Talk:Sporus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image of Poppaea

This image seems to be of uncertain origin, so I agree with it been taken off. I didn't research for a better image, I simply put the one from the Poppaea Sabina article's infobox. I believe this another image doesn't seems to have any issue of identity; this statue as well, should be decided to be used, just need a cropping. That being said, I ask for consensus on the use of Poppaea image on Sporus article. My meager skills in google-searching didn't found any image of Sporus, and I don't think there is any of him... So, the only image to show how he would appear that remains are those of Poppaea. Maybe at the infobox is not the more suitable place, since can confound readers for believing it's an image from him; but I think that at the article it would do no harm. Any thoughts? (and yes, there is a lot to be expanded on this article, but this is something ongoing) ZackTheJack (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track to suggest placing an image of Poppaea Sabina elsewhere in the article; you should probably try to expand the discussion of Sporus's resemblance to her. I was going to footnote a replacement image with Cassius Dio 63.13.1; Caroline Vout, Power and Eroticism in Imperial Rome (Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 151. But here's the problem: Poppaea's images underwent systematic erasure, which was a form of damnatio in Rome that attempted to obliterate all memory of the person. See this page, especially footnote 546. While none of the images on Commons can be identified as her with certainty, I wouldn't object to including one (just not in the infobox), as long as there's accompanying text explaining more fully that Sporus was said to resemble her, why so few images survive of her, and acknowledging in the caption that identification of the image chosen is tentative. You can decide which image has the greatest scholarly weight behind it as most likely to be Poppaea. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Fictional person

The sources for "Sporus" are the enemies and historical critics of Nero such as Cassius Dio. Sporus is a possible propaganda disseminated by Nero's political enemies

Cassius Dio & Suetonius are famous for their hatred of Nero. Both of them were born after Nero's death.--98.88.130.144 (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Am I right in assuming that you're the editor who added these links before? With similar comments? Personally, I'm inclined to agree with you - up to a point - that accounts of Sporus are probably heavily embellished as propaganda. However, Wikipedia can only employ reliable, specialist, peer-reviewed scholarly sources, both for the article text and as reference in talk-page discussions; and those you've given don't qualify. Haploidavey (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Martin A. Armstrong has questioned such claims. The Greco-Roman culture frowned upon polygamy. Augustus had already spearheaded legislation to proscribe practices that were common among non-Hellenistic Jews and barbarians.--98.88.130.144 (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Martin Armstrong is not a historian. He's an economist, and his work on Nero related to coinage and the Roman economy. I don't see what you're implying with reference to the Lex Julia; unless to say that Nero's serial marriages had no standing in Roman law - which is probably true, but it in no way implies that such multiple or serial marriages did not happen. Haploidavey (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the tag. Haploidavey (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

As the issue relates to the fact that the sources are not contemporary to Nero, our article on the emperor already mentions: "The history of Nero's reign is problematic in that no historical sources survived that were contemporary with Nero. These first histories at one time did exist and were described as biased and fantastical, either overly critical or praising of Nero. The original sources were also said to contradict on a number of events. Nonetheless, these lost primary sources were the basis of surviving secondary and tertiary histories on Nero written by the next generations of historians. A few of the contemporary historians are known by name. Fabius Rusticus, Cluvius Rufus and Pliny the Elder all wrote condemning histories on Nero that are now lost. There were also pro-Nero histories, but it is unknown who wrote them or for what deeds Nero was praised.

The bulk of what is known of Nero comes from Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio, who were all of the senatorial class. Tacitus and Suetonius wrote their histories on Nero over fifty years after his death, while Cassius Dio wrote his history over 150 years after Nero's death. These sources contradict on a number of events in Nero's life including the death of Claudius, the death of Agrippina, and the Roman fire of 64, but they are consistent in their condemnation of Nero." Dimadick (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Pronouns of Sporus

LGBTQ+

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI