Talk:Servius Tullius

message: this page contains large amounts of data which have no source.
It makes statements which there is no evidence available to support  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.68 (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this page = rubbish 

message: Servius sounds similar to the Latin word Servus(slave) so does his name mean Slave--72.64.67.201 (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Servius" meaning 

message: From "The Beginnings of Rome; Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000 - 264 BC)", by TJ Cornell. Published by Routledge, New York, NY. Excerpts from pages 131-132. 
The servile origin of Servius (Tullius) is acknowledged in all the sources and is the most important single feature about him. Some modern scholars argue that this story arose as a naive aetiological deduction from his first name (since Latin servus = 'slave'). But this is highly unlikely, for several reasons. In the first place, it would not have been necessary to invent an explanation for what was, in fact, an ordinary Roman praenomen. Servius was one of the fifteen or so praenomina regularly used by the upper classes; it was not one of the most common, but it is certainly attested, and was especially favored by the patrician Sulpicii. The emperor who succeeded Nero, for instance, was Servius Sulpicius Galba. No slave he. 
On the other hand the name is connected etymologically with servus, and it is perfectly possible that it was once used for children of servile origin - for instance the sons of slave concubines. Other appellative names were probably used in the same way - e.g. Spurius for bastards, Quintus for the fifth child, Sextus for the sixth, and so on, even though in later times they lost their literal meaning and became simple proper names. It is more probable, therefore, that Servius Tullius was so called because he was (or was believed to be) of slave origin, rather than the other way around. 
Second, the tradition that he was born in slavery was to the Romans both shameful and embarrassing. It offended their sense of propriety that one of their kings, indeed the most revered of them, should have carried this stigma - a point that was not lost on his rival, Tarquinius Superbus (in Livy's account), or on later detractors of Rome. Mithridates, for instance, sneeringly observed that the kings of Rome had included servos vernasque Tuscorum, a clear reference to Servius Tullius. It is therefore inconceivable that the Roman tradition would have invented a servile origin for a king whose name needed no special explanation in any case.
--76.89.203.165 (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: "Servius" meaning 

message: An IP edit in article space makes the incontrovertible point that Livy's history precedes Plutarch's compendium. The topic itself is quite complex and the variants offered by sources are potentially confusing. So, I suggest we offer a brief appetiser on Roman and Greek sources in chronological order, with evaluation by modern scholarly sources, before launching on the main meal. Whatever that's going to be. Haploidavey (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparison by whom, and to what end? Cynwolfe has posted a welcome message to your talk-page, with all the links you'll need to grasp wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Have you read them? Please do so, carefully. We don't compare primary sources; we refer to scholarly sources who do. If we were to prefer one version or find it more plausible than another, for whatever reason, that would indeed be WP:OR. And why would we wish to assert or even remark a connection, however tenuous, between the several sources that offer histories of Servius T and another that patently doesn't? In which respect, could you please clarify the reasoning behind your recent edit in article space? Plutarch can be put in context for the benefit of readers quite simply, by using his birth and death dates (usually estimated at c. 46 – 120 AD): his "Parallel Lives" are usually dated to the late 1st Century AD. Will it help readers to know they were written "about the same time that the Christian Gospels were circulating"? That's rather clunky, 'cos unless readers already know when "the Christian Gospels were circulating", they won't know when Plutarch wrote. And which of the several Gospels in circulation "about the same time" would you mean? A date, or a recognised era, serves the encyclopedia's purpose and readership clearly and directly. So unless sound reasons based on sound secondary scholarship can be advanced for keeping it, I'll remove or revert the change pronto. Haploidavey (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Look, I've only made one edit to this article (when somebody called Servius a 'Serbian'), so no, I don't have a POV at stake here. I can only repeat what Haploidavey said: please familiarize yourself with WP policies. You should follow these links and read WP:POV, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. I don't entirely agree with the definition of OR or synthesis, but in editing WP you agree to abide by these policies. You must cite a scholarly source if you wish to present the kind of material you're talking about (but in due proportion as outlined by WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE); you may not present your own conclusions from your own analysis of the material. You are as welcome to edit here as anyone, but while anyone can edit WP, not just anything can go into an article. See also (and most fundamentally) WP:V. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Lothair, please! My response to your insistence may have been brusque and a tad sarcastic but I've no particular POV, I'm not angry, my toes don't bruise easy and I'm not the least bit anti-Christian. Otherwise, it's as Cynwolfe says. Really, it's that simple. Haploidavey (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I have some concerns about the handling of Livy and Plutarch, as if there were nothing about Servius Tullius in the interim, and as if Livy invented this figure. Other ancient sources on Servius Tullius include Cicero (before Livy), Ovid's Fasti, Dionysius Halicarnassus, and Claudius's speech at Lyon, which gives him an Etruscan tradition. He's mentioned in other sources. We're not sure what was said about him by several other authors who are likely to have written about him before the time of Cicero, because these works are not extant. Alexandre Grandazzi's The Foundation of Rome: Myth and History (1997), although I haven't read it before, observes in regard to the intertwining of traditions relating to Romulus and Servius Tullius: "The analysis of legends thus reveals a diachronic complexity, a stratification that is not necessarily that of the 'sources,' since … we know that 'resurgences' can appear very far from the original source.' On p. 45, G. notes that "the divine birth of Servius Tullius, sixth king of Rome, was not a schema artificially concocted centuries after the events by historical scholars but was contemporary to the history of the man himself." (Not exactly sure what G. means there, as he's making an overall argument I haven't digested yet.) Archaeology has uncovered the remains of what seems to be one of the two temples that Servius Tullius was supposed to have founded, according to tradition; this doesn't mean he was historical, but it means that there was a real building in the city that Romans walked past in everyday life and associated in their minds with this early king (Grandazzi, p. 137). Grandazzi also points out that Dionysius Halicarnassus said he had seen the inscription that recorded a treaty Servius Tullius made with the Latini (p. 180). The point is, it's important not to mistake the sources one happens to know, or the sources most read today, with the full context of the legend as the Romans knew it; there are many pieces to the puzzle. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot to mention Fabius Pictor, whom Livy says he used as a source for material on Servius Tullius; his work is not extant, so we know he wrote about Servius Tullius, but only the tiniest amount of what he said. So while LIvy may be the earliest extant source on Servius Tullius's birth, we know he used earlier sources himself (and to call him the earliest extant source requires a citation); some of these surely dealt with his birth and origins, whether or not the birth was miraculous in these accounts. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Modest proposal

message: The following carries on a discussion started on a user talk page, that of the diligent Urg Writer.
My feeling is that the article has to do two, or maybe three things, in regard to handling the various traditions pertaining to this semi-legendary figure:
* Document (as Urg is doing) the ancient sources for the pieces of information for S.T.
* Provide insight from secondary scholarship on what's regarded as plausibly historical, while taking note of what the Romans themselves thought of as historical.
* Look at the mythology of S.T.: where do the mythic elements come from? What do they seem to mean, and why are they in the narrative? What's that whole phallus-in-the-hearth thing about? (Davey, didn't we note something recently that pertained to this?)
I'm very interested in this figure, but doing research would take me too far from the group of articles I'm trying to work on now. So I'll just cheer on those at work. (Also, I'm not sure we need the scary tag at the top of the article.) Cynwolfe (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, yes, semi-legendary is particularly difficult to handle: which is why some of the material's so disorganised. I've had this on my watchlist for some time, but have rather neglected it - for which I'll blame the seductive Aventine and my unhealthily tangential editing habits; I'm currently trying to pick my usual slow way through rocky terrain of Bona Dea Subsaxana and her cult. And (I think, but I can't be sure) some of what we've previously touched on regarding Servius pertains to Lares, Compitalia, and their relationship to Augustus' social and religious reforms. Oh, and Servius' identification with the plebs; and, as a Roman-refounder, with the very similar myths attached to Romulus' birth. I think some of this might be on my user-page version, linked above, which I'm afraid is very much in its, er... "note-book jottings" phase. So yes, the mythology is utterly relevant; and yes, its relevance must be pointed out, for which we have recourse to the commentaries and analysis of secondary scholarship. Of course, Livy is crucial; but he's one source among many. I thought of dropping Urg a note on this, but I didn't know quite how to approach the matter. Anyway, here we are - so welcome, Urg Writer, to editing at the interesting and often perplexing Servius T. Haploidavey (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree that the big scary tags are pointless now; I've removed them... well, there are one or two still knocking about. I'll remove when I next edit here, unless someone jumps in before me. I think we just need to reorganise what we have, and take it from there. Haploidavey (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-arranged and rewritten the into and outro sections, and I hope that's not Too Much Information. If it is, could whoever edits it down please save a copy of the unedited material here, below someplace, along with all embedded citations, and I'll remove it wholesale for redistribution to needy articles or storage on one of my user-pages. Meantime, I'll work to the middle from each end. Like a Servian sandwich, more or less. Without wishing to tread on any toes; we really must address the Livy material through secondary scholarship. For example, the claim that Servius was first to be elected directly by the senate, without recourse to the people, is a severe fudge of several different issues. The senate had no choice; the deal was done beforehand (clever Tanaquil) and had popular support. It's one moot Livian point among many - which include the attribution of reforms, centuries, who did what to whom, and so on - and like all of them, it must be addressed. On this particular incident and its ramifications, Cornell deals very lucidly; as do others. Have to say, some of Livy's circumstantial details are wonderfully coloured; be a shame to lose them. But let's give all that a robust and critical outline. Haploidavey (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Whew! It'll probably take me a month or more to get through that lot, but it's well found all around. Just a couple of observations. I've covered some (not all) of this in the last few sections, based in part on Cornell and in part on Carrandini Grandazzi: both of them provide summaries of the scholarship. I think we already have the substance on Fortuna; some might be buried in footnotes, but it's there. On Servius' power-base, he seems more proto-Republican magistrate-cum-tyrant (the latter in the Greek sense - see Cornell on background); can't disagree with his development of a plutocracy but he also appeals directly to the commoners for support, over the heads of the aristocracy, and on not just one occasion but several: as far as I can see, that's his one and only notionally "Republican" offense, and thus Livy's political wriggling over the issue of senatorial consent. For the Vibennas, see also the section on Etruscan origin, later in the article. The whole thing needs a lot of reorganisation. Bloody headache! Hey, and if I don't log in before then, have a great holiday. I assume you're having one... Haploidavey (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  handling the traditions 

message: The article notes the property qualifications in units of "sesterces".  However, Livy reports these same number in units of "asses" (1 sesterce = 2.5 asses).  Is this an error or is there another source giving these numbers in terms of sesterci? Walrasiad (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've recently done a (very) little research into the census for Roman Empire#Census rank. I always find this topic confusing, especially when it comes to equestrians, but all the sources I used at the time expressed the property qualifications in terms of sesterces (sestertii), the most common unit of accounting, at least until the currency debasements of the 3rd century. Equestrian pay grades in the later Empire were also expressed by sesterces. However, my reading was undertaken with a sole focus on the Empire, not the early Republic. So perhaps my reply should be taken only as "hi, do go on, you aren't talking in an empty room." Cynwolfe (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting question, in more than the thorny matter of equivalence. Seems impossible to say how Livy arrived at these property qualification figures in cash terms. Perhaps their rendering in as rather than sesterces is no more than persuasive archaism. Seems possible, when Servius is credited with the invention of Rome's first "true" coinage, well over a century before a true Roman coinage was introduced (see Aes signatum). Haploidavey (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The latter. Livy Book 1, Ch. 43 reports these exact same numbers, but reckoned in units of asses rather than sesterci, e.g. it is translated by Baker as "asses".  However, Loeb ed. speculates it is probably not the original Roman as, but rather later debased asses of Livy's time. I was just wondering if there was some other source other than Livy for these calculations, that had arrived at the same numbers in terms of sesterci units, or whether this was our typo. Walrasiad (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

text:  N.B. - Livy doesn't mention the property qualifications of Equites or Senators, so it may very well be that their 400k and 800k numbers are indeed in sesterci units.   But the numbers for the pedites (100k, 75k, etc.) are definitely in asses.  If the Equites/Senators numbers are indeed correct in sesterci, then if converted to asses, an Equites would be 1 million asses (400k x 2.5), and so ten times (rather than four times) the qualification of a first class legionary, and Senators (= 2 million) would be twenty times richer, much more unequal. Walrasiad (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit of a nightmare all round. We need an up-to-date, fully edited and annotated version of Livy, plus modern scholarly opinion on these matters. Haploidavey (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Do you mean the section on religious foundation? I've not looked at or worked on this article for some time... and have shied away from those sections where confusion reigns. Several of those, and we can expect contradictions in the ancient sources. The article's a mess, really. And we've too much reliance on primary-ish sources, and not enough secondary scholarship.  En passant, there's a tenuous Aventine connection to Alba Longa, an obscure-ish tradition that the hill was named after one of its (Alba Longa's) early kings, one Aventinus; but to me, that seems no more relevant to this article than who settled on what hill, and when. The Caelian only comes into the story in connection to the problematic Vibenas and Claudius' Etruscan Macstarna - and all that's dealt with further on in the article, cited to secondary scholarship and ancient sources. So all in all, rather than further muddy the murky waters, the better course might be to strip the irrelevances from the religion section. Which I shall do forthwith. Haploidavey (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can live with that.  I was curious about the source of the statement in the Regiones section where it states the Luceres/Etruscans were on the Coelian.  Livy doesn't ever clarify where the Luceres/Etruscans were.  His only mention of the Coelian (Livy, I.30, Baker, Loeb) is to suggest that the Alba Longans were settled there, while later Latins were settled on the Aventine (see Livy I.33, Baker, Loeb). If the Coelian = Etruscan identification is from other sources, fine. But I just wanted to be clear that such a statement is not found in Livy. Walrasiad (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your exceptional care in this - I hadn't even noticed the Regiones section. Again, selective deletion seems the preferable option for now.  Haploidavey (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Property qualifications 

message: The page was originally categorised in 535 BC deaths.  changed it to 534, back in 2005, without adding a citation. The text has been changed back to 535, so I'm changing the category back to 535. – Fayenatic London 16:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death date 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Servius Tullius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060219195647/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-dgra/0882.html to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-dgra/0882.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It starts out by saying he reigned from 578 to 535 BC. Then it changes to him being assassinated in 579 
Where I think that date was supposed to say 535.  104.224.117.27 (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You might have misread the context. His predecessor died in 579, and that's the only mention of that year in the article. Unless I'm missing something....? Haploidavey (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think there’s a mistake in dates