Instead, I thought I could accommodate it by explaining what its errors were, but unfortunately its advocates aren't interested in the truth. I should have simply reverted this entirely spurious theory when it was first posted.
I've gone out of my way to investigate some of the sources I'm not familiar with and found he's lied about them as well. Every time he cites a source I'm familiar with he lies about what it says.
#Typeit4me export full#
I will continue to revert any of your edits that try to supress the fact that Jowett's book is full of deliberate falsehoods and misinformation. Bill 22:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Reply Reverts Thanks to Patrick Brown for alerting me to the problem. This should be carefully checked, and almost certainly removed. Sorry! It's now corrected in Dio on my site and I very strongly suspect no source states that C was a C. I simply mistyped chrn instead of chfn: the F and R keys are adjacent. In my TypeIts, "Christian" is chrn, and "chieftain" is chfn. To do so as quickly as possible, I make use of a program (TypeIt4Me) in which I can set abbreviations for whatever I like: I type the abbrev, and the program expands it. The error came about because I hand-type the texts on my site. Straight from the horse's mouth - although I'm not Dio of course - I can tell you (a) that it's not true and (b) how it happened that on my site, in my own transcription of Dio, it did for a while say that.įirst, I have the Loeb edition in front of me it says "chieftain", not "Christian". Previous versions of the article claimed that Cary's edition of Dio stated that Caractacus was a "barbarian Christian". Lordrosemount ( talk) 21:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Reply If this is where edit wars get us, some people need to spare half a thought for the article's casual readership, but in any case I wonder whether someone else might be able to do something with this. Secondly, what does the nationality of his wife have to do with the price of fish anyway? I have a suspicion that the suggestion might be that if the wife was both British and Christian, such would represent good evidence that Christianity existed in Britain at a time when Caratacus would have been living there, which in turn gives support to the notion that Caractacus might have been a Christian before he was taken to Rome, which notion the previous paragraph concerns - but if that's the point, why doesn't it just say so? Talk about opaque! I'd correct it myself, but since this is only half a guess as to what on earth half the paragraph might be talking about (and I have absolutely no idea about the other half of it), I hardly feel qualified. Where do I start? Well, firstly, it should be obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about Rome that the person receiving the ovation would have been Plautius and not his wife, but I don't see why this is remotely relevant to the question of whether or not his wife was British, whereas the paragraph seems to regard the matter as fatal to any suggestion that she might have been. This has not prevented the error being repeated and disseminated widely.
An ovation was a military parade in honour of a victorious general, so the person who "returned from Britain with an ovation" is clearly Plautius, not Pomponia. Tacitus describes her as the "wife of the Plautius who returned from Britain with an ovation", which led John Lingard (1771 – 1851) to conclude, in his History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, that she was British however, this conclusion is a misinterpretation of what Tacitus wrote.
One is Pomponia Graecina, wife of Aulus Plautius, the conqueror of Britain, who as Tacitus relates, was accused of following a "foreign superstition", generally considered to be Christianity. Hello there, I just stopped by this article for information, and I see from the talk page that there's been some edit war or other going on, and I couldn't care less about that but I did want to point out that one of the paragraphs, under the 'Modern interpretations' heading, is weird and uninformative, and ask whether someone who knows about this subject might change it to something that makes sense. This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. Classical Greece and Rome Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome Template:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome Classical Greece and Rome articles If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
#Typeit4me export how to#
If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Referencing and citation: criterion not met.This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:
0 kommentar(er)
