A fact from Consolatio (Cicero) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 August 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Cicero's lost Consolatio (45BC) is widely accepted as the distinct work that transmitted the earlier consolatio literary tradition to the Romans of the late Republic?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Quick note. This source repeats the accusation and provides evidence on the forgery, including "[t]he evidence that Sigonio himself was the author is also strong, though not conclusive." The full text is here. Though I think some background on Cicero is really needed, including the circumstances upon which it was written. Also, the result of the work its and Cicero's actions after its written. Since fragments exist, it may be acceptable to include some window in it the work. Cicero and the Rise of Deification at Rome seems like a good source.[1] Just some places to add more content. I'll pause for you to evaluate it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Glad you understood my garbled and typo ridden comments! It is looking much better, but I think it is still a shame that "Forsyth, Richard, et al." couldn't be given more space here given the circumstances. I have records from over a century ago that actually believe that the work was really that of Cicero. The only result I can possibly gather from this academically and scientifically well-known forgery is to highlight it with its own section because throughout history, its been taken as fact even after being debunked. This Pseudo-Ciceronian Consolatio may merit its own article in the end, but considering the fake was republished time and time again under Cicero's name and identified as being a body of his work - the fake is clearly the worthy of significant discussion on this page because its a historical imposter of sorts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
