User talk:InformationvsInjustice/Cut R & R content 2

Comments

(Forgive my presumption; I've taken liberties here by copying the whole of the talk-page contents from your other sandbox. What I read there was very different indeed, but it makes sense to keep all discussions and observations in one place)

Intimidating, isn't it? And it's hard to say where all this might lead. Just to slam things into reverse for a moment (thinking out loud, no more than that). Not so very long ago, everything Livy wrote was taken as history (unless Livy himself said it wasn't); and anything else was more-or-less considered a footnote or commentary on Livy. So where to draw the line between myth and history? And where to draw the line in terms of article scope? I think you're taking the right approach, in seeking a cut-off point. I'm not at all certain where this should lie.

I think that, at least for the time being, we can stick with the "published" article's intro. It does its job. I don't think we can cut things off with Remus' death; surely, the divinisation (or murder) of Romulus is an essential part of the package? Each part of the overall mythos says something essential about Rome's idea of itself; for instance, the divine or semi-divine paternity; superiority of Romulus' augury; the appalling and morally complex fratricidal foundation; seizure of women and lands; first senate and armies; in short, the "invention" of Rome. This is why I still think we should use themes from modern scholarship, and developments of the legend(s), rather than comparison of accounts - the latter might go on forever, and we'd be none the wiser on the significance of such differences and interpretations. Haploidavey (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

(the same, continued) ...and of course, there's no evidence at all within classical sources themselves to justify a development from the earliest dated version(s) onwards - no original "seed" to the mythos; no central literary, oral or visual resource on which to hang the tale or its developments. For that, we have to rely on modern, secondary sources. Haploidavey (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)\

Well, a hearty thanks for taking a little time. I am currently working more on this than a)my real job; b)my completed manuscript, the research for which gave rise to this effort (ostensibly ;-); and c)yet another RW project... So I can certainly appreciate your contribution. Intimidating isn't the word. I might say "draining" or "disheartening".

• R & R vs just "R": The real problem here is the redirects. The topic of the article is "Romulus and Remus". The redirect from "Romulus" would suggest that this the tale of Romulus. That would be the tale of his origins, his youth and the city's founding and his reign. I don't think that's the tale of "Romulus and Remus". Perhaps I'm just plain wrong. That said, It seems to me that a Wp reader would come to the article understanding the fable of Romulus and Remus as being about them, the she-wolf, the fratricide, and "before he founded the city" and would expect that to be there. I'm not sure that has to include the details of his reign. This article should begin with a "For the legend of Romulus' rule as Rome's first king see [[article named either "Romulus Rex", "Romulus (King of Rome)", "Romulus (Mythology)", "Romulus (Founder of Rome)" or "Romulus (Roman Kingdom)"]] whatever we decide. A single section with a para on Romulus' reign as Rome's first king" with a "Main article" link should suffice. This would be in keeping with the way things are structured now (with the article titled R & R and the redirects). Alternatively, we could change it to "Romulus (Mythology)" and then put a redirect from "Romulus and Remus" to it and include it all in one article.

At last, I get the point. I don't think you're at all wrong. Now you've pointed it out, it seems self evident. You might even be completely right (!?) Even if you're not, those are very useful insights indeed. So yep, "Romulus and Remus" is the "well-known story of the twins". It's a topic in its own right. For Romulus' reign, co-ruler, conquests, and death, we need no more than a series of links to articles already written (as you've done with Lacus Curtius. It's a very interesting approach to this otherwise rather confusing combination of myth and proto-history, and I wish I'd thought of it. Caveat Livius. Haploidavey (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• How to treat the ancient sources: I think the article should include summaries of the exigent ancient sources. There's enough in common between them to fairly say that there is a core "story". Perhaps some of the work I've done could be relocated to, for instance, the Ab Urbe Condita Libri (Livy) (as I've already done with The Battle of Lacus Curtius) and herein there would be a brief section on Livy's version of the legend with a "main article" link. I do agree, however, that there is not enough here on "scholarship". There should be verbiage in the intro that discusses, broadly, how the myth is seen today. Part of that is due to the fact that I'm working with the resources I have available to me. I'm supposed to get an account for the OUP Journals, and as soon as I get that, I can help more. Also, I'm not a classicist, I am quite comfortable reading English translations of the sources and some of the Latin versions. I certainly know how to research, but describing with confidence the state of current scholarship is something I'll do, but would love to have it done by someone who has actual, factual credentials in the field  :-) On a side note, I did find an interesting discussion in the Fornacalia and Quirinus articles about views of the myth's origin and evolution that would be a nice inclusion here. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll drop in very soon; at the moment, I'd rather see what transpires before poking my nose in. And yes, I will poke my nose in! Do you have access to a broad, general but high-quality and recently written history of the early Kingdom? At the moment, I have only Cornell, and Wiseman; original research is otherwise a risk, absit secondary source analysis and interpretation. One or the other or both of us will soon have JSTOR access - I've also applied to CUP access. Haploidavey (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

That said, I still believe that organising the material under distinct authors will prove more difficult (and harder to read) than organisation under themes. The advantage of the latter, imo, being that the reader is less likely to lose sight of the basic narrative sequence. Haploidavey (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Haploidavey:On that last point, I think you're right, unless we make them short and concise, which is what I'm hoping they'll end up being. To that end, here's my proposal:

• Create a new section on the R & R talk page and the CGR Project page outlining my (I would not presume to call it "our" without your express willingness to do so) plan, as follows.

• Identify and reach out to editors who might assist in this effort.

• Divide the article into the following sections: "Overview"; "Ancient sources" (perhaps "Primary sources"?)"; "Modern interpretations"; "Renaissance views"; "Historicity"; "Portrayal in art and literature"; "See also"; "References"; and "External links". With appropriate subsections and hatnotes as needed.

• Seek a consensus as to whether or not to create a "Gallery of depictions". The myth has several episodes, the figures of which have been a major source of artistic exploration throughout the centuries. Is it appropriate to create a section expressly dedicated to the most prominent of these? The Lupercal, The Rape of the Sabine Women, the rape of Rhea Silvia by Mars, the Battle of the Lacus Curtius, among others.

• Create a new article on Romulus' reign as king, with hatnote: {{about|the legend of Romulus, the founder and first king of Rome|the legend of Romulus and his twin brother Remus|[[Romulus and Remus}}

• Seek a consensus for naming the new article. I've thought about "Romulus (mythology)"; or "Romulus (founder of Rome)"; or "Romulus Rex"; or "Romulus Rex (Mythology)"; or "Romulus (first Roman king)"; or "Romulus (legendary king)"; or "Romulus (Roman Kingdom)". I could go on. I'm not really in love with any of them.

• Redirect [[Romulus]] away from [[Romulus and Remus]] and toward the new article.

• Add hatnote to R & R article: {{about|Romulus and Remus, the legendary twins of Roman mythology|the legend of the founding of Rome by Romulus and his reign as its first king|(new Romulus article goes here)}}

• Seek a consensus as to whether or not to create a "Remus (Roman mythology)" article or whether to keep the redirect from [[Remus]] pointing to R & R. If we do, perhaps a "Modern interpretations of Remus" section or subsection could be added to the article.

• Move parts of the current Draft to other articles. I have identified the following candidates:

• • Ab Urbe Condita Libri (Livy): under the "Content" section, in a new subsection: "Account of foundation myth"; or "Legend of Romulus and Remus".
  • Parallel Lives: under the "Contents" section, in a new subsection: "Life of Romulus".
  • Plutarch: under the "Parallel Lives" seciton, in a new subsection: "Life of Romulus".
  • Dionysius of Halicarnassus: under the "Works" section, in a new subsection: "Account of foundation of Rome"; or "Account of Romulus and Remus".
  • Quintus Fabius Pictor: in a new section: "Account of Foundation Myth".
  • Military history of ancient Rome: okay, this is a sad little piece. What is it? What is it supposed to be? Please take a moment to avail yourself and help me make sense of what, if anything, could be done with it, and if something can be done with it, could could whatever that is be done with the current draft.
  • Campaign history of the Roman military under the "Kingdom (753-508)" section, in a new section: "Romulus (Ruled 616-579)"
  • Roman-Sabine wars: in a new "War with Romulus" section with three new subsections: "Tarpeia"; Battle of the Lacus Curtius"; and "Intervention of the Sabine women".
  • Hersilia: Another neglected article. Similar to the Military history of ancient Rome article above.
  • Tarpeia: in a new "Ancient accounts" section.
  • Arx (Roman): in a new "Legend of Tarpeia" section.
  • Faustulus: in a new "Ancient accounts" section.
  • Augury: under the section "History" in a new "Romulus and Remus" or section.

My hope is that this process will distill the article into something that is digestible to a visitor but still sufficiently comprehensive that it does justice to the topic, and, as a bonus, perhaps improve some of the other articles of interest to the CGR Project.

I'm going to post this here, and then take a day-ish to mull it all over, and hopefully get some feedback from yourself. I will be checking in and will try to respond to any comments.

In the meantime, please follow this link to enjoy a picture of a cat dressed as Caesar:

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/campaign_images/webdr02/2013/3/16/13/15-dogs-and-cats-at-an-ides-of-march-toga-party-1-17673-1363455724-4_big.jpg. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)