Talk:Marcus Aurelius/Archive 2

Weasel words?
In the section Lucius at Antioch, 162-165 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius#Lucius_at_Antioch.2C_162.E2.80.9365), 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 202.156.14.98 (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate
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 209.68.98.146 (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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripoli

need more facts on this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.99.25 (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius Question
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 138.210.196.38 (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Philosopher
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?
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)

Marriage and Issue
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) — Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Tone
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)

Era style
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?
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"
This whole section text appears twice, probably a copy-paste error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.112.170.65 (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

War with Germanic tribes 166-180
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
Reference 261 (http://www.theologian.org.uk/churchhistory/persecution.html) 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 172.15.177.169 (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Replaced by an academic source.Smeat75 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

No short form "Pius"
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
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)

Marcus as philosopher
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)

Succession to Hadrian, 136-38
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)
 * Whether or not your horoscope or last night's fortune cookie mentioned a "blast from the past", your four-year-old comment about his passage has lost none of its relevance. It is almost a verbatim lift from the David Magie Loeb translation, and it kinda sucks. You are correct, he was never adopted by Hadrian.  Also, the word appalled is just not a good translation.
 * The biographer wrote "magis est deterritus quam laetatus", which doesn't lend itself easily to english, but "dettereo" is to deter or to discourage and "laeto" is to rejoice, or to cause joy in. So, what he says is "instead of celebrating the news, he was saddened by it".
 * So, I changed it to "He reportedly greeted the news that Hadrian had become his adopted grandfather with sadness, instead of joy."Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Better, more prominent section on Meditations
I think the content on the Meditations is woefully lacking in this article. It is arguably the most well-known part of his legacy. It is a major source for Stoicism and it stands out among other ancient writings as a document not intended for the public and thus free of the inherent strictures that limited the license of most prominent writers of antiquity.

I propose creating a section titled: "Meditations" (with quotes) between "Death and succession" and "Legacy and reputation". Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Regnal Name
I will move his Imperial titles since they were regnal names. Therefore, it should not be reverted since titles like Augustus, Caesar or Imperator were Regnal titles. (Imperator sometimes was not a regnal title though and Caesar was also a Family name) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapnut1207 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Albania reference on the map
The legend of this map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius#/media/File:Aurelius180AD.png points to Albania, but shouldn't it point to Caucasian Albania? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.137.100 (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Coin of Vologases IV of Parthia.jpg

GA class
, I don't understand why you chose to nominate this GAN under the Philosophy and religion category. It's something that should go under World history. Can you please change it? Display name 99 (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I will change this. Векочел (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He could really go under either one, since he was both a philosopher and an emperor, but he probably fits better under the "World History" category. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh, so whatever happened to the GA nomination? I don't even see it in the history of the article thing above, only the failed FA candidacy. Pericles of Athens  Talk 20:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Flaws with the article
I would appreciate it if you and any contributors you think may be helpful would point out to me any flaws you find with the article. Векочел (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Opium
Marcus Aurelius was famously addicted to opium, this should be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:8DB7:AF00:110C:E746:8EC5:D760 (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Consensus?
this edit that has the edit summary "per consensus" however, I cannot find any such consensus on the talk page. For one, changing the alt text of the image to read "White bust of bearded man" instead of "Marble bust of Marcus Aurelius" is a change that I cannot see the reason for. The image is a bust of Marcus Aurelius, unless there's some controversy over who it represents that I'm not aware of, in which case it shouldn't be the lede image, however I can't find any such controvery or dispute, so "white bust of bearded man" is not a good description of what the image is; it is not a random bearded man, it is an image of the article's subject. Why step back from a concise and accurate description?

Regarding the name change in the lede and other changes, I can also find no consensus for the changes, could someone please point towards this consensus, if it exists? - Aoidh (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A discussion was had on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and it was decided that "Emperor of the Roman Empire" sounds bad and that a simple Roman emperor should be used instead. Now could you please undo everything you just undid on other pages? It was exhausting enough to go through every one of them and I don't want to do it again. Avis11 (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The 'bearded' thing was simply the hidden alt text, to clarify what the picture looked like for one who can't see the image, delete that and the rest if you must (as I said, it's optional). Avis11 (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at that page and I most certainly could not find consensus for the edit you made. Changing "Emperor of the Roman Empire" to "Roman Emperor" is one thing, but that's not what you changed. If you're going to make a change and cite consensus, then change only what there is consensus for in that edit, and link the discussion so that editors can understand what you're referencing; in this case I can't find a consensus for this particular change. - Aoidh (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? It's just an extra Augustus which appears again in his regnal name. It was agreed by most in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome that this is unnecessary too. Avis11 (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not joking, and I also don't see where there's any consensus for that. This seems similar to the "bearded man" logic, but why is the title being removed, exactly, and where is the consensus for this that you suggest exists? - Aoidh (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The "consensus" mentioned referred to the transition Emperor of the ROman Empire -> Roman emperor, already discussed in the page I linked. Another thing discussed there were the use of "regnal name", including the idea that "Imperator Caesar ... Augustus" renders the other Augustus (immediately below the name) redundant; most editors who contributed to the discussion were favorable to removing the latter. The 'alt text' thing and the rest are completely unrelated, I just happened to edit everything at the same time. Do you have a specific grievance with the central question here? Avis11 (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I'd been very ill for a couple of weeks. My issue is specifically the removal of the Augustus title, lumping it in with the name dilutes it, I feel, to the point that it make it seem like just another part of the name. - Aoidh (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"Marcus" or "Aurelius" on subsequent mention
I am reviewing this article as requested at the Guild of Copy Editors. I notice that it is inconsistent in its use of "Marcus" or "Aurelius" (or sometimes "Marcus Aurelius") to refer to the subject after first mention. MOS:SURNAME would suggest that "Aurelius" should be used, but Roman naming conventions can be intricate. Further, Britannica and Stanford both use "Marcus." Is there a historical convention that would support this style? I would appreciate any insights from knowledgeable editors. Tdslk (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Marcus", as his praenomen, is inappropriate as a standalone name. There were only a dozen or so praenomens in use at the time, so were largely meaningless except within the context of a family. Generally, Romans were referred to by both Praenomen and Nomen (family name) (Marcus Aurelius). See Roman_naming_conventions. In later centuries, those with Cognomen might be referred to by that alone (e.g., Caesar, rather than Gaius Julius). In modern literature, it's more common to obey our WP:SURNAME conventions, and refer to him as Aurelius unless other members of the family are potentially part of the sentence. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 01:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll do that. Tdslk (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * And, unless there are any objections, I will use "Verus" for Lucius Verus. Tdslk (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I only just saw this section after posting this on the CRG talk page. I would argue the opposite.  The modern sources don't appear to use "Aurelius" to refer to him.  Also, since he was a regent, it looks like WP:SURNAME doesn't apply.  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * (For the record, the consensus at the link above was to use both names, "Marcus Aurelius," throughout.) Tdslk (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Historians normally refer to him as "Marcus" rather than "Aurelius" because he was an emperor. Roman sources typically either call him "Marcus" or "Antoninus" but I don't think I've ever seen him referred to simply as "Aurelius".  HypnoSynthesis (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Praetorian Prefect?
"As Antoninus aged, Marcus would take on more administrative duties, more still when he became the praetorian prefect (an office that was as much secretarial as military) when Marcus Gavius Maximus died in 156 or 157.[141" The source cited, Birley p. 112, says that this is the year in which Maximus died but that he was succeeded by another man, not Marcus Aurelius, in this position, contrary to the claim earlier in the sentence above. I can't find a source that claims Marcus ever held this position. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Replace Marcus's with Marcus'
This is more grammatically correct, but I am posting it here before I make the change because it would alter a pervasive "style" in the article. Any objections before I go through with it? Any consensus? Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the Manual of Style, "Marcus's" is the Wikipedia way. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS just sends you to the article on apostrophes, which says that it can go either way, so I guess I will let it go. Thanks for your time, Tyrone Madera (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * According to MOS:POSS: "For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle)."

Is this statement true or false?
In Marcus Aurelius Antoninus' 161 AD Letter of Antoninus to the Common Assembly of Asia, in reference to the problem of Christianity, Marcus appears to be a protector of Christians when he warned the Roman provincial authorities:


 * “you harass these men, and harden them in their convictions, to which they hold fast, by accusing them of being atheists”...."And if any one persist in bringing any such [Christian] person into trouble for being what he is, let him, against whom the charge is brought, be acquitted even if the charge be made out, but let him who brings the charge be called to account.” C.R. Haines, “Note on the Attitude of Marcus Toward the Christians” in The Meditations, 1916, Loeb Classical Library (Book 58), Harvard University Press.

Unfortunately it is from an old 1916 book and may have been translated wrong. Scholarship has advanced a lot in 102 years. Some sources on the web say it is false. It is not a big deal to me but as long as this edict/letter is not verified, I think it should not be in Aurelius' formal Wikipedia article. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're right to be cautious about it. I've had a look at the letter in the Loeb Meditations and in fact Haines remarks on the various problems with it. Firstly it survives in two forms - one by Eusebius, and a longer "improved form of the text" by Justin. Eusebius apparently places the letter "under the reign of Pius". Haines underlines parts of the Greek text which may be "portions of the genuine edict". For the final part of the letter (the bit ending "but let him who brings the charge be called to account") Haines remarks "this portion of the edict seems too favourable to the Christians for even Marcus to have promulgated." Pasicles (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not include the quote with a brief discussion as to its authenticity? Even if a forgery by Christians it is, I think, interesting that the reputation of Marcus was such that the claim was credible.Smeat75 (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand your point of view but there is so much fake or outdated information on the web that I would not wish to include it myself. I just prefer to write verified facts not a claim from a 102 year old book. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not trying to drum up an old talking point, but in McLynn's Marcus Aurelius pages 285-305 he deals with the persecution of Christians during Aurelius's reign and concludes that it was virtually impossible that Aurelius was unaware of the persecutions against Christians that was occurring. On p.299 McLynn even cites the pastoral letters of Antoninus Pius to cities in Greece and Asia, the ones mentioned by Leoboudy, as further reasoning that Aurelius was aware of the campaign against Christians but was asking the governors there to ease the persecutions in the wake of the earthquake of 160-1. Thanks, Murfman (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Haines (revised 1930, Loeb) is still the standard academic edition. In the section "Note on the Attitude of Marcus towards the Christians" (pp.383-391) after examining the arguments (and his scholarship is quite extensive, including his examination of possible variations in translation), he concludes (p.387) "That there was in any sense a general persecution of the Christians at this time is contrary to all the facts." As other historians have noted, people in Rome were punished for crimes, not because they were Christians, though the Christians, especially later, would claim that it was because they were Christians. (Discussion of the 'scholarship' of Eusebius and others should be placed elsewhere.) Marcus saw them as "misguided enthusiasts" (p.385) but had no more wish to punish them than Hadrian and Pius. Given the several pages of evidence and analysis which Haines cites, the sentence and its inference should be removed. Leading historian Michael Grant comes to a similar conclusion (The Roman Emperors (1985 [1997] pp.92-93) saying Marcus saw them as "self-dramatizing martyrs" refusing to participate in the common life of the Roman Empire. It may be that Christians suffered more under the law – the statement doesn't attribute that suffering to him directly and even the Roman Catholic encyclopedia says it occurred in outposts of the Empire (where local rulers had certain latitude) and calls Marcus "one of the best men of heathen antiquity" (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02109a.htm). Bear in mind this was not only a time when Marcus was away for much of his rule sorting out border disputes but a time when the plague was ravaging the Empire. Given that the article is about Marcus, the sidelong, controversial, and not even properly supported disparagement that "The persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire appears to have increased during Marcus' reign, but his involvement in this is unknown" should I think be removed. Parzivalamfortas 17:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Death place
Both, Vindobona and Sirmium are mentioned as death places of Marc Aurel by ancient sources. The former by Aurelius Victor in his De Caesaribus (16.14), the latter by Tertullian in Apologeticum (25). I changed the infobox and the text accordingly. Gugganij (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)