Talk:Roman Ghetto

Preaching

According to the Let's Go guide, the Jews were forced to hear mass on Sundays at Sant'Angelo in Pescheria. Is it so or was it on Shabbats? --Error 02:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Why would it be on Saturdays, i.e. why would they tailor the situation to Jewish custom? I thought the idea was to convert them. I guess doing it on Saturday would have the "benefit" of preventing them from celebrating Shabbat. --Saforrest 01:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's wrong. The Jews were not forced to hear mass, but the so called "prediche coatte" (enforced sermons). This usage started with Pope Gregorio XIII (1572-1585). The sermons took place near S. Angelo and, later, near the church of San Gregorio della Divina Pietà (still existing, near Ponte Fabricio). Above the church was put a biblical inscription in Hebrew and Latin (Isaiah 65,2—3), which describes the Jewish people as stubborn and following a wrong way. It is told that the Jews during the Sermon closed their ears with wax. alex2006 05:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Leo XIII, Pius IX and the Ghetto

I removed the sentence about the more liberal attitude of Leo XIII in comparison with Pius IX. This had absolutely nothing to do with the demolition of the Ghetto after 1870. As everyone knows, Italy during those years was ruled by a liberal, anticlerical political class, which was completely uninterested in the ideas of the Church about the destiny of the quarter and of the Jewish community.

alex2006 13:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong information

The requirement that Jews live within the Ghetto was abolished when the last remnant of the Papal States was overthrown on September 20, 1870.
Actually: No. It was Pope Pius IX. himself. He did reestablish the ghetto after gaining back power from the revolutionary republic at the beginning of the 1850s, but it was on his order that the quite out-dated inclosing practice finally was abolished somewhen in the 1860s. The Curia expected two things: that the Jews would all move out most rapidly, and that the Christians would possibly riot; that's why the walls were broken down in a night. Surprisingly, noone rioted, and hardly any Jew moved out, as they said: "We have been dwelt here because of force for centuries, no we will stay because of love." (source: Reinhard Raffalt, Concerto Romano.) --84.154.43.58 (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Archaic spelling

I've twice corrected the spelling of "Serraglio degli Ebrei" from the archaic and/or dialect spelling "Serraglio delli Ebrei", adding a scholarly reference on the second occasion; and twice been reverted by Alex2006, who removed that reference and substituted one from 1765. Time for some discussion, perhaps. Here's what he posted on my talkpage, with my reply:

I want to point out again that delli is not a misspelling, but plain ancient Italian. So you cannot "correct" it, exactly as you should not correct Dante`s Commedia, or I should avoid correcting Shakespeare's english. I put as reference an 18th century Rome guide, but I could use my copy of De Rossi of 1697, or a map of Rome of 17th - 18th century. And now a general remark: if you think that something on wikipedia is wrong, and change it, and someone other does not agree and reverts your change, you should start a discussion based on the original version, not revert it again. This process is called BRD. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You should probably take a look at WP:Manual of Style/Spelling#Archaic spelling, which reads in part "Older sources use many archaic variants (such as shew for show), which are not to be used outside quotations except in special circumstances (for example, quire may be used instead of choir in architectural contexts)" and may help to explain why our article on Shakespeare is not written in Shakespearean English and why it is not appropriate to use "plain ancient Italian" (which by the way that is not, degli and deglj being common 16th-century spellings) in this article. But this should now be moved to the talk page of the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment, anyone? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess, if you cite someone, or something, written in another time, you have to respect what was in use in that time. It's not the same that speaking about this. This case (IMHO) seems to be one "special circumstance". --Carlo Morino aka zi' Carlo 18:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Moreover, it should be written in italics (or in quotation), not bold. It is an ancient roman toponym, not an alternate name used today. Rome has hundreds of them, as everyone interested in roman local history knows. Many of them follow the local variety of Italian and not the Tuscan one. Alex2006 (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that if it was a quotation it might get past the recommendations of the MOS. If it's an old Roman toponym it should be quite easy to find a source that says so, which Roisecco does not. I note also that Debenedetti-Stow specifically gives the usual Italian spelling. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. I put as reference the guide of De Rossi (1697 edition), based on Baronio & others. Here the whole paragraph about the Ghetto is entitled "Del Serraglio delli Ebrei à piazza Giudia". Moreover, I removed the reference to "all the other...", since this is not supported. The fact that Debenedetti-Stow chose to use the modern spelling is her (respectable) choice, but it remains an anachronism, and here we are discussing the original spelling of the toponym. Alex2006 (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. A source from 1697 is still an archaic source. Don't get me wrong, I like archaic sources; but I don't use them as a source for orthography. What is needed to support your assertion that "delli" is "an ancient roman toponym" is a modern source which says "delli is an ancient Roman toponym", or words to that effect, as Debenedetti-Stow specifically does not say. Otherwise it's just archaic spelling, and should be modernised in the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Now I understand what you mean. :-) I will look in my library, I have the most important books about roman topography. Question: do we have in Wikipedia a guideline which in such cases imposes to modernize archaic spelling? I ask it because in roman topography such modernizations occur quite arbitrarily. Alex2006 (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Justlettersandnumbers, I checked on my holy books, and you are right: three of four sources (Delli, "Le strade di Roma", Gnoli, "Topografia e toponomastica di Roma medievale e moderna", Pietrangeli, "Guide rionali di Roma") modernize the spelling, so I will change it on the article (and maybe add one of these three as modern italian reference). Thanks for the discussion, where both of us learned something :-) . Alex2006 (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. And thank you for your willingness to discuss and reach resolution. I suggest that if the books you mention have relevant information then they should most certainly be added as references. Meanwhile I have added a bit more on nomenclature and a bit on papal control. In my opinion what the article most needs right now is a map; does any of your books have one that could be used without running into copyright problems? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I have to thank you. I seldom found someone so "ferrato" (what's the translation in english? But I know that you understand what I mean) on one subject here on wikipedia. About the article, well, I have some books about the ghetto, and when I have time I can add some information. About a map, you mean one before the demolition? There are several of them, I will find one. P.S. I answer only now since I had a problem with artichokes. :-)

Map

I'm sure the artichoke discussion will be resolved as pleasantly as this one. Yes, I mean a historic map of the ghetto. I noticed this, and wondered if a version of it with the area of the ghetto coloured (in yellow?) would be a useful addition here (it would take a couple of minutes to do that). Or might there be a better map that shows the names of the streets and so on? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Justlettersandnumbers, you caught me again! I am the uploader... :-) Yes, I also had this is mind (it is on the front overleaf of the book of Pietrangeli). I think that coloring it could be a good tentative solution. In Rome (at the moment I am in Helvetia) I have most of my roman books, and I can see there if I can upload a particular of a map of 1878 (Spithover), just before the demolition with all the street names. BTW, if you color it, are you going to show the original area or that with the 19th century addition (Via della Reginella)? Alex2006 (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

On that I would want to be totally guided by your library and your local knowledge and advice. I suggest that if a map from 1777 is used as the basis, then the limits of the ghetto should be shown as they were at that date. Is this anywhere near correct in your opinion, for example? I also thought of using this as a basis for something similar, but the limits and gates are less easy to distinguish. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The map is absolutely correct for that period (the later addition in 19th century was to the north, Via della reginella): the other one, as you say, is less clear. I added also some info about boundaries, area, and population: feel free to correct or discuss them if you have better sources. Moreover, I wrote a little article about the church of San Gregorio, just outside the Ghetto, where the Jews were forced to hear Sermons, and I linked it here. P.S. I find yellow nice: I hope only that some Jew does not find it offensive... Alex2006 (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

On that basis I think I will include it in the article; it can always be modified or replaced later. My doubt was this: the map does not show Piazza Giudea (hmm, what a strange spelling for that word!) divided by the wall, as the article now says (twice!) that it was; and nor does the 1843 Monaldini map. Both clearly show the gate at the southern corner of the piazza. On the other hand it might be possible to read from the map that Piazza di Cenci was divided by the wall. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Justlettersandnumbers,
as you know, the Jews were in Sant'Angelo (moving from Trastevere) already before the establishment of the Ghetto. The main square of their quarter at that time was already known as "Platea Judeorum". This square was divided in two when the ghetto was created. After that, the denomination of "Piazza Giudea" ( :-)) applied to the 2 piazzas which you can see on the map: The one with the fountain of Della Porta ("Piazza Giudea esterna" or di Santa Maria del Pianto) which actually lied outside the Ghetto (you can see it in this etching of Vasi with a strange title :-)), and "Piazza Giudea interna" (also named Piazza di Mercatello) which was inside, south of the first one, and was separated from the former by a Gate. From here started the main road of the Ghetto, Via rua (or Ruga). The other square bordering the wall south west of Piazza Giudea interna is Piazza delle Scole (here in a picture before the demolition), so called because there lied the 5 Scole (del Tempio, Catalana, siciliana, Castigliana and Nova) where the Jews prayed. This toponym has been restored some years ago by the city. Don't forget that what we see in the map is the plan of the quarter more than two hundred years after its establishment. Houses were demolished and rebuilt, and at the end the wall was hidden by them almost everywhere (as you can see in Vasi's etching). You can find all this info for example in Pietrangeli, Delli or Gnoli. A last word about the spellings: when the Italians annexed Rome, one of the first things that they did, was a commission to change the name of the streets and squares: so they "washed them in Arno": for example, Vicolo dei Matriciani (a word that in Roman dialect has the apheresis) became Vicolo degli Amatriciani (and so we lost also our bucatini...); Vicolo del Micio (near i Coronari) became Vicolo Domizio, and (keep your belt fastened :-)) vicolo del Carciofolo became vicolo del Carciofo, and so on. As you can see, there is no big difference between us and the native Americans :-) That's why I fight (all in vain :-) ) to keep the last rests of this patrimony alive... Alex2006 (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust

I cannot understand how an article about the Jewish Ghetto in Rome can be complete without providing some insight into the fate of the Roman Jewish population during the 2nd World War. Given that there appears to be a sufficient Jewish population in the area now to sustain well-established cultural and culinary activity - there must be a story around their survival that needs telling - even in brief - to provide historic context?

I think that this happened since the Ghetto has been described in this article until its demolition. You can find some info in the article about quarter which encloses the former ghetto. Alex2006 (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roman Ghetto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060128164125/http://www.library.wisc.edu/libraries/dpf/Fascism/Images/FRY63.html to http://www.library.wisc.edu/libraries/dpf/Fascism/Images/FRY63.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)