Talk:Mark Antony/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article needs to show the uncertainty over his birth date

My edits probably need revising heavily, and I didn't look at this page first, and too briefly. The article states "A member of the Antonia clan (gens), Antony was born most likely on January 14 of the pre-Julian calendar, in 83 BC". Fine. That should be followed by the Julian date. Of course, we still have a problem - the word 'probably'. The recalculated date is also a 'probable' date given the "room for judicious interpretation". That means we should not give definite dates anywhere, infobox, lead, etc. And should we be saying " the recalculated date" with no attribution? Or maybe "a recalculated date" as 'the' suggests it is universally accepted. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the recalculated date on the Julian Calendar does have attribution (per Donna W. Hurley's commentary of Suetonius' Divus Claudius): German classical scholar Gerhard Radke in his 1978 work Wurzburger Yearbooks of the Classical Studies 4: The Birthday of the Elder Drusus. Radke's most famous work on the subject was Fasti Romani: Reflections on the early history of the Roman calendar (Münster 1990). Gerhard Radke's focus was stated to be on the Roman religion, chronology, and early stages of the Latin language. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You miss my point entirely. I didn't say it had no attribution, I said the article should be attributing the recalculated date. And you deleted "(the calculation is described as including "room for judicious interpretation")" with the edit summary "Deleted entry as the recalculated date does have attribution: Classical scholar Max Georg Gerhard Radke; " - which is misleading as there is nothing in what you deleted about attribution. I've replaced it - please discuss this and explain your reasons if you think it should be deleted, don't just delete it. I've also replaced 'most likely' as it appears, Julian calendar aside, that this isn't established with certainty. Can you demonstrate that it has? Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

One also needs to be cautious about implying that one has read Radke's German article. We have AFAIK only the two very brief summaries. I haven't found the original article online, but would certainly like to have a piece of German scholarship on this topic: it would almost certainly clarify the chain of evidence. When I'm in this situation (which occurs often in classical studies), I always make it clear in the note that this is the view of Major Seminal Dude as summarized by or as cited by the Anglophone. The comical autotranslation of WJA doesn't suggest the ability to read German. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I just received a recall notice from my university library, so I have to go there tomorrow to return a book anyway. I'll be able to photocopy the cited pages of Radke's article then, I hope. Will try to remember to check Antony's entry in RE too, but at the moment am in a bit of a rush. Please leave a note here if anyone finds sources for this point that are not online that we need to check. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Dougweller: Actually that was the whole point of this excruciatingly long discussion (or debate) if you will. I figure you are probably correct in restoring the "most likely" entry. You see, NONE of the modern scholars (19th & 20th Century) have ever provided an ancient source for Antony's alleged Jan. 14 birthday. The best that could be deciphered was that it was "pre-Julian calendar" by a few (not all). The only ancient source that truly places a timeframe for Antony's birth is Suetonius' quote from Claudius' memoirs: That Claudius proclaimed that Antony and Drusus (Claudius' father) shared the same birthday. Drusus' birth has unanimously been listed as being about three (3) months from the date his biological mother Livia married Octavian (Augustus Caesar) which was Jan. 17, 38 BC. This placed Drusus' birth between mid-March and mid-April of 38 BC. And if the only ancient source cites that Drusus shared Antony's birthday, then Antony could not have been born in Jan. 14 of the Julian calendar. So the only explanation for the uncited (from any ancient sources) date of Jan. 14, is that it had to be a pre-Julian calendar date. The way you have it now is just fine. I don't see any further edits to be made by myself unless Claudius' lost memoirs are found by archaeologists in which he states March 28 or thereabouts (LOL). Your entries are fine by me. Thanks for joining in. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Cynwolfe: I did not imply that I know how to read German (I am trilingual and can read & write in all three languages as well, although not German). I found a bio article on Radke here on WP in German which I translated using the automated tool. In it, I found some interesting info about Radke and his credentials which I posted in my reply to Dougweller for logical convenience. It is odd for you to insinuate that I implied that I can read German, when I most certainly didn't. If I had quoted directly from Radke's work, I would have openly said so and provided the pages and the link to it. Please don't confuse me with the person who entered in Drusus' birthday as Jan. 14 in several WP articles without any citations. I will take this opportunity to thank you for your excellent research in tracking down several sources to improve this article. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad we seem to be settling this amicably. We still have the infobox and the intro where we need to be careful that we aren't asserting a certain date as fact. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant to request Cynwolfe to provide for us the link to Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome Vol. 50 (1995) because when trying to access it both in google books and the internet archive, I have been unable. Cynwolfe quoted Marleen Boudreau Flory regarding the March 28 Antony birthday and stated that Flory states that Jan. 14 was his "pre-Julian" birthday, and that March 28 is a "proposed" birthday for Antony. I have been unable to verify this. Volume 50 of the Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome series has a 1st Edition in 2005, however. So how could it be 1995 as listed by Cynwolfe in the reference section (?) The Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome Vol. 40 (1995) has the article about The Symbolism of Laurel in Cameo Portraits of Livia by Marleen Boudreau Flory. And there are two editions (1995 & the 1996 edition by Joseph Connors). The 1996 edition by Joseph Connors also lists it as Volume 40 and NOT Volume 50 as Cynwolfe has cited in the references section. I could only access pages 43-50 in the online internet excerpts from google books of the 1996 Joseph Connors edition of the Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome Volume 40. Flory's article commences from page 43. Cynwolfe cited page 56, note 48. See copy-pastes below:

Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome Volume 50 (2005) 1st Edition Volume 50 Vernon Hyde Minor, Editor Description Series

Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome

CONTENTS

Introduction Architectural Theory and Practice: Vitruvian Principles and "Full-scale Detail" Architectural Drawings Ingrid Edlund-Berry, University of Texas at Austin

Papers From Vitruvian Scholarship to Vitruvian Practice Ingrid D. Rowland, University of Notre Dame Vitruvian Critical Eclecticism and Roman Innovation Thomas N. Howe, Southwestern University Vitruvius and the Origins of Roman Spatial Rhetoric Gretchen E. Meyers, Rollins College

Other Articles The Rhetoric of Romanitas: The "Tomb of the Statilii" Frescoes Reconsidered Peter J. Holliday, California State University at Long Beach Theodelinda's Rome: Ampullae, Pittacia, and the Image of the City Dennis Trout, University of Missouri at Columbia Bramante's Tempietto and the Spanish Crown Jack Freiberg, Florida State University Rome, 1592: An Introduction to a Newly Discovered Parish Census Thomas James Dandelet, University of California at Berkeley The Battle of Zama after Giulio Romano: A Tapestry in the American Academy in Rome, Part I Elfriede R. Knauer, Haverford, Pennsylvania

Reports from the American Academy in Rome Research in the School of Classical Studies at the American Academy in Rome (2004–2005)

---

Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, Volume 40 Front Cover 0 Reviews Istituto Italiano d'Arti Grafiche, 1995 - Classical philology From inside the book

19 pages matching Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome The Symbolism of Laurel in Cameo Portraits of Livia in this book

---

With all due respect and no offense intended, it is not that I am suspicious of Cynwolfe, but as anyone who has covered word-for-word this Talk Page exchange and viewed the Marc Antony WP article Edit & View History sections, can openly observe a slight propensity for embellishment and/or inaccuracy (by Cynwolfe) of some of the quoted works of the literary sources that have been cited. Here is what Cynwolfe cited in the references section of Antony's WP article:

^ Date of March 28 proposed by G. Radke, "Der Geburtstag des älteren Drusus," Wurzburger Jahrbucher fur die Altertumswissenschaft 4 (1978), pp. 211–213, as summarized by the commentary on Suetonius's sentence by Donna W. Hurley, Suetonius: Divus Claudius (Cambridge University Press, 2001),p. 106 and Marleen B. Flory, "The Symbolism of Laurel in Cameo Portraits of Livia," in Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome (University of Michigan Press, 1995), vol. 50, p. 56, note 48.

@ Cynwolfe ... Could you please explain this discrepancy (?) Flagrantedelicto (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

According to Jerzy Linderski, "The Quaestorship of Marcus Antonius," Phoenix 28.2 (1974), p. 217, note 24, the date of January 14 for Antony's birth is attested by an inscription: Attilio Degrassi, Inscriptiones Italiae 13.2.397–398. Here is the link to Flory's article. It's entirely possible to ask for this information without accusing me of a "propensity for embellishment and/or inaccuracy." Cynwolfe (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

About your note: the volume number for Memoirs is a simple typo. Nothing sinister. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I just tried your link to Memoirs of an American Academy in Rome Volume 40 and it does not allow previews for pages 16-55 and 57-102. Page 56 is not displayed, either. When did you access page 56, note 48 last (?) I see that it is Volume 40 (and not Vol. 50). Also, it was entirely possible to not "accuse" of me of implying that I knew German or read Radke's article as I stated no such thing; anyone can comprehend from my reply to Dougweller that I was elaborating on who Radke was. Anyway, let's keep the harmony and concentrate on finding out what Radke actually wrote. I could guess that he might have established March 28 as the elder Drusus' birthday. But unless I can verify or confirm this, it is mere speculation. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The link works for me at present. Googlebooks access can vary by user and country. My point was not who knew German, but avoiding implying in the article or elsewhere that we were actually citing Radke. We aren't. We are citing summaries by other scholars of what he said. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Who stated we were citing Radke directly (?) Not I. I always included Hurley's name as the one citing Radke... Relax. I am the one who suffers from a High BP medical condition...I hope no one else here (as in this particular discussion) also does. It is not a pleasant condition by any means. And I am still drawing a blank page for page 56 in the link you provided. I hope to have access to it at some point. No hurry. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(indenting Flagrantedelicto above to distinguish post (please do this in the future), outdent this for quote)Cynwolfe is right, Googlebooks access varies. I have no problem reading it.

"Suet. Verg 3-5. Where did Livia give birth? Drusus was born on 14 January. and Livia was married on 17 January 38 B.C., but literary evidence says she married Oct avian when the was six months pregnant Radke has proposed a solution. Drusus's birthdatc (not in any calendar but reported by Suet. [CI. 11.3]) was the same as Antony's, whose date of birth must have been different in the pre- Julian calendar. Radke proposes 28 March as the date of Antony's and Drusus * birth and thus solves the difficulty, as Drusus would now be born "intra mensem tcrtium" (Suet. CI. 1.1) of Livia's marriage. Sec G. Radkc, "Der Geburtstag des alteren Drusus," WunJbA 4 (1978) 211- 13. According to our sources, then, she would have been traveling back to Veiito await his birth. Such a detail would connect the grove with the place Drusus was born If correct, the fact is completely suppressed in our sources. Drusus was born "intra Caesaris penates" (Veil. 2.95.1; cf. Tac. Ann. 5.1.3; Dio Cass. 48.44.4), which indicates that Livia gave birth as the wife of Octavian but does not specify the place." Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hence my caution in asserting that we know what Radke said about the birth date of Antony: neither of these references is primarily concerned with establishing it, but with the circumstances of Drusus's birth, and how it could be said that he was born on the same day as Antony (January 14) if Drusus was clearly born later than that. Hurley's point was that Antony's birth (January 14) was a matter of public record; this calculation was a clever way for Claudius to get around Augustus having declared Antony's birthday a dies vitiosus. So it simply isn't true to say that the "real" date of Antony's birth was March 28, and in context that isn't what Hurley is saying. The point of chronology has to do with how to resolve Suetonius's remark that Drusus was born on the same date as Antony, if Drusus was born nearly three months later. Both these notes on March 28 are about the DOB of Drusus; Radke's article is about the birthday of Drusus. It's the date of Drusus's birth that produces the problem, which Radke proposes to resolve by saying Drusus was born on March 28, because if Antony had been born under the Julian calendar, he would've been too. But see for comparison this discussion of Augustus's birthday. Augustus was born on September 23, before the Julian calendar reform. His birthday, as is ubiquitously attested, continued to be celebrated on September 23 on the Julian calendar. Just like a festival, a person's birthday would've had the same calendar date. Robigalia was on April 25 before and after the calendar shift; it was seasonal position of April 25 that moved, not its relative place on the calendar and not the name of the date (with some minor adjustments of a day or two in some months). Antony's birthday didn't change under the Julian calendar, and that's why the mainstream RS cited (Christopher Pelling, Adrian Goldsworthy, Pat Southern, and now Jerzy Linderski) all give Antony's DOB as January 14. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Dougweller Thanks. I still haven't been able to access page 56 from my PC (believe it or not). So what we have is Marleen Boudreau Flory's explanation. We still need Gerhard Radke's translated (into English) work to see if what he wrote corroborates Flory. Flory doesn't appear to be the in-depth classical scholar that Gerhard Radke seems to be. Radke might be far more definitive in his explanation. So what about the statement made (by Cynwolfe) that WP does not list pre-Julian dates for the Roman Republic (?) What is your perception on that (?) If so, then March 28 should be listed as the primary birthday for both Antony & Drusus (even tentatively with maybe a question mark attached to it to convey an amount of uncertainty). I think eventually it might rest on Max Georg Gerhard Radke's coverage of the birthday of the elder Drusus and Marc Antony...Once any of us has access to his work and gets it translated by a German speaking WP editor, or by the automated translation tool (which Cynwolfe has accurately described as being "comical"), an appropriate consensus can be reached about whether March 28 should be established (even tentatively) as the primary birthday of Antony (and also Drusus). There is always a benefit to have at least 2 or more other WP editors confirm and verify whatever new information is accessed. For example, had I not reviewed the source which Cynwolfe provided, the date of March 28, Gerhard Radke, Marleen Flory, etc., would NEVER have even surfaced and would have been completely suppressed as well. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hurley's statement that Antony's birthday was a matter of public record is unsupported, as she has NOT provided her ancient source for Antony's birthday. And neither have Pelling, Goldsworthy, Southern, and Linderski (even with the inscription). The vast publications of nearly ALL the encyclopedias throughout the 19th Century & 20th Century have never listed January 14 as a widely known birthday of Marc Antony. Not like with Caesar's July 12th (or 13th) and Augustus' September 23rd respective birthdays. January 14 (believe it or not) became widespread throughout the internet via this very WP article that has been replicated all over the internet as secondary references. There is still no ancient evidence which established Jan. 14 as Marc Antony's pre-Julian birthday...And NONE of those scholars have provided an ancient literary source like an Appian, Plutrach (who recorded Alexander the Great's birthday of 6th Hecatombaeon [Attic], or called Lous in Macedonian), Tacitus, Julius Africanus, Eusebius, Pliny, Livy, Suetonius, etc., as listing January 14 as Antony's birthday. Btw, original research birthdays have been listed on WP, see Joseph Stalin's WP article page, or Lola Montez' WP article page as examples. I believe the way it is presented currently is about as accurate as it is going to get until future developments by researching scholars. For now, the ONLY ancient source which even provides a timeframe for Marc Antony's birthday is Suetonius' writings taken from Emperor Claudius' lost memoirs: That Drusus the Elder and Marc Antony shared the same birthday...Narrowed down to March 28 by Gerhard Radke between mid-March and mid-April (established unanimously by other scholars, both classical and modern). Livia was 6 months pregnant when she wedded Octavian (Augustus) on Jan. 17, 38 BC. Drusus was born 3 months later (March 28 according to Radke). And then there is Arthur Weigall and his placing Antony's birth (in no connection with Drusus) on virtually the same time Sulla landed in Brundisium in SPRING of 83 BC. Of course, Weigall's ancient source has yet to be tracked down. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I still intend to obtain Radke's article when I go to the library shortly. You may've missed the reference above to Linderski's note, attributing Antony's DOB to an inscription listed by Degrassi at Inscript. It. 13.2.397–398. As the example of Augustus's birthday indicates, a person's DOB, like a religious holiday, remained the same on the new calendar; it wasn't "recalculated" and moved to another month. I don't know why this simple fact didn't occur to me before. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That may well be but Jan. 14 has NEVER been the widely known or established birthday of Marc Antony. Even now, neither the New World Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, or any of the established reference encyclopedias or World Books published list Jan. 14 as Marc Antony's birthday...Like they do the birthdays of Julius Caesar (12/13 July) or Augustus (23 Sep) or Caligula (31 August), etc...As I stated before, Jan. 14 is a mere speculation (concurred with by Dougweller). And Suetonius' doesn't mention anything about Claudius having Antony's birthday recalculated to concur with that of Drusus. This is the explanation of modern scholars. Suetonius' quote of Claudius' memoirs just states that he wanted to restore Antony's birthday because it was the same as that of Drusus. Drusus has NO ancient source which states that he was born on Jan. 14. This is again the speculation of a few confused modern scholars looking for an explanation of where the Jan. 14 birthday emerged for Antony. Since there is no ancient scholarly source that documented it. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been meaning to weigh in on this all week, but it's taken that long just to re-read the whole discussion and figure out the issues. Please correct me if I misunderstand:

1. Many modern sources give January 14 as the date that Marcus Antonius was born, in 83 BC. This date seems to have been accepted ab initio; it isn't attributed to modern scholarship re-interpreting ancient sources.
2. The only ancient source so far discovered providing an exact date is an inscription, giving the date as January 14.
3. In Suetonius' life of Claudius, the emperor states that he is all the more happy to celebrate the birthday of his father, Drusus, because the birthday of his grandfather, Antonius, is the same day.
4. No ancient source has been located providing an exact date for the birth of Drusus; however, they do state that his mother, Livia, was six months pregnant with Drusus when she married Octavian, on January 17.
5. Gerhard Radke asserted either that Drusus was born on March 28, or that he was probably born on March 28.
6. A more recent work, Hurley, attempts to reconcile the birth of Antonius on January 14 with the birth of Drusus roughly 2-3 months later by asserting that the Julian Calendar resulted in a shift of 93 days, and that resulted in Claudius commemorating his grandfather's birthday on March 28, to co-incide with the birth of Drusus, rather than January 14.
7. Another modern historian, Weigall, has stated that Antonius was born at almost the same time that Sulla landed at Brundisium. If this is taken to mean on or near the same day, it would place Antonius' birth in the spring.
8. An as-yet unidentified source gives Antonius' birth on July 30. A modern source, perhaps basing the statement on that date, says that he was born under the sign of Leo.

Perhaps it would help to deal with these points in reverse order.

1. No identifiable source seems to support the July 30 date; all identified sources that suggest a time frame contradict it. Unless some reliable source for it can be found, it can safely be excised.
2. The statement that Antonius' birth co-incided with Sulla's landing at Brundisium cannot be taken as providing a specific date. The only date mentioned is the year, 83. As previously suggested, Weigall could simply have meant to point out for dramatic impact that Antonius was an infant when Sulla landed. This isn't the only possible interpretation, but there's no evidence that he meant anything more specific.
3. It's been pointed out that there are only 73 days between January 14 and March 28, the birthdate that Hurley assigns to both Antonius and Drusus. Since Hurley stated that the calendar was shifted by 93 days, Flagrantedelicto proposes that she meant to put April 17, but miscalculated, and that April 17 should be the date. However, my understanding is that each year prior to the adoption of the Julian calendar could be calculated differently; in other words, the calendrical shift between 46 and 45 BC may have been 93 days, but prior years may not have required the same alteration. In other words, recalculating dates from 83 BC may have required only a shift of 73 days. Equally possible is that Hurley did not do the calculation of days herself, but relied on Claudius' own interpretation of the calendar, and the date of March 28 for the birth of Drusus. If one takes Claudius at his word, and Suetonius reported it accurately, and if Drusus was born on March 28, then it isn't necessary to figure out how many days the calendar varied between 83 and 45 BC, because Claudius' statement would have been authoritative as to the end result; in this case Hurley was merely explaining why he recalculated the date from January 14, accounting for the adoption of the Julian calendar; she wasn't recalculating it herself on the assumption that all prior years were exactly 93 days off, which would almost certainly have been wrong. In any case, we don't have any evidence that she made a mistake, or that she would have asserted April 17 to be the date of Antonius' birth, had she calculated it correctly.
4. Radke seems to be the original source for the date of March 28. Since none of us have yet examined his article, we're not sure how certain he was or how sound his reasoning is. But it does agree with the ancient sources that state Livia was six months pregnant with Drusus when she married Octavian on January 17. We can't take "six months" as an exact date; then as now that would have been an approximation. But if Drusus were born two months and eleven days later, then she would have been between six and seven months pregnant on January 17, which we would probably describe as six months rather than seven; presumably they did the same back then.
5. It is not necessary to accept the equation of the birth date of Antonius and that of Drusus, based solely on the passage in Suetonius. Suetonius was born circa AD 69, well after Claudius' death. He had to rely on the veracity of his sources, which aren't available to us. So when he places words in Claudius' mouth, we only have his word for their accuracy. As far as it's possible to verify or refute his account of historical events, he seems to have recorded things pretty accurately, but when it comes to reporting what people said, there's a much greater probability of inaccuracy. Even if we assume that he correctly reported what Claudius said about the birthdays of his father and grandfather co-inciding, we also must be cognizant of the fact that the emperors were not above manipulating the facts to suit their own purposes. So it's also conceivable that Claudius didn't know exactly when his grandfather's birthday would fall if recalculated under the Julian calendar, or that he knew or believed it would fall on a different day than his father's, but that he chose to observe the two of them together, either out of practical convenience, or because it provided a convenient political excuse for rehabilitating Marcus Antonius, since Augustus had prohibited the celebration of his birthday, and it wouldn't have been comfortable for Claudius to explain why he, as an emperor, a living god, was prohibited from celebrating his grandfather's birthday. So in fact, while Claudius may have said that the two shared the same birthday (assuming Suetonius reported what he said accurately), that isn't actually proof that they did. It's persuasive, but less so than a non-biased source would be.
6. That's what we have with an inscription, if what it says is accurately ascribed to our Marcus Antonius. A contemporary record, which there is no reason to suppose was falsified or "adjusted" for political expediency. The January 14 date provided by the inscription has been followed by the majority of modern scholars. As I understand it, Hurley doesn't reject that date; she accepts it, and merely explains how it is that Claudius equated it with the birth of his father on March 28. Nor does Radke reject it; as far as I know, he merely posits March 28 as the date Drusus was born, and this was the basis for Hurley's assumption that Claudius reckoned his grandfather's birth also on March 28. Nor does Weigall reject either date; he is silent on the point, and only states that Antonius was born about the time that Sulla landed at Brundisium, which could mean any time within a year or so.
7. There appears to be no basis for the assertion that the January 14 date was made up out of thin air by modern scholars. We don't know if this opinion is based solely on the ancient inscription or on other evidence; but the inscription proves that this date was accepted in antiquity, and did not originate in recent times.

This being the case, we know that Marcus Antonius was born on January 14; this date was accepted in antiquity, and would have been the date Antonius celebrated his birthday until at least 45 BC, the majority of his life. We don't know if he ever celebrated it on a different date, or how other Romans regarded it after the adoption of the Julian calendar, except that Claudius reportedly chose to celebrate it on another date. Assuming that Radke is right about Drusus being born on March 28, and that this was the date Claudius observed as his father's birthday, then we know that Claudius chose to celebrate his grandfather's birthday on that date as well, and that fact should be observed in the article. But that doesn't really tell us whether anyone else rejected the date of January 14, for which reason I think that date should be given priority in the article, followed by an explanation of why Claudius chose to observe his grandfather's birthday on a different date (per Hurley) and what date it might have been (per Radke). P Aculeius (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the whole case is that Jan. 14 is NOT a date accepted in antiquity (with NO ancient source) and nor has any of the established reference encyclopedias such as the Britannica, New World Encyclopedia, World Book, American Standard Dictionary, Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of World biography, World Biography, Oxford's World Encyclopedia, etc., have ever listed it as such. Even now, go to any library and check any of the latest printed editions, and one can see that Jan. 14 is listed NOWHERE among them as Marc Antony's birthday. As far as encyclopedic sources go, Jan. 14 surfaced here in WP and spread throughout the internet in secondary reference replications. It should not be given priority based upon this, either. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We use what reliable sources say. For instance, we can use Hurley although we might want to attribute her (is my memory going or isn't she just reporting on the 93 days, not calculating it). I'm also wondering why we aren't discussing the year he was born, as that seems uncertain. For instance, Pat Southern writes "It is a strange fact that, although Mark Antony is such a well-known figure, even to those who are not specialists in Roman history, no-one knows precisely when he was born. Three dates have been suggested, 86, 83 and 81 BC. Most modern scholars opt for the ... Whatever the precise year, Antony's birthday was 14 January."Mark Antony (Tempus History & Archaeology) by Pat Southern (1 Oct 1998) p.ii, before Wikipedia existed. Adrian Goldsworthy gives January 14th as well. [1] - I guess you could argue he used our article as his source, but do you really want to do that? For the record, this seems to be the edit where it was added[2]. This source[3] is also earlier. It didn't start here. Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL...My lack of clarification. What I meant to say is that as far as "encyclopedic" references go, the Jan. 14 supposed birthday of Marc Antony essentially spread from this WP article across the internet's replication of secondary sources. I didn't mean that it was "discovered" here on WP. Once again, NO ancient historians such as Livy, Pliny, Plutarch, Appian, Suetonius, Eusebius, or Julius Africanus recorded that Jan. 14 was Antony's birthday. And once again, Jan. 14 is not listed in any of the entries about Marc Antony in any of the encyclopedic references: Britannica, New World Encyclopedia, World Book, American Standard Dictionary, Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of World biography, World Biography, Oxford's World Encyclopedia, etc... Flagrantedelicto (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

An inscription is generally more reliable evidence than an ancient historian. The historian may be working from faulty sources himself, or the manuscript tradition may have introduced an error. His narrative may not have required him to specify the date: Cassius Dio mentions Augustus's action in suppressing commemorations of Antony's birthday without providing a date. We don't know what the inscription says; we only know that Jerzy Linderski, a scholar known for his attention to detail, accepts it as evidence for the DOB of Antony, and provided a precise citation to it in Degrassi's collection, which I'll attempt to check today at the library, if I ever get out the door. I concur with what Dougweller says about representing what the sources say (in clear preponderance!), and must express my admiration of the detailed and careful summary provided by P Aculeius, who contributes regularly to articles on ancient Roman prosopography and is experienced in dealing with this material. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have to entirely disagree that inscriptions are more reliable than what historians write. There are COUNTLESS inscriptions which archaeologists have found in both ancient world (Near Eastern & European) and Biblical archaeology which have been proven to be either false, forgeries, erroneous, and ultimately misrepresented. Take all those supposed Biblical-related inscriptions established by Biblical archaeologists: Most of them have been peer-reviewed as either forgeries or inconclusive...Only a few have been verified to be authentic. One inscription hardly establishes Jan. 14 as Antony's birthday...An no one knows what the inscription says, and yet because Linderski "accepts" it as Antony's DOB, that is the ancient evidence (?) LOL Even if Linderski's citation is precise in his "belief" that it is Antony's DOB, who exactly peer-reviewed it to establish this (?)...And where exactly does Linderski get the idea that this inscription is indeed the DOB of Antony (?) Mere speculation on the part of Linderski and it does not by any means establish that Jan. 14 was indeed Antony's DOB. Here is a case in point about the reliability of inscriptions: Ramesses II had inscriptions up and down all the monuments of the Nile of his version of the Kadesh campaign and the Battle of the Orontes River, indicating that he singlehandedly saved his regiment by hurling hundreds (or is it thousands, I forget which) of Hittites into the Orontes (!) Thank god for the Hittite historical records which documented otherwise, as well as other ancient sources who offered a more realistic account of what Ramesses II actually accomplished. Inscriptions mean little without the support of ancient historical sources to substantiate them. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, I suppose that is arguable, unless RS accept the evidence, in which case they're the ones with the say, because they have the training and experience to evaluate the reliability of the inscription in its broader historical context. As Dougweller said above, it's our task to represent reliable sources. Forgot to address Dougweller's point about the year: agree, the year is actually the focus of far more debate than the birthday. You might also find 82. Linderski's article on Antony's quaestorship is concerned with that in large part. With Romans from the most elite families, it's usually assumed they would've run for quaestor at the earliest opportunity (that is, as soon as they met the age requirement), but elections around that time had some irregularities that contribute to complications of dating. I had Linderski's article from a time some years ago when I was researching the careers of the junior officers under Caesar in the Gallic Wars. His evidence on Antony isn't as definitive as scholars would like. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You are quite correct in evaluating that the year of Antony's birth is an even larger focus. For that reason, I am really fascinated with Weigall's placement of Antony's birth when Sulla landed in Italy (at Brundisium) in the spring of 83 BC. If an ancient source can be found for Weigall's account, then at least this could establish the year as 83 BC. Weigall had cited an older German scholar but when I tracked down that scholar and the cited work, it was in German and no birthday seemed to have been listed. (I now have lost the info on who that scholar was, I'll have to research this all over again, I suppose)... Flagrantedelicto (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I'm not too concerned about the year. We have two alternative ages in Plutarch, which would, since he was born quite early in the year, place his birth in either 83 or 86 BC. Most sources seem to follow 83, which would seem more logical if he followed the cursus honorum, since he stood for the quaestorship in 53 BC, the year he would have turned 30 if he were born in 83 BC, and that was the minimum age permitted by law.

We can't really rely on most of his later offices, which he obtained through the influence of Caesar; technicalities such as the legal age would have been easily ignored once Caesar was in command of an army during the Civil War. Antonius was consul with Caesar in 44, when he would only have been 39, and the minimum age to stand for that office was 42. If he had been born in 86, he would have reached the age of 42 during the year 44 BC, and this might account for Plutarch's uncertainty as to his age.

That's just my speculation, of course. But if you assume that the law was complied with, then Antonius should only have stood for election in 44, for the consulship of 43. So I don't think placing his birth in 86 BC really solves this discrepancy. I think it's more logical that the legal age requirement was ignored because nobody wanted to oppose Caesar over something relatively minor (in the past many persons had held the consulship at a younger age, and many more would under the Empire). What this does is give us a clue as to why Plutarch might have been uncertain about Antonius' age. The circumstantial evidence for 83, based largely on the cursus honorum, is thin, but nothing expressly contradicts it, as far as I know. Between the two alternatives given by Plutarch, 83 seems much more likely. P Aculeius (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Radke and the Fasti Verulani

A depiction of Laughing Out Loud in the presence of the Fasti Verulani (I reckon; I've no idea what this is about, but it was only thing that turned up at Commons, alas, though we have images of other fasti)

Mes amis, I had a most merry time at the library. Seeing as how Radke's article was so short, I arrived with a few coins in my purse to make photocopies. What a Luddite! No photocopier in the entire library would accept my paltry offerings of coins rather than the magic campus e-Totenpass, and after misadventures, a kindly huntsman, I mean Charon, I mean a senior librarian, took pity on me and copied at no cost the two physical pages that Radke's little article, really just a note, consumes. I have made a solemn vow never to tell that freebies valued at at least a quarter were doled out to a member of the public, and so have no doubt brought down a curse upon myself, were my true identity to be revealed. Sssh!

I am pleased to report that Radke is just about the clearest writer of German prose I have ever tried to read in the field of classical studies. When I'm at greater leisure, I'll share the pertinent passages. For now, I will provide the full details of the inscription, which comes from the Fasti Verulani, a Roman calendar (fasti) dated to around 17–37 AD. As Linderski notes, and Radke too, this inscription was discovered in 1923, hence neither the Catholic Encyclopedia nor the 1912 Britannica would've had it, nor even the old RE ("unknown to Wissowa"!—words that thrill the heart of any classicist).

The Fasti Verulani notes January 14 as dies vitiosus ex. s.c. Ant. natal. As Radke observes, this dies vitiosus accords with the statement in Cassius Dio 51.19.3 that Antony's birthday was declared ἡμέρα μιαρά (hēmera miara). Ex s.c. is an abbreviation that means "by decree of the senate" (s.c. = senatus consultum). Natal. is the standard calendar abbreviation for [dies] natalis. Ant. is a standard abbreviation in inscriptions for the nomen Antonius, and the passage in Dio supports the identification, since it says (in Greek) that Antony's natalis was declared a dies vitiosus and there's no suggestion that some other Ant. had a birthday so declared. As Linderski notes in the passage linked just above, dies vitiosus seems to be a unique degradation of a day, not known to have been used other than in connection with Antony's birthday. This same calendar (the Fasti Verulani) gives the date of January 17 for feriae ex s.c. quod eo die Augusta nupsit Divo Augusto ("holidays decreed by a senatus consultum because on this day Livia married the Divine Augustus"), thus spawning the difficulties of chronology concerning the birthday of Drusus.

Radke's "article" (really a note of about one and a half pages of text, with the remaining half page of endnotes, followed by another half page, followed by a blank page) is about how to reconcile January 14, which he accepts as a given, with the statement in Suetonius, since Drusus was supposed to have been born intra mensem tertium after the wedding of Livia and Augustus. His argument is precisely not that Antony's dies natalis was "really" March 28, but that Claudius through clever calculations reckoned that if Antony had been born under the same calendar as Drusus, they would've had the same birthday. It matters not whether those calculations were correct; the point is that Claudius made calculations. There is nothing to suggest that Antony's birthday was "really" any other date, only that Claudius, because the original date had been formally besmirched, engaged in intellectual shenanigans to rehabilitate the commemoration of Antony's birth, and to show what it would've been had Antony been born under another star, as it were.

So this leaves us exactly where we were when I first added the date of January 14 with a lavish footnote citing blue-linkable scholars all accepting this as Antony's DOB. The summaries of Radke in Flory and Hurley are about the chronological problems of the DOB of Drusus, not Antony, for whom there is no conflicting evidence. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Bravo, bravissimo! As far as I'm concerned, this settles the issue. There's no truly contradictory evidence for January 14; Radke's explanation of Claudius' statement makes perfect sense; and none of the other sources that follow Radke assert that Claudius was giving the original date of Antonius' birth. So while I have absolutely no objection to including the emperor's own reckoning in an explanation of the date, I think that we can lay to rest any doubt as to the veracity of the January 14 date. P Aculeius (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually there is another personage who could have been dies vitiosus ex. s.c. Ant. natal. and the Ant. could possibly have been Marcus Antonius ANTYLLUS (the Archer), aka Marcus Antonius IV or Marcus Antonius Minor (Antony's eldest son). Augustus perceived him as a major threat and had him put to death shortly after both Antony's and Cleopatra's suicides. Hence, this inscription was discovered in 1923, and prior to that there was NO established DOB for Antony's birthday for the past two thousand years. That explains why all those classical scholars never documented Jan. 14 as Antony's birthday: It wasn't discovered until 1923. So Radke accepts Jan. 14 based on this 1923 discovery. It is strange that academia has yet to accept this 1923 inscription as conclusive enough to list it in their encyclopedias. To this day, neither of the renowned world references such as the Britannica, New World Encyclopedia, World Book, American Standard Dictionary, Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of World Biography, World Biography, Oxford's World Encyclopedia, etc., have accepted this 1923 inscription as historical evidence of it being Marc Antony's DOB. I still have solid doubts as to Jan. 14 being even the pre-Julian DOB of Antony, inscription or no inscription. I am still intrigued where Arthur S. Weigall got his information that Antony was born virtually at the same time of Lucius Cornelius Sulla's arrival in Italy (at Brundisium) in the SPRING (i.e., March-April) of 83 BC (?) After all, Weigall's book was first published in 1931, or 8 years after the discovery of this 1923 inscription. Weigall must have heard of it. Hmmm. Something to ponder...However, since even the Jan. 14 date is the product of 1923 onward, I would suggest leaving both dates of March 28 and January 14 in the infobox as primaries. Especially since P Aculeius has no objection to both dates being displayed in this WP article of Marc Antony. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Archaeologists, mirabile dictu, find new stuff all the time. Stuff even older than 2,000 years. That's how they stay in business. Give it up, or cite some sources. Arthur Weigall was, according to his article, an "Egyptologist, stage designer, journalist and author", not a scholar specializing in classics or ancient history. Linderski says plainly that we know of no date other than Antony's birthday that was declared a dies vitiosus. Your proposal of Antyllus is unsupported by even a shred of evidence, and not a single secondary source thus far: it's OR and unfounded speculation. March 28 should be the DOB of Drusus in his article; in Antony's, it's a footnote or explanation in the body text, not an alternate date. The date was commemorated on a Julian calendar as January 14, and there's no reason to believe that wasn't the date on the pre-Julian calendar under which he was born, since there is no evidence Romans switched birthdays on the new calendar (and much evidence that they retained their birthday, notably for Augustus). If you wish to contest the authenticity of the Fasti Verulani, this is not the forum. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I know first hand that archaeologists find new things all the time. I have been a part of a couple of such teams in the field. There is nothing to give up. Quoting me to me...LOL Did it ever occur to you that if March 28 was Antony's recalculated date on the Julian calendar, then technically that was the actual date back in 83 BC (not Jan. 14, which belonged to a faulty, inaccurate lunisolar cycle) (?) LOL The Fasti Verulani is not cited by any ancient historians. If the Jan. 14 date was so widely known, it should have appeared in some of their writings and not in an obscure calendar (Fasti) which turns up in 1923. And I don't need to be told which forum to contest what, thank you. If this calendar had so much weight, there is no reason in the world why academia would have ignored it. To this day, not a single encyclopedia has accepted Jan. 14 as Antony's undisputed birthday Fasti Verulani or no Fasti Verulani. It would also be nice if you present a link or some accessibility (if at all possible) of what Gerhard Radke wrote, for all to see who would be interested. This still presents an unexplained problem for what Suetonius recorded: That Claudius proclaimed Antony and Drusus shared the same birthday. If the Romans didn't change established days of importance (such as birthdays, death anniversaries, etc.,) from the pre-Julian calendar to the Julian calendar, then how could Claudius have made such a proclamation and have it accepted by the masses (?) Doesn't make any sense. This has vexed modern scholars and prompted an explanation and resolution for which Gerhard Radke took the initiative to resolve, so scholars like Hurley and Flory can explain this. Most of those other biographers of Antony didn't even come this far as you and I have right here on WP. Take Pat Southern for example. She is not even certain about Antony's birth year. I think you should feel elated at the research you accomplished, which Antony biographers Goldsworthy, Southern, and even Pelling didn't even cover. The Fasti Verulani was not cited by any of the Antony biographers or commentators (including Hurley). It is surprising that nearly all of them did not cite such a key source such as the Fasti Verulani...Makes anyone ponder. All said and done, it still does not explain why anyone would have inserted the Jan. 14 birthday for Drusus in three different WP articles. Nonetheless, the Fasti Verulani should have been known to any of the classical historians of Roman history post circa 17-37 AD (the timeframe attributed to the Verulani). It is curious that none of them cited it, even if it was lost to history and rediscovered in 1923. I am glad I reviewed your source of Hurley and discovered Gerhard Radke. Had I not pushed for Radke, we wouldn't have found out about the Fasti Verulani...Or that there even was a recalculation of the March 28 birthday for Antony to share with Drusus. Incidentally, did Radke openly state that March 28 was his calculated date for the elder Drusus (?) If so, we can cite the page number and enter it in the Drusus article. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I just saw a blow up of the actual Fasti Verulani Calendario Romano online. It is a magnificent piece of work. It was Prof. Camillo Scarafoni Scaccia, a distinguished scholar, who made the discovery, in the year 1922 (not 1923). It dates to 14 AD. And it also records the January 17 wedding of Augusta [Livia Drusilla] to Augustus [Octavian]. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, dial back on the sarcasm a bit. Cynwolfe has gone to considerable trouble to dig up the sources of the dates we're talking about, but your tone is always dismissive of her work and conclusions. I think some of your argument proceeds from a misunderstanding of the Fasti Verulani. This wasn't a source that ancient writers would have relied upon; it was a calendar drawn up so that the ordinary citizens of Verulae (modern Veroli) would be able to keep track of what events should be celebrated (or in one remarkable case, not celebrated) on what days. Unless you lived in Verulae during the first century, you wouldn't have relied on them. We rely on the Fasti Verulani because they're the only extant ancient source (as far as we know) that states the exact date of Antonius' birth. Your argument is that the date should have appeared in other ancient sources; perhaps it did, but none of them have survived. Unlikely as that may seem to you, we don't know of any others. That fact, however, has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of the Fasti Verulani, since it applies equally to every conceivable date.

It's not particularly persuasive that you haven't found an encyclopedia that provides January 14 as the date, since you haven't found any that list March 28 or any other date, either. But January 14 is accepted by pretty much every other scholar who gives a date. The only one who gives any support to the date of March 28 begins with the premise that Antonius was actually born on January 14, based on the calendar in use when he was born, and that Claudius chose to recalculate it for his own purposes. So there's absolutely no support for that date instead of January 14 in any source.

I don't see why you're so interested in Radke's explanation of why Drusus was probably born on March 28, since nobody here has argued that he was wrong, and he hasn't anything whatever to say about Marcus Antonius; moreover, according to your own account, you don't read German, so you wouldn't derive any benefit from it. But Radke did say that his date was an approximation, and not certain; so we don't really know that Drusus was born on that day. Only that it would have been about that day, or that that day seems to be the most likely of a range of days.

There's no "unexplained problem" here. It's been explained several times, and quite clearly. Claudius knew that his grandfather and father weren't born on the same day, at least under the calendars in use in the years they were born. But he was able to use the facts that the pre-Julian calendar could shift by several days from year to year, and even several months over the course of many years, and that the shift between 46 and 45 BC (when the Julian calendar was adopted) was 93 days, to assert that his grandfather's birthday co-incided with his father's. There was no objection to celebrating the birthday of Drusus, so if one adjusted the pre-Julian calendar for the year of Antonius' birth to match that day, one couldn't really object to celebrating them both together, the decree of Augustus notwithstanding.

Nobody claimed that "the masses" accepted Claudius' explanation. All Suetonius tells us is that he said it. But "the masses" didn't have to accept it, because by the time of his reign nobody outside the imperial family had any reason to, except to show their piety and fealty to the imperial family; and if you were going to do that, you were hardly going to argue that they had misinterpreted the dates for their own purposes.

It's not particularly relevant whether other modern historians cite the Fasti Verulani as their source, since as far as we know, there isn't another one. If they didn't state where they got the date, it isn't evidence that a different date is more probable. It's no more relevant than the fact that ancient historians didn't say where they got their information; much of the time, they didn't. The fact is that until modern times it wasn't common to cite the sources of all your information; even today we make exceptions on Wikipedia for things that are considered "common knowledge." These are things you can't fairly attribute to a single source, such as the date the Fourth of July, or that the sky is blue. Sure, you can find sources for these, but you can't point to an "official" source as the most authoritative on the point, and there's no reason why you should have to.

The date of Antonius' birth was common knowledge when he was alive, and presumably for some years after he died, which is why Augustus (apparently with the consent of the senate) decreed that it shouldn't be celebrated. But unless you were planning to draw up a calendar like the Fasti Verulani, you didn't need to report what that date was; and even if you were going to say when it was, you didn't need to explain how you knew it. That's why there aren't a lot of ancient sources for information like this. Just think what a small percentage of references to "Christmas" don't bother to explain that it's usually celebrated on (or beginning) December 25. Sure, some do, but most of the time you don't bother to say that when you mention Christmas. We only have two or three ancient sources that mention the birthday of Antonius in passing; it's not that surprising that they don't all say what day it was.

Which brings us back to the beginning. We have a date attested from an ancient source. This date is accepted by pretty much every scholar who gives any date at all. The only one who has anything to say about March 28 (based on Radke's work, which plainly stated it was only an approximation) also accepted that January 14 was the date commemorated by pretty much everyone before Claudius decided to adjust it to make it co-incide with his father's birthday. So there really isn't any evidence to support March 28 as the actual birthday of Marcus Antonius; that was an original interpretation made by Claudius, and our only source for that doesn't even provide the exact date that Claudius celebrated. It's time to finish this debate; there just isn't any reason for it to continue. P Aculeius (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't advise me about sarcasm...You really have no idea who I am or what my credentials could possibly be (not that you or anyone could probably care). Agreed. The discussion (or debate) is over. But stop and pause for a little reflection: No one is denying the accomplishment and effort put in by the stated WP editor...Or did you miss that entirely from me. I have acknowledged the efforts even earlier, but could have done without the condescending tone towards me as well (little class or grace). Somehow, some of you seem to miss this aspect altogether. All is well that ends well. And keep in mind that had I not reviewed the stated WP editor's sources and pushed in the direction to where someone finally DID find an ancient source to verify Antony's birthday of Jan. 14, this WP article would have probably not known this (maybe for a very longtime). Now, because I kept pushing the envelope, someone finally found the Fasti Verulani (which none of the Antony biographers even seemed to have cited: Goldsworthy, Southern, Pelling, even Hurley & Flory...It has been engaging. Arrivederci. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Forgive my jocular tone above—I was just so relieved the question could be decided cleanly and easily that I was giddy. Precisely why I wanted a good solid piece of German scholarship. I've been called away to other things, but will try to tidy this all up later today, and may take a look at the article on Drusus as well, to correct the Jan. 14 (to answer the question, it seems fairly straightforward as to why someone would use that date: it's Antony's DOB, and the line in Suetonius seems to say they were born the same date—as P Aculeius points out so well, that isn't exactly what the sentence is saying). Cynwolfe (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to Agnes Kirsopp Michels' The Calendar of the Roman Republic...[[4]]. In page 63 [in the actual book itself, not the pdf linked pages], note 9, Michels' writes about the Fasti Verulani stating that the date of Jan. 14 appeared in several Fasti, however none of those others identified the day as Antony's birthday until the 1922 discovery of Fasti Verulani was published in 1923. In all the other Fasti which commemorated the day of Jan. 14, the inscription for Jan. 14 read: Vitiosus ex senatus consulto...Until of course the discovery of Fasti Verulani in 1922 by Prof. Camillo Scarafoni Scaccia. She does not mention the professor or its discovery, though. Interesting bit. Btw, you should remove Weigall's citation from the Brundisium entry regarding Antony's birth (or re-word it). Even if he is erroneous, Weigall does NOT state that Antony was an infant when Sulla landed in Italy. This is misquoting. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a quote. There are no quotation marks around that statement. It is a paraphrase. If Weigall says Antony had been born "just about that time" (and as P Aculeius recognizes, Weigall's point is to describe the world into which Antony enters, not to establish a DOB as such), then Antony was indeed an infant: what else was he? He was no longer a fetus in his mother's womb, nor was he yet a toddler. If you follow the link, dies vitiosus is explained. Actually, it seems consonant with the Roman practice of damnatio memoriae not to name him (though I think Flower showed that Antony's reputation was suppressed rather than under a complete damnatio, because he couldn't be erased from the intertwining lineage of the imperial family), but the identification of Antony in the Fasti Verulani is supported by Cassius Dio. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't Michels' note confirm January 14 as Antony's birthday? Cynwolfe (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

OK..A mis-paraphrase then. I disagree with P Aculeius and yourself. Weigall is describing both: The situation in Rome when Antony was born and at just about the time that he do so....Julia gave birth to male child... This is easily interpreted to mean that Antony's birth (not infancy) coincided with Sulla's landing in Italy. Besides, the Verulani does not establish the year of Antony's birth. Antony could have been over 3 years old. And your tone is still condescending...And as I stated earlier (very) little class or grace (in it)...I have openly commended your research as excellent and have acknowledged your earnest effort...Now go and whine to the WP administrators at ANI... Flagrantedelicto (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That sentence was rewritten to encompass the proscriptions, since Weigall goes on to imagine the family with their baby living in terror, and Goldsworthy presents a similar if less empurpled setting-of-the-scene. So Wiegall's page numbers just need expanded. I wouldn't have chosen Weigall as a source, but see no reason to take out what someone else put in if it fits at this point and doesn't mislead about the chronology. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm probably going to regret sticking my nose into this conversation, but there have been times when I've been in Cynwolfe's position and could have used some support, so what the hell. Flagrantedelicto, you accuse Cynwolfe of having a condescending tone. Meanwhile, your tone throughout the whole conversation has been hectoring, aggressive, wilfully difficult, and dismissive of her efforts to find reliable sources to accommodate as many points of view as possible - an effort you have not been willing to go to yourself. You reflexively refuse to take on board anything that's said to you. The only "condescension" I can detect in Cynwolfe's tone has been her strenuous effort to remain polite to you in the face of your relentless provocation. The dispute has now been resolved, thanks entirely to Cynwolfe's efforts. Rather than keep picking at it, I suggest you let it drop, and shut up. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right, you should keep your nose out of this and shut the hell up yourself. I am not picking at it, if you can grasp that. I just provided some more interesting knick-knacks about the Verulani including this translated excerpt:

Between days in character commemorative, January 14 auspi what is bad because it recalls the birth of Antonio: D (ies) VITIOSUS EX S (enatus) C (onsulto) ANT (onii) NATAL (is). "It was the chief who succeeded Caesar, in 43 BC, a decree by the Senate to Antonio enemy of his country. The greatest enemy of Octavian, therefore born January 14 83 BC, was covered with ignominy, although the infamous decree was revoked in the same year. On January 17, remembers the wedding of Augustus Livia: Feriae EX S (enatus) C (onsulto) QUOD EO AUGUST TO DIE NUPSIT DIVO AUG (usto). Livia verolano in the text is indicated by the noble name of Augusta, a title which she received a will after the death of her husband, who, in the same memory, is called "divus" because now counted among the deities. Another note which is found in the Fasti Verulani is that of the February 22, where it is written: LOWER (iae) C. Caesaris. Gaius Caesar, the adopted son of Augustus, was sent, still a youth, during the first century BC, in the provinces of Asia. On September 9, the second A.D. Gaius Caesar, during the siege of Artagena, Armenia, suffered a wound so severe that on February 21, 4 BC died. Augustus, who had no children by Livia, adopted grandchildren Gaius and Lucius, sons of Agrippa, targeting it, then the succession. The death, however, surprised the kids early. On March 27, our calendar recalls the capture of Alexandria (47 BC) by Caesar Feriae QUOD EO DIE CAESAR ALEXANDRIAM RECEPIT.

Considering the record of January 17, when Augustus is called "divus", we can say that the Fasti Verulani are back to 14 AD, the year of death of the founder of the Roman Empire. Livia, however, is still alive as they do not mention the name sacred. It follows then that the calendar Veroli had to be drawn up within the first half of the first century AD "(MARIO Mezzacapo Historical Notes ..., cit.).

Flagrantedelicto (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, er, lifting jaw up from floor … ahem. I have been in Nicknack009's position at this moment, too. Wikipedia is a volunteer collaborative effort, and any editor in good standing can participate on any talk page he pleases. I myself would rather be at the Festival of Veroli, watching the fire-breathers, and Nicknack009 is welcome to join the company at either venue. I'm not sure what the purpose of the quoted passage is: the dating of the FV, I take it? That Livia hadn't been divinized? Since Claudius did that, that would seem to support the view that January 14 won't appear as a dies vitiosus after the time of Claudius, because he will have rehabilitated the date. I don't know whether that's the case, since I don't know what all the other fasti are. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL...Just an interesting excerpt I thought to share here in the Talk Page. It was intended to be my last post in this particular WP Talk Page (of Antony)...Unless I end up being blocked from any further editing. Instead, this one will be. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Postscript enty: Arthur S. Weigall's cited source for Antony's birth coinciding with Sulla's landing in Italy was Viktor Emil Gardthausen's Augustus und seine zeit Volume II (1921 edition). This is part of a 4 part volume entitled Augustus und seine zeit first published in 1904. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed this book, which is available HERE. As Flagrantedelicto pointed out, it was published before the discovery of the Fasti Verulani. My German is practically non-existent, but just for figuring out what Gardthausen was saying, Google Translate was adequate. I typed my own transcription of the relevant passages on pages 5 and 6 of volume 2, since the transcribed versions of other books I've seen at this site are full of typos due to stray marks and punctuation being confused; and of course this book is full of umlauts and long S's.

The gist of it is that Gardthausen assumed, based entirely on the passage in Suetonius, that Antonius and Drusus were born on the same day. However, he points out that there's no source for either one of these dates in extant inscriptions, and laments the lack of a stone calendar (such as the Fasti Verulani) that would provide a specific date for one or the other. Gardthausen then attempts to use other circumstantial evidence to narrow down the time frame. First, using both statements in ancient authors (Plutarch for one) and evidence of Antonius' age from coins and the dates that he held various magistracies, Gardthausen concludes that Antonius was probably born in 83 BC. The rest of his speculation is based on the fact that Cleopatra gave him a lavish birthday party at some point between the Battle of Actium (2 September, 31 BC) and the capture of Alexandria (1 August, 30 BC).

Gardthausen assumes that no such event would have taken place in the months immediately following the defeat at Actium, and so eliminates the months from September to December. He then eliminates the period from January to the middle of March, on the grounds that Antonius lazed about in complete apathy following his return to Alexandria. From this, Gardthausen concludes that Antonius was probably born between late March and early July. But he also repeatedly laments the lack of anything solid to substantiate his guess.

As far as I can tell, Gardthausen says absolutely nothing to the effect that Antonius was born at the time that Sulla landed at Brundisium. From this I would suppose that the period of Antonius' birth was the only thing Weigall was attributing to him. And, since nobody seems to know exactly what date that occurred, and Weigall didn't know either date with any certainty, all we can assume is that he meant that the two events occurred during the same period of time. We have no way of knowing how far apart they would have to have been in order for Weigall not to make that statement, since clearly he did so for dramatic effect and not historical exactitude. And if Weigall's source for the date of Antonius' birth was indeed Gardthausen, then we know that it was only a guess, a rough approximation based on purely circumstantial evidence, and no more.

One thing we do know with certainty is that despite exhaustive efforts to find anything conclusive, Gardthausen was unaware of anything that would pin down the date of Antonius' birth with any certainty; and presumably so was Weigall. So you can't use either of them to assert that a date of March 20 or April 17 or July 20 was known by any scholar prior to the discovery of the Fasti Verulani, which provided the date of January 14. At best, one might intuit that the span of days from March 20 to July 20 was roughly the period postulated by Gardthausen. But certainly, there was and has been no effort to displace a "known" or "accepted" date with that of the Fasti Verulani; the date from that calendar appears to be the only specific date attested in any existing source from antiquity. P Aculeius (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting commentary of Gardthausen's work. I have only one problem with the inscription for January 14th in the Fasti Verulani: That several subsequent Fasti from post-Augustus' reign do not bear the inscription of Ant(onii) Natal(is). January 14th being Antony's publicly known birthday had to be a Dies Fasti, so when Augustus wanted to malign his memory, he had the Senate decree the addition of Vitiosus Ex Senatus Consulto to it. However, in several subsequent Fasti Calendario Romano which listed the day of January 14th, it would have made a lot more sense to just omit the inscription of Vitiosus Ex Senatus Consulto, rather than Ant(onii) Natal(is), if Claudius wanted to make an honorable gesture in memory of his maternal grandfather. I wonder if the January 14th day appears in any earlier Fasti Romano Calendario (?) Maybe even the Fasti Antiates of the pre-Julian Republican era circa 60 BC, perhaps (?) Just a thought... Flagrantedelicto (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Drawing of the reconstructed Fasti Antiates

Claudius would not have gone so far to mark Antony's birthday as an official observance: he merely removed the novel stain of declaring it vitiosus. On Imperial calendars, the natales celebrated are those of emperors and Caesars, their wives, and sometimes (I think) their heirs or the men they hoped would be their heirs. Julius Caesar was, if I'm not mistaken, the only figure from the Republic to be so commemorated, and to elevate Antony to that status would've been a radical and combative gesture that undermined Augustan ideology. During the Republic, people were not honored by having their birthdays placed on the official calendar of religious observances issued by the pontiffs; this is a development in association with Imperial cult. However, the birthdays of major public figures might be noted and celebrated; Pompey took care to hold one of his triumphs on his birthday. Sacrifices or offerings might've been made on a birthday to the Genius of a powerful person regarded as a patronus, but during the Republic, such would not appear on an official calendar. (BTW, dies fasti is a plural, though when the word fasti is used as a synonym for "calendar" in English it is sometimes treated as a singular; the construction Fasti Calendario Romano would not be a proper noun even if it made sense as Latin.) I'm awestruck by the lengths P Aculeius has gone to by checking with NASA on the eclipse and summarizing the superseded Gardthausen. The fragmentary Fasti Antiates, as you may check for yourself at right, preserve no observances on January 14, but the day is marked as intercissus (EN), the meaning of which (see Ianuarius#Dates) suggests that it was not regarded as vitiosus at that time. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL...The NASA bit is in connection to what I don't know...(!?) I guess I must have missed something below. Btw, I do know enough Latin to know that Fasti is plural of Fastus, and its root, the noun Fas. And their collective definitions as well. I was being rather loose in my usage of some of the Latin. Gardthausen wrote an impressive 4 volume work on Augustus. Anyhow, still not fully satisfied with why the inscription Vitiosus Ex Senatus Consulto was not omitted along with Antonii Natalis. Whether it was indeed Claudius, or perhaps even the earlier emperors Caligula or Tiberius. If Antony's natalis was omitted, then the entire inscription should have been as well. It has no point even being commemorated among the Fasti or Nefasti. Especially if the entire point & purpose of the inscripiton Vitiosus Ex Senatus Consulto was to vilify Antony's birth. I did find some explanation on the inscription for Jan. 14 in Stephanus Antonius Morcelli's book Di Stilo Inscriptionvm Latinarvm (from the last paragraph at the bottom of pg 71 to the top sub-paragraph of pg 72 of the actual book itself). It is entirely in Latin, which required auto-translation if one doesn't know Latin. Essentially, it states that days following the Ides of a month were considered unfavorable. And in the case of the ominous inscription Vitiosus Ex Senatus Consulto, that it was sandwiched between two rather auspicious days: The Idus of Iunarius and the 15 Iunarius; the latter day honoring the muse Carmentis (mother of Evander). It also mentions that Augustus found the day unfavorable as well, although no mention of Antonii Natalis or any connection to Marc Antony. I am obviously assuming that this book was also published before Camillo Scarafoni Scaccia's 1922 discovery. I didn't really check its publication info.[[5]] I have pretty much concluded this topic here. I did see you have been busy updating & re-editing the WP article about the month of Januarius in the view history section. I also found a New World Encyclopedia entry of Antony which recently added his Jan. 14 natalis as circa Jan. 14, as well. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Saturnalia, January 14, and the Verolani

I am frequent Wiki reader but joined up when I came across this long debate about Mark Antony's birthday. I found a couple of articles in internet about Saturnalia and the Ides of the Roman calendar months, but could not trace original authorship to either. I thought I would post it here as they are relevant to talk page (plz forgive their length) -- [copyvio & possible copyvio deleted Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)]

LiShihKai (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Such long quotations of material found on the net are assumed copyvio unless otherwise shown. The first can ber seen at [6] anyway, the second I'm not sure about but as LiShihKai says they are from the net we assume copyright exists until we are shown otherwise. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The first half of the material LiShihKai quoted seems to be taken from Encyclopaedia Romana by James Grout, an on-line reference subtitled "Rome, the Home of Empire and of all Perfection." http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/calendar/saturnalia.html That alone calls the author's scholarship into doubt, since it's not a source we can accept as a neutral point of view. While the article itself seems well-written and includes some source citations, it also includes dubious inferences and some genuine misunderstandings about the Roman calendar. Specifically relevant to this talk page: the Romans rarely, if ever, counted the number of days in a month up from the Kalends. They simply wouldn't have referred to January 14 at all; that would have been as foreign to them as counting back from the Kalends of February does to us.

Secondly, the reasoning that the day of Antonius' birth was somehow erased from the calendar due to Caesar's reforms makes no sense. The day we today count as the 14th of January was the seventeenth day before the Kalends of February when Antonius was born, and that date would still have existed after the adoption of the Julian calendar, although today we would count it as January 16. If Antonius was born the day after the Ides of January, then he might have had the choice of the seventeenth or the nineteenth day before the Kalends of February, but the day he was born didn't cease to exist simply because you could interpret it in either of two ways. If the Julian calendar had removed two days from January, then the nineteenth day before the Kalends of February might be said to have vanished, although in that case you could just as easily interpret it to be the day before the Ides under the new calendar, or if it were important that it occur the day after the Ides, you'd simply celebrate it on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of February instead of the nineteenth. So even then, the day wouldn't have ceased to exist, as this article asserts. But in order for Grout's premise to be correct, the Julian calendar would have to have done the opposite of what it in fact did, by removing days from January instead of adding them.

Google can't seem to locate any of the text from the second article that you appear to be quoting. Various phrases and clauses (such as "harrowing total solar eclipse") produce no exact matches. Unlike the first article, this one contains no citations to any authority, and isn't clearly written. So far, nobody's found any sources other than Weigall who equated Antonius' birth with the landing of Sulla at Brundisium, much less a law passed by the Roman senate doing so; nor can I imagine any plausible reason why the senate would even take it up, or why Antonius would ask them to. This article asserts that Augustus "reassigned" Antonius' birthday to an inauspicious day on the calendar, contradicting the other article you posted; and cites no source for an event not mentioned in any source we've located so far. I can't find any source to suggest that the Roman calendar was ever altered due to a solar eclipse on January 14, 597 BC, although the list of solar eclipses does indicate one occurred on that date. However, a check of NASA's Eclipse Database shows that that eclipse occurred over the Indian and South Atlantic Oceans, and would never have been visible at Rome. So this article, if it even is an article you found on the internet, appears to be a complete hoax. None of it belongs on Wikipedia. P Aculeius (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And this recent series of edits shows why devoting so much time and energy to a point of trivia doesn't help the encyclopedia. Although the sourcing isn't excellent, the editor has tried to improve the overall narrative of the article, and addressed a real problem. The DOB is a minuscule item compared to the vast amount of improvement this top-priority article could use, and think what larger goals we could've accomplished with all our time and effort—which only takes us back repeatedly to the same point of fact attested by sufficient secondary sources in the first place. (That NASA cite is still awesome, though.) Cynwolfe (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are being a little hypocritical here. Rather than preaching to other WP editors / users about what is and what is not "trivia", you should perhaps reflect on you own actions. If you thought that the DOB topic was miniscule, why then did you spend so much time debating it ? You obviously did not feel it miniscule, or you would not have spend so much time in it yourself. LiShihKai (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Because modern reliable sources gave the January 14 date, and WP has a policy against fringe views. There was no need for such a lengthy debate unless modern RS supported some other date; they didn't, and the discussion was based on a confusion about Radke's efforts to explain the problems of chronology in regard to the DOB of Drusus, not of Antony. The discussion didn't remain on the talk page, but was causing misleading entries to be introduced into article space. I don't see how it's "hypocritical" to make sure that the encyclopedia doesn't contain inaccuracies. So please don't make personal attacks. Your personal opinion of me doesn't belong here. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ensuring that there are no inaccuracies is all fine. The "hypocrisy" comes in when remarks are posted about what is "miniscule". Again, if you thought that the DOB issue was "miniscule", you would not have debated it to the extent that you did. Even to the point of actually arriving at an ancient source which confirmed Anthony's DOB (which you didn't even know yourself for nearly the entire length of the DOB debate, almost until its culmination). Technically, one cannot have a personal opinion of somenone without knowing someone personally. This debate attracted a lot of people (including myself, a frequent Wiki user). It had its own value, I would say. And if my "opinion" doesn't belong here in this Talk Page, then where would you suggest it belongs ? Perhaps, the Cleopatra or Augustus Talk Pages, maybe ? It is not up to you to advise other WP users where their "opinion" belongs. That Flagrantdelicto editor appears to be right about one thing: You do come across as a bit condescending. LiShihKai (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware that I can sound condescending, but it's a schoolmarmish tone of voice that creeps in when I'm frustrated but trying to be polite. I apologize. A talk page is open to anyone for discussing the content of the article. I said it isn't a place to discuss "your personal opinion of me." The focus needs to remain on the content and how to improve it (please review WP:NPA). Since you have made fewer than ten edits, you may not be fully aware of WP policies and guidelines. We had several RS that gave the DOB. If we cite RS, we don't always need to establish their precise assemblage of primary sources (the "chain of evidence"), though I try to read the primary passages cited so I can make sure I understand the secondary sources accurately and in context, and in classical studies it's conventional to cite the primary sources on which the secondary sources base their views. As I said above, this article could use a lot of attention and improvement, and the DOB seems to me to be a dead-end issue, since no one is bringing forth any new secondary sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

So you have acknowledged that you can sound condescending. Apology accepted. No big deal. Playing a little hide-the-salami (not hide-the-Verulani) a little more often could do wonders for schoolmarmish frustation. Just a general analysis (not an advice), if you will. G'day. LiShihKai (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Gay young Antony

I don't want to delete this, but I do worry that it's a little misleading. To say that Cicero "accused" Antony of having a homosexual relationship would sound like there's something wrong with having a gay love affair; at the same time, from Cicero's perspective, it was indeed intended to be an insult: not so much because Antony had sex with a man (we don't actually know whether Cicero's characterization is correct, though I seem to recall Plutarch expanding on it), but because he took the passive/"feminized" role. What Cicero actually said is that Curio turned Antony into a wife. Craig Williams, I think it was, pointed out that this is the first reference in Latin literature to same-sex marriage between men—while also pointing out that unlike the later Imperial references, it can't be taken seriously. Anyway, there's a bit about this at Homosexuality in ancient Rome#Gay marriage. I don't want to explain the point out of due proportion in this article, but it rather lacks the context. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Add a novel?

Can Alan Massie's 'Augustus' be added to the list of fictional representations? There's a lot of references to MA in it even when he's not actually present. The Old Trout (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Substantial Revision

Various WikiProjects have listed this article as an article of Top-Importance/High-Important to their project's efforts. I am in the in process of translating text from the Spanish, French, German, and Italian versions of this article into English and incorporating there information into this version. Any assistance regarding general edits, such as punctuation, spelling, grammar, and the like, would be greatly appreciated. - Rougher07 (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Antony and Cleopatra, no mention of Arsinoe murder

There is no mention in this para of the shocking murder, by Antony, of young Arsinoe IV, which outraged Rome. I have therefore included it.

142.165.14.189 (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 13 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus against moving per WP:COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Mark Antony → Marcus Antonius – Google Books search hits since 1965 has 330 in favour of 170. The neologism popularized with Shakespeare goes against consistency in other Roman articles. Zoupan 22:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Uncertain. Personally I'd like to, and to move Pompey to Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus as well, but as many experienced editors have pointed out, Wikipedia policy is to place articles under their most familiar forms, even if the person's name was something else. The classic example is that we have Bill Clinton rather than William Jefferson Clinton, but many other names could be cited for the same proposition. I don't believe that Google hits demonstrate the familiarity of "Marcus Antonius" to English speakers. Perhaps that's the form most commonly used in scholarly literature today, but it's far from the most familiar. I also disagree with the characterization of "Mark Antony" as "Shakespeare's neologism." That's an ahistorical view of English rendering of Latin names. Standard practice for hundreds of years was to drop -us and -a endings, and change i-stems to terminal y's. Shakespeare didn't invent it and doesn't deserve to be blamed for it merely because most people are familiar with that linguistic fashion as a result of his plays. Getting back to the issue at hand, readers wouldn't be harmed by the proposed move, since there'd be a redirect to this article. But many people might be surprised to find it under the proposed title, including editors who've stuck by Wikipedia's policies for user-friendliness reasons. If a majority agree that this move would be okay, then I'll support it. But I'd like to hear from the many other editors who've contributed to this article over the years. P Aculeius (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. The nom's numbers don't make sense to me. Since 2000, I get 34,800 Gbook hits for "Marcus Antonius" -llc compared to 50,600 for "Mark Anthony." -llc This type of search is what the guideline tells us to do. These results are almost 99 percent ghost hits, so I don't consider them terribly meaningful. This ngram suggests that the two forms are about equally common. Fernando Safety (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Tentative support it is a bit odd to have just one Roman general at a Shakespearean name. Sources actually dealing with Roman history do appear to use the Latin. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Not just one. As I pointed out, we have "Pompey", who was arguably a much more significant figure in Roman history, if much less Romantic. There'd probably be others, but most Roman generals aren't as well known as these two, and are first encountered when studying history rather than literature, where their proper names (or at least parts of them given in Latin form) are more likely to be used. And as I've also said, Shakespeare didn't originate this, so let's stop using his name as shorthand for "archaic and irrelevant". P Aculeius (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Almost all other Roman biographical articles use the Latin forms of the name. Redirects should remain however and notes about how the name is rendered in older English texts. Dimadick (talk) 07:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose far more known as "Mark Antony" than Marcus Antonius. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. The most well known name in English is clearly Mark Antony (ask the next random ten people you meet on the street, hence Britannica's article's name of "Mark Antony"). Whether or not "Mark Antony" is a Shakespearean neologism is irrelevant. That many other articles use Latin rather than anglicized forms is also irrelevant. Obviously the more obscure a figure is, the less likely their name will have a popular anglicized form. The only relevant issue is what is the most well known name in English. Paul August ☎ 13:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: the specific policy we're really going under is WP:Romans, which supports the current name. Of course, exceptions and changes to either policy can be made by consensus. I doubt we'll achieve consensus for this move, however! And as I said earlier, the Anglicization of Greek and Roman names didn't originate with Shakespeare, and it's not fair to call it "neologism"; it was just the standard practice of English at the time, much as the shifts in the pronunciation of Latin names in English. Those are perfectly valid; so while having studied Latin in college, I refuse to pronounce alumnae as though it were alumni, as a historian I'm equally adamant about not saying Yulius Kaiser. And that sort of idiosyncracy is just fine. We don't need to enforce some notion of orthodoxy. The article opens with the name given in its proper form, explains what the common form in English is, and has an explanatory footnote. This is a messy area, and the tendency may be to clean it up, but we have a good compromise in place, and unless one side can convince the other to change, let's leave it at that. P Aculeius (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, Wikipedia uses the most common name. In English he's commonly known as "Mark Antony" and not as Marcus Antonius. Roman names were often commonly Anglicized (often by dropping the "(i)us"). The same naming principle applies to Pompey the Great, writers Juvenal, Livy, Lucan, Martial, Ovid, Quintilian, both Pliny, Terence, and Virgil, both Roman Kings named Tarquin, the emperors Aurelian, Diocletian, Domitian, Gratian, Hadrian, Jovian, Julian, Trajan, Vespasian, the theologian Tertullian, and so on. The emperor Augustus in his pre emperor days is referred to as Octavian,... --Fdewaele (talk • contribs) 15:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, Wikipedia uses the most common name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Fdewaele. We have many less famous Romans with Anglicized names. Maybe they should all be moved, but this title is in line with current practice. Fernando Safety (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Oh please, his common name is still the Anglicised version. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as per commonname. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.