Wikipedia:Peer review/Astronomica (Manilius)/archive2

Astronomica (Manilius)

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it promoted to FA. The Astronomica is an epic Latin poem that was written in the early first century AD by the Roman poet Marcus Manilius. In many ways, it can be viewed as a reply and a rebuttal to Lucretius' De rerum natura, in that it espouses a Stoic understand of the cosmos. While almost all of the poem is intact, it has sadly been neglected for much of its existence (probably due to its esoteric subject matter). In the past year, I have written almost the entire article. It has been peer-reviewed once before, but that was 7 months ago, and I have edited the page quite a few times since then. I believe another look-over would really, really help to improve the article.

Thanks, --Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments groupuscule (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your fantastic work on this article. I can see it is a labor of love, and you have been quite thorough. I will try to scrape together some critical comments of this very excellent piece.

@Groupuscule: For some reason, this page came off my watchlist and I never saw that you posted! If you are still interested in this article, in the next few days I will be going over your points and trying to make it better. I'm sorry that this happened, as reading through what you've written, I can tell your suggestions will be very, very helpful.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• Perhaps it would be possible to get a scan of a manuscript page with a little higher image quality? The handwriting on this one is very nice but a little blurry and so its hard to read.

  I have uploaded a much bigger, better quality version of the image.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• If you're going to link didacticism in the footnote, which by the way is very well done, you might consider linking it in the lead. On second thought, maybe the linked article isn't really useful enough?

  Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• You might consider using em dashes (—) instead of en dashes (–) in the final sentence of the first paragraph. (And in similar cases throughout.)

  I prefer emdashes, but someone switched 'em out. I switched 'em back.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Another sentence or two on what makes the content of the poem unique would be OK.

  I tried to expand the intro to make the whole section a little more meaty.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Authorship and date

• In the second paragraph, "the only clear reference to an historical date" -> "the only clear reference to a historical event" unless the mention of this battle is accompanied by an actual date in the Roman calendar.

  Good point. Changed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Consider changing: "parts were written under Augustus and Tiberius" -> "parts were written under Augustus and parts under Tiberius" (strikes me as a little more immediately readable; just a a suggestion)

  I have rewritten this sentence to be a bit more readable.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

History

• A table or chart might help clarify the manuscript nomenclature and relationships.

Contents > Summary

• If there are indeed complex mathematical calculations behind the treatment of astrology in Book III, as Steven Green is quoted as writing there are, then please elucidate their nature! This would help to place the poem from a history of astronomy perspective.

  I tried to better clarify where these calculations are taking place. Most of them are instances wherein the poet takes a starchart or a equation and converts them into poetic lines.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

(now, in order:)

• The "first extant work on astrology which is extensive, coherent, and (for the most part) intact"? This seems dubious and but I not sure what definitely contradicts it. I suppose "Enuma Anu Enlil" isn't "for the most part (intact)"?

  I tried to rewrite it so that the reader can tell this is what Volk said; I checked the source, and sure enough, she says the same thing. I think since this poem is so long, detailed, and makes sense, she's considering it the 'first'.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• "and Mercury spurred" -> "and that Mercury spurred"

  Changed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Is it possible to clarify why the Earth's equidistance from the firmament prevents it from falling? Just common sense? :-) Or a theory of gravity? etc.

  Tried to make that a little clearer. It's honestly just a bit of common sense cutesiness on Manilius's part, imho.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Is the Milky Way treated with celestial circles and not constellations & stars? And if so maybe its special role could be described a little.

  Done. Some good stuff that I had missed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Are books 2 and 3 really, primarily, about laying out a birth chart? If so the section on them doesn't focus on that. Volk's comment doesn't necessarily have to lead that section—especially if it's how other critics would summarize these books

  Yeah, I just removed that line. I then broke up books 2 and 3 into their own paragraphs. Hopefully that makes things a little less clustered and easier to read.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

  I rewrote this. It now reads, "According to Volk, books two and three primarily deal with the finer details of the Zodiac." The "birth chart" (which a footnote now defines) in Volk's original quote was sort of a stand-in for "Zodiac".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• It's a little strange that "zodiac" links to Astrological Sign and "dodecatemoria" links to Zodiac. OK I see where you're going with it but I don't see great treatment of internal divisions within signs at the Zodiac page. Maybe someone wants to make a new page, dodecatemoria, with some explanation.

  I have done just as you suggested.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• What's the "fixed circle of the observer"?

  I have added a footnote that describes this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Subsequent verses discuss lots, calculating the ascendant and the horoscope" is a tad hard for me to read with no Oxford comma.

  Added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• What is "zodiacal geography"?

  I have added a footnote that describes this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• What are "ecliptic signs"? Something different than the 12 zodiacal signs?

  I have added a footnote that describes this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• The "discussion of paranatellonota via the myth of Andromeda and Perseus" sounds extremely interesting; consider giving the basic plotline and some more definite astrolonomical correlates.

  I have provided the basic story, and tried to make it clearer why Manilius would pick it (as laid out by Green in the next sentence following the tale).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Contents > Worldview

• "the universe is ... some sort of god itself" = "(mundum ... ipsum esse deum)" seems a little fishy and still does after look up this spot in the text. Maybe I can make a more informed comment later.

  The Latin translates to: "The universe is governed by a divine spirit and is itself a god." Furthermore, Volk notes, "The basic tenet of what we might call Manilius' natural philosophy is the idea that the universe is ... a god."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• This crucial section seems a little too Volk-heavy (see comment below as well). Probably a lot more could be said. Starting with maybe another little line on why MacGregor thinks the poem is not especially stoic. Maybe other people's glosses of Manilius's cosmology.

  I bulked this up to give MacGregor a better say.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Contents > Style

• "According to a Harvard University press summary" ? Eh, maybe find something better for this.

• I feel like the press is a reputable source, but I tried to make it sound less PR-y.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Very nice work with the second paragraph of this section.

  Thank you!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Contents > Completeness

• Cite Housman's claim that it's impossible to cast a full horoscope. And maybe explain what that means, since it's confusing why that would be so if all of Books 2 and 3 give instructions for laying out someone's birth chart.

  Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Extrazodiacal rising and stellar magnitudes don't seem like wildly unrelated topics but I guess that's Katharina Volk's business.

  I think it's more the abruptness of the jump that Volk's commenting upon, not necessarily the relation of the two topics. But nevertheless, I have removed it as it isn't essential, really.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Has anyone else weighed in on completeness?

  Yes, and I will add in some more opinions. have added a bit more now. I removed most of Volk's comments, and instead focused on what Goold has to say.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Influence and scholarship

• Good description of contrast between Manilius and Lucretius.

  Thank you! This one was fun to write.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• It's unnecessary to link to wiktionary for "byzantine". If you think it's over your reader's heads—and I suspect that it's not, for anyone who made it this far :-) — there's no need to use it.

  I just removed the link and changed it to "overly-technical".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Using Housman's poem at the end seems like a great idea but I think the square brackets actually make it harder to tell what's going on. Maybe a direct quotation as blockquote would be better. Or just set up the quote a little differently.
  • Looking at this again I see you are quoting Volk talking about Housman, which isn't clear, and is hard to read. I'm in leaving this in after second guessing it so you can kind of follow the thought process which occurred when reading the text.

• I tried to re-write this to make it a bit clearer and less messy. Tell me how it looks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

General/Other

• There should be easy-to-find links to full-text editions in Latin, and maybe translations in French if none in English are available, and maybe other manuscript scans. These could have their own section near the end or be part of an external links section.

  I have started an external links section, which atm includes Housman's commentaries and the original Latin text. I know there's a copy of Creech's English translation somewhere, but I just have to find it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Right now the article seems very heavy with Volk's interpretations and light on those of others. (See for example the first paragraph of the Worldview section, which revolves (haha) entirely around her interpretation of a single line. In fact Volk dominates this crucial section.) Maybe this is OK but it leaves me wondering whether her views represent the ultimate consensus in international Manilius scholarship ... ? (In the last section, the article says that Volk wrote the first "full-length monograph" on Astronomica, which clears things up a little—but at the same time, Housman and Goold, at least, seem to have written plenty in their introductions.)

  I'll try to add in more authors, but given how Volk is honestly the foremost authority of Manilius (at least, who is living), it makes a bit of sense that much of the article will feature what she has to say.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Link to cosmos somewhere (if not also Macrocosm and microcosm, which is just a stub).

  Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If a good chunk of time throws itself into my lap I may try to read the poem and some secondary sources, in order to make some more informed comments. An overarching critique is that it would be good to present more details from the text, going from describing the topics which are covered, to presenting particulars—especially about what makes Manilius's coverage of these topics unique or interesting (or not, even!) in the context of other contemporary texts on astronomy and astrology. Sorry for any misunderstandings or mistakes I have committed in the above review and thank you again for this excellent contribution.

Using new sources (mainly Goold's actual commentary, rather than just his introduction), I have tried to make the "Contents" section a little clearer as to what the heck is going on. I don't want it to come across as an info dump, but unfortunately, the poem is kind of like that. To rectify this issue, I have attempted to explain the 'point' of each book before moving through each, describing what Manilius is considering at any given section.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up comments groupuscule (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The article is looking very good, especially: the high-res image of the 1461 manuscript you uploaded, the pictures in general, and the expanded explanation of the content. I see that you made a lot of the changes suggested above, or otherwise found better solutions to the issues, so I will simply say nicely done, rather than comment on each. Following are a few more reactions and minor suggestions.

• From book II (433–465) it might be worth listing the correspondences between the zodiac signs and Olympian gods, and between zodiac signs and parts of the body. (Could all be represented in a table.) Notice there is a (very incomplete) Wikipedia article on Zodiac Man to which Astronomica would certainly be an early and complete attestation. An illustration of (some of the or one of the) the geometric relationships among the signs, along the lines of book II, might fit in at this point on the page. Also if I'm not mistaken the section on the "fixed circle of the observer" at the end of book II (starting at 2.856) corresponds to the division of "houses" (= "temples" = dodecatropos" ?)—and if so House (astrology) could be linked with an explanation.

  I have added blurbs about both the God-body-Zodiac relationship, as well as the "dodecatropos"/"houses" section (and added the link). I'll try to work out a chart or something, but I'll need to try and comprehend everything fully before I dare!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• The "lots" (= labores = "athla") at the beginning of Book III look complicated indeed but it might be worthwhile to include a short explanation under Zodiacal definitions. I think the linked article (Arabic parts) is the right one but it's not crystal clear. It does cover the "Lot of Fortune".

  I have added a helpful and succinct definition, courtesy of Volk.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• The "ipsum esse deum" issue. Reading the paraphrase here, it seems like Volk is going out on a bit of a limb staking a whole argument on "is itself a God".
  • Original text: "[...] mundum divino numine verti / Atque ipsum esse deum [...]"
  • Goold translates: "the universe moves in obedience to a divine power and is indeed the manifestation of God".
  • Nisard translates "le monde est gouverné par une puissance divine, qu’il est dieu lui-même".

I think they are translating ipsum as a modifier of deum rather than mundum, which gives a more monotheistic reading. (Perhaps this could be chalked up to their bias.) Either way the universe is identified with divinity, however, which is your important point in the Worldview section. But it may be preferable at least to lead with the general interpretation (critics generally consider the outlook to be Stoic) and then get into this discrepancy according to Volk.

• Good points. I tried to re-write the section to make it clear that this is Volk's interpretation, and her own resolution.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• How mutually exclusive are Stoicism and Pythagoreanism (considered to be)? I think your treatment of 'the dissenters' is good but that potential Pythagorean elements could be foregrounded a little more. Does Volk touch on Pyhagoreanism? Does Stoicism have a doctrine on planets? (Did M. Lanson have anything at all worthwhile to contribute to this discussion or is all that can be done to mention his name as a dissenter?)

  I added a sentence before the discussion of Stoicism, showing that most scholars agree that Manilius was dabbling in many styles. I do find it weird how many scholars assume stuff like this is a zero sum game. I have tried to make the sentence less zero sumy, too!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Consider paraphrasing Volk's gloss of Housman's poem. Even if the quotation was dynamite originally, the effect is lost with the inclusion of so many square brackets.

  How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Great ending (added after the quotation) and I love the helpful section of Zodiacal definitions.