Talk:Hasdrubal the Fair

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cilix

Source for characterization as a "catamite"?

Hi. The quotation provided for Livy is as follows:

"Hasdrubal, coming between father and son, held the supreme power for eight years. He is said to have become a favourite of Hamilcar's owing to his personal beauty as a boy; afterwards he displayed talents of a very different order, and became his son-in-law."

While I agree that there's certainly an intimation there, isn't it quite a hop, skip, and a jump away from "He was a favourite because of his beauty" to "He was a boy who submitted to a sexual relationship with Hamilcar"? Are there other sources that say this more explicitly? It's perfectly appropriate for us to mention this if (for example) reputable historians have stated that this was what Livy meant. But I haven't found any substantiation for this claim -- outside of Wikipedia. Nandesuka (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I found this in Cornelius Nepos: "These objects being executed according to his desire, he then, by dint of a spirit confident and incensed against the Romans, contrived, in order more easily to find a pretext for going to war with them, to be sent as commander-in-chief with an army into Spain, and took with him thither his son Hannibal, then nine years old. There also accompanied him a young man named Hasdrubal, a person of high birth and great beauty, who, as some said, was beloved by Hamilcar with less regard to his character than was becoming; for so great a man could not fail to have slanderers. Hence it happened that Hasdrubal was forbidden by the censor of public morals to associate with him; but Hamilcar then gave him his daughter in marriage, because, according to their usages, a son-in-law could not be interdicted the society of his father-in-law. We have inserted this notice of Hasdrubal, because, after Hamilcar was killed, he took the command of the army, and achieved great exploits; and he was also the first that corrupted the ancient manners of the Carthaginians by bribery."

This is slightly more straightforward than Livy's elliptical mention. I'll re-insert the text in question and rewrite it to make clear that this was, essentially, a rumor, but one credited widely in Rome. Nandesuka (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed this note of yours (after having edited you at the HPC article). Nevertheless I still think it is dishonest to say that "some think" because it implies that some do not think so. Thanks for finding the Nepos, by the way. Haiduc (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope this goes some way to demonstrating that I'm really not trying to expunge all mentions of pederasty from Wikipedia. I just believe it serves us well to be, frankly, type A about sources. Nandesuka (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb all your efforts but I was able to track down his year of birth which makes him out of the age for being a catamite. I made the appropriate corrections here and at another place on pederastic relationships in antiquity where it is mentioned too.

As a side I noticed there were several inaccuracies by previous people that I corrected as well. It looks like someone or some people have been adding false infomation. I have been looking at the same translation of Diogenes Laertius as they were using and I noticed that they are saying things that simply aren't there. It seems they are purposefully inaccurate because at least once if not twice, they quote the translation word for word and replace the word "friend" in the original with "eromenos." I don't know if it was meant as a joke or what. Very shocking to say the least. But I think I've caught all the errors just by searching and comparing with Diogenes Laertius. I can't say about the other sources unless I compare with them but to do that for all of them would take waaayyy too much time and there's not enough tea in my pot for that! That's all from me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulfare (talk • contribs) 02:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining how his year of birth puts him out of the age for being a catamite. Haiduc (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported revert of material

Nandesuka, instead of engaging in a revert war I suggest youy document your objections to the presentation of the material. --Haiduc (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

See the previous section, which I think outlines the problem with your phrasing in some detail. Hope that helps. Nandesuka (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not.

Perhaps it is only fair that I do first what I had requested of you. As far as I can tell, the differences between my last version and the one you reverted to are as follows:

1. The paragraph on the pederastic relationship is moved to the bottom of the article.
2. There is a wikilink from the word "lovers" to the article on pederasty.
3. "Subterfuge" has been substituted for "pretext" as it is more descriptive, as it was a "A clever trick or strategy used to evade a rule, escape a consequence, hide something, etc." rather than a mere excuse.
4. "Rumor" has been replaced with "some accounts" since the first one has a disparaging connotation while the second is neutral. I think I know why you assumed the accounts to be rumors. You probably got tripped up by the assertion that they were slanders. But that is not what Nepos says. If you read his words carefully you will see that he takes the relationship to be genuine, since he proceeds to describe the stratagem whereby the two kept on seeing each other. What he describes as "slander" is the claim the the youth was mistreated. Again, not that he was the beloved, but that he was beloved with less regard than due. Which brings us to the next difference:
5. As per the quote from Nepos, it is the ill usage that is described as doubtful, rather than the whole relationship.
6. The category "History of pederasty" has been added, since we are told it is his "personal beauty as a boy" that did the trick.

I think that about covers it. So, if you would not mind indicating which of the five points above you disagree with, and why, I think we can resolve this matter. Haiduc (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

More sources

I feel that the page could use an expansion, which would ease concerns.

Some sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. (Just make sure to separate out Hasdrubal the son in law from Hasdrubal the son)

Use of "catamite" - 1 (word used to describe someone else) and 2 (used to describe him). The second book interprets Livy, so it would be a good secondary source to use in interpreting Livy so we are not left with a primary source. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. That is also why in my edit I placed the material on the relationship at the end, since it is not the most important element of this biography. Haiduc (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)