Talk:Lucretia/Archive 1

Archive 1

song

To whomever is removing the information about the song "Lucretia": I'd appreciate you leaving the information here, or at least giving some kind of justification as to the removal. Willbyr 18:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

To whomever thinks it belongs here: I did not remove it the first time(s), but I did remove it. I did not know it had been removed previously. I took it out because apparently it has nothing to do with the historical Lucretia. It's just an obscure popular song -- hardly appropriate subject matter for an encyclopedia article on a famous suicide that lead to a reformation of Western culture. Jive Dadson

• Now see, that's a well-written justification. So noted. Willbyr 20:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

YEP I completely agree, the song has no relevance to the rape of Lucretia which led to the foundation of the Roman Republic.

The lines quoted under "In the Arts" don't come from "Titus Andronicus". The article on Virginia claims they come from "Appius and Virginia" by Heywood and Webster, but I don't have a copy of that to check.

Look, the entire page is wrong. Most historic references to a Lucretia, including the Sisters of Mercy song ”Lucretia, My Reflection” are based on Lucretia Borgia, an important historical figure, for which there is already a Wiki page. This Lucretia is different. So, just like there are many Jennifers, there are many Lucretias...

The SOM song fits this particular Lucretia very well, I think. "Empire down", for instance, refers to the fall of the monarchy as a result of her rape and suicide. I can't see anything in the lyrics to connect the song with Lucrezia Borgia (note the difference in spelling). Sorryitwasme (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sylvester Stallone was most certainly not the last king of Rome (that honour goes to Lucius Tarquinius Superbus). Please will somebody correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.34.228.30 (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The External Link "Lucretia Raped!" looks like something written for elementary schoolers and it doesn't seem to say anything important that this article doesn't cover. I'm not sure if it really belongs on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.227.15 (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Heraldry

Mention might be made of attributed arms (http://www.heraldica.si/resources/misc/valvasor/fictitiousArms.htm) . --Daniel C. Boyer 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

she is died —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.50.73.106 (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sor Juana interpretation

Simply incorrect. That meter had nothing to do with justifying rape, and everything to do with comparing Thais to Lucrecia, in terms of men's desires. Thais=classic image of a whore, Lucrecia=classic virgin. Sor Juana is trying to say that men want women to be Lucrecia until they want to have sex and realize that they need women to be willing to put out, then they want Thais. --Turnerjl (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Legendary

It says in the article that Lucretia was legendary, but I always thought she was real. Why does it say she's legendary?

I would say on balance that she's a real enough figure (and I didn't make the edit to suggest she was), however the second paragraph currently reads;

The beginning of the republic is marked by the first appearance of the two consuls elected on a yearly basis. The Romans recorded events by consular year, keeping an official list in various forms called the fasti, utilized by Roman historians. The list and its events are authentic as far as can be known although debatable problems with many parts of it do exist. This list proves, as far as can be proved, that there was a Roman republic, that it began at the beginning of the fasti, and that it supplanted a monarchy. One of the first two consuls is Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, husband of Lucretia. All the numerous sources on the beginning of the republic reiterate these basic events. Lucretia and the monarchy cannot therefore be total myth or an elaborate literary hoax to deceive and entertain the Roman people about an early history that can't be known. The evidence points to the historical existence of a woman named Lucretia and a historical incident playing a critical part in the real downfall of a real monarchy. Many of the specific details are debatable. Later uses of the legend, however, are typically totally mythical, being of artistic rather than historical merit.

without a single reference to back this up. even as original research (already wrong in wikipedia) it doesn't remotely back its case up, it's just unsubstantiated assertion which needs to reference some actual published research.GermanicusCaesar (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Time for expansion

I'm going to expand this important chapter in Roman legend. It is legend and not myth because a convergence of historical narration indicates something like it really did happen. It is legend and not fact because not supported by inscriptions and eyewitnesses. The historians were repeating the story they had read in previous authors, so the detail cannot be further verified. No, modern songs unless actually about this Lucretia do not belong here. There is a considerable tradition in art and literature that does belong here. On with the show for this famous starlet of history.Dave (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the assertion that "The historians were repeating the story they had read in previous authors, so the detail cannot be further verified" is that we know that Roman history writing didn't start until the 2nd or 3rd century B.C., so even the earliest sources (even if they were available to us) were hundreds of years from the actual event. So I completely agree with you. Why does that 2nd para (as it stands right now) emphatically assert it is fact that Lucretia exists just because the Consular Fasti matches the names in the story? Its not like historians couldn't have walked down to the forum and looked at the fasti there and then put the right names in their otherwise invented histories. And what's the evidence that the Fasti themselves were not 3rd century forgeries. Remember Livy in 6.1 says that everything was destroyed by the Gauls in early 5th century sack at the end of Book 5 which makes writing history before that time very difficult because events are 'obscured' and people didn't use 'letters' to write stuff down. In other words, you're right, there needs to be a deep acknowledgement that knowing anything for sure about the history of that antiquity (beyond what actual archaeology can tell us) has to be regarded suspiciously at all times. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Shame/Sham

"Brutus... acquired the cognomen Brutus, "Dullard"[7], by playing the pleasant fool so as not to attract the king's onus... Brutus called the grieving party to order, explained that his simplicity had been a shame..." Supposed to be "sham"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.16.228 (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Lucretia the Werewolf

Lucretia the Werewolf was a 1950s radio programme loved by Bob Dylan. Is she related to this Lucretia? EdRicardo (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)