Talk:Calpurnia (wife of Caesar)

Needs Edits & Sources

This article is poorly written and sourced. I've tried to clean up some of the sentences, but I can't correct the actual information. Anybody know how to flag this article for some TLC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheEdits (talk • contribs) 05:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, what did happen to Calpurnia after Caesar's death?

See this piece by Umberto Eco (search for Calpurnia) m.e. (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Terrible!

Who wrote this? It is absolutely terrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.154.236 (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Marcus Antonius vs Mark Antony

I suggest the link to the Wiki article Mark Antony use that spelling, as it is the spelling of the title of the article linked to. It is also the name most commonly used in English for the man (which is perhaps why the article linked to uses that name). The talk page for Mark Antony discusses the title of that article, and includes the statement "I wouldn't mind the move at all, but at the same time we might need to reconsider current policy on Roman article titles, which supports the Anglicized name. I doubt there would be a consensus for that. And while I certainly prefer Latin for names like "Marcus", "Antonius", and (especially) "Pompeius", a lot of people prefer the versions with which they're most familiar." So it seems to be Wiki policy to support the Anglicized name. If the article on Mark Antony had its name changed to Marcus Antonius, no problem. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

We've been through this over and over again, and I'm not sure why people keep insisting that Wikipedia needs to enforce some sort of orthodoxy on articles and editors. The policies concerning article titles do not and never have been considered determinative for references in body text, either in the articles concerned or in links to them from other articles. The subject of an article may be widely known by many names or titles, but it's only possible or desirable for an article to be listed under one. The idea that all other references to the same subject in all other articles should match the title chosen is absurd.

In determining an article title, one typically considers the familiarity of the topic name in the the general readership before other factors, such as precision, academic usage, or usage within a more narrow context. When trying to envision how someone with no knowledge of the topic might search for the article, that makes perfect sense. But when the topic is mentioned in another article, the presence of a link, piped or not, completely eliminates that consideration, and other factors assume equal or greater importance. Most academic and scholarly sources use actual Roman names, not the names of Shakespearean characters based on historical figures. If one has no clear idea who Antonius was, then one might search under "Mark Antony". But readers of this article are likely to have some familiarity with Roman history already, and expect to see "Marcus Antonius". Just as importantly, even if they don't, clicking on the link will take them directly to the article, no matter what it's called.

Going through articles changing names to create a rigid orthodoxy and enforce it against all other writers and editors is no more helpful than when someone breezes in and changes all the "AD's" and "BC's" to "CE" and "BCE", simply because that's what they prefer, and they think everybody else should prefer it too, and if they don't, well, why not take the decision away from them? There are better ways to improve Wikipedia than substituting one's own preferences for perfectly acceptable choices made by other editors. P Aculeius (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

When I saw that the article was actually titled Marc Antony I wondered why whoever changed it in the link to read Marcus Antonius did so, was there a significance I was missing, etc.

However, I realize I should have asked here first what people thought. While I don't find your argument persuasive, neither do I find it absurd. I do not "insist", and seeing that you who wrote what I cited above are the same user who reverted my change, and seeing the many other things you have done, I defer to your expertise and experience with Wikipedia. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Original research?

Someone's tagged this article as possibly containing original research, but hasn't provided any specifics about the concern. This article seems to be well-sourced with lots of in-line citations, and I'm not seeing anything that looks particularly like original research—and having edited this article several times in the past, I'm quite satisfied that all of the contents are consistent with what the sources say. Would the nominator like to explain what it is that he or she thinks might be original research? P Aculeius (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes I'm also unsure of what the editor is taking issue with on this page.★Trekker (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm more a Hellenist than a Latinist, but a quick look over the article doesn't reveal anything obviously concerning. CollectiveSolidarity, can you elaborate on your concerns? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for not consulting with the talk page first, but I am concerned about the mentioning of "omens" regarding Caesar's death in the marriage section. I have found no mention of "omens" that Calpurnia witnessed that predicted Caesar's death, so I flagged the section as original research. Looking back, I should have just tagged it as better source needed. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The text of this section doesn't say that Calpurnia witnessed the omens. It says, "[a]ccording to the Roman historians, Caesar's murder was foretold by a number of ill omens", and subsequently, "[t]he night before his assassination, Calpurnia dreamed that Caesar had been stabbed, and lay dying in her arms." As for the omens themselves, they're clearly mentioned in the cited passages:

Suetonius, "The Life of Caesar", 81: Caesar's approaching murder was foretold to him by unmistakable signs. A few months before, when the settlers assigned to the colony at Capua by the Julian Law were demolishing some tombs of great antiquity, to build country houses, and plied their work with the greater vigour because as they rummaged about they found a quantity of vases of ancient workmanship, there was discovered in a tomb, which was said to be that of Capys, the founder of Capua, a bronze tablet, inscribed with Greek words and characters to this purport: "Whenever the bones of Capys shall be moved, it will come to pass that a son of Ilium shall be slain at the hands of his kindred, and presently avenged at heavy cost to Italy." And let no one think this tale a myth or a lie, for it is vouched for by Cornelius Balbus, an intimate friend of Caesar. Shortly before his death, as he was told, the herds of horses which he had dedicated to the river Rubicon when he crossed it, and had let loose without a keeper, stubbornly refused to graze and wept copiously. Again, when he was offering sacrifice, the soothsayer Spurinna warned him to beware of danger, which would come not later than the Ides of March; and on the day before the Ides of that month a little bird called the king-bird flew into the Hall of Pompey​ with a sprig of laurel, pursued by others of various kinds from the grove hard by, which tore it to pieces in the hall. In fact the very night before his murder he dreamt now that he was flying above the clouds, and now that he was clasping the hand of Jupiter; and his wife Calpurnia thought that the pediment​ of their house fell, and that her husband was stabbed in her arms; and on a sudden the door of the room flew open of its own accord (J.C. Rolfe, trans., internal notes omitted).

Plutarch, "The Life of Caesar", 63: But destiny, it would seem, is not so much unexpected as it is unavoidable, since they say that amazing signs and apparitions were seen. Now, as for lights in the heavens, crashing sounds borne all about by night, and birds of omen coming down into the forum, it is perhaps not worth while to mention these precursors of so great an event; but Strabo the philosopher says​ that multitudes of men all on fire were seen rushing up, and a soldier's slave threw from his hand a copious flame and seemed to the spectators to be burning, but when the flame ceased the man was uninjured; he says, moreover, that when Caesar himself was sacrificing, the heart of the victim was not to be found, and the prodigy caused fear, since in the course of nature, certainly, an animal without a heart could not exist. The following story, too, is told by many. A certain seer warned Caesar to be on his guard against a great peril on the day of the month of March which the Romans call the Ides; and when the day had come and Caesar was on his way to the senate-house, he greeted the seer with a jest and said: "Well, the Ides of March are come," and the seer said to him softly: "Ay, they are come, but they are not gone." Moreover, on the day before, when Marcus Lepidus was entertaining him at supper, Caesar chanced to be signing letters, as his custom was, while reclining at table, and the discourse turned suddenly upon the question what sort of death was the best; before any one could answer Caesar cried out: "That which is unexpected." After this, while he was sleeping as usual by the side of his wife, all the windows and doors of the chamber flew open at once, and Caesar, confounded by the noise and the light of the moon shining down upon him, noticed that Calpurnia was in a deep slumber, but was uttering indistinct words and inarticulate groans in her sleep; for she dreamed, as it proved, that she was holding her murdered husband in her arms and bewailing him.

Some, however, say that this was not the vision which the woman had; but that there was attached to Caesar's house to give it adornment and distinction, by vote of the senate, a gable-ornament, as Livy says, and it was this which Calpurnia in her dreams saw torn down, and therefore, as she thought, wailed and wept (Bernadotte Perrin, trans., internal notes omitted).

Cassius Dio, lxiv. 17: As for him, he was warned of the plot in advance by soothsayers, and was warned also by dreams. For the night before he was slain his wife dreamed that their house had fallen in ruins and that her husband had been wounded by some men and had taken refuge in her bosom; and Caesar dreamed he was raised aloft upon the clouds and grasped the hand of Jupiter. Moreover, omens not a few and not without significance came to him: the arms of Mars, at that time deposited in his house, according to ancient custom, by virtue of his position as high priest, made a great noise at night, and the doors of the chamber where he slept opened of their own accord. Moreover, the sacrifices which he offered because of these occurrences were not at all favourable, and the birds he used in divination forbade him to leave the house. Indeed, to some the incident of his golden chair seemed ominous, at least after his murder; for the attendant, when Caesar delayed his coming, had carried it out of the senate, thinking that there now would be no need of it (Earnest Cary, trans., internal notes omitted).

These and the following passages seem to say exactly what the text of this paragraph relates, so it's quite unclear why it was necessary to tag all three sentences, each of which is clearly cited to these and other sources, with "better source needed". There are no better sources, and no reliable source exists that is not based on these same passages in the same historians. P Aculeius (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I cold not find any other mentions of omens outside of essays and study guides regarding Julius Caesar (play). So I though that the mentions of omens were a bit questionable or pseudoscientific because they were mentioned only by books and not online sources. But who cares? Guess I'm outvoted here. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)