Talk:George Buchanan

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirk elder?

We know that Buchanan was not a minister, but do we know if he was an elder? If so, please add him to:

• Category:Elders of the Church of Scotland

Thanks. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"Brown says . . . "

Twice in the lede, sentences begin "Brown says..." without giving any indication who or what "Brown" is. -current Labour Party leader Gordon Brown? -Charles Shultz' beloved comic strip character Charlie Brown? -the color? Who knows? Could someone please disambiguate this? Thanks. Occam's Shaver (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• The cited person's full name is in the reference at the end of the paragraph. This could be said to be undue emphasis to the view of a contributor to the New Penguin History of Scotland, so could be changed to just "He has been described as..." etc., with the same citation. Alternatively it could be reverted to a previous version which made no assessment at all. AllyD (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Imperii fuerat Romani Scotia limes; Romani eloquii Scotia limes erit

Is a proper translation to be found anywhere? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

limes

"Austin Seal and Steve Philp translate this as: 'Just as Scotland was at the apex of the Roman Empire, so Scotland shall be at the apex of Roman eloquence'. (Not only is Buchanan's Latin scholarship extolled, a congratulatory reference to Scotland retaining Scottish law – quintessentially an improved version of Roman law – as the foundation of its legal system is also implied.)"

'Apex' is a peculiar word to use for 'limes', which in the Roman Empire marked a boundary. One could understand the epigram as'this is how far the Roman Empire (post-Hadrian, of course) has gone; is this how far Roman eloquence will go ?'

In the parenthesis sentence one would normally expect a 'but also' after the initial 'not only'. The sentence has a curiously lopsided appearance.

How do we know that 'eloquium' here has anything to with law ? Pamour (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Brown says the ease

Buchanan was already dead when the king James II was deposed in 1688.Claudio Pistilli (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

(The disputed sentence is in the lede paragraph, for those as bemused as I was.) The article is simply claiming (on the authority of Brown) that Buchanan's ideas continued to be influential long after his death, so there's no problem there. However, having said that, I fail to understand how an "ideology of resistance to royal usurpation" could be said to support and facilitate the overthrow of an incumbent monarch (James II & VII) by a rival claimant (William of Orange). James's claim to the throne by divine right and birth were never really in dispute, only his suitability as a Catholic: the "usurper" was William. Some clarification necessary. GrindtXX (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Blackwood's Magazine

Worth mentioning his portrait was used on its title pages for years. Better still if some sourced explanation is given. — LlywelynII 12:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)