Talk:Pacilia gens

Arguments by IP Editor in favor of reverted edits

This text was left at the top of the article by an anonymous editor, after repeated attempts to alter the description of the Pacilii as an obscure plebeian gens, and imply that they were important or noble. No sources were cited in support of the changes. Rather than simply reverting without explanation, I thought I'd place it on the talk page and address the arguments made.

FIRST Why "obscure"? If anything "of unknown origin" !!! Why "plebeian"? How to define plebeian a family whose "Paciliana domus" stood on the Palatine hill in the Republican era !!!!! It should be remembered that in the Republican period the hill became the seat of the houses of the Roman ruling class. In fact, they lived there: Marco Valerio Massimo, consul in 505 BC Gnaeus Octavius, consul in 165 BC Tiberio Sempronio Gracco, father of the two famous tribunes of the plebs Marco Fulvio Flacco, consul in 125 BC Marco Livio Druso, tribune of the plebs in 91 BC Cicero and his brother Quintus Titus Annio Milone, friend of Cicero and killer of Publius Clodius Pulcro, who also lived on the hill Quinto Ortensio Ortalo, orator, whose house was later purchased by Augustus Marco Antonio, the triumvirate Tiberius Claudius Nero, father of Tiberius.

SECOND In the volume "Classical Biography", from which you drew the news inserted in this entry, on page 300 it's clear that Marcus Pacilius is unquestionably the owner of the mentioned "Paciliana Domus" !!!

THIRD Cicero aims to destroy the image of Marcus Pacilius in order to allow his brother Quinto to buy the "Paciliana Domus" (he "wished to purchase" it ... ); that's why he describes it as a needy pauper !!! Infact, how is it possible that the owner of a Domus on Palatine Hill is a needy pauper ????? !!!!!!

So, please, admit your incorrect reconstructions, finally stop correcting me and, consequently, leave my legitimate and incontrovertible corrections intact. Thanks !!!

The description of this gens in the article lead is based on two key facts: the family is "obscure" because hardly any of its members are mentioned by any ancient writers; in fact, Cicero seems to be the only writer who mentions any of them. All of the others are known solely from inscriptions. Ownership of a house on the Palatine Hill does not confer nobility, importance, or patrician status. Many of the persons you mention, although famous for their roles in Roman history, were in fact plebeians: the Octavii, the Sempronii Gracchi, the Fulvii, the Livii, the Annii, the Hortensii, and the Antonii. So were Cicero and his brother, who wanted to buy the house. The Palatine Hill was inhabited for centuries, and not everyone who lived there was an important patrician.

If you read the entry on Marcus Pacilius in the third volume of the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, it actually says, "[t]he Paciliana domus, which Q. Cicero wished to purchase, must have belonged to a different Pacilius." Which makes perfect sense: Cicero calls Marcus Pacilius a "needy pauper", whom Verres induced to accuse Sthenius of Thermae of wrongdoing. This Marcus Pacilius seems to have been a resident of Thermae, and if he were a pauper, he would certainly not have owned a house on the Palatine Hill in Rome. The fact that this Pacilius failed to appear in court to present his accusation only underscores his ephemeral nature.

There is no evidence that the accuser of Sthenius at Thermae lived at Rome or owned a house on the Palatine Hill. You cannot infer that he did solely from the fact that the house's owner might have belonged to the same gens, and thus could have been distantly related to him. The argument that Cicero wished to discredit the house's owner so that his brother could buy the house seems to be your own invention; Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say, not on what individual editors imagine might have occurred behind the scenes, without any evidence. Moreover, it's not clear how discrediting the accuser of Sthenius would have helped Quintus buy the house, even if they were the same person. Simply presenting an allegedly false accusation at Thermae would not have obliged Pacilius to sell his house to anyone. The two events didn't even occur near one another in time: the orations against Verres were delivered in BC 70, and the letter mentioning Quintus trying to buy the house was in 61—it would have required incredible foresight to lay an accusation against Pacilius nine years before his brother desired to buy his house!

But even if there were some evidence that the two men were the same—and there's not—it wouldn't convert the Pacilii into patricians, or raise them from the depths of obscurity. The Pacilii were plebeians, in the sense we use that term, because there is no evidence whatever that they were patricians. The fact that none of them are mentioned before, or in any writer other than Cicero, both emphasizes the fact that they were not patricians, and provides a textbook example of 'obscurity'. In order to make a potentially controversial claim in Wikipedia, there must be reliable sources to cite. Note that "reliable" does not mean "infallible"; a source may be reliable even though its conclusions can be disputed. But in this case, there are no reliable sources disputing what is said—and as editors we cannot substitute our imaginations for reliable sources. P Aculeius (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)