Talk:Res publica/Archive 1

The Roman Constitution
Funny, but here is the Roman Constitution which seems to be overlooked; not quoted at length and seen. But here is the real McCoy---The Roman res publica, as promulgated by Romulus:
 * "...he immediately resolved to appoint senators, with whom he would administer public affairs, and he chose 100 men from the patricians. ... When he had determined these regulations, he distinguished the ... powers which he wished each class to have. For the king he chose the following prerogatives : first, to have the chief authority in rites and sacrifices, ... then, to maintain the guardianship of the laws and the national customs, ... to judge in person the greatest crimes, but to leave the lesser crimes to the senators, ... to summon the Senate and to convoke the Assembly, ... to have absolute command in war. To the council of the Senate ... he assigned the following authority : to decide and to vote on whatever matter the king introduced. ... To the common people he granted these three things : to elect the magistrates and to ratify the laws and to decide on war whenever the king permitted ... The people did not vote all together, but they were convoked by curias."

This comes by the way of -->The Roman Law Library, by Y. Lassard and A. Koptev. English section, Laws of the Kings, Romulus, #3

What do you notice about that Roman constituion under Romulus? It is a picture perfect mirror of the Spartan model! Look at it gentlemen! There it is in Black and White! Romulus had a Senate and the assemblies. Just like Sparta. Command in War, just like Sparta. The Senate "to decide and vote on matters", just like Sparta, And assemblies to either approve or disapprove, just like the assembly at Sparta!

It is all right there.WHEELER 00:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Now a very curious thing Now Cicero, that very prominent Latin Lawyer, who visited Sparta wrote De re publica. He wrote:


 * Book II, ix; "It was after he had adopted this policy that Romulus first discovered and approved the principle which Lycurgus had discovered at Sparta a short time before&mdash;that a State can be better governed and guided by the authority of one man, that is by the power of a king, if the influence of the State's most eminent men is joined to the ruler's absolute power . Accordingly supported and guarded by such a body of advisers, to which we may give the Senate, ...


 * "He also gave complete obedience to the auspices, a custom which we still observe tot he great security of the State.


 * Book II, x; "And after Romulus had reigned thirty-seven years, and established those two excellent foundations of our commonwealth, the auspices and the senate..." (Loeb edition)

Cicero marks the beginning of the Commonwealth, "et haec egregia duo firmamenta rei publicae, auspicia et senatum..."

Cicero's states that the Republic started UNDER Romulus with the establishment of the Senate and Auspices! Look at this article Res publica, and the Wikipedia Republic and isn't there discrepancies? WP article states a Republic DIMINISHES religion and that a Republic is anything "without a monarch".

Cicero's De re publica is ALL about mixed government. Where is that in this article about "res publica"? There are major slants and discrepancies here in all these Articles. Someone is NOT reading something or reading comprehension is not so good but a clear reading of Cicero states the exact opposite.

-->"In all the republics of antiquity the government was divided between a senate and a popular assembly; and in cases where a king stood at the head of affairs, as at Sparta, the king had little more than the executive." Article by Leonhard Schmitz, Ph.D., F.R.S.E., Rector of the High School of Edinburgh, of William Smith (editor), D.C.L., LL.D.: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875. on pp 1016&#8209;1022

So somebody is fooling somebody. There are major discrepancies and this article is terribly faulty and so is the scholarship.WHEELER 01:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Now look at this information and look at the Wikpedia article on Republic, Classical republic, Res publica, Republicanism, Classical republicanism and tell me that something ain't right.WHEELER 01:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cicero's De re publica, If you read it for yourself, has the words mixed constantly through it! Cicero talks about a "Fourth" type of government. Cicero's whole book De re publica is about MIXED government and you know what? The Word "mixed" and the word "fourth" don't appear in Wikipedia's De re publica or in this article on Res publica. Something Ain't Right here folks.WHEELER 01:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article on De re publica currently only gives the form in which the text is transmitted and presented. I see no reason why a summary of its content shouldn't be included: feel very free to include the word 'mixed' in any summary you care to write. --Nema Fakei 23:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And you are smoking what kind of drug? They call me a lunatic but you need to check yourself in my friend.  What me edit?  Put in "mixed government" and "Fourth type of government"?  If that is what Cicero wrote, Then it undermines all your articles and related articles on Republic!  Besides that is original research.  If I put that in there, it would be deleted as hearsay and original research.  Thanks but no thanks.  That is a political hot potato around here.  I don't think you grasp the import of what you are saying.  Putting Mixed government into that Article "De re publica" means that Re publica is about MIXED GOVERNMENT.  Cicero CLEARLY states that the "commonwealth" started UNDER Romulus.  This shoots your Republic, your Roman Republic, your Classical republic, your res publica, your politiea, your Republicanism, your Classical republicanism, your List of republics all to hell.  I don't think I you want that incriminating evidence, that logic, to enter in.  Your as foolish and lunatic as I am.WHEELER 02:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My articles? I think you confuse me with Wikipedia. I'm flattered, I think, but no.
 * Discussion in Cicero's DRP covers a number of topics, one of which is mixed government. So long as you can cite what you say about Cicero, that's fine. The fact that Cicero talks about mixed government, the fact that he uses the phrase respublica Lacedaemoniorum on occasion does not contradict anything in the vast majority of those articles (I've not gone through all with a fine-toothed comb yet, so possibly all of them are compliant with that). --Nema Fakei 18:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note: Cicero did not clearly state that that the commonwealth or whatever you want to call it began under Romulus, you're misinterpreting the Loeb there. "et haec egregia duo firmamenta rei publicae, auspicia et senatum...". firmamenta can loosely mean foundations, but not in the 'origins' sense. They are "I. a strengthening, support, prop (class.; esp. freq. in the trop. sense and in Cic.)." (no other relevant meaning). The auspicia and the senatum comprise the 'rock on which the republic was later built', to be loose about it, but that's not the same as the republic itself. --Nema Fakei 19:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotes
I have placed the lengthy set of quotes formerly in the article into Talk:Res publica/quotes. While clumsily and incompletely cited, they may eventually prove useful. Here also are more citations for the use of res publica under the Emperors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC):
 * Pliny the Younger to Trajan: "the provincials joined with us in imploring the gods that they would be graciously pleased to preserve you and the republic in that state of prosperity which your many and great virtues.." Letters X, 51. "Diocletian indispensible to the republic." Historia Augusta Carus §10.  Eumenius of Autun received 600,000 sesterces "from the republic", temp. Constantius I, W. S. Maguinness  "Eumenius of Autun" Greece & Rome, Vol. 21, No. 63. (Oct., 1952), pp. 97-103. "The Emperor and his republic" Inscription from Ephesus, from the time of Constantius II. Edited and translated by Louis J. Swift and James H. Oliver. "Constantius II on Flavius Philippus" The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 83, No. 3. (Jul., 1962), pp. 247-264. Articles have JSTOR links.

I got another piece of the puzzle for you:
 * Machiavelli's Error. WHEELER 02:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Three Elements of the Roman Republic
I have just about had it. Has any of the Contributors here at Wikipedia in political science and in Classical Antiquity read? Because I come across stuff that blows everything away that is going on here at Wikipedia.
 * Two consuls instead of a king now stood each year at the head of the community; the assembly of adult males which elected them remained the same, as did the body of elders who advised them; this was the senate, composed in practice of former magistrates. Time and circustance produced various modifications in THE THREE ELEMENTS whose interplay WAS (italics in original) the Roman political system, including notably the creation of a large number of lesser magistrates; NOTHING ALTERED THE CENTRAL FACT OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT, THAT IT WAS THE COLLECTIVE RULE OF AN ARISTOCRACY , IN PRINCIPLE and to a varying extent in practice dependent on the will of a popular assembly.
 * Michael Crawford, The Roman Republic 2ND Edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978, 1992. pg 22-23.

I don't know but right there refutes what is said in this article about "Republic" being democracy. Do you see your WP article on Republic with ANY of this information? NOOOOO. All your articles dealing with Republic are messed up!!!WHEELER 00:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have indeed 'read'. As have others. In fact, I know I'm not the only wikipedian who has 'read' Classics, and I know I'm not the only wikipedian who's able to read Latin and Greek. But that's a long way from being the point. Please try to understand that the sorts of changes you're asking for are very much disconnected from the point and context of the sources you're quoting. The fact that the Roman Republic was in practice an aristocracy does not mean the word res publica was used as a synonym of aristocracy, and even if you think it does, that's a semantic argument that Crawford is *not* making. (Of course you can find the sort of data that's behind what he says in its proper place, Roman Senate).
 * The vast majority of the quotations you regularly adduce are similarly taken out of context, and I hope and assume it's not deliberate - so tell me, WHEELER, do you want me to go through each one by one, or will you just find more? I'm at a loss what to do - when we try to engage you in discussion about actually improving an article, you refuse to talk in specifics or you go off at a tangent or come up with things like this, and when we engage you on your preferred ground, when we demonstrate the mistranslations etc, we are all too often met with silence or swift subject changes. So I don't know what to do. Clearly, my attempts at mediating a solution have failed, so can you please set out a sensible plan to proceed? --Nema Fakei 02:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Taken out of context? me semantics? It seems that we don't understand simple English.  It is like when I talk to Greek Orthodox--you can't understand what we do--it's mystical, and you have to have this special knowledge and secret lingo--and then you will understand.  I don't know what part of simple english don't you understand Nema, but  Michael Crawford says THE CENTRAL FACT OF Republican government is a Senate.  Now, please follow me to the Wikipedian Ariticle of Republic---"Republics are often associated with democracy," That is what a republic is?  Where do you see the definition of Michael Crawford there in that the Central Fact of Republics is a Senate?  Where? And the involvement of the Aristocracy? When I read all these articles on Wikipedia, it is double twisting, all to prove the validity of British republicanism.  The slant, the twists and the really sick language and the twisting done on all these pages is really disgusting.
 * You know Nema, I do go to Wikipedia for information. I DO FIND Wikipedia valuable.  There are all sorts of good information on Wikipedia---But the one sore spot on Wikipedia is all these articles on republics that purport to be Political science.  They are not concise, verifiable, coherent.  Every single article on Wikipedia's republic articles is to insure the egalitarianism, anti-monarchical, anti-heirarchical British republicanism slant and POV. It is about democracy democracy democracy!  And if we can slant all other forms of government into being bad and praise democracy democracy democracy.
 * How hard is it to understand this: "In a piece of high presbyterian cant that long was remembered, Cartwright wrote that the civil constitution ought to match the ecclesiastical, "even as the hangings to the house"...the architect had cribbed his plans from the decorator: he had built according to the classical-republican theory of mixed government." ~ Prof. Michael Mendle  How hard is that but when I go to the Wikipedian Classical republic page it has NOTHING to do with mixed government and sends me right back to the Wikipedian Republic page! Look: "A classical republic, according to certain modern political theorists, is a state of Classical Antiquity that is considered to have a republican form of government".  This is a circle jerk. I mean how dumb is this that you have Classical republic mean republic? Then why have TWO articles on it? if Classical republics are only republics of the modern meaning! You can't compare what is written on wikipedia with what Prof. Mendle is saying.  I am taking quotes out of context?  How hard is it to understand "Classical republicanism IS mixed government". I am playing semantics?  I can understand plain english how come you can't? And all I get is "Ohh we have nuances and this and that and you can't mean this or that."

WHEELER 00:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Etymology
what definition was used to cite the roots of the word? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic? Please cite. The opening it says it varies by text. Should have at least a couple of variations for such an assertion. Lihaas (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have to wonder who decided that "publica" is ablative. Publica is a simple attributive adjective, of the feminine gender and the nominative case (since it modifies res): it would be unusual to see an ablative of means without a verb that requires it (an implied sum would be awkward here). Further, texts that employ the term clearly have both words declining in the same way: random example, Tacitus Histories II.1: "quod varia sorte laetum rei publicae aut atrox"--dative of (dis)advantage for res, with republica in the dative as a modifier. Publica is emphatically not an ablative of means (esp. since it would have to be used as a substantive in that case anyway). I'll edit the article, but I'm not a Wiki expert so I don't know how to handle the citation, or if Tacitus counts as sufficient citation. (edit: Okay I found an authoritative source in the Lewis and Short Latin dictionary that cites it, so I tried adding a reference too. This is my first time doing so: I apologize if I've done so incorrectly.) --Jello (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

British Constitution
May be "Res publica" is the right place, paradoxaly, to set the fact that the fundament of British Parliament is "the pursuit of a commonwealth to different social classes" (please see more details in my discussion on "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom / 38. About the British Parliament" Crocy/ (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)