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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. 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.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Bumped classes from "Stub" to "Start" Singinglemon (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Since I've altered the date of the eastern embassy I thought I'd better explain the change here.
It's an old point of scholarly dispute based on two conflicting passages in Cicero: Lucullus (or Academica Pr.II) 5 dates it before Scipio's censorship (of 142-141 BC): in legatione illa nobili quam ante censuram obiit. But in de Re Publica vi.11 amid very accurate references to Scipio's life and career the famous legation is placed between his censorship and second consulate of 134 BC: censorque fueris, et obieris legatus Aegyptum Syriam Asiam Graeciam.
As between these equally authoritative passages it is pretty clear that the date is built into the whole structure of the second while it depends upon the single word ante in the first, and it was a common slip of both authors and copyists to write ante for post and vice-versa. In addition the placing of the various Diodorus fragments in the excerptor sequences excludes the earlier date and is only compatible with the later. All these issues and otherts besides are discussed in the article and book by A. E. Astin I have cited in the appropriate footnote (currently numbered 7).
One other issue I have noticed myself is that of the three Roman envoys, L. Metellus Calvus (pr.145, cos.142) is attested epigraphically as Macedonian commander, which must have been at least for the one year spring 145-spring 144, and may have been the biennium 145-143, after which he was elected consul in autumn 143. Even if his command was for the one year, by the time he got to Rome from Macedonia the embassy cannot have left Rome before summer 144, and the bare twelve month period summer 144 to summer 143 is probably not long enough for this lengthy and complex mission, which most probably belongs spring 139 to autumn 138 BC., Appietas (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)