# Talk:Catilinarian conspiracy

Never encountered that form before... 173.66.211.53 (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Term is attested to and widely used both in English generally and the English-language classical literature. Ifly6 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Although "Catilinarain" is correct, the event is also known commonly as "The Catiline Conspiracy".  Why use twice as many syllables? Skb8721 (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

This is incredibly one sided, as there is significant doubt as to how much of this was manufactured by cicero to increase his own political stock  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.203.7 (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC) 

Absolutely agree, if not for the fact that Cicero was long since dead one would think this entry was done as a PR piece to get him elected somewhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.110.46 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Concur that there is some doubt that Cicero's descriptions, invectives, and allegations are anywhere close to the truth. See generally Waters, K. H. (1970). "Cicero, Sallust and Catiline". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. 19 (2): 195–215. ISSN 0018-2311. Ifly6 (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Re the POV tag recently placed here with the edit comment The Caesarian viewpoint is that this conspiracy was a sham concocted by Cicero. This view should be represented on the page, I'm not aware of any Caesarians so asserting. Sallust, a Caesarian during Caesar's civil war, is the main source and never questions Catiline's guilt; nor am I aware of any later historians writing under the Caesars doing so. Waters, noted above, basically says so, but Waters' thesis (although interesting) is not altogether accepted by classicists. Edit. And isn't at all Caesarian, regardless. Ifly6 (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Delukiel: Above. Ifly6 (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Just now getting this pin, but I was referring to modern-day Caesarian scholars (as Parenti calls them, anyway). Nevertheless, my issue with the page has been rectified by your astounding edit. So thanks for that! Delukiel (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Ifly6:—I was reading over this page again and was thinking: I've actually got a copy of Parenti's The Assassination of Julius Caesar. I could add what he has to say about Cicero's role (it's not pretty) under Critical Perspectives, but I figured I'd check in here first since the page is currently undergoing GA revisions. Worth adding? Delukiel (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Frankly, I'd say no. Parenti's book is not a reliable source. He is not a classicist and his book was not published by an academic publisher. His ideas aren't even very novel: G. E. M. de Ste. Croix and Moses Finley already presented a class struggle-inspired narrative decades before he did. And Parenti's list of questions in chapter 5 is largely duplicative of that given by Waters (1970), already cited.
The overarching idea of there being anything like party politics between conservatives and popular politicians (allegedly like Caesar) also is dismissed in the modern literature. The labels optimate and popularis did not denote them. See MA Robb Beyond populares and optimates (2010) and H Mouritsen Politics in the Roman republic (2017) for more details. The maximalist statement is that they referred to ideological tendencies but still not parties. Eg Mackie (1992) 135 Rh. Mus. 49.
As to the good article revisions, the revisions were already done. The article was already marked good as of 21 August this year. Ifly6 (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Noted. Delukiel (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Catilinarian conspiracy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 02:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Ifly6 (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


### Criteria
No DAB links Y
No dead links Y
No missing citations N: he had strong connections to the aristocracy and was both a nobilis and a patrician.


### Discussion
@Ifly6: Two issues so far, the missing citation above, and the inconsistent citation format. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Referencing should be consistent, but there is currently three types of referencing in the article. Citebooks/journals directly in the prose-space, harvnb citations, and sfn citations. Standardize these, I suggest by moving the citebooks/journals to the Modern Sources area, and converting them and the harvnb citations to sfns.
As to the use of {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} in the same article, this isn't because they aren't standardised. This is because they are incompatible. If you use SFN with a PS note and use SFN again with a no PS note, it will throw an error. I always use {{harvnb}} when there is a note and {{sfn}} when it is merely a page number. This is documented on the Sfn template page. Ifly6 (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I use {{cite book}} when it is cited once. Otherwise, it is given a direct bibliographical marker. This minimises article size by not having duplicated references and anchors. I will also note that citation style is not a Good article criterion. Ifly6 (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ifly6: You are correct, it is not required for GA, but only A and upward, mea culpa. That being said, I would still recommend the standardization to SFNs, with the usage of EFNs for notes, as are already currently utilized; fair enough if you do not wish to proceed with this, however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I divide between {{efn}} notes and {{harvnb}} "notes". The former are thematically-separate additions. The latter are explanations as to why some statement was made or provide otherwise supporting material for the claim. The reference material is (and I think should be) with the reference, rather than sequestered into a separate {{efn}} footnote. Ifly6 (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough; I'll try to get through with this tonight. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


### Prose Suggestions
Please note that almost all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion. Any changes I deem necessary for the article to pass GA standards I will bold.


#### Lede
In November 63, Cicero exposed the conspiracy; Catiline fled from Rome to join his army in Etruria. suggest perhaps In November 63, Cicero exposed the conspiracy, causing Catiline to flee from Rome and join his army in Etruria.
Largely concur. I ended up with In November 63, Cicero exposed the conspiracy, causing Catiline to flee from Rome and eventually to his army in Etruria. Added the word "eventually" because Seager & Waters think the Etrurian army was separate. Ifly6 (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


#### History
he had strong connections to the aristocracy and was both a nobilis... suggest explaining nobilis, perhaps he had strong connections to the aristocracy and was both a nobilis (possessed a consular ancestor)...
The reason why I didn't define nobilis in those terms is because no such specific consular ancestor is recorded: the name of no consular ancestor of Catiline is recorded; presumably there was such an ancestor, in view of Sallust’s comment about his noble line (Berry 2020, p. 10). Even so, there is still the somewhat on-going debate about what nobilis meant; personally I think it wasn't so neatly defined as Gelzer thought and don't want to take sides here. Ifly6 (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, I suppose it probably drifted in meaning a lot as most Byzantine court titles did. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
An explanatory note about not taking sides. Eg in DPRR, they simply say that they don't mark people as nobilis based on reconstructed genealogies (eg Zmeskal's Adfinitas) but rather only on whether someone in the corpus actually called someone a nobilis. https://romanrepublic.ac.uk/about/ ("in the case of contested issues such as the definition of nobilitas or novitas it was decided to apply a purely terminological approach and list only individuals described as such in primary sources"). Sallust does so at Cat. 5.1, which is why I also went with the label. Ifly6 (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


#### Causes and formation
Catiline had stood for the consulship three times by 63 BC and was rejected every time. Only after his defeat at the consular comitia in 63 – for consular terms starting in 62 BC – did Catiline start planning a coup to seize by force the consulship had been denied to him by the voters suggest reorganizing by moving by the voters to Catiline had stood for the consulship three times by 63 BC and was rejected every time by the voters. Only after his defeat at the consular comitia in 63 – for consular terms starting in 62 BC – did Catiline start planning a coup to seize by force the consulship had been denied to him.
These men were "mixed" and "single-minded purpose cannot readily be ascribed" this is seemingly Gruen's assertion, if so I would re-write to According to the historian Gruen, these men were "mixed" and "single-minded purpose cannot readily be ascribed" to give attribution to the quotes, unless he is asserting uncontroversial that this is the standard view.
"recalled the days of swift promotions and lucrative gains" you may also wish to insert direct attribution here, but it may be less necessary given that it appears to be backed by two of the major sources, and may therefore be a more "standard view".
the evidence trends against their involvement suggest the evidence leans against their involvement
Largely accepted suggestions. Could you clarify as to what you mean with "direct attribution" with recalled the days...? Do you mean again prefacing with "Gruen says"? Ifly6 (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ifly6: Yes, pretty much exactly. It is more direct in comparison to "indirectly" attributing via citation, as a reader can't not read it with the prose, essentially. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


#### Uncovered
Suggest renaming this section from "Uncovered" to "Discovery"
From a woman named Fulvia, in the autumn of 63 BC, the consul Cicero heard rumours of a plot suggest In the autumn of 63 BC, the consul Cicero heard rumours of a plot from a woman named Fulvia.
senate passed a decree declaring a tumultus and suggest senate passed a decree declaring a tumultus (state of emergency) and
he was brought up on charges under the lex Plautia de vi (public violence) seems that this should be the lex Plautia de vi (law of public violence)

Agree with the first three. On the last, the brackets are meant to explain what vis is, rather than the whole Latin tag. I think lex Plautia is relatively self-evident. Ifly6 (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


#### Manoeuvres
pending charges of vis may wish to make this pending charges of vis (violence), readers unfamiliar to the topic may not connect the lex Plautia de vi above with this.
Done. Expanded also to "public violence", to use the same tag. Different inflections of vis aren't necessarily clear. Ifly6 (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


#### Execution of the conspirators
The Allobroges, however, informed on Lentulus' plans. suggest The Allobroges, however, revealed Lentulus' plans.
"did not have legal weight and could not in itself protect Cicero from prosecution" suggest making this regular prose, as direct attribution would be somewhat awkward, rewriting to carried no legal weight, and did not inherently protect Cicero from prosecution to avoid close paraphrasing.
senate's (non-binding) advice suggest removing parenthesis.
 proclaiming at their conclusion, vixerunt (lit. 'they have lived'). given that this is one of the most famous euphemisms in history, you may wish to edit it to something like,  proclaiming at their conclusion, the now-famous euphemism vixerunt (lit. 'they have lived').
Largely accepted the first three, though I restructured the sentences around the SCU to avoid quoting (see diff). Do you have a source for the claim "most famous euphemism"? I'm personally aware that it is relatively famous, but not "most". Ifly6 (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


#### Final defeat
"support fell away from Catiline's army" here also you may wish to remove the quotes and have it be simple prose. Perhaps support fell away from Catiline and his army
(the now-proconsul, however, claimed illness and Marcus Petreius was in actual command[57]) you may wish to make this a footnote, via harvnb or efn means, or insert text breaks, such as –the now-proconsul, however, claimed illness and Marcus Petreius was in actual command[57]–, for enhanced readablity.
Done. Ifly6 (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


#### Conclusion
, he did not accrue all the credit (to his dismay). suggest removing parenthesis, to , he did not accrue all the credit, to his dismay.
Done. Ifly6 (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


#### Bias in ancient accounts
S. [Sallust] fails to allow for a gradual shift in Catiline's strategy and aims as his hopes of reaching the consulship faded, because S. prefers to present Catiline as a through-going villain, the product of the corrupt age, who was bent on the destruction of the state from the very beginning... given that this is a review of Sallust, I would directly attribute it, perhaps by appending —Ramsey.
Prefaced with "in a commentary" etc. Ifly6 (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


#### Overemphasis
It is evident, in retrospect, that the event did not shake the foundations of the state. The government was in no real danger of toppling; the conspiracy, in fact, strengthened awareness of a common interest in order and stability. It is not, however, to be dismissed as a minor and meaningless episode. Motives of the leader may have been personal and less than admirable. But the movement itself called to notice a number of authentic social ills which had previously lacked effective expression... The shape of the social structure remained basically unaffected... but the grievances had been brought to public attention... prominent leaders recognised the utility of responding to needs exposed in the Catilinarian affair. The grain bill sponsored by Cato in 62 obviously belongs in this context... Two major bills in 59 and another in 55 went a long way toward relief same suggestion of appending —Gruen


#### Underlying causes
Some older scholarship conceived of Catiline as being a Crasso-Caesarian puppet; this position "has long been discredited" suggest moving some of the note to prose, such as naming some of those who suggested it. Also, since there is some contention (discrediting aside) suggest directly attributing, perhaps Some older scholarship, such as E.T. Salmon, conceived of Catiline as being a Crasso-Caesarian puppet; this position "has long been discredited" according to Gruen
For this one, I think the line "long been discredited" is acceptable for general scholarly opinion and therefore wouldn't need a specific attribution. Ifly6 (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


#### Critical perspectives
"growing potentia" suggest removing quotes and explaining growing potential (power)
as Cicero's cutting loose ends suggest as Cicero cutting loose ends
dignitas more  suggest dignitas (dignity) more
Made some changes, but for dignitas, I don't think a single word would be sufficient explanation. Linked the article on the word. Expanded on potentia. Accepted second point. Ifly6 (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ifly6: That's all my suggestions, passing now. Great article on a long-ignored subject. Love to see it at A-Class or FAC sometime. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Was to erase, surely? 31.210.226.156 (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The ancient sources claim that the putsch was to erase them. The sources should not be believed, however, on face. Saying that your political opponents want to overthrow the state to get rich is some classic invective. That's why it's phrased in the subjunctive. Ifly6 (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)