Talk:Liber

Liber's consort

In the sources I have access to (The Oxford Classical Dictionary (1968), for example), Libera is the consort of Liber Pater (aka Liber) and an associate of Ceres. This is at least partially confirmed in the very first sentence of the article on the Liberalia.

I don't have access to Michael Jordan's Encyclopedia of Gods (which I assume is the source, judging from its citation in the article on Libera), but I wonder how far it's regarded as authoritative. TonySever (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The article on the Liberalia is not in any condition to be cited as an authority for any information on this page: the entry for Liberalia is utterly lacking in attribution and citation. In needs to be weed-whacked, trimmed and propped up by proper reference to authority. Wish I could help, but I'm just neophyte at this.Jasmith.sdsu (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Rewriting

First off, apologies to Peter Cohen (Sorry - Paul August, damn, that's embarrassing), who I see has put in some recent work here. I've made some changes using material already prepared on a user-page; for some reason I didn't have the article on my watchlist (a double-duffer). Plenty more work is needed. Haploidavey (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

note 7

I would suggest breaking up what is currently footnote 7 into at least two parts. We have to read too far past the direct quote ("copy and antithesis") to get to the attribution. You might also want to anticipate a "who" tag after "variously described by modern historians". Cynwolfe (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Preempted; thanks for that. Haploidavey (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Un-Roman

Is the highlighted term directly from an RS in the sentence, "Some aspects of his cults remained potentially un-Roman and offered a focus for civil disobedience"? The link is to mos maiorum, and 'un-Roman' would seem (from the sources I've read) to be a controversial interpretation of that very important term. I am unwilling to WP:DOIT without input from someone more attuned to this article. If it is not from a source, I might suggest a change to, "Some aspects of his cults trangresed Roman social norms (mos maiorum) and offered a focus for civil disobedience." Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

At this stretch of time, I can't remember whether I made "unRoman" up, or gleaned it from elsewhere. The last one, I think, as there are a few examples online. including the OED. It's a counterfoil to the notion of a fundamentally conservative "Romanitas". Mos maiorum doesn't necessarily refer to a particular body of Roman laws or customs; it's more a judgment of behaviour or character, what a genuine Roman would do/never do ("no true Roman", cf "no True Scotsman"). Or "it's just not British" (considered by some to be an adequate reason to prohibit anything at all). Roman mos maiorum was an equally loose idea, and depended on who was applying it, and to what, and why. The social norms of some Romans transgressed the social norms of other Romans, and themselves, on a regular and very necessary basis. Haploidavey (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)