Talk:Quintus Aurelius Symmachus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-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.)

[edit] References

I have moved the following EB 1911 references here, as no longer useful to the Wikipedia reader in 2006. --Wetman 22:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC):

• Q. Aurelii Symmachi quae supersunt, ed. Otto Seeck (Munich, 2001, reprint of the 1883 edition)
• (G.?) Morin, Etudes sur la vie et les écrits de Symmaque, prefet de Rome (Paris, 1847)
• Sir Samuel Dill, Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire (London, 1899)

I've put the reference to Symmachus' works back in the article. I've put it in a seperate section, 'Works', which is a little more accurate than 'References'. I'm not familiar with Morin's or Dill's work, so I can't really judge the claim that they are no longer useful, but I think that someone interested in Symmachus might what to read what Symmachus wrote.GBWallenstein 23:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not what sure exactly what is meant here by 'EB 1911 references'. I haven't been able to find the 1911 Britannica article on Symmachus. I have the 1951 and 1972 Britannicas, in the old-fashioned book form, and they both have references to Seeck's edition, although not to Morin or Dill. I added Seeck's edition of Symmachus to the article, however, not because of any reference in any encyclopedia, but because I own a copy of it myself, and find it very useful. It's the only currently available edition of Symmachus of which I am aware; not to imply that I would necessarily be aware of all editions. (I'd thought that there might have been an edition of Symmachus in the Teubner series as well, but I'm unable to confirm this.)

It might be appropriate to add, in the article, that Seeck's edition is part of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica.

I'm really very confused as to why someone would think it was necessary to remove Seeck or Morin or Dill from the article. Wetman, perhaps you can explain?GBWallenstein 01:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I hadn't seen that Seeck has been reprinted: very useful. But if you feel that Morin, an 1847 publication, is genuinely available to Wikipedia readers, do put it back. Is Dill still worth hunting down? I didn't just suppress these, you see, I moved them here for a closer look. --Wetman 08:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You might be surprised as to how often these older works get cited in contemporary literature. Presumably they only get reprinted when the interlibrary loan system starts breaking down. :-) Stan 08:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

1847 is actually not so very old when it comes to classical or medieval studies. Books don't drop out of circulation or become obsolete nearly as quickly as in some other fields.

Dill's book seems to have gone through at least a half dozen editions from various publishers, most recently in the 1970's. I haven't found a version that's currently in print, but there are over a dozen used copies currently for sale on amazon.com, and I did an inter-library loan search which produced a very large number of hits: the 1899 edition alone showed up in 506 libraries worldwide, more than any other edition. Dill's book appears to be in libraries in just about every large American city as well as a lot of smaller towns. Morin's book, on the other hand, looks as if it might be much harder to put one's hands on. I found it listed at just 2 university libraries, Berkely and Cambridge. And I found no copies at amazon.com or Amazon in several other countries. Morin's book does indeed appear to be relatively scarce. Dill's book is anything but.

Scarce or not: if someone really wants to have a certain book, they will go to extraordinary lengths to get it. The issue, in my opinion, is whether and to what degree Dill and Morin are of interest to the student of Symmachus and his era. And there you'd have to ask someone else, because I tend to concentrate on primary sources. As long as no-one objects to Seeck being in the article, I'm happy.GBWallenstein 13:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Still, I think the point that this article needs to reference more recent publications is an important one. One might be John Matthews' Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, AD 364-425 ISBN 0198144997 (I don't remember if he discusses Symmachus in this book); I also happen to own a collection of essays on Late Ancient literature (I don't remember if this is a frestschrift or just a reader aimed at college students) with an essay on Symmachus' works. I'll try to remember to add these to the essay's bibliography tonight. -- llywrch 17:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the "References" section since this did not contain any footnotes but was really "further reading", and in any case only one of the books (Glover) is much used. Dill is still widely cited and is a very good read. I also added Sogno's new biography. A translation of the first book of letters is said to be forthcoming. I've also done a fair bit of rewriting because, frankly, much of the article was badly organized or simply wrong; and I'm still unsure about the statement that S. was educated in Gaul. Skookumpete 16:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just fixed the link to the EB and read that article, which appears to be the source for the statements that S. was educated in Gaul and that he was "banished from Rome" by Gratian. I'll have to do a little digging to see if these statements are accurate. Skookumpete 20:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

On checking with PLRE and Sogno, I'm sure Symmachus was not educated in Gaul, though for a time he was at the court in Trier with Valentian I. Nor can I find any reference, other than EB, to a gilt statue being voted him by the senate. His son did put up a monument after his death, the inscription of which survives. Skookumpete 20:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)