Talk:Vatican Mythographers

---

Chronology?

It would be helpful if more information could be provided on the dates of the three mythographers. Haiduc 07:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Only dates of the manuscripts can be assessed, giving the very broad termini in the article. "Nevio Zorzetti places the original text of the First Vatican Mythographer between the last quarter of the ninth century and the third quarter of the eleventh." --Wetman 09:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That still leaves me wondering about the second and the third mythographer. Do you also get the sense that the materials are in the Vatican library but are not accessible? Haiduc 00:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Second" and "Third" Mythographers are ghostly personalities, deductions drawn from the existence of additional material in mss. other than the one inspected by Mai. The Vatican? Any further material possibly lurking in the Vatican Library will have been bound in a hitherto unrecognized miscellany that has been catalogued under its first, major text— one that is otherwise well represented in numerous mss and so not very interesting and therefore has often not been looked at in decades. Or it will be in an unrecognized palimpsest that has been scraped so clean that only modern techniques will make it evident that an earlier text is actually there at all. Or it will have been chopped about and used to stiffen a binding. Slender chances. But stuff does turn up. I'd focus my hopes on a papyrus fragment of an Alexandrian copy of the missing last volume of Bibliotheke. After all we got a new poem by Sappho in 2005. Or retrieving the "missing" Latin library in unexplored parts of Villa of the Papyri: was Calpurnius Piso such a snob he just didn't have any Latin books? --Wetman 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That excavation has been blocked for years, and not for lack of funds. I have a strong suspicion that after 2000 years of successful censorship, the last thing the Vatican wants is an ancient library unearthed. Haiduc 12:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

General problem

I think the article has a general problem, in that it focuses on the *authors* -- about whom little is known -- rather than the texts, which are at least solid things. I've rewritten quite a bit of it with this in mind, but more could probably be done. The real difficulty I am finding is getting any solid up-to-date information. That Elliot article just plunges into the middle of things. Roger Pearse (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Cloudz679 07:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Vatican Mythographer → Vatican Mythographers – Until this article becomes large enough for a split (if it should ever do so), I think that we should lose the singular title and alter the lead accordingly. No one thinks that the three works were written by a single person, and the current title is therefore highly misleading. Deor (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

See also Roger Pearse's comment above and Wetman's comment here. I'd say "potentially" rather than "highly" misleading, since a singular title doesn't necessarily mean that only one exists, but this is probably the sort of thing meant to be covered by WP:PLURAL. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The move certainly would make the opening sentence easier to reword. ;) Deor (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- Since the article implies that there are three anonymous authors, the plural is preferable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Term is intrinsically plural. Andrewa (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.