Talk:Religion in ancient Rome

Sprawling and confused

This article needs a lot of work. Some sections are really confused and seem uncertain as to what the overall goal of the article is. I'll be removing some unsourced / poorly written sections. 8bitW (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyedit - citations

I want to make a note of this now because I would rather discuss this early on. The article is long and it will take me a lot of time to copyedit so discussing changes incrementally is probably best — I am seeing some citations in this article that may be suitable for academic papers, but are not really part of our WP:REF guidelines. Specifically Wikipedia citations are about WP:V, not about making arguments, or expanding on arguments using citation. I have converted some of these refs to footnotes, but some are really formatted like journal citations. I opted to remove one pointing to the full lists of festivals, because it did not seem essential to include it. I think it would be better to find a direct secondary source citation to the proposition in the article so it can be verified (this should not be done by comparing different lists of festivals from different sources, and the fact that one of the sources is a foreign language source is not helping matters much.) I am taking a break until the requesting editor Harizotoh9 (and any other editors) can comment on this and review the recent edits. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Since there is no response I am going to take that as no major opposition? I will resume copyediting in a little while. If there is a problem, please let me know here on talk or on my talk page so we can resolve it. It is incredibly frustrating whenever a long copy edit is reverted only after I've finished it, and I would prefer to discuss issues as they come up—with a very long article like this one, I am bound to make changes that someone disagrees with so please let me know. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Well the above gives very little to go on, and your edits so far are mostly very hard to follow, as whole tranches show up as red. I don't see shortening footnotes as a benefit. One of the few changes easily seen, from: "The Romans are known for the great number of deities they honored, a capacity that earned the mockery of early Christian polemicists." to "The Romans worshiped a great number of deities, and were mocked by early Christian polemicists." involves a clear loss of meaning, and I suspect the introduction of error, as I doubt worship is quite the right word (I see there is a discussion on this in section higher up). You might at least add "for this" after "mocked". You also now have 2 sections called references. It is this sort of blundering around in carefully written prose that gets you into trouble everywhere. It would indeed be good to know why Harizotoh9 grassed the article up, but I suspect the reasons were probably minor or trivial - the lead is certainly too long (for once), and the pictures are oddly distributed. But most of the article is well-written, if a little dense, and suggests expertise in the authors. People should be made to give reasons when denouncing articles in this way. The form of the lead and much of the article seems to reflect an earlier stage when it was called something like "Ancient Roman religion", and the emphasis on the "official" religion might be overdone. I must say no obvious improvement is visible so far. One would think there are enough articles with real problems around. Johnbod (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the reason it was put up for copy edit is because it is too long. The citations are a problem for reasons that I've already explained, in that the citations need to directly verify the proposition they are cited for. Also, I am starting to feel like you are stalking my posts to start conflict on different articles that I am working on, and after your shockingly uncivil conduct on the Longquan Celadon article, I really wish you wouldn't. Though your comments are helpful from time to time, your inappropriately combative and disrespectful attitude is not. I left a message on your talk page that we should be civil to one another in public spaces like FAC, and I believe your exact words were "we will not work together in the future." I think that would be a pretty good reason to not go out of you way to follow me around to different articles. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not stalking you at all; all the articles I have commented on were on my watchlist (which is very long). Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

So far I have just made minor style improvements that have more flow, but for the content I am really hoping someone knowledgeable on the subject can keep an eye on it in case I accidentally remove something that is really essential. I am going through this one slowly, but regular editors are going to be more familiar with the sources then I am, so I am really looking for their input. This article has maybe too much detail for an overview article. I will never make GA like this, but I don't know if that's the goal. Some of this content will likely have to be spun out. I welcome discussion on this from editors who have a better grasp on it then I do. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm seeing changes of meaning - not just the point Johnbod brought up above, but consider "with only occasional intervention from deities but a pervasive sense of divinely ordered destiny." which was changed to "with occasional intervention from deities and a pervasive sense of divinely ordered destiny." We've gone from a oppositional comparision to making the two things alike. Since this is the lead (which, I'll add has been copyedited to become entirely too many paragraphs - see WP:LEAD, where four is recommended as the max) it's hard to say whether this changes the meaning from the source. Which brings up another point - starting copyediting with the lead first is ... backwards. The lead is built from the article content, so you can't possibly know if the lead reflects the article until you've finished work on the body. And this article needs more than just a polish of copyediting - it needs some serious structural work. There are sections that are uncited. There are entirely too many citations to primary sources.

Other changes of meaning: "Romulus was credited with several religious institutions. He founded the Consualia festival, inviting the neighbouring Sabines to participate;" becomes "Romulus was credited with founding the Consualia festival, where the neighbouring Sabines were invited to participate". So we've lost the fact that Romulus was credited with founding other things than the Consualia. Or "At different times and in different places, the sphere of influence, character and functions of a divine being could expand, overlap with those of others, and be redefined as Roman. Change was embedded within existing traditions." becomes "Throughout Rome's history the sphere of influence, character and functions of gods could expand, overlap with those of others, and be redefined as Roman." The change from "divine being" to "god" actually probably changes the meaning of the source - because the Romans recognized other divine beings than gods - the various nymphs along with the lares, pentates, junos, etc were not really "gods" as most people understand them. Or "The impressive, costly, and centralised rites to the deities of the Roman state were vastly outnumbered in everyday life by commonplace religious observances pertaining to an individual's domestic and personal deities, the patron divinities of Rome's various neighborhoods and communities, and the often idiosyncratic blends of official, unofficial, local and personal cults that characterised lawful Roman religion." which becomes "Costly and centralised religious rites were vastly outnumbered by commonplace religious observances including those pertaining to an individual's domestic deities or the patron divinities of Rome's various neighborhoods and communities. Lawful Roman religion was characterised by an idiosyncratic blend of official, unofficial, local and personal cults." Here we've lost the fact that the centralise rites were to the state dieties. And this "Roman calendars show roughly forty annual religious festivals. Some lasted several days, others a single day or less: sacred days (dies fasti) outnumbered "non-sacred" days (dies nefasti).<ref>Beard ''et al''., 6 - 7; those titled in capital letters on Roman calendars were probably more important and ancient than those titled in small letters: it is not known how ancient they were, nor to whom they were important. Their attribution to Numa or Romulus is doubtful. The oldest surviving religious calendars date to the late Republic; the most detailed are Augustan and later. Beard ''et al''., Vol. 1, 6: a selection of festivals is given in Vol. 2, 3.1 - 3. For a list of Fasti, with bibliography and sources, see Degrassi, ''Inscriptiones Italiae, Vol. XIII - Fasti et elogia, fasc. II - Fasti anni Numani et Iuliani,'' Rome, 1963. See also Scullard, 1981.</ref>" becomes "Roman calendars show roughly forty annual religious festivals. Some lasted several days, others a single day or less: sacred days (dies fasti) outnumbered "non-sacred" days (dies nefasti). The oldest surviving religious calendars date to the late Republic; the most detailed are Augustan and later." Is there a reason a source was removed? Was it checked and found to not support? Instead, now, we've got this information sourced to a different page range in Beard - which changes the sourcing. THAT is a big big concern. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Digging out Beard, it turns out that the information is not supported correctly for that citation - Beard is talking about the capital letter festivals when they discuss forty festivals, and pp 6-7 doesn't discuss dies fasti or dies nefasti at all. But this is indicitive of the problems here - if you're not actually checking the information against the sources, moving words around for better flow isn't actually helping the article at all. It needs to be checked against the sources and those errors (which there will be ... any article this size will have errors) before issues of prose style and flow should be tackled. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this patient analysis, which I agree with completely. Pure copyediting, without sources in front of you, should be very careful to avoid changing the meaning, if it seems the text was written with sources and knowledge. Beyond correcting student or 2nd-language English for idiom and so on, there's actually not that much that can be done. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to support the comments by Ealdgyth and Johnbod above. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: from what you're saying it sounds like GOCE should consider declining a copyedit. Regarding Romulus, well yes, I took out that he was credited with founding several religious institutions, because if this is mentioned it should be discussed in the article. I can decline the review, but a copy edit is supposed to have involvement from the regular editors and input from those who are familiar with the sources. It sounds like this is not ready for a copyedit, and without the involvement of any regular editors or the editor who posted the review, I think it might be better for GOCE to decline this copy edit. I'm not supposed to just do the whole thing from scratch myself, copyediting should ideally be a back and forth collaboration with regular editors who can answer questions about the sources. Johnbod is being reasonable now, when others are watching, but as the creator of Longquan Celadon, who was familiar with the hard to find sources, he should have engaged collaboration instead of yelling, name calling and abusive behavior on the talk page. The main thing that has held up progress of the article was the negative attitude. What I'm hoping for is actual collaboration ... more often it's a major DIY project. There should already be editors who are familiar with the sources and who want to be involved in a copy editing for style and structure. Yes, there was a reason I removed Beard, my own instinct which is usually correct. But no one is right 100% of the time, this isn't a game of gotcha, though I understand why that may be satisfying (not saying you are doing this Ealdgyth, and I do appreciate your points. Thank you for confirming that I removed the citation correctly, I'm aware of the issues with the article and I have also noticed the primary sourcing)—what I was recommending was sourcing the statement directly to a secondary source, if one could be found instead of the long academic argument style citation. Once I saw the significant amount of work needed, I reached out for input from others on how to proceed. But yes, I'm very much aware of the issues. And yes I was aware of the divine being also, when I changed it, though I am not confident about the sourcing in general, and I agree that it might be better to have a thorough source review before a copyedit in this situation. The main question here is whether there is agreement for a more significant copyedit then a quick scan for punctuation errors and spacing? I don't want to do this unilaterally for a very long article and then have it reverted because it a big investment of my time, with all due respect. It does not really help the situation that the editor who has posted the review is being non-responsive. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, the main problem with the sourcing that I've noticed is that when writing articles we are supposed to provide citations for WP:V, this means the citations should directly support the proposition. I wasn't going to leave it sourced to a different page range, my intention was to source it in some way that is comprehensible, which the current citations aren't. That citation is used to add further information. The citation I left in was for the calendar's date though it's hard to say because it's formated as "source;comment;clause.source:comment more sources.for a list see foreign language source.see also." Well yeah, I removed it. This isn't a professional journal, the idea is to write these articles so they are accessible, this is written like a journal article, and it shouldn't be. I also removed it because it doesn't sound like the source directly supports the proposition (which is my understanding of see as a citation signal, though it may be different based on the style manual, but for general articles as far as I know we don't use often use introductory signals). This would make it basically undue WP:OR to base an analysis on a list and state it in the article as though it was significant. So I removed the citation, pending further improvements based on secondary sources. If these comments are not part of the analysis in the majority of sources then they are undue for inclusion anyway, and at least these sections of the article seem to rely heavily on a single source, which is also not promising. I agree that the sourcing issues are significant. I am willing to work on it further but there are articles that are higher on my priority list (like trying to save Nero from GAR), so I am also willing to revert my changes entirely and decline the request. We don't usually decline copyedits posted as requests without at least some discussion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I can also add that from the work I've done on Nero, sourcing classics articles to secondary sources is one of the most difficult tasks I have undertaken as an editor. Every book on Nero that I picked up has an account that differs in the details, the primary sources all equally unreliable, so just pick your favorites. Infinite permutations. I am using about 6 different books and trying to patch together the "majority" view, or note the differences in the account without adding too much technical detail, but it has been extremely difficult and time consuming. I certainly appreciate the problems here and they won't be easy to fix. As soon as I realized the extent of it, I wanted to see if there was consensus for me to actually continue. I'm glad I asked, because some editors like Johnbod for example, think it is fine the way it is. I don't want to invest this much time in a copyedit if the community feels it isn't wanted or needed, that's all. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The unsupported chunk of text under discussion (several posts up) goes back to the article's EB 1911 beginnings, and to mine as a Wiki-editor; or perhaps to Smith - hard to say which, without further scrutiny of the article history. At any rate, the article had next to no inline citations during its earliest days. See this and earlier diffs relating to the "Festivals" section. The content was carried forward. It's fixable. Either tag or remove the unsupported content, but please don't remove citations on some vague hunch or instinct. Apropos of removals in general, why on earth was do ut des taken out? It's central to the topic. Haploidavey (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, WP:RS do seem to call nymphs (minor) goddesses, though using the male form exclusively certainly was an oversight on my part. The citation was removed because we do not use citation to develop argument or to add detail. We have other footnotes for this. The citation should directly support the proposition, not add extra details about the dating of the calendar that is not discussed in the article. Also, a variety of sources should have been consulted to see if the content is actually due for inclusion, it should not be cited to a list in a singke foreign language source. A broad article like this does not need to include every detail. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

So as a reader the proposition "religious days outnumbered non religious days" is very interesting, and it seems very significant. It implies something significant about Roman culture. This may be true, but if it hasnt been discussed by multiple secondary sources explicitly, it should not be in the article. Also, introductory signals should not be used because they mean different things in different style guides. In law articles, they have a set meaning so we use them, but we use a variety of citation styles in our general articles. See and see also as introductory signals usually have a meaning like "indirectly supports the proposition." We use them in law articles because it is inappropriate to cite to anything but a decisions holding, without a signal to let our readers know. They are not adding clarity here. Most importantly the citations should allow the reader to verify the proposition, this is why we use direct citation. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Do ut des

Haploidavey Thank you for your comments, I certainly appreciate them. I have followed up on Do ut des. I think the glossary entry is quite good. I see that the link is still included in the sacrifice section (which is the appropriate section for this.) As for the lede, I agree with above comments that the lede should be the last thing edited, it was my mistake to start there. But, the statement that "this approach to religion was practical and contractual" is not sourced in the article. (Do ut des is currently entirely unsourced). While this is a legal term, discussed even in sources like Joseph Story's commentaries, I'm concerned about the lackadaisical approach to sourcing in this article. We shouldn't say more then the sources say, for example calling it "practical" I see some interesting discussion of it in WP:RS here but I can't find any sources describing it as "practical", the closest I can find is this source [1] which describes it as "manipulative" and "corrupt" Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Creation myth...

Why was "Rome offers no native creation myth, and little mythography to explain the character of its deities, their mutual relationships or their interactions with the human world; however, Roman theology acknowledged that di immortales (immortal gods) ruled all realms of the heavens and earth. There were gods of the upper heavens, gods of the underworld and a myriad of lesser deities between." removed? This is one of the striking features of Roman religion - it's actually very unusual not to have some sort of creation myth or other myths. I'm a bit worried that massive changes are being done without any real knowledge of how Roman religion operated. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. As one of the main contributors to this article (and one of the first to admit its many faults), I'm keeping my reactions to myself and my responses to a minimum; but the removal of such essential content is particularly worrying. Haploidavey (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes it seems striking, but I don't think it actually is as striking as it seems. "No native creation myth and little mythography" is a convenient way around a very difficult part of this article that I am working on right now (And I have at least a dozen sources in front of me). I don't see mythography in the sources beyond "Greek mythography in the Roman world" — ok so the problem is, none of the sources I've reviewed seen to think Rome's "native" mythography is even worth mentioning. Sure, there may something about it somewhere, and I am still looking for it, but I've been working on it all night and generally what I see is along these lines (drawing your attention to "Roman theology"), this quote is from the cited source:

"...(some stuff about Christ-centric worldview here) ... a complex and well-ordered theory to reflect on its beliefs and practices: theology. Yet the ancient history of religion is no field to be analyzed within the framework of standard topics[...]by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the independent discipline of "comparative religion" or "history of religion" tried to supplant this scheme with a series of topics like gods, beliefs, temples, rituals, priests. These are helpful as appealing to common sense, but ahistorical as applied to a system...astonishing variety...various...Mithraic...Capitolia..."

So in terms of religion these sources go on like this for quite some pages, that's the part I'm still working on. While editing, I noticed that this article could easily fall into the trap of saying more about mythology then it should, because mythology is really a separate article and I am trying to keep this article focused on religion and specifically, the main points about religion that are common to multiple sources (instead of the quirky details that vary from source to source.) These books, at least the parts I have read so far, are not focused on mythology. (As for how significant "mythology" was to religion. This is a question I will try to address, but I'm not ready to do it right now.) - but generally, from what I have seen so far, I'm not very confident about the precision of the sourcing in this article. (For example, "Rome claimed a divine ancestor in Aeneas" (cited to "See Vergil, the Aeneid") which I spent much of yesterday sorting it out to the current version, some patrician family's claimed descent from Aeneas, and especially Augustus, but most likely the people of Rome still thought the penates were Castor and Pollux (I didn't go into that much detail, but there is a lot to cover, and I think mythology may be the main article for some of this but I can add it if others think it is relevant.)

So maybe Haploidavey can comment on specifically what part of the source (that is in front of me) I should be looking at for this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have finally read through the whole thing, and this article seems to have dodged the majority of the more difficult, thorny issues of this topic. The history section is terrific, and entirely out of order, unfortunately. I found that after reading it, a lot of the things I wanted to know about this topic still weren't answered (in particular about cultic practices and cults in general, I think that is really the heavy lifting of this article, and I found that this was not explained very well. I also noticed it doesn't have a separate article, which makes me think it must be a very difficult topic. It's a big project huh? I would probably be better off going to the beach. But this is the article that comes up when I search for it in Google. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Beard Religions of Rome vol. 1 p. 10-11 "The Roman gods, for example, even the greatest of them, seem not to have had a marked personal development and character; while a whole range of 'lesser' gods are attested who were essentially a divine aspect of some natural, social or agricultural process (such as Vervactor, the god of 'turning over fallow land', or Imporcitor, the god of 'ploughing with wide furrows'); there were few 'native' myths attaching even to the most prominent rituals; the system offered no eschatology, no explanation of creation or man's relation to it; there was no tradition of prophets or holy men; a surviving fragment of Varro's encyclopedia of religion even reports that the earliest Romans, for 170 years after the foundation of their city, had no representations of their gods." Later, Beard points out that "Roman myths were in essence myths of place. Greek myths too related to specific cities and territories, but at the same time they were regularly linked to wider Greek, or Panhellenic, mythology. In general Roman myths do not have such a wider context. Rather, the sites and monuments of the city of Rome dominate Roman mythology - fro the grandeur of the Capitoline Hill to the ancient hut of Romulus still lovingly preserved on the Palatine into the imperial period. These myths recount the history of the area of Rome itself, from earliest times to the Augustan age;" Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that is a very helpful quote that wasn't in the pages of Beard cited. It also touches on the issues that I think could be better explained, some of this is the article's poor organization. There is a lot of content in the history section that gets lost because it is about augury, or temples, or Aeneas, but that entire section is organized like an essay, and its like a separate article that ignores the existing structure that is already in place. I dont see what the point of being quiet and building up resentment is, btw. This is linked to from a lot of articles, so it should be improved. Im happy to let someone else take the wheel if there any volunteers. Seraphim System ^(talk)

The best thing to do if you want to improve the article is to acquire and read thoroughly some of the sources. Beard, et al.'s first volume is a must. As Rupke's Religion of the Romans. If you're starting - I'd suggest John Scheid's An Introduction to Roman Religion. Schied has an excellent further reading section. This article is on my radar, but I've got quite enough other things on my plate - and some people might consider I have a COI, since this is my religio. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

On a personal note, that is really cool. I was actually going to do that (spend the day reading). One option I want to propose is keeping the history section intact and spinning it out. That would probably cut the WP:ARTICLESIZE down to something that is acceptable within the guidelines. Then, instead of making major cuts (which I am supposed to for an article this large) if everything is essential (and most of it is good content), in a casr like this something should be spun out at this point, and I could then focus on source check and correct refs where they need to be corrected, like the one we just talked about (and See Vergil, Aeneid). I would prefer this to a major reorganization of the article, and removing content. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Also on a somewhat personal note; sorry to all for my brief and tardy responses - it's part of ageing. I write very slowly indeed, these days. Yes, the works by Scheid and Beard et al (recommended above) are excellent. Btw, we do have an article on Roman mythology. Haploidavey (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

So a couple of things - re, "Rome offers no" or "seems not to" - well, ok, but I would want this not only from one source before I could try to figure out how it should be included. What I've gathered so far is that a lot of the evidence is archaeological. As for the creation myth, there do seem to be some around, Mithras at the very least -As for mythography, honestly we dont know, and Im highly skeptical of any claims to greater knowledge then that (either way.) As with secondary sources, we have to be careful because some secondary are primary for their own opinions, and these we have to look at more carefully to see how widely held/cited they are in scholarship especially since the footnote is "well, we cant but sure, but for different views see" those views have to be balanced if the disoute is significant. (I mean, I think this is more essential then including a lot of details about latin terminology, for example, which this article has plenty of) Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyway to answer the question briefly, I took it out because I thought it was wrong, and because I could not find support for it in the citations. Not being supported by the citations given is enough reason to remove something from a 13,000 word article. But I went a step further and I looked through the sources for support, and could not find any, most likely because it is not true, or at least we don't know if it's true, and it isn't very significant. I am very skeptical and somewhat critical of hiding behind the pretense of a claim to greater knowledge, and it's not something I take very seriously. The section isn't even about Roman deities in this sense, Beard's quote is not about "Juno, Minerva, Mars" - even if it is does go back in, it needs to come after a significantly more thorough discussion then "Throughout Rome's history the sphere of influence, character and functions of gods(whatever) could expand, overlap with those of others, and be redefined as Roman" - I get that it's supposed to be a general "overview" but there is less important content in there, like what is done with different kinds of Exta―what I think Beard means here is that much has been made of selective readings of Virgil, and this methodology is flawed, and that attempts to "strip" Virgil of its foreign content and search for "truth" about the distant past are misguided, and very specifically that you can't assume anything about "native Roman religion" from isolating parts of Virgil. That list of "Roman deities"—well it's not very interesting, just like "Wecta, son of Woden, father of Witta" is not very interesting, and we certainly wouldn't assume that it is revealing of history outside the context it is written in. There are creation myths built into the broader whole of what we would call "Roman religion", the entire concept of "native Roman religion" is problematic, what is it referring to? Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

You are aware that Beard, et al. is written somewhat as a textbook, right? So, while, yes, it is somewhat of the author's opinion, it also treats the historiography. If Beard and her coauthors isn't enough - here's an actual college textbook on Classical Mythology - Mark Morford, Rober Lenardon, Michael Sham Classical Mythology Ninth Edition 2011 "The Italian gods were ot as generally anthropomorphic as the Olympian gods, about whom the Greeks developed legends that they expressed in poetry and art of great power. The Roman gods were originally associated more with cult than with myth, and such traditional tales as were told about them did not have the power of Greek legends. In the third century B. C., when the first historians and epic poets began to write in Latin, the influence of Greek literatur was already dominant. Many of the early authors were themselves Greeks, and were familiar with Greek mythology. THus many Roman legends are adaptations of Greek legends, and to a varying extent they owe their present form to sophisticated authors such as Vergil and Ovid. Roman mythology nevertheless had an independent existence in the cults of Roman relgion and the legends of early Roman history." (p. 659). The rest of the chapter discusses the various gods and the foundation myths of Rome, but never once discusses any creation myth of the world. Or The Oxford Dictionary of Classical Myth and Religion ed. Simon Price and Emily Kearns - entry "Mythology" p. 364-365 "When the ROman elite started to write down its history at the end of the 3rd century BC, it had one fixed mythological complex at its disposal: the foundation of Rome by Romulus and Remus. A few names, such as Janus and Picus, hint at the sometime existence of other myths, but nothing suggests an orignally rich mythology, and the absence of divine tales has even led some scholars to the suggestion that the Romans lacked a mythology altogether. ... The foundation myths show that the temporal horizon was not the creation of gods or men but the birth of the native city; the foundation of the city was also the most mythological theme in public declamation in imperial times." (Oxford Dictionary of Classical Myth and Religion is based on The Oxford Classical Dictionary, by the way). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and Beard is amazing—but there is a difference between "Italian gods" and "native Roman religion" - Beard is very unambiguous about this, no (archaeological) evidence has ever been found of a "native Roman religion" which most scholars agree was multicultural from at least as far back as we can reasonably discern. The Trojan founding myth would seem to assimilate the creation myths of other cultures, and Roman religion does have an origin myth (main article is linked) - there are different kinds of these and "Greek founding myths" were not unusual during this time (Added this source last night). I'm reluctant to delve too depply into details about mythology in an article of this length with so much ground to coverSeraphim System ^(talk) 21:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

So there is more that could be said about this, but I dont think it should be done in this article. During this period Greek founding myths served the purpose of creating a commonality as "kinship" myths - Rome assimilated the local cults. What is significant about this was the Hellenization of the local cults. I dont think the absence of a "creation of the moon and stars" legend is especially significant in the context of Roman religion, nor unusual for cities that adopted a Hellenized mythology. I am researching Diana now, which seems to be well covered in scholarship and seems a good place to start. I would just add that "creation myths" are a complex topic themselves, and there isnt just one kind (cosmological) but this would really be too much detail for this page and I think its better to summarize the majority of sources, rather then infer too much about complex subjects from things they dont discuss. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

For example, Rupke (the other source cited for this statement) say: "Roman religion did not grow out of nothing. Italy, above all, in its coastal regions was already party to a long-distance cultural exchange, in the Mediterranean basin in a prehistoric phase. The groups that were to grow into the urbanization of the Roman Hills did not need to invent religion." and he writes more "We can suppose that many characteristics of the gods, the fascination of statutary and anthropomorphic representation were shared...unfortunately non-Latin languages ceased to be [written] ..." etc. The main issue these texts are addressing is the really the Hellenization (and Romanization) of Italy in this early period for example "There is strong emphasis on control, of both centralization and presence...permanent architectural structures in the center of Rome" - basically, I don't support adding this sentence back in. Far from being essential, it is contradicted by the cited sources and not supported by the current scholarship (and the debates about "creation myths" and covering the full debate of whether or not there was a local mythology, or characteristics of gods in non-Latin speaking Italian cultures, would be way too detailed for this article. My understanding of the sources is that they are basically arguing that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but noting that there do exist differing views on this (which seem to be minority views. It is a fascinating subject, that is better suited for a more specific article.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: I think the part of this statement about cultic aspects may be important to include. (As for creation myths, Ovid certainly does include one.) While taking a break from this I researched some of the published archaeological evidence from Britain. I see two distinct issues here - one is the Hellenization of the native Italian deities (and the later "Romanization" of local deities in the provinces), and the other is the analysis from secondary sources that Roman mythology about these deities and their cultic aspects is noticeably flat and two-dimensional. We see temples built in areas of the provinces that were sacred in local tradition, on the foundations of older temples - archaeologists believe the purpose was political/Romanization, but we dont have much in the way of written evidence about the older traditions. Scholars do think cult varied over time/location. There is archaeological evidence that Hellenization began rather early (a marble relief that archaeologists believe shows that Diana was already becoming associated with Artemis as early as the 5th century BC.) The quote above from Beard is a list of facts that scholars have interpreted in different ways (and note that "native" is in quotes. Rupke's comments also speak to this.) I dont know if you have read Dumezil, but she actually ends up critiquing him pretty strongly. For a number of reasons, I dont want to get into that dispute here (it is discussed in a separate article) and I certainly dont want to cite a statement to Beard when it is just an introduction for a subsequent analysis where she argues against Dumezil. I am not really comfortable discussing a "native Roman religion" before Hellenization because current scholarship (including Beard) seems to regard such discussions as largely speculative and misguided. I think the deities section would make more sense organized (roughly) chronologically. This again presents problems with the History section which discusses some (but not all) of these issues at the end of the article. I still think it would be best to spin out that section intact, and then merge the essential parts into this article's structure. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

If it is sourced and cited information, then it should be included. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't really address any of the above discussion, which is about the source. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Roundabout tone

Yet Theodosius accepted comparison with Hercules and Jupiter as a living divinity in the panegyric of Pacatus, and despite his active dismantling of Rome's traditional cults and priesthoods could commend his heirs to its overwhelmingly Hellenic senate in traditional Hellenic terms.

I pretty much guarantee 100% comprehension failure of this lofty, abstract diction at a grade eight reading level. I just approached this at a grade 18 reading level, and I only have a sketch of a hypothesis about what sentiment this sentence endeavours to impart.

For instance, just what does "it" reference here? Most viable antecedents would be "his", "her", or "their":

• Theodosius — his
• Hercules — his
• Jupiter — his
• living divinity — hard to say; superficially low on itishness
• panegyric of Pacatus — the one good "it" candidate
• Rome's traditional cults and priesthoods — their
• his heirs — their

"Panegyric of Pacatus's overwhelmingly Hellenic senate" it is, then.

Seriously, there has to be a more direct route. — MaxEnt 22:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

How is this a "roundabout" tone? "It" is surely Rome - famous for having a senate, unlike say Hercules? Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Lede and article scope

The lede of this article currently begins "Religion in ancient Rome includes the ancestral ethnic religion of the city of Rome that the Romans used to define themselves as a people, as well as the religious practices of peoples brought under Roman rule, in so far as they became widely followed in Rome and Italy." This sentence makes me think the article is about a particular religious tradition which began in the city of Rome, spread elsewhere, and adapted and interacted with other religious traditions over time. However, I think Religion in the Roman empire, meaning all the various religious traditions practiced in the boundaries of the Roman empire, is a notable topic. Other parts of this article seem to suggest that this article includes this broader scope. Which is it? If the article is meant to be broader, then the lede should be edited accordingly. If it is beneficial to have a narrow article, then perhaps we should split this into two articles. Daask (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, there is a serious problem with the definition of this article's scope. I think the relatively minimal treatment of religions like Mithraism and Christianity, plus the fact that "Roman Polytheism" redirects to here, reveals that this is supposed to be an article about the polytheistic state religion of the Roman Republic and Empire (in which case it needs to be renamed, among other things, but that's another story).

I rewrote the first paragraph to address a major issue with how it was framing the concept of Roman "ethnicity", among other things. Let me know if the new lead offers better clarity (I know it doesn't fully fix the poor definition of scope, since we will need to do that through other means first). I believe my edits were self-explanatory, particularly where the content now agrees better with what's written further down in the lead. If anyone disagrees or would like more explanation, let me know.

I also removed the sentence that asserts Roman religion's polytheistic nature somehow "earned" mockery from Christians. It only introduces POV problems and is frankly not even relevant to the (supposed) scope of the article.

— Uiscefada (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Paintings by Gérôme and by Saint George Hare

Here I have reverted the removal of two paintings, of scenes relating to martyrdom. Haploidavey comments that they offer a heavily loaded POV tag, make the section of even more disproportionate length, and rather than being historical are fantastical. Personally I'd still keep them, as lush re-imaginings, dramatized and voyeuristic as they are, of a deeply squalid and vile experience. Do we have a consensus either to remove or keep? Or any other artistic re-imaginings, of better historical quality? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Much as I adore Gerome's work... he's not to be trusted entirely as a purveyor of accurate information. I'm not sure I think there's a place for "dramatized and voyeuristic" images in this article, especially on the topic which, quite honestly, has some severe POV issues tracing back to our ancient sources for this information. Heh. I'm going to especially object to the "humans as torches" image for Nero... I'm not sure what the current status of scholarly consensus is on that, but my readings in the past have led me to the feeling that most historians discount that particular episode. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I won't reiterate the objections I made earlier (see the edit summaries I gave for each removal). The era from which each one hails has its own story to tell; quite honestly, I found the painting of the two women dozing gently in the face of their imminent martyrdom quite creepy. On the edge of soft Victorian religious pornography, given the subject and the opportunity it offers. Would the painting work its dubious spell if the women were old and decrepit? No. On the other matter - Nero and human torches - at least a Roman source is mentioned to justify its excesses. Well, kind of. (inserted: Almost every aspect of Nero's life and character have been subject to extreme revision, even reversal, over the last few years). It also felt a bit mean to be removing all 3. And yes, what's needed is something contemporaneous, preferably something that shows the relationship of Christians to Roman traditions (that's more likely than vice versa, at least in the first century or so. Sarcophagi and catacombs?) The orantes wall from Lullingstone Roman Villa would be nice; it shows what they did, rather than what was done to them. And I could pop it into the Roman funerals article. The era of self-sought martyrdoms was, after all, mercifully brief; and there's more to Christianity than that. A shame Commons is so poorly equipped in this respect. Haploidavey (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Nero's Torches is particularly overdramatized... the episode itself is the subject of some confusion over whether a specific law was issued, but doubting its reality is something of a fringe view. Martyrdom is so salient in the later perception of Christianity's first 250 years that some representation is, I suggest, quite easy to justify. Even the soft porn allows meta-comment on the uses of martyrdom narratives. However, I shan't argue any further.

I agree, Commons isn't well-provided with really good images of early Christianity. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

One interesting option File:ChristAsSol.jpg Ealdgyth (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

There's plenty in Category:Paleochristian art, though the image quality isn't always great, as most of it can't be photographed. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Real life has poked its snout into my trough, and needs attention, so I'd like to leave the status quo as it is for now, and keep the three martyrdom images up for a day or two longer, just to see if they provoke further response/discussion. The page of Paleochristian art seems to carry pretty much what I had in mind - and I think I've glanced at the 'Christ as Sol' mosaic before, and not realised what it was (or is said to be). I'm not trying to minimise Richard Keatinge's point about the impact of martyrdoms; but I'm pretty sure that would be (if it isn't already) dealt with in depth elsewhere. Thanks to all. Haploidavey (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Suicide

Given the terrible treatment at Suicide#History, History of suicide, Suicide in antiquity, and Religious views on suicide, it would be helpful to have a decent place here where Roman suicide could be redirected and where those other pages could pull better treatment from. It may even fall under or alongside the bit on human sacrifice, since it was perfectly honorable in some cases for a human to choose to sacrifice themselves to preserve dignity, atone for disgrace, etc. in a way that probably informs what the Romans considered wrong and barbaric about sacrificing others. — LlywelynII 19:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)