Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:29, 2 December 2008

An entry from Capitoline Wolf appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 29 April, 2006.

Dimensions?

Online documentation for this statuary is sorely lacking. I tried for two hours to find the dimensions of it, and could not. I know the one in Georgia is supposedly an full-size replica, and according to it, it weighs 1500 lbs. Looking at it in context in front of the City Hall steps, it appears to measure about 2 ft x 3 ft. Any help? Iamvered 03:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Googling "Lupa Capitolina cm" found the measurement in centimeters, now added to the article. --Wetman 12:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity

"When the twins' grandfather Numitor was overthrown by his brother Amulius, he ordered them to be cast into the River Tiber." Who did - Numitor or Amulius? PiCo

I've re-edited, so that no one could be confused.--Wetman 19:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The added twins

That the twins were added in the Renaissance is a commonplace of popular travel guides, which, with ninety seconds' worth of googling, might have been confirmed for even the least informed. I have added the NY Times travel guide to the articles "references" (!) but the online Frommer Guide has this: "...you'll find Lupa Capitolina (Capitoline Wolf), a rare Etruscan bronze that could date from the 5th century B.C. (Romulus and Remus, the legendary twins who were suckled by the wolf, were added at a later date.)" The attribution to Pollaiuolo (noted as "possible") in my edit, is also a commonplace, though not quite so universal: "The figures of the twins, Romulus and Remus, being suckled by the Wolf (lupus), were added by Antonio Pollaiuolo in the 15th Century." Now that it's been pointed out, I'm sure that a cursory inspection of the wolf and the twins will bear out their separate origins, even from a photograph. --Wetman 19:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Expand"

In which direction is expansion being requested? I have removed the tag from the head of the article itself, as unnecessarily disfiguring. Any concrete requests for expansion? --Wetman 12:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The history in this article seems contradictory

On the one hand, the article states, "after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire the Capitoline Wolf was housed until 1471 in San Teodoro..."

On the other hand, the article also states, "The bronze wolf was said to have been unearthed under the northwest spur of Palatine Hill, and was noted at the Lateran Palace from the beginning of the 9th century."

There are two parallel histories presented here. In the first, it seems the wolf was never lost in late antiquity, and remained in the Church of St. Theodore until it was moved to the Capitoline museum in 1471.

In the second, the wolf WAS lost, and only unearthed on the Palatine in the ninth century, after which it was on display at the Lateran palace law court.

Any way to explain the contradiction, or to smooth it out?

Simonesj 11:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

R. Lanciani, from the ext. links: "As regards the She-Wolf, the positive evidence of its being kept at the Lateran dates from the beginning of the ninth century. Benedict, a monk from Mount Soracte, who wrote a Chronicon in the tenth century, speaks of the institution of a supreme court of justice "in the Lateran p286palace, in the place called graffiti, viz., the mother of the Romans." Trials and executions "at the Wolf" are recorded from time to time until 1450. Paolo di Liello speaks of two highwaymen, whose hands, cut by the executioner, were hung at the Wolf. It was removed to the Conservatori palace on the Capitol in 1473, together with the colossal Head and the Camillus." I note the telltale formula "was said to have been... and I try to think what a ninth-century archaeological report would look like... --Wetman 17:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Text about San Teodoro was added by User:Neddyseagoon, 11 January 2007; text about "unearthed on the Palatine Hill" by User:Iamvered, 29 April 2006. Check with them: I've spent enough time on this. --Wetman 17:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC) .

Fair use rationale for Image:1960.jpg

Image:1960.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1960.jpg

Image:1960.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A reference

Italian wikipedia gives the reference Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli and Mario Torelli, L'arte dell'antichità classica, Etruria-Roma, Utet, Torino 1976. Can anyone find what is said here of the Lupa Capitolina? --Wetman (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This entire article is no longer valid

This article has been made obsolete. The University of Salerno has recently concluded, after a battery of tests, that the wolf was cast in the 13th century. The additions of Romulus and Remus were cast in the 15 century --Jeremiahta (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting -- the article maybe should include some of this. It's been kept a secret for over 10 years!.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article to bring it up to date. One of the peculiarities of the current situation is that 200 years' of scholarship is now going to have to be thrown out - all those learned books and articles telling us about how the wolf is a prime example of Etruscan art... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well done ChrisO. You're right, lots of work there. Doug Weller (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Linking the Times article. --Ghirla 10:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Confusing...

So if the wolf is a 13th century AD piece, then what about the references by Cicero etc.? They must have been looking at something - would the current wolf be a copy or reimagining of a now-lost original? Vultur (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but nobody really knows. Almost everyone had assumed that the current statue was the same one seen by Cicero etc. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, as stated in the article, the 13th century datation is far from sure. I would wait the conclusion of the story... Alex2006 (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)