Talk:Pompeia (wife of Caesar)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Was her father's praenomen Gnaeus or Quintus? I thought it was the former, but someone apprently thought it was the latter, and I admit that I could be wrong. Kuralyov 06:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blood relationship to Caesar?[edit]

I removed the statement that her mother and Caesar were first cousins, since this statement depends on Sulla's first wife being Julia, an otherwise not attested aunt of Caesar. This identity has been proposed by the novelist Colleen McCullough, but is not attested in any ancient source, see Talk:Lucius Cornelius Sulla.-- 12:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depiction in Ides of March[edit]

In this novel we read Pompeia's letters to Clodia, where she seems silly and is easily manipulated by Clodia. However, another character observes that she is not unintelligent per se, but Ceasar has an urge to educate people, yet is a rotten teacher and fails to recognise her intelligence.

There is a lot of interesting character development (testimonies of servants/slaves) too, but as this article is pretty short I didn't think I should distort it with a long discussion of an imaginary depiction of Pompeia. I've put this here instead. ChristineD 21:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Does it perhaps belong in The Ides of March (novel), and a mention (perhaps with a section link) in the accompanying article that she is a significant character in the novel?
--Jerzyt 04:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Pompeia Sulla"[edit]

Please don't change the article back to call her "Pompeia Sulla" - she could not possibly have borne that name. Romans took their names from their fathers, not their maternal grandfathers. If Pompeia had a cognomen, and no source I'm aware of says she did, it would have been "Rufa" or "Rufina" after her father, Pompeius Rufus. --Nicknack009 00:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   That request appears to have been ignored; whether or not there is an explanatory note in the corresponding edit summary, the restoring edit should be identified here.
--Jerzyt 04:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


   Our text strongly suggests (by order of presentation) that the divorce came after the acquittal, whereas Plutarch puts it before the charge. If other sources disagree (my checking did not go that far) the disagreement as to timing should be mentioned as disputed, even if the details are not given. If not, we need to either strongly suggest by order of presentation that the divorce came first, or explicitly say when it came.
   We also strongly suggest that JC's failure to testify was the most important cause of the acquittal, while Plutarch cites reason to believe the jury were covering their asses. The remedy for this shortcoming should follow the same pattern i proposed in the previous 'graph.
--Jerzyt 04:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 23#Caesar's wife must be above suspicion until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ghinga7 (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]