Talk:Scribonia gens

Introductory phrasing

Another editor requested, but did not start this discussion, so I'll have to do so. Does it make more sense to describe Roman gentes in or at Rome? This is not really a matter of classics, but one of English grammar—although I will briefly point out that in Reading Latin, the course by Peter V. Jones and Keith C. Sidwell, the locative case is specifically translated as "at", not "in". The meaning of in is fairly clear: it means inside, within, limited by the boundaries of a place or thing; surrounded by it. At is a more general expression of physical relationship: it means in, near, around, in the vicinity of a place or thing, without spatial limitation. The Oxford English Dictionary has this to say about at: "2. With proper names of places: Particularly used of all towns, except [London], and that in which the speaker dwells (if of any size), also of small and distant islands or parts of the world." The note following indicates that at London was also used at earlier times. My Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary has a shorter discussion to similar effect, although strangely the Third New International Dictionary does not seem to.

If speaking of something that is definitely located within the boundaries of Rome—or anywhere else—say, the Colosseum, then either in or at Rome would be equally correct. However, when speaking of something that lies beyond the boundaries of the place named, in is no longer an accurate description—say, for example, the Campus Martius before it was enclosed within the city walls. It is equally inaccurate to speak of movable things that are only vaguely and impermanently located at a particular place as being in it, as though they were defined and limited by that spatial relationship.

In this article, and all of the others like it, we are speaking of families that existed, or potentially existed, across centuries, with many individuals coming and going—perhaps originating in cities or towns that were not originally Roman, but came under Roman control during the Samnite Wars, or the Punic Wars, or in Imperial times—or migrating outward to country estates and colonies planted throughout the Empire. There is no particularly good reason to describe them as being "within" Rome, as though they could not live beyond the city walls or stray outside its boundaries without ceasing to be part of a gens. For this purpose, at better conveys the relationship of a gens to the city. Loosely speaking, "Rome" can be and frequently used to refer to the Roman Empire as a whole—but in this case, it seems to me that in still tends to imply the city of Rome, and so is not as good a fit.

I've said that this usage is venerable particularly with reference to Rome, and so it is—it's not easy to open random books and search for examples of unimportant phrases, but fortunately browser searches can do that with online materials. I did spot a few other places so mentioned while gathering these, and I didn't try to account for all of the examples; these are simply the first works that I was able to think of and search quickly.

• Caesar, The Civil War, i. 14: "When these events were announced at Rome such consternation seized at once on the inhabitants that when the consul Lentulus had come to open the treasury..."
• ibid. 33: "Pompeius when quitting the city had said in the senate that he would regard in the same light those who remained at Rome and those who were in Caesar's camp."
• ibid. 53: "Afranius and Petreius and their friends wrote to their partisans at Rome an amplified and exaggerated account of these events."
• Suetonius, "The Life of Caesar", 9: "Not only Curio, but Marcus Actorius Naso as well declare that Caesar made another plot with Gnaeus Piso, a young man to whom the province of Spain had been assigned unasked and out of the regular order, because he was suspected of political intrigues at Rome; that they agreed to rise in revolt at the same time, Piso abroad and Caesar at Rome, aided by the Ambrani and the peoples beyond the Po; but that Piso's death brought both their designs to naught." (note, two instances)
• ibid., "The Life of Augustus", 58: "The whole body of citizens with a sudden unanimous impulse proffered him the title of Father of his Country: first the commons, by a deputation sent to Antium, and then, because he declined it, again at Rome as he entered the theatre..."
• ibid., "The Life of Tiberius", 5: "Some have supposed that Tiberius was born at Fundi, on no better evidence than that his maternal grandmother was a native of that place, and that later a statue of Good Fortune was set up there by decree of the senate. But according to the most numerous and trustworthy authorities, he was born at Rome, on the Palatine..." (two examples, including Fundi, which I did not search for)
• Tacitus, Annals, i. 17: "They did not disparage sentinel duty at Rome..."
• Tacitus, Histories, i. 4, 5: "...an emperor could be made elsewhere than at Rome.... Such were the varied sentiments at Rome, natural in a city with so vast a population."
• ibid. iii. 36: "He was actually lounging in indolence in the woods at Aricia when he was startled by the report of the treachery of Lucilius Bassus and of the revolt of the fleet at Ravenna." (two more examples not featuring Rome)

But this usage is not restricted to classics; another example that comes to mind is in the official forms used to record births, marriages, and deaths in various jurisdictions: from a 1967 marriage record of Mason County, West Virginia: "I, the undersigned by virtue of the foregoing license, and being duly authorized by law to celebrate marriages, do hereby certify that on the (blank) day of (blank), 19 (blank), at (blank) in the county of (blank), in the state of West Virginia, I joined together in matrimony..." Or from Jasper County, Missouri, 1959: "This is to certify that the undersigned (blank) did, at (blank), in said county, on the (blank) day..." Many more examples over much of the English-speaking world could be found with enough time to search; these are just what were quick to hand.

I have neither the time nor the patience to attempt a general survey of the entire body of written English—so I hope the few examples I was able to come up with in just a few minutes will make clear that there has never been any logical or grammatical objection to using at with the proper names of cities or towns—and when that more accurately conveys the intended meaning of "in, around, or in the vicinity of" a particular place, as opposed to "inside, within the boundaries of" that place, then there is no good reason for replacing it simply because one is more accustomed to using in, without reference to the word's precise meaning. Even if one contended that either preposition could do equally well, there is no productive value in going around correcting one to the other—effectively substituting one person's personal preference for another's without any meaningful effect. But I think that at is more accurate, and thus more appropriate, for the general location of a group of people over the course of centuries. P Aculeius (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that in modern times "at" and "in" are used interchangeably, and that the quoted definitions and examples of those words do support your contention. I must admit that of the two sentences, the one with "in" sounds/feels better to my ear, but my personal feelings should not be the guiding principle here. As a compromise, what about if the introductory sentence was reworked to be "The gens Scribonia was an ancient Roman plebeian family." Oatley2112 (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to go to war over this—I wrote the above essay out of frustration with the way people randomly come along and "correct" at to in because they're not familiar with one of the basic uses of the preposition, or why it might be preferable in certain cases. Clearly there's a trend in recent English usage, and its victim is clarity. But to return to your very reasonable reply—it's good to receive some validation here—I would be more inclined to accept the proposed wording if it didn't stack up three adjectives in a row. In the past I have resisted the use of of for similar reasons to in, but upon further reflection it's less inaccurate, and would sound better than three chained adjectives comprising two links to other articles. Of says nothing about location, but that seems less of a concern than having a misleading statement about location. So while I have no desire to be told not to use at with the names of cities and towns, or have it changed wherever it occurs—I am willing to compromise on the wording in this specific instance. P Aculeius (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)