Roman Mythology/Talk

Is this an original article? There are other articles out on the net which look substantially similar. sjc

I suspect it's non-original but in the public domain. Several different, unrelated websites have the same text (see http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Because+extensive+changes+in+the+religion+had+already%22 ), totally unattributed. Moreover, the style and contents of the article indicate it easily could have been written for that famous Not-To-Be-Named 1911 encyclopedia.

Does anyone else have any other insight? O ye who have uploaded this, please tell us where you got it. --LMS

OK, if we're relatively happy with its origin I will start to do some work on it over the coming weekend. sjc

---

it does sound remarkably nineteenelevenish, and it DOES need some work.

Later the same day: Having now read the first couple of paragraphs to work on it, I'm sure it's turn-of-the-last-century. The use of the word "legendary" to refer to any king before the Tarquins in characteristic of pre-1930s scholarship (archaeology having in its usual way confirmed rather than confounded the timing for the foundation of Rome and the length of the regal period). --MichaelTinkler

---

You know, what you could do, if you cared (and I hope you do!), is you could e-mail one of those people who have copied all these mythology articles onto their websites. There are quite a few of such people. One of them is bound to tell you where the articles come from. --Larry