Talk:Memento mori

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Roysius.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction with The_Braque_Triptych

The caption of one of the images of this article " The outer panels of Rogier van der Weyden's Braque Triptych shows the skull of the patron displayed in the inner panels. The bones rest on a brick, a symbol of his former industry and achievement.[1] " is in contradiction to the text of page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Braque_Triptych which says of the same item " Few analyses venture to theorize the symbolism of the fragment of stone. As the skull may represent Adam, it has been suggested that the stone represents a piece of Golgotha.[1] Whatever was intended by van der Weyden or his patrons, it may not have been symbolically relevant to the Braque family, as they were well-established as advisers and financiers to the House of Valois.[1] " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.188.121 (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Translations

Stop reverting the translations. The translations are incorrect. They are interpretations, not translations, and it is not the place of wikipedia to interpret. It translates directly as "Remember you shall die." 76.247.185.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC).

Neither is even a verb. Memento is a noun and mori is a noun with case suffix "of". It means "the remembrance of death". "Remember death is inevitable", "Remember you will die", and such are fair English translations but they are not literal. Do not attempt to say what it translates directly before you speak the language. John Thornton Theatre (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Aren't they both verbs? The infinitive form of morior is mori and the imperative form of memini is memento. Thus, literally: "remember dying!" or something like that, or in proper English: "remember you will die!". What are those nouns you're talking about? The Latin word for "death" is mors and its genitive form is mortis. I don't think there are nouns like memento or mori in Latin. Yuhani (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That teaches me for trusting other people (namely, a parent who took four years of Latin... thirty years ago). Boy do I have to eat my words; Etymonline gives the etymology of "memento": from L. memento "remember," imperative of meminisse "to remember," a reduplicated form, related to mens "mind." ... Memento mori "reminder of death" (1592) is from L., lit. "remember that you must die." As you can see, it seems my source was mixed up in which was literal. I should really have done my research. Reverting my edit. John Thornton Theatre (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I must add, however, that it may just be popular consensus to phrase it as "must" instead of "will", since that doesn't seem implicit in the phrase (it would appear as an auxiliary verb if it was, I think). John Thornton Theatre (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence seems to contain two conflicting translations, and upon further inspection, the footnote contradicts it. The etymonline footnote does NOT indicate that "memento mori" is the source of the English word "memento." I will attempt clarity. I don't mind if you further improve or change, but please don't revert the existing tangled mess. Tom NM (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

removed the See Also

I've removed the See Also for Death poem since Memento mori is about death, whereas a death poem is a poem written just before one's death, but is not about death. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 15:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Depends how closely related one thinks See also links should be to the article in question. To my mind, it's best to be as helpful as possible to the potential researcher. if I were researching a memento mori-related topic, I'd find a link to Death poem helpful, but I'll leave it for now. Man vyi 16:10, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

error in phrase

Tertullianus is quoted as writing: "Respice post te! Hominem te esse memento!" That's a mistake (see here. Should be: "respice post te! Hominem te memento!"

192.115.133.141 11:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

true?

Yes. It is. Renee Neu Watkins, recent translator of Bartolomeo Scala Literary Essays and Letters (working title), HUP (forthcoming)http://msgboard.snopes.com/message/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/25/t/001162.html

disamb

a disambiguation page is needed for Memento Mori. Spearhead 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a serious error concerning the Horace quotation. The poem is on the victory at Actium and has nothing to do with the afterlife. The rejoicing is due to Octavian's victory over Anthony.

this page needs some sub headings, and also a mention of The streets' song named Memento Mori

Comment by 72.242.22.194

"The genre was little used in classical antiquity; there, the chief thrust of memento mori was the theme of carpe diem, or "seize the day." This carries echoes of the admonishment to "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die", the language of which originates in Isaiah 22:13: "Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!" (New American Bible translation). The thought appears elsewhere in Roman literature: Horace's Odes include the well known line Nunc est bibendum, nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus. (Now is the time to drink, now the time to dance footloose upon the earth.) Horace goes on to explain that now is the time because there will be no drinking or dancing in the afterlife, a classic example of the carpe diem theme."

Comment: The previous sentence is incorrect as to the context of "nunc est bibendum." This is the start of Horace Odes 1.37, where the cause for celebration is NOT one's own impending mortality, but rather the death of Cleopatra. cf. [[1]], next-to-last poem on the page. Closer to the author's intent is Horace's famous "carpe diem" in Odes 1.11, where the point is not that there is no celebration in the afterlife (a thought that strikes me as more from the Psalms than from Horace) but rather that life should be enjoyed before it ends. The distinction is subtle but important, as Horace makes no claims here about the nature of the afterlife. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.242.22.194 (talk • contribs).

distinction between "memento mori" and "carpe diem"

The article contains this sentence: "The genre was little used in classical antiquity; there, the chief thrust of memento mori was the theme of carpe diem, or 'seize the day.'"

The sentence seems to conflate the attitudes of memento mori and carpe diem, whereas they are actually the obverse of one another. The former is a call to humility (in keeping with its supposed origin in the Roman triumph), whereas the latter is a call to enjoy life (as the context of Horace's ode makes clear).

The article would be clearer if the whole paragraph about carpe diem were replaced with a link to the carpe diem article, saying something like "Compare carpe diem." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.64.31.26 (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm agree with you that the article seems to be confusing the two, but I think it makes sense to explain the difference; I don't think a mere link, with no commentary, would be terribly helpful. —Ruakh_TALK 03:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have copyedited, mostly that bit, and I hope removed the confusion. I didn't really deal with the issue in the section above - someone with stronger Latin than me should do thatJohnbod 03:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The article still slaughters the meaning of "memento mori." It contains the phrase, for example, "The concept, in the art of classical antiquity, was more frequently embodied in the phrase carpe diem, or 'seize the day.' " Then it goes on to describe phrases similar to carpe diem, but not to memento mori. Truly, they are not similar terms; the one admonishing excessive celebration by reminding the general of his mortality, and the latter encouraging celebration (well, of a sort . . . ) by reminding the lover of the brevity of life. Yes, they both involve mortality, but for completely opposite reasons. 76.190.157.141 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

a related phrase

A phrase that I relate to "memento mori" is "sic transit gloria mundi" (as best as I can remember how to spell it).

Is there logical merit to mentioning this phrase also?

Is there historical merit?

1Fishmael 20:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ancient times

"In ancient Rome, the phrase is said to have been used . . ."

Whenever I come across phrases like "is said to be", "was said to", "it is said that . . " etc. in one of my students' essays, a huge red flag goes up in my mind (and I pull a huge red pen out of my pocket). It is a sure signal that the person wishes to maintain that something is a fact, believes he or she might have read it (um, once) (um, somewhere) (um, I think) (um, in a book . . . or something), but has absolutely no evidence or citation to back it up. Therefore, he or she attributes it to an anonymous source (which may or may not exist) by putting it in the passive voice and hoping that the reader won't notice. Hmm, problem solved.

"The phrase was otherwise referred to in the art of classical antiquity . . ."

Again, where is this "phrase" "referred to"? Of course the Latin verb "morior" (to die) appears in Latin literature and of course they write about death and mortality and the transience of human life. That doesn't constitute a reference. The theme is certainly present in pre-Christian Roman literature, as well as in the Book of Ecclesiastes, as well as in Greek literature. However, the phrase itself does not appear until the late Middle Ages.

The phrase "carpe diem" is not "related to" the phrase "memento mori". They mean completely different things, and although both themes are important in mediaeval, Renaissance, and Baroque art and literature, their implications are virtually the opposite of one another.

There are several passages in this article that make me suspect that the author does not have a strong enough command of Latin to be writing encyclopaedia articles on the internet about Latin phrases.

65.95.229.201 13:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)mgraves65.95.229.201 13:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that the author may possibly have got the idea that "memento mori" and "carpe diem" are "related" from watching that Robin Williams movie from about ten years ago. I can't see any other possible source for that misconception.

Has the author been offering insight and commentary on other Latin phrases on Wikipedia?

65.95.229.201 13:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)mgraves65.95.229.201 13:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The "passive of non-attribution" I calls it. A red flag for me too. Do log in and edit the article directly.--Wetman 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Uses in modern media and art?

I found the phrase "memento mori" quoted several times in the opening sequence of the Playstation 2 video game Shin Megami Tensei : Persona 3

Perhaps this should be added under modern usage?

Zer0phusi0n 21:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No. That, and many others like it, are just trivial references which do not belong in Wikipedia. --Eyrian 21:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not just the opening sequence, it is the motif of the whole game itself. 77.241.122.248 (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How do you pronounce 'memento mori'?

Thanks, DK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.98.58.254 (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Essentially as it looks. It's been a while since I worked with the IPA, so here's my phonetic attempt: Mo-men-toe more-ee —Preceding unsigned comment added by VincentValentine29 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, shortly after I wrote the above message I realized how I not only forgot to sign, but I messed up my phonetic spelling as well. The first syllable should either be "muh" or "may," depending on stress. Vincent Valentine 00:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

/mɛˈmɛnˌto ˈmɔri/ in IPA. A "standard" English transcription might be "meh-MEN-toe MOHR-ee". John Thornton Theatre (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's mementō morī so the Classical Latin pronunciation would be /me'mentoː 'moriː/. Yuhani (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Trivia / Modern Usage

Just a personal appeal to Wikipedians to please desist from posting useless and uninteresting trivia. The Modern Usage section of this entry is a great example of how the Wikipedia ideal is being tarnished beyond redemption through the inclusion of such irrelevent nonsense. It weakens Wikipedia enormously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.16.85.59 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Can we consider excising many of the bullets listed under the "Modern Uses" section? The list contains so many insignificant references. Also, I believe the section title is misleading; it may lead readers to believe that the definition of "memento mori" varies with contemporary nuance (i.e., reading "modern uses" as "modern usage." Spread (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing this whole section, I don't come to an article to see a list of 20 random games and animes that the phrase was mentioned once in. Come on, that doesn't belong here. Deimorz (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you 100%.--Wetman (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Once removed it will inevitably reappear in crappier forms, you have to leave people somewhere to put this stuff at or they think they're the first one to notice. I just pushed all the most trivial album/song/TV show title references over to the disambiguation page and removed them from the main article, hopefully people will follow that example and link to all their crappy bands there instead of on this article. --GregorySmith (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1970 movie Patton, while it does not use the phrase exactly, does mention it at the very end of the movie. Banjodog (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Olivier Skull.JPG

The image Image:Olivier Skull.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Translations

"Memento mori" may not be translated as "Remember that you are mortal," "Remember you will die," "Remember that you must die," or "Remember your death." It straight up means "Remember you will die." It is a future imperative and a present infinitive in indirect statement, I don't see any other way to interpret this. "Remember that you are mortal" is simply a rephrasing, not a translation, and "Remember that you must die" and "Remember your death" are grammatically incorrect, besides not making a whole lot of sense. Why not just list the single literal translation, which also happens to be by far the neatest and shortest? 76.190.157.141 (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, shouldn't it be "Remember you shall die" in order to note that it's imperative, rather than you 'will' which doesn't really have that connotation in the 2nd person? 76.247.185.191 (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

See translation section above where I have clarified this issue. By the by, "shall" has absolutely nothing to do with the imperative; it is merely archaic (in North America), and "will" is equally correct there. John Thornton Theatre (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Made a few change

changed the "modern literature" heading to "modern instances" and included Jason Rohrer's game Passage, as it is based on memento mori concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.224.118 (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern instances

I've removed the Modern Instances section on account of it being unrelated to the article. It's plainly stated in the lede that this article is about an artistic genre. The examples in Modern Instances, though they include the phrase "memento mori", are not related to the genre and hence belong on the disambig page. The film Memento, and the short story on which it's based, does not exist to remind one about the inevitability of death, nor are the video games works of art with this purpose. There is a perfectly good disambiguation page for these primarily unrelated uses of the term Memento mori. --JayHenry (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Meaning in a triumph

The article says "Standing behind the victorious general was his slave, who was tasked to remind the general that, though his highness was at his peak today, tomorrow he could fall or be more likely brought down.".I do not think this is a correct interpretation. During a triumph, a Roman general was dressed with the attributes of Capitoline Jupiter. The slave was there to remind him of his mortality in order to avoid the guilt of believing that one was really the god, and the punishment metted out by the god. The modern meaning could be "Even being as you are, greater than any man, you are not a god" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.157.128 (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Braque Triptych image edit

I have removed the description beneath the image of the The Braque Family Triptych, which stated that the panel "shows the skull of the patron displayed in the inner panels. The bones rest on a brick, a symbol of his former industry and achievement." I bleieve this statement represents Original Research, falsely attributed to the following source:

• Campbell, Lorne. Van der Weyden. London: Chaucer Press, 2004. page 89. ISBN 1-90444-9247

I found the source and the page. I quote:

On the reverses of the wings [of the Braque triptych]...are representations of a brick and a skull and the coat of arms of the Braque family; and a cross bearing a Latin inscription based on Eccliasticus XLI: 1-2... The triptych can be shown to have belonged to Catherine de Brabam, who married Jehan Braque of Tournai in about 1451, Jehan died in 1452. The funeral inscriptions on the reverse suggest that the triptych was commissioned or adapted as a memorial to Jehan. It was probably, but not necessarily, commissioned by Jehan Braque or his wife, and it is mentioned, without attribution, in her will of 1497.

As the reader can see, there is no mention of the skull as being that of the patron nor of the symbolism of the brick. I found several other descriptions of the Braque Triptych, which include:

• the skull functioned as a 'mirror' where every worshipper could see his own anticipated portrait Bätschmann and Griener, p.152)
• The skull, suggesting Adam, but also all mortals as his descendants, rests on a broken stone fragment which is possibly a reference to the rocky mount of Golgotha. Blum (1969) p.30)

I have removed the original caption and replaced it with a more neutral caption, in line with a reference from a verifiable source. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that since Campbell only shows a Snippet view it's pretty difficult to verify online. If the person who originally made the edit has access to the book, then that edit should stay, imo. The edit you reverted discusses the brick; the sources linked above discuss the skull. There's no reason not to have both & since Campbell is an extremely reputable source, I'd suggest putting it back. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

We are all goping to hell if the snippit view of a book has to back up the claims made by a person with the actual book before it is good enough for wiki. Fucking mary christ. Anyway the claim is vinella, and here

"With this in mind, let us turn to the Braque triptych by Rogier van der Weyden ( Fig. 4.38 ). 44 The trompe-l'oeil casing of red bricks frames the death's head as if in a niche, and the skull is supported by a broken brick. The lone brick has been interpreted as symbolizing ruin, whether of a building or a dynasty; all things of this world will, in the end, crumble to dust. So too does the skull prefigure the inevitable ruin of all individuals and of mankind. The sentence inscribed on the top and bottom of the brick border announces: "Mires vous ci orgueilleux et avers / Mon corps fu beaux ore est viande a [vers]" ("Look you who are so proud and greedy, / My once beautiful body now is meat for worms"). 45 Painted as if etched in the stones of some memento mori monument, these words reach, as it were, from beyond the sepulcher. In its moral content as well as in its ingenious graphic expression of the theme, this complex design is at once a mirror and map of mortality. The same sense of compound artifice is explicitly discussed in Moore's verbal treatment of the theme, in terms that are at once admonitory, commemorative, and quite consciously designed to project the reader's consciousness into the "future anterior."

ref Baudrillard, "Four Plotting the Passage of Death," The Persistence of Memory and Melancholy in Early Modern England. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1995. 178. Ceoil 18:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

On Campbell: If you have an Amazon.com account, you can view the whole page. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It's possible to see the page but it's a big blurry mass and not possible to read. What's clear is that the snippet view is a fraction of the page. All of which is beyond the point: the point is that a source does not have to be available on-line. Many many editors get sources from libraries or buy them. Offline sources in fact are preferable to online sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

True. I use many off-line sources. I'm sorry if your PC isn't capable of rendering the image with sufficient resolution, but I could read it fine. That's how I copied the above text. It's a straight quote, not a paraphrase. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Note, all this is now moot, myself and Boneyard90 are talking off the same page since and there is no hard feeling. Ceoil 20:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

True enough. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologeticus

The article states:

It is further possible that the servant may have instead advised, "Respice post te! Hominem te esse memento! Memento mori!": "Look behind you! Remember that you are but a man! Remember that you'll die!", as noted by Tertullian in his Apologeticus.

But it's not clear to me what this is trying to say - the quote used in the versions of the Apologeticus I have found ([2], [3]) says only "Respice post te! Hominem te memento!", or "Look behind thee; remember thou art but a man.", with no mention of "Memento mori". Is there any source for the extended quote? --David Edgar (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

None. These are someone's speculations. I will even venture a proposition, that it is not possible at all for either Tertullian or (moreover) a Roman general to even say/hear such sentence as "memento mori", because this one is impossible in Classical Latin. I will now try to prove this point:

First, "memento" is the 2nd person imperative of "memini" (a verb, meaning "to remember", or "to not forget"). It is needless to say that this is a future imperative, because "memini" has no other imperative forms.

Second, "mori" is the present infinitive of "mori" (= "to die"). The form is passive, but the meaning is active, because the verb is verbum deponens (passive forms + active meaning).

Third, syntactically, the verb "mori" may be interpreted here either as an acc. gerundii, or as an inf. belonging to the accusativus cum infinitivo. The first one produces absurd, just compare: "memento redire" (= do not forget to return), "memento manere" (= do not forget to stay), so "memento mori" = do not forget to die? But, what if you forget? Whether you remember it or forget it, you die anyway eventually. So this interpretation is devoid of sense.

On the other hand, the acc. c. inf. with an inf. of active meaning _requires_ an acc. ("memento te mori", "memento nos mori", "memento omnes mori" etc.), so in this interpretation the phrase is simply ungrammatical, even if we condone the doubtful usage of the present infinitive where a future infinitive is expected ("memento te/nos/omnes/homines esse morituros" = remember that you/we/all/men will die).

As I said, in Classical Latin this sentence is problematic. But not in the early medieval Latin. In the early medieval Latin the verb "to die" is not a deponens, i.e. "I die" is not "morior" but "morio". What follows, "moritur" does not mean "he/she dies", but it is an impersonal form like "dicitur" (it is being said, one says), "amatur" ("it is being loved", there is love here/now, one loves), "manetur" ("it is being stayed", one stays), "fletur" ("it is being cried", there is a cry here/now, one cries), "vivitur" ("it is being lived", there is life here/now, one lives) - and so "moritur" (derived from "morio") means "it is being died", i.e. there is death, or one dies.

To sum up: "memento mori" means "do not forget that one dies" (and I am hardly bothered by the fact that the Oxford English Dictionary says otherwise - as the OED is not an authority on Latin, at least not for me). It is an acc. c. inf. without an acc. because the expression is impersonal (memento + moritur = memento mori, as in memento + fletur = memento fleri). The sentence is medieval both in spirit and form, therefore it is not possible (as the article claimed) that it was used during the pompa triumphalis. -78.8.93.177 (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Psychiatric/psychological critiques

on this strong focus on death in much of Western culture? Be illuminating. 74.60.161.158 (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The Haunted Mansion-themed merchandise shop

Would it be appropriate to note the The Haunted Mansion-themed merchandise store at the Walt Disney World Resort as a use of the phrase in popular culture? See the Disney blog. Trilotat (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Broken string(s)?

Aren't broken lute (musical instrument) strings in paintings also a memento mori? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Pop Culture References?

I am new to this, so please excuse me for being a newbie. Rather than making a feeble attempt at editing the article I wanted to know if maybe a pop culture reference section could be added. Memento Mori is also used in the popular video game Dead by Daylight and I happened upon this page when looking up something about that game. I did not realize that this concept appeared in so many different contexts. A brief explanation of the Dead by Daylight Moment Moris can be found on the game's official wiki.

108.50.213.81 (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Arcadio

References

Addition of Christianity to lead

Think it fine to have Christianity in lead, if others really think it's better. It just does not go with the introductory part of that sentence, which says "The concept has its roots in the philosophers of" ..., though. I was under the impression this sentence is discussing the origins of the concept. Christianity, for sure, has had a very important role in its development, but I don't think even the most enthusiastic Doctor of the Church would describe it as it the "root" of the concept. Another form of words might be better if others are keen to include Christianity in lead. I would think at least a mention of Judaism needs to be included, in that case, also: If we are "summarising" what the article says - and that would be an important phase that is skipped over, as well as the 600+ yrs mentioned in my ES, in reply to Johnbod's question: what is exactly is there in between 'classical antiquity' and 'Christianity' that is skipped over?

I would like to note that the edit that put Christianity into lead occurred 19 Sep (as "Christianaty") (and no ES given, which is what attracted my attention), so it's not like I introduced a radical departure, with my reversion. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC) 03:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Just answering Your question here @Johnbod. Hope that's okay - I think this is not quite the right way to do this, so I will ask for forgiveness in advance. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

[I'm intrigued. What are your dates for that? Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)]

I just went by a really simple rule of thumb: Classical antiquity is considered to be btwn begin 600-880 years before Christ. Christianity began, well, around six centuries after the Classical period ended began. [Edited to add: My own dumb misunderstanding. No wonder you were intrigued my special "time redistributor"(patent pending).] My greater quibble - as mentioned in ES - is that the particular sentence in the lead is, in my view, meant to convey a sense of the concept's ultimate origin. Development, and Christianity's role in it, is discussed further on.

If it's important to have it in the lead, I just ask that it is worded more clearly and precisely. Christianity is probably the most important cultural phenomenon that developed and used this concept, but to say "Its roots are philosophers of CA and Chr" is imprecise, and therefore a bit misleading. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC) ALtered/ addition AukusRuckus (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

No problem! We say "Classical antiquity (also the classical era, classical period or classical age) is the period of cultural history between the 8th century BC and the 6th century AD centred on the Mediterranean Sea...". There is a considerable overlap between that and the period of Christianity - Late antiquity being one name for the overlap period leading to the Middle Ages. I don't think precision is needed in the lead (or even possible frankly). On the whole the Christian influence was more significant, as both larger & more recent, I'd say. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, for drawing a veil over my blunder, JohnBod. I am going to try to formulate alternative phrasing, though. I will post it here to see what you think, not put it into the article. I just do not believe it is correct that "root" is used in conjunction with Christianity in this way. It does not convey an accurate impression, nor was it even in the lead until ~3 weeks ago. I understand, as I said above, that Christianity is the most important "user" - if I can put it that way - and developer of the whole momento mori idea, but that's not what this sentence is saying. Apologies if it seems like I'm nit-picking. AukusRuckus (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

False/uncited information about Tertullian's Apologeticus

Prefacing this by saying I've never made a post here before and I don't edit Wikipedia pages. I just noticed this and it bothered me greatly.

In the early Christianity section of the article it says: The 2nd-century Christian writer Tertullian claimed in his Apologeticus, that during a triumphal procession, a victorious general had someone standing behind him, holding a crown over his head and whispering: "Respice post te. Hominem te esse memento. Memento mori." ("Look after yourself. Remember you're a man. Remember you will die.").

This quote is incorrect and has no proper citation. I have been unable to find any copy of Apologeticus which contains this extended quote; the actual quote in Chapter XXXIII, lines 6-7, is "Respice post te! Hominem te memento!", which has been translated as "Look behind thee; remember thou art a man." (T. R. Glover's translation^[1]), "Look behind thee; remember thou art but a man." (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III^[2]), "Look behind you! Remember you are a man!" (Sister Emily Joseph Daly's translation^[3]), etc. The context is also not just "a victorious general" but specifically about the Roman emperor, who at the time was Lucius Septimius Severus, and is referred to in this chapter simply as Caesar or Emperor by Tertullian.

The cited source in the sentence following the one containing the incorrect quote (Mary Beard's The Roman Triumph) features the quote without the addition of "memento mori", so this extended (and incorrectly worded) quote appears to be completely made up. Contextually, this excerpt from Tertullian also makes no sense; Tertullian is not discussing the mortality of man in this uncorroborated description of a Roman triumph. He is specifically saying that the emperor is subordinate to God rather than equal to Him or other gods. His quote in context also says absolutely nothing about someone physically being in the chariot and holding a crown over the emperor's head; this is a popular image that Mary Beard notes in The Roman Triumph came about by the conflation of several different written sources from many different writers and times which seem to corroborate (though not reliably or definitively) with Tertullian's writing.

Basically, Tertullian didn't say all that and this bit is entirely false and needs correction, if not removal. 137.48.255.237 (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. Has this resolved the issue? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)