Talk:Sporus

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[1][2]

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

An edit on 7 November 2022, which the pronouns used in the article, was reverted by @Discospinster per "no evidence that Sporus identified as a woman".

I think it's reasonable to assume that someone who evidently lived their whole post-castration life as a woman, and was addressed as such by the people around them, would have self-identified as a woman and answered to feminine address, yes? Isn't it more presumptuous to call Sporus by masculine pronouns just because they were born male? 2600:6C5E:4D7F:90E8:C9D3:D078:23F:9D27 (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't assume or presume anything, we go by what reliable sources say. ... discospinster _talk 23:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

This seems intellectually lazy. She's described as being a wife. Of being made into a woman. Of living her life as a woman. The reliable sources uses he/him as a way to mock her.

“He castrated the boy Sporus and actually tried to make a woman of him; and he married him with all the usual ceremonies, including a dowry and a bridal veil, took him to his house attended by a great throng, and treated him as his wife.” [Suetonius Nero:28]

Because the source uses he/him we do? But "woman" "wife" and "bridal" are all female words that would typically be used in the context of she/her pronouns. Why does it make sense to call her a "him" and a "wife"? Is that not an arbitrary and conscious choice on your part?

“[Sporus], in addition to other forms of address, was termed “lady,” “queen,” and “mistress.” [Dio 63:13]

Again, all female words. You have to choose to use "he/him".

“… that youth of Nero’s actually wore his hair parted, young women attended him whenever he went for a walk, he wore women’s clothes, and was forced to do everything else a woman does in the same way.” [Chrysostom 21:7]

These are people who describe her willingness to be a woman and to act like one and dress like one. Who was addressed as one by her contemporaries except by people who hated her. So then, why are they seen as reliable sources?

It doesn't look she's being forced because according to Dio:

“All the Greeks held a celebration in honour of their marriage, uttering all the customary good wishes, even to the extent of praying that legitimate children might be born to them.” [Dio 63:13]

Why, when Nero died, did she keep presenting as a woman, going by a woman's name, and dating dudes? Her story seems irrational and incomprehensible if you ignore that maybe she was just a woman.

You are assuming and presuming a lot of things by *assuming* he/him is the correct form of address for someone who by all appearances moved through the world as a woman. Do you have an actual counterpoint for using he/him - one that doesn't use unreliable narrators who are steeped in bias? There doesn't seem to be much substance to the position that she should be referred to as a "he/him." The evidence doesn't support it. We can't pretend our biases are inherently objective, can we?

We don't even know her real name. The article uses "Sporus" because that's what contemporary historians have chosen to do. None of this is based on reliable sources. 24.141.118.159 (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with all of this, as well as the comment on 30 Dec 2022 suggesting that the most parsimonious explanation of this case is that Poppaea identified as a woman. The evidence for this is prominent in the sources, with her taking the name Poppaea and using it until her death by suicide. She had plenty of opportunity to stop living as a woman, to not continue marrying men, to use names other than Poppaea, and to live as a man after Nero's death if that was what she wanted. She never did. As the person who reverted this article back in November 2022 said in their decision to do so, the MOS requires transgender individuals be referred to with the name and pronouns they last used in life. For Poppaea, this is clearly female pronouns and the name Poppaea. As someone who was assigned male at birth but lived her life as a woman, she fits the definition of a transgender woman, and therefore should be treated as such in this article. To do otherwise is a violation of wikipedia policy. 2603:6081:6F00:2DC1:0:0:0:2D (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I also agree, it would, then, seem that we all are in agreement. So, I suggest that we update the article with her proper pronouns, or at least give a discretion saying how her pronouns aren't confirmable Paprette (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This conversation is just WP:OR (specifically advancing original interpretations of primary sources) unless we can find peer-reviewed scholar works supporting the various opinions above. I tried and could find none, including support for considering Sporus transgender and/or transsexual. It's important to consider the historical context here: Nero himself demonstrated a considerably more fluid understanding of gender and sexuality than what has become the cultural norms today, and we know that he got similarly "married" as the bride on two other occasions as well as commissioned obviously female-type busts of himself. Imposing our modern view on transgender/transsexuality and our modern customs on pronoun usage is neither historically justifiable nor conforming to reliable sources, ancient or modern.

I do think that the article could use a few more viewpoints, as currently the only modern scholarly works cited are Champolin and Woods, both being somewhat dated in 2023. Plainly POV edits that are based on personal understanding of primary sources, however, should be reverted. (And a happy new year to all editors.) Aristippus Ser (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

References