Talk:De re publica

Weird statement about Socrates

The article originally included a phrase beginning "Socrates had died a few decades before", which is obviously nonsense. I deleted it, but it occurs to me that this might refer to some other Socrates. If this is true, kindly restore and explain. --Pyroclastic 00:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Merging

Since the Somnium is frequently treated separately in academic works, I suggest that it is appropriate to maintain it as a separate Wikipedia article. A very signigficant portion of it was discovered many centuries after the rest of 'De Re Publica' (1821, in fact). While this does not make it entirely separate, it means that much of the commentary that has been made treats it apart from the rest of the work. --Fluoronaut 07:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep them separate. The Somnium Scipionis, and its author Macrobius, are both important from the perspective of the Middle Ages and there is an extensive body of literature on the impact of Macrobius and the Somnium on medieval though. Cicero and his Republic fit much more into the context of the thought of Roman antiquity. --SteveMcCluskey 00:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's better to keep them separate. Somnium Scipionis deserves it's own article, mainly for it's particular influence in medieval thought. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 14:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the fragmentary nature of the manuscript tradition does provide support for considering the Somnium on its own terms. However, because this piece of de Republica is also an integral part of the genre that Cicero is trying to emulate, (i.e., Platonic dialogue, of which this kind of metaphysical excursion is an important element), the separation should not, IMHO, be overstated. And, of course, it is important to show the genre consistency Cicero is trying to keep. Toward this end, it almost goes without saying that elaboration needs to be made on book 6 in the current article, as well as an elucidation of how book 6 truly rounds out Cicero's emulation of Plato's "Republic." --Ryan Magill, 19 Sept 2006

Missing information on this article

Before I get banned, I read Cicero's De re publica. De re publica is about Mixed government. Yet the term "mixed government" as of this date doesn't appear in the article. Cicero talked about a Fourth type of government that was a mixture of the simple forms, yet the word "Fourth" doesn't appear. Now, Cicero wrote a book "On Republic". Is it NOT about what a republic is supposed to be? What is a republic? Cicero writes that the Republic started under Romulus with the establishment of the Senate. Where is this information? Why doesn't what is written in Cicero's De re publica match the Wikipedian article Republic or even Classical republic? Furthermore, Cicero mentions kings and their position in republics. Why is the word "kings" missing from this article. Future reader, be forewarned and beware, not all that glitters is gold and information dealing with the term republic on Wikipedia is NOT right. Has any of the Wikipedians that has written and edited all the articles dealing with the term republic, ever read Cicero's De re publica? Then why the silence of mixed government on this page? Check out the talk page of Classical republics, Talk:Classical republic, notice how they deny that Mixed government has anything to do with the term "republic" or even "Classical republic". Cicero's De re publica is ALL about mixed government--that is what a republic is. I am disallowed from editing anything about republics at Wikipedia and therefore prohibited from Improving this or any other article about republic at Wikipedia. So read Cicero's De re publica for yourself and Let Cicero teach you what a republic truly is.WHEELER 23:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A republic is the proper title of the Fourth type of governmental form. Where is this "fourth" type of government at Wikipedia?WHEELER 23:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To explain: The article does not as it stands try to tackle the possibly thorny issue of Cicero's preferred stance, it merely notes the topics the book covers. The majority of the article concerns the state of the text rather than the content. Feel free to expand the section listing each of the books, and summarise the path the book takes. I'd suggest you do it book-by-book to ensure you're covering it all with due weight. --Nema Fakei 01:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias: ""Thorny"" What is thorny about "mixed"? It is BECAUSE you and the others find it ""THORNY"" because what is said does not mesh with what YOU write. Obviously, lying is what is going on. The """"Topic"""" of Cicero's book is MIXED government which is the Res publica. This topic of Mixed nowhere appears in this Wikipedia article of obscurantism and slant. And NO I will not edit a damn thing here. Knowing full well that User:Pmanderson User:SimonP and you are ready to delete, revert, slim down to nothing. This is just another goad. Why don't you and SimonP and Pmanderson READ Cicero's De re publica and SEE what you come up with? Why don't YOU add mixed government to this article? You do it!!! Since you are the expert, you Pmanderson, SimonP are all Republican experts---YOU ADD IT. You do it. I like to see how Cicero's De re publica is about MIXED government but that nowhere appears on the Wikipedia Republic article! No, The Roman Republic is really the Roman democracy:

"On its own, the precise synchronism between the beginning of the Roman democracy and the beginning of the Athenian, even with the conscientious Polybius backing up Dionysius, looks suspiciously like a Roman attempt to prove that they were just as good as the Greeks."

I find this just laughable, the Roman republic is really the Roman Democracy and the Roman Empire (per User:Pmanderson) is really the Roman republic! I find this all tooo laughable. Yes, the Roman republic is really the Roman democracy. That is why you find the Wikipedia's Roman Republic is really republic which is democracy.

What is the sense of having words if they all mean the same thing? A republic is just a democracy. Answer this; Then why have a seperate article on republic why not just have a redirect to democracy since a republic is only a democracy! WHEELER 15:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Britain is a democracy, but not a republic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"What is thorny about "mixed"?" - Ah, no, that's not what I meant, have another read, and I'll try again to explain. It is not that the concept of a mixed government being "thorny" that makes it somehow taboo - it is the question of trying to interpret (some might say second-guess) Cicero that is understandably avoided. The book is *about* government and types of constitution - the idea of mixed government is simply the conclusion Cicero comes to, if any. As I have said, you're welcome to add information to the article if you have some, and I am willing to help fill out the details. --Nema Fakei 19:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The string "mix" occurs 5 times, "misc" once in the entire text; "tyr" (as in tyrranus, a ruler-by-force) appears 12 times in the first book alone. I've not yet examined how many of the contexts of 'mix' are actually relevant, and I suspect there are periphrastic ways of talking about mixtures, but be careful when approportioning weight. --Nema Fakei 20:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"Encyclopaedic tone"

Hi RjC - can you please explain what you mean by this particular edit [1] - and why you think the statement "** Sometimes "Res publica" is translated into Commonwealth, hence Treatise on the Commonwealth is a possible translation of the title" is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia? It does strike me that grammatically, factually and tonally (especially with regard to style and WP:OR) it is actually your alternative that has a less encyclopaedic tone. However, of course it would be beneficial to hear your reasoning. Thanks, Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

now resolved - see RjC's talk page. Badgerpatrol (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)