Talk:Arruns Tarquinius (son of Tarquin the Proud)

"Semi-legendary"

@P Aculeius: It is not uncommon in the scholarship to refer to persons such as Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, his sons, as well as Lucius Junius Brutus as semi-legendary. Eg modern Britannica: "accepted by some scholars as a historical figure". Doing a two second Google Scholar search—

• Hope, Valerie (1999). Huskinson, Janet (ed.). Experiencing Rome: Culture, Identity and Power in the Roman Empire. Routledge. p. 64. ISBN 978-1-134-69314-6. Crucial changes which began the transformation of Rome from village to city occurred in the later seventh century BC under the six semi-legendary Tarquin kings
• Dunkle, J R (1971). "The Rhetorical Tyrant in Roman Historiography: Sallust, Livy and Tacitus". The Classical World. 65 (1): 12–20. doi:10.2307/4347532. ISSN 0009-8418. semilegendary Tarquinius Superbus and Ap. Claudius

When I say semi-legendary, I mean:

having historical foundation but elaborated in legend

Lomas 2018 pp. 128–29 gives an aside, saying basically the same thing:

These last three kings, Tarquinius Priscus, Servius Tullius and Tarquinius Superbus, seem at first glance to have more historical substance than their predecessors, but the specific actions and personalities attributed to these later kings must be regarded as largely fictitious … there are reasons to accept at least the historical existence of the Tarquin dynasty, even though much of the narrative of their reigns cannot be substantiated.

Yet removing thios entirely as if the details of these stories are known or generally-accepted facts does not properly reflect the scholarship. That the stories in Livy and Dion Hal are not accepted on face is nothing new. DGBRM in 1867 says as much: But it is hardly necessary to remark in the present day that this story cannot be received as a real history, or to point out the numerous inconsistencies and impossibilities in the narrative. (DGBRM then goes on about the then-common theory that the Tarquins marked a period of Etruscan supremacy which is demolished in Cornell 1995.) Do you believe there is some better descriptor which conveys, in a way that is not "editorialising", the sense that the alleged activities of these characters are not necessarily historical?

Also, this invective relating to random speculation by semi-historians like Forsythe is nonsense. Citations for his work, Critical history of early Rome included, are extremely common. (Google Scholar gives 592 citations; Lomas 2018 p. 368 names it one of the "best discussions" along with Cornell 1995. Even lukewarm reviews like Hölkeskamp say Die Kritik an einzelnen Interpretationen und Schlußfolgerungen ändert nichts an dem insgesamt positiven Gesamteindruck, den das Buch hinterläßt.) Immediately under Critical history in Google Scholar are contributions by Forsythe to Wiley-Blackwell Companions to the Roman Army and Livy (specifically "The beginnings of the republic from 509 to 390 BC"). Just looking further through Scholar, he contributed the articles in the Wiley Encyclopaedia of Ancient History on the Struggle of the Orders, Ancus Marcius, the annales maximi, Cassius Vecellinus, the Roman annalists in general, and the specific annalists Gellius, Lucius Calpurnius Piso, Claudius Quadrigarius, and Cassius Hemina. His is not even the really critical history: look to J H Richardson ("for a start, L. Junius Brutus never existed") or Koptev.

If this claim was merely rhetorical in terms of drawing some kind of analogy between semi-legendary and semi-historian, then I doubt its applicability. Some reliable sources call L Tarquinius semi-legendary; no reliable sources doubt the validity of Forsythe's professorship, publications, and PhD. Ifly6 (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstand my objection—describing Tarquin, and his sons, as "semi-legendary", combined with "putative" or "putatively" in the very same passages, strongly implies that they are to be regarded as fictional characters, and that for this reason everything that follows is to be read as unimportant fabrication. This is not to say that these persons are not "legendary" in the literal sense of the word; I have used the word myself in this context. They are the stuff of legend, just as Henry VIII, George Washington, or Babe Ruth are "legendary".

But "semi-legendary" is not as easily interpreted; it reads as "quasi-real", which is not the same as "real", and this impression is enhanced by words such as "putative", which means "supposedly", and in this context is understood to cast doubt on whatever it describes. This turn of language is unencyclopedic: even our articles on characters from folklore and mythology do not describe them as "supposed" or "alleged".

I am not contending that all of the persons and events related in surviving accounts of the Roman Kingdom are true, or that whatever events probably occurred have not been embellished. The simple fact that the oldest accounts known—and those only fragmentary—were first written down centuries after the events that they chronicle, makes inaccuracy and embellishment certain, although in most cases all that we can say is that some details are more probable than others. In very few instances can we state with certainty that a particular story was impossible (for instance, Numa having been a follower of Pythagoras).

But there is a way to indicate where scholarly doubt or debate exist without resorting to non-neutral language that would, at the very least, require a detailed explanation that does not belong in the lead. We can say, "according to Livy", "as related by Dionysius", "Plutarch reports", and so forth; we can then say, "Mommsen regarded this story as a later embellishment of", "Niebuhr and Cornell treat this as", "Forsythe describes this episode as a retrojection of", etc. and thereby avoid giving the impression that we, as Wikipedians, believe or disbelieve the story—even if the views of scholarship form a clear consensus. We should not be saying that "such-and-such was putatively the son of the semi-legendary so-and-so", which strongly implies that the whole of the account is to be disbelieved.

My reference to Forsythe as a "semi-historian" was certainly rhetorical, but not entirely without reason: his position seems to be that practically the whole of Roman history down through the early Republic is pure fiction unworthy of serious treatment, except as an exercise in creative self-invention—and not a particularly good example of it, either. It is quite an extreme view, which does not represent the scholarly consensus with respect to this period, and which has been criticized as over-the-top by a number of scholars. I find Cornell's more nuanced approach to the traditions of early Rome much more reasonable.

However, I did not object to the wording in this and the other article because of Forsythe, and I do not have any desire to begin a discussion of whether his opinions should be followed or rejected here or in other articles. I am only explaining my reasons for rejecting a wording that seemed to me to echo Forsythe's extreme skepticism, when the article was previously worded, or could otherwise have been worded, more neutrally. P Aculeius (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to how you think "semi-legendary" implies that some character is less real than merely "legendary": legendary that means he didn't exist. Prefacing everything with X said is not succinct enough for the literal lede sentence and, given the disagreements in the existing sources, not a reasonable suggestion thereat. It is not "unencyclopaedic" to use wording such as "supposed" or "putative" to say that the details about to be given are unverifiable and highly embellished. Would you be fine with reportedly then?

I'll leave the implied matter, that Forsythe 2005 is akin to an unreliable source, aside inasmuch as there is little engagement to be had when "he doesn't believe anything" is a huge mischaracterisation of the book. Ifly6 (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I already said—in the first paragraph above—that "legendary" does not mean "didn't exist", although it's certainly true that some people read it to mean that. However, "semi-legendary" is a confusing term that does imply that unspecified—and this is key—details are, or are probably, untrue; but since the lead does not have space to discuss them, it's not the place to use words or phrases that require immediate explanation. Nor did I say that doubts about particular events expressed by individual scholars belong in the lead—put them in the body if you intend to discuss them. And it is precisely because the lead has no room for argument about whether someone is or is not a historical figure—or the son of another historical figure—that we should not be describing him as a "putative son", which implies that he existed, but his relationship to his father is dubious—surely not what the article should be saying!

Something else that isn't acceptable is an edit summary that says, "some scholars think X didn't happen" as an explanation for writing about something in the article as if it weren't necessarily so, although the article doesn't discuss the matter or cite said scholars for the proposition. If you're going to imply that something reported by historians—even ancient ones—isn't true, you need to explain that in the article, not merely allude vaguely to it in an edit summary. Anyone reading the article would gather that Wikipedia editors think the battle might not have occurred; but nobody would know that some scholar posited that.

A claim that some important event should be regarded as fictional ought to be attributed to someone—otherwise it fails NPoV. Who is calling the battle into doubt? Not Cornell—I just checked, and he mentions the episode in notes 2 and 3 to chapter 9. Forsythe? Fine—I may think that his wholesale rejection of the Roman foundation myths and the early decades of the Republic is extreme, but others may not, and his opinion is still perfectly citeable as a scholarly opinion. What is not appropriate is to posit that some well-known event did not occur, without citing that opinion to any source. P Aculeius (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that I have sometimes put the word "putative" in the wrong place, which can imply different things about paternity rather than about details; if you see places where that is the case, I have no objection to edits. It seems to me that you are demanding that there be no lede qualifications of any sort related to stories that – I think you would agree – are doubtful, inconsistent, and not acceptable on face. I have proposed alternatives such as reportedly or, now looking in other articles, traditionally; I discern no response whatsoever. I want to reach a compromise on this matter and reach a general modus vivendi inasmuch as these characters are not pure historical characters. Re the recent edit referenced above, you're placing too much emphasis on aside I made in the edit summary, which is the explanation for why I rephrased existing wording in favour of X said; I have introduced no material simply asserting it did not happen. Ifly6 (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have added in the following, which I believe fits both our criteria. It is also largely reusable, since this applies not only to Arruns but also other members of his dynasty and the ascribed actions of the characters at the start of the republic.

Modern historians doubt the historicity of the specific actions attributed to Arruns and other members of his dynasty, regarding them as highly embellished by later accounts.

Please tell me if you have any material objections. Ifly6 (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a short article about a figure from a traditional account. Not much is gained by placing vaguely-worded "disclaimers" in the lead, other than to add an air of disreputableness to the story. You've already noted disagreement among the sources as to which son he was, and that would be expected in a perfectly neutral article that discusses what the sources say. But the disclaimer added in your most recent edits could apply equally well to every single person or event associated with the Roman Kingdom, and perhaps several decades thereafter—and inserting it everywhere, whether or not there is a clear alternative suggested either by Roman writers or modern scholars makes it mere boilerplate, and generally unhelpful to the reader.

In a longer article, such as the one on Tarquin the Proud, it makes sense to delve into specific discussions of historicity; in a three- or four-paragraph article about one of his sons, it adds little and sounds like editorializing by Wikipedians. For this reason, unless a source has something to say specifically about the historicity of Arruns Tarquinius or his deeds, it is simply better to report what is said of him by Roman writers, without adding boilerplate language about the authenticity of the whole dynasty or this period of Roman history. Anyone researching that topic will find plenty about it without a disclaimer in each and every article on a potentially-affected topic. P Aculeius (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

References