Talk:Claudius

message: Is there a reliable source regarding this apparent pro-farting law that Claudius passed?  It seems rather ridiculous that the Romans would have explicitly outlawed farting in the first place, but I suppose that wouldn't be strictly speaking necessary for Claudius to issue a proclamation in favor of it. This claim appears to be blatantly apocryphal, and even if true of very questionable relevance (we don't have any mention in the article regarding tax laws passed, for example). siafu 05:35, 17 June 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The sole source is Suet. Claud. 32, in the Loeb translation: "He is even said to have thought of an edict allowing the privilege of breaking wind quietly or noisily at table, having learned of a man who ran some risk by restraining himself through modesty." Not a "law", but an "edict" — which can mean anything; not "he promulgated" but "he is said to have thought of" (Dicitur etiam meditatus). The error is the same as the frequently repeated nonsense about Caligula's horse being consul: no, it was just something Suetonius says his subject was thinking of. I'm correcting the article, now that we've all had our fun. Bill 06:27, 17 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farting 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmphasisMine (talk • contribs) 10:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Suetonius 12 Caesars}} 

message: Art: "She gradually seized power from Emperor Claudius and successfully conspired to eliminate his son's rivals and she was able to successfully open the way for her son to become emperor." Did the editor mean to say, "eliminate her son's rivals"?  ( comma also is missing in front of the independent clause.) Am I wrong in thinking that this entire article should be examined for misplaced modifiers? (AltheaCase (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this sentence require revision? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Claudius Drusus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 14:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: regarding this revert, the source (Aveline) on pages 473-474 says:
# "Amanita Phaloides, more commonly known as Death Cap, was first suggested in 1960 by Robert Graves"
# "The difficulty is that amanita poisoning takes much longer than a single day...three to ten days...this does not match the course of Claudius; death""
# "What is a greater difficulty is that amanita phalloides are extremely toxic...he would have eaten the lethal mushroom during dinner the previous day and it would be a most extraordinary coincidence for him to be the only victim"
# "There is a better suggestion which has been offered...Valente has recently...identified a mushroom, amanita muscarea, as the likely culprit". 
# "This mushroom does not contain sufficient amounts of the toxin, muscarine, to be fatal in normal circumstances, but Dr Valente suggests that a previous medical condition such as dystonia could amplify the affects of muscarine to the point it could be fatal. This explains why only Claudius was affected by the mushrooms since only he was medically sensitive to the toxin they contained"
# The last paragraph of the piece: "On October 12, 54 at a dinner party at his home a dish of amanita muscarina were served. Although a number of people ate them, only Claudius, suffering as he did from dystonia, was made seriously ill. During the night he died"
So, it says A.phalloides was suggested by Graves, makes clear that this is unlikely, and says that Valente's suggestion of amanita muscarea is the more likely. DeCausa (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Death Cap