Talk:Marcus Aurelius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Military / Politics and Government / Royalty and Nobility (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Dacia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dacia, a WikiProject aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to ancient Dacia and primarily to the history of Dacians, Getae and Moesi. If you would like to participate, please improve this article and/or join the project and help with our open tasks. If you have questions regarding the goals of the project, as well as the time span, space, people and culture in the project scope, please review them here. Your input is welcomed!
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Stock post message.svg
To-do list for Marcus Aurelius:
No to-do list assigned.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Marriage and Issue[edit]

I noticed that this section does not contain any references, so I rolled through the Aurelian family tree and checked all of the related articles. There are a number of issues in those articles that need to be corrected (I have added the relevant templates for correction). The section itself does not have proper encyclopedic support for veracity (i.e. no inline citations), so I've added an unreferenced template to this wayward section. The article is quite good, but this issue should be corrected before the template is removed. bwmcmaste (talk)

Weasel words?[edit]

In the section Lucius at Antioch, 162-165 (, it gets a little confusing and the wording is rather awkward. Here's the section I'm talking about:

Lucius spent most of the campaign in Antioch, though he wintered at Laodicea and summered at Daphne, a resort just outside Antioch. Critics declaimed Lucius' luxurious lifestyle. He had taken to gambling, they said; he would "dice the whole night through". He enjoyed the company of actors. Libo died early in the war; perhaps Lucius had murdered him.

In the middle of the war, perhaps in autumn 163 or early 164, Lucius made a trip to Ephesus to be married to Marcus' daughter Lucilla. Marcus moved up the date; perhaps he had already heard of Lucius' mistress, the low-born and beautiful Panthea. Lucilla's thirteenth birthday was in March 163; whatever the date of her marriage, she was not yet fifteen. Marcus had moved up the date: perhaps stories of Panthea had disturbed him.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


This article need not be tampered with by the feeble minded, as they know nothing but immaturity. The purity of truth needs to resonate past the immoral ideals of a fool. I am reporting the incorrectness of the article in question and an editor should be required to keep oneself from posting such ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You just made my day! Gingermint (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius Arch in Tripoli - Libya[edit]

need more facts on this —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius Question[edit]

Was it Marcus Aurelius that had a servant walk behind him during cerimonies and whisper in his ear? If so what exactly did the servanty whisper?

Thanks, CF —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


Some of the biographical and imperial details need to be pared down, with a substantive section (and eventually spin off) devoted to his philosophical work. The man, as noted indicated in the lead and conclusion, is as well-known as a philosopher as an emperor. A brief two paragraph section on writings is woefully inadequate. --Vassyana (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Factual error?[edit]

Referring to a quote in the opening: "The most important group of sources, the biographies contained in the Historia Augusta, claim to be written by a group of authors at the turn of the 4th century, but are in fact written by a single author (referred to here as "the biographer") from the later 4th century (c. 395)"

This is not strictly true; more recent scholarship on the HA suggests that the work we have now is a compilation - possibly by a single scribe, possibly several - of numerous biographers' work, in much the same way as the Apicean recipes manuscript. While some subscribe to this belief, idiosyncrasies in the Latin and other structural differences suggest there was probably more than a single author. The manuscript tradition for this work is extremely sketchy (the introductory comments in the Loeb outline just some of the problems), and I'd question opening with such a loaded quote, particularly when it's an issue that can't be resolved definitely. Alyelle (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


In the 'Conclusion of the war and events at Rome, mid-160s–167' section it says:

"It was an embarrassing situation. Fronto urged Marcus to push the family's case; Marcus demurred. He was going to consult his brother, who would make the final call."

This has more of a novel tone than an encyclopedic tone to me, which seems really strange. But I'm not familiar enough with the sources to change it. Anyone else agree? TreboniusArtorius (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Fixed.--Tataryn77 (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No short form "Pius"[edit]

Using "Pius" as a short form for "Antoninus Pius" is incorrect and unusual. Pius is an adjective describing Antoninus (cf. Scipio Africanus, for whom the short form is Scipio). We're not talking about popes here (actually Pope Pius I, if he really existed, would have been a contemporary of Marcus Aurelius, which might add some potential for confusion). I'm going to correct this by substituting "Antoninus" or "Antoninus Pius". Q·L·1968 08:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I know this reply comes pretty late, but just wanted to clarify: It is not at all unusual to use a Roman's agnomen by itself as a reference to the person. ("Agnomen" being the modern latin term for that type of nickname, as it seems to have just been referred to as an additional cognomen in antiquity.) The name "Caligula", for instance, was Germanicus' agnomen, representing the exact same type of nickname for him as "Pius" does for Antoninus (and "Africanus" for Scipio, "Magnus" for Pompey, etc.). Perhaps the most famous example is "Augustus". I assume you are not going back to all of the articles that reference Augustus and changing the name to "Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus". However, in the interest of avoiding confusion, I do not object to your suggestion to avoid using "Pius" by itself in this case. Chuck (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In popular Culture[edit]

There is no mention of depictions in popular culture, maybe the film Gladiator (2000) is notable enough to be mentioned for a fictional depiction. (don't know). --Inayity (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Also there is no mention of his reference in Silence of the Lambs by Hannible Lector: The Emperor counsels simplicity. First principles. Of each particular thing, as: What is it in itself, in its own constitution?” Thugspeare (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Era style[edit]

Out of respect for the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty, it would be preferred that "BCE" and "CE" be used instead of "BC" and "AD" since these people had no affiliation, or liking to Christianity. If you object, please provide a valid reason as to why. Lupus Bellator (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted your change per WP:ERA.Cúchullain t/c 19:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I am in agreement. A formal warning may be in order. This has got to stop. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Quite. I oppose changing the era style, or removing the era designation, per the Plotinus example at WP:ERA. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace confirmation?[edit]

I scanned this entry but was unable to determine which reference confirms Aurelius's birthplace as Rome. I just came across a contradictory source from the Library of Congress Country Studies that says he was born in the Roman province of Hispania. BallistaBuffalo (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate text in "Early life and career"[edit]

This whole section text appears twice, probably a copy-paste error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Succession to Hadrian, 136-38[edit]

In the second paragraph, the sixth sentence reads, "Marcus was appalled to learn that Hadrian had adopted him." I think this sentence is ambiguous for two reasons: 1) it is not clear to whom "him" refers, and 2) in the previous paragraph, we read that Aurelius Antoninus was adopted by Hadrian just before Hadrian died. It does not say that Hadrian adopted Marcus Aurelius. I don't know the history well enough to correct this, but I really believe this particular sentence needs to be either corrected or clarified.CorinneSD (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

War with Germanic tribes 166-180[edit]

I just wonder whether the map in this section isn't a little too large. It is larger than the photos on the page. If someone wants to see it more clearly, he or she can click on the map to enlarge it. I don't know how to make it smaller.CorinneSD (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Improper Source[edit]

Reference 261 ( is not a proper source but a religious Web site which itself cites religious texts as historical fact. The source ought either to be removed or replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Replaced by an academic source.Smeat75 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Marcus as philosopher[edit]

Near the start of this article, it is stated that Marcus Aurelius 'is also considered one of the most important Stoic philosophers'; much as I admire Marcus, I doubt if this is defensible. Such a statement might apply to (e.g.) Zeno or Chrysippus, but what was Marcus' original contribution to Stoicism? The fact that he evidently strove to follow its teachings, and wrote a fine book recording his thoughts and efforts, does not, in my view, make him an important philosopher. Any thoughts from others? Chronarch (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree about the crummy-ness of that sentence. Something to bear in mind, though is that philosopher was more broadly construed then as now. Pierre Hadot reminds us that to be a philosopher then one need not have been a "theoretician of philosophy". That said, I think the better way to refer to his relationship with philosophy would be to say "He was a practitioner of stoicism and the untitled writing most-commonly known as the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius is the most significant source of our modern understanding of ancient Stoic philosophy." And that's what I changed it to.InformationvsInjustice (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)