Disputatio:Libertus

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I put the dubium rating on there, because, although the latin is very good, there are a few poor phrases: pro exemplo = on behalf of the example = making an example of the former slave? My opnion you mean exempli gratia; in officia nonnullos praestare debuit is officia supposed to agree with nonnullos?; in "Liberi liberti tandem cives cum omnibus iuribus erant" isn't the tense wrong, or don't you need futuri in front of erant?; litteratura primarily means spelling or spelling system or alphabet or the study of grammar, I think you want litterariae; finally, this article is exclusively focused on ancient Rome; but the concept of Libertus applies to any slave society modern or ancient. Thus it deserved a Scdub rating.--Rafaelgarcia 15:54, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)

On Rafael's last point "the concept of Libertus applies to any slave society modern or ancient": it's perhaps arguable? Freed slaves existed in most slave-owning societies, but freed slaves whose family had a continuing client relationship to their former owner's family and who took their former owner's name, I'm not sure. What I'm saying is that the concept has to be described for Roman society, because that's where it existed; and the name applied to people with this special status was "libertus". If you began the article by saying "a freed slave, anywhere, anytime, is called a libertus", would there be evidence to support the statement? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:32, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your distinction. However, if not with the word libertus, how would you translate the idea of freedman?--Rafaelgarcia 16:42, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, I have no good answer. But I notice that the statement in en:wiki that this idea existed in all slave-owning societies is not supported by any evidence in the article: only two societies are mentioned, and not a single general statement is made about freed slaves. In other words, we could cover the English article completely by having an article "Libertus" and an article "Libertus (Civitates Foederatae)". Does the "idea" extend further? I'm no expert, and I don't know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:53, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)
On your rating, Rafael, I would like to know, what is the difference between the stipula-mark, which is obviously justified about our little article, and the "Scdub" rating. I saw many articles, that are far from complete. Furthermore it seems, that only in Rome there was a social group with that name, having a certain status and certain rights.--Schulz-Hameln 16:59, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)
[Added later:] For what it's worth, Lewis & Short suggests that Libertus is a term used specifically to mark a person's relation to his former owner -- and therefore (I would add) is special to Rome, where such a relationship existed. L&S gives "libertinus" as the term for a freedman "in reference to his status in society or the state". So perhaps, if a general article can be written, it would appear at Libertinus, leaving "Libertus" to its specifically Roman sense. I would suggest taking the ScDub off. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:14, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)
ScDub means there is something important missing and/or wrong from the article. Stipula only means that it is very short and needs to be expanded. I rated it as ScDub because I thought the topic of Libertus was treated to narrowly. But you can see from above there is disagreement on that point. ¶ If you all are right then we need to create a new page for freedmen in general, and invent a new latin term for the concept as distinct from Libertus. In my opinion this is wasteful. I would prefer the same word and just specify Libertus being used in different contexts. After all isn't the important thing/essential characteristic that one who formally was a slave is now free? The rest is dictated by the context of the society.--Rafaelgarcia 17:14, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)
I wrote at the same moment you did, and pointed out (above) that the word we need already exists: it is Libertinus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:18, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)
What about gladiators who were freed, were they called liberti?--Rafaelgarcia 17:14, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Don't know. But no reason why not. You couldn't get more influential than Narcissus (or Trimalchio). The word means, specifcally, one's relationship (as a freed slave) to one's former owner. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:18, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)
By this point, I think the text has been generalized enough not to need a special flag. IacobusAmor 17:23, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[fontem recensere]

We corrected the mistakes. ¶ About the tense in "Liberi liberti tandem cives cum omnibus iuribus erant" im am not sure, because we are talking about the time, wenn they finally become free, not seeing it from the freedman's point of view, who looks forward to the times of his children. ¶ You are proposing litterarius, which is an adjective, I think. So it must agree to figura. --Schulz-Hameln 16:14, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)

The heading "figura litteraria" is no good (I think) because it would mean "metaphor, simile, etc."; "persona" would be a better word for a character in a piece of fiction. I have substituted, tentatively, "Liberti ficticii" i.e. fictional freedmen. Is that OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:40, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)
That's okay with me.--Schulz-Hameln 16:48, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Curiously, Cassell's doesn't have the adjective ficticius; for "fictitious," it recommends commenticius & fictus. But then Merriam-Webster's (English) dictionary derives "fictitious" from ficticius, which it marks L (Latin), not LL (Late Latin), so maybe ficticius is good imperial Latin after all. IacobusAmor 17:23, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, liberti commenticii may be better. In classical Latin, liberti ficticii might have suggested that those persons aren't real liberti but a bunch of people who pretend, for one reason or another, to be liberti. --Neander 18:53, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the word commenticius, which does seem to be the mot juste. The existence of ficticius is confirmed by L&S; it is classical, but (as Neander says) it tends to mean "pretended" rather than "fictional". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 29 Maii 2008 (UTC)