Talk:Gaius Hostilius Mancinus
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaius Hostilius Mancinus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Gaius Hostilius Mancinus was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 2, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Finding a coin
edit@T8612: Sorry for bothering you about a coin again. Do you know if we have an image of RRC item 234 by Tiberius Veturius? It's noted in Rosenstein 1986 as depicting an emphasis of Roman fides which Rosenstein connects to Mancinus and his supporters' arguments for treaty ratification. Ifly6 (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ifly6: I will add something this week-end. T8612 (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's fantastic, thanks a ton! Ifly6 (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I just wanted to say that your contributions to the article are top-notch. Ifly6 (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. As an aside, I think a List of senatus consulta may be needed. T8612 (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Gaius Hostilius Mancinus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 16:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll have a look at this one. Will start today, and should be done with a first pass either later on or in the next couple of days. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've now given this article a first pass, with comments below. It's in good shape; I'd like to see a few fairly minor referencing quibbles sorted out before passing, and to have the relevant extracts of the sources I can't access, but most of the rest is advisory. I have a couple of concerns about criterion 1, but I don't think those are anything that a good copy-edit won't fix. Please do come back at me if you think that anything is unclear or unfair. Nice work so far; I look forward to working with you to polish it up a little more. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Resolved comments
|
---|
Generaledit
Leadedit
Family backgroundedit
Praetorshipedit
Consulshipedit
UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Demotion to Rehabilitationedit
In popular cultureedit
Sourcingedit
|
Family background
editCareer
editPraetorship (c. 140 BC)
editConsulship and the Numantine affair (137–136 BC)
edit- Rosenstein also notes that the previous treaty had not been ratified; Mancinus likely stressed the breach of Roman fides and moral ratification instead.: what grounds do we have for preferring the fides explanation to that put forward by Rosenstein?
- The text body sentence tells about Mancinus' argument. Rosenstein only adds a precision. I don't see a contradiction.
- I think my confusion came from the wording of the footnote: if I understand you correctly, the point of it is to explain how Mancinius could use the breaking of the treaty as an argument, when the treaty didn't technically exist. Perhaps something like "Rosenstein also notes that Pompeius's treaty had not been officially ratified; Mancinus likely argued that the Romans had given their fides to honour its terms, and so that it had been morally ratified."? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- You want this in the footnote or in the text?
- I was proposing that as a rewording (clarification) of the footnote. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- You want this in the footnote or in the text?
- I think my confusion came from the wording of the footnote: if I understand you correctly, the point of it is to explain how Mancinius could use the breaking of the treaty as an argument, when the treaty didn't technically exist. Perhaps something like "Rosenstein also notes that Pompeius's treaty had not been officially ratified; Mancinus likely argued that the Romans had given their fides to honour its terms, and so that it had been morally ratified."? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- The text body sentence tells about Mancinus' argument. Rosenstein only adds a precision. I don't see a contradiction.
- Hi UndercoverClassicist. I corrected this section. Sorry for the delay; I was busy with work. T8612 (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is still on my list: thank you and well done with all that. I'll get to it when I can. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your patience: another nice job in clearing a lot of ground, and some great improvements. Everything left on this page is now "open", I think. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- @T8612: Could I just check in and see where you are with the remaining sourcing issues? As ever, happy to be flexible, but I'm conscious that the hold period is now getting unusually lengthy. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist: I have answered all your queries (I think). Sorry for the delay. T8612 (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
From demotion to rehabilitation (after 135 BC)
editSourcing
editEarwig's happy. In what follows, footnote numbers refer to this version:
- Note 19: I'm happy here; the source is fine for GA, though you might want something more modern if going to FAC.
- Note 39: Rosenstein has
the whole question of what to do about the treaty was turned over to the consul P. Furius Publius for further discussion with his consilium
, and laterP. Furius Philus, had been charged not only with the investigation of the foedus but the task of handing its maker over to the enemy
. I'm fairly satisfied that it's Lucius, not Publius, in question here, but does Oakley confirm that?
- It's apparently a mistake from Rosenstein. The "consul" can only have been Lucius Furius Philus.
- I sympathise, but we need to address that somehow: as it stands, the source doesn't support what it's meant to. Perhaps expanding the footnote with something like
Rosenstein gives the consul's praenomen as Publius, though the consuls for [year] were Lucius Furius Philus and [the other one].[cite a separate source].
Not perfect (it's arguably WP:SYNTH unless a secondary source explicitly says that Rosenstein is wrong) but probably good enough. Is there another source that could be used? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)- That seems overly complicated. I just added "Rosenstein mistakenly uses the praenomen Publius for Furius Philus, instead of Lucius" in the footnote. I've done that before for a small mistake in the source. I can't use another source for the part on the consilium.
- The problem is the statement
Rosenstein mistakenly uses...
. How do we know it's a mistake? Just saying as much is WP:OR: as I read you, you're saying that we know it's a mistake because we know that the praenomen of the only reasonably-intended consul was in fact Lucius. We know that from somewhere, so we need to cite it to any reasonable source that says it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- The problem is the statement
- That seems overly complicated. I just added "Rosenstein mistakenly uses the praenomen Publius for Furius Philus, instead of Lucius" in the footnote. I've done that before for a small mistake in the source. I can't use another source for the part on the consilium.
- I sympathise, but we need to address that somehow: as it stands, the source doesn't support what it's meant to. Perhaps expanding the footnote with something like
- It's apparently a mistake from Rosenstein. The "consul" can only have been Lucius Furius Philus.
- Note 46: I can't see anything on p247 that suggests that Gracchus and Pompeius said anything to convince the voters themselves; my read of the source is that Rosenstein believes that it was who they were, specifically their popularity, that gave the voters pause.
- Reworded to: "Voters nevertheless rejected the bills exiling Tiberius Gracchus and Pompeius, thanks to their popularity."
- Fine with that from a sourcing point of view, but could it be rephrased to clarify the antecedent of their: perhaps
thanks to the two men's popularity
? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)- Done.
- Fine with that from a sourcing point of view, but could it be rephrased to clarify the antecedent of their: perhaps
- Reworded to: "Voters nevertheless rejected the bills exiling Tiberius Gracchus and Pompeius, thanks to their popularity."
Spot-checks on material I don't have access to: could you provide a quote from the sources provided to support the following:
- Note 10:
Mancinus was elected praetor, probably urbanus, because he presided over the senate during the vote on the senatus consultum de Narthaciensibus et Melitaeensibus, which arbitrated a border dispute between Narthakion and Melitaia, two allied cities in Thessaly.
- "I suggest it is quite probable (though not actually attested or certain) that in later senatus consulta where a praetor or [greek: strategos] is named in the prescript, it is in fact the praetor urbanus. We have a fair number of such documents preserved on stone (particularly from the Greek east). No provincia is recorded for Q. Minucius Q.f. (pr. ca. 164?), who saw to the passage of a senatus consultum ordering the Athenians to reopen the Sarapeum of Delos; L. Cornelius Lentulus Lupus (later cos. 156, and so pr. ca. 159), who sent a senatus consultum accepting the apology of the people of Tibur for an unknown transgression; C. Hostilius Mancinus (later cos. 137, and so pr. ca. 140), president of the Senate when it heard and decided on a dispute between envoys from the (independent) Thessalian towns of Narthakion and Melitaia;..."
- To me, "probably" implies far more certainty than "I suggest it is quite probable (though not actually attested or certain)". It's minor, but could we frame this (as the source does) as an individual scholar's suggestion? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Brennan's language is very cautious here, but there are other scholars who made the suggestion before, first with Münzer in 1913.
- If the article's going to be less cautious than Brennan, it should cite sources which are: best to do alongside rather than instead of Brennan, I think, but up to you. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- "I suggest it is quite probable (though not actually attested or certain) that in later senatus consulta where a praetor or [greek: strategos] is named in the prescript, it is in fact the praetor urbanus. We have a fair number of such documents preserved on stone (particularly from the Greek east). No provincia is recorded for Q. Minucius Q.f. (pr. ca. 164?), who saw to the passage of a senatus consultum ordering the Athenians to reopen the Sarapeum of Delos; L. Cornelius Lentulus Lupus (later cos. 156, and so pr. ca. 159), who sent a senatus consultum accepting the apology of the people of Tibur for an unknown transgression; C. Hostilius Mancinus (later cos. 137, and so pr. ca. 140), president of the Senate when it heard and decided on a dispute between envoys from the (independent) Thessalian towns of Narthakion and Melitaia;..."
- Note 18:
Mancinus felt that he had no other choice but to negotiate with the Numantines, and ordered his quaestor, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus to deal with them
- "He extricated his troops only at the price of a formal treaty, the details of which were negotiated by his quaestor, Ti. Sempronius Gracchus."
- Anything for "felt that he had no other choice but to..."? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't it implied by the "only at the price of"?
- No: "I could only buy pizza at the price of £10" does not imply that I had no choice but to buy pizza. The source tells me that Macinus chose to negotiate, and that the only way to secure a successful outcome to that negotiation was to accept the treaty: it doesn't tell me that he felt that negotiation was his only (rather than best) option. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't it implied by the "only at the price of"?
- Anything for "felt that he had no other choice but to..."? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- "He extricated his troops only at the price of a formal treaty, the details of which were negotiated by his quaestor, Ti. Sempronius Gracchus."
- Notes 34 and 35:
Veturius' propaganda did not work and only the invented version survived in subsequent Roman historiography, such as in Livy's Ab Urbe Condita written a century later
- Note 34 is on JSTOR here. Tell me if you don't have it.
- I've got it: I can't find the text supporting this statement, however. Would you mind quoting the bit you used for me? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- I hold then that in 137, when news of the agreement made by Mancinus reached Rome, argument began over whether or not to ratify the agreement. The agreement of 321 was immediately invoked in the argument, an agreement on which two versions were already in circulation: a version (which doubtless approximates more closely to the truth) in which the agreement was ratified and peace kept and a version in which the agreement was repudiated and a victorious campaign of revenge instituted (a trick analogous to that of P. Scipio Africanus or the envoy from the prisoners taken at Cannae was perhaps assumed). Ti. Veturius struck his denarii to urge by the portrayal of a foedus that the agreement be ratified, recalling the first version of the events of 321.
- But the decision was taken to repudiate the agreement and the Roman conscience cleared by surrendering Mancinus to the Numantines, as the man responsible for the agreement; he was in fact simply disowned. At some later date, the promise he made and the fate he suffered because the promise was not kept were explained in terms of the Roman civil law procedure of sponsio, the verbal promise in response to a question which binds the man who promises. The whole apparatus of sponsio in dealings with a foreign power and surrender to that foreign power to make up for the fact that the promise did not bind was then wished on to the events of 321. Roman historiography gains another example of the way in which Roman history was invented; Roman law gains the procedure of sponsio, as a designated form of promise uncontaminated by the sacral nonsense with which it has been invested.
- Crawford doesn't state the obvious (for him) that this version found its way in Livy's book, but he cites Livy in his notes 36-39.
- I'm not seeing anything there to say that the "true" version was forgotten, only that the false version was invented. I think this is the same problem as the query below. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've got it: I can't find the text supporting this statement, however. Would you mind quoting the bit you used for me? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note 35 (I can't cite everything): If the coin does refer to the Caudine story then it was presumably issued in 137-136. Badian (1968: 33-6) has made it likely that this moneyer was a son of Ti. Veturius Sempronianus, and this allowed Crawford (1973: 6) to suggest that he was a cousin of Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (tr. pl. 133), who was involved in the Numantine affair as a quaestor. He suggested that two motives emerge for the issue of the denarius, with its strong claim that the treaty was ratified: the desire both to protect Veturius' cousin Gracchus and to uphold the family tradition about what happened to the Veturius who was consul in 321. One implication of this interpretation of the coin is that there must have been an alternative version of the Caudine story-unfavourable to Rome, and quite different from that found in L.-in which the Caudine foedus was not repudiated but honoured, at least for a while. One might compare the well-known alternative traditions about Porsenna's capturing Rome and the Gauls' capturing the Capitol, each less flattering to Rome than the annalistic version; and we have seen already (ix. 1. 1-16. 19 n.) that this version may even have been true.
- This interpretation of the coin, however, also poses two problems. Crawford (1973: 5-6) believed that Veturius was the first to bring the Caudine saga into the Mancinus affair, arguing that just as Ti. Gracchus appealed to Roman fides, so Ti. Veturius supported his argument with a classic case of a treaty being upheld. There is no evidence for this, nor is it probable. The opposition to Veturius and Gracchus could easily have cited their version of the story first (as Plutarch makes them do) and this could have provoked Veturius to strike the coin, stung by the harm done to his ancestor's reputation. No Roman noble would spontaneously wish to remind the public that his ancestor was responsible for one of the greatest Roman disasters.
- It is also uncertain whether two versions of the story existed in 13 7-136. Obviously, if Crawford's interpretation of the coin is correct, then the Veturian version must have been circulating, and, if the argument in the preceding paragraph is sound, then so too must the version later to be told by L. Crawford wrote (p. 6) '[s]uch a coin could hardly have been produced if the story of the repudiation of the agreement of the Caudine Forks was already established as orthodoxy'. But the story of the repudiation was so seductive that it could easily have replaced the Veturian version, which would then have needed reassertion.
- Even though Crawford's arguments fall some way short of proof, it remains likely that our version of the story of the Caudine Forks is so contaminated with the story of Mancinus that little in it may be taken as trustworthy.
- Oakley discusses this over several pages, but I believe we cannot go into that sort of details on Wikipedia. As I mentioned inside the footnote, Oakley is sceptical of Crawford's reasoning.
- This is close: I see in the source that a "Roman-bashing" version of the story existed, and that Veturius' coin was connected with it. I can infer that the story is now forgotten from "there must have been", but I don't think that's enough for "Veturius' propaganda did not work": the source doesn't seem to specify when the story was forgotten. The problem is WP:OR: we can't make anything more than the most trivial inferences from what's actually argued in the sources. Is there anything (in either source) to explicitly say that the alternative story was rejected or forgotten in its own day? You've very kindly given me a lot of material, so please do point me directly at it if I've just missed something in what you've quoted. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I will read Oakley again. I hope to finish this review in the week-end. T8612 (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have replaced the sentence by "The version supporting Mancinus was nevertheless abandoned and only the invented version survived in subsequent Roman historiography".
- This is close: I see in the source that a "Roman-bashing" version of the story existed, and that Veturius' coin was connected with it. I can infer that the story is now forgotten from "there must have been", but I don't think that's enough for "Veturius' propaganda did not work": the source doesn't seem to specify when the story was forgotten. The problem is WP:OR: we can't make anything more than the most trivial inferences from what's actually argued in the sources. Is there anything (in either source) to explicitly say that the alternative story was rejected or forgotten in its own day? You've very kindly given me a lot of material, so please do point me directly at it if I've just missed something in what you've quoted. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note 34 is on JSTOR here. Tell me if you don't have it.
Image licensing
edit- All licences check out. The map is particularly nice work.
Review Template
editGA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- Generally sound. A few points of ambiguity and grammar need to be addressed. On their own, they aren't particularly serious, but there's enough of them to have a material impact on the quality and comprehensibility of the article as it stands, particularly for readers without a background in Roman history.
- b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a. (reference section):
- Formatting in bibliography remains somewhat inconsistent (e.g. title case vs. sentence case, ISBN style), but that is fine for GA.
- b. (citations to reliable sources):
- c. (OR):
- No cause for concern so far, but spot-checks need to be done to confirm.
- d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
- As 2c
- a. (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a. (major aspects):
- b. (focused):
- All issues here fixed during nomination.
- a. (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- All images check out and are PD.
- b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Nicely done, given the paucity of available material.
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/fail:
- I'm satisfied that everything left can be fixed straightforwardly: I'd like to see at least a critical mass of the 1a concerns addressed, and the sourcing spotchecks are essential before the article can be passed. Happy to be flexible on the seven days of hold if that would be helpful.
- Given that no movement has happened over quite some time, and the nominator has not been active on Wikipedia, I am closing this one with some sadness: the hold period can be flexible but this is now one of the longest-held nominations on GAN and a line has to be drawn somewhere. Unfortunately, as there are open spot-checks and therefore open questions as to OR and sourcing, I can't pass it at this stage, but I am sure that a second nomination would be relatively straightforward and would be more than happy to assist in one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm satisfied that everything left can be fixed straightforwardly: I'd like to see at least a critical mass of the 1a concerns addressed, and the sourcing spotchecks are essential before the article can be passed. Happy to be flexible on the seven days of hold if that would be helpful.
- Pass/fail:
(Criteria marked are unassessed)