Talk:Thomas Smith (diplomat)

Redirect
From redirects for deletion:
 * Sir Thomas Smith so that Thomas Smith can be moved there, so Thomas Smith can in turn become a disambig for inclusion of early U.S. politican of same name. Postdlf 08:36, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This is now moved, but there are a lot of links that need fixing. Angela. 16:35, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Simplify?
Uhh? The article is short. That section, "Life's works" was composed of one sentence. I read his work and commented on it to give a fleshy out of the particulars. Now, it has been reduced to two sentences. Boring. How about some life! some INFO. Going to rv Pmanderson.WHEELER 23:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What I put was a compromise; those who cannot accept half a loaf deserve less. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This bio is poorly organized and badly written. Caroline Cecil-Jones (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Misc. Notes
I've followed a link here from this page and I don't want to edit without prior explanations.

"He describes it as a mixed government, a commonwealth, and states that all commonwealths are of mixed character."
 * This present text is misleading. He classes as a commonwealth pretty much anything that constitutes a society ("A common wealth is called a society or common doing of a multitude of free men collected together and united by common accord and covenauntes among themselves, for the conservation of themselves aswell in peace as in warre.", ff., in book 1, chapter 10), and then says that all are to some degree mixed.
 * This version is also misleading; he does not use the English word republic at all - respublica is used twice: once in the title, in the sense of 'state', being a back-translation of commonwealth, which he uses in this sense, or simply 'constitution', and once in a quotation from Cicero. The phrase "true commonwealth" does not appear and I have no idea where this is from. QEI is mentioned twice: in the subtitle and again in paragraph two of book 3, chapter 9 - in both cases introducing her as the author's royal employer. The diff's wording suggests there was something particularly significant about her reign, which is not borne out by the text.

Neither of the versions reflect at all the major content of the book, which is an outline of the various classes and positions and a commentary on the laws of the the land, and I propose to change the book summary to reflect this.

He's also mentioned briefly here. I'm currently wondering if Queens' has any archives they'll let me use. Presumably, he was a classics fellow, though I doubt the faculty will have much information. --Nema Fakei 11:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)