Talk:Caesarion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Egyptology Portal This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

Contents 1 Cleopatra's Death 2 Anglicised Names 3 Who was his father? 4 Caesarion's Name

[edit] Cleopatra's Death

Okay. This page says:

Cleopatra followed his example by committing suicide on August 12, 30 BC.

Now if we actually go to Cleopatra's page we see this date instead:

A few days later, on November 30, Cleopatra also died by snakebite.

So which one is right? Obviously someone has not checked their facts. I'm tempted to remove both until a date is actually known. If it is questionable, that is to say, if there is still an ongoing debate of the date, then it should state so clearly in both articles. Thoughts? If no one responds, then I'll remove them in a few days. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 03:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicised Names

Does anyone think the standard Anglicised names Octavian and Antony shound be used over the Latin "Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus" and "Marcus Antonius?"

Does it really matter in the Eternal scheme of things? Tomtom9041

Actually, yeah, in answer to the original question, I definitely think we should use the anglicised names; those are their names in the English language, which is what we're writing in. The layman refers to them by their anglicised names; the scholar refers to them (in an overwhelming majority) by their anglicised names. So if we insist on using the Latin nomenclature, not only are we actively working against our own purpose here (by needlessly confusing our readership by using names other than the ones they will instantly associate with the individuals in question) but we also come off looking like amateurish intellectual snobs trying to act better than we are, and our only justification for doing so is snide, irrelevant commentary about "the Eternal scheme of things".

Bearing in mind the original question (which seems to me to be in favour of anglicising the names) was asked in July, and that in the time since then it's gained one response which essentially says "I don't care" and (now) one in favour, that seems like consensus to me. This seems like a valid issue, since it strikes at the idea of just how accessible our work on the history of this time period is going to be to the layman reader, so maybe next week while I'm on holiday I'll start a discussion about it at the talkpage for Mark Antony or Pompey the Great.Binabik80 15:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who was his father?

Is it true that Julius Caesar never recognized him as a son? In this case, which is the source that reports his father to be Caesar? --Panairjdde 16:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Well it depends what you mean by "acknowledged"; Suetonius tells us that he "allowed a son born of their union to bear his name", which sounds tantamount to an acknowledgement to me. As E.E. Rice puts it, the use of Caesar as his name is probably a pretty sure indication that Caesar at least believed Caesarion to be his. Certainly the majority of ancient sources seem to take it for granted that he was Caesar's son. Octavian, of course, insisted he wasn't, but his vested interest in the matter is self-evident (as is Mark Antony's when he claimed to the Senate that Caesar had acknowledged the child); most of the claims disputing Caesar's paternity—just like all the other claims about Cleopatra's sexual wantonness—seem to come from writers under Octavian's influence, or subsequent writers who use them as sources. Though the OCD rightly points out that "the facts are beyond recovery", we would really need evidence to give weight to any claim that Caesar wasn't Caesarion's father; in the absence of such evidence, we have to assume that he was. Binabik80 00:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Under Roman law, a father had to recognize a son, to get him/her in the family; in this case, the son should have been named Gaius Julius Caesar, not Ptolemy Philopator Philometor Caesar. In [1] there's a throughtful examination of the matter, and, without copying the article, I think we should say that the matter is dubious. Furthermore, the possibility that Caesarion was not legally Caesar's son changes the prospective of Octavian acts.--Panairjdde 09:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Several points:

1. Once Caesar achieved his dictatorship, questions of what he "had" to do under Roman law become irrelevant, as Roman law was superceded from that point on—first by Caesar, then by the triumvirs, then by Augustus. If any of these had decided to treat Caesarion as Caesar's son and heir, he would have been accepted as such, regardless of whether Caesar ever issued a formal acknowledgement, in his will or otherwise; not least because Caesar's biological paternity went largely unquestioned except by sources dependent upon Octavian.
2. Similarly, the name Roman custom would expect of Caesar's son is irrelevant when we're dealing with the god-king of the richest and second-most-powerful kingdom of the Mediterranean, especially since the normal rule of Roman law has already been suspended by the fact of Caesar's rise to power. That the king of Egypt had an appropriate name for a king of Egypt shouldn't seem surprising. No one ever made the argument that he wasn't Caesar's heir because he didn't have a Roman name or because he wasn't a citizen, because
3. Caesarion didn't need to care about Roman citizenship; he claimed the right to rule Rome, not the right to trial by jury. Caesar had placed himself "above" Roman law, similar to a monarch; the triumvirs achieved the same status for themselves. Establishing Caesarion as Caesar's biological son and rightful heir would similarly place him "above" the law, so the rights and protections of citizenship would be irrelevant to him. This was not the Republic of Cincinnatus or Cato the Elder.
4. The question of Caesarion's paternity has always—both in ancient times and today—revolved around biology, not the law. It's taken as too obvious to need stating that if Caesarion is Caesar's biological son, then he's Caesar's most valid political heir, regardless of his legal standing.

The website you point to comes pretty emphatically to the conclusion that Caesar was Caesarion's father, including the statement, "I see no reason to doubt Caesar's paternity." It also contains no reference to the question of Caesarion's legal status under Roman law; the author takes it as given that Caesar's biological paternity is what would establish Caesarion as his heir.

I would not object to the insertion of a statement that some ancient and modern writers have doubted Caesar's paternity, and that true certainty is impossible to ascertain. I would object to any statement or implication that we do not have a strong (overwhelming, really) preponderance of evidence that Caesar was in fact Caesarion's father.

Binabik80 03:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we agree that it is higly possible that Caesar was his biological father. But I want to stress that none of your points goes against the fact that Caesarion was not recognized by Caesar as his son in front of Roman law; this means that Caesarion had no rights, even if Caesar had a lot of power: remember that Caesar actually adopted Octavian to make him his heir, because Caesar was a Roman, and believed in the Roman view of family. If Caesar had a rightful son, with rights under the Roman law, why did he need to adopt Octavian for? Under this point of view, Octavian action was almost rightful, from the ancient times point of view, since possible Caesarion claims on Rome were those of a stranger.--Panairjdde 07:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Except that Marc Antony had claimed that Octavian's adoption was forged. I'm not saying Antony is right (because Antony clearly has vested interest in slandering Octavian) or that Octavian is right (because Octavian clearly has vested interest in slandering Cleopatra/Caesarion), I'm simply stating that matters are complex with the he-said-she-said complexities of a power vacuum from which any one of several key persons could have potentially won (and written History in their own favor). What exactly was Julius Caesar's intention is not known and short of a time-machine the evidence we have access to is conflicting with Antony saying one thing and Octavian saying another -- 64.119.91.129 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that no one, including Octavian, ever tried to make the argument that Caesarion wasn't a valid heir because he had no Roman legal standing. Octavian was a smart guy & a masterful politician; if that argument had been there to be made, he would have made it. Note also that Caesar adopted Octavian as his personal heir, not political—he left Octavian his private propety, not his rank.

The Romans of the period had pretty much no concept of political heirs; it was something they had to make up as they went along as it slowly dawned on them how completely the old order had been destroyed. In the tumult of the late 40s and 30s BC, a natural son of Caesar seemed to everyone—including Octavian, or we wouldn't have been so concerned with casting aspersions on Caesarion's paternity—to have at least as much right to claim to be Caesar's political heir as his principal lieutenant (Antony) or the undistinguished distant relative to whom he left his fortune (Octavian). Binabik80 14:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: It's just occured to me that I'm pretty sure Caesarion could never have been a Roman citizen anyway under the letter of Roman law, as (though I can't find anything at hand about the specifics of the situation in 47/44 BC), generally speaking, only the children of a citizen father and a citizen or conubium-holding mother could inherit citizenship. So if anyone thought Caesarion would need a claim of citizenship to make a valid heir, there wouldn't have been any debate in the first place (or there would have been a movement in the Senate to pass a law granting him citizenship).

I notice the article currently has no mention whatsoever of the legal question. I have no objection to the insertion of a remark that it's doubtful Caesar ever acknowledged him as his son, though noting that Antony informed the Senate that he did. Binabik80 14:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caesarion's Name

As I'm not entirely sure why it's there (the mistake is so glaring that it has me completely confused), I will turn to the author(s) to explain why the Greek version of Caesarion's name as listed near the top of the page says Cleopatra (the transliteration of Κλεοπατρα). Was he named for his mother or was there some matronymic feature common amongst the Ptolemies which was not used otherwise in Greek naming conventions? If this is simply a mistake, I believe that it should be changed to Καισαριον (the proper transliteration of Caesarion). --KraDakar 01:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)