Talk:Publius Clodius Pulcher

Suggestion

 * Nonetheless the legality of Clodius' transfer, and therefore all his acts and laws,
 * Might be changed to:
 * Regardless of the legality of Clodius' transfer, and therefore all his acts and laws,

Ronbarak (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

impeachment
I delinked 'impeached'. The link that it led to discussed impeachment in the sense of expelled from office. Under the Romans, any prosecution had to wait until the one to be prosecuted had left office. Clodius did not 'impeach' (strictly) Milo, but prosecuted him. Bucketsofg✐ 03:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

INCEST
This isn't addressed AT ALL in this article. There were rumors that he was having incestuous sex with all of his sisters, which are found in many of Cicero's speeches (esp. "de haruspicum responsis"). It also needs more of his personal life in general, because his image/personality was important toward his political career.

Yes, in section 32 of his Pro Caelio Cicero asks Clodia, "Quod quidem facerem vehementius, nisi intercederent mihi inimicitiae cum istius mulieris viro – fratrem dicere volui." Although seemingly referring to her husband Metellus, Cicero uses the notation frater as an adianoeta conjugately implicating Clodius. ZLRStavis 03:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)ZLRStavis

Clodia
Why was (before I deleted it) there so much information on his sister, when his sister's profile barely mentions him? Naerhu 10:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Greek?
The man was Roman. Why does the article continually call him Greek? Technomad 20:39, 5 November 2008

Your right, I'll change this soon if no one else does. Appietas (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sempronia's lineage
Apologies for my erroneous edit comment that Clodius' mother-in-law Sempronia was granddaughter of Gaius Gracchus. She was in fact granddaughter of Gaius Sempronius Tuditanus consul 129 BC. I've corrected it now in the text..Appietas (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ciceronian POV
The introduction to the article is highly biased. I'm assuming this is a holdover from 1911 material, which would have been written from a "proper" Ciceronian point of view. Cicero hated Clodius. If there's anyone out there fascinated by this figure, who gave up his patrician status in order to become the people's tribune, and whose most lasting contribution to the political landscape at Rome was securing the right of poor people to have access to food, I recommend Tatum's biography, The Patrician Tribune. Tatum presents a well-rounded portrait. For instance, in regard to the sensationalist charges of incest, Tatum points out that extreme invective and slander are characteristic of Cicero as a prosecutor, but that it does seem that Clodius and his sister were close in a way that raised questions. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

statements of opinion in intro not sourced
The introduction still contains biased statements of interpretation; I'm not necessarily saying they shouldn't be there, as they do reflect the dominant scholarly (generally conservative) view of Clodius, especially prior to Tatum's impressively balanced book. They should, however, be attributed to specific scholars, or if they are only from the 1911 Britannica, where royalist sentiments often color the assessment of the populares, they should be replaced with comments from more recent scholars. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

odds and ends
Speaking rhetorically - why do so few wiki-Histories articles carry inline citations? I'll be making occasional contributions to this page, in a possibly vain attempt - hey, every little helps - to approach some internal consistency across the subject area. I actually like Cicero, despite (or maybe because of) his snide bitchiness and brown-nosing, but completely concur with Cynwolfe. Haploidavey (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Claudia Pulchra article
This is copied from the discussion page there, concerning the Relatives of Publius Clodius section. Is there someone who can clear it up, and bring it, this article and the Clodia article into agreement?:

I'm pretty sure this isn't correct. The sisters of Clodius are given as between three and five. He was the youngest of the family except the sister who married Lucullus, I think. And only Clodia Luculli and Clodia Metelli (the second and elder of whom is generally given as Catullus's Lesbia, although others have argued that Lesbia was Clodia Luculli or someone else entirely) were his full sisters, the other siblings coming from another marriage of the father's. One of the other sisters married Quintus Marcius Rex. At least both his full-sisters changed their names (again, I think. If I were sure I'd change it). And weren't they all called Pulchra? I've seen Clodia Metelli's childhood name given as Claudia Pulchra Tercia; Claudia Pulchra Tertia; and Claudia Pulchra Tertulla. 41.241.3.105 (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Birth date
Can anyone give sound reasons for the changing of Clodius' birth date from 92 (given in the first reference via a google-book preview of the relevant page in Tatum's book) to 93 (using an archaic dating system)? Haploidavey (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Tatum is following Badian's bogus and refuted theory of a special "patrician" cursus honorum, I don't know his book. Anyhow, the age minima for holding Roman public office are very well attested, and were 36, turning 37 in office, for the aedilitas, and 39, turning 40 in office, for the praetura. Clodius was aed.cur.56 and a candidate for a 53 praetura, hence born in the Roman (pre-Julian) calendar year which we loosely equate with 93 BC, or earlier. Similarly Clodius' death is attested as 18 Ianuarius of the pre-Julian calendar in which Pompeius was cos.tertium, loosely equated with 52 BC. But stating 18 Jan 52 BC (as in this article) is certainly false since the pre-Julian intercalation is attested back to 57 BC, so it is certain that Clodius' pre-Julian 18 Ian. death dates to December 53 BC by Julian reckoning (the BC dates are all Julian).Appietas (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt response. I don't know Badian's theory, or challenges to it. At the moment, the dates are potentially confusing to the average well-informed reader. I don't doubt your information, but it should not be placed where the mainstream Tatum reference links it to contradictory information. Might I suggest your edit is re-expressed in a footnote? This should of course also be academically cited.


 * Tatum's book is likely to be used in future edits of this article, as a reliable and well-balanced source on Clodius (see also Cynwolfe's post somewhere above this one). I'm sure you appreciate the difficulty arising for unwary readers when they find his dates being challenged in the lead. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(typo corrected. Haploidavey (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

sport
i love sport —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.141.117 (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Tatum's biography vs. OR
Over the last few months, there have been several good edits to this article; however, I still don't see anybody actually citing Tatum's biography The Patrician Tribune. Ancient sources should be provided, of course, but it hasn't seemed to occur to anyone that sifting through them and writing a biography from scratch most definitely constitutes "Original Research" both in the Wikipedia sense and even in the field of classical studies. There are good articles on Clodius, in addition to Tatum, some of which are listed under Modern Works here — but not cited within the article, so who knows whether or how they were consulted? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

deleted nonsense about politics in 59 BC
Under the unsourced section "Adoption into plebeian family of the Fonteii," I deleted claims about the so-called "First Triumvirate" controlling politics in 59 BC, including the implication that Caesar somehow held the consulship 'by force.' Caesar was elected consul in the same way that anyone else was at this time. (That he made his colleague Bibulus irrelevant through various means, including force, is true, but that isn't what was stated.) I also deleted some kind of statement that implied that the Big Three were in complete command during 59. This is the kind of power fantasy that recurs in articles about the Republic. In the first place, events in the year 58 show that this alliance was limited: they sought some mutual aims, but Crassus and Pompey were often at cross purposes in 58. Their lack of absolute power in 59 is indicated by their having political opponents elected to office for 58. Clodius himself, as has been amply shown by various modern scholars, was hardly their instrument while tribune: he threatened to repeal Caesar's legislation and worked actively against Pompey. At any rate, Clodius's career should be understood on its own terms, and not in light of contested notions about the 'first triumvirate,' which is an anachronistic label for this factional alliance in the first place. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

deleted an unsourced statement
I deleted the opinionated unsourced part of following statement which had been tagged since March 2009:

He passed numerous laws in the tradition of the populares (the Leges Clodiae), but was hampered by tendencies to petulance and extreme violence, and by the negativity of his bitter personal feuding, which undermined his ability to muster a really large and authentic popular following.

I don't know how one measures the "authenticity" of a politician's popular following if burning down the senate house as his funeral pyre doesn't count. It's true that he was rather self-destructive in carrying out his grudge against Cicero, but perhaps no more so than certain other politicians of the time (poor Bibulus comes to mind) who didn't have the misfortune of being immortally demonized by one of Rome's more tireless producers of political invective. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is a mess
I'm sorry, but even reading this with a university-level-familiarity with the subject-matter, this article is poorly written. Irrelevant digressions and an over-emphasis on including every piece of known information has rendered this article very difficult to read and not nearly as informative as it could or should be. The writing style reads like it was lifted, without context, from a fictionalised account of events. The section on the Bona Dea is especially taxing to read; the final paragraph contains zero references and a lot of un-encyclopedic language.

This whole article needs a serious rewrite :( 58.7.173.5 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

CORN
Under the "Tribunate" section it states that he implemented a free corn dole. Not 100% on this but I'm pretty sure that corn or maize was only available in North America at this time and only introduced into Europe in the 15 th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.78.64 (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * In varieties of English other than American, the primary meaning of "corn" is "grain", typically although not exclusively referring to wheat (rye, barley, and grains that preceded modern wheat, but are sometimes distinguished from it, such as spelt, for example). It has that meaning in American English, too, although it's chiefly used to refer to maize.  The word "corn" long predates the introduction of maize to Europeans.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Temporal inconsistency
The article reads "Born Publius Claudius Pulcher in 93 BC, Clodius was the youngest son of Appius Claudius Pulcher, who had been consul in 79 BC".

Rather than "who had been", it should be "who was to be" or similar future expressions (if dates are correct). AntonioTavanti (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Fixed. This might have arisen from someone changing the simple past tense, "who was consul", into a more complicated form unnecessarily.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Bona Dea, the Regia and the Domus Publica
The first sentence of the Bona Dea section is incorrect.


 * "In December of 62 BC, the rites of the Bona Dea were held at the Regia, the official residence of the Pontifex Maximus...."

In 62 BCE, the rites of the Bona Dea were held at the Domus Publica which was located next door to the Regia. To break this down:

The Regia was the Republican headquarters of the Pontifex Maximus.

The Domus Publica was the official residence of the Pontifex Maximus.

See Chapter 7 (Scandal) of Caesar, by Adrian Goldsworthy. Ljredux (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I was hoping to find clarification in reference works under domus publica or regia, but so far all the material I can find is under pontifex. The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities says, "[t]he meetings of the college of pontiffs... were held in the curia regia on the Via Sacra, to which was attached the residence of the pontifex maximus and the rex sacrorum.  As the chief pontiff was obliged to live in a domus publica, Augustus, when he assumed this dignity, changed part of his own house into a domus publica."  (Internal citations omitted).  This passage describes the residence of the Pontifex Maximus as an attachment to the regia, and seems to use the words "domus publica" in a generic sense.


 * Harper's Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, in a much shorter article says that the Pontifex Maximus "was, as spiritual successor of the king, the sole holder and exerciser of the pontifical power; and his official dwelling was in the king's house, the regia of Numa adjoining the Forum, the seat of the oldest State worship." (Italics in original).  The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd edition, says "[t]he head of the college was the Pontifex Maximus, whose official residence under the later Republic was in the Regia."  I have not checked PW to see if it adds any detail, but someone fluent in German might want to have a look.  If any general reference source gives a more authoritative view, that would be it.


 * From these descriptions, it seems that the residence of the Pontifex Maximus was attached to and considered part of the Regia. The words "domus publica", perhaps better translated "house of the people" or "people's house" than "public house", do not appear to be the proper name of the Pontifex Maximus' apartment in the Regia, but rather a description of the Regia as a house belonging to the Roman people, in which the Pontifex Maximus was obliged—or at least accustomed—to live, during the latter part of the Republic.  The fact that Augustus designated part of his residence a "domus publica" seems to have fulfilled this expectation, and demonstrates that the words do not clearly indicate a specific structure.  None of the sources I consulted distinguish between the Regia and the Pontifex Maximus' residence attached to it; the statement in this article appears to represent the situation correctly.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)