Jump to content

Talk:Cicero: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Hawa-Ave (talk | contribs)
447 edits
mNo edit summary
Assessment: banner shell, Biography, Philosophy, Classical Greece and Rome, Latin, Classical League, Rome, Politics, Linguistics, Religion, Military history (Rater)
 
(28 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
⚫
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Cicero|1=
{{Vital article|level=3|link=Wikipedia:Vital articles|anchor=Philosophers and social scientists (19 articles)|topic=People|class=B}}
⚫
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=High|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=High|s&a-work-group=yes|military-work-group=y|military-priority=Low}}
⚫
{{On this day|date1=2008-12-07|oldid1=256480693|date2=2009-12-07|oldid2=329897775|date3=2011-12-07|oldid3=464640734|date4=2013-12-07|oldid4=584809768|date5=2014-12-07|oldid5=636859508|date6=2018-12-07|oldid6=872454180|date7=2020-12-07|oldid7=992757622}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|philosopher=yes|ancient=yes|religion=yes|ethics=yes|social-and-political=yes}}
⚫
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
⚫
{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|importance=Top}}
⚫
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=B|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=High|listas=Cicero|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=High|s&a-work-group=yes|military-work-group=y|military-priority=Low}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=B|importance=Mid|philosopher=yes|ancient=yes|religion=yes|ethics=yes|social-and-political=yes}}
{{WikiProject Latin|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|class=B|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Classical League}}
{{WikiProject Latin|class=B|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Rome|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Classical League|class=B|importance=top|Cicero=yes|Cicero-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Rome|class=B|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Linguistics|importance=Low|applied=yes}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=mid|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Linguistics|class=B|importance=Low|applied=yes|applied-importance=low}}
⚫
{{WikiProject Religion|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Military history
{{WikiProject Military history
⚫
|b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =n
|class =B
⚫
|b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =y
|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =y
|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =y
|b3 <!-- Structure --> =y
|b3 <!-- Structure --> =y
Line 23: Line 20:
|Roman =y}}
|Roman =y}}
}}
}}
⚫
{{On this day|date1=2008-12-07|oldid1=256480693|date2=2009-12-07|oldid2=329897775|date3=2011-12-07|oldid3=464640734|date4=2013-12-07|oldid4=584809768|date5=2014-12-07|oldid5=636859508|date6=2018-12-07|oldid6=872454180|date7=2020-12-07|oldid7=992757622|date8=2023-12-07|oldid8=1188780590}}{{todo}}
{{todo}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|maxarchivesize = 150K
Line 33: Line 30:
}}
}}


⚫
== He wrote more than three-quarters of extant Latin literature that is known to have existed in his lifetime ==
==Good Article Status==
In my opinion, this article is ready for a GA nomination. Is there any particular reason why it has not yet been nominated? [[User:RomanHistorian|RomanHistorian]] ([[User talk:RomanHistorian|talk]]) 23:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


⚫
This is quite absurd, whether referring to actual books existing in Cicero's time, or books of his time that have survived to our own time. Any decent Loeb collection will disprove it.[[Special:Contributions/2A02:AA1:1029:5099:61C5:D47E:EFD2:2CE0|2A02:AA1:1029:5099:61C5:D47E:EFD2:2CE0]] ([[User talk:2A02:AA1:1029:5099:61C5:D47E:EFD2:2CE0|talk]]) 20:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


== Gladiator ==
Well for one thing it shouldn't contain really bad errors. The opening comments on Arpinum are really seriously wrong. Arpinum entered the full Roman citizenhip under the lex Valeria plebsicite of 188 BC, and in consequence all its citizens then living and born later were full Roman citizens.
The fact that Romans citizens could be born and even live elsewhere than Rome is an interesting issue, likewise the various fine gradations of attitudes within the civitas regarding old and new, and place of birth and residence. Nonetheless Roman life was governed by law and custom, and one of the most fundamental distinctions of all was the legal distinction between being a Roman citizen and not. Cicero was, and had the filiation and tribe to prove it. To claim that he was on the other side of this great divide, as this article does, is such a serious misunderstanding of Roman ways and Cicero's life that it's hard to imagine how the responsible author(s) can really understand anything about him or his society at all. [[User:Appietas|Appietas]] ([[User talk:Appietas|talk]]) 07:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
::You are really polluting a lot of articles. I am going to try to find a moderator, as you are causing a true mess. Oh, and by the way, you are completely wrong about Arpinum. The original entry was right. I have pasted the entry below.


Is the character Cicero in [[Gladiator (2000 film)]] the same person? [[User:Aminabzz|Aminabzz]] ([[User talk:Aminabzz|talk]]) 15:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
>><blockquote>Cicero was born in 106 BC in Arpinum, a hill town 100 kilometres (60 miles) south of Rome. Arpinum was techincally a subordinate ally of Rome for all of Cicero's life. So, although a great master of Latin rhetoric and composition, Cicero was not "Roman" in the traditional sense, and was quite self-conscious of this for his entire life.</blockquote><<


:No. [[User:Ifly6|Ifly6]] ([[User talk:Ifly6|talk]]) 09:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Nothing in that statement is incorrect, factually or otherwise.


== Serious work on content and structure needed ==
According to Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (which you can see here:[http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Colonia.html])


I went through and did some work on the referencing and some rewrites for early life. But that has (fatally) undermined for me any confidence in the article's contents. There were incorrect assertions littered through the first sections: someone added something citing Plut ''Caes'' not realising that is the wrong person and a section placed ''pro Caecina'' a decade too early to make it look like part of some kind of anti-Sullan legal crusade. Nor do the regular references to Everitt (who evidently from the first chapter does not understand the republican constitution) and Parenti (an ignoramus) build any confidence.
>><blockquote>Arpinum is called both a municipium and a praefectura (Cic. ad Fam. XIII.11; Festus, s.v. Praefectura); and Cicero, a native of this place, obtained the highest honours that Rome could confer.</blockquote><<


Something also really ought to be done on the structure of the article. The subpages [[Political career of Cicero]] and [[Personal life of Cicero]] probably should be folded in or deleted; even if not nobody will read or maintain them. The current structure also fails to present things at all chronologically; intermixed in the first section with Cicero's biography is a long digression on his philosophical legacy. Serious work, probably a rewrite, is needed. [[User:Ifly6|Ifly6]] ([[User talk:Ifly6|talk]]) 09:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
A [[municipium]] under the republic was a city with citizenship rights, but inferior citizenship rights to a [[Colonia (Roman)|colonia]]. The municipium was more independent, and could govern itself. Thus, it was not truly "Roman" (but then nothing outside of Rome truly was until the time of the Empire). Even the entry on [[Arpinum]] lists it as gaining the status of [[municipium]], although seems to suggest that, at the time of Cicero's birth, its status was even less than a full [[municipium]].


== Reliance on Plutarch ==
Something else you don't seem to understand is that, under the republic "Roman" was not the same as "Roman Citizen". Only "true" Romans were from the city of Rome. Everyone else, citizen or not, was not a "Roman" in this sense, and thus not regarded as equals by the political (or even plebeian) class in Rome. Until the time of Augustus, the Roman Republic consisted of the city of Rome, with a network of what were technically "allies", but certainly not "Romans". The transformation of Rome from a city-state with a network of dependencies into the capital of a world empire began under Caesar, but was not completed until Augustus. It wasn't even until the time of [[Diocletian]] (around 300 AD) that Italy itself was even reduced to the status of an ordinary province. [[User:RomanHistorian|RomanHistorian]] ([[User talk:RomanHistorian|talk]]) 08:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
::::That's utter rubbish. Many Roman families moved to other cities - such as Capua - and were very much STILL Romans as they had children who were Roman citizens the same as they were. Your viewpoint here is borderline lunatic-fringe. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:50.111.63.192|50.111.63.192]] ([[User talk:50.111.63.192#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/50.111.63.192|contribs]]) 04:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)</span>


This page relies heavily on Plutarch; many classicists consider Plutarch unreliable, even though he's one of our only sources. The ancient understanding of history was different from our modern one, and he wasn't exactly trying to stick to Wikipedian standards of objectivity. I agree with Ifly6 that this page needs basically a deep clean; honestly the classics stuff on wikipedia is outdated in general. [[User:Periferal|Periferal]] ([[User talk:Periferal|talk]]) 14:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
== Cicero's last words ==


:{{ping|Remsense}} Hi, I wanted to ping you to explain a revert I just executed. You left a message reverting Periferal saying that the edits there were {{green|unnecessary WP:puffery and editorializing}}. I disagree.
Cicero's last words are often reported on the internet as "There is nothing proper about what you are doing, soldier, but do try to kill me properly". [https://twitter.com/RichardAFlower/status/1202877849264435200 This twitter user] considers them a much later invention. If i look at the actual source given for Cicero's last words on this article, i am brought to [http://www.attalus.org/translate/suasoria6.html Seneca, Suasoria 6], which has the following to say:
:The vast majority of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cicero&diff=prev&oldid=1217046200 the commit] reduces puffery. Eg {{!tq|important influence... wrote more than three-quarters of extant Latin literature... it has been said that subsequent prose was either a reaction against or a return to his style}} {{right arrow}} {{tq|greatly influenced... substantial percentage of his work has survived... admired by both ancient and modern authors alike}}; {{!tq|introduced into Latin}} {{right arrow}} {{tq|adapted}}. Re {{green|ditorialising}}: {{!tq|Romans often chose down-to-earth personal surnames}} {{right arrow}} omitted. This is also the correct outcome for that passage; cognomina were not always chosen, not always common (Mark Antony; Gaius Marius), and we shouldn't paint them in this character, which is regardless not supported by Plut. ''Cic.'' 1.3–5.
"After he saw the armed men Cicero slightly drew aside the curtain of the litter and said: 'I go no further: approach, veteran soldier, and, if you can at least do so much properly, sever this neck'. Then as the soldier trembled and hesitated, he added : 'What would you have done had you come to me as your first victim?'". The following paragraph says "Cremutius Cordus also says that Cicero debated whether he should go to Brutus or Cassius or Sextus Pompeius, but every course displeased him except death." - i can't easily tell if this "debate" took place before or after Cicero spoke those words, but regardless i think "I go no further: approach, veteran soldier, and, if you can at least do so much properly, sever this neck. [...] What would you have done had you come to me as your first victim?" would be a better reflection of the source given, so i'll change it. [[User:Koopinator|Koopinator]] ([[User talk:Koopinator|talk]]) 10:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
:Periferal's edits also fix some rather old problems like reliance on an outdated and fictitious "optimates faction", which your revert returned. The fictitious "populares" and "optimates" are a cancer here on Wikipedia driven largely by editors' anachronisms and ignorance of Roman republican politics. We should [[wikt:interficio|make between]] it. [[User:Ifly6|Ifly6]] ([[User talk:Ifly6|talk]]) 15:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::Cheers and thanks for the explanation, I agree. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 16:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
== A confusingly worded sentence ==

"He wrote more than three-quarters of surviving Latin literature from the period of his adult life"

I find this sentence quite misleading. It's easy (and probably more natural) to misread it as "During his adult life, Cicero wrote more than three-quarters of surviving Latin literature" -- a much stronger claim that's not supported by the reference. In fact, it was only by looking at the reference that I understood what the quoted sentence meant. I'd like to suggest that someone rewrite it, or maybe even delete it (how relevant is this statistic anyway?) but since I'm new to Wikipedia I won't do it myself :)
[[Special:Contributions/216.71.110.222|216.71.110.222]] ([[User talk:216.71.110.222|talk]]) 14:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

== Successor in Cilicia ==

''Then Cicero left the province on 30 July to his brother Quintus, who had accompanied him on his governorship as his legate''. Is this accurate? When I read Cicero's letters of 50 BC [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0022%3Ayear%3D50&force=y#note-link1], in particular those to Atticus, he did indeed first think of handing the province to his brother but in the end, in particular after the looming threat of another Parthian invasion seemed to have passed, he made up his mind and left the province in the hand of his quaestor Caelius. Though Caelius was rather young and inexperienced it seemed to be more prudent to Cicero to chose him as successor rather than to risk being reproached to install his own brother and thus prolonging his own influence on the province. --[[User:Proofreader|Proofreader]] ([[User talk:Proofreader|talk]]) 14:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

⚫
== He wrote more than three-quarters of extant Latin literature that is known to have existed in his lifetime ==

⚫
This is quite absurd, whether referring to actual books existing in Cicero's time, or books of his time that have survived to our own time. Any decent Loeb collection will disprove it.[[Special:Contributions/2A02:AA1:1029:5099:61C5:D47E:EFD2:2CE0|2A02:AA1:1029:5099:61C5:D47E:EFD2:2CE0]] ([[User talk:2A02:AA1:1029:5099:61C5:D47E:EFD2:2CE0|talk]]) 20:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


: Well, an IP reverted my revert of your revert of an edit which I think is reasonable, on the grounds {{!tq|there's too much refactoring of sourced material}} which I definitely think is, if it is to be at all relevant, an exaggeration of [[WP:SUMMARY]]'s requirements. If someone else wants to revert that IP revert go ahead. [[User:Ifly6|Ifly6]] ([[User talk:Ifly6|talk]]) 20:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
== 106 BC ??? different than other dates given ==
::I didn't expect to cause an edit war; I really need to just make a new version of the article and hope it's accepted. Agreed on the ''optimates''/''populares'' thing. They're useful categories, but Cicero wasn't going around calling himself an optimates as a political party! [[User:Periferal|Periferal]] ([[User talk:Periferal|talk]]) 21:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
:::If you're interested in doing something like that – rewrites can be challenging – I'd be happy to offer feedback. The Oxford Classical Dictionary Online now has some seriously excellent articles on Cicero:
:::* [https://oxfordre.com/classics/viewbydoi/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.013.6597 Tullius Cicero, Marcus, life]
:::* [https://oxfordre.com/classics/viewbydoi/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.013.7133 Tullius Cicero, Marcus, speeches]
:::* [https://oxfordre.com/classics/viewbydoi/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.013.7134 Tullius Cicero, Marcus, works on rhetoric]
:::* [https://oxfordre.com/classics/viewbydoi/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.013.7135 Tullius Cicero, Marcus, poems]
:::* [https://oxfordre.com/classics/viewbydoi/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.013.7137 Tullius Cicero, Marcus, philosophica]
:::We have access to all the OCD Online articles via [[WP:LIBRARY]], which is ''very'' useful.
:::The standard biographies in English, if I recall correctly, are Tempest ''Cicero'' (2011), Habicht ''Cicero'' (1990), Rawson ''Cicero'' (1975), and Stockton ''Cicero'' (1971) (both getting rather old). The somewhat recent ''Cambridge Companion to Cicero'' (2013) is also useful, as is the somewhat older Brill volume by analogous title. [[User:Ifly6|Ifly6]] ([[User talk:Ifly6|talk]]) 23:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Re Plutarch specifically, Lintott's commentary ''Plutarch: Demosthenes and Cicero'' (2013) may also be helpful. If you already know all these things, my apologies, perhaps they might be useful to someone else reading the talk page. [[User:Ifly6|Ifly6]] ([[User talk:Ifly6|talk]]) 23:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Some of these I know but I appreciate it! I'm still in my Master's program, but that does mean I have institutional access to these things! And if I do indeed do a rewrite--though Catullus's page is a higher priority for me--thank you for the offer! [[User:Periferal|Periferal]] ([[User talk:Periferal|talk]]) 23:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:01, 4 September 2024

He wrote more than three-quarters of extant Latin literature that is known to have existed in his lifetime

[edit]

This is quite absurd, whether referring to actual books existing in Cicero's time, or books of his time that have survived to our own time. Any decent Loeb collection will disprove it.2A02:AA1:1029:5099:61C5:D47E:EFD2:2CE0 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiator

[edit]

Is the character Cicero in Gladiator (2000 film) the same person? Aminabzz (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ifly6 (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serious work on content and structure needed

[edit]

I went through and did some work on the referencing and some rewrites for early life. But that has (fatally) undermined for me any confidence in the article's contents. There were incorrect assertions littered through the first sections: someone added something citing Plut Caes not realising that is the wrong person and a section placed pro Caecina a decade too early to make it look like part of some kind of anti-Sullan legal crusade. Nor do the regular references to Everitt (who evidently from the first chapter does not understand the republican constitution) and Parenti (an ignoramus) build any confidence.

Something also really ought to be done on the structure of the article. The subpages Political career of Cicero and Personal life of Cicero probably should be folded in or deleted; even if not nobody will read or maintain them. The current structure also fails to present things at all chronologically; intermixed in the first section with Cicero's biography is a long digression on his philosophical legacy. Serious work, probably a rewrite, is needed. Ifly6 (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance on Plutarch

[edit]

This page relies heavily on Plutarch; many classicists consider Plutarch unreliable, even though he's one of our only sources. The ancient understanding of history was different from our modern one, and he wasn't exactly trying to stick to Wikipedian standards of objectivity. I agree with Ifly6 that this page needs basically a deep clean; honestly the classics stuff on wikipedia is outdated in general. Periferal (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense: Hi, I wanted to ping you to explain a revert I just executed. You left a message reverting Periferal saying that the edits there were unnecessary WP:puffery and editorializing. I disagree.
The vast majority of the commit reduces puffery. Eg important influence... wrote more than three-quarters of extant Latin literature... it has been said that subsequent prose was either a reaction against or a return to his style → greatly influenced... substantial percentage of his work has survived... admired by both ancient and modern authors alike; introduced into Latin → adapted. Re ditorialising: Romans often chose down-to-earth personal surnames → omitted. This is also the correct outcome for that passage; cognomina were not always chosen, not always common (Mark Antony; Gaius Marius), and we shouldn't paint them in this character, which is regardless not supported by Plut. Cic. 1.3–5.
Periferal's edits also fix some rather old problems like reliance on an outdated and fictitious "optimates faction", which your revert returned. The fictitious "populares" and "optimates" are a cancer here on Wikipedia driven largely by editors' anachronisms and ignorance of Roman republican politics. We should make between it. Ifly6 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers and thanks for the explanation, I agree. Remsense诉 16:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an IP reverted my revert of your revert of an edit which I think is reasonable, on the grounds there's too much refactoring of sourced material which I definitely think is, if it is to be at all relevant, an exaggeration of WP:SUMMARY's requirements. If someone else wants to revert that IP revert go ahead. Ifly6 (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't expect to cause an edit war; I really need to just make a new version of the article and hope it's accepted. Agreed on the optimates/populares thing. They're useful categories, but Cicero wasn't going around calling himself an optimates as a political party! Periferal (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested in doing something like that – rewrites can be challenging – I'd be happy to offer feedback. The Oxford Classical Dictionary Online now has some seriously excellent articles on Cicero:
We have access to all the OCD Online articles via WP:LIBRARY, which is very useful.
The standard biographies in English, if I recall correctly, are Tempest Cicero (2011), Habicht Cicero (1990), Rawson Cicero (1975), and Stockton Cicero (1971) (both getting rather old). The somewhat recent Cambridge Companion to Cicero (2013) is also useful, as is the somewhat older Brill volume by analogous title. Ifly6 (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re Plutarch specifically, Lintott's commentary Plutarch: Demosthenes and Cicero (2013) may also be helpful. If you already know all these things, my apologies, perhaps they might be useful to someone else reading the talk page. Ifly6 (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these I know but I appreciate it! I'm still in my Master's program, but that does mean I have institutional access to these things! And if I do indeed do a rewrite--though Catullus's page is a higher priority for me--thank you for the offer! Periferal (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cicero&oldid=1244025185"