Talk:Diviciacus (Aedui)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Untitled[edit]
What evidence is there for spelling the name ending in "-cos"? To my knowledge he only exists in Caesar's account (and in those derived from it) where it is most definitely NOT spelled that way. (unsigned message from User:CaesarGJ on 03:44, 13 January 2006
- How else would you spell it? The latinised version is also mentioned in the article. It would be astounding if it had any other ending than Gaulish o-stem nominative singular. Caesar is not the sole source, but I have not tracked down the specific reference from Cicero yet. --Nantonos 02:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would spell it "Divitiacus," since the Latin is the only attested version of the name. At the most I might mention that it -in all likelihood- might be spelled -cos, but wouldn't go changing it in all versions elsewhere.User:CaesarGJ
- The name is not solely attested in Latin; its also attested in Gaulish, on a coin of Divitiacos of the Suessiones. Since we know the form of the name in its native language, and since the article already mentions the Latinised form, there is little need to change anything here, so I follow the practice of the best and most recent scholarship on the subject. --Nantonos 03:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can you cite/post some sources? Additionally, "best" is something of a value judgment.--CaesarGJ 06:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Beyond the sources already cited in the article? --Nantonos 23:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, since the sources which are not theoretical reconstructions attest a -cus ending for the name.--CaesarGJ 05:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can you read Greek letters, and are you familiar with the lunate sigma? Perhaps your browser is not showing it correctly. Actually, are you familiar with Gaulish? --Nantonos 16:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I see it now. This is from a coin? And yes, I can read Greek.--CaesarGJ 16:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I guessed you would be able to, given the high quality of your general Classical contributions, but thought it best to check - and also to check that your browser renders them correctly; lunate sigma was a fairly recent addition to Unicode. Yes, its from a coin; around the time of the Gallic wars they often have an inscription in Latin letters on one side and in Greek letters on the other, because the way Gaulish was being written was in transition. --Nantonos 10:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see any justification for "Divitiacos" as the title. It's given as "Divitiacus" and "Diviciacus" in Caesar - I understand "c" and "t" fell together before "i" or "e" in medieval Latin and are regularly confused in manuscripts - but based on the the coin legend surely the "c" spelling would be more accurate (it's also the one used by most modern editions and translations of Caesar). And if we're going to Gallicise the Latinisation by changing Latin "-us" to Celtic "-os", why not go the whole hog and transliterate the coin name as "Deioicuacos" or something similar? Anyway, Wikipedia policy is to use the best known name (Mark Antony rather than Marcus Antonius, and so on), so I thing "Diviciacus" should be used, with the original Gaulish and the Latin variants explained in the article. --Nicknack009 00:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- I guessed you would be able to, given the high quality of your general Classical contributions, but thought it best to check - and also to check that your browser renders them correctly; lunate sigma was a fairly recent addition to Unicode. Yes, its from a coin; around the time of the Gallic wars they often have an inscription in Latin letters on one side and in Greek letters on the other, because the way Gaulish was being written was in transition. --Nantonos 10:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I see it now. This is from a coin? And yes, I can read Greek.--CaesarGJ 16:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can you read Greek letters, and are you familiar with the lunate sigma? Perhaps your browser is not showing it correctly. Actually, are you familiar with Gaulish? --Nantonos 16:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, since the sources which are not theoretical reconstructions attest a -cus ending for the name.--CaesarGJ 05:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Beyond the sources already cited in the article? --Nantonos 23:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can you cite/post some sources? Additionally, "best" is something of a value judgment.--CaesarGJ 06:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- The name is not solely attested in Latin; its also attested in Gaulish, on a coin of Divitiacos of the Suessiones. Since we know the form of the name in its native language, and since the article already mentions the Latinised form, there is little need to change anything here, so I follow the practice of the best and most recent scholarship on the subject. --Nantonos 03:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Was Diviciacus a vergobret?[edit]
I'm unclear as to why Divitiacos is considered a vergobret. (And not just in this article.) The evidence seems to be Caesar, Bellum Gallicum 1.16.5, which says: in his Diviciaco et Lisco, qui summo magistratui praeerat, quem vergobretum appellant Haedui. Or "among these [leading men who gathered to discuss Caesar's next move were] Diviciacus and Liscus, who held the highest magistracy, which the Aedui call 'vergobret'." However, and this is a big "however," the person who held the vergobrecy was Liscus — the relative pronoun qui can be either singular or plural, but the verb is singular. It's also imperfect, which means it's referring to a continuing state: Caesar is saying that Liscus was vergobret at the time of this meeting, in order to explain why he's important, as well as Caesar's advisor Divitiacus.
I had thought that perhaps there was an issue with the text, that some mss. might support a reading of praeerant, so that the passage would mean both men were vergobrets at one time or another, but this doesn't appear to be the case. In trying to track down a possible praeerant, I did find one interesting thing, and a possible source for a misconception. John Rhys in Celtic Britain has misread the passage as praeerant; his note is here. There are 250+ results from Google Books for an exact search on Lisco qui summo magistratui praeerat (here), and a dozen for Lisco qui summo magistratui praeerant (here), most of them copies of Celtic Britain. There is one source in a language I'm unable to read that seems to think there was an Oxford Classical Text edition of Caesar with praeerant.
Elsewhere, Caesar identifies Dumnorix as qui eo tempore principatum in civitate obtinebat, "who at that time held a position of leadership in the civitas." "That time" means the time of the alliance with Casticos and Orgetorix. I think this passage and others in Book 1 imply that Dumnorix was vergobret at that time, which would make sense: both that he would be authorized by the Aedui to make such arrangements, and (politics being what they are, and if there's any truth to Caesar's accusation that the three wanted to be "kings"), that he may have wanted to hold on to power beyond his elected year in office. There's also no suggestion that Dumnorix was at the Battle of Magetobriga against Ariovistus (if I'm remembering correctly, the elder Eporedorix was in command during the 'German' wars); if Dumnorix were vergobret at the time, it would explain why, since the vergobret didn't travel outside Aeduan borders.
In discussing the contested Aeduan elections of 52 BC (Book 7), Caesar makes it clear that the Aedui had laws aimed at preventing the concentration of power in too few hands, and that a vergobret's close male relatives could not hold the office within a specified period of time (I think Caesar says a "lifetime," but I rather think this means some "age" or cycle of time within the Celtic calendar). Dumnorix and Divitiacus, as brothers, could not both have held the office, at least not within Caesar's time frame. Any clarification appreciated. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
name on coins[edit]
The entry in Delamarre (2nd ed., 2003) says:
Le nom du cèlébre druide éduen allié de César, Diui-iacus, qui était aussi celui d'un roi suession, et qu'on retrouve attesté sur des monnaies …
"The name of the famous Aeduan druid allied with Caesar, Diui-iacus, which was also that of a king of the Suessiones, and which is found attested on coins … "
I'll look for a link to an image of the coin online. I have no idea why an editor keeps deleting this, and insisting Delamarre doesn't say it. I can only conjecture that the first edition doesn't have this piece of information, and that the editor is working from that. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Haven't turned up an example online yet, but see Christian Goudineau, César et la Gaule (Editions Errance, 1990), p. 171 for images of two different coins with two different spellings of the name. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- What you're quoting is Delamarre's own, it could be argued idiosyncratic, reading of a Greek inscribed coin normally read as ΔΕΙΟΥΤΙΑΚΟΣ as ΔΕΙΟΥΚΙΙΑΚΟΣ instead. As far as my meagre knowledge of Celtic coinage extends, Suessione coins are uninscribed - I do know that none of the coins attributed to him on the British side bear his name. I do not believe Delamarre is suggesting the name is that of the person discussed in either Diviciacus article, since the Belgic tribes would not be expected to inscribe coins in Greek. Anyway, I don't really object to this changed wording, just the notion that there were numerous examples of coins of the Suessiones stamped ΔΕΙΟΥΚΙΙΑΚΟΣ. Paul S (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- The original wording (not mine, though I did rewrite some) was misleading, I agree, in suggesting that there's a consensus that the coins represent an issue by the Belgic king, and I was not attentive to that when I restored the deletion. Nobody I've seen attributes the coinage to the Aeduan druid (I certainly wouldn't, since if you see the comment above I think it's incorrect to identify him as a vergobret, and it seems to have been the military leaders who went around issuing coinage to pay their followers). I think the point is that Divitiacus or Diviciacus is the Latinized form of a Gaulish name assumed to be that represented on coins under these spellings (whoever the name refers to), which vary both orthographically on the coins and (it seems to me) in how they're reconstructed by those reading them, since they're stamped off-center enough to cut off some of the lettering. Delamarre typically does not give idiosyncratic readings, though he is more likely to adhere to French traditions of scholarship. The Celticist David Stifter has remarked in an online discussion that he understood Delamarre's purpose as not to present original interpretations, though D. is ready to reject interpretations he finds unfounded. Goudineau gives two bronze coins with the name and identifies them as from the Suessiones. Since neither Goudineau nor Delamarre are numismatists, I assume they're drawing on other sources. Here is one coin supposed to be from the Suessiones with lettering. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Okay - I should have recognised your nick from the Continental Celtic list. I don't follow how that inscription says anything of the kind, in Latin or Greek characters, but I'm not an epigraphist. Paul S (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Me neither. I frequently look at inscriptions on coins after being told what they say, and don't see it. Do you mean the link to the coin with the other name? That was just in reference to your saying coins of the Suessiones have no inscriptions. I still haven't found the two coins that Goudineau gives online in reference to the name Diviciacus. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Okay - I should have recognised your nick from the Continental Celtic list. I don't follow how that inscription says anything of the kind, in Latin or Greek characters, but I'm not an epigraphist. Paul S (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- The original wording (not mine, though I did rewrite some) was misleading, I agree, in suggesting that there's a consensus that the coins represent an issue by the Belgic king, and I was not attentive to that when I restored the deletion. Nobody I've seen attributes the coinage to the Aeduan druid (I certainly wouldn't, since if you see the comment above I think it's incorrect to identify him as a vergobret, and it seems to have been the military leaders who went around issuing coinage to pay their followers). I think the point is that Divitiacus or Diviciacus is the Latinized form of a Gaulish name assumed to be that represented on coins under these spellings (whoever the name refers to), which vary both orthographically on the coins and (it seems to me) in how they're reconstructed by those reading them, since they're stamped off-center enough to cut off some of the lettering. Delamarre typically does not give idiosyncratic readings, though he is more likely to adhere to French traditions of scholarship. The Celticist David Stifter has remarked in an online discussion that he understood Delamarre's purpose as not to present original interpretations, though D. is ready to reject interpretations he finds unfounded. Goudineau gives two bronze coins with the name and identifies them as from the Suessiones. Since neither Goudineau nor Delamarre are numismatists, I assume they're drawing on other sources. Here is one coin supposed to be from the Suessiones with lettering. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- What you're quoting is Delamarre's own, it could be argued idiosyncratic, reading of a Greek inscribed coin normally read as ΔΕΙΟΥΤΙΑΚΟΣ as ΔΕΙΟΥΚΙΙΑΚΟΣ instead. As far as my meagre knowledge of Celtic coinage extends, Suessione coins are uninscribed - I do know that none of the coins attributed to him on the British side bear his name. I do not believe Delamarre is suggesting the name is that of the person discussed in either Diviciacus article, since the Belgic tribes would not be expected to inscribe coins in Greek. Anyway, I don't really object to this changed wording, just the notion that there were numerous examples of coins of the Suessiones stamped ΔΕΙΟΥΚΙΙΑΚΟΣ. Paul S (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)