Talk:Callimachus/Archive 1

Coma Berenices

I noticed that the article says that the Coma Berenices is only known through Catullus 66. This is not in fact the case, as a fragment of the Greek text has been discovered on papyrus.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Campbel2 (talk • contribs) .

This has been corrected since the comment was made. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV problems

This is neither NPOV nor true:

Art and learning are his chief characteristics, unrelieved by any real poetic genius; in the words of Ovid (Amores, 1.15)--Quamvis ingenio non valet, arte valet.

A more even-handed evaluation should be substituted. Callimachus is one of the most important Greek poets for his influence on Latin poetry, if nothing else. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A leftover from the savants of the 1911 EB, who were of course their own experts and didn't have anything like an NPOV policy - in fact they considered part of their mission was to impart the opinions they thought readers *should* have. Update would be good, though tricky to do without eviscerating. Stan 00:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That's definitely true about the EB's sense of mission. Thing is, in 1911 the EB's opinion was a pretty standard one--classical scholars almost unanimously thought Callimachus' poetry was crap then. So, in a sense, the 1911 material *was* NPOV at that point in time. Of course, it's not now--over the last generation or so Callimachus' place in literary history has been greatly reevaluated--Callimachus is now recognized as having deep influence on Roman poets, and many scholars find his poetry enjoyable and good (though certainly some scholars would still agree with the EB). I've taken an initial stab at revision, including adding more bibliography; if anyone thinks the bibliography is too extensive, feel free to pare it down.

Something that I'm a bit confused about at the moment is whether Callimachus was an official "librarian" of the Library of Alexandria. The current Oxford Classical Dictionary doesn't mention it, which I find a bit surprising. I know that he is commonly said to have been a librarian, but I haven't seen a source for this knowledge. A good place to look is Pfeiffer's History of Classical Scholarship but that's not accessible to me at the moment. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I did some revision of this entry, correcting the factual error that he was chief librarian, mentioning his feud with his student Apollonius Rhodius, his stylistic preference for the new very-short poetic style vs. the epic, and tried to cut down that disconnected floating-in-the-void sense a little by mentioning his patron and placing him in the Hellenistic period. I'm sure there are other edits that can be made - I would love some better sources re: his influence on Latin poets, but I know much less about Rome. Aophite 15:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Date of Birth

I'm trying to add some more direct citations to this page. Does anyone know where the date of birth info is coming from? Currently it read "310/305", but I generally see only "c. 305" in the texts I read. Thanks, Cardiffchestnut (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a quote from A.W. Mair's introduction to the Loeb edition:

The most probable date on the whole for the birth of Callimachus is circ. 310 b.c. We learn from Vit. Arat. i. that Callimachus, both in his epigrams and also έν τοίς πρός Πραξιφάνην, referred to Aratus as older than himself. But as they were fellow-students at Athens the difference of age is not likely to have been considerable : we may put the birth of Aratus in 315, that of Callimachus in 310. Dblk (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! I'll have a look and add direct refs. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Finally added: thanks again. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Title transliterations

Does anyone mind if I impose the most standard way of transilterating Callimachus' works on this page. Scholars do generally refer to the Pinakes in the direct Greek transliteration, but the Αἴτια is more often Latinized to Aetia, as is the Hecale, which is the form used here. And note that one section of the Aetia is given in the Latinized form Coma Berenices. I ask because I'd like to expand and reorder the works section so as to give a bit more specific coverage to each of the major works. Thanks, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see someone working on this. I could be wrong, but I would justify your intentions on the basis of WP:MOSTCOMMON — which applies to article titles, not generally. Still, my reasoning would be that each of these could be the subject of its own potential article (not necessarily needed, but theoretically), which would then be need to be named according to "most common." Does that make any sense? I'm not entirely comfortable with the "most common" thinking, because it seems pretty subjective. Be bold, as long as you have your reasons, and see whether anyone objects.Cynwolfe (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

So I am, despite the fact that it's only been a couple hours, about to make the change from Aitia to Aetia presented above and will, hopefully over the course of the next few days, create an Aetia page, under that title. I'm very open, in the meantime, to people discussing the transliteration of this title. In my experience strict Hellenists publishing in journals and monographs that do not have any relation to Roman Literature occasionally chose the Greek transliteration. But, given the fact that much of the poem's impact is currently felt in the realm of Roman studies and is thus more often rendered Aetia (the British proclivity toward Latiniziation might also be mentioned), I will currently proceed with that spelling as the most common. (I think that, in the event that I do create an article, I should also create a redirect page for Aitia to Aetia; there is a genus of plant that we also need to consider.) Thank you, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, specifically in regard to Aitia, I myself prefer that one, because the word aition is often used in mythological study for the type of myth that explains an origin. I would like to hear what some other users think about this one, particularly User:Akhilleus and User:Wareh, who are experienced editors with a sensible approach to these matters. I don't feel all that strongly about it and am quite open to persuasion on this. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the transparency of the Greek transliteration, too, though the WP:MOSTCOMMON would still recommend Aetia. I'll drop a line to Akhilleus and Wareh to see if they can pop over with their views. Should I undue the changes that I already made and wait for consensus? Thank you, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I also think the Cardiff Chestnut, providing the labor for the article's progress, should feel free also to choose which way to go in matters orthographical (within the confines of common sense and policy, which s/he seems to know about already). If Aitia provides a visible link to aition, well, Aetia provides a visible link to the perhaps still more familiar "aetiological." On first use, something like "Aetia (Ancient Greek: Αἴτια)" is good, or even "Aetia (Ancient Greek: Αἴτια, Aitia)." For what it's worth, my instinct agrees with CC's statement that the Latinized form is more common in English-language scholarship. Wareh (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Share the baklava with Wareh. Best, Cynwolfe (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Just an update on the above promised Aetia article—Harder's major new edition with commentary won't arrive until the fall (after orals, thankfully), so I won't make a move on the poem until I've had a good sit down with her volume. Of course, if anyone else wants to start the page before that, feel free, but who knows what Harder has to offer ... The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)