Talk:Paculla Annia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 04:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annia or Ania[edit]

The page says Annia but the first line says Ania. -- 21:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested merge, delete or redirect[edit]

There's almost nothing in the introduction and first section here that isn't already in the Bacchanalia article; though the latter is over-reliant on its single primary source and offers only two modern scholarly interpretations, the Bacchanalia are the sole reason for Paculla Anna's notability. No primary source or modern scholarly source deals with her other than in this connection. If there's nothing more to be said about her, I don't see how she merits a separate article. See WP:ONEEVENT

The second section, on witchcraft and its persecution, seems well-meaning but fanciful and irrelevant; no primary or reliable, modern, mainstream scholarly source describes Paculla Anna as a witch. The dead-linked source (Max Dashu's "Hidden histories") is a fringey mass of speculation, extreme POV, and generalisation (I've now repaired the link).

The article traffic is not negligible, and there seems nothing to merge, so I favour changing the article to a redirect. Opinions are, of course, very welcome. Haploidavey (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange logic. Chiomara is also chiefly notable for a single event, and has not attracted much modern attention. Should we delete all articles on ancient figures like these because they are not covered in detail by modern sources? If so why? To have less coverage of the ancient world than the average source? Dimadick (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not arguing that at all; and she's not strictly comparable to Chiomara; the latter's article is based on three primary sources, not just one. All that's known about Paculla Annia is her role in the context of the Bacchanalia (per Livy). She's only notable for that, and any expansion here would be more duplication of content at Bacchanalia. Haploidavey (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me speak more bluntly: the article is a steaming pile that is actively misleading. The suppression of the Bacchanals has little to do with "witch hunts", nor the figures in antiquity sometimes called "witches" in English. In terms of religion in ancient Rome, this action is much more akin to the Imperial-era attempts to suppress sects viewed as disruptive, most notably Christianity, but also the Manichaeans and druids. The article is almost entirely OR, and is based on a primary source (Livy) that it in no way represents accurately, and on a website that's supposedly by Max Dashu, though that isn't clear when one visits it, whose work does not meet standards of RS for Roman religion and history. That is why Haploidavey has found nothing to salvage in it. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing that the article is great. Its a stub after all. I am simply surprised that a 2nd-century BC figure can be dismissed as insignificant when there are primary sources about her. If the articles misrepresents Livius account, why can't we simply provide a more accurate summary of his account? Dimadick (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a dismissal; and no-one's saying she's insignificant; just that her mere existence and her supposed actions (let alone their or her significance), are entirely and inextricably embedded in Livy's account of the Bacchanalia. That article's still deficient in certain sources - I've a crop of them on my desktop but haven't got around to using them - and yet it already says everything to be said about her. I see nothing to justify a biography based on readings of a single primary source, even if the readings were ever-so-accurate, without the benefit of critical, reliable and genuinely scholarly secondary sources who address the subject of the biography. There are none, it seems. Haploidavey (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we don't base articles on primary sources. And actually, there's quite a lot of post-1988 secondary scholarship that addresses the story of Chiomara ([1], [2], [3], [4] [5]), just as there are numerous secondary sources who will contextualize this account, which Livy placed in the mouth of a freedwoman who was in the sexual service of someone who evidently wanted to do some accusing. There is no reason to think that the unfortunate Hispala said anything other than what she was coerced or manipulated into saying. That is why the description of Paculla Annia's "innovations" is regarded by just about nobody as historically accurate, since stripped of sensationalism none of it was new in Greek or Etruscan Bacchic cult. The story reflects Roman anxieties about coniuratio (secret, exclusive pacts) and sexual behaviors (especially anxieties about women engaging in extramarital sex, and young men playing the passive role in same-sex couplings). The suppression itself occurs during a period when the Romans were integrating numerous religious practices from abroad into their religious culture, some willingly and some not. All we know about Paculla is that she was a Campanian sacerdos of the cult, and that she was accused of these things. Although I don't know the passage well, I'm not even sure it tells what happened to her as a result of the senatus consultum. I'm not as opposed as Haploidavey to the article existing, but in its current form it does more harm than good, and would rather see it stubbed back. It's sensationalized, and used to advance the POV of a particular scholar who lacks expertise in Roman culture. AFAIK, though, we don't have a proper article on this incident, only an article on the inscription that preserves the senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus—tellingly, not even linked to, an omission that indicates a certain lack of effort to provide encyclopedic and cultural context. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Livy says nothing of her eventual fate; even the linked cite (which certainly doesn't shirk from creating a dramatic and sensationalised account) admits this... then promptly discloses that she "must have" suffered a terrible death at the hands of the powers-that-be. On the matter of merges and redirects, if secondary sources could be found that deal directly (even in speculative fashion) with Paculla Annia herself - even in passing during discussion of the broader topic, then I'd be content with stubbing. Haploidavey (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If? I think you underestimate modern scholarship. From a brief search:
Only the sketchiest treatments of the Bacchanalia affair could avoid mentioning her. Trouble is, none of these sources addresses her as a subject of biography (who she was or might have been). She may or may not have been a historical figure; either way, if you follow Gruen all we know is Livy's use of her as a weighty trope, a dramatic device to further the story and frame its morals. I've read the Gruen before; he says that the changes attributed to her by Livy are unlikely. And Robinette cites Gruen. So we're not left with much to work with here at all. At best - to quote Cynwolfe (above): "All we know about Paculla is that she was a Campanian sacerdos of the cult, and that she was accused of these things." Haploidavey (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between scholarship by experts in ancient history and religion, and scholarship by those who specialize in other topics but anecdotally use historical examples. As I said, I'm not opposed to have a short article that focuses on Paculla and her role in this incident, especially as an article that would focus on modern gender criticism. But the "witch hunt" stuff has to go. It's completely anachronistic. It's an example of what I said about somebody using historical anecdote to make some kind of point. "Moral panic", however, seems like a good phrase for this. So while sources such as Why Drug Wars Fail can't be used to construct a biography of Paculla, nor to explain her historical role (if such it is) in Roman religious developments, a Nachleben section on Paculla as trope could include the ways her story is used anecdotally or symbolically. Such a section would inevitably make clear that the historicity of the cultic developments attributed to her are in doubt. If she really did influence presentation of sexually dangerous women in Plautus, her contemporary, then she was turned into a trope immediately, in her lifetime. But I would probably not want to spend any more time discussing this, since it seems to me that all are agreed that the article needs to be gutted and reconstructed with good secondary sources. That might be a better way to proceed. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's well put, and seems an acceptable basis for redevelopment. Haploidavey (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some butchery, and rewritten; but some of what I've added is probably none too relevant. The only new biographical stuff I've been able to find was the arrest of her son in 186 (cited to Gruen) Haploidavey (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paculla_Annia&oldid=1204881009"