Talk:Homeric Hymns

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

Tag at the top[edit]

This article has 3 references, all slanted the same. The Homeric Hymns are not of Homer, they say. There is no Homer. This is a shallow treatment. What about the hymn to Apollo, in which the author identifies himself? If the hymns are all the same style, why are some attributed to much later times? Style is an indicator of date. I would expect to see a few different views and more of the evidence and the problems. No one view should be presented as the way scholars are treating the topic now. I note also one of the authoritative scholars is not even within a century of now. Not that that makes any difference, but we need more of the other points of view, not unsupported statements and slanted presumptions..Branigan 00:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't create views; we cite them. If you have a cite from a reputable scholar that disagrees, add it. If you have no cite, it's possible that one view does in fact present the consensus of how scholars are treating the topic now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I did not state or imply the creation of a new view so your one-liner is misdirected. What you invite me to do is self-contradictory. If I were to correct it, the tag would not be needed. If I do not correct it the tag is needed. I understand your point of view. You want it fixed, put up or shut up, am I right? I did not agree to fix it right now. As editor I put the tag on to mark that it needs fixing, as is the custom in WP. I think it should stay on until the problem is fixed. You do not say that the tag is wrong, you only demand answers now. I'm to do the work, am I? I note that a WP employee looked at it (an administrator) and made sure it was formatted correctly, but left it on. He reverted some minor correction to the tag. Apparently I did not understand the format. So that is where we stand. I oppose removal of the tag though no one has suggested it. You seem to speak as an outsider to the topic. I assure you there will be no difficulty at all finding other points of view. The main problem with these Homer articles is that a person or persons apparently of minimal knowledge comandeered them to try and force a narrow point of view on the public. That isn't right, and many of the articles have the tags saying so applied by different editors. I have only asked that it be done. As matter of fact I do not do it momentariy because I am working on other Homer articles and do not wish to have too much on my plate. I do intend to work on it but I'm not sure when. Meanwhile the public needs to know that it is not quite right. I believe this is a standard procedure here at WP. I hope I have explained all this fully as you have a right to expect, being a credible user. I note also that the administrators looking at my work are WP employees, who seem more authoritative. Well, unless you have something new, I will read your comments, if any, but I may not reply.Botteville (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, administrators are not WP employees. You still have not given a single cite.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick reply, on the fly. Bye and bye. Oh my. Yes they are, no they aren't, yes they are, no they aren't. You sound like a relative. I didn't say they were, read it again. I don't have time for this level of bickering pseudocritique. Perhaps I should make a better summary. The problem is nothing the addition of a few cites or the changing of a cite can fix! The article is too small. It needs to be rewritten. For one thing, the intro should define or summarize the definition. It should not be used as a vehicle for editor opinion the way it is. All of those opinionations need to be supported. It isn't a case of throwing in an extra reference. First you present the topic. What are the Homeric Hymns and how long and why have they been called what they are? This definition should be completely non-committal without feeding the reader your opinion or any opinion. Then, and only then, can you delve into the validity of the definition and present whatever views there are to present. I do not care what language your name is in, good organization is the same in any language. So, I cannot justly bicker with you about what the article says right now. It properly needs to say a lot more. It needs, in other words, a rewrite. That is why the tag is there. I would do it but I'm working on more basic things. WP came up so fast and is so extensive that almost anywhere the links lead requires a lot of work. I'm getting there but it takes time. I went from Homer to the Alexandrines and thence to the Diadochi. I will get back to here unless someone else does it first, just not yet. I got to go now. See you probably in a month or two, provided you say anything that seems to warrant a reply.Botteville (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've still provided zero evidence that it's feeding the reader opinion instead of established fact. You've offered not a single cite that the statement at the top of the article that the author of the poems is not Homer is not universally held among scolars. You have, however, engaged in repeated personal insult.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homeric Hymns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thucydides didn't attribute the hymns to Homer[edit]

The claim that the Homeric Hymns have been "uncritically attributed to Homer himself in antiquity" cites Thucydides who only attributed to Homer one of the hymns to Apollo, not all or even several of them. There's no evidence that that one particular hymn is not, in fact, by Homer himself, and there is no further clarification why the rest of the hymns are attributed to Homer if they had been, and by whom.

In fact, other ancient Greeks make mentions of Homeridae as possible authors of the hymns, so it doesn't seem that they were at all "uncritically attributed to Homer himself in antiquity" at least up until the Hellenistic period. 

Liviu- (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Homeric Hymns/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 10:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: The Morrison Man (talk · contribs) 21:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be taking a look at the article and should be back with comments in the next few days. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking it on: looking forward to your comments. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Morrison Man: Sorry to nudge, but any update? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the major delay, I've been quite sick recently. I've included the notes for the sections composition and collection and transmission below, the rest will follow within 24 hours. If you have any questions or things are unclear, let me know! The Morrison Man (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- replies below to this first batch, looking forward to the second. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed these comments where required. The next batch will be up in a few hours. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Composition[edit]

  • “though the Hymn to Ares is considerably later” - Maybe change this to something like “though the Hymn to Ares was made much later”.
  • “are composed in dactylic hexameter” - Perhaps this could be explained, as you do for the following mention of formulae.
  • “one of the Homeridae,” - Swap out the comma for a colon.
    • I'm not sure the colon would be wrong, but a comma is perfectly correct here and reads better to me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “hymns’ comparative absence” - Comparative could probably be left out here.
    • It can't, unfortunately, as Callimachus makes use of them (see Reception further down for a few more). However, by comparison with the Iliad and Odyssey, their footprint in Alexandrian poetry is tiny. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “However, few direct statements denying Homer's authorship of the Hymns survive from antiquity: in the second century CE, the Greek geographer Pausanias maintained their attribution to Homer.” - I think this would work better as two separate sentences, cut off at the colon. That would make something like: “However, few direct statements denying Homer’s authorship of the Hymns survive from antiquity. The Greek geographer Pausanias maintained their attribution to Homer in the second century CE.”.
    • I'm not sure it would, as the second part follows from the first: with a full stop, the thought becomes isolated and the connection lost. It's not the shortest sentence, but I don't think it's long enough at 27 words to make splitting it essential. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking over the sentence again, I'm not really sure why I even suggested splitting in the first place. The connection is indeed enough reason to keep them it as a single unit. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collection and transmission[edit]

  • “At least the longer hymns” - Leave out at least.
    • That would change the meaning, since we don't know that the shorter hymns were not also included in these editions. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are now two conflicting timespans for the Hellenistic period in the article. Previously mentioned as post-323 BCE, and here mentioned as 323-30 BCE. The latter is correct, and I’d change the former accordingly.
  • “listed as today "Homeric"” - “which we currently list as “Homeric””
    • I've changed to listed today as, which is more grammatical, but am not a fan of the second-person plural here: it would raise a question as to who "we" are and aren't. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • An alternative could be "which are currently listed as "Homeric"", which omits "we". The Morrison Man (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Not sure what the improvement over "today" is? To me, "currently" implies that the situation might soon change (compare "Today, he lives in London" and "Currently, he lives in London"). UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I mostly made the suggestion while considering the possibility that some of the Hymns aren't from the same author, though assuming that the name won't change, today works fine. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, the Hymns certainly aren't the work of a single author, but we don't really think of "Homer" as a single author now anyway, so the label is unlikely to go anywhere even though discussions about the Hymns' dates and circumstances of composition are likely to continue. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps also link Callimachus here, and is there no bluelink for Proclus or his Hymns?
    • Could link Callimachus, but it's not a million miles away from his first mention, so I'm not sure I see a compelling case to break the usual habit of linking only on first mention, or where a link is particularly helpful. Linked Proclus; "Hymns (Proclus)" isn't an article yet, and I'm not sure it's ever likely to become one distinct from the main Proclus article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • My line of thinking was that an extra link would be good to have to allow for easier navigation to the other works that were included alongside the Homeric Hymns in the editions originating from the fourth to thirteenth century. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've tried something slightly different, and created the redirect Hymns (Callimachus), which currently links to the Hymns section of Callimachus's article. How's that? I think it does the same job and potentially allows someone to come along and write a whole article on them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          In my opinion this is the most elegant solution! Nicely found. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “are fifteenth-century in date” - date to the fifteenth century
  • “along with Orphic and other hymnic poetry.” - along with other Hymns and Orphic poetry.
  • Explain siglum in brackets.
    • I can't immediately think of a good, short way to do it: we need "conventional symbol indicating the name of a manuscript", which is a bit long for brackets. To me, it's pretty clear to any reader that the character Ω is whatever a siglum is: it's not massively important that they understand it as meaning anything more than letter/symbol/designation, so I think we've got the right balance where those who just want to read the article have what they need to do so, and those who want to go further can click the link.
      • Your reasoning is sound, though I do believe an explanation would add some extra value. Would the shorter "symbol indicating a manuscript" work, or is that too abbreviated? The Morrison Man (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link philologist
  • “discovered M” - maybe change to “discovered manuscript M”? (not essential)
    • We introduced it in the previous sentence, and "manuscript M" is not idiomatic (it's also arguably a tautology), so I think what we have at the moment is better. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “M has among its sources a lost manuscript” - “One of the sources M draws from is a lost manuscript”
    • I'm not seeing a problem or improvement here?
      • Mostly related to the flow of the sentence, which in my opinion is better with the proposed change. If you disagree, its fine to keep the original. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “which he stated he had” - “which he stated to have”
  • “that manuscript has also been suggested as being Ω” - “it has also been suggested that Ψ and Ω represent the same manuscript”
    • Ah, that's not quite what I meant: the question is whether Aurispa was writing about Ψ οr Ω, but they're definitely different manuscripts. I've clarified, hopefully. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

more to follow

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeric_Hymns&oldid=1219796467"