Talk:Toga

message: I added the cleanup tag because the history section contradicts much of the lead section and because there is no mention of modern togas (college parties, frats, etc.) KyleGarvey 15:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which parts contradict?  And the omission of modern togas would be grounds for , perhaps, not . —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleanup is general. If you need a specific tag for every problem, that's going to be very, very intrusive. There is more than just expansion, and more than just contradiction as well. The history paragraph contradicts females' use of the toga, has a poorly constructed quote, and is very redundant also. KyleGarvey 02:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific aspects needing cleanup should be mentioned on the talk page if they're not obvious.  I don't see them as obvious.  The contradiction between the lead and history was just a question of ambiguous wording, and is now fixed.  There are no quotes in the history section, and I see nothing redundant there.Certainly the wording should be cleaned up, though.  It's pretty old-fashioned, due to its source.  So I won't dispute the necessity of cleanup. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither of them. The "funeral feast" came immediately after the funeral; it wasn't  a religious part of the funeral; it signalled the end of the funeral, the end of the formal mourning period and the resumption of normal life. I've added a bit to explain. Hopefully. Haploidavey (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Hi, several of us are trying to organize the various "history of clothing" categories into a coherent framework, and we'd like to replace :Category:Roman era clothing with :Category:History of clothing (ancient Rome).. Is that OK with you all?  Please add your comments and suggestions here and I'll check back here in a few days -- thanks muchly! :) WillowW 15:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not degrade :Category:Clothing by nationality with this undertaking. --The Editrix 18:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I personally don't like using parentheses unless they're really, genuinely necessary, so I'd say no, sorry. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recategorization OK?

message: I remember reading or hearing somewhere that togas travelled east and ended up on Buddhist statues in China. Does anyone know if this is correct? Ireneshusband 04:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just been working on a translation of the Hymn of the Pearl and the protagonist wears a toga (Syriac: , ṭôg(î), '(my) toga'). It seems to be part of his Parthian royal garb. Does nayone know of records of the Roman toga being adopted by 3rd-century Parthian royalty? — Gareth Hughes 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silk Road, Buddhist statues etc. 

message: Hello. Can someone add the plural of toga to the article? I think it is togae but I'm not sure. Thanks. 206.168.224.66 17:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is togae. It's a feminine noun of the first declension — if you're learning Latin, that might make some sense to you. — Gareth Hughes 17:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural of toga 

message: These aren't encyclopedic. By their own admission, these show things which aren't togas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon (talk • contribs) 
:The modern day ones? They show the modern usage of the word "toga" and "toga parties". Even though those aren't true togas, it's what modern culture considers to be togas.  hmwith  talk 14:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: photos

message: I remember in my college Latin class that my professor made a big deal about what a toga was and was not. (She even sewed one and made one of the students wear it!) One of her points was that the way it was kept on the body kept the left arm immobile and useless, which made it okay as attire for Senators, who spent their days debating, but precluded the wearing of a toga for any sort of physical labor. This seems a major point to me. Can anyone expand this article to reflect this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.36.69 (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wearing of Togae 

message: Long before the advent of Rome, the toga is the clothing which classic Greek and Cypriot (600BC) sculptures adorn. It clearly has been the style of clothing in eastern Mediterranean since then, maybe even before.Mlavannis (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do call toga "Roman"? 

message: This is Etruscan, not Roman, and is from the Francois Tomb in Vulci, 350-330 BC.  (halfway down the page). It is sometimes interpreted as a possible model for the Roman toga picta. The figure is identified as Vel Saties. He is "probably" taking the auspices - his gaze is on a bird in flight. The smaller, rather dwarfish figure (which could equally be his servant or son) holds a tame or captive bird.  According to Mary Beard, the interpretation and dating are problematic: but the garment is a cloak, not a toga: . The picture doesn't register in the google-books preview; but the image in commons has definitely been reversed. Haploidavey (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Toga picta" upload from Commons: ''picta'' but not ''toga''

message: ...would be useful in expanding and refining this article. A googlebook preview of Judith Lynn Sebesta & Larissa Bonfante (co-authors and editors I think) The world of Roman costume looked promising.  
Might I also suggest a little more on the various ways of wearing the toga, other than the "classic style" of most surviving official statuary? Philip's is of course interesting: 
Cicero employs the various toga types and their intimations against Antony in his Philippics (2.4 & 2.8): clever, nasty stuff - see also the commentary on the linked page at Greek and Roman dress from A to Z (Cleland et al)  There's also Cicero's breastplate-under-toga melodrama for his set-piece against Cataline. He really knew how to milk it. Haploidavey (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern scholarship...

message: Everything on the web seems to rehash the same information, that the Toga was a status symbol and cultural necessity. I was wondering if there was any practical use to the Toga? It seems to be a clumsy attire. The article states that the Romans, like many other things, borrowed the Toga from the Etruscans. I wonder how the Etruscans or whoever invented the Toga developed it for. Was it just an accident/Fad or did it provide some type of genuine practical use in a tribal/technologically primitive society. Frankly, because of the excess in material it does make for a portable tent/pillow/cover all in one for someone who sleeps in the outdoors a lot or is itinerant.  
Anyway, if anyone has any info I would appreciate it!BinaryLust (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Practical use? 

message: I've seen a book about clothing and fashion in the Ottoman Empire and I saw a drawing of an North African Muslim man with a white toga. Can anyone confirm this? Komitsuki (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  In North Africa 

message: The lead contains 
* After the 2nd century BC, the toga was a garment worn exclusively by men, and only Roman citizens were allowed to wear it. 
* After this time, women were expected to wear the stola; to distinguish prostitutes from respectable women, prostitutes were required to wear the toga.
:There is a reference listed but I can not follow it, however, please read the two sentences to note that, according to the content, the toga was a garment worn exclusively by men, and only Roman citizens were allowed to wear it.. The first sentence has a beginning but no ending so could mean beginning at the 3rd century (after the 2nd) until possibly the end of the Roman era? The next sentence is confusing on several instances. 
# - "After this time" would mean what? After the 2nd century BC or after some time at the ending of what started after the 2nd century? 
# - After whatever time is being mentioned (anyone want to guess?) "prostitutes were required to wear the toga". 
* I guess we could get creative and guess that "maybe", since women were required to wear the stola that at some point men, that were cross-dressers that looked like women and were prostitutes, or maybe eunuchs that were prostitutes that dressed like a woman but could be identified as such, were required to also wear the toga. Apparently these would still have to be a Roman citizen. WOW! would it not be better to have content that is less confusing? I am just making funny guesses but the fact that it is confusing is without doubt, it is not encyclopedic, and my guesses could have merit. Otr500 (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just tweaked this language a bit to emphasize the male part without leaving out mention of prostitutes. I took out the reference to the 2nd c. as unreferenced and likely false (the toga was probably much older). I also removed the claim that the Etruscans were the origin. This attribution of everything to the Etruscans is typical of the Romans and older scholarship. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead confusion 

message: Substituted at 08:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Just a word or two for anyone watching here; much of this article has been based on Wm Smith's admirable but quite antiquated encyclopedic dictionary, which though often a delight should generally (to quote or misquote the excellent Bill Thayer) be "taken with a grain of salt" and due caution. I will, life permitting, be replacing most if not all Smith-based material with more up-to-date sources and text. Smith's work (or that of his editors/contributors) relied on material published up to a century before; and tend to swallow primary sources whole. He was a person of his time - a conservative upper-class Victorian gentleman with an excellent classical education and interests, but virtually no notion of the broader political and social sphere - rather like the almost invariably conservative upper-class Roman gentlemen who provide his primary sources, and utterly ignore most else. "Things" - history, historiography, society, sociology et al - have moved on considerably from both their times. Thus it will ever be. But meantime, in the here and now, we should only cite "primary" sources through the filter of up-to-date secondary scholarship. Sorry, didn't intend a lecture here.... Haploidavey (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient, "modern" and primary sources 

message: The article needs a section on togas in Roman literature (as trope, for the most part; though there's already a fair bit of Martial and Juvenal in the Patronage and salutationes section): and one on togas in art and statuary. I've run out of steam, so if anyone's keen to make a start? Haploidavey (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional sections required

message: Ottmh, one of the "broad Eastern toga" would be very useful indeed; also a full-length, clear image of the "banded toga" (aka "stacked toga" and toga contabulata). Haploidavey (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: The current section (or should I say sentence) in the article that covers the evolution of the toga in the Byzantine period is dismissive, moralizing in implication, and factually dubious. Togas did not disappear from the east in the 4th/5th century, as the description implies, nor did they "mutate" into something which wouldn't be recognizable to a Roman of the late western Empire. Cloaks became increasingly common as formal wear in late antiquity, true, but togas hardly vanished, remaining the ceremonial garb of choice for a significant minority of senators and functionaries. 6th century Consuls and Emperors wore trabeae, and togae contabulatae, mostly unchanged in design since the 3rd century, still show up in statues (this one of proconsul Stephanus, for example). Our last representation of a classical toga contabulata is in a mosaic of the Eparch of Thessalonica from the mid 7th century, 2-3 centuries after the current passage claims Byzantine high garb "heavily mutated" into something "difficult to fathom". 
Additionally, certain high officials continued to wear trabeae right up to 1204 (including the Eparch of Constantinople, as described in the Book of Ceremonies and shown in the Madrid Skylitzes), and the Emperors continued to wear trabeae, modified or original, right up to 1453. This is mentioned in the loros article, but considering how "loroi" were described as and equated with togae/trabeae by the Byzantines themselves, and hadn't changed much in basic design since antiquity, it's probably worth at least a mention here as well.  
In conclusion, while I don't feel that I'm personally knowledgeable enough about the evolution of togae in late antiquity specifically to add a new section, it's obvious that the article does need one quite badly. It could also use a move away from rather cryptic, almost orientalist language in the "decline" section. I would encourage someone better read on late antiquity to attempt this.
Jeandukeofalecon (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Togas in the Byzantine Period 

message: The section about salutatio needs to be moved in an article. Several pages explain the same thing, it needs to be developed in an article, and linked from other articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salutatio 

message: --Nathross (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Decline'