Talk:Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus

message: "a certain Tullus Aufidius, and appealed to him as a supplicant. Coriolanus and Aufidius then persuaded the Volscians to break their truce with Rome and raise an army to invade. When Coriolanus' Volscian troops threatened the city, Roman matrons, including his wife and mother, were sent to persuade him to call off the attack. At the sight of his mother, wife and children throwing themselves at his feet in supplication, Coriolanus"  Just a bit awkward.  Appealed, supplicated, throwing at feet perhaps not needing also to be embellished with supplication?  Coriolise 11:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Does anyone know if the title is pronounced Coriolahnus or Coriolaynus? Bravado 03:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: The first three paragraphs of Wikipedia's entry on Coriolanus are erroneous; they, in fact, reflect several facts about the life of M Atilius Regulus. Coriolanus was very early fifth century BCE while Regulus was early to mid third century BCE. Coriolanus was a general and traitor in the Volscian wars; Regulus, consul during the first Punic war. Cf. Plutarch "Life of Coriolanus" and/or Livy "Ab urbe condita" II. 
72.237.218.74 14:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  C Marcius Coriolanus 

message: I thought his mother was Volumnia, not his wife.  Did Shakespeare get it wrong?  Antandrus  (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mother

message: What would the appropriate title be? --Ieatbugs (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have a 'references in modern culture' section or something?? 

message: The final section is completely without references and from the start seems to have been a vehicle for personal opinion (POV). Unless someone cares to reference it propoerly, I propose to delete it as unencyclopaedic at the end of the month. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion of section 

message: These are two distinct names, but both appear in article names; Polish, German, Dannish wikipedias use Gnaeus (it appears also in Britannica and other sources). On the other hand Spanish, Latin, Turkish, French wikis use Caius... Russian and Italian list both names in article. I can't find what name was used originally by Plutarch (I don't know ancient greek) but quick google search indicates that Livius used name Gnaeus. Possible scenarios here are:
* (most probable) when referring to historical persona Plutarch used different name than Livius - in such case I think article should be renamed to "Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus", since Plutarch was translating Latin name to Greek and Livius lived slightly earlier
* one of Plutarch's translators used wrong name (either by doing poor job or because of popularity of Shakespearian play) and this mistranslation turned out to be popular - in this case I also think, that article name should be changed
* (least probable) both names were the same in Ancient Rome - in such case article name may stay as Gaius, but additional adnotation is needed.
I don't want to jump into conclusions in this matter (since this would be OR), but we should consider renaming this article. Dreamer_ (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Long overdue bump: Plutarch and Dionysius both call him "Gaius".  But errors in reporting praenomina were common, as are disagreements between these three sources and others.  I don't think you can say that Livy was necessarily more accurate, because there are a lot of inconsistencies in praenomina reported by these and other authorities, and in some cases Livy (or at least his copyists) are less likely to be correct.  This would seem to weigh in favour of "Gaius", but there are two factors weighing in favour of "Gnaeus".  First, as a general rule less common praenomina are more likely to be transmuted into more common ones through mistake or copying error than vice-versa.  That's still just a rule of thumb.  But then we look at how each gens used praenomina; they could be remarkably consistent.  I used to think that his name must be "Gaius" because "Gnaeus" wasn't a name used by the Marcii, but quite recently in revising the page on the Marcia gens, I noticed two other early Marcii named "Gnaeus", so they did use it.  And taken as a whole, I think that the weight of the evidence is rather in favour of "Gnaeus".  P Aculeius (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caius/Gaius or Gnaeus? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved.
I'm not sure why this was relisted for a second time.  The two participating editors have reached consensus to move per WP:COMMONNAME.
(non-admin closure)  Havelock Jones (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Gaius Marcius Coriolanus →  – Continuing the neglected discussion above (courtesy ping  and ). "Gnaeus" seems to be more common in primary as well as modern secondary sources, such as the Cambridge Ancient History and the Oxford Classical Dictionary, and the Ngram shows some preference for Gnaeus in the last 40 years. Google Scholar likewise has more sources using Gnaeus. Avilich (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Perhaps.  I'm still not certain, and the lead probably needs to indicate the uncertainty; the article should address that if it doesn't already.  I do lean towards Gnaeus being more probable than Gaius, but it's still a close thing.  P Aculeius (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has a small paragraph on this. Apparently Gnaeus is traditional, while Gaius is traceable to a single source that we know of, and that's the one the play was ultimately based on. Avilich (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just reread it.  I would have said "be bold" and move it, but since other opinions prevailed in the past—and either way it's far from a sure thing—let's see if anyone else weighs in with a contrary opinion by the 18th, and if there are none, move it on the 19th.  If someone disagrees with that subsequently, they can bring it up here.  P Aculeius (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 September 2021