Talk:Optimates and populares

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. Student editor(s): Thughes8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Re, the revert to previous version
Re the revert comment quoted: "Your contributions are interesting and well researched, but now the article looks more like an academic review about the pertinence of the use of Populares/Optimates than an encyclopaedia... The introduction is not good as it goes in too much details, and it doesn't mention the lack of academic consensus on the matter. I also suggest a merger Populares and Optimates as both articles overlap a lot. Use talk page if you want to discuss this further." I agree that a merger of the two articles should probably be done. That said, I'm under the impression that an academic consensus does exist on the terms, at least as to their not referring to political parties. I cited four different sources as to that claim:

"...existed akin to a modern parliamentary political party, is discredited: "It is common knowledge nowadays that populares did not constitute a coherent political group or 'party' (even less so than their counterparts, optimates)"."

Nb see revision for specific sources, Sfn kept for ease. If there were not a consensus to move away from the Mommsen-esque treatment given in pre-revisions (and post-reversion) article, it would not be described as "common knowledge". The use of the term to describe in terms of tactics, policy, and ideology is mentioned at length my revision's Meaning section. I also highlight the lack of an academic disagreement as to whether the terms have any meaning at all: "There continues to be debate as to the utility of the terms in scholarship". While for myself I would trend towards Robb's view that the words are basically meaningless, the Oxford Classical Dictionary article – the organisation of which I took in the rewrites – speaks considerably of populares in terms of rhetoric and policy themes. This is reflected heavily in the "Meaning" section. The OCD article also spends a lot of time discussing the historiography of the term, which I also especially think is important given the extent to which people unfamiliar with the post-Syme (or thereabouts) literature view the "optimates-populares struggle" in very whiggish and progressive-conservative terms. Gruen and Robb point out, moreover, that given Cicero's usage of "populares" in terms of being a friend of the people and "optimates" being most anyone who Cicero likes, this isn't a very appropriate label.

The pre-rewrite, or post-revert, version of the article suffers from a number of problems beyond the overly factionalised paradigm. When rewriting, I attempted to preserve as much as possible (and not in the Augustan res gestae pat-myself-on-the-back sense). There's stuff like citation of some documentary without quote or timestamp, various references supporting that Caesar was praetor but not the more party faction thesis, a whole portion on Crassus supporting the populares with a mostly irrelevant reference to Pompey vs Mithradates, one source provided with author and page numbers but no book title, a claim about populares opposing the death penalty right after discussing Marius' proscriptions, citation of Holland and Parenti as if they were reliable academic sources, etc.

Returning to the merger question, there are substantial overlaps between the two terms which is perhaps always going to be necessarily the case given that the terms are traditionally held in opposition to one another. Even discussing Robb's claim that they are not exclusive of each other requires drawing them first in opposition. I think it would be worthwhile to do the move, and I'd be willing to do it if you agree. Ifly6 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had toyed with the idea of rewriting these two articles, but my (offline) draft looked a bit like your revision, eg. a collection of academic statements. I felt that I was going too much in historiography and less in history. For this reason, I think it is important to devote a significant portion of the article to Mommsen's view, even though it has been rejected by many, because it is the most discussed understanding of the period in both academic and popular opinion. Moreover, several historians have expanded on Mommsen's theory, such as LR Taylor (Party Politics in the Age of Caesar, not cited) and TP Wiseman, so I don't think the rejection is universal. As far as I remember the two articles Populares/Optimates in the Realencyclopadie are quite long and attempt to give lists of names for both sides. Another element missing from the article is the use by Roman historians of Populares/Optimates to describe the social struggles of the early Republic (the Conflict of the Orders for example), so it is not only Cicero using these words. I am still unsure how to properly structure an article with a lack of academic consensus though. T8612  (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the terms are to a great extent inherently historiographical. For the sake of argument, if the current majority view were that the labels were entirely meaningless (I know this isn't the case), how could we meaningfully speak on a history of parties that did not exist? More charitably, even if we take the view that populares and optimates refer both to compliments and to tactics – which I think is the consensus, see Yakobson – how can we speak of a "history" of a "party" that was actually a rhetorical style?
 * Re the other points brought up, I'm under the impression that Taylor's view, perhaps due to the age of Party politics, isn't in the mainstream any longer. If the article is to lend an appropriate weight to the current scholarship, it'll need to note that the parliamentary parties view is not the mainstream and some of the reasons for that. Then, the minority view – which is included shortly in my revision – also can be discussed. Moreover, re Wiseman's view, I'm under the impression from his view in Remembering the Roman people that he promotes the term to refer to an ideology, which is broadly akin to Mackie's view which I elaborated in length in the "Meaning" section of my revision. And even if the terms refer to ideologies, would it not be a further jump to assume a party structure as the pre-revision article does?  Edit. See note. 
 * Re the names and continuing, if Roman politicians constantly swapped sides the names, even as ideologies, shouldn't themselves be all that relevant: eg with M Aemilius Scaurus most people say he's an optimate but he also was on the Mamilian commission and with Gaius Marius while he's traditionally popularis he also let Saturninus be killed. I know I'm coming from this from the same perspective as Gruen's "obscures rather than enlightens" remark, but lining up side of names contra another and reducing all this nuance to party factionalism does meaningfully obscure.
 * As to the use in the conflict of the orders, Robb writes about this in her chapter on Livy, concluding "[n]evertheless, Livy does not describe political division over these issues as a conflict between populares and optimates" and "In general, Livy's use of the word popularis exhibits the same wide variation in meaning as that found in Cicero. His use of optimates is uncomplicated and refers to the aristocracy... The two terms are contrasted only once and this occurs in the speech of Barbatus". Re Sallust, she concludes that he "makes use of only two meanings of the word popularis... [s]ignificantly, neither of these meanings is political".
 * Also, if you have a draft already, I think you should post it! I'd be greatly interested in seeing your take. Ifly6 (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm very busy nowadays. I lost my draft unfortunately... I don't have the same reading of Yacobson as yours. I found he tried to reconcile diverging opinions and seems to dismiss Robb's rejection of these labels.
 * I think the way to proceed is first to discuss a merger of Populares and Optimates on the Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome. I'll do it at some point this week if you don't. T8612  (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My reading of Yakobson is that he notes there is debate, then he gives a discussion of historical views, which explicitly rejects the parliamentary parties thesis, while embracing a view that the labels describe methods, venues, and content. My revision spoke almost entirely on those topics (under Meaning), while rejecting the parliamentary parties thesis and noting Robb's argument as well. I'm not exactly sure how one would make the talk section or what to put in it, so I think it would be best if you did it. Thanks in advance! Ifly6 (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just following up, did you make a discussion for merger in the Wikiproject? Yours, Ifly6 (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Merger with Optimates
A discussion about a merger of this article with Optimates is taking place here. T8612 (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction of Optimates historiography section
The article's treatment of Populares broadly disagrees with the stance taken by the Optimates article. Oneor the other should be adjusted-currently swapping between the two is a very jarring conflict of tacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VineFynn (talk • contribs) 05:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles are being rewritten and will soon be merged. T8612  (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Muddled
This page is muddled, and has been for some time. It seems like half the page is dedicated to talking to how there is no such thing as an optimate or populare, even though such things were discussed during that time. It would be better if this page just defines what an optimate and populare is, who is considered in which camp usually (Gracchi brothers and Julius Caesar - populares, Cicero and Sulla - optimates). It's fine to say that some historians disagree with the definition, or don't think a certain person is slated to one or other faction, but the way this article is written is muddled, it's like the whole thing says what this talks about does not exist. Minimax Regret (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The "modern orthodoxy" is that there was no popular-vs-aristocratic division (implying that Roman politics was "a small group of aristocrats [fighting] for power without principles"). A list of who is in one camp or the other is not helpful because Roman politicians constantly swapped camps (even accepting, arguendo, that the camps themselves are identifiable): "labels optimates and populares did not signify a formalized affiliation" and that "their usage was highly flexible, often inconsistent, and certainly open to manipulation". Writing an article that does "here are the populares, here are the optimates" would not be consistent with recent scholarship (especially since c. 1939), which does not view them as camps. This is especially difficult when:

Outside Cicero’s Pro Sestio, there is surprisingly little evidence for the words being used as antithetical political labels by the Romans themselves... where political debate was structured around judging what was truly popularis, what was truly in the public interest, making such a declaration did not mark a senator out as a certain sort of politician or, indeed, an opponent of the Senate ...

Meier’s study resulted in a functional model of the methods used by the opponents of aristocratic consensus. The primary focus was on “dissenting behavior” rather than the explicit application of the word popularis to particular individuals. He listed seventy-two men who could be considered “populares,” but noted that several who were actually described as popularis by the ancient sources (P. Valerius Publicola, P. Scipio Aemilianus, P. Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus, P. Mucius Scaevola, and Q. Pompeius (cos. 141)) did not conform to his model. Over half (thirty-eight) of the list are never described by the sources as popularis. These include L. Cornelius Cinna, M. Aemilius Lepidus (cos. 78), and L. Sergius Catilina.


 * Ifly6 (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm no expert of classical politics, but from my background in 19-20th century political systems it immediately jumepd out to me that the term 'political party' is being used in a problematic way. If by 'party' you mean a bureaucratic structure designed to select, fundraise, campaign for candidates then coordinate their action all around a common platform, then no, clearly neither Optomates nor Populares were this. But by that definition, most European parliamentary systems between say 1830 and 1940 also had no political parties - parliaments as in Britain, Germany and Belgium were the exception. On the other hand, the description provided of Roman 'parties', that of individual candidates elected through personal notability, patronage, or family connections; lacking distinct forward-oriented, policy-based manifestos or programmes to government, and forming a kaleidescopic mishmash of parliamentary factions subject to permanent defection,splinter and fusion usually on personalist grounds rather than ideological ideals. Well, welcome to the democratic parties of 19th and 20th century France and other parliamentary systems close to or modelled on it, such as Italy, Spain, Greece. Nobody familiar with modern France would say there were no parties,that the Radical Party or theDekocratic Alliance did not exist and that the labels were meaningless; we would adjust our understanding, and critique our own assumptions of what a political party is, to better understand what an alternative form of parliamentary organisation looked like and how it operated.

So the problem here is that one particular use of 'political party' is being employed, without self-reflection on whether the term today means the same as when Mommsen or others used it. From the description provided, Optimates and Populares sound exactly like the sort of political parties I am familiar from studying modern but non-Anglo democracies. Monatere (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * While I agree in general that the meaning of "political party" is perhaps of some relevance, I think under the analogous standard ("Nobody familiar with modern France would say there were no parties,that the Radical Party or theDekocratic Alliance did not exist and that the labels were meaningless") there are still no political parties here. People familiar with ancient Rome, classicists, are telling us that there were no political parties, that there were no broad organisations, and (some classists disagree on this one) that the labels were altogether meaningless.
 * As to parliamentary politics, there really isn't a parliament in the republic. The closest thing is a senate with no binding authority which can be ignored. And even in those debates, it's clear that there are lots of factions on every topic. Those factions change based on the topic; they are not stable. They are motivated by friends, family, self-interest, etc rather than ideology and have little impact on policy choices. The Romans never identified one group of people as "populares" (except Cicero in Sest) and never identified another group as "optimates" (except Cicero in Sest with "boni", where he identified everyone who isn't Clodius as "boni"; also not really a "faction").
 * The use in Mommsen was in terms of a political party with organisation. This is also the source of the anachronistic ideas in the early 20th century that someone "stood on the Popular platform" (paraphrase) or that Catiline was a stooge for Crassus and Caesar who were the real leaders of some "Popular Party" in the background. I think under your loose parties interpretation those claims would be incompatible. Ifly6 (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Revert, 4 June 2023
Hi,, I want to explain why I reverted your recent edits. Wikipedia has policies against the large-scale lifting of text from copyrighted material, especially if it is quoted in large portions with minimal changes. You added the following:

"The program of the populares, which was enacted sporadically from 133 to 44 when Caesar died, has been summarised as such:

Agrarian measures of one kind or another, including above all the distribution of land to the poor or to army veterans, whether in individual lots or in the form of colonies; the supply of corn to poor citizens living at Rome, either free or at a low price (frumentationes), the relief of debt; and defence of the democratic elements in the constitution, such as they were, especially the privileges of the tribunes and the right of appeal (provocado). All these policies were anathema to the oligarchs."

The section in the eBook version of what you cited is:

"The program of the populares, enacted sporadically from 133 to Caesar’s death in 44, contained a series of recurrent features that have been helpfully summarised by Ste. Croix (1981:352):

agrarian measures of one kind or another, including above all the distribution of land to the poor or to army veterans, whether in individual lots or in the form of colonies; the supply of corn to poor citizens living at Rome, either free or at a low price (frumentationes); the relief of debt; and defence of the democratic elements in the constitution, such as they were, especially the privileges of the tribunes and the right of appeal (provocado). All these policies were anathema to the oligarchs."

These are basically the same and are almost certainly close paraphrasing. This is before the general issue with Ste Croix's book, which is highly tendentious in pushing a Marxist class struggle narrative. This is not longer accepted in the classical scholarship.

I also want to note that it would be preferable to use the same citation style that is common in the document, ie WP:CS1, and also to provide sufficient bibliographic data that it is easily verifiable (viz pages). The original year of the book should also be noted. Ifly6 (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Ifly6, thank you for your clarification. I can understand why you reversed my edit. I was going to add some information in place of that source regarding various Populares proposals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zictor23 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, I removed one of the sources after failing to verify the information thereat. The other lacks relevant pages to verify one way or the other. If you could add pages at in the template, I would appreciate it. I also am dubious as to its reliability, given its publisher's very lacklustre reputation and the author's not-entirely-strong CV. Ifly6 (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The senate and the nobiles

 * The aristocracy of the late republic was that of the nobiles, the people who were patrilineally descended from consuls, and possibly other curule magistrates. These men were contrasted to the novi homines like Cicero. However, status as one or the other played no role in whether they supported or opposed the senate in politics. The Gracchi are as nobilis as they come and opposed the senate in their short careers. Cicero is a novus homo and supported it. Clodius is even more nobilis and alternates between supporting and opposing the senate every year for most of his political career. Roman politicians are opportunistic and have no concrete policy positions on the "popular sovereignty" question: that question is itself an instrument to be manipulated as needed to achieve actual political goals. Ifly6 (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)