Talk:George Buchanan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk elder?[edit]

We know that Buchanan was not a minister, but do we know if he was an elder? If so, please add him to:

Thanks. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Brown says . . . "[edit]

Twice in the lede, sentences begin "Brown says..." without giving any indication who or what "Brown" is. -current Labour Party leader Gordon Brown? -Charles Shultz' beloved comic strip character Charlie Brown? -the color? Who knows? Could someone please disambiguate this? Thanks. Occam's Shaver (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The cited person's full name is in the reference at the end of the paragraph. This could be said to be undue emphasis to the view of a contributor to the New Penguin History of Scotland, so could be changed to just "He has been described as..." etc., with the same citation. Alternatively it could be reverted to a previous version which made no assessment at all. AllyD (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imperii fuerat Romani Scotia limes; Romani eloquii Scotia limes erit[edit]

Is a proper translation to be found anywhere? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

limes[edit]

"Austin Seal and Steve Philp translate this as: 'Just as Scotland was at the apex of the Roman Empire, so Scotland shall be at the apex of Roman eloquence'. (Not only is Buchanan's Latin scholarship extolled, a congratulatory reference to Scotland retaining Scottish law – quintessentially an improved version of Roman law – as the foundation of its legal system is also implied.)"

'Apex' is a peculiar word to use for 'limes', which in the Roman Empire marked a boundary. One could understand the epigram as'this is how far the Roman Empire (post-Hadrian, of course) has gone; is this how far Roman eloquence will go ?'

In the parenthesis sentence one would normally expect a 'but also' after the initial 'not only'. The sentence has a curiously lopsided appearance.

How do we know that 'eloquium' here has anything to with law ? Pamour (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brown says the ease[edit]

Buchanan was already dead when the king James II was deposed in 1688.Claudio Pistilli (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(The disputed sentence is in the lede paragraph, for those as bemused as I was.) The article is simply claiming (on the authority of Brown) that Buchanan's ideas continued to be influential long after his death, so there's no problem there. However, having said that, I fail to understand how an "ideology of resistance to royal usurpation" could be said to support and facilitate the overthrow of an incumbent monarch (James II & VII) by a rival claimant (William of Orange). James's claim to the throne by divine right and birth were never really in dispute, only his suitability as a Catholic: the "usurper" was William. Some clarification necessary. GrindtXX (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]