Talk:Otium/Archive 1

Background / Aristotle

I wonder if these sections should be tweaked a bit?

Should Aristotle be presented before Zeno and Epicurus? After all, he was chronologically earlier.

And by the same token, would it be worth deferring Virgil until after Cicero? Jheald (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go to work on it tomorrow.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Put philosophers in chronological order.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 10:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

May still be worth grouping Aristotle, Zeno, and Epicurus though, otherwise the article starts to get very "bitty" -- too many top-level headings. Jheald (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Grouped Aristotle, Zeno, and Epicurus into new "Background" section.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

References

All of them need the "place" in the template. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Good Job!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment for G&R project

I don't mean to be a jerk about this, but I feel the article still has a way to go before it's a B-class. For instance, the section on Epicureanism doesn't mention a single Roman-era Epicurean by name. The section on Cicero doesn't make the connection between otium and the way the Romans idealized country life: Latin dialogues are often set at a country villa rather than the elite host's domus in town—in contrast to the urbanity of the Greek philosophical tradition. This agricultural nostalgia should connect naturally to the section on Vergil (otium and the pastoral tradition), where we seem to confuse otium with "happiness," which usually translates felicitas or depending on context voluptas, gaudium and the like. Greek philosophy is mingled freely with the Roman concept, without providing analogous Greek terminology. There's no Seneca section, which is a major omission, and not even a mention of of the famous otium passage in Catullus, nor any discussion of otium among the Augustan elegists (Tibullus particularly) who offer a lifestyle alternative to the Roman ideal of the military man or the man of action (the vir who possesses the active quality of virtus). I'm afraid I also don't understand the chart: how is Augustine under the Epicureanean heading? I know concept articles are quite difficult and slow to develop, so I don't mean to be overly critical, but there are just too many gaps to justify a B rating. The article still reads a bit too much like a collection of lexical entries or commentary notes rather than a coherent overview of a social/aesthetic/philosophical concept. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Addressed these issues.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 7 Jstor article

Wirszubski, Ch (1954). "Cicero's CVM Dignitate Otivm: A Reconsideration". The Journal of Roman Studies 44: 1–13. JSTOR 297549 For whatever reason, can't make the access date appear. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a "Journal" reference template? I can probably get a PDF on this full article, if it would help. Could the "Book" template reference work? See "full citation" if that helps.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This is what I put in. Still doesn't work. Wirszubski, Ch (1954). "Cicero's CVM Dignitate Otivm: A Reconsideration". The Journal of Roman Studies. 44: 1–13. JSTOR 297549. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: Ask the Help Desk. They have helped me a lot when I get stumped.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Help}}

There's a contradiction between Template:Cite journal/doc, which says the accessdate is the "Full date when URL/DOI was last checked" and Template:Citation/core/doc, which says the accessdate it is only relevant to the URL parameter. I suggest you post at Template talk:Cite journal. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article

Vickers, Brian (March 1990. Article first published online: 29 August 2008). "Leisure and Idleness in the Renaissance: the ambivalence of otium". 4 (1). The Society for Renaissance Studies (John Wiley & Sons: 1–37. doi:10.1111/j.1477-4658.1990.tb00408.x. Retrieved 9 November 2011. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help) Interesting article. I don't have access to the full article, but maybe someone else does. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Cliff's note of the article includes the following quote: "Scholars are ashamed of otium. But there is something noble about leisure and idleness. - If idleness really is the beginning of all vice, then it is at any rate in the closest proximity to all virtue; the idle man is always a better man than the active. - But when I speak of leisure and idleness, you do not think I am alluding to you, do you, you sluggards?" — Nietzsche 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I also can not get access to it. However, perhaps if you ask the Library of Congress they may be able to forward you the complete article or may be able to scan it into a PDF, as it is likely they have a hard copy. Suggest to e-mail them or use their "online form". I think odds are good.

Library of Congress - Ask a Librarian, Humanities/Social Sciences of the Main Reading Room and Microform Reading Room --Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for retrieving and sharing that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

villa otium

The final sentence of the article (under Modern usage) currently reads: "In ancient Roman times the "villa otium" was a Dionysian idealistic rural home that evoked concepts of peace and leisure (otium) and much happiness". This is a misunderstanding of the cited source, the full sentence there is: "There [i.e. in literary descriptions of villa settings] we can see just how popular this sculpture genre was in villa otium, where a Dionysian-bucolic setting was used to evoke current concepts of happiness which were dream-like or, at least, consciously unreal." In this quote "villa otium" is not a type of villa (as the article currently implies), but the concept of otium as it is related to its place in "villa culture" (if you will). This would play into the domus–villa opposition mentioned by Cynwolfe above, but until that complex is treated more synthetically and with more depth, the presence of this statement seems like reference stacking. Once the Roman concept is more fully developed, this source—not just the phrase "villa otium" or the sentence quoted above—might be put to fantastic use in that discussion. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Addressed.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Bold edit

While I didn't change content to much, I made a bold structure change by removing many section headers and bringing prose together. I also renamed the top two existing headers.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Great improvement!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think there need to be more divisions, especially between the philosophical concept of otium; the very Roman ideal of otium as associated with the countryside and villa life; and the aesthetic otium of the poets, which has to do with the pastoral tradition as symbolic of a non-military, non-political lifestyle. The Renaissance particularly should have its own section. So while the article should not have been broken into discrete pieces on individual authors, it does need some structure. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Can this be done chronologically (e.g., early, middle later), or does it have to be done by concept? Any suggestions? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you combine both approaches. If you start with a section on "Greek philosophy and the late Republic" (where we need to introduce the word scholē), you can deal with the Epicureans at Rome, and their deliberately chosen otium, as well as Cicero's use of otium enforced by the politics of his time (when life gives you political lemons, make philosophical lemonade). The nostalgia for the countryside, and the good old days when Romans were farmers (this is connected to the agricultural treatise of Varro too), is a recognition that the "Old Republic" is slipping away. Catullus's otium passage probably introduces the aesthetic angle, the poet's lifestyle. Then you can deal with Augustan otium as an aesthetic: "I've cut off your political balls, so you might as well sit around and write great poetry." Vergilian pastoral, Tibullus's contrast of the man of action with the ideal of rustic otium, and finishing off the Augustans, Ovid's rather acute otium in exile (discussed in a chapter here). Seneca. Pliny's letters: I have on hand E.W. Leach, "Otium as Luxuria: Economy of Status in the Younger Pliny's Letters," Arethusa 36 (2003) 147–156. Skipping blithely ahead, in late antiquity Symmachus. Ausonius and the Gallic aristocracy. Sidonius's fantasy of villa life as (paradoxically?) the embodiment of civilized Romanitas (no longer an urban ideal) in the face of barbarian encroachment. Early Christian writers redefining otium as Christian contemplation and withdrawal (Paulinus here). Then Petrarch opens a box. This is an extremely difficult concept to deal with in a Wikipedia article, and I've passed over it several times for that reason; I just don't think I'd have the intellectual chops, writing skill, and sheer stamina to do it, so I'll just hand out sports drinks on the side lines and cheer occasionally. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguate

• At the University of Chicago the online prose magazine, Otium.
• Otium is also a retirement community.

Other uses = opportunites for improved content

I've gone through and trimmed most of the fat from the "Other uses" section. Some of the material that I've deleted might be of use once appropriate sections of the article are developed, but were uncritical trivia as presented. My rationales can be found in the edit summaries, as can the deleted content. People familiar with the deleted content might have much to offer, so please see the diffs. The section now consists of (refs not included):

• The term cum dignitate otium ("leisure with dignity") is found often in Cicero's writings and refers to the aim and purpose of the Optimates.
• Leisure without literature is death and burial for a living man. – a quote from Seneca the Younger.
• Leisure is a system of symbols which acts to establish a feeling of freedom and pleasure by formulating a sense of choice and desire.
• Mr. Morgan was enjoying his otium in a dignified manner, surveying the evening fog, and smoking a cigar ...
• The Art nouveau or Jugendstyle residence of the United States Ambassador to Norway is called is called the Villa Otium.

If the first item has any basis, it clearly should play a thoughtful part in the body of the article. The next item: if a quote from Seneca matters, it should be discussed within, not pasted into, the body of the article. This also is not an "other use"; it's a primary use from a conceptual standpoint, right? Next is a modern scholar's assessment of the concept. How this ended up at the base of the article without informing its content is a mystery. I leave Toner's formulation for its value in raising the article's gaze. Still modern: the Thackeray quote about Mr Morgan might in someone's opinion be an integral part in the modern reception of otium, but does it really have anything to do with this topic, or is it a characterizing usage that is not much more than Thackeray's attempt to express pretension? I just engaged in OR: this is one of the reasons why WP doesn't like to append trivia to articles. I might quickly add every slightly relevant literary reference to leisure to the article, since when Thackeray writes otium, he means "leisure in Latin (wink)". I didn't delete because maybe there's a RS that discusses the passage in way that is relevant to the article. But this is one not even for Wiktionary, but for the OED, which cites this passage along with four others for the usage in English, which it defines as, like any Latin dictionary, "Leisure; free time; ease." In fact, I'll delete this once I hit Save Page on this post. If there is a reliable source that links Thackeray to something other than a Latin Dictionary, please reintroduce with context. Finally: the Villa Otium, fine. But the presentation, without the article's fully addressing the urban–rustic system that has already been brought up—what is the intellectual value? Had this topic been treated with sensitivity the reader might even feel a sense of satisfaction upon running into the ambassador's residence. Maybe it could be an unexpected image associated with the (hopefully explored) topic in the body of the article. Anyway, there are no "Other uses" of a concept in an encyclopedic article. (That is, unfortunately, until the release of Grand Theft Auto: Otium and the first episode of Real Housewives of Otium). — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 05:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, how about John Carter and the Towers of Otium? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You may be as big nosed as you like, you may be completely nose, so big that Atlas if asked would not want to carry it, you could mock Latinus himself, but you can't say more against my trivial poems than I myself have said. (Epigrams 13.2.1-5) Otium and a good nose--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice! ;) — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 01:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Colish source

Cardiffchestnut: Perhaps I am misinterpreting what is written by Colish concerning Cicero had a sense of duty to justify otium as he didn't want to portray himself as a hypocrite or a schizophrenic. How would you then reword this, per what it says on page 78 (the reference)?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Just passing by here; you really need to read the whole thing. Colish is merely saying that Bringmann's treatment of Cicero avoids such portrayal (of Cicero as hypocrite, schizophrenic); I've not read further but the inference seems clear that other historians have accused him of both; ^{well who'd have thought it.} I'm not too sure of its relevance to otium; leastways not within the article's current arrangement. Page 77 of the same work deals specifically with otium, and ftnote 46 opens a veritable can of worms on the topic - but again, the connections are not clear to me. It's a difficult concept, and it needs much careful reading, and very careful unpacking. I have to say, it would be completely beyond me, so kudos to you for the attempt. Haploidavey (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Fwiw, I've read through source p. 77, footnote 46; it seems to say that Bringmann's is the exceptional opinion on Cicero, and on Cicero's various versions of otium. Cicero's otium can be seen as shifting and self-validating, inconsistent with his vaunted philosophical and political values; Cicero's therefore a political and philosophical trimmer who adjusts his values to suit his changing circumstances; this seems a prevalent scholarly opinion and thus, I guess, Colish's "hypocrite" and "schizophrenic". Bringmann's account is more sympathetic. Haploidavey (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't been around today. Haploidavey's made as much of the material as I can, but the density of the this particular source's merely passing reference to Cicero and otium might imply that it's not going to be especially productive as a bare citation. If people have access to any of the extended bibliography in the footnote, a lot of that will probably have information that would be more helpful. I know that Doug's already got Wirszubski. I think I have easy access to Saint-Denis, but my French is not strong enough for me to bother with reading the article myself given my current schedule. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 22:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done See footnote "D" and Klaus Bringmann - Untersuchungen zum spaten Cicero (pages 229-232) - Göttingen 1971. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ranking

While this appalling article contains the ungrammatical misquotation dignitate cum otium, it really cannot claim to be B-class as a Latin article; having spent longer than I care to on a single section, I cannot go into the mishmash of ill-treated philosophers any further. The present text miscites Cicero, the passages chiefly concerned are Pro Sestio 98:

id quod est praestantissimum maximeque optabile omnibus sanis et bonis et beatis, cum dignitate otium. hoc qui volunt, omnes optimates, qui efficiunt, summi viri et conservatores civitatis putantur; neque enim rerum gerendarum dignitate homines ecferri ita convenit ut otio non prospiciant, neque ullum amplexari otium quod abhorreat a dignitate.

that which is most excellent and most desirable goods and healthy and all the blessed, with the dignity and ease. this that will, all the nobles, who they effect, and the men are thought to be the preservers of the city, for the dignity of men ecferri affairs so fitting that it should not look to leisure, no abhor the embrace from the dignity of that leisure.

and De Oratore I 1;

Cogitanti mihi saepe numero et memoria vetera repetenti perbeati fuisse, Quinte frater, illi videri solent, qui in optima re publica, cum et honoribus et rerum gestarum gloria florerent, eum vitae cursum tenere potuerunt, ut vel in negotio sine periculo vel in otio cum dignitate esse possent; ac fuit cum mihi quoque initium requiescendi atque animum ad utriusque nostrum praeclara studia referendi fore iustum et prope ab omnibus concessum arbitrarer, si infinitus forensium rerum labor et ambitionis occupatio decursu honorum, etiam aetatis flexu constitisset.

When I reflect often perbeati was returning to the old number and the memory of my dear Quintus brother, are wont to think, who are in the best interests of the State, with the glory of his achievements and honors and flourished, him they could maintain their course of life, as without danger or in business or in leisure might be with dignity, and also was with me to the beginning of his heart with the rest of us both very bright and almost from all the studies of a motion would be granted just thought, if infinite in the course of legal occupation and the toil of ambition and of honors, of a bending of constitisset.

The first translation that popped up in my search: Whenever my thoughts and reminiscences take me back to the old days, my dear brother, I am always struck with the extreme felicity of those who, in the best days of our country's history, were distinguished both by official position and by their brilliant services to the state, and yet were able to maintain a life of such even tenor that they could as they pleased enjoy political activity without danger, or retirement without loss of honour (E.N.P. Moor, 1904). You really can't translate Latin word-by word. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's one from a textbook called An Introduction to Classical Rhetoric: Whenever my reflections and reminiscences take me back to times gone by, my dear brother Quintus, it always seems to me that the men of that era were tremendously fortunate. Living in the best days of our State, and prospering in the enjoyment of high honors and the glory of their accomplishments, they could maintain a course of life that offered them the opportunity for political activity without peril, as well as the possibility for leisure with dignity. (It's always a good idea if your Latin is shaky or non-existent to compare multiple translations.) Cynwolfe (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be the one we want, not available online (Oxford UP, 2001). Cynwolfe (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Could I ask the purpose of using Google translate? There are very few pieces by Cicero that aren't available in English translation online, though I haven't looked for these. If we need the passages translated and can't find them online, then those of us who know Latin well can work together to arrive at one. Or someone at a library can dig up a Loeb. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Did not use the Google Translate version in the article. The reference shows I used the translation of Harbottle (bottom of page 36).--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I was confused about why it was here, or what purpose was supposed to be served by looking at it at all. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

PManderson put it up here in Latin (for whatever reason - ask him), so I just ran it through Google Translate to get the "just" of what was being said. I put the English here for others that also might want to get an idea what it was saying. That's basically it.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I put it up to show what Cicero actually meant - and his actual syntax. Coldwell shows no sign of understanding either - and that he would use a mechanical translator indicates why. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

praeter propter

Vickers' paper is overused; and more importantly, misused. Otium is an example of the usage of the term "praeter propter", meaning more or less of leisure. This is nonsense; what Vickers says is that one early instance of "otium" survives because Aulus Gellius quotes it; Gellius is not interested in otium but in praeterpropter ("more or less"). All Vickers is saying is that otium originally had a negative sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

PManderson, appreciate your response. However will have to disagree with you and will be putting back the part on "praeter propter" that you removed. Here is my reasoning why I believe I am correct:

• The Latin meaning of praeter propter is "approximately" or could be "more or less".
• Previously, before you took it out, we had a consenses that that was correct amongst the major contributors to the article.
• Vickers in his document (page 6) Leisure and idleness in the Renaissance: the ambivalence of otium explains: The first recorded use of the term is in a fragment from a soldiers' chorus in Ennius' Iphigenia (c. 190 BC), whose preservation we owe to that philologian's ragbag, the Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius (c. 150 AD) - he cites it as an example of the usage of the word praeterpropter (19.10.12). The soldiers are unoccupied, resting and bored, wanting to return home. They distinguish between otium negotiosum, leisure with a satisfying occupation, which takes place in the city, around the hearth, and otium otiosum, unoccupied and pointless leisure, such as their prolonged stay in the countryside, which they find disorientating.

Another way to re-word it to make it clearer is: "Ennius cites otium as an example of the usage of the word praeterpropter."

Still another way to re-word it as clearer is: ""Ennius cites 'leisure' as an example of the usage of the word approximately or 'more or less'."

This would reflect what I already said: "Otium is an example of the usage of the term "praeter propter", meaning more or less of leisure."

What Ennius is really saying is that there is a negative side (otium otiosum) and a positive side (otium negotiosum) to otium, as it reflected leisure - two sides "more or less" of leisure.

Hope that helps.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it helps. You are trying to say: "Ennius cites otium as an example of the usage of the word praeterpropter.

Vickers isn't, and that is not the case: Ennius, the poet, doesn't cite anybody; Gellius cites Ennius. More importantly, otium is not the example of praeterpropter; the whole passage which Gellius quotes contains both words (Gellius is interested in one, Vickers in the other):

Ótio qui néscit uti

Plús negoti habét quam cum est negótium in negótio.

Nám cui quod agat ínstitutumst, nil nisi negótium,

Íd agit, id studét, ibi mentem atque ánimum delectát suum,

Ótioso in ótio animus néscit quid velit.

Hóc idem est; em néque domi nunc nós nec militiaé sumus,

Ímus huc, hinc illuc, cum illuc véntum est, ire illínc lubet,

Íncerte errat ánimus, praeterprópter vitam vívitur.

Please stop editing until you can report a source for what it actually says. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Factual accuracy dispute

It is really unnecessary to assert that otium is originally a Latin word, independent of Greek (of course it is). But if we do, it is inept to begin its history with Aristotle, who is unlikely ever to have heard Latin. Accordingly, I am tempted to move the entire section on Greek philosophy to talk. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think "appalling" is too strong an assessment. There are a numerous points where the article can be (and is being) improved through clarification, correction and recasting. It's just a slow process. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 15:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Corrected the meanings of "schole", "schola" and "otium". Provided correct inline reference for these definitions, therefore removed the "factual accuracy dispute" tag - since now there is no dispute. I believe the information I corrected was originally put in by Amadscientist. If any other disputes, please explain first and perhaps another reference could be found.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Restoring. The entire section is a vast buzzing confusion. with enough editing by those who report what sources actually say - and preferably have some competence in the languages involved - it need not be permanent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

To start with, the title is wrong; Vickers' whole point is that, if there is "an idea of otium", it is not schole, but sloth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Aristotle regarded free time as an opportunity to develop an honest personal character and integrity Really? a more misleading account of aAristotle could hardly be imagined; this describes neither the vita contemplativa nor Aristolte's snobbery. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask Amadscientist. I'm assuming you have checked out the references I provided. Which references do you feel are not a reliable sources?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Cicero speaks of himself, with the expression dignitate cum otium = "That is what in the Pro Sestio 'cum dignitate otium' meant. But with the readjustment in Cicero's own position in politics two or three months after the Pro Sestio was delivered, the phrase was given a new twist, and applied by Cicero to himself, to his own 'otium' and his own 'dignitas'." = in the reference provided, therefore removed the tag.

No, he doesn't; and that word order is impossible in Latin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

You have to be specific on your complaints about the article - what factual accuracy is disputed. What sources? Please explain before just throwing up tags. Be specific!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Let us compare this passage from Vickers:

The first recorded use of the term is in a fragment from a soldiers' chorus in Ennius' Iphigenia (c. 190 BC), whose preservation we owe to that philologian's ragbag, the Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius (c. 150 AD) - he cites it as an example of the usage of the word praeterpropter (19.10.12). The soldiers are unoccupied, resting and bored, wanting to return home. They distinguish between otium negotiosum, leisure with a satisfying occupation, which takes place in the city, around the hearth, and otium otiosum, unoccupied and pointless leisure, such as their prolonged stay in the countryside, which they find disorientating. Andre argues that otium originally had military, not pastoral associations, referring to the enforced inactivity that coincided each year with the dead months of winter (especially January and February), unsuitable for war, farming or fishing

with what the article has made of it:

The earliest extant appearance of the word in Latin literature occurs in a fragment from the soldiers' chorus in the Iphigenia of Ennius, where it is contrasted to negotium.[B] Researches have determined the etymological and semantic use of otium was never a direct translation of the Greek word "schole", but derived from specifically Roman contexts. Otium is an example of the usage of the term "praeter propter", meaning more or less of leisure. It was first used in military terms related to inactivity of war.

Vickers' text is grammatical, coherent, and accurate; it is only from reading him that I have any idea what "military terms related to inactivity of war" was supposed to mean: it referrred to the cessation of military activity in winter; Ennius, however, used it for the boredom of inactive service.

This foggy writing has introduced a positive error: Otium is not an "example of the usage of the term praeterpropter"; that would be meaningless; the whole extract which Gellius quotes is such an example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Another source says:

Aristotle, for example, deemed leisure an opportunity for developing virtues that bring personal happiness and benefit society. Intellectual work, which has its own intrinsic value, can prepare the individual for productive engagement in the world, but ordinary or mass leisure, involving amusements, games, spectacles, theater, and festivals, is incompatible with Aristotle’s civic-minded, liberal ideal.

So much is true; it is not equivalent to - and does not support:

Aristotle regarded free time as an opportunity to develop an honest personal character and integrity.

Has our editor simply misunderstood what Aristotle means by "virtue", ἀρετή? It's a quality, an excellence; to Aristotle, honesty and integrity are examples of virtues, not the whole of virtue - and these are not the virtues which schole develops. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a copy editing dispute more than a factual dispute. More like displeasure at the prose and less with the references and facts. Now, what do you suggest to fix the "errors" you perceive?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have already rewritten the section on Ennius; Coldwell's reversions are in part redundancy, in part error, and in part useless detail.

I would prefer to leave Aristotle for an Aristotelian; but a more reasonable summary of the source here would say something like Aristotle distinguished intellectual or contemplative leisure, which can make a more useful citizen, from idle amusement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Stoic philosophy considered otium as still negotium.

This sentence. plagarized from a book on Seneca, was placed as though it applied to Zeno. I know of no evidence that the Phoenician Zeno knew any Latin, much less had opinions on Latin philosophical terms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Popularity

PManderson: Thanks for having quite an interest in this article I created. With these improvements it shouldn't take long for us to get it to Good Article status. It seems to be more and more popular an article. Read my lips :)) I predict that in the next 2 weeks we will have over 10,000 views. With that kind of popularity we should be able to get some good collaboration on ideas. Happy Thanksgiving.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

GA is a set of formal requirements; as the situation at Roman Dacia makes clear, they do not even exclude blatant plagarism. Anyone who values a GA is an ignorant fool. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

PManderson: Wow, I didn't realize that you had that much interest in the article and that you wanted the subject of Otium to be of such high standards. Perhaps you can help me out then and tell me which refrences are in error pertaining to Otium being first a military term. Also then can you reword the below text you removed to good grammer and we will use the references that can be verified. I double checked the references and could not find any in error. If you would like links, I can provide as they are all on Google Books.

Otium was originally a concept related to the military, which was related to peace and no activity of war. Historian J.M. Andre in his extensive study The otium in the moral and intellectual life of Roman origin in the Augustan period showed that "otium" meant from its conception the meaning of not fighting the enemy. Andre devoted chapter 1 of his work up to the anti-Hellenic response showing that "otium" relates to no fighting and was first a military term. Andre shows in his work that the inactivity of war was directly related to the winter months when war was not conducive. A key concept for Latin civilization is otium, opposite of negotium. The word is ambiguous, and has a lengthy ambivalent history. It is defined as leisure (free time from work), vacant time (wasteful time), freedom from business (negotium) and retirement from one's occupation (officia). It also can mean free time, ease, peace, or repose; the adjective otiosus means "idle, leisured, on the cessation of war: peaceful", with the adverb otiose.

Aulus Gellius, while discussing the word praeter propter ("more or less") quotes a fragment of Ennius's Iphigenia, which contrasts otium with negotium repeatedly. Ennius imagined the emotions of Agamemnon's soldiers at Aulus, that while in the field and not at war and not allowed to go home, as "more or less" living (incerte errat animus, praeter propter vitam vivitur; spiritless, zombie). Ennius' first use of the term otium around 190 BC showed the restlessness and boredom during a reprieve from war and was termed otium negotiosum (free time to do what one wanted) and otium otiosum (idle wasteless free time).

IF you can not find any references in error, I'll assume then they all can be verified (as I know they can) and I will go ahead and put back the text - as this is a very important fact of Otium being first a military term. Of course, we want to base the article on a neutral point of view and enter in all viewpoints. There are no other references that show Otium to be used for anything else first as an original term, other than military (peace, inactivity of war). Thanks again for your help on making such a high quality article.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I agree to using the title of Andre's book as L'otium dans la vie morale et intellectuelle romaine des origines a l'epoque Augusteenne. Then there will not be any disputes here.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No, Sir; I am paid for tutoring people to read English and summarize it; if you wish a session, e-mail me for my rates. It is not my hobby.

I am pleased to see that the discussion of praeterpropter has, except for the word break, converged to what the source says; it is now merely redundant. I have discussed most of the rest of this -er- bovine text; it remains repetitious, redundant, and error-ridden; has it been composed by cutting the words of the source and placing them in a randomizer? It reads that way; I shall remove it when found.

Please stop editing this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for double checking the references and discovering that they are all correct. I believe verifiability is the key, rather or not it is the "truth" is another issue. As long as the references can be verified is the main issue, as you already know. I thought editing was open to anyone - am I mistaken?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, most of them are incorrect, since the proposed text does not represent the source. These have already been discussed on this talk page. The remainder are either unimportant or make points already more than aufficiently discussed in the article.

You do more than adequate editing on subjects you understand. Please go do some. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Directly below are 5 sources with reference quotes to Amadscientist that show that Otium was in origin a military concept. If you need more, let me know. Can you give me an instance that a reference I provided is incorrect, especially pertaining to Otium as in origin a military concept. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, forgot about these references I found on Google Books here and here and here. I didn't notice anywhere another use as the original use for otium, other than military. Perhaps you can give me a link or two. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

IF you feel that grammer is the issue I know of several good copyedit editors that I could get to look over my text. I know the references are not the issue as they all basically give the fact that Otium was first a military term. Perhaps you could then explain what the issue is that you are so concerned about. Grammer can be fixed and the references are good. You are an editor just like the rest of us, so IF you feel that grammer is the issue, then you certainly can (and should) fix it. We all have to pitch in and fix grammer and spelling errors and other minor errors. Of course, I understand that you do want it shown that the original use of Otium was military. This then would present a neutral point of view - and that is what you want, right?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No. You quote out of context; often, you do not represent the meaning of the passage you do quote accurately. In neither case do you report the meaning of your source; sometimes you do not produce any meaning whatsoever. What we need is understanding, not Google-fu. I want accuracy; that's why this article is tagged {{accuracy}}.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Original use of term Otium

TEXT REMOVED

“ Otium was originally a concept related to the military, which was related to peace and no activity of war. Historian J.M. Andre in his extensive study The otium in the moral and intellectual life of Roman origin in the Augustan period showed that "otium" meant from its conception the meaning of not fighting the enemy. Andre devoted chapter 1 of his work up to the anti-Hellenic period and came to the conclusion that the etymology of "otium" relates to no fighting and was first a military term. Andre shows in his work that the term otium-negotium was dominantly military (domi-militiae) and that the inactivity of war was directly related to the winter months when war was not conducive. ”

I have removed your last addition of information regarding the military origins of Otium. While not entirely incorrect, sources do not state that as an original of the term but another use. Negotium was the military term while Otium was the lack of such "negotiations". Further sourcing would be required to show this as fact,but from what i am reading it is simply one of several uses and no proof that the term originates as a lilitary use is offered in prose, yet the rest of the article and sources contradict the prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just going by the references I found on Google Books here and here and here. I didn't notice anywhere another use as the original use for otium. Perhaps you can give me a link or two....?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The information I put in was based on the book review by Professor Edna S. De Angeli of Lehigh University of Andre's extensive study on otium of the referenced JSTOR document 292840 that says in part:

“ After a brief discussion of the etymology of otium-negotium, where the author wisely refuses to commit himself, although leaning somewhat to the semantic approach with the origin a military one, Andre devotes his first chapter to otium in the archaic period up to the anti-Hellenic reaction. The first mention of otium in Latin literature, which is found in the Ennian fragment containing a soldiers' chorus from his Iphigenia, bears out the military slant on otium; ”

Amadscientist - Andre does not seem to indicated another original usage, other than military. Do you have references for these other original usages for otium that you speak of?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Amadscientist - You remarked ... the statement that it's origins begin as Military are disputed. Disputed by whom? What do they say the origins of "otium" are? Has someone done as extensive a study as Andre?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Studies in Latin literature and Roman history, Volume 7, by Carl Deroux, Publisher Latomus, Original from the University of Michigan, p. 12 says Jean -Marie Andre has written the most ambitious, comprehensive, and valuable study of otium and p. 13 says Otium appears for the first time in Ennius, in a chorus of soldiers in his Iphigenia

• Leisure, Idleness, and Virtuous Activity in Shakespearean Drama by Unhae Langis says on page 2 The first recorded use of otium, in Ennius’ Iphigenia (c. 190 BC), reveals soldiers expressing their restlessness and boredom during a respite from fighting. To wit, they “distinguish between otium negotiosum, leisure with a satisfying occupation ... and otium otiosum, unoccupied and pointless leisure”

Amadscientist - a search in Google Books gives many books saying that the origins of otium are military.

• Studies in Latin literature and Roman history, Volume 227 (ISBN 2870311672) p. 13 says are probably more dependable than etymology here, resulting in Andre's conviction that the primitive idea of otium is military, indicating a cessation of battle, whence preceeds the notion of the calm of the Muses, of political order, ...

• Idleness working: the discourse of love's labor from Ovid through Chaucer and Gower Gregory M. Sadlek (ISBN 0813213738) p. 33 says As JM André has argued, otium probably had its origins as a military term indicating the opposite not of labor but of war. The time for otium was the winter, when fighting was not possible.

• Haec mihi fingebam: Tibullus in his world by David F. Bright (ISBN 9004056580) p. 217 says Otium was in origin a military concept, a laying down of arms;

• Placing sorrow: a study of the pastoral elegy convention from Theocritus to Milton by Ellen Zetzel Lambert (ISBN 0807870609), p. 205 says JM Andre tells us that "otium" was originally a Roman military term for soldiers' leave of duty.

• Artibus et historiae, Volume 29, Issue 58, IRSA, 2008, Original from the University of California - p. 154 says ln the Roman republic otium was originally a military term indicating a soldier's leave from war or negotium; his free time was devoted to farming.

Unless you can come up with other references that show the origins of otium to be different, I will have to reenter my text that you removed - since there are several good sources that show the first use of Otium is related to military.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

anti-Hellenic period

The article states that ‘Andre devoted chapter 1 of his work up to the anti-Hellenic period’ [my emphasis]. That’s not a term I am familiar with and I suspect that, among Wikipedia readers, I am not alone in that. (In terms of the speculators of the globalised economy it might refer to the last month or two—at least that was my best guess, and obviously not a good one.) Perhaps we could indicate the where, the when, and the what of it? Or alternatively turn Anti-Hellenic period into a blue link? Ian Spackman (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Pertaining to Andre devoted chapter 1 of his work up to the anti-Hellenic response - see JSTOR 292840 page 501.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Presumably ante-Hellenic is meant. But there is no excuse for anyone who can make that mistake repeatedly editing this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I don’t think so—though I did assume that it was exactly a typo for that when I read it in our article. The quote on which it is based is ‘Andre devotes his first chapter to otium in the archaic period up to the anti-Hellenic reaction’. So whose reaction, when and where? I don’t doubt that it existed, or imagine that Classical scholars would be puzzled by Edna S. De Angeli’s turn of phrase. But this is an encyclopeaedia which should be comprehensible to the general reader. We don’t want articles in the humanities to degenerate into the incomprehensibilia which our mathematical friends like to inflict upon the readership. Ian Spackman (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Found the review; for those who have access to JSTOR, it is here. That's a description of the first chapter; the second chapter is about Roman comedy, the third about intellectual life after the Punic Wars; so this must be the movement which led up to the elder Cato - clear enough in her context, but not in ours. I will be consulting a copy of the book shortly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Cato, following L. Papirius Cursor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Andre’s ‘conclusion’

‘After a brief discussion of the etymology of otium-negotium, where the author [Andre] wisely refuses to commit himself, although leaning somewhat to the semantic approach with the origin a military one….’ [My emphases.] That is the source given for this statement: ‘Andre […] came to the conclusion that the etymology of "otium" relates to no fighting and was first a military term’. ‘Leaning somewhat’ is not, perhaps, quite the same as ‘coming to a conclusion’. Ian Spackman (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree: ‘Leaning somewhat’ is not, perhaps, quite the same as ‘coming to a conclusion’. However as you can see in the 5 Google Books I pointed out to Amadscientist directly above that these authors came to the conclusion that Andre meant that Otium was originally a military concept.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What Andre actually does is to cite five or six different classes of evidence; these point to different conclusions. Doug Coldwell is preferring his own original research to the review of his ultimate source, Andre's book. The review correctly reports what Andre says; he does not, which is not surprising, since he has not seen Andre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

More by DC

In short, these two paragraphs are erroneous, as well as repetitious and ill-written.

Otium was originally a concept related to the military, which was related to peace and no activity of war. Historian J.M. Andre in his extensive study The otium in the moral and intellectual life of Roman origin in the Augustan period showed that "otium" meant from its conception the meaning of not fighting the enemy. Andre devoted chapter 1 of his work up to the anti-Hellenic response showing that "otium" relates to no fighting and was first a military term. Andre shows in his work that the inactivity of war was directly related to the winter months when war was not conducive. A key concept for Latin civilization is otium, opposite of negotium. The word is ambiguous, and has a lengthy ambivalent history. It is defined as leisure (free time from work), vacant time (wasteful time), freedom from business (negotium) and retirement from one's occupation (officia). It also can mean free time, ease, peace, or repose; the adjective otiosus means "idle, leisured, on the cessation of war: peaceful", with the adverb otiose.

Aulus Gellius, while discussing the word praeter propter ("more or less") quotes a fragment of Ennius's Iphigenia, which contrasts otium with negotium repeatedly. Ennius imagined the emotions of Agamemnon's soldiers at Aulus, that while in the field and not at war and not allowed to go home, as "more or less" living (incerte errat animus, praeter propter vitam vivitur; spiritless, zombie). Ennius' first use of the term otium around 190 BC showed the restlessness and boredom during a reprieve from war and was termed otium negotiosum (free time to do what one wanted) and otium otiosum (idle wasteless free time).

The actual title of Andre's book is L'otium dans la vie morale et intellectuelle romaine des origines a l'epoque Augusteenne; the babelfished "translation" above is all too characteristic of the author of these paragraphs; there seems to be no English translation of the book. English "moral" and French "moral" are false friends; and if the title must be translated, from the Beginnings to the Age of Augustus is not hard to find. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I also remove this illiteracy, until somebody can explain what benefit there is to mentioning Plato and Aristotle after Cicero.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In early and colloquial Latin, despite the etymological contrast, otium is often used pejoratively, in contrast rather to officium, "office, duty" than to negotium; Cato the Elder, the moralist, writes extensively against otium as wasted time. Cicero uses the word often, in this negative sense, in the neutral to positive sense of "peace and quiet", and in a positive sense, since often repeated, of literary leisure; he describes his involuntary retirement from public life under the First Triumvirate as otium, giving it the poistive spin of the Greek σχολή, schole, "leisure," the desirable state of Greek philosophers. Its meaning of "free time" becomes more sophisticated with the writings of Plato and Aristotle, the use of which becomes a specific time of learning. The Romans therefore used two terms when translating the separate meanings of the single Greek word schole. Otium was defined as "empty" or "vacant" for that of "free time" and ultimately meant "leisure time". The single Greek word schole had a learning meaning association termed schola, which ultimately meant "leisure activity" (school).

Roman Republic

PManderson: Could you give a reference to The original sense of otium may well have been winter idleness... Do you think the wording of ...may well have been.. is a little vague. Maybe tighten up that wording a little, to be more positive. Or perhaps the reference you found shows this type of wording??--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Andre, op. cit. p. 21f. No, I do not feel inclined to rephrase. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)