Talk:Catiline/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I don't know which webpage the intro came from, but it's probably copyrighted. The rest is doubtless public domain, but so far outdated and NPOV as to not be useful as an article. Text is below if anyone can use it. -- April

A vigorous account of the notorious conspiracy of Catiline in 63 B.C. to overthrow the civil power in Rome, Sallust's Catiline is one of the best histories in Latin literature. The narrative is vivid and consistent, and the sketches of character are admirable in their power and conciseness. Although the author obviously hated the democratic party with which Catiline was connected, and had no great admiration for Cato or Cicero, his work is wonderfully impartial. Sallust's conception of history, indeed, as is exemplified also in his Jugurthine War, was very modern. He attempts to bring before his readers not only the incidents of history, but also their causes; further, he invariably seeks to establish the connexion between events that a contemporary would have treated as isolated facts.

Begin long Sallustian Quote

[THE PLOTTING]

I esteem the intellectual above the physical qualities of man; and the task of the historian has attracted me because it taxes the writer's abilities to the utmost. Personal ambition had at first drawn me into public life, but the political atmosphere, full of degradation and corruption, was so uncongenial that I resolved to retire and devote myself to the production of a series of historical studies, for which I felt myself to be the better fitted by my freedom from the influences which bias the political partisan. For the first of these studies I have selected the conspiracy of Catiline.

Lucius Catilina [commonly called Catiline] was of high birth, richly endowed both in mind and body, but of extreme depravity; with extraordinary powers of endurance, reckless, crafty and versatile, a master in the arts of deception, at once grasping and lavish, unbridled in his passions, ready of speech, but with little true insight. Of insatiable and inordinate ambitions, he was possessed, after Sulla's supremacy, with a craving to grasp the control of the state, utterly careless of the means so the end were attained. Naturally headstrong, he was urged forward by his want of money, the consciousness of his crimes and the degradation of morals in a society where luxury and greed ruled side by side.

The wildest, the most reckless, the most prodigal, the most criminal, were readily drawn into the circle of Catiline's associates; in such a circle those who were not already utterly depraved very soon became so under the minister and seductive influence of their leader. This man, who in the pursuit of his vices had done his own son to death, did not hesitate to encourage his pupils in every species of crime; and with such allies, and the aid of the disbanded Sullan soldiery swarming in Italy, he dreamt of subverting the Roman state while her armies, under Gnaeus Pompeius, were far away.

The first step was to secure his own election as consul. One plot of his had already failed, because Catiline himself had attempted to move prematurely; but the conspirators remained scatheless. Those who were now with Catiline included members of the oldest families and of equestrian rank. Crassus himself was suspected of complicity, owing to his rivalry with Pompeius. The assembled conspirators were addressed by had constitutional authority to grant. Thus, when news came that a Catilinarian, Gaius Manlius, had risen in Etruria at the head of an armed force, prompt administrative measures were taken to dispatch adequate military forces to various parts of the country. Catiline himself had taken no overt action; he now presented himself in the senate, was openly assailed by Cicero, responded with insults which were interrupted by cries of indignation, and flung from the house with the words, "Since I am beset by enemies and driven out, the fire you have kindled about me shall be crushed out by the ruin of yourselves."

Seeing that delay would be fatal, he started at once for the camp of Manlius, leaving Cethegus and Lentulus to keep up the ferment in Rome. To several persons of position he sent letters announcing that he was retiring to Marseilles; but, with misplaced confidence, he sent one of a different and extremely compromising tenor to Quintus Catullus, which the recipient read to the senate. It was next reported that he had assumed the consular attributes and joined Manlius; whereupon he was proclaimed a public enemy, a general levy was decreed, and Antonius was appointed to take the field, while Cicero was to remain in the capital.

[THE DOWNFALL]

Meanwhile, Lentulus at Rome, among his various plots, intrigued to obtain the support of the Allobroges, a tribe of Gauls from whom there was at the time an embassy in Rome. The envoys, however, took the advice of Quintus Fabius Sanga, and while he kept Cicero supplied with information, themselves pretended to be in full agreement with the conspirators.

Risings were now taking place all over Italy, though they were ill concerted. At Rome, the plan was that when Catiline's army was at Faesulae, the tribune Lucius Bestia should publicly accuse Cicero of having caused the war; and this was to be the signal for an organized massacre, while the city itself was to be fired at twelve points simultaneously. The insurgents were then to march out and join Catiline at Faesulae.

The Allobroges were now departing, carrying with them letters from Lentulus to Catiline; but, according to a concerted plan, they were arrested. This provided Cicero with evidence which warranted the arrest of Lentulus and other ringleaders in Rome; and its publication created a popular revulsion--the lower classes were not averse from plunder but saw no likelihood of benefit to themselves in a general conflagration of Rome.

A certain Lucius Tarquinius was now captured, who gave information tallying with what was already published, but further incriminated Crassus. Crassus, however, was so wealthy, and had so many of the senate in his power, that even those who privately believed the charge to be true, thought it politic to pronounce it a gross fabrication.

The danger of an attempted rescue of Lentulus brought on a debate as to what should be done with the prisoners. Caesar, from whatever motive, spoke forcibly against any unconstitutional action which, however justified by the enormity of the prisoners' guilt, might become a dangerous precedent. In his opinion, the wise course would be to confiscate their property and place their persons in custody, not in Rome but in provincial towns.

Caesar's humanitarian statesmanship was answered by the grave austerity of Cato. "The question for us is not that of punishing a crime, but of preserving the state--or of what the degenerate Roman of to-day cares for more than the state, our lives and property. To speak of clemency and compassion is an abuse of terms only too common, when vices are habitually dignified with the names of virtues. Let us for once act with vigour and decision, and doom these convicted traitors to the death they deserve." The decree of death was carried to immediate execution. In the meantime, Catiline had raised a force numbering two legions. He remained in the hills refusing to give battle to Antonius.

On hearing the fate of Lentulus and the rest, he attempted to retreat to Gaul, but this movement was anticipated and intercepted by Metellus Celer, who was posted at Picenum with three legions. With Antonius pressing on his rear, Catiline resolved to hazard all on a desperate engagement. In exhorting his troops, he dwelt on the fact that men fighting for life and liberty were more than a match for a foe who had infinitely less at stake.

Thus brought to bay, Catiline's soldiers met the attack of the government troops with furious valour, their leader setting a brilliant example of daring and generalship. But Petreius, on the other side, directed his force against the rebel centre, shattered it and took the wings in flank. Catiline's followers stood and fought till they fell, with their wounds in front; he himself hewed his way through the foe, and was found still breathing at a distance from his own ranks. No quarter was given or taken; and among the rebels there were no survivors. In the triumphant army, all the stoutest soldiers were slain or wounded; mourning and grief mingled with the elation of victory.

Exit Sallust

---

Deb writes: It's not clear if you are aware of this, April, but the above (apart from introduction)is a literal translation of parts of Sallust's work, "Catiline".

That's what we suspected. If it is properly introduced and indentified, and if the translation has passed into the public domain (translations hold copyrights independent of the text being translated), then it is a fine thing to include here, but mere data-dumping just confuses a reader more than enlightening him. --Lee Daniel Crocker

• I believe you, Deb - another one of these was from Caesar's Histories. They're great historical sources, don't get me wrong, but they're not, in their raw form, useful for an encyclopedia (in my opinion, and I haven't heard complaints from other Wikipedians yet!). There's a whole discussion on http://meta.wikipedia.com about "Project Sourceberg": whether we want to use Wikipedia to store everything from the works of Shakespeare to those of, well, Caesar or Sallust. The consensus was, "no." Basically, such things are already online thanks to Project Gutenberg - our efforts here, as I understand 'em, are to condense things down to a precis of available knowlege. -- April

I was actually on the liberal side of that discussion; I don't see any reason not to include whole works here, but only if they are here to illustrate real articles, and are properly identified, introduced, and not confused for articles themselves. Perhaps we might need some better conventions for handling such things: a naming convention, or a page background color, or something. --Lee Daniel Crocker

My opinion is that this is an encyclopedia -- which means it's supposed to give a good overview of things. To quote Sallust in context is fine, as to discuss his view, but Encyclopedia are by nature secondary sources. There are enough examples of contributors on the site who don't know how to read ancient sources, primary or secondary, critically -- I don't think that it's in the best service of the goals of an encyclopedia to provide such information without a critical overview. My opinion, but based on professional experience as somebody who teaches the stuff to the average Joe. JHK

• I stumbled across a mention of Catilina in a story about the Federalists and Republicans at the dawn of the United States. Specifically, about the use of Catiline as an epithet bandied about by pretty much everyone to tar opponents as people willing to betray the ideals of the new nation in favor of political or monetary gain. A lot of people, myself included, come to Wikipedia for more depth and understanding than this article provides. The article as it exists here seems almost a stub, describing skeletal outlines of the person's life but imparting no real understanding of his context, motives, objectives and pressure on history (something that, apparently, was both common knowledge and an important metaphor in the late 18th C). On the other hand, the monolithic Sallust quote doesn't help me much either, since it is infused with assumptions and common knowledge that existed around 30 BCE, and apparently alluding to much more than is actually said. I would like to see someone with the knowledge on the subject (like most of the folks contributing to this talk page) expand and give some life to this bloke. An "His Significance" section, ala Sallust, might be a good start, especially since the current political clime in several Western nations might warrant a resurgence of the Catiline epithet... Kevin/Last1in 14:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Etruria

Recent uncited, anonymous addition: "He fled to Etruria." Just a heads-up for anyone who may be "half monitoring" this, because I do not know enough to know whether this is a useful addition of vandalism. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:02, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know where it comes from, but I think that he left for his place of exile, and made a "side trip" to Etruria.--Agreatguy6 23:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It is in fact from Sallust's Bellum Catilinae. Yes, it is legit.--Agreatguy6 00:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions

The recent additions look mostly solid. I did a light edit and fixed a few small issues. There are a couple of passages I found very confusing; I've marked them in the text with HTML comments. I don't know enough about Cataline to resolve these myself.-- Jmabel | Talk 01:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• I tried to revise some of the passages. If it still isn't clear, I can work a little more on it. As for the dates, to me it sounded like all dates should be linked. "Linking dates may not seem useful; however, please link dates since it enables the use of a user preference in how dates are displayed." Cmcentee 20:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That only applies for month+day and any accompanying year. For example, [[7 February]] [[2001]] can display as 7 February 2001 or February 7, 2001 depending on user preferences; there are probably some other choices for the display, I don't know offhand. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know if this matters, but in both the Cicero and Sulla entries all of the dates are linked. Is it just style then? Maybe in the furure there will be an option in preferences for selecting either BC and AD or BCE and CE. Cmcentee 22:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, there are people who do this, but it's really pretty clear in the MoS that they shouldn't. I don't know whether it comes from misunderstanding the month+day thing, or what. People have talked about automating the BC/BCE and AD/CE thing, but it seems awfully silly to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Romans to Commit Suicide

I don't think that it can be claimed that Catiline committed suicide. He died in battle. He did not die by his own sword like some other Roman generals such as Cassius. Cmcentee 18:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There are many forms of suicide. Upon realising the gravity of the situation, Catiline is said to have dismounted and fought in the thickest of combat. Sallust mentions he died bravely, his wounds all in front, and Appian says "Neither Catiline nor any of the nobility who were associated with him deigned to fly, but all flung themselves upon their enemies and perished." TheOldOligarch 02:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

References

To editors of this article: please use footnotes to show where and from whence facts from this article came from listed references. 66.229.160.94

150.131.86.163 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)==Non-working Footnote== Hullo! Footnote 6 doesn't work. Ohmie.

Peer Review for this page

Do not revert. Don't play tyrant with license to publish this has been revoked.

How true

Yes I think its true too. Catiline was a follower of Sulla and that man Catiline was after all a rapist. The author of this article has not done well. The assertion that Catiline was trying to be like the Gracchi is categorically false. He's showing pretense under the rubric of the word "reformer," reformer according to who? If heading the republic back in the direction of Sulla's dictatorship is reform? Or the dictatorship of Marc Antony was reform? I say not. Besides there's way too much evidence from very credible sources that Catiline did these things, so it really does come down to what someone thinks is moral and what they think is immoral.

I don't think the author of this wiki knows what he's talking about or just has bad motives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.131.85.91 (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias?

Do not revert. Don't play tyrant with me your license to publish this has been revoked. Your POV genius has been saved below.

Nope, sorry, but the language IS POV; 'if not for his crimes then for his undemocratic spirit' implies that everything these historians said was true; 'possessed numerous reasons' implies that those reasons were true (and not, for instance, power-plays and maniulations on the part of Cicero and the Optimates, which there's at least the possibility they might have been); this idea that Catiline believed the leadership of the state should be hereditary is unsourced and, so far as I'm aware, patent nonsense; the phrase 'Catiline's base morality and his political corruption' is laughably POV; as is calling him a 'notorious criminal'. Assuming good faith (ha ha) I'll simply choose to believe you're unfamilliar with the policies of Wikipedia, and not just a fanatical troll.

I don't paticularly want to continue debating matters of history with you, but your comments in that final paragraph are unacceptable in Wikipedia, and your opinion as to my username is irrelevant and should be kept to yourself. Also, I have nothing to do with the original text; I was simply browsing, came upon this POV rot you are apparently responsible for and then reverted it, as any good Wikipedian should. Lordrosemount 11:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No More Corrupt than any other?

"Thus, some view Catiline as a reformer such as the Gracchi who met similar resistance from the government. However, many place him somewhere in between, a man who used the plight of the poor to suit his personal interests and a politician of the time no more corrupt than any other."

Oh come on. Like Cicero married his daughter? Like Catiline wrote a brilliant monograph for which he was later called florentissimus auctor? And naturally after he was killed he was no doubt aclaimed "Father of his country"? Good gods! O tempora o mores!150.131.85.91 23:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea that Catilina married his daughter is a baseless assertion; the paternity of that girl is impossible to prove either way. You can cite a source for the fact that it was claimed she was, no doubt, but there's no possible way to prove whether it was true or not. Lordrosemount 11:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooo big no no's here.

Someone who doesn't read Latin annotating to to Latin texts? There's no doubt that an annotation is there, but this is not what Sallust said. Not good. Indeed very very deceptive. If he could read Latin he never would have needed to plagerize the other guy's translations in the beginning. Very tricky.150.131.86.218 20:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey I don't know who all those names are

But you are introducing a number of original content here. That Catiline was a criminal is the NPOV. It the one that was established long ago. Don't go around accusing someone of being this or that when you don't know who they are.150.131.86.218 22:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

rv unexplained reversion by Edward H. Campbell (aka: Inopibus, almasakin, majdur travail, Ted Campbell). Suggest protecting this page from anon edits.) (undo) Who? are all these people? How do you claim to know all this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.131.86.218 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This is who supposes to tell me what the facts of the Catilinarian Conspiracy are?

User:Patar knight From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia • Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia •Jump to: navigation, search This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Patar_knight.

My Userboxes 1,000+ This user has made over 1,000 contributions to Wikipedia.

This user is a fencer. 
This user comes from Canada. 
This user enjoys playing chess. 
This user is a Go player. 

♦♦ This user is a better skier or snowboarder than you are.

This user is a member of the

Military history WikiProject.

This user supports the Canadian Armed Forces. 
This user is part of the Geography Wikiproject 
This user is a member of Wikiproject Fencing. En Garde! 
This user is a member of WikiProject Halo. 

I am a Wikipedia user, who resides in Canada. I am of chinese descent and heritage, although I was born in Canada. I am still in grade school, almost going into my first year of high school, and has been recognized as "gifted" by the Ministry of Education of Ontario. In school, I excel at history and geography. In fact, for the school year of 2006-2007, I have done very well in the 13th (is it?) annual Great Canadian Geography Challenge. Under the guise of Patar_knight, I have contributed mainly to historical articles (war, battles, weapons, etc.), fencing articles, and geographical articles. My starsign is Scorpio. I enjoy playing sports, such as fencing, soccer, tennis. Of course, I also enjoy browsing and contributing to Wikipedia, which I think is a good place to get general knowledge from. I also enjoy browsing Uncyclopedia, which I find mildly humourous (of course when it's in good taste), and have an account there, which is also called Patar_knight, although it is not particulary active.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I serious doubt you credentials —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.131.86.218 (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And this person?

User:Lordrosemount From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia • Find out more about navigating Wikipedia and finding information •Jump to: navigation, search

This user studies or has studied at the University of St Andrews 

It would appear that I don't have a user page yet. Well, here we are - I suppose I'll have to put something more inspiring than this down sooner or later, but it's a start...

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lordrosemount" Category: Wikipedians by alma mater: University of St Andrews

Excuse me your royal highness, but you better get cracking on some books before you get flipent. You're not qualifed either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.131.86.218 (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What the Devil do you mean by posting users' info pages on a talk page, as though they had any relevance whatsoever to anything, and appending your abusive comments at the end? This behaviour is completely unacceptable, and your comments about the qualifications of myself and others are not only ignorant, but they demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the rules of Wikipedia (never mind common decency) that show you to be unqualified to make any useful contribution here at all. Lordrosemount 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

" I am still in grade school, almost going into my first year of high school"

Huh?

Take your F kid, and like it.150.131.86.218 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What, you don't understand my sentence? It's perfectly grammatically correct... And an "F" for this article? If you really want to improve it, add your information, but with no POV. Calling Catiline "infamous" is blatant POV. There are two sides to every story, and of course, one is usually more correct. However, this is an encyclopedia, and must be neutral. Even the Wikipedia Article on Adolf Hitler, Bonnie and Clyde, and Joseph Stalin do not contain the word "infamous" even once. Also, you list several references to sources that only the most educated scholars of Classic Antiquity would know, which are consequently meaningless to the layman. You should also read WP:No Personal Attacks and WP:3RR, as you are very close to violating both of them. --Patar knight 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This user is pretty anti social...This user has numerous personal issues?????????

User:DeadEyeArrow From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia • Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia •Jump to: navigation, search DeadEyeArrowOh snap! It's the DEA!Main Talk Awards Archives Email

[edit] About this user This user is 21 and lives in Key Largo, Florida. This user is pretty anti social, but not because he wants to be. This user has numerous personal issues, none of which he is being medicated for but he probably should be.

==

"User has no idea what he is talking about." Did you forget something in your bio?150.131.86.218 23:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Does not exit?

User:Inopibus From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia • Have questions? Find out how to ask questions and get answers. •Jump to: navigation, search Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Inopibus. If in doubt, please verify that "Inopibus" exists.

Start the User:Inopibus page Search for "Inopibus" in existing pages. Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.131.86.218 (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Does not exist

User:Almasakin From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia • Learn more about citing Wikipedia •Jump to: navigation, search Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Almasakin. If in doubt, please verify that "Almasakin" exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.131.86.218 (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

None of these exist

User:Campbell From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia • Ten things you may not know about images on Wikipedia •Jump to: navigation, search Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Campbell. If in doubt, please verify that "Campbell" exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.131.86.218 (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User Durova

"although my limited background on the subject restricts my ability to comment"

I've noticed150.131.86.218 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if people have been giving out your personal information, but it had nothing to do with either myself or, for all I know, the other user you started talking about, but my objectiion wasn't to the fact that you'd posted the contents of my user page, but that doing so was irrelevant, and your idea that what someone has in their user page in some way indicates their credibility on any given position is pretty absurd.

You're also mistaken on your ideas of who needs to prove what. Yes, I agree that if all the credible, unbiased sources were agreed about the character of a person - as in the case of, say, a Hitler - then to try and come up with some radical new theory claiming that they were a hero would be pretty silly, and ought not to be included. But the fact is that the ancient sources about Catiline were all written by people who had grudges against him, and you can't be much of an historian if you don't recognise that this calls their writings on the matter into question. Moreover, the idea that Catiline may have been unfairly aligned is neither particularly radical nor particularly new; a great many quite distinguished historians have taken this view. So in a situation like this, where a legitimate debate exists, surely the role of an encyclopaedia is to report what the sources say and note any factors that may have influenced them - to show what we know to be a fact, which is that a debate exists about the man. I don't need to prove he was innocent of his accusations any more than you need to prove he was guilty, because short of the invention of time travel there no way we can really know what was in the hearts of Cicero and Catiline when they said and wrote what they did. That's the point of the NPOV.

This, by the way, is an interesting discussion that I'm enjoying having with you; I hope you'll appreciate that it's far better to be level-headed and good-natured, than to start slandering someone just because you happen not to agree with somebody about something. Lordrosemount 20:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW:

Do not revert. Don't play tyrant with license to publish this has been revoked. Billiance has indeed been saved below.

Someone who really believed that Catiline was innocent/misrepresented might well, yes. But as I've asserted no position on whether he was or not - but, again, simply repeated that a debate exists that it's silly not to acknowledge - this once again has nothing to do with me. Your second argument is unsound, too, because what people 'honestly believe' is only based on what they actually know. It's entirely possible that a person could be thought by almost everyone else in the world to be guilty of some crime, and yet not be, so what people happen to think on the matter really has nothing to do with what actually happened. Lordrosemount 20:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore

That Catilina attacked Cicero for being a 'new man' might show that he was a bit of a snob - which hardly distinguishes him from any other patrician of the era - but it certainly doesn't show that he believed in rule by heredity. There were a great many patricians, and even those who believed that rule should be restricted to the patrician class still couldn't be described as believing in hereditary rule. To cite the example of mediaeval Scotland, rule there before the time of Malcolm Canmore was by the system of tannistry, where kings were selected from alternating lines of the royal family, by means of a kind of electoral college. This was rule by the elite, but, unlike primogeniture, it wasn't rule by heredity.

Also, if you believe Catilina was indisputably guilty of consorting with Fabia (that he raped her is a further extrapolation), how do you explain that they were both acquitted for it? Lordrosemount 20:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreover

Do not revert. Don't play tyrant with me license to publish this has been revoked. Your glorious writing is below.

I haven't said any of the sources were lies; I said they were biased, which is a fact. It's also possible that Cicero may have been mistaken about Catilina's actions too. The fact is, we don't know - but we know what Cicero, Sallust and all the others said, so that's what we ought to let Wikipedia reflect. We have plenty of historical sources about things that aren't true; the existance of Hybrasil or a north-west passage, for example - but they were yet false. How did they know the woman Catilina married was his daughter - did they give him a paternity test, or something? Her mother had never been his wife, and she'd never grown up with him, so it's hardly what you'd call an open-and-shut case. I like and respect Cicero a great deal, but blimey, not everything that ever came out of his mouth was true, you know. Lordrosemount 21:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Truth of the Matter

No more speculation: How do do KNOW that what Cicero says is not true? Lord Rosemont has says above you haven't said they're lies, and then you say they are not true: you would not lie to us, would you, gallant Lord Rosemont? Are you implying that he lies in his collection of over 800 letters, comprising nearly all of what we know about Republican Rome? That he wasn't the most published philosopher of his age? That his speeches, numbering around 25, aren't the only extant speeches from the period, and that he isn't the ONLY primary source on the Cataline Conspiracy, unlike Sallust, who is from the imperial period,several hundred years after the fact. Isn't it rather Sallust who has a motivation to rewrite history, for the sake of it's winner: perhaps for Caesar, a populari (some argue, the dictator party) like Cataline? And can we not also conclude that they would want Cicero, who was so representative of the republica, to be unpopular? On the other hand, what reason would Cicero have to lie? Power-hungry? Well, Cicero was already the consul by 63, so not to gain the consulship. Nor did he, like Casesar, take up the dictatorship, and refuse to put it down, as a power-hungry man would do. No, like a Cincinnatus, he took the reigns of the dictatorship long enough to put down the threat, and then when Cataline and his army which threatened Rome had been dealt with, put the reigns down again. Moreover, before 63, when he still had the consulship to gain, in fact, it was Cataline who was clearly going to lose the consulship, when he acted. Likewise, Therefore, if Cicero did not lie about the situation to gain political power, what reason could we assume as a politician Cicero had to lie? His personal contribution to the history republic is unparalleled, including trying to preserve it after it had fallen in a book by the the same name, and so despite the great debt we owe him, continues to ignore his contribution to the history of civilization. It is logical to consider, Lord Rosemont, that there may be more truth about history to what Cicero is saying than you think. What did Cataline ever do for you? There's enough budding classicists out there in high school, like young Sir Patar, who believe that "there are two sides to every story" is an epistemological argument for the truth, and not that the truth was the fact that Cataline maybe was doing something wrong because he was an entitled aristocrat who thought that the consulship was his due. What did Cataline ever do for you? To respond to you from a standpoint of rhetoric, as this seems to be your main concern, and as Cicero is a rhetorician and does reserves the right to disseminate if not outright lie, his true meaning was all too transparent in the Cataline Orations, something which he was sure to correct in later speeches. Those things you mention as lies are parts of vituperation. He also does it where you complain here: "Also, if you believe Catilina was indisputably guilty of consorting with Fabia (that he raped her is a further extrapolation), how do you explain that they were both acquitted for it? Lordrosemount 20:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)" And here: "The idea that Catilina married his daughter is a baseless assertion; the paternity of that girl is impossible to prove either way. You can cite a source for the fact that it was claimed she was, no doubt, but there's no possible way to prove whether it was true or not. Lordrosemount 11:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)." Just because you're not familiar with this type of invective attack, or discerning where Cicero is telling the truth, using a rhetorical technique, or illustrating symbolically and allegoricaly, it means you should apply yourself to the study of the art of rhetoric, and there is no better way than imitation, and I cannot think of a finer example (nor can anyone) than Cicero. You'll find the harder you look for his view, the more you'll find he espouses the views of philosophy, and that there's something he desparately wants to tell us about history. I hope in the intervening years you've both had the opportunity, as I have, to study these topics deeply in higher education and hopefully, learning the truth of the matter. However, Wikipedia is not the place for amateur classical historians in high school and middle school to present their views. Therefore, comments such as "In all likelihood, Catiline was not involved in the so-called First Catilinian Conspiracy, although several historical sources implicate him in it. There does not seem to be a single account that is represented in all of the sources: rather, it seems that the accounts represent a collection of rumors accusing different political figures in attempts to tarnish their names," DO need to be cited, or that author needs to re-examine their sources (Sallust is a SECONDARY source). Quotes like "It is unlikely that Catiline would have been involved in the First Catilinian Conspiracy or if, indeed, it even existed at all," MUST be cited, as that is conjecture, along with the same statement, " Cicero's accusations prior to 63 BC are likely unfounded." [[[User :simulosopher|simulosopher]] 20:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"What actually happened"

Do not revert. Don't play tyrant with license to publish this has been revoked.

Remove copyrighted material

You are not legitimate to edit my threads. Permission to publish my writing has been revoked. If you're trying to save something for a lawsuit save it off line.Inopibus 18:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This user is currently blocked.

This IP is an Internet Stalker

Stop harassing me or I will contact the FBI.Inopibus 23:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not make legal threats against other editors. See WP:Legal. Exxolon 23:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this individual an editor?Inopibus 23:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your license to publish my writing has been revokedInopibus 23:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This user is currently blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.34.214 (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This IP is a stalker

(deleted Image:Stalker.2.4nov07.jpg as not helping and not necessary)

Inopibus 23:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Is giving out personal information against wikipedia Privacy Policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inopibus (talk • contribs) 23:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - see Wikipedia:Privacy. Please go to the WP:ANI thread to clarify exactly what is going on here. Exxolon 00:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please CONCISELY explain the problem.

Could all people involved here please explain what is going on CONCISELY and avoiding personal attacks on other editors? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's enough of this silliness. Now, I want you, Inopibus to clearly explain why you have been removing material from this talk page. I would also like everyone to calm down, and clearly lay out what's going on here like Morven asks. You claim that this IP address is "outing" you; but you have repeatedly claimed to be this person on this very talk page. Please explain the situation clearly and calmly so I can work out what to do about it. --Haemo 01:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparent non-sequiturs

Hello,

Well, anyone reading this page as it stands right now would probably assume I'm some kind of schitzophrenic; equally unfortunately, however, we had one or more users here exhibiting trollish tendencies, and my comments above that appear to lack context were responses to various activities of this user, which included 3RR violations, POV editing and, which has been preserved, some attempt to discredit the people who were reverting him/her by posting the contents of our user pages and making derogatory comments about us which, I confess, made me a little annoyed. Yet now I check back here out of nostalgia only to discover that this user's comments have all vanished (along with some of my own responses, as it happens); anyone who's particularly interested can probably find the intervening mess through the page history.

Just wanted to fill any new browsers in on the background. Have a good night! Lordrosemount (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Civil war dates

The civil war dates "84 BC–81 BC" don't seem to link up nicely with dates given for the civil wars. JMK (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What?

What are you all arguing about? It is too hard to tell since you all edit each others comments to the point where they no longer make sense. 173.183.69.134 (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"... Rome had no penalty for libel"

This quote is from the section on the First Catilinian Conspiracy. IANAL but as I understand it this is not libel but slander as the Cicero's accusations would have been spoken in court Defamation. The Twelve Tables in table 8 says that anyone committing slander shall be clubbed to death The 12 Tables The Latin Library - The Law of the 12 Tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.202.164.139 (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Defamatory or not, wasn't there at least some measure of immunity for utterances in the Senate? — J M Rice (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)