Talk:Catilinarian conspiracy

Catiliniarian?
Never encountered that form before... 173.66.211.53 (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Term is attested to and widely used both in English generally and the English-language classical literature. Ifly6 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Bias
This is incredibly one sided, as there is significant doubt as to how much of this was manufactured by cicero to increase his own political stock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.203.7 (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree, if not for the fact that Cicero was long since dead one would think this entry was done as a PR piece to get him elected somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.110.46 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Concur that there is some doubt that Cicero's descriptions, invectives, and allegations are anywhere close to the truth. See generally Ifly6 (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Re the POV tag recently placed here with the edit comment The Caesarian viewpoint is that this conspiracy was a sham concocted by Cicero. This view should be represented on the page, I'm not aware of any Caesarians so asserting. Sallust, a Caesarian during Caesar's civil war, is the main source and never questions Catiline's guilt; nor am I aware of any later historians writing under the Caesars doing so. Waters, noted above, basically says so, but Waters' thesis (although interesting) is not altogether accepted by classicists. Edit. And isn't at all Caesarian, regardless. Ifly6 (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Above. Ifly6 (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Just now getting this pin, but I was referring to modern-day Caesarian scholars (as Parenti calls them, anyway). Nevertheless, my issue with the page has been rectified by your astounding edit. So thanks for that! Delukiel (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * —I was reading over this page again and was thinking: I've actually got a copy of Parenti's The Assassination of Julius Caesar. I could add what he has to say about Cicero's role (it's not pretty) under Critical Perspectives, but I figured I'd check in here first since the page is currently undergoing GA revisions. Worth adding? Delukiel (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'd say no. Parenti's book is not a reliable source. He is not a classicist and his book was not published by an academic publisher. His ideas aren't even very novel: G. E. M. de Ste. Croix and Moses Finley already presented a class struggle-inspired narrative decades before he did. And Parenti's list of questions in chapter 5 is largely duplicative of that given by Waters (1970), already cited.
 * The overarching idea of there being anything like party politics between conservatives and popular politicians (allegedly like Caesar) also is dismissed in the modern literature. The labels optimate and popularis did not denote them. See MA Robb Beyond populares and optimates (2010) and H Mouritsen Politics in the Roman republic (2017) for more details. The maximalist statement is that they referred to ideological tendencies but still not parties. Eg Mackie (1992) 135 Rh. Mus. 49.
 * As to the good article revisions, the revisions were already done. The article was already marked good as of 21 August this year. Ifly6 (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Noted. Delukiel (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)