Talk:Roman imperial cult

message: Constantine did NOT abolish the imperial cult. When some town wanted to build his family a temple, he said it was alright as long as they don't sacrifice in it. I need the reference, but I think this is basically how it happened. Of course, he wasn't 'consecrated' after death, but that's another thing. 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.121.3 (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: As it stands, this article is a misleadingly broad representation of the imperial cult of the Roman Empire, in that its opening paragraph implies that worship of living emperors was a widespread, near-universal practice across the Empire (both in time and space) -- an implication not adequately supported by the body of the text or accompanying references.
The article focuses primarily on the deifications of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, and specifically on  Julius and Augustus.  Of the active worship, living or otherwise, of the post-Julio-Claudian emperors, from Vespasian to Constantine, this article says absolutely nothing.  That's a gap of more than 200 years. Whatever we might conclude from the sources cited about emperor-worship during the first half of the 1st century CE, we must take care not to apply those conclusions to the remainder of the Principate and the middle of the 3rd century CE without supporting evidence.
Though I cannot be certain, this article appears to rely upon, and extrapolate too far from, the single External Link cited -- a work concerned with emperor-worship during the Augustan Age in Greece and Asia Minor. On the topic of emperor-worship in other parts of the Empire or of the active worship of emperors after Augustus, it remains silent.  
Lastly, there is a difference between revering a deceased emperor as a god and worshipping a living emperor as one, a distinction which is not made especially clear in the present Wikipedia article.
In short, this Wikipedia article is not nearly as comprehensive as its opening paragraph indicates.  At the very least I would suggest a change to more specific, and less misleading, title, and the inclusion of more references and citations to support its assertions.
JagoWoodbine 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice the Temple of Augustus (Pula) in Croatia is supposed to have been built during his lifetime, contradicting the article, which says only one in Asia was so built. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly broad conclusions? 

message: In the Intro:
"the only emperor to declare himself a god while still living was Domitian which caused outrage."
and  in 'Civil religion until abolishment by Constantine':
"After Hadrian, the power of the emperors had become so absolute and consolidated that the later emperors could claim divinity during their own lives"
I think the first quote needs to be edited to explain the growing strength of Emperors claim to divinity over the course of the first 200 years of empire, but I am unsure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.203.36 (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self Criticising. 

message: The article badly needs one. At the moment, it has a weak narrative drive. The prose style switches from one section to the next. Changes in tense and voice don't help any - they show the use of chunks of imported text based on others' research. I know a lot of wiki articles are written that way, but that's why most don't come anywhere near FA, or even B quality. Start with the research, absorb the background, understand how and why the subject arises - then write.  
It's good to know there's still some life in the article (re: comment above this one) because it has potential. I'm interested and will help out, if required. Haploidavey (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: copy edit

message: QED. Haploidavey (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: tagging for citation

message: The introduction interprets the cult as one of "personality" - according to which sources? They're not in the main article text, and none of the reputable works currently listed in "Further Reading" support that simplistic conclusion. Anything but. Haploidavey (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: intro

message: The article has very little in the way of anthropological or politico-religious context. Anyone object if I provide that as an introduction in the main body? Most of the modern authors I've been looking at regard this as essential background. Haploidavey (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: intention

message: Complete, for the time being. A suggestion - as this is likely to become a rather long article, please place comments or crits on this section directly below. If headers are changed for any reason, please strike though the existing header and give new header title. For other sections, please place comments and discussions under appropriately titled headings. Thank you. Haploidavey (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: Pasted in with a reservations - namely, should it be merged? And do other editors agree that terms should be as proposed? If the terminology isn't changed and explained, the article will remain as opaque (at best) or potentially misleading (at worst) as it was. Of course, sources must and will be respected. Post-cult commentators and cult opponents should be cited and quoted strictly in their own terms. Haploidavey (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: There's editorializing happening in this article through selective sourcing. Describing the imperial cult as "servile" may or may not be valid, depending on one's point of view, but it certainly is not a consensus opinion among scholars of the field. A Wikipedia article may reflect scholarly debate about a particular topic, but it should not "take sides" in such a debate, no? The tone here is contentious and politically charged. Perhaps a rewrite with non-axe-grinding sources is in order.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoomaBaresAll (talk • contribs) 23:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If you read the "background" section carefully, you'll notice that the word occurs in the course of discussion which certainly does not support that point of view. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Grammatical error corrected. A re-write is indeed in progress, with some of the axe-grinding sources and opinions disposed of quite early in the article.Haploidavey (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers. I'd offer to help with the rewrite, but as I'm a college student with exams in my near future, that will have to wait. ZoomaBaresAll (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Editorializing

message: I found very few relevant citations for cult in South-Western Mediterranean seaboard provinces. Examples used are from areas more or less equivalent to Libya and northern Algeria, and I grouped them beneath the general heading of "Western Provinces". This fits the later division of Empire, avoids anachronistic use of "Africa" and implies by omission the "Eastern" character of Graeco-Egyptian cult (covered, of course, under Eastern Provinces), but I'm not really satisfied with it. Any better suggestions would be welcome. Haploidavey (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by anachronistic use of Africa, exactly? You mean that Roman usage of Africa doesn't correspond to the modern use of Africa for the continent? And you raise an interesting point about whether the African province(s) are meant to be included when we talk about the Western empire as distinguished from the Eastern or Byzantine. I think "Western Roman Empire" is often historian-code for "Europe except for most of the Slavic and Germanic parts, and Ireland, except that 'Europe' doesn't really exist." What you say is interesting in a way I hadn't bothered to think about before, though I've seen (and not read) discussions of the connections between Gaul and "Africa." Cynwolfe (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your use of question and quotation marks sums it up. Yes, I'd like to avoid anachronisms, modern preoccupation with the birth of nation-states and continential identities and the perils of centrist vs non-centrist hegemony in debate. I'd also prefer to observe the distinctions made in the literature - even where they contradict - but "Western" histories are almost invariably constructed around Diocletian's East-West administration, and get stuck on the axes of Rome and Byzantium. Useful enough in politics, law, broad cultural-linguistic terms, subsequent developments and whatnot - but the "Imperial cult" trades simultaneously in ideas, identities and "things". The issue of trade routes and North-South relationships in the West is, I think, a major one which tends to be subsumed as incidental to the Big Story of East and West. So OK, "Imperial cult" is both a unifying agency and local identity - but no, it's a multiplicity of agencies serving local identities in a common "cause" whose nature and purpose are often far from clear but become particularly muddied by the institution of the Tetrarchy and are probably deeply implicated in the trading institutions of the Mediterranean world. Perhaps. David Stone Potter (see references) covers some of this well, but his primary concern - or thesis, rather - is one of cultural and administrative ossification at the heart of Imperial reaction and eventual decay. Arguable, really.  Haploidavey (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Carthaginian presence in Spain has been discussed, of course (I have no sources to give you, though), including religious cult. Mostly Hercules/Melqart stuff. The Spain/Africa connection is important in the story of Sertorius, a favorite Roman of mine. But Hannibal et al. were also in the Narbonensis; that was the overland route, but transient, so I guess no real cultural impact? I know nothing about Africa in the Imperial era. The province of Africa seems like a relatively neglected subject, given the quality of Roman archaeological remains there. For your article, you're probably better off not treating it as part of the "West," because that isn't conventional (the "Western Empire", as you say, from the mouths of historians isn't about a cardinal direction, but culture formation and the creation of modern Europe), and I'm not sure how much good it would do to question the traditional East/West division. What if the Roman province of Africa is given its own subsection after (or under) the current "Western provinces" section? Including when it ceased to be part of even the divided empire. Then you could profitably sum up in a couple of sentences some of these issues. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a nice clear answer to my garbled "explanation" (I barely understand what I wrote above - it has all the marks of "topic frenzy"). I'll follow your good advice and cunning plan. Thanks so much. PS: Sorry, I forgot to say - until a month or two back, I knew nothing at all about Sertorius and still only know the Plutarch account after a fashion - but yes, he really grows on you. A fascinating character. Haploidavey (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary decision

message: I'm going to attempt to move the res divina section to the res divina article page, which is barely stubbish, and to provide a summary with a "see also" here. Please move stuff back if I've cut too close. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent news. PS: if you're about to edit, I'll close down for the night (nearly 2.00 a.m. here anyway).Haploidavey (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't resist complimenting your summary - it says absolutely everything it needs to and does so with exceptional flair. Haploidavey (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Res divina 

message: I've just had a major session at the British Library. The evidence for Domitian's claims to godhead (as in picture caption) is very unsound - see Ittai Gradel (in article references) p 160: (with my own paraphrasis in parts, from handwritten notes taken in Library - careful notes...)
"In Domitian's case, there is no evidence that the title "master and god" by which he was regularly addressed in his later years was ever a formal title. It was never granted by the senate; never found in inscriptions; and was probably not invented by himself. Suetonius explicitly states that it was first used by the emperor's own freedmen (his own procuratores), who were - significantly - members of his own extended household (familia). It was not used by Domitian himself, only as a form of address to him. Suetonius claims that Domitian himself dictated a letter in the name of his procurators thus: "our master and god orders this to be carried out". This is slim and unrobust evidence. Had Suetonius possessed first-hand, first-person cases, he would have cited them - but he does not. Domitian may well have been pleased by the title - but that is neither here nor there. (Gradel explains the client-patron relationship which informed the language of D's procuratores within and beyond the domus - and Domitian's causing of senatorial offence by his treatment of themselves in similar vein.) 
As to Pliny's mention of sacrifices to Domitian on the Capitol, all such worship (and any associated titulature) was "private and informal", no matter how common. Most importantly, Domitian's coinage and the Arval Acts reveal nothing of this - and that is decisive." 
If this is so, there is no reason for Domitian to be singled out in the article. Commodus, perhaps, but even then, the accounts misrepresent the issues and possibly the emperor. The loss of the Domitian picture will leave the article without any illustration - which is no good at all. Has anyone anything to offer? Johnbod very kindly provided a link to the Severan Tondo, which I'd love to use - but I can find no author who attributes it as an object of Imperial cult, which it blatantly is. I know we've a couple of coin images - but having had a few goes with pics, captions and whatnot, I realise I'm seriously hopeless at making such things work on wiki. Haploidavey (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now edited the Domitian paragraph based on Gradel's assessment, and changed the caption pro tem. Haploidavey (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Domitian picture and caption

message: See also the list of all Divi in the German wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divus — including Roman precursors. (I think this article doesn't mention Cornelia, Gaius Marius, Metellus etc.) —85.178.125.102 (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've offered due cult on the contributor's talk-page, but the linked list is well worth a look by anyone with even a passing interest in the subject. Most revealing. Haploidavey (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And I forgot to say - I don't speak German. Any volunteer(s) for translation of the linked article? With all the necessary riders and credits (whatever those should be)? And then, of course, it'll need checking. Haploidavey (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially Scipio. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find anything outside of that list to support Scipio as divus. But then, I don't understand the German next to his name. At a guess, does it say something about his claim to be a son of Jupiter? Haploidavey (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That he was declared son of Jupiter in his lifetime, is my best guess. News to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jupiter's paternity as part of the "legend" of Scipio's divine ancestry, and developed beyond his own lifetime from what seem to be folkish beginnings, according to this interesting snippet from Frank Walbank: . But it's far from straightforward and divus or consecratio would perhaps be stretching things. Haploidavey (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Might as well reference it properly: Frank W. Walbank, Selected Papers: Studies in Greek and Roman History and Historiography, Cambridge University Press, 1986 (pp 120-137). . And very expensive. Haploidavey (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

text: And my local copy's checked out. Looks good, though - and no, I don't see divus in the data,  although this might be worth mentioning as a precursor of Caesar. Scipio to the Gracchi to Marius to Caesar? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely worth mentioning: and Marius, of course. (That was a very useful challenge). Haploidavey (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

text: A google search suggests Lily Ross Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor, 1931 is the source for this; I'll get back to you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: P. 56. Roman citizens in Spain burnt incense before him, as though he were a god, because they hoped he would save them. See Macrobius 3.13.6. Also a cult of Marius (p. 48), as third founder of Rome (from Plutarch's Marius; Camillus was the second) in private homes; which may prefigure the libations to the genius Augusti. Neither is official, of course. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, that's more than I expected and entirely useful. Haploidavey (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I think I have notes on this somewhere. Gradel was one of the most interesting sources I read during my last library visit - divine honours as a matter of relative status. Perhaps I could restore some of the material I deleted some time back - over-detailed within the article structure at the time but the current arrangement's more robust. I wondered then about including the award of the civic crown to Augustus and the (possibly) demeaning clientism implied... he seems to have used the issue to make a point about his personal moderation. I think you're right. It's worth using. PS: I remember now why I was cagey about using Gradel's take on divinity as constructed (cf Varro) - it's really difficult to put across in a brief and simple way without stirring up a wasp-nest. But I'm sure it's possible. Haploidavey (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The more I think about it, the more important it seems to place that material as part of background. Otherwise the issues of deus et dominus regarding Domitian's godhead (or not) just seem sui generis. Not really sure though where it should be put, or how much detail should be given. The points on Republican Roman divinities (whether as the "humanised" gods of the pantheon or divine mortals) having specific qualities and spheres of influence but no absolute or universal powers are important. A virtual cut and paste of your summary above would cover it well, with only minor changes. Haploidavey (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius, that is. Another son of Jupiter?? In Spain only and 74 BC, according to that list but I can't find this anywhere (not Plutarch, not coinage - which shows pietas but filius of nothing). Might it be inscriptional? Pauly-Wissowa? Mommsen? Haploidavey (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A google search suggests Lily Ross Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor, 1931 is the source for this; I'll get back to you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: P. 56. Roman citizens in Spain burnt incense before him, as though he were a god, because they hoped he would save them. See Macrobius 3.13.6. Also a cult of Marius (p. 48), as third founder of Rome (from Plutarch's Marius; Camillus was the second) in private homes; which may prefigure the libations to the genius Augusti. Neither is official, of course. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, that's more than I expected and entirely useful. Haploidavey (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I think I have notes on this somewhere. Gradel was one of the most interesting sources I read during my last library visit - divine honours as a matter of relative status. Perhaps I could restore some of the material I deleted some time back - over-detailed within the article structure at the time but the current arrangement's more robust. I wondered then about including the award of the civic crown to Augustus and the (possibly) demeaning clientism implied... he seems to have used the issue to make a point about his personal moderation. I think you're right. It's worth using. PS: I remember now why I was cagey about using Gradel's take on divinity as constructed (cf Varro) - it's really difficult to put across in a brief and simple way without stirring up a wasp-nest. But I'm sure it's possible. Haploidavey (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The more I think about it, the more important it seems to place that material as part of background. Otherwise the issues of deus et dominus regarding Domitian's godhead (or not) just seem sui generis. Not really sure though where it should be put, or how much detail should be given. The points on Republican Roman divinities (whether as the "humanised" gods of the pantheon or divine mortals) having specific qualities and spheres of influence but no absolute or universal powers are important. A virtual cut and paste of your summary above would cover it well, with only minor changes. Haploidavey (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Metellus

message: "Potter" is cited several times in the footnotes, but there is nothing by that author in the bibliography. I assume it is his The Roman Empire at Bay: AD 190–395 (London/New York: Routledge, 2004)? Or perhaps it is his work on the Sibylline Oracles? It should be specified, though. (Great work on the article, by the way.) Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.... yup, the first. Grazie! Haploidavey (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little quibble 

message: Not that the article's finished, but it's reasonably complete. As far as I can tell, the segue into Christianity and Legacy both need further attention - the latter is tricky, and interpretation depends on one's definition of "Imperial cult". Hm. Haploidavey (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed "underconstruction" tag

message: More on the Greeks - as distinct from the Near East - is needed: not just the Hellenists, but Lysander and Phillip. That's jst putting stuff down.
The hard part is the veneration of the heroes. Book length treatments discuss them as the dead, and as living men (like Brasidas and Timoleon). We have to do this in a paragraph.
Thoughts on wording? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, none as yet but will work on it off-site. We need to deal with the heroes and hero cult but as you say, difficult and particularly so in a single paragraph - and a short one, as must be. The Republican triumphal tradition re: the whispering slave might be a problem (possibly a later practise - or attested only much later. I'll take a look at Beard). Haploidavey (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: PM done it while I slept... Fragments of Ennius suggest Roman familiarity with the idea of the Olympian gods as once mortal: found the Beard ref that covers this (old version of article) and will add.  Livy's offended denial of Polybius' account is interesting. The same applies with one (probably more) of the disputed extra-legal Republican Triumphs. Haploidavey (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Heroes

message: *(Re Messianism and adversary responses, specifically John's refutation of Imp. cult)  Freisen, S. J.,  Imperial cults and the Apocalypse of John: reading Revelation in the ruins, OUP, 2001. Haploidavey (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cosmology

message: Are we sure we want to use the loaded word "charisma" here? I mean in the first sentence. I associate this with "charismatic Christianity," which is surely not a place we want to go, and according to the Wiki article, Max Weber is responsible for introducing the term into scholarly discourse. I would feel more comfortable if there were ancient sources that actually used the term "charisma" to talk about the Roman emperors. The Wiki article has a quote from Aristotle describing a quality that sounds like charisma; when I went to see whether Ari himself uses the word, I found that the citation was either incorrect — the LCL book 3 of the Politics does not have a chapter 13 — or this numbering exists in other editions of the Politics (the partition of which is vexed). The concept of "charisma" is certainly relevant, but it carries baggage that weighs down a first sentence. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was sure, but of course now I'm not. Momigliano uses it in this context exactly  (sorry, he doesn't, but someone does and I'll try to find it - I'm afraid my filing system isn't one) - personally I don't associate it with Christianity in particular, but I'll happily defer to your judgement. Please do edit as freely and boldly as you see fit. Haploidavey (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I tried the Thesaurus, without result. How about using the greek original, with footnote? Of course, one might be really bold, and go for chutzpah! Haploidavey (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Though this is definitely not where I came across it, charisma is used in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur ..., Volume 17  - sorry, I don't know how to work the page numbers here - The Theology of Victory at Rome - p815 holds Roman felicitas correspondent with Weber's charisma (the latter used many times in chapter) but as far as I can tell, English has no felicitous equivalent... Haploidavey (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to the inclusion of the term, and I think it's very accurate — felicitas is an apt comparison. Of all the deities Fortuna was the one most invoked by Julius Caesar, other than Venus, and the two are linked, as Venus was also for the Romans just as much a goddess of luck, and being felix is part of what Venus can bestow on you. I just don't think 'charisma' helps in the first sentence. (You have to remember I'm an American; my encounters with Christians will be, um, different.) It's simultaneously too modern (Kennedy, in the States) and too obviously Greek linguistically not to muddy the waters before we the readers understand the topic. I could be wrong about this, or too Latinate in my habits of thought. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  charisma 

message: There seem to be problems of chronology here:
"In 49 BC Caesar crossed the Rubicon to become the sole effective authority in Rome: his armies were on its doorstep, its senate was swollen by his equestrian appointees and he had overwhelming popular support. In 46 BC he held an unprecedented quadruple triumph ..."
I confess to a personal distaste for drama in historical accounts ("armies on its doorstep!" "swollen!" "overwhelming!"), but pumped-up language usually fosters inaccuracy. Caesar did not magically become the sole authority in Rome by crossing the Rubicon; his crossing only made overt his intention to start a civil war. The war was still to come; he could've lost. Or he could've drowned in that famous incident when he was improbably swimming with documents in his teeth, or … whatever. Choked on a chicken bone. The war lasted four years. He really only had a year of uncontested authority in Rome. Or was it uncontested? Something about those naughty boys Brutus and Cassius … .
Also, when he crossed the Rubicon in 49, at what point had he already 'swollen' the senate with these equestrian appointments? He'd been in Gaul for 10 years and had no legal authority in Rome during that time. Ten years, I repeat, without holding any political office in Rome, or exerting anything but indirect influence from at minimum 200 miles away in Ravenna. If he was the long-distance puppet master people like to think, how come there was a civil war? Why didn't he just enter the city and have roses thrown at him?
At any rate, I'm pretty sure that Caesar's controversial appointments to the senate (among them citizen Gauls) date to his dictatorship, post-Rubicon crossing. Wasn't he filling out the senate because it was depleted by the civil wars? (At which time he also extended the rights of citizenship throughout Cisalpine Gaul, another means of consolidating his power by enlarging his clientele, but also the right thing to do for the people there — which shows his mastery of political strategy, not godlike exuding of mysterious mana.)
In 49, Caesar also couldn't be utterly sure of his popular support; he hadn't set foot in Rome for ten years. And so what if the people loved you? Their champion Clodius Pulcher, who had done a heck of a lot more for them than Caesar had, had been killed by the other side in the middle of the street only a couple of years before — and since this is the only current event at Rome mentioned explicitly by Caesar in his seven books of the Bellum Gallicum, it obviously bugged him.
I'm not sure how near the doorstep he brought the army (singular, unless you mean "legions", which Pompey and others also had in multiples), but I guess to my mind it actually diminishes Caesar (and the complexities of Roman history) to think everything he did was a preordained breeze. But I'm sure he'd be gratified that we're still buying into his veni, vidi, vici propaganda. As for the quadruple triumph: yes, unprecedented; Pompey had a triple one, so Caesar had to go one better. But also very controversial, as he depicted fellow Romans, including the moral paragon Cato, as defeated enemies. And nobody seems to have liked that.
But I should add that this is a very minor point in the context of the article as a whole. (It's just the sort of thing I can't seem to keep from pouncing on; apologies.) Cynwolfe (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent Cynwolfe! Minor point or not, what you read is not a judgement on Caesar but my attempt to reduce complex material to the bare minimum of what I really know very little about and inevitably distort in chronology, interpretation or whatever.  Pleeeeeze fix it! How's that for begging? Haploidavey (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But that would require actual work, instead of just spouting off … Cynwolfe (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Avoidance seems the best solution to issues of accuracy and interpretation, and it reads better without... Haploidavey (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Along the same lines, I've taken out the description of the supporters of the Gracchi; even if it is consensus that they were fighting land-grabbing elites (I believe it myself, but there are counter-arguments), it doesn't belong here but in  Gracchi, any more than Syme's picture of Octavian as somewhere between Lenin and Hitler - which is much closer to the subject at hand - belongs here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julius Caesar chronology 

message: I see this is a placename from Philo. If it is to be part of Caesar's ascent to godhood, it must, at least, have been consecrated before his deification in 44; what evidence is there that it was not consecrated after his death, or to Octavian (who is also a Caesar, and disembarked at Alexandria)? (There may well be; but it's not visible now).  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked Philo leg. ad Gaius 22.151 in an online English translation - no commentary available there on the passage in question. What I read there seems not at all clear on the temple dedication, when it was made or to whom. Best lose it? Haploidavey (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless it's more than yet another instance of Greek worship of a Roman great man, of which we have lots; did you find it, and if so, where? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this was one of the article's "foundation statements" - I dunno whence it came (except for the Philo connection) but I've a horrible feeling it crops up in Carotta. I'll delete. Haploidavey (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Caesar Epibaterios

message: I came upon this quite by accident, but it gets at what I was trying to say above re: who and when in the matter of Romulus.
"It is a remarkable fact that no votive to Quirinus is yet known from Rome; but one has now been found at Bir Mcherga (ancient Giufi) in Africa Proconsularis. To judge from his association with the Larentalia, Robigalia, and Consualia, Quirinus was, like 'rural' Mars, a god of agricultural prosperity, but his adoption into the Augustan promotion of Romulus means that it is impossible to be sure quite how he was understood at Giufi, where, with the title Augustus, he was both an ancestral god, deus pater (Quirinus is named by Lucilius as one of the three gods addressed as pater in prayer), and the genius municipii."
(Bold mine.) I may not be understanding this fully, since it comes from a lengthy article devoted to publishing new inscriptions over a period of years in which this is a mere notice of the particular inscription, not a developed argument. The inscription is dated as "end of first third of third century A.D."
* Richard Gordon and Joyce Reynolds, "Roman Inscriptions 1995-2000," Journal of Roman Studies 93 (2003) 212-294 (this from p. 264). Cynwolfe (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romulus note 

message: Taylor suggested, long ago, that the word was actually hemitheos in Greek, because it can't be translated. There is also a confused story of a different statue of Caesar with emitheo on it, which may support that postion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not come across this before, nor much since. Not having Taylor, I followed a couple of JSTOR leads, all dead-ends to me, on google - then found this (from MF Williams):  which offers Caesari emitheo on a statue erected by Augustus in connection with the sidus Iulium business - using Servius Danielis ad Ecl. 9.47 as evidence. If the same source as Taylor's (or is it not?) it seems very late and as you say, confused; even corrupted but very interesting and worth at least a footnote, surely. Or would that be twiddling? Haploidavey (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hemitheos

message: Congratulations to the editors!
Why is it not a Wikipedia:Good article?
Is it too long or too technical?
--Error (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: {Thanks & notions offered on contributor's talk-page - Haploidavey (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impressive article 

message: Hey, Davey, I'll address primarily you as high priest of this page, but of course anybody should pitch in.
I keep needing to link directly to a section on divus. The section here called Divus, deus and the numen certainly works, except that it doesn't begin with a simple discussion of the term. And actually, as I search the term through the article, I don't see anywhere it's actually defined properly. The way it's used in the intro is adequate for that purpose, but I think it's an organizational problem that the term is used in specific instances before the section that defines what it is. Most important, there needs to be a clear statement that distinguishes divus from deus explicitly. I thought this used to be here somewhere. But since it's a fundamental term to have in hand before wrestling with the notion of "emperor worship," ... well, again it's something to consider in the reorganization. I'm about to put a tiny divus entry in the Glossary of ancient Roman religion. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's something at the end of this section: but it stresses the rather vague common ground of divus and deus, rather than reasons for preference of divi as title for dead and divine emperors. I'm pretty sure there was once a header "Divus Julius" and a handy definition, but both seem to have vanished into history, footnotes or both. I've a mind to restore the header, and elucidate the diffs beneath it. That seems the obvious spot. Anyone with a mind to fix this is of course free to do so. If not, I'll get around to it within the next few days. Haploidavey (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, maybe that's what I'm missing, because I thought I'd linked to that before. In the back of my mind, I've been thinking hm, this distinction is not what I remember from the Aeneid, and it turns out that's a correct impression, that Vergil uses the two terms indiscriminately — but what's worse, Varro evidently insisted that correct usage was just the opposite of what we think of as the standard distinction when a distinction is made (that is, for Varro a deus was a deified human, aargh). So tell you what: in the Glossary entry, I'll concentrate on etymology and semantics of ancient usage, because the concept is well discussed in this article as it pertains to imperial cult. And if it becomes clumsy and digressive to deal with the etymological issue and the deus/divus distinctions in this article (I think it would get a bit off-topic), you can link to the Glossary. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divus 

message: Sumpun fishy here:
As part of his religious reforms, Augustus promoted plebeians, freedmen and even slaves to serve as sodales Augustales, priests at the Compital shrines, dedicated to the Lares of the vici (neighbourhoods). This priestly office, and its connections to the Imperial household, appears to have lasted for as long as the Imperial cult itself.
This has the following note:
Lott, 107 – 117; the replacement of neighbourhood Lares with Augustus' own would have been indelicate at the very least. The Lares Augusti can be understood as August Lares – a joint honorific with unmistakable and flattering connections to the princeps himself, rather than a direct claim of patronage.
I was under the impression that the sodales Augustales were created by Tiberius. I don't know. I was concerned because the phrase was translated "priests of the August ones". It may well be that this priesthood and its origin is often misunderstood. "Low-born" people would've already been involved with discharging priestly duties at the neighborhood shrines by their very nature, which was local and of the populus. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sodales Augustales" or even plain Augustales is worse than fishy, it's as wrong as a dead clam. Mea culpa. As to what should be there, I'm baffled; there's the magistri vici, but who, what and where are the priests? I've just given Lott a probably too-hasty re-reading and my head's swimming. The whole thing seems even more horribly complicated now than it did first time around; the footnote's a reasonable summary of Lott, pp 107-117 but it has bugger all to do with the matters it claims to support and expand. Reckon I need to read around this a lot more; there's a myriad of modern interpretations of the Augustan Lares, genius and the "restored" Compitalia, especially Augie's politicking with subsidies, extra holidays and other recompenses. Of course, your input can only help. Haploidavey (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All I know is what's in Gratidianus pertaining to the Compitalia, actually; but the sodales Augustales article says (and a couple of other sources I happened on in the course of something else) that the sodalitas was established by Tiberius. However, it would make perfect sense that Augustus had something in place already that Tiberius further formalized and transferred to the new divus, and that whatever Augie did was based also on something preexisting, so he could claim to have restored/reformed it. As I said, I actually don't know. See Augustalis (disambiguation) for a glimmer of the term I was searching that led me to pause here. Looking at your last two edits, I glimpse how complicated this is. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your revision makes sense to me. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  sodales augustales 

message: As I cannot find any discussion or consensus about changing the date formats from BC/AD to BCE/CE as requested in WP:ERA, I will propose the reversion of date formats to remove the violation that has occurred. Please voice objections or reasons why this should not happen if you wish. Dalek (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Rules, eh? As a courtesy, please provide a WP:DIFF to justify your proposal. I'm disinclined to trawl through this article's gargantuan history to find the first use of any particular era-system. But if you can show this was BC/AD, I'll not object to your proposed change. Haploidavey (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll sort that out since Dom has only just started to use the trick you taught me. My fault that I failed to read the other policies to help with the proposal. 78.146.132.102 (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DIFF The proposal is to revert the BCE/CE date format back to the BC/AD format that was the only one as of  when Haploidavey edited it. 78.146.132.102 (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This earlier diff confirms the use of BC/AD before I started editing the article, two years back. So go ahead. Frankly, I've no preference either way, and will assume the good faith and even-handedness of those seeking the change. Please also ensure that era systems used in articles references or direct quotations from the same remain as they are. Haploidavey (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? (Adjusts hearing aid.) What's the issue here? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, I broke the rules here for two whole years. I changed a BC/AD article to a BCE/CE article. And I'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky weenie-hunters. We've been here before, elsewhere. Not sure of the motivation here... No mustard on mine, thanks. Haploidavey (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Violation" is indeed the right word. I can barely to look upon what you've done. Where I come from, we eat our weenies topped with cole slaw and a beanless chili formulated for that purpose alone, a mysterious slop I've never been able to replicate even for nostalgia's sake. … Cynwolfe (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh! Too busy whipping myself with myrtle to say more. Haploidavey (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of date format 

message: holy *****, i have read a bunch of this article and i stil have no idea what exactly the cult was.
it should be relatively simple. the who, what, when, where, how. 
what buildings, what people, what did they do, when did they do it, where did they do it, and how. 
instead we have these arcane academic discussions and obscure verbiage that has almost no meaning. 
Decora (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  someone please rewrite this in english 

message: "The ineffectiveness and eventual collapse of Western Imperium was partly replaced by the spiritual supremacy and political influence of the Roman Catholic Church, whose popes could anoint or excommunicate kings and emperors."
What is the source for this statement? And would it not be more accurate to point to not popes, but simply bishops? Even take for the famous example of Ambrose.75.73.150.255 (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. As you say, bishops at first and later, popes. The content you quote has never been sourced (mea culpa) but the first part is not at all controversial or doubtful, and is necessary to the narrative. I've removed the more contestable "whose popes... emperors"; while it's not untrue, it adds nothing of consequence. Haploidavey (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pope could anoint or excommunicate kings or emperors" 

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved to Roman imperial cult per nom. I don't find the opposing arguments very persuasive: disambiguation is needed here, and we prefer WP:NATURAL and WP:CONCISE one, and the proposal fits the bill.    No such user (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Imperial cult of ancient Rome →  – Sources use both "Roman imperial cult" and "imperial cult of ancient Rome" or variations of that. However, the first appears to be more common judging from my Google Scholar search (for "imperial cult") and also is more WP:CONCISE. (t · c) buidhe 20:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

text: *Nothing wrong with a sea of 'Roman xxx'. But, if a qualifier is to be used, then it should be imperial cult (Roman). Avilich (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 June 2021 

message: User:Editor2020 reverted my addition of a link to Symbolism of domes in the See also section with a "Related?" edit summary. To show how it is related, here is an excerpt from the Symbolism of domes article: 
AmateurEditor (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. Editor2020 (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted see also section link 

message: In the introduction the divinity is ascribed to worthiness, but although we know that some early emperors were deified, the first mention in the article of a judgment of worthiness is to Decius. What source shows who determined this worthiness. Don't cite to Gibbon; he has no attribution for such a judgment, that's why I'm adding this comment. Read this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3141986.pdf
100.15.127.199 (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  worthiness 

message: The current article is fairly thick and length text wall but there are at least five major issues:
* 1st) As the overenthused editor above mentioned, the primary impact of this cult on the modern world is the Christian persecution it occasioned and the resulting martyrs. There should be links to Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire in the lead and in the subsection on Christianity. There should be some mention of those persecutions in the lead, phrased in a more direct manner than the current "treasonous", "revivalist", and "debate". 
* 2nd) There should be links to vota in the article itself, clearly expressed and dealt with at paragraph length if not in a whole new section.
* 3rd) There should be links to dies imperii in the article and discussion of the development of the timing of the other annual  in 44 BC, 30 BC, and AD 38.
* 4th) There should be links to decennalia (or quinquennalia) in the article. These last 3 were the occasion of the principal observances of the cult and it's bizarre that they don't seem to be mentioned or linked yet.
* 5th) The primary confusion concerning the cultparticularly among Christian writers, generalist historians, and in lazier modern scholarshipwas that the reigning emperor was generally worshipped as a living god. Sources like this one should be provided to point out that that seems never to have been the case, with worship being provided indirectly through  and sacrifices to actual gods on the emperor's behalf and through worship of the imperial genius. The mistaken belief and its refutation should be clearly expressed in the lead and dealt with at greater length below.
Apologies if some of this is in the tl;dr area of the article but the point stands that the links need to go in and the lead needs to be rephrased a bit to address them with the clarity and importance they require. — LlywelynII 13:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of this is very well said. Two provisos: I'm very sceptical of the Latin term taken from la.wiki. "Imperatorius" is a rare word; I'm not convinced that the Imperial cult had a name in Latin; we shouldn't be including terms like this unless we're certain they're real. The claim that the reigning emperor was never worshipped as a living god probably holds for the western empire (although it often seems a very fine distinction), but it's false for the east, where sacrifices, altars and temples are regularly targetting at the reigning emperor, who is often called theos or Zeus etc. Furius (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

text: The article is indeed thick and long. It seems that every emperor up to Diocletian is included and everything any of them did that related to religion in any way, but there's hardly anything relevant in the part on Caracalla, for example. However, re (1), our Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire doesn't really support the proposition that the persecution was caused by Christian resistance to the imperial cult. I remember being taught it, but that's another matter. NebY (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire#Ideological_conflict seems to show that at least some scholars think the imperial cult and the persecution of Christians were linked. Furius (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Some, sure. Is that enough for it to be WP:DUE to recast the article to say the cult caused the persecution, and do they or other scholars say that was the primary impact of the cult on the modern world? NebY (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Five obvious omissions