Is a German-Latin dictionary from 1879 a sufficiently reliable source for the statement "the right [hand] (Lat. dextera, dextra; Gr. δεξιά) was commonly used in antiquity as a symbol of pledging trust, friendship or solemn allegiance to a master"? I don't think it is, so I'd like other peoples opinion. I happen to be skeptical that "the right hand" was a common symbol of allegiance in antiquity.
The wording is a bit unfortunate, because a "symbol" is something different. I used the word because the dextera or dextra is not only the word for "the right", "the right hand" and "the right side", but due to its use in pledges, salutationes and acclamations the word itself received the meaning "pledge" (cf. i.a. Tac. Ann. 2.58). So I think the word "symbol" should be left out. I'll think of something later. —85.178.68.139 (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OLD uses "token of agreement" instead of symbol. But it's a similar meaning I guess. Others are "Symbol" in the German dictionary, a "frequent sign" of "fidelity" and "greeting", a "symbol" of courage etc (Lewis-Short). So the "symbol" thing is there, and it's "frequent". But maybe we can find a better choice of words. —85.178.68.139 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just confirmed these meanings (especially "pledge") in the Oxford Latin Dictionary. The question is, should we simply refer to the dictionaries in the footnote (we have four now)? Or should we refer to the primary sources mentioned in those dictionaries? What's WP's policy on referring to dictionaries? —85.178.68.139 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CORRECTION: sources below do indeed establish the right hand as a symbol. Furthermore: Octavian's gesture was common and not invented for the occasion. —85.178.68.139 (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Solemn oath" or something very similar (definitely "solemn", feierlich) was in there. And the allegiance to a master was mentioned in the negative: to destroy allegiance to masters (some source in Tacitus, I think). —85.178.101.70 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll search around for a source "on allegiance to masters" and put the text back in if I can find it. For a roman citizen wearing a toga, only the right hand was free, since the left hand had to hold on to the left tail. And so it was with the right hand that he undertook commitments, or pledged his faith. I'm not sre slaves pledged allegiance to their masters with their right hand.--Work permit (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A sworn oath, the right hands joined in a divine pledge, even "consecrated" by the pledge; cf. Liv. 23.9.1: paucae horae sunt intra quas iurantes per quidquid deorum est, dextrae dextras iungentes, fidem obstrinximus – ut sacratas fide manus, digressi a conloquio, extemplo in eum armaremus? —85.178.68.139 (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to Livius, the right hand as a symbol of a pledge of fidelity/loyalty/trust; Ov. Heroid. 2.31: iura fidesque ubi nunc, commissaque dextera dextrae, quique erat in falso plurimus ore deus? ("Where now is the oath of loyalty, the right hand united with the right hand, and how were so many oaths in one deceiving mouth?") N.B.: The whole letter deals a lot with oaths and swearing. —85.178.68.139 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taken together, these sources seem to indicate the holding out of the right hand to indicate the pledging of an oath. The common reference is to the right hand, as opposed to a gesture with a stiff right arm. In all the images of the Roman oath-taking scenes I have provided below, the right hand is extended forward, but never is the right arm outstretched in the stiff-arm gesture found in the "Oath of the Horatii" or any other modern interpretation of the "Roman salute".
Made recent changes to reflect precisely what the references state. The Roman salute is a gesture in which the arm is held out forward straight, with palm down, and fingers stretched out touching. Sometimes the arm is raised upward at an angle, sometimes it is held out parallel to the ground. However no Roman work of art displays this salute nor does any Roman text describe it as it is represented.--Work permit (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the source by Cicero on Octavian is pretty close to the modern salute, I suggest to change the second part of the sentence to: "[…] nor does any Roman text describe it exactly as it has been represented in modern times." —85.178.68.139 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pope Benedict XVI in St. Peter's Square Perhaps I'm misreading the source. All I see is "he stretched out his right in the direction of his statue". The source doesn't describe "the hand held out forward straight, palm down, fingers stretched out and touching". It's not that the text doesn't describe it exactly. The text barely describes it at all. All its saying is octavian stretched out his hand. There are plenty of such gestures in the literature. No one would confuse it as a description of the "roman salute". Augustus of Prima Porta is an excellent example of an outstretched arm which isn't a roman salute.--Work permit (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Exactly. Prima Porta is not the Roman salute. (b) You write: "No one would confuse it as a description of the "roman salute"." Based on what grounds? Can you give scientific proof that Augustus did not apply the Roman salute? —85.178.101.70 (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean Octavian, not Augustus. A quote from the cited, referenced source (Winkler, The Roman Salute, p2) "Not a single Roman work of art-sculpture, coinage, or painting-displays a salute of the kind that is found in Fascism, Nazism, and related ideologies. It is also unknown to Roman literature and is never mentioned by ancient historians of either republican or imperial Rome". The source you cite is fully consistent with the statement from Winkler and the sentence in this article. The description given by Octavian is not a description of the salute as it is represented. Winkler isn't saying "the salute was never used in ancient Rome." He's saying "there is no description of it" in the literature.--Work permit (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reference that states Cicero's description of Octavians oath is the only Roman source that describes a salute in connection with an oath? I removed the statement, since it seemed quite strong. If I am wrong, lets discuss.--Work permit (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. We don't know if Cicero's description is the only Roman source. It's the only one that I could find. ;) But the "strong statement" argument would also apply vice versa. At the moment the article is pretty strict in stating that "it is also unknown to Roman literature and is never mentioned by ancient historians of Rome". This is an inadmissable statement, because Octavian's oath/salute that Cicero described could well have been the exact kind of salute as the modern-day saluto romano. We simply don't know, because Cicero doesn't describe the position of the hand and the angle of the stretched arm. On the other hand, Octavian's salute has the same function as the modern salute, namely an oath, a pledge, which is very important, because it is distinct from other gestures like the acclamation. This all means that we are not allowed to say that the saluto romano is unknown in ancient Roman literature. Such a definite statement would be wrong. We can only say that it is unknown if the modern salute was known to the ancient world, because the source(s) are not explicit enough. —85.178.68.139 (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
raising the right while taking an oath is, as you say, common. Certainly in the modern world. But we don't mistake them with the roman salute.--Work permit (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are only variants of the same function. Many salutes are connected to an oath: in one culture the arm is stretched, in another the hand is raised, in yet another it's laid on the Bible/Constitution etc. But it's all the same, namely an oath. The gesture itself is different, but the fact that it looks different doesn't mean that the variants are unrelated. —85.178.101.70 (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's covered by the statement "The right hand (Lat. dextera, dextra; Gr. δεξιά) was commonly used in antiquity as a symbol of pledging trust, friendship or loyalty."--Work permit (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many images depicted on ancient Roman coins depicting soldiers taking an oath, and none of them resembles the 'Roman salute'. The extending of the right hand to take an oath in the ancient world cannot be confused in form with this salute.
Here are some images of oath-taking scenes on ancient Roman coins:
"In 2005, Italian footballer Paolo Di Canio created controversy by using the gesture on several occasions to salute S.S. Lazio fans. Di Canio has also expressed admiration for Mussolini.[54][55]" is in the article. If we can find more references/sources that descibe the gesture as a roman/nazi/fascist saluet that would be great.--Work permit (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone tell why Hezbolla/Hamas salute has not been included as User above suggested? Is a specific reason that precludes it from being added?62.30.111.227 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I restored some information on "other" fascist regimes using the roman/nazi salute. I feel that the roman salute article is a superset of the nazi salute article. The nazi salute article should be limited to details on the use of the salute in nazi germany, and perhaps issues in germany after 1945. --Work permit (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Salute should be about issues is relation to imperial Rome and about ideas that directly try to make a link to imperial Rome. I.e. Nazi Germany and Italy. I am afraid I cannot see how e.g. Brazil or Slovakia would fit into this. Mootros (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After careful consideration, I've come to the conclusion that this article should deal with "the salute gesture of raising one arm in a straight way". It possibly could be named Roman salute or the likes. Mootros (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like how you've now restructured the article. The term Roman salute is the right name for the article, as that is the name most sources use to discuss it.--Work permit (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After expanding the article and doing more research, the section on "other countries" belongs, imho, in the Roman salute article and not the Nazi salute one. The salute makes a transition from film to Italian fascism. There is no clear delineation between its adoption by the Nazis and other fascist movements. There is much to expand on in the Nazi salute article on its use in Germany alone, there is no need to broaden it to other movements. As a reminder, Fascist salute redirects to Roman salute, as it should.--Work permit (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the second paragraph from the watered down version. Important points in the article (backed up with sources), is that David introduced the gesture in art and d'Annunzio took it from from art to real life. The lede could probably use a thrid paragraph describing its adoption by variuos fascist regimes, as well as its post-war use. Per WP:Lede and the articles size, the lede could be "two or three paragraphs". I've made a first cut at such a third paragraph. --Work permit (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reservations here. The second paragraph on French art is of course needed, but it's not the right level of detail. It's supposed to lead one in, to get the reader interested, give an idea. At the moment it's bombarding one with disconnected facts (Who is David? Why is he mentioned; what is this picture all about...?) Also the term association is a rather technical term. Who is associating what? Who is talking here? Historians.. annalists? In sum, it is too much out of context and needs some serious rephrasing. Mootros (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. The lede should be able to stand by itself as an article, someone who just wants a quick synopsis. It's important to mention David and d'Annunzio in the second paragraph. As in "how was it created and how did it go from art to reality." The phrasing could use improvement.--Work permit (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking out the citation from Clark's Civilisation: According to the British art historian Kenneth Clark the salute gesture of raising one arm in a straight way, became associated with the Roman republican culture during the 18th-century in France within revolutionary and anti-monarchist movements. I don't see anything matching this statement in the reference. If someone can point to a page number, lets discuss.--Work permit (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section on ancient Roman salutes needs to mention the hand-standards carried by Legion units. By holding a raised sculpture of a right hand with straight fingers, the unit collectively gives a loyalty-salute to their Imperator. This is a notable precedent for the modern Roman salute, denoting patriotic loyalty to state authority.
I have just modified 2 external links on Roman salute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 3 external links on Roman salute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I went to the site because I was curious about what it said on this subject after a grad class in history I'm taking finished a discussion of Winkler's The Roman Salute, with which many of us found serious fault. I was surprised to find that this entire article, except for a few additions, closely follows this book to the point that I wonder about plagiarism, even with the many times it is cited. There are several serious critiques of his book that are not addressed in the article. Although his section on David's work during the French Revolution is interesting, Winkler does not show what this article states, that this is where the salute entered the modern consciousness in relation to Rome. In fact, in only one of David's paintings is this salute linked to Rome rather than France. More important, Winkler gives a different and much more plausible explanation elsewhere in his book, in that actors created dramatic gestures like this in 19th century stage and film spectacles on Rome, so that audiences improperly came to associate this gesture with Rome, even though it was also used in non-Roman contexts in film and stage. The key figure, Winkler and the article agree, was D'Annunzio, from whom the link to Mussolini and ultimately Hitler is clear. But much of the rest of the book is speculative and Winkler allows too much wiggle room for raised arm gestures with either hand with various hand and finger positioning, much of which may have nothing to do with the so-called Roman or Fascist salutes. Some of these are just natural gestures, as one of us showed by raising our hands during class discussion about Winkler in order to be called on to make a point. In any case, this article would merit revision to broaden its base beyond Winkler and provide some critique of his arguments, especially regarding the ties to David's work. Ftjrwrites (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Roman salute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
