimon or Melicerte. Portunus was originally connected with the storing of grains? However his figure was already originally connected with doors and passages as is shown by the key in his hand and the ritual of throwing the keys in fires, which must be very ancient. On the whole he is very similar to Janus.Aldrasto (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nature of Portunus[edit]

My doubts remain. I think the authority on which the contributor draw the information for this article must have confused Portunus and Consus. Consus was the god concerned with the storing of grains and his fetival was held just a few days later on Aug. 21. This is probably the reason of the confusion. Portunus is the god of passages, doors and harbours. He is in a way similar to Janus, though his function is more limited and his rank of course much lower. Janus being considered the initiator of everything, our universe, gods and man. If nobody objects I shall edit the text of the article: of course I will be glad to discuss the topic in advance with previous editors.Aldrasto (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


When and by whom is he called "Portunes? Lewis & Short only lists Portunus & Portumnus. Furius (talk)

Good question. The page should be moved to "Portunus (mythology)" like other ancient divinities and I nearby propose to do so. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Change name of the article[edit]

Requested move 4 June 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. -- Tavix (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Portunus (mythology)Portunes – I would like to change name in the English section to Portunes from Portunus. Because in many of the English books and websites which are dealing with Roman mythology is correctly referenced name as the Portunes. The Portunus or Portumnus is name of the god in the latin language, but correct name of the god in the English is the Portunes, that's why I would like to change Article name in the English section to make it correct.

example of books references:

Witch Daze By Patricia Della-Piana

Mythic Rome By Pete Nash

Alien DNA identified in Man By Marcos Christodonte Sr. Brenc1K (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. This article was recently changed to the correct name from Portunes. There simply is no separate English name for this divinity. The three books you cite are hardly authoritative on anything, much less Roman religion: one is self-published on Lulu; one seems to be about games; and the title of the third inspires no confidence. Instead search JSTOR for Portunus in the field of Classical Studies: 100+ results. For Portunes there's 1, in French, so it's a completely different word. Or try Google n-grams, where many of the very few Portunes citations are misreadings of Fortunes. Any standard book on Roman religion will give Portunus, like this one: - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Scholarly sources in English spell the god's name "Portunus". If it's good enough for C.M. Bowra, it's good enough for wikipedia. Standard reference works – Encyclopedia Britannica, Lewis & Short, the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology – use "Portunus". I can't find a reliable source in English that spells the god's name "Portunes"—Alien DNA Identified in Man certainly doesn't count! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose, for the reasons stated above. This seems like a particularly importune request, coming less than two months after the page was moved to its current title; current in both Wikipedia and in classical scholarship. It's possible that the alleged "English version" has been widely used at some point, but if so it should be relatively easy to find a number of reliable sources that use it; and the ones cited above do not appear to be particularly authoritative. P Aculeius (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.