Talk:Quintus Curtius Rufus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Passage[edit]

I've removed this passage:

As demonstrated by the quote below, he not only fought against tyrants but also for greater peace and understanding among nations.

"Holy shadows of the dead, I’m not to blame for your cruel and bitter fate, but the accursed rivalry which brought sister nations and brother people, to fight one another. I do not feel happy for this victory of mine. On the contrary, I would be glad, brothers, if I had all of you standing here next to me, since we are united by the same language, the same blood and the same visions."

(Addressing the dead Greeks of the Battle of Chaeronea, as quoted in “Historiae Alexandri Magni”, 6.3.11)

since it's not from "Historiae Alexandri Magni" either 6.3.11 or anywhere... that is until someone can locate it or provide references.

Renault[edit]

Mary Renault is a nonfiction writer on Alexander as well as a respected historical novelist; I see no reason she should not be cited as a critic of a fellow writer. If you have another source with a contrasting opinion, feel free to cite their views. Nareek 20:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not move an inch on this; I have no intention to let half of the article be occupied by a novelist's footnote concerning some occasional remarks involving a marginal figure of the book. I don't remember Britannica citing historical novelists as a source for history articles, so I don't see why we should start here. --Aldux 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to work for Britannica, I'm sure they're accepting applications. This is not Britannica, it's WP, which has its own far more inclusive and democratic standards. Statements like "I will not move an inch on this" are not a helpful way to start a discussion. Nareek 20:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Aldux here - that quote is currently given a degree of prominence in the article quite out of proportion with the apparent notability of this author and her judgment. If we had a whole section comparing modern judgments of this guy, we might talk about re-inserting it, as one among others. Lukas (T.|@) 21:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that Renault is not the only person who should be cited as an authority on Curtius. I completely disagree that her point of view is not worth citing. The problem here is not that Renault's views have been summarized and inserted into the article, but that other more academic experts have not had their views so summarized.

Aldux, I think you need to reread WP:NPOV. The way WP works is that we include the views of those we agree with as well as those we disagree with--and that includes people we don't even think are credible. You clearly believe that only historians are competent to discuss other historians--you are completely welcome to have that opinion as your point of view. What you do not have the right to do is impose that POV on the encyclopedia. Look at the part in the NPOV policy about pseudoscience--if astronomers have to put up with the idea of astrology being included in WP, then you have to accept the fact that some people think that sometimes historical novelists have notable insights into history--absurd as you may find the idea. Nareek 13:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you haven't read Lukas' comment you agree so much very well; he said "that quote is currently given a degree of prominence in the article quite out of proportion with the apparent notability of this author and her judgment. If we had a whole section comparing modern judgments of this guy, we might talk about re-inserting it, as one among others." Even if Renault was an academic wouldn't change anything; this article isn't on Bagoas, but on Curtius and his book, dominated by Alexander, where Bagoas has a very minor space. --Aldux 13:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my note, the problem is not with what's here but with what's not here. Add in the sources that you think have valid judgments on Curtius--don't eliminate the beginnings of a well-rounded article. WP would never get anywhere that way.
Renault has written a well-regarded biography of Alexander, as well as three acclaimed novels about him--only one of which centers on Bagoas. There is plentiful reason to consider her judgment on Curtius to be informed--whether or not you think her credentials merit respect. Nareek 14:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mention in Pliny's Letters[edit]

Perhaps worth including that Pliny the Younger describes the story of Curtius Rufus' death in his letter (number 83) to Sura in which he asks whether Sura believes in the supernatural. In brief, Curtius Rufus is visited by the 'spirit of Africa' who foretells his future and the events of his death. Here's a link to the translation (the story begins at line 5) http://www.bartleby.com/9/4/1083.html 86.182.203.15 (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)PerceivedArthropod[reply]

I'm taking note of this as I rewrite the article. The main topic of the letter is a ghost in chains who leads the philosopher Athenaeus to the spot where the bones lay buried. I thought for a moment I was reading Cotton Mather. Curtius is only of interest to Pliny the Younger because Curtius saw a supernatiral phenomenon encouraging him to get ahead. My guess is, Curtius was able to tell a good ghost story, so he attracted the attention of Tiberius and his court. His Histories is known as a bunch of pretty good stories also. What do you do when you don't have television? Listen to story-tellers, naturally. However, he basically repeats Tacitus so in the interest of saving space I am only going to use Tacitus.Botteville (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed passage[edit]

"His work is fluidly written, and while superficial study reveals the author's errors regarding geography, chronology and technical military knowledge, a detailed study reveals his focusing instead on character and protests against those Emperors of his times whom he considered tyrants. Despite the fact that much of the information we have on this ancient historian is relatively obscure, significant evidence suggests that he suffered one of the earliest known cases of conjunctivitis. Several scholars argue that it was because this went untreated that he succumbed to an early death." Opinionated, unsubstantiated. There are a lot of opinions on Curtius, because there is not much else. The source needs to be identified.Botteville (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Historical value of his work"[edit]

I think this section may have to go on the grounds that is is essay-type material. Who are we judge his historical value? Yes, definitely, It has to go. The editor is not being up front with us here; maybe plagiarizing Britannica 11 has had its effect. He has only one source, Raynham. Her chapter 1 reviews all the opinions of Curtius. Her opinion is that their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. They cover the gamut from superior intelligence to evil man. I don't think we should get into the non-objective opinions of past analysts. They got nothing else to do because there is not much on him. This article will necessarily be short. In any case what the editor should not have done is select out the opinions that suited him and try to present those as though culled from somewhere else. Raynham lists her sources so that is not hard to do. The tag is on there because he has substantially only one source, Raynham. I will remove the essay-like material presented as though objective and credit Raynham. Then I need to find other sources among what there is.Botteville (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Renault passage[edit]

"Historical novelist Mary Renault, in the preface to her biography of Alexander Fire from Heaven, discusses the various sources which she studied in preparation for her work, expressing considerable exasperation with Curtius who "had access to invaluable primary sources, now lost", which in her opinion he misunderstood and garbled. Historian B. A. Bosworth defends Curtius against some of these charges in a general article about the veracity of ancient Greek and Roman historians, "Plus ça change ... Ancient Historians and their Sources" (Classical Antiquity vol. 22, No. 2 (October 2003), 167–198)."

I'm sure the original discussers at this point don't care a thing about what they thought years ago or even remember it. That is the whole point. The editor is telling us what he thinks about what someone thought, a sort of glorified chat room. We don't care in the slightest. What we want is encyclopedic information, and this isn't it. There are logical problems with it too. The editor has Mary telling us how Curtius misunderstood his original sources and how frustrating that is because they are lost now. Well, if they are lost, how could Mary possibly know what they said let alone judge Curtius' interpretation? (More blood to the brain please). He writes about defense attorney Bosworth's defence against the charges. What charges? Presumably the "charges" would be listed in a special section reviewing past opinion of Curtius. It might be rather large. We would need a court reporter instead of a Wikipedia editor. I you don't mind I will leave that up to the writers of books. Only encyclopedic information should go here. We don't want to read about the trial of Curtius in study period before class, only about Curtius.Botteville (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Quintus Curtius Rufus. 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:

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) 02:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The passage could not be found in the suggested 6.3.11 of the 'History of Alexander the Great' by Quintus Curtius Rufus, so has someone any idea where does it come from or if it is even true?[edit]

"Holy shadows of the dead, I’m not to blame for your cruel and bitter fate, but the accursed rivalry which brought sister nations and brother people, to fight one another. I do not feel happy for this victory of mine. On the contrary, I would be glad, brothers, if I had all of you standing here next to me, since we are united by the same language, the same blood and the same visions." 46.114.3.153 (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dating[edit]

Why does it say "the most straightforward approach assumes that he wrote in a window, 63 BC (start of the Roman Empire) through 224 AD." What happened in 68 BC that would justify calling it the start of the Roman Empire? Is this a typo? 27 BC seems a more reasonable earliest date, given that Curtius mentions Augustus. Hephae3tion (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quintus_Curtius_Rufus&oldid=1194827300"