Talk:The Roses of Heliogabalus

Golden Mean

I've removed the following, leaving the bare measurements, as I can find no references in the literature (I've checked several offline sources) that suggest the theory that Alma-Tadema used the Golden Mean in choosing the dimensions of the painting. I'm not saying that he would have been unaware of the Golden Mean, but all I can find is copies of this Wikipedia article.

"The canvas measures 52" by 84 1/8", which may, like ratios within the painting itself, be intended to encode the golden mean. (84 1/8 inches divided by 52 inches equals 1.6177884..., and the golden mean equals 1.61803398875...)"

Ken 03:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I just removed a similar statement with slightly different dimensions. Even if these dimensions are right, our connecting it to the golden ratio violates WP:NOR unless we cite a source that makes such an observation. Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Inscription

I was wondering if anyone could translate the inscription partly visible on a bowl in the painting. MagistraMundi (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Bowl in The Roses of Heliogabalus

File:The Roses of Heliogabalus.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:The Roses of Heliogabalus.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 26, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-06-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Roses of Heliogabalus is an 1888 painting by the Anglo-Dutch artist Lawrence Alma-Tadema. It depicts a probably invented episode from the life of the Roman emperor Heliogabalus, taken from the Augustan History, in which the emperor smothers some dinner guests with drifts of pink rose petals falling from a false ceiling above. The painting is owned by the Spanish-Mexican billionaire businessman and art collector Juan Antonio Pérez Simón.Painting: Lawrence Alma-Tadema

Which one is Heliogabalus?

Why would Alma-Tadema paint this scene with someone other than Heliogabalus placed almost at the upper dead centre of the painting? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the new refs, though neither actually WP:RSs, are enough to settle it. I wish the refs were formatted properly though. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course. If you think they are adequate, I will run ReFill when I have a moment. Or feel free yourself. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

We could of course pull some random new sources off a Google search. Or we could just rely on the references that the article already contained, such as Archdeadon Frederick Farrar, writing in Good Words in 1888: "Elagabalus! — there lies that shame and monstrosity of the human race, the loathly boy-emperor, on his couch of silver and mother-of-pearl, in his long golden Phoenician robe, leaning on cushions stuffed with the small plumes of partridges..."[1]

Pace penelope.uchicago.edu, Herodian V.3.6 is not a complete answer. It says: "Bassianus [that is, Elagabalus] was the chief priest of this god. ... He went about in barbarian dress, wearing long-sleeved purple tunics embroidered with gold which hung to his feet; robes similarly decorated with gold and purple covered his legs from hip to toe, and he wore a diadem of varicolored precious gems."[2]

The depiction in the painting does not quite match a "long-sleeved purple [tunic] [that is, a dalmatic] embroidered with gold". That said, there are other sources identifying the person in the gold robe and diadem as Elagabalus (and why would someone else be wearing a diadem at Elagabalus's feast) and I've not found any sources identifying any other person in the painting as Elagabalus. Shrug. Theramin (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

No, probably not the complete answer. We certainly wouldn't want to pull some random new sources off a Google search, would we, as that might suggest we were just lazy and had no knowledge of Classical literature. I wonder would Sir Larry himself have read those? Or else I wonder what other paintings he might have taken as his inspiration for this composition - the article doesn't seem to mention any. I think book sources, by known art experts, which describe the identities of the those in the picture, plainly and unambiguously, might be a good idea. Perhaps those "other sources" you mention might be suitable? I guess Archdeacon Frederic Farrar must have known what he was talking about, as he was a Classics scholar, so yes we could always re-use that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Well this was brought to my attention through Talk:Elagabalus. I'll state what I was about to say on that page. Elagabalus was famous for his choice of effeminate lavish clothing: He wore the richest clothing, draping himself in purple robes embroidered in gold; to his necklaces and bracelets he added a crown, a tiara glittering with gold and jewels from Herodian of Antioch 5.5.3 and [Maesa] was afraid that [Elagabalus'] appearance, obviously foreign and wholly barbaric, would offend those who saw him; they were not used to such garb and considered his ornaments suitable only for women - from 5.5.5. The uchicago source cites 5.3.6 which is similar in description to 5.5.3. I don't know why his robe is pure gold, instead of purple with gold, but that's almost certainly Elagabalus in the gold. You might also wish to compare this photo of a contemporary bust of Elagabalus to the face and hair of the man in the painting, they are quite similar. I'm fully aware of the OR aspect to this comment, but I did a search of both google and google books and came back with very little, and nothing related to the characters depicted. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

One more thing, you can discount anyone wearing cloth wool from being Elagabalus, per 5.5.4: [Elagabalus] loathed Greek and Roman garments because they were made of wool, in his opinion an inferior material; only the Serian cloth (Silk) met with his approval. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

And which petals belonged to the rose by any other name? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed! Did Ancient Rome even have that cultivar?? We probably need advice from a horticulture expert like User:PaleCloudedWhite. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The Romans grew a lot of roses, but they would not have been that cultivar, nor anything resembling it, as that cultivar is a hybrid tea, a class of rose that only came into existence in the 19th century, as a result of reliably remontant roses being traded from China. Exactly which cultivars (if any) the Romans grew isn't known, though it would have been cultivars of European and possibly Middle Eastern roses (e.g. Rosa gallica, Rosa x alba and possibly Rosa x damascena etc.), which were all in shades of pink, red, white etc. - no orange or yellow, which again came from Chinese roses. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Expert? How very dare you?!

You see, I told you he was an expert. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It took me too long to realize. Yes, indeed. A silk cloth is a cloth by any other name. Textile vs material. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed the similarity to the Palazzo Nuovo Musei Capitolini bust, but I didn't like to say anything! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Heliogabalus' position in the painting

Alma-Tadema was known for his careful research and realism. If you search for images of Heliogabalus, you will see what he looks like and recognize that he is the youth in a white robe holding a handful of grapes. He was assassinated when he was still in his teens. The man in the golden robe is clearly older than his teens and does not look like Heliogabalus. The fat bloke next to Heliogabalus is also obviously older than his teens. MagistraMundi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the subject of your post here might be relevant to the one above. So you might want to just join it on. The edit that you just made here is not supported by the current sources - so you've introduced a contradiction. Also your edit summary "True description of Heliogabalus" seems a little too bold, looking at the discussion here so far. So I think you ought to self-revert until consensus has been clearly established. I suspect that pictorial representation of figures from Classical Rome have often involved a certain amount of"poetic license" as far as age is concerned, especially when the event depicted was not an actual historical one. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC) p.s. I'm having some difficulty in locating a robe which is actually "white" and identifying anyone who is holding a bunch of grapes.

I have removed the description until consensus is reached. The claims that the bloke in the golden robe is Heliogabalus are not by classical historians and are obviously wrong. Have you searched for images of Elagabalus from the relevant era? If you have, you should clearly see which figure in the painting is Heliogabalus. MagistraMundi (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I think searching for images of Elagabalus, from whatever era, and comparing them with this painting, might be construed as WP:OR. I think we need to rely on good i.e. expert sources, such as those mentioned by User:Theramin above. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC) p.s. except you didn't revert, you removed the description wholesale, together with both of the new supporting sources. At least what we now have is quite neutral. Perhaps you have some better less lazy sources to present yourself?

The woman in white robes with a handful of grapes is seated at the table to the right of a quite plump individual holding a blue cup of ... wine presumably, given the redness of the cheeks, a sure sign of intoxication. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Hilarious. No wonder Wikipedia has such a big reputation for accuracy and honesty. MagistraMundi (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

But she's a woman (and the quite plump man looks a bit demonic, if you ask me). Ah, maybe Elagabalus has drunk so much he's actually under the table? Not surprised he's hiding if, as the Augustan History suggests, this is actually a murder scene. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear. How can I report you for homophobia and perhaps transphobia too? You appear to know nothing about Heliogabalus and are now mocking xir appearance. You know, my only interest here was to improve the article. Your interest seems to be in playing adolescent games. Natura abhorret vacuum, as Heliogabalus might have said. MagistraMundi (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I think he'd need quite a big vacuum to deal with all those petals. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Positively Wildean! How blessed Wikipedia is to have individuals of such intelligence, maturity and wit working on its articles. But it's no skin off my nose if this article makes false statements, so feel free to revert. After all, as Heliogabalus might also have said: Infinitus est numerus stultorum. (Your cue, Oscar.) MagistraMundi (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Why, thank you so much. As you know, I never joke. But feel free to offer some actual sources in support of your claim. Thanks! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I might have anticipated this. I very much doubt that Elagabalus would appreciate you calling them "xir", given that it was their request that they be addressed as "lady". I haven't touched on Roman history in quite a while, not since rewriting Macrinus' and Caracalla's articles. I read both Dio's and Herodian's accounts of Macrinus' and Elagabalus' reigns for the article on their battle as well. I'm fully aware of Dio's recounting of Elagabalus' offer of significant sums of money to any physician who succeeded in incising a vagina into Elagabalus' body. Dio, rather importantly, was not in Rome during Elagabalus' reign and did not meet him. Most of the information Dio received was hearsay that had traveled hundreds of miles. Equally importantly, Herodian makes no mention of this event.
Moreover, Elagabalus is from Syria. His mother, grandmother (a Phoenician) and his proposed father (Marcellus) are all from Syria. Elagabalus is, at least partly, Syrian (Semitic). One might question the selection of snow white for Elagabalus. If, as you say, Alma Tadema is recognized for their careful research, then I would expect that heritage to be reflected in the painting. *Looks at painting* is it me or does the golden robed man have a slightly more bronzed complexion than anyone else in the painting? Mr rnddude (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

References

• Looks at painting* is it me or does the golden-robed man have a slightly older and uglier appearance than one would expect of someone described by Herodian in this way: "Bassianus, in the prime of youth, was the handsomest lad of his time. With physical beauty, bloom of youth, and splendor of attire combining to produce the same effect, the youth might well be compared to the handsome statues of Bacchus. [...] His youthful beauty attracted the eyes of all."? And are there perhaps classical sculptures extant enabling us to compare the features of the golden-robed man with those of Elagabalus? You know, I have a funny feeling there are. MagistraMundi (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Cutting through the ever so amusing back-and-forth above, are there any published sources identifying Elagabalus as "the youth in a white robe holding a handful of grapes"? Or is that assertion just original research? This article should reflect the sources, not one editor's unsupported personal opinion.

Until someone finds an explanation or description of the painting by Alma-Tadema himself, the nearest we have so far is the contemporaneous analysis of Farrar.[3] "Elagabalus! — there lies that shame and monstrosity of the human race, the loathly boy-emperor, on his couch of silver and mother-of-pearl, in his long golden Phoenician robe..."

And then we have several other sources identifying Elagabalus as the bearded youth in gold, including two recently added to and then removed from the article.[4][5] That is supported by plenty of other more reliable sources too.

To which we could add the account in the Scriptores Historiae Augustae on which this painting must be based (as far as I am aware, the incident does not appear in Cassius Dio or Herodian):

• According to 21.5, "In a banqueting-room with a reversible ceiling he once overwhelmed his parasites with violets and other flowers, so that some were actually smothered to death, being unable to crawl out to the top"[6] / "oppressit in tricliniis versatilibus parasitos suos violis et floribus, sic ut animam aliqui efflaverint, cum erepere ad summum non possent" [7]
• Then 23.3 carries on: "He would wear a tunic made wholly of cloth of gold, or one made of purple, or a Persian one studded with jewels..." / "usus est aurea omni tunica, usus et purpurea, usus et de gemmis Persica".

So no doubt that is the source of the gold robe, supported by references elsewhere to Elagabalus wearing robes of purple and gold.

Whatever we think Elagabalus may or may not have looked like, it would be a mistake to expect a Victorian artist to paint a photorealistic depiction of an event that probably never happened nearly 2,000 years before. Theramin (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I think there is nothing but MagistraMundi's personal OR. We've had enough fun, & should stick with what sources we have. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I'm sure MagistraMundi's personal view may be perfectly genuine. But there is no place for it in deciding the content of this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Face: The Facts

There are some heavy technical details here (and *r*g*n*l r*s**rch), so I hope everyone will follow what I've done. There are two candidates for the role of Heliogabalus in the painting. Using sophisticated image-manipulation software, I have taken their faces and placed these next to busts of Heliogabalus orientated at roughly the same angle. Those editors in possession of sophisticated facial-recognition software (hint: try looking between your ears) can compare the faces and the busts and decide which face is more likely to have been intended by Alma-Tadema to represent the face of Heliogabalus.
File:Faces from The Roses of Heliogabalus compared with busts of Elagabalus.jpg
I hope editors will agree that the man in the golden robe is obviously not Heliogabalus. I further hope that they will agree that the youth in the white robe obviously is Heliogabalus. The eyes, noses, lips, chins, cheeks and so on are almost identical. Only the height of the upper lip differs significantly between the face and the bust.

N.B. Alma-Tadema was a realistic painter and careful researcher. Before creating this painting, he undoubtedly examined representations of Heliogabalus and read descriptions of him in classical history. Heliogabalus, as emperor, was described by classical historians as a charming, good-looking, effeminate youth. I do not think this description matches the appearance of the man in the golden robe. I do think this description matches the appearance of the youth in the white robe. And perhaps "man" and "youth" are further clues as to which figure was intended by Alma-Tadema to represent the youth Heliogabalus? MagistraMundi (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can follow what you've done. And the comparison of the images above is very useful. But you are mistaken - these are not "facts" at all. The only reason "there are two candidates" is your own personal view. As far as I am concerned, that young woman looks nothing like the bust, from any angle. Furthermore, regardless of his careful research, we have to allow Alma-Tedema some artistic license. The sources that we have, as well as the composition of the painting, support the figure in the golden robe. I think it's now time for you to give up your personal crusade here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Btw, the file is called "Faces from The Roses of Heliogabalus compared with busts of Elagabalus", but in fact these are two views of the same bust, MC 470 in Rome, which we can probably assume AT knew. This looks rather different in different photos, as is often the case (angle, lighting). There is also the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen bust, which looks more like the images on his coins. Both show rather wispy facial hair, like the gold robe & unlike the white robe figures in the painting. But all this is pure OR. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• 
  MC 470 again
• 
  Copenhagen
• 
  Elagabalus re-faced as his successor, Alexander Severus, Naples

The Capitol Museum bust reminds me of Martin Freeman with added mutton chops. But I'm pretty sure he didn't sit for Sir Larry. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Face the facts. As an aside, the image of the painting is clickable to almost microscopic levels, and some of the detail in it is extraordinary (I wish he had that amount of detail throughout the whole painting). Darn fine artist. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This (pp 189-184 - not all of which I can see) is interesting on his iconography. As so often, it turns out to be rather complicated. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I can see pages 189, 193 and 194. And yes, the bits on those pages do look a bit complicated. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I can now see all that range - some took a while to appear. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll try again later. I see that the Naples "refaced" statue doesn't show his gender reassignment surgery (or at least, not fully completed). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the physicians were unable to conduct the surgery. The sculptors on the other hand were simply being xphobic. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh well. Try not to feel too bad about it, Mr rddude. Perhaps surprising to find Elagabalus mentioned in a 2013 National Review article about Bradley Manning! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, she certainly catches the mood of 2018. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I’d like to thank MagistraMundi for a stimulating and lively discussion here, and for posting the images for comparison. I’m sure most of us know more about Heliogabalus than we did to start with. But regarding the position of Heliogabalus in the painting, it seems that consensus is firmly against him. So I propose that the text describing him as the figure in the golden robe, with suitable supporting sources, should now be restored to the article and this discussion be brought to a close. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Johnbod (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Marty -- I am deeply upset by your false assertion that I am here on a "personal crusade". In fact, I am here in a foolish attempt to improve one small corner of Wikipedia by removing the Darkness of Error and replacing it with the Light of Truth. Alas! As Heliogabalus himself learnt only too well: some folk prefer Satanic Darkness to Godly Light. Furthermore, regardless of his careful research, we have to allow Alma-Tedema some artistic license. I see. You think that Alma-Tadema would use artistic license to portray a good-looking, charming youth of c. 18 years as an ugly, gloomy man in his 20s. I suggest that you need to learn more about both art and human psychology. This is artistic licence:

Artists use license to portray people and situations as more potent and impressive, not less. It is not credible that Alma-Tadema carried out careful research and then ignored his research to portray Heliogabalus as quite unlike his sculptures and as both older and uglier. that young woman looks nothing like the bust Then I suggest that you are running either faulty facial-recognition software or faulty ethical software. Have you ever thought of upgrading? Then again, it might be a virus. the figure in the golden robe. How odd. You describe Heliogabalus as a "young woman", yet lapse into vagueness -- "the figure" -- for the man in the golden robe. You seem to be reluctant to admit that he is obviously older than his teens. The sources that we have, as well as the composition of the painting, support the figure in the golden robe.

The composition of the painting does not support the "figure", i.e. man, in the golden robe. It supports the fat man to the left of Heliogabalus. Said fat man is the dramatic focus of the painting. The man in the golden robe looks bored and uninvolved. The fat man is gloating over the "deadly" practical joke, as one would expect the wicked Heliogabalus of legend to do. Not that anyone looks in any danger of death from the falling petals. The painting is not really an attempt to portray a scene of murder. It is subtle and full of symbolism and misdirection. Too subtle for some, obvs. MagistraMundi (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe Alma-Tedema portrayed Heliogabalus as a man. The only man that fits the bill, by virtue of his position in the painting and because of how he is described by historians, is the man in the golden robe. I hope that's clear enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC) p.s. I don't see the fat man as the subject of the painting. Sorry if you think that's because I have "faulty virus-ridden software" in my brain.

But Heliogabalus is described by classical historians as a charming and good-looking youth, not as an ugly, gloomy man in his 20s. The gold robe is a sartorial detail, not a sine qua non. And I don't think your software is both faulty and virus-ridden. That would be over-egging the pudding (if you'll forgive the comparison). I think it's one or the other, not both. Or possibly it's excessive humidity. Are you careful to wear a hat in the rain? MagistraMundi (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hats in the rain now. Wow, and I thought I was a bit random. I think the guy in the golden robe is reasonably youthful and quite good-looking, not "an ugly, gloomy man in his 20s". I happen to think the face of the bust is a bit ugly. But these are just my wholly subjective personal views. I think we need to rely on sources here, e.g. expert art critics and historians. As I said before, I think it's time to restore the article detail, per the sources, and to stop the subjective discussion here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not being "random," I'm trying to help you perform at your intellectual peak. If you neglect to wear a hat in the rain, your head will get wet and this might affect the working of your intra-cranial software. And something is certainly affecting the working of your ICS. It might be faulty programming, or a virus, or excessive humidity, or dust, or biscuit crumbs, or cosmic rays -- who knows? Not me. But I do know that it isn't all of them at once. That would be ridiculous.

I have no problem with the article saying that the golden-robed man is Heliogabalus, but I think the article should note that this is the opinion of some critics and not conclusive. BTW, classical history does not describe Heliogabalus as "reasonably youthful and quite good-looking," but as a literal youth and, in the flesh, as very good-looking. MagistraMundi (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Random or not, you have totally lost me with the effect of rain on my "intra-cranial software", I'm afraid. But if you "have no problem with the article saying that the golden-robed man is Heliogabalus", why didn't you say that before you began your epic argument with this edit on 29 November?? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Note that The Amazing Emperor Heliogabalus, a scholarly bio of 1911 by John Stuart Hay, says (Preface xiv), "I much regret that I have been unable to find any portraits of the Emperor for whose authenticity Bernouilli will vouch. Alone of the whole family there remain authentic busts of Julia Mamaea and Julia Paula, neither of whom are important enough to be included, since we are unable to give a portrait of Elagabalus himself. I have therefore confined myself to the use of coins, whose veracity is undoubted, hoping that the reader will supply from his imagination that charm and beauty which the biographers have been unwillingly forced to allow both to the Emperor and his mother." (my bold). "Bernoulli" = Bernoulli, Johann Jacob, Römische Ikonographie, 4 vols., the German starts here. I think he thinks MC 470 is Geta, although it may have been attributed to Elagabalus already. Or the attribution of MC 740 etc came well after AT painted the picture, as I warned above might be the case. Good luck running ID parades with the coins! Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Toxic Transphobia

Sorry, girls: I was joking about transphobia, so your trans-Wildean wit super-scintillated in vain. BTW, Mr rnddude, in terms of issues around LGBTQIA+ issues: you haven't said whether you think Mr Gold-Robe matches this description by Mr Herodian: "Bassianus, in the prime of youth, was the handsomest lad of his time. With physical beauty, bloom of youth, and splendor of attire combining to produce the same effect, the youth might well be compared to the handsome statues of Bacchus." I don't think he does, but then, unlike your good self, I'm neither deeply versed in the classics nor capable of being honest. Obvs. MagistraMundi (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It didn't look like a joke. But if you're "not capable of being honest", at least we know where we stand. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

But if I'm not capable of being honest, how could I admit my incapacity? Are there perhaps two of me, one honest and one not? Anyway, Martita, let's test your own honesty. If poss, please answer the question I addressed to Mr rnddude. And of my two candidates for the role of Heliogabalus in TRoH, do you think the figure in the golden robe looks more or less like the bust of Heliogabalus than the young woman? Or is it impossible to say, cozza artistic lincense, adverse astrological factors and the vast gulf of time that separates us girls from the Victorian era? MagistraMundi (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Martita now, no longer Oscar? Those are your two candidates, no one else's. But I gave you my honest answer already that "the young woman looks nothing like the bust, from any angle." I hope that's clear enough. Again. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Martita now, no longer Oscar?. You're a shape-shifter and chameleon, like the late, great David Bowie. Of whom I assume you are a veteran fan. Please don't throw my compliments back in my face. MagistraMundi (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You could at least compare me to a real man, like Martina. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The book I linked to above notes that there are I think 6 contemporary unaltered (after his damnatio memoriae) portraits that are thought to be E. But none are certainly of him, unlike the coins. It would be unwise to assume that these identifications are the same now as pre-1888. Vast numbers of identifications have changed over the intervening years. If taking this seriously< one would need to check in 19th-century books what portraits were then thought to be of E. Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, presuming you want a serious answer; I would not consider myself "deeply versed in the classics", I simply said I am familiar with them. It's difficult to answer your question, I don't find the male form attractive at all. So, I'd be naturally inclined to agree that the white robed individual fits the "youthful attractive" description better; but again, I see a cute girl, not a "handsome lad". Moreover, I'm concerned with Herodian's comparison to Bacchus given the "stud"-like qualities on display in this painting (my attempt at humour). I do think you're being honest in your selection, I just don't see that it matches.
Ignore appearance for a second. Can you explain why Julia Soaemias, mother of Elagabalus, in a purple robe and wearing a crown, would be sitting next to somebody other than her child? Can you explain why Elagabalus would not be a) in a controlling position and b) the focal point of the painting? Can you explain why Elagabalus, who by Herodian's own account hated Roman clothing and wool, would be wearing a traditional white woolen robe instead of a gold embroidered silk one (should be purple and gold, but oh well)? Why is Elagabalus not wearing any of the gold necklaces, bracelets, crowns, tiara's or any other jewellery, that they were known for? (both from Herodian 5.5) "Mr. Gold-Robe" matches all of these descriptions, yet the white robed youth does not. Returning to appearance for a moment, can you explain how snow white matches the descriptions of Syrian heritage from either Dio or Herodian? or where the facial hair from the busts are?
I can't imagine why on earth Elagabalus would be half tucked away behind another courtier, lost in a day-dream, and munching on grapes, while the scene plays out around them. Thanks though, this was the first serious look I've had at anything to do with the Severans in a very long time. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for a considered answer, and yes, I was being serious. You're right that, if we ignore appearance, there are some strong factors supporting him-of-the-golden-robe. But we can't ignore appearance. For Sol's sake, this is a painting by one of the most skilled artists and meticulous visual researchers who ever lived. Heliogabalus was notorious in Victorian times for his youth, his effeminacy, and his good looks. He-of-the-golden-robe doesn't match those criteria. And the youth clearly looks much more like the bust that AT, we can assume, saw during his research. Furthermore, the youth is wearing a crown of roses. I think AT was playing artistic games and deliberately misdirecting spectators, but winking at the cognescenti with details like the crown of roses. Who might we expect to be wearing roses in a painting called The Roses of Heliogabalus? Heliogabalus, of course. Heliogabalus was also famous for his practical jokes and his subversion of conventions. This painting reflects that. It is much more complex than some commentators recognize. MagistraMundi (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Are there historical sources which suggest Elagabalus wore flowers in his hair? So AT is allowed artistic license when he is "playing artistic games", but not when he adjusts the subject's face to fit his compostion? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

How did making a good-looking youth of 18 into an ugly man of 20+ "fit his composition"? And although I don't know of any sources saying explicitly that Heliogabalus wore flowers in his hair, I do know of numerous sources saying that he was exactly the kind of person of whom one might expect such flamboyant floralistic fashioneering. Assuming, that is, one has some grasp of human psychology and LGBTQIA+ culture. (LGBTQIA+ is another joke, btw. I'm not a size queen.) MagistraMundi (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Can we please stop all this? Wikipedia is based on sources; editors should, with due weight, present information according to how it explicitly appears in reliable sources. Everything else, including large chunks of the preceding discussion/s, is WP:SYNTH and original research, and thus irrelevant on Wikipedia. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

He could be 18. He's not "ugly". But again, these are just subjective opinions. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)