Talk:Servius Tullius

this page = rubbish

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)

"Servius" meaning

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)

Re: "Servius" meaning

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)

Virgin Birth?

I looked long at Livy's History of Rome [Vol 1.39] and I don't see the narrative that this article discusses regarding the conception of Servius while Ocrisia was tending to the household sacrifices. It is in Plutarch [De Fortuna Romanorum, Vol 4, p. 361], but, is Plutarch a reliable source for history? Livy was willing to leave the incident of the virginal conception out of his Histories, and Plutarch was wtiting about 100 years later. Livy even seems to think that when Ocrisia was taken captive she was already carrying her son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.190 (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You raise an good point about the dangers of treating figures such as Servius Tullius as either purely historical or purely legendary. Elsewhere, however, Livy may be less skeptical about the miraculous, so the issue is always what purpose the author seems to have in mind at the moment. Also, you're reading Livy in an out-of-copyright (that it, dated) English translation. This is why it's important to compare translations and to use secondary scholarship to interpret the material, particularly if WP editors working with this kind of material can't read the original Latin. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can read the original Latin,even if the WP editors can't. I referenced English translations to make the conversation here a little easier. Unless there are errors in the English works, there is no reason to rely exclusively on the original language. In any event, I am perfectly willing to consider secondary scholarship, so long as it considers all the evidence. If you have suggestions that deal with the topic of virgin birth and the original/translated sources, I would be happy to read up. I think that my train of thought here is, could Plutarch have borrowed the theme of virgin birth from the Gospels and wrote it into his history of Servius Tullius? Is that worth considering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.217 (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No. That would be original research as WP defines it, unless you have a source, in which case you'd have to make a case that this "view" wasn't excludable by WP:FRINGE. If you come up with sober scholarship that makes the claim that Plutarch was influenced by the Gospels in narrating the birth of Servius Tullius, it could be included with proper balance in accordance with WP:UNDUE. But please review WP:V: the WP editor's responsibility is to describe and explain the scholarship in a neutral and balanced way, not to interpret the primary sources (again, that's WP:OR). I haven't been working on this article, so other editors will have to share their sources with you.

I see no need, however, for a Gospel influence. Greek myth is full of "maidens" visited by gods, particularly Zeus. Dionysus was born from a virgin visited by a god. I've had college students assigned to read Euripides' Bacchae express their amazement at the parallels between Dionysus and aspects of the Jesus narrative: I need not point out that the Bacchae predates Christ by three centuries, let alone the traditional myths of Dionysus from which Euripides took his material. Greek heroes were almost always fathered by gods, and often their mothers were virgins or (like Mary) married to a mortal at the time of their birth. Stories about historical figures, sometimes propagated by the figure himself, borrow these narrative elements to create awe and a mystique. Even Oliver Stone, for instance, was aware of the tradition that a god had fathered Alexander of Macedon. Any borrowing goes the other way, from the Greco-Roman or "Eastern" tradition to Christian myth.

As for Latin (which I too can read), I said it was useful to compare English translations, especially older ones, since people who aren't experienced with 19th- or early 20th-century English diction can misunderstand what the English itself means. There are plenty of Livy and Plutarch translations online; some modern ones are available in part via Google Books. Translators sometimes do make mistakes (I've found a couple of minor errors in the Penguin translation of Caesar's Gallic Wars), and quite often the translation of a passage is not straightforward: the Latin may be hard to represent accurately in English, the Latin itself may be open to interpretation, or the context for understanding an obscure reference may be missing (as happens often with Cicero's letters, for instance). And anyway, Plutarch wrote in Greek. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Plutarch wrote in Greek, and the Gospels are in Greek. Plutarch adds details in his account of the birth of Servius Tullius that are not found in Livy, so it isn't too much of a guess that Plutarch used the Gospels or some other circular letters in his own thinking. Ironically, you want 'sober scholarship' regarding Plutarch's use of the Gospels, yet allow for yourself mere inference and speculation with regard to the NT's alleged parallels to the Bacchae. That is a bit inconsistant. As a side note, comparing the Gospel's account of the Last Supper to the ecstatic feasts of the Orgia is a far greater stretch than suggesting that Plutarch used the writings of the early church. Also worth noting is that a great deal of the reconstructed Bacchae comes from writers like Plutarch [late 1st century] and even Pausanias [2d century]. It is imporatant to point out that there is about 400 years between Plutarch/Pausanias writings and the history they are reporting. In addition, gravestones from the 3rd century BC with dedications to Dionysus give even weightier evidence that the differences between the Baccus Cult and that of Jesus are striking and compelling. The Apostles were men who used no sacred instruments in worship, did not lead the disciples in ecstatic ritual worship in open groves or on mountain tops, etc. Cemetaries in Southern Italy [Cumae] give us great evidence of the distinctions between the Jesus Movement and any Greek cult of the time, or before.

It is also worth mentioning that much of the Bacchus data comes from very late MSS. For example, Diodorus lived in the first century BC, and makes mention of the Bacchic women's cult, yet, the surviving MSS are from the 10th century AD. It may very well be that copyist in the late Roman Empire remade Dionysus to more conform with Christian story, rather than the other way around. The same can be said of Herodatus. He lived in the 5th century BC, but the oldest surviving MSS come from the Codex Florentinus [10th c. AD].

When I do find myself confronted with an odd phrase or passage in Latin, I do make use of interpretive sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.210 (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I said college students were struck by parallels they perceived between the story of Dionysus in the Bacchae and aspects of the stories about Jesus, and that since the one came before the other, the influence would have to go the other way. I myself wouldn't bother with trying to make such argument. My point is only that Greek myths and heroic narratives provide plenty of models for exceptional mortal men who were supposed to have been fathered by a god with a virgin. The notion that all these Greek myths, or the 'fabulous' histories of Alexander and others, were invented retrospectively in light of Christianity falls under WP:FRINGE. If you can produce reliable scholarship that argues that the virgin birth of Servius Tullius was invented in emulation of the Christian Nativity, then this belongs in the article, if balanced in accordance with WP:UNDUE. Otherwise, if it's only your own speculation, it's OR and doesn't belong on WP. I'm not sure you followed my links above to the relevant WP policies and guidelines. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any sober reason to conclude that the Gospel writers borrowed the virgin birth from the 'divine' priests and politicians of the Roman Empire, or any other culture. Divine men who were candidates for divine status in every case had been enormously powerful military commanders or recognized elders within the religious order, venerated for exploits that were later interpreted as evidence of divinity. Far too many critics are excercising parallelomania in making the case against the Gospels. Sure, there were excetional mortal men, but to make that the defining comparison is about as convincing as building a parallel making use of similarites in food and clothing.

In any event, my argument that Plutarch used early Christian writings is grounded on observation and inference, and though quite clear to me, most likely would fall under 'WP:FRINGE'. I may write up a textual-critical comparison of Livy and Plutarch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.51 (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I wish you luck, but I didn't say the Gospel writers borrowed the story of Jesus's birth (though there are reputable scholars who argue precisely that). I said that Greek myths and narratives of maidens visited by gods were ample precedent for the legendary birth of Servius Tullius, which is the subject of this article; a Christian influence is not necessary to explain the phallus arising from the hearth to impregnate his mother. If there are scholars who argue there is such an influence, by all means include it in the article, with references; it should make entertaining reading. You are invited to pursue your intellectual quest to prove that all Greek and Roman narratives were invented in the light of Christianity, but elsewhere, as this is an article about Servius Tullius. You are also free to do your textual-criticism comparison of Livy and Plutarch, but you may save yourself time and effort if you review WP:OR and realize this is not what Wikipedia is about. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe beat me to it; this is not unusual, but I'll add my voice anyway. Please do read the links she has offered. Could I also ask the contributor to sign their posts, and if possible to use only one account here? Your posts under this sub-heading come from four different wikipedia IP home-pages; a bit confusing, and not a recommended practice - but I see one of them already carries a welcome message on how to make positive contributions here, whether to articles or on talk-pages. Haploidavey (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Modest proposal

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)

I think that the accepted methods of textual-criticism [e.g. redaction, form] should be used to point out the obvious differences found in Livy and Plutarch, then offer a well reasoned opinion with as much expanatory power as possible for the dissimilair details describing the lineage and birth of Servius Tullius.Lothair of Lorraine (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Lothair. I see you are a new user. You may wish to review Wikipedia's policy on original research: follow this link to WP:OR. You are describing a scholarly methodology that is appropriate for a researcher doing original work; on Wikipedia, we must cite published secondary sources for "well-reasoned opinion". This is a fundamental policy of WP, and contributions that are identified as OR will be deleted, so I'm just trying to save you some time and effort. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It would not be OR at all to point out the differences between Pliny and Plutarch on the question of Servius' lineage and birth. Only if the edit included an opinion would it be deleted as OR.Lothair of Lorraine (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

Wow, you guys really don't like challenges to your point of view, do you? Does it make you even angrier that I am Christian? I really didn't come here to step on anybody's toes, so if this is how this page's editors are going to react, I'll just take my leave. I am a real scholar, not a sophomore. So, much of what I would contribute would most likely be original research. In the meantime, if pointing out that Plutarch was writing about the time that the Gospels were circulating is 'taboo', then take it out. It isn't clunky at all, its a fact. One that you are obviously uncomfortabe with. But, I'm not going to fight over it today.Lothair of Lorraine (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

OK, that's all been very useful. Of all the Roman monarchs, he seems the most puzzling; which to me is the same as interesting and I want to get down to some serious work here. Again. So I'm seduced back to this article; Grandazzi offers some valuable insights, so does Tim Cornell. They're enough for a start, and both carry extensive bibliographies for more of the same. I'm reworking the article on a user-page; a rather piecemeal approach but I hope to add a couple of paras each day until I've developed something presentable. Comments and other input (editing, even) are welcome there. Once sections there seem reasonably complete, I'll add them to this article. Haploidavey (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

handling the traditions

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have not yet read Cornell but the issue of the relationship of Servius with the phantomatic Vibenna brothers has been the subject of many speculations: Ingrid Kraukopf quotes two articles, one by Coarelli and one by Massa-Pairrault (in her article ont the Etruscan afterlife belief in reference to the Francois tomb). Varro mentions a Caelius Vibenna dux nobilis that came to the help of Romulus against T. Tatius. Is just a question of homonymy? This chap and the Etruscans according to Varro lived on the Caelian with the Etruscans of the time (near) Rome. The Vibenna brothers appear on the mirror with Cacus. At Veii has been found a vase offered by Avile Vipiiennas: "Mine muluv[an]ece A. V." (TLE 35). So this character is historical. Versnel argues that the name of the Capitolium is due to the find of the head of Avlus Vibenna (caput Avli). Mcstrna seems to be an Etruscan rendering of magister (populi) hence Servius would have been the military lieutnent of L. Tarquinius. G. Valditara in leges regiae. It looks there is too much we ignore about the history of the regal period. Versnel says Livy (ie. the pointiffs) has retouched everything. Many books could be written about the subject of the relationship of Rome with the Etruscans, the role of the Etruscans from Rome in Roman history, their relationship with the other Etruscans. I think chauvinism was strong and there was no clear ethnic allegiance especially from part of the Etruscans as the paintings of the Francois tomb show.Aldrasto11 (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Some further related points:

1) Diana was worshipped at Colle di Carne near Tusculum with the archaic Latin name of deva Cornisca and there existed a collegium of her worshippers on the mons Algidus also near Tusculum. Ocresia came from Corniculum. Servius dedicated a temple to Diana on the Aventine.

2) S.'s relationship with Fortuna. S. founded at least 3 temples to Fortuna: one near the temple of Mater Matuta in the Forum Boarium, others on the Quirinal. Coarelli Il foro boario pp. 289 ff. and 245. On the 3 Fortunae of the Quirinal cf. Vitruvius II 2, 2. Su Spes vetus Frontinus de aquis I 19, Livy II 51, 2, Dion. Hal. IX 24, 4 Cic. de leg. II 28. Ovid Fasti VI gives the story of the nightly visit of the goddess to S., entering his bedroom through its small window (fenestella). Other ancient sources: Plut. q. R. 74; de fort. Rom. 10; Val. Max. III 4, 3. Also J. Champeux "Fortuna. Le culte de la Fortune a' Rome et dans le monde romain. I. Fortuna dans la religion archaique" in Coll. de l' Ecole Fr. de R. 64 (1982).

3) I disagree with the presentation of S. of a king who favoured the common people and a democratic: he started a system based on the census that can be in fact regarded as plutocratic, which deprived the humbler of rights as well as of duties to the state. Cf. Dion. Hal. IV 20-21. Cf. G. Dumezil Servius et la Fortune 1943.

4) On the Vibenna brothers and the Francois tomb: Pallottino "Il fregio dei Vibenna e le sue implicazioni storiche" in Tomba Francois 1987 pp. 225-233; Pairault Massa Iconologia e politica nell' Italia antica: Roma , Lazio, Etruria dal VII al I secolo A. C. Milano 1992; "La Tombe Giglioli ou l' espoir decu de Vel Pinie: un tournant dans la societe' etrusque" in Studia Tarquiniensia Rome 1988 pp.60-100; Coarelli "Le pitture della Tomba Francois a Vulci. Una proposta di lettura" in Ricerche di pittura ellenistica. Quaderni dei Dialoghi di Architettura 1 Roma pp.43-69.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Thank you, you too have one.12:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Property qualifications

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)

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)

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) It also seems possible that I've missed the entire point of Walrasiad's query - which might be that where Livy's text plainly says uses a certain number of as/aes, our text uses the same number of sesterces. Which of course would be a considerable error.

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)

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)

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)

Another quibble: text states that Alba Longans were settled on the Aventine hill and Etruscans on the Coelian hill. Once again, this seemingly contradicts Livy, who asserts the Alba Longans were settled on the Coelian by Tullus Hostilius and that the Aventine was settled by other Latins (specifically of Politorium) by Ancus. Can the source be clarified? Walrasiad (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Death date

The page was originally categorised in 535 BC deaths. John K (talk · contribs) changed it to 534, back in 2005, without adding a citation.[1] 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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I think there’s a mistake in dates

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)

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)