![]() | Senatus consultum ultimum was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 3, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that both
Gracchi brothers were slain after a decree known as
senatus consultum ultimum was passed against them? |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why not just use the full term, Senatus consultum ultimum? I'm assuming it's just laziness on AC's part. Doktor Waterhouse 13:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This page lists the SCU of the time of the Gracchi brothers as first. What about the SCU of 186 prohibiting the Bacchic rites? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
132.198.151.122 (
talk)
01:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Senatus consultum ultimum , Direct word for word translation is.... Senate Consutlation/consulted (can't remember which), Ultimatum.
senatus consultum de re publica defendenda , Doesn't say a thing about the state, or the republic.
"Senate consulted of concerning public defence".... is the direct english translation of those words. Also used in English / Commonwealth law. In modern english (vulgar?), The Senate has Consulted on the defence of the public / public defence and issued an Ultimatum.
re = concerning. re = the thing concerning <name>. re in modern terms is sometimes spelt res.
("Decree of the Senate on defending the Republic") quote end. Ulitmatum noun, Ulitmata pl. There is no decree, it is an ultimatum, it says ultimatum. A decree is what absolute rulers hand down, or the courts, otherwise known as an order, ie: court order is a decree.
More correctly, An ultimatum is an order without limitation, with threat. "a final demand or statement of terms , the rejection of which will result in retaliation, or a breakdown in relations: Oxford concise Dictonary.
Decree: an official order that has the force of law. a judgement or decision of certain law courts, especially in matrimonial cases: Oxford concise Dictonary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.76.47 ( talk) 03:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Looking forward to reviewing this article. Llywrch ( talk · contribs) 22:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for my delay in writing this review. Part of it was caused by my being busy with off-wiki business, but part of it was due to my reluctance to provide a negative review of this article. I don't enjoy rejecting articles for GA. You have obviously put in a lot of work on this article; however, as it currently reads, this article does not completely cover the subject well enough to be considered GA quality, & maybe not even B-class.
There are two significant gaps in this article:
1. Near the beginning of the article, it states that "the senatus consultum ultimum... does not have a specific name in the sources". Since there is no specific name or language to define a SCU, how do we know the instances in this article are all of the known ones? I compared the instances in this article against two different reliable sources. One is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. My copy is dated (it's the 2nd edition published in 1970), but its article on the SCU is accurate enough & has a list one could compare the list in this article, & there are a lot of significant differences: there is no mention of the use of the SCU against Tiberius Gracchus; it lists several instances of the SCU being invoked that this article does not mention (such as against Metellus Nepos in 62 BC & against M. Caelus Rufus in 48 BC); & where this article admits that after the assassination of Julius Caesar "four SCUs can be found in the sources" but does not list them, the OCD article lists only 3 (although it mentions its invocation against Dolabella in 47 BC). Another reliable source I consulted was H. H. Scullard's From the Gracchi to Nero (Praeger, 1959). Scullard mentions the SCU several times in this history: he also does not mention the SCU being used against Tiberius Gracchus; he agrees with the OCD article that it was used against Metellus Nepos (62 BC) & M. Caelius Rufus (48 BC); but does not mention its use after 48 BC.
Now I have no problem with the Wikipedia article disagreeing with these standard references, but if the basis for this list were provided (i.e., who developed this list, & why it should be preferred to any other list), I would be more comfortable. It would help to explain the subject to the reader & provide comfort to her/him that this article does cover the subject satisfactorily.
2. I feel the explanation of the SCU is incomplete. It needs not only a more thorough explanation, but better context. First, the SCU is compared to the office of the dictator. One fact of this office (which was no longer in use by 120 BC) is that its primary purpose was to serve in military emergencies. If you look at List of Roman dictators, the majority of its invocations was to respond to military emergencies; it was rarely employed to respond to the conflict of the classes (e.g. patricians vs. plebeians) of the earlier period. As I understand the SCU, its purpose was closer to the 18th century British riot act, or perhaps similar to a government declaring a state of siege -- with the same unpleasant connotations as in the Costa-Gavras movie. One does not need to appoint a dictator to handle a riot or critical threat to the Res publica; having the Senate pass a resolution "that the Senate regarded the situation as critical and, although it did not increase their constitutional powers, it assured them [the magistrates] of the Senate's moral support" (Sullard, From the Gracchi to Nero, p. 38). In short, the Senate asked the government officials to do whatever it took to maintain law & order, even if it meant the fasces became fascism. (BTW, I feel it shows an important weakness in this article that there is no link to the article to either "riot act" or "state of emergency" -- both obviously relevant.)
As for context, I find it surprising that there is no mention of the Late Roman Republic & the problems its citizens faced -- both the Optimates & the Populares. Each was fighting for survival & their wealth (or the lack of). The Senate was the stronghold of the Optimates; the Populares were the advocates of the lower classes, who expressed their dissatisfaction with the status quo thru riots, rebellions & civil disturbances. Thus the SCU was an important tool for the Haves to control the Have-nots. Was the SCU properly or responsibly exercised in these instances? Nothing in this article even touches on this question.
These issues need to be addressed before we look at other criteria concerning GA. -- llywrch ( talk) 21:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I've finally found some time to make some replies. It took me a while to start looking for the sources you mention. I have now found a copy of Scullard, but it needs to be provided to me from the depository, which might take another few days. I have also checked the article in the third edition of OCD, which is really quite short.
On 1):
On 2):
I hope you can bear with me a while longer. I do hope to make the last changes Monday or Tuesday. Since you wrote before we look at other criteria concerning GA, maybe you can give me pointers at what else you found that does not comply with the GA criteria?
Best regards,
Zwerg Nase (
talk)
17:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Re section in current article on Ti Gracchus, in part titled First SCU against Tiberius Gracchus
, multiple sources say there was no SCU.
In 121, with his legislation under attack, Gracchus, supported by Flaccus, resorted to armed insurrection. It was suppressed after the first use of the so-called senatus consultum ultimum.
Among others. The given citation to Plutarch Ti Gracch 19 also is not dispositive. Beyond being a primary source that cannot be so easily trusted, it has no mention whatsoever of a senatus consultum ultimum or anything akin to it (dealing with the fact that the term is a semi-modern one). It says, in relevant part:
Nasica demanded that the consul should come to the rescue of the state and put down the tyrant. The consul replied with mildness that he would resort to no violence and would put no citizen to death without a trial; if, however, the people, under persuasion or compulsion from Tiberius, should vote anything that was unlawful, he would not regard this vote as binding. Thereupon Nasica sprang to his feet and said: "Since, then, the chief magistrate betrays the state, do ye who wish to succour the laws follow me."
This statement, which is derived from an archaic way to raise a levy, [1] was not any senatus consultum ultimum insofar as no single member of the senate can just declare "we're going a'killing". Ifly6 ( talk) 02:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hatte die Afforderung Scipio Nasicas einen entsprechenden Senatsbeschluss zue Folge gehabt, so kann kein Zweifel bestehen, dass dieser einem SCU zumindest sehr nahe gekommen ware: War der Hauptinhalt des letzteren, dass in einer Notlage des staats die alte magistratische Kapitalkoerzition ohne Rucksicht auf das Provokationsrechrt der romischen Burger wiederhergestellt wurde, so lag dies auch in der Konsequenz des Aufrufes Naicas. (hand transcribed)
If Scipio Nasica's request had resulted in a corresponding Senate resolution, there can be no doubt that this would at least have come very close to an SCU: Was the main content of the latter that in an emergency of the state the old magistrate's capital coercion without regard to the provocation right of the Roman burger [citizen?] was restored, this was also a consequence of Naica's appeal.
Rooting around the sources a bit further, I found one source [3] which asserts an SCU was used. The BMCR review then notes "particularly noteworthy errors... [including] p. 124 (the so-called senatus consultum ultimum was not first used in 133, as claimed, but rather in 121...)". [4] Given Drogula also wrote the opposite, quoted earlier, this is not a meaningful defence. Ifly6 ( talk) 18:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
References
![]() | Senatus consultum ultimum was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 3, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that both
Gracchi brothers were slain after a decree known as
senatus consultum ultimum was passed against them? |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why not just use the full term, Senatus consultum ultimum? I'm assuming it's just laziness on AC's part. Doktor Waterhouse 13:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This page lists the SCU of the time of the Gracchi brothers as first. What about the SCU of 186 prohibiting the Bacchic rites? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
132.198.151.122 (
talk)
01:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Senatus consultum ultimum , Direct word for word translation is.... Senate Consutlation/consulted (can't remember which), Ultimatum.
senatus consultum de re publica defendenda , Doesn't say a thing about the state, or the republic.
"Senate consulted of concerning public defence".... is the direct english translation of those words. Also used in English / Commonwealth law. In modern english (vulgar?), The Senate has Consulted on the defence of the public / public defence and issued an Ultimatum.
re = concerning. re = the thing concerning <name>. re in modern terms is sometimes spelt res.
("Decree of the Senate on defending the Republic") quote end. Ulitmatum noun, Ulitmata pl. There is no decree, it is an ultimatum, it says ultimatum. A decree is what absolute rulers hand down, or the courts, otherwise known as an order, ie: court order is a decree.
More correctly, An ultimatum is an order without limitation, with threat. "a final demand or statement of terms , the rejection of which will result in retaliation, or a breakdown in relations: Oxford concise Dictonary.
Decree: an official order that has the force of law. a judgement or decision of certain law courts, especially in matrimonial cases: Oxford concise Dictonary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.76.47 ( talk) 03:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Looking forward to reviewing this article. Llywrch ( talk · contribs) 22:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for my delay in writing this review. Part of it was caused by my being busy with off-wiki business, but part of it was due to my reluctance to provide a negative review of this article. I don't enjoy rejecting articles for GA. You have obviously put in a lot of work on this article; however, as it currently reads, this article does not completely cover the subject well enough to be considered GA quality, & maybe not even B-class.
There are two significant gaps in this article:
1. Near the beginning of the article, it states that "the senatus consultum ultimum... does not have a specific name in the sources". Since there is no specific name or language to define a SCU, how do we know the instances in this article are all of the known ones? I compared the instances in this article against two different reliable sources. One is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. My copy is dated (it's the 2nd edition published in 1970), but its article on the SCU is accurate enough & has a list one could compare the list in this article, & there are a lot of significant differences: there is no mention of the use of the SCU against Tiberius Gracchus; it lists several instances of the SCU being invoked that this article does not mention (such as against Metellus Nepos in 62 BC & against M. Caelus Rufus in 48 BC); & where this article admits that after the assassination of Julius Caesar "four SCUs can be found in the sources" but does not list them, the OCD article lists only 3 (although it mentions its invocation against Dolabella in 47 BC). Another reliable source I consulted was H. H. Scullard's From the Gracchi to Nero (Praeger, 1959). Scullard mentions the SCU several times in this history: he also does not mention the SCU being used against Tiberius Gracchus; he agrees with the OCD article that it was used against Metellus Nepos (62 BC) & M. Caelius Rufus (48 BC); but does not mention its use after 48 BC.
Now I have no problem with the Wikipedia article disagreeing with these standard references, but if the basis for this list were provided (i.e., who developed this list, & why it should be preferred to any other list), I would be more comfortable. It would help to explain the subject to the reader & provide comfort to her/him that this article does cover the subject satisfactorily.
2. I feel the explanation of the SCU is incomplete. It needs not only a more thorough explanation, but better context. First, the SCU is compared to the office of the dictator. One fact of this office (which was no longer in use by 120 BC) is that its primary purpose was to serve in military emergencies. If you look at List of Roman dictators, the majority of its invocations was to respond to military emergencies; it was rarely employed to respond to the conflict of the classes (e.g. patricians vs. plebeians) of the earlier period. As I understand the SCU, its purpose was closer to the 18th century British riot act, or perhaps similar to a government declaring a state of siege -- with the same unpleasant connotations as in the Costa-Gavras movie. One does not need to appoint a dictator to handle a riot or critical threat to the Res publica; having the Senate pass a resolution "that the Senate regarded the situation as critical and, although it did not increase their constitutional powers, it assured them [the magistrates] of the Senate's moral support" (Sullard, From the Gracchi to Nero, p. 38). In short, the Senate asked the government officials to do whatever it took to maintain law & order, even if it meant the fasces became fascism. (BTW, I feel it shows an important weakness in this article that there is no link to the article to either "riot act" or "state of emergency" -- both obviously relevant.)
As for context, I find it surprising that there is no mention of the Late Roman Republic & the problems its citizens faced -- both the Optimates & the Populares. Each was fighting for survival & their wealth (or the lack of). The Senate was the stronghold of the Optimates; the Populares were the advocates of the lower classes, who expressed their dissatisfaction with the status quo thru riots, rebellions & civil disturbances. Thus the SCU was an important tool for the Haves to control the Have-nots. Was the SCU properly or responsibly exercised in these instances? Nothing in this article even touches on this question.
These issues need to be addressed before we look at other criteria concerning GA. -- llywrch ( talk) 21:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I've finally found some time to make some replies. It took me a while to start looking for the sources you mention. I have now found a copy of Scullard, but it needs to be provided to me from the depository, which might take another few days. I have also checked the article in the third edition of OCD, which is really quite short.
On 1):
On 2):
I hope you can bear with me a while longer. I do hope to make the last changes Monday or Tuesday. Since you wrote before we look at other criteria concerning GA, maybe you can give me pointers at what else you found that does not comply with the GA criteria?
Best regards,
Zwerg Nase (
talk)
17:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Re section in current article on Ti Gracchus, in part titled First SCU against Tiberius Gracchus
, multiple sources say there was no SCU.
In 121, with his legislation under attack, Gracchus, supported by Flaccus, resorted to armed insurrection. It was suppressed after the first use of the so-called senatus consultum ultimum.
Among others. The given citation to Plutarch Ti Gracch 19 also is not dispositive. Beyond being a primary source that cannot be so easily trusted, it has no mention whatsoever of a senatus consultum ultimum or anything akin to it (dealing with the fact that the term is a semi-modern one). It says, in relevant part:
Nasica demanded that the consul should come to the rescue of the state and put down the tyrant. The consul replied with mildness that he would resort to no violence and would put no citizen to death without a trial; if, however, the people, under persuasion or compulsion from Tiberius, should vote anything that was unlawful, he would not regard this vote as binding. Thereupon Nasica sprang to his feet and said: "Since, then, the chief magistrate betrays the state, do ye who wish to succour the laws follow me."
This statement, which is derived from an archaic way to raise a levy, [1] was not any senatus consultum ultimum insofar as no single member of the senate can just declare "we're going a'killing". Ifly6 ( talk) 02:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hatte die Afforderung Scipio Nasicas einen entsprechenden Senatsbeschluss zue Folge gehabt, so kann kein Zweifel bestehen, dass dieser einem SCU zumindest sehr nahe gekommen ware: War der Hauptinhalt des letzteren, dass in einer Notlage des staats die alte magistratische Kapitalkoerzition ohne Rucksicht auf das Provokationsrechrt der romischen Burger wiederhergestellt wurde, so lag dies auch in der Konsequenz des Aufrufes Naicas. (hand transcribed)
If Scipio Nasica's request had resulted in a corresponding Senate resolution, there can be no doubt that this would at least have come very close to an SCU: Was the main content of the latter that in an emergency of the state the old magistrate's capital coercion without regard to the provocation right of the Roman burger [citizen?] was restored, this was also a consequence of Naica's appeal.
Rooting around the sources a bit further, I found one source [3] which asserts an SCU was used. The BMCR review then notes "particularly noteworthy errors... [including] p. 124 (the so-called senatus consultum ultimum was not first used in 133, as claimed, but rather in 121...)". [4] Given Drogula also wrote the opposite, quoted earlier, this is not a meaningful defence. Ifly6 ( talk) 18:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
References