Talk:De Divinatione

Untitled

This leaves out the considerable body of scholars (especially Mary Beard) who think that Marcus does not, in fact, equal M. Tullius Cicero in any substantive way. I'd refer you to the article in question, but my citation is in my other desk.

Happened to be looking at this issue recently. The appropriate references are:

Cicero and Divination: The Formation of a Latin Discourse Mary Beard, Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 76, 1986 (1986) , pp. 33-46

Cicero for and against Divination, Malcolm Schofield, Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 76, 1986 (1986) , pp. 47-65 Zeusnoos 19:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The tag isn't appropriate for what you're suggesting; it's not the "factual accuracy" of the article that's in question, it's the interpretation of it. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you (or Mary Beard, for that matter), I'm just saying that the tag is misleading. By all means include another section; I'm no expert on Roman philosophy, I just happened to be reading this a couple of years ago in Latin. --CaesarGJ 08:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Zeusnoos was wrong. Schofield admits in Cicero for and against divination, pp. 56–61, that Marcus is Cicero's "official" voice. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Quote

There is supposedly a quote from this text, "No man was ever great without a touch of divine afflatus." -Cicero" This is supposedly from this work De Divinatione (see Afflatus). However, the translation of this: Negat enim sine furore Democritus quemquam poetam magnum esse posse, quod idem dicit Plato gives Democritus says that no one can be a great poet without being in a state of frenzy, and Plato says the same thing. I think the true quote is from De Natura Deorum Nemo igitur vir magnus sine aliquo adflatu divino umquam fuit which translates, No great man, then, has ever been without some divine inspiration.Tstrobaugh (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)