Disputatio:Lugdunum (castra Rhenana)

Nomen

This place was "Lugdunum" all right, but not "Lugdunum Batavorum". That name is a modern invention, and according to the English page it's a mistake, because the territory of the Batavi did not cover this locality.

"Lugdunum Batavorum" as a name for Leiden also started out as a mistake, but has been used by everyone for centuries, so there's no hope of changing it!

I suggest moving to "Lugdunum (castra Rhenana)". There are several possibilities, but I didn't propose "... (Germania inferior)" because, since this place is not in Germany, that might be confusing too. Just "(castra)" might be OK, but I wonder if one of the other Lugduna also hosted a Roman camp. [Yes, sure enough, the term "castra Lugdunensia" is used in the context of the more famous Lugdunum (here on p. 82 apud Google Books).] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:22, 2 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

I made an interwiki link, but Dutch and French wikis have two articles on this subject, I'm not really sure why: see nl:Brittenburg and nl:Lugdunum Batavorum.

... or, now that I notice the link in our text, maybe Dutch wiki even has three articles about the place, see nl:Borch te Bretten. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:36, 2 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK with "Lugdunum (castra Rhenana)", but then we should still mention "Lugdunum Batavorum" in the text, because error or not, it's widespread. Sorry that I had forgotten the interwiki link, but I think the correct one is to "Lugdunum Batavorum", because "Brittenburg" is considered to be the name of the medieval castle (at least according to the Dutch articles, I haven't checked French or Catalan). Sigur (disputatio) 15:23, 2 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

Concerning nl:Borch te Bretten, that's the name in one source (a medieval poem). I doubt that it was worth a separate article, but they apparently did that because they weren't 100% certain that it was the same place (I'm no expert, but what's the odds of having two different castles in a place like Katwijk with names so similar and no source actually mentioning both at the same time?). Anyhow, while the article is there, I thought it was good to link to it, too. Sigur (disputatio) 16:08, 2 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right about which Wikidata item to link to. Go ahead. Of course, we can link to the others in text, as you already did.

I think we should give "Lugdunum Batavorum" either in a paragraph about the name, or in a footnote -- with all necessary references of course. If I'm right that reliable academic sources don't use it, we have to give preference to those and not to popular inventions. Putting it as a lemma in the first sentence implies that it's an acceptable name, and it isn't. The fact that four wikipedias use "Lugdunum Batavorum" shouldn't sway us at all, because (a) they are not reliable sources (b) when they want an authority on Latin, they need to be able to start with us! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:20, 2 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

I've given the information from the Dutch Wikipedia on Ptolemaeus using the name "Lugdunum Batavorum", but not having found a searchable edition of the "Geographia", I haven't been able to check myself. If someone finds a way to check it there, that would of course be great (and we could give the reference for a specific edition and the page number). Sigur (disputatio) 18:23, 2 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your work on this and for moving. If Ptolemy really does say that, I'll have to eat my words! I'll check tomorrow. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:07, 2 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

Well, here's the latest news. I only ever found one Greek edition of Ptolemy freely available online (there may well be more -- I just didn't find them!) One's enough. This is the page: top left, lines 3 and 4. Ptolemy (a) does say that this place belonged to the Batavi; (b) does not call it "Lugdunum Batavorum". But a reader looking just at this bit of text might well argue that he called it "Βαταουῶν Λουγόδεινον" which would come across in Latin as "Batavorum Lugodinum". I say that because he heads each section of the listing of this bit of coastline with the name of a tribe, and if you don't look around a bit you might argue that the tribe name is meant to be joined to the place-name. I think somebody somewhere did argue that, which would explain the strange assertion on the English wiki page (until I deleted it yesterday) that the place's Latin name was Batavorum Lugdunum. Now then. Setting Ptolemy aside, there is actually a Latin textual source for the name of this place as well, the Itinerarium Antonini, which gives it as "Lugdunum caput Germaniarum". It was the opposite of the "capital of the Germanies", and the It. Ant. is not given to jokes, so "caput" is meant in a different sense, the place in the far northwest where the road through the Roman German provinces began.

I must now say that although Ptolemy doesn't use it (he wrote Greek anyway), the name "Lugdunum Batavorum" is used in Latin by earlier scholars working on this passage of Ptolemy. And they really thought it was Leiden -- even up till the early 20th century. This (as we know) explains the modern Latin usage of "L. B." for Leiden, and explains the persistence of the name "L. B." for this place too. After all, Ptolemy did say it belonged to the Batavi, and, let's face it (until some inscription proves it belonged to the Caninefates) he could even be right!

This is easy to explain in the text of an article, but what do we do for a pagename? I'm not sure, frankly. Our present pagename is not so bad, and is at least clear and true; "Lugdunum Batavorum" is probably not the ancient name and certainly has no ancient source (but is more respectable in modern Latin scholarship than I thought); the only real ancient Latin descriptor, so far as I know, is "Lugdunum (caput Germaniarum)"! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:02, 3 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. Well, I think the page name is good enough as it is now. You definitely don't want "Lugdunum (caput Germaniarum)" if you don't want to send people looking for it in Berlin! Maybe we should find a formula saying that Ptolemy described it as the Lugdunum of the Batavi with "Batavorum" after "Lugdunum" in Latin. But I'm not sure enough of my Latin to do it. What bugs me a bit more is the change I made yesterday in Lugdunum Batavorum. I didn't write anything actually wrong, but I hid the fact that the name "Lugdunum Batavorum" had already been used for the castra before being applied to the city. I'm not sure, how to treat that now. Sigur (disputatio) 18:30, 3 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

If I have it right, it was used for the castra (by early modern scholars) at a time when they thought the castra and the town were the same place. Not sure if that helps. But, looking at what you have written there, I don't think any urgent change is needed. It might make more sense for one of us to explain about the name more fully on this page, and then to transfer any necessary details or footnotes over there. Lugdunum-in-Batavia has waited a long time for a perfect treatment in Vicipaedia, and can wait a little longer. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:38, 3 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

A propos

I seem to have spent the whole week trying to remove names of ancient tribes added by modern writers to Latin place-names. See (if anyone wants to) Disputatio:Castrum Mediolanense, en:Talk:Magnae Carvetiorum and (on the list for next week) en:Talk:Magnae Dobunnorum ... I have heard it said that I'm a pedant. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:55, 2 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

Every longtime contributor here feels your pain. :) In a related universe of terms, have you noticed Vascones and Vascones (hodierni) yet? The problem is that the 10,000-word list at Meta requires a link to en:Basques, but that subject must be distinguished from en:Vascones. The "hodierni" may be only a temporary workaround. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:24, 2 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the issue crossed my mind when I noticed your new page, but I didn't really look closely. Very interesting. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:38, 2 Iunii 2019 (UTC)