Talk:Diviciacus (Aedui)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	This article is part of WikiProject Neopaganism, a WikiProject dedicated to expanding, organizing, verifying, and NPOVing articles related to neopagan religions. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

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)