Talk:Ausonius

List of works needed

It seems this stub is an offshoot of the wine-related entries. I would have expected to see a list of Ausonius' written works here. he is also cited (for example by Reinach) for his comments on some Gaulish language vocabulary:

Matrona nom, Gallos Belgasque intersita fines (Ausonius, Mos. 462) Divona Celtarum lingua, fons addite divis (Ausonius, Urb. xiv, 32)

I have not added this to the main article as I am unsure of the full titles of the works whose abbreviations are cited above. in fact, I came to Wikipedia looking for that information :) --Nantonos 16:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Gay

From LGBT rights in Spain:

The poet Ausonius (310-395) maintained a passionate relationship with Paulinus, bishop of Nola. It is not known if that love was physical, but their passion was reflected in the correspondency they kept. The letters from Ausonius, 43 years the senior of Paulinus, also show his sadness regarding their separation when the latter intensified his Christian life. Even San Agustín confessed to having homosexual lovers in his youth, although he would later reject that lust as sinful (Homosexuality. A history de Colin Spencer ISBN 1-85702-447-8).

I leave to you to judge whether Spencer is notable or rigorous enough to be mentioned. --84.20.17.84 11:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Ausonius taught the young Paulinus literature, the competent grasp of which ensured recognition as a member of the educated elite and preferment. He was proud of his pupil's success, and never let him forget that he was his first teacher; but their relationship was based on their shared poetic views. (Trout, p. 30). Manannan67 (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Works and other things

I have PDFs of the Loeb's editions (2 vols.) of Ausonius and will see if I can come up with a list of Works. I noticed that the editor of this page reinstalled a reference that I deem not very relevant--whatever gives rise to the California Gold Rush has no bearing on Ausonius or even on his description of a mill. Moreover, and given that this is still a brief article, it places far too much emphasis on matters barely related to the man; the paragraphs on 'Saw Mill' overwhelm the other text, and the picture of a mill thus appears as filler. Now, if the editor wants to keep the irrelevant reference, that's fine, but at the very least I wanted to make this point in writing: there is much more to Ausonius than wine and the single mention of a mill, and the article as it stands does not give a very good impression of who Ausonius was or why he matters.

Michel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.121.92 (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the picture of the mill since Ausonius's brief mention of the mill is very significant, and one reason why he is remembered in the History of technology. So, far from being irrelevant, the insert is highly relevant, and makes this article much more interesting than it was before. If you have some interesting additions on his life and works, feel free to add them. Peterlewis (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The picture, sure--but does the Gold Rush make the life of a Latin grammarian more interesting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.121.92 (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Serendipity makes any article more interesting to the increasing number of readers and the public who are becoming fascinated by the classical world. Is the article(or any other, for that matter) only to be read by Latin grammarians??? Peterlewis (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I note that the good article criteria include "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details". If I'd been reviewing this article for GA status, I would have failed it on that account. As an individual reader, I don't think a digression like this does any harm while the article is quite short, but I'd find it very annoying to have my reading of a longer article slowed down by multiple paragraphs about how something the subject happened to mention once developed centuries after his death. A sentence like "Ausonius' Mosella includes one of the few ancient references to the use of a water mill for cutting stone" would fit neatly after the sentence about viticulture, and would allow the interest reader to follow up the history of water mills by clicking through to the relevant article. EALacey (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the ref to the gold rush, but stand by the rest. Peterlewis (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted or moved See-also links

I deleted or moved several of the See-also links. Here’s why:

• The Ausones and Ausonia are not related to the poet; listing them here implies otherwise. They would seem rather to belong to a disambiguation page, or at the top of the page. If readers have come to “Ausonius” looking for the tribe or a place, they are unlikely to read the whole article before finding the link they need. And so I have moved these to the top.
• I deleted French wine, List of wine personalities, watermills, Roman aqueducts, Roman engineering, and Roman technology. These topics should be (and some are) linked within the text as they come up as a form of commentary on specific points. They don’t provide the reader with context for understanding the life, career, or works of Ausonius. (The works get exceedingly short shrift.) As a reader, I expect See-also links to be of immediate relevance to the topic I chose, and not lead me on browsing tangents.
• By this reasoning, I left the links to Château Ausone and Aemilius Magnus Arborius. The latter in particular expands one’s knowledge of the immediate subject.

I believe these deletions are consistent with the Wikipedia style and content guidelines, so I hope I haven’t act with impertinence.

I also corrected “Roman poet” to “Latin poet” at the top of the page. Ausonius wrote in Latin, and he was a citizen of the Roman empire, but for the 4th century something about “Roman poet” bothers me. I guess it strikes me as suppressing his distinctive regional identity. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the links, which add breadth to a short article, and provide context to why he is an important author (especially for Roman tecnology and engineering). Otherwise this fascinating poet would have been long forgotten. Peterlewis (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I agree with Cynwolfe's basic point which is reflected in WP:ALSO. Links (such as French wine) that can be easily inserted into the body shouldn't be included in a See Also section. However, I think it is more appropriate to add those link to the body yourself before just blindly deleting them. As Peterlewis notes, these links do provide context and it is a loss if they are just blindly deleted without first being incorporated in the article. That said, I support the revert but do think the See Also list should be trimmed down but only by working the links into the article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Important links that could be easily missed in a long body should be included in a See also section, so people can skim down and grab them. That said, Peter was wrong that those particular see alsos were helpful or germane. — LlywelynII 19:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Naaah. Ausonius was a "Roman poet", not a "neo-Gallic poet working in Latin", pending heavy-duty sourcing that Roman France's supposed regionalism and separatism somehow informed his work. — LlywelynII 18:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

IPA

First, source it: don't just give us your WP:OR thoughts. Second, it's probably going to vary from Classical to Ecclesiastical Latin and from RP to actual British to General American English: explain which you're using. Third, don't include it. It belongs at Wiktionary except in cases where the pronunciation is so unusual that bringing in IPA solves more problems than it causes. Ausonius doesn't meet that standard, unless you're trying to draw the reader's attention to the (essentially irrelevant and unhelpful) fact that its (conjectural, reconstructed) Classical pronunciation would have been something like decky-moose mag-noose ao-soon-ee-oos. — LlywelynII 18:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Name: D. Magnus Ausonius

What's going on there? He had a double praenomen because he was so great? or a double nomen because his mom was from money? or was he adopted by his maternal uncle? or what? — LlywelynII 18:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Some Details

"When his uncle was summoned to Constantinople to tutor one of the sons of emperor Constantine I, Ausonius accompanied him to the capital." - But Hugh G. Evelyn White, in his translation of Ausonius, writes: "About 320 A.D. he was transferred to the care of his maternal uncle, Aemilius Magnus Arborius, then professor at Toulouse, where the lad resided until his relative was summoned (c. 328 A.D.) to Constantinople, to become tutor to one of the sons of Constantine. Ausonius then returned to Bordeaux" Source

• • Having researched this point and found no sources that contradict White, I have altered the text to reflect White's opinion. - Eroica (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

"Gratian liked and respected his tutor, and when he himself became emperor in 375 he began bestowing on Ausonius and his family the highest civil honors. That year Ausonius was made Praetorian Prefect of Gaul, campaigned against the Alemanni and received as part of his booty a slave-girl, Bissula (to whom he addressed a poem), while his father, though nearly ninety years old, was given the rank of Prefect of Illyricum." - Bet White: "Ausonius himself was raised to the splendid post of praefectus Galliarum in 378, the office being united by special arrangement with the pre- fecture of Hesperius to enable father and son to share between them the toils and rewards of both posts." The campaign against the Alemanni (Lentienses) was certainly in 378, not 375. - Eroica (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)