Talk:Lex Hortensia

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Also, someone has obviously hit this article with a spellchecker that can't recognize Latin, hence populus (in Italics) is represented as populous, leges as legres, etc. I'd offer up for the phrase you found incomprehensible, "This statement made it clear that the patricians could no longer disregard legislation passed through the plebian assembly." Of the Latin, it's been a while since I've tried to provide Latin translation for others, but it reads to the effect, "Once the patricians said they were not bound by the will of the people (plebiscite), that was made without their authority." If my alterations please, I'll let you implement them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.200.73 (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

"This statement disregarded the eligibility of the patricians to deny the plebiscites could not be bound." One word: huh? Could anybody please rephrase this in readable English? Also please add a translation of the preciding Latin sentence, as not all Wikipedia users know enough Latin to understand it. Thanks. -- 77.7.142.251 (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still Huh?

Yes. This text is crucial, but incomprehensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.207.225 (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the text is crucial, the vast majority of this article is incomprehensible. I'll be putting it on my to-do list to rewrite it. — Ifly6 (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lex Hortensia. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120831060912/http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr:80/Haiti/Cours/Ak/ to http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

"this should not be viewed as the final triumph of democracy over aristocracy.... Thus, the ultimate significance of this law was that it robbed the patricians of their final weapon over the plebeians...."

This portion is confusing. Did the law do what was intended or didn't it? Did it empower the plebs or were they still subject to control by the Patricians? Could someone who has more knowledge help?InformationvsInjustice (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The law did what it was intended to do, i.e. make plebiscita binding on all citizens. The section which you're referring to bears a lot of similarity to a passage in Abbott's A History and Descriptions of Roman Political Institutions, on page 53, where he writes "one must not infer that the passage of the lex Hortensia marked the final triumph of democracy over aristocracy", but here, Abbott follows this up, saying "no one but a magistrate could bring a bill before one of the popular assemblies for action ... the senate found means of maintaining its control over the magistrates, very few bills came before the popular assemblies of which the senate did not approve, and a way was generally found to secure the passage of bills which the senate favored". — Ifly6 (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]