Talk:Astronomica (Manilius)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Astronomica (Manilius)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

What a great topic. Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Such confusion caused his identity to be mistaken for that of: Manilus Antiochus (fl. c. 100 BC) mentioned by Pliny the Elder in his Naturalis Historia; Flavius Manlius Theodorus (fl. c. AD 376–409), who was a consul in AD 399; and even Boëthius, the 6th century Roman senator and author of De Consolatione Philosophiae (whose full name was Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius)." I'm struggling with the opening of this sentence.

  I changed it to: "Due to the uncertainty of his identify, over the years Marcus Manilius has been confused with: Manilus Antiochus (fl. c. 100 BC, mentioned by Pliny the Elder in his Naturalis Historia), Flavius Manlius Theodorus (fl. c. AD 376–409, who was a consul in AD 399), and even Boëthius (the 6th century Roman senator and author of De Consolatione Philosophiae whose full name was Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius)." Does that work better?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, clearer. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "many have attempted to" Weasel words

  Changed to :"many have claimed that".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  It's still weaselly. How about "Some, including [name] and [name], have suggested that"? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Volk does not lay out who have suggested, just that many have.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Others, including the 19th-century classicist Fridericus Jacobs, have argued that he was an African, based largely on his writing style, which supposedly resembles that of other African authors." Just to confirm: your sources do specify/indicate that more than just Jacobs has endorsed this?

  Good catch. I added another scholar who is mentioned in the sources (i.e. Paul Monceaux).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Most scholars assume that the poem was written during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius." Again, just to confirm: Do your sources say that this is the consensus view, or is this your reading of the sources? If the latter, I feel it veers into OR.

  I think it might be my reading, so I excised the line, and moved the second source to the end.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "A consensus has yet to be reached, although Chris Brennan claims, "A date of circa 14 CE is probably the safest, as this is when Augustus died and Tiberius became Emperor."[13]" I don't want to sound cynical, but is an astrologer really a reliable source? Classicists, historians, linguists, philologists, philosophers, theologians or scholars of literature might be the right kinds of scholars to cite, but I think we should only really be reprinting the views of astrologers if the reception of contemporary astrologers is part of the academic discussion of the work (e.g., if social scientists have found that modern astrologers are super into it or something).

  You're right. I replaced it with a Volk quote.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• What does "firmament" mean in this context?

  I gave a little description and a link; while the article on "firmament" is based on the Bible, it is the word that Volk uses.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think proem is probably jargon; a link would be appropriate.

  I included a link to preface; I didn't change it to preface because "proem" is almost always used in the discussion of this sort of thing.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• What is "Helicon"?

  Mountain of the Muses; link added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• I wonder if the Latin belongs in footnotes, rather than in the text? I may be wrong, here; as the work seems to be primarily of interest to scholars of Latin, perhaps it belongs front and centre. Is there some convention you're following as to when to provide the original Latin and when not to?

  I was a Classics major during my undergrad, and this was usually how I wrote papers. I prefer this method, since it allows someone versed in Latin to easily see what I'm (or someone else) is translating, but also for someone who is not well-versed in the language to simply move over it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  I defer to you; classics seems like the appropriate disciplinary norm to follow. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Following this proem, an elucidation of the zodiac follows" Slightly repetitive.

  Is 'proem' the repetitive part? If so, I've removed it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  No, sorry, it was "following ... follows". Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Oh, sorry. Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• (Not an issue, as it's in the OED, but I just wanted to comment on what a great word zodiacal is.)

  I learned it while writing this article, and I have to agree that it's pretty fun.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "This term is used to refer to the division of each zodiacal sign into twelve segments" 12 signs each with 12 segments? Am I understanding that right?

  Yes. I further specified by adding "further". I also cited that definition really weird, so I fixed that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "The following verses discuss: lots (ll. 3.43–202), calculating the ascendant and the horoscope (3.203–509),[nb 2] chronocrators[b] (ll 3.510–59), determining the length of life (ll. 3.560–617), and the tropic signs (ll. 3.618–82)." Could this be rephrased? Perhaps semi-colons could separate the list items? (Also, what a "tropic signs"?)

  Semicolons would only be appropriate if there were further commas within each individual list item, I believe. I am open to rearranging them. Do you have an idea?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  How about "Following verses variously discuss lots..."? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Works for me.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  I added a def. for "tropic signs".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "leading Goold to suggest" This person has yet to be introduced.

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "the digression is very well chosen, in as much as no other mythological episode involves so many future constellations interacting at the same time: Andromeda (e.g. 5.544), Perseus (e.g. 5.67), the Sea Monster – strictly, Cetus (cf. 5.600), but often referred to in more generic terms during this story as belua (5.544, 608) and monstrum (5.581) – Medusa's head (e.g. 5.567), and Andromeda’s parents, Cepheus and Cassiopeia." This is a very long quote featuring a number of wikilinks; would a blockquote be more appropriate?

  Good idea.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "the Harvard University Press writes that Manilius" I'm not sure I'm keen on citing the publishers directly like this; of course they're going to say how great it is, they're trying to sell it.

  I see it more as an academic authority affirming how good the poem is. Academia is all about explaining why research/translation/etc. is important, and I think this is a good example. Also, it's Harvard, so it's a little more than just a lay publishing house.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  I obviously recognise Harvard as a highly respected university press, but I'm still not sure that what is effectively a blurb is the best source. Maybe a Harvard UP blog or something, but their page for the book isn't really appropriate for information of this sort, in my view. I'm willing to let it drop for GAC purposes, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  I guess it, to me, still feels like a publishing house explaining their reasoning for publishing a translation. And since the text reads that it has been singled out for being intelligently written, I see this blurb as a good, succinct source backing this up.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• "(as mentioned above)" Avoid self references!

  Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Do you think Africitas is worth a link? Don't be scared of redlinks!

  Good idea.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "In addition to stylistic peculiarities, the work sometimes features idiosyncratic understandings of Hellenistic astrology; for instance, Chris Brennan writes that "virtually every astrologer from the 1st century through the 7th century reports that Venus rejoices in the 5th place and Saturn in the 12th, but Manilius is the only author who says that Venus rejoices in the 10th and Saturn in the 4th"." As before.

  Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "information overland" overland? Do you mean overload?

  Haha, yeah!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "was seeking to "himself as a compliant imperial agent, intent on producing a creative poetic enterprise that plots its own way through the levels of acceptable stellar discourse in the early empire."" I don't follow. Are you missing a verb? Also, be aware of dash consistency and MOS:LQ.

  Forgot the word 'present'; also, I have fixed the dash issue.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, clearer; I've tweaked the punctuation. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Can I ask why you haven't added any links to determinism? I added one in the lead, but now I'm wondering if it was a deliberate choice.

  I neglected to add a link. I went ahead and stuck one in.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Manilius "was a creationist rather than a materialistic evolutionist", and in doing so" In doing what?

  Boo boo on my part; reworded.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "although many scholars favor the latter position" Do you mean to say that the latter is a consensus position? What do your sources say?

  I meant that many scholars today support the latter. I added a few names.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "but due to the scribe's supposed incompetence (ignorantissimus omnium viventium), Bracciolini sarcastically claimed that the resultant copy had to be "divined rather than read" (divinare oportet non legere)" There's something odd about providing the original words when you're not quoting.

  Although 'ignorantissimus omnium viventium' (i.e. "of all living men, the most ignorant") is a great diss, I removed it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Yeah, you're right; perhaps a footnote would be good! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think omnium viventium is better translated as "of all living creatures". There is nothing in the Latin to confine it to humans, I think. It is much funnier that way, too.Seadowns (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• Better than my previous translation, and perfect, I think -- "the most ignorant thing alive"! Seadowns (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Done!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• I wonder whether the textual history section may go better earlier in the article; directly after authorship/date, I would have thought. That gives a pleasing chronology; where it came from, what happened to it, what it (now) says, what people have said about it.

  OK.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "The editio princeps" Is the Latin necessary?

  Nope! Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "As mentioned above," Avoid self references!

  Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "also exhibits so many points of resemblance with the work of Manilius" Can a person resemble a work?

  Metonymically, yes. However, I see your point and have rewritten it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• I am not sure the reception section is all about reception; "influence and reception" or even "influence and scholarly attention" may be more appropriate.

  I like the latter.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Few copies apparently survived the Medieval period." Do you mean into the medieval period? The tenth century is comfortably medieval.

  Good catch. Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Yet while the work caught the attention of many, it never quite reached the same level of interest as other Classical Latin epics" This is a bit too prosaic, I think."

  How is, "Despite the attention it garnered, it never received the same amount of regard as other Classical Latin epics"?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, much clearer. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• I might complain about a slightly anglocentric bias overall (particularly clear, I think, in your reception section), but I think I'm comfortable letting that slide for GAC purposes.

  I do need to find what other classicists (especially Germans and Italian) are saying, but to be fair Katharina Volk, who is the most cited authority in this article, is German (although she teaches at Columbia).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, I got the impression from my "whack it into Google Scholar" research that Volk was the big name here. I think what caught my eye was the line "Prior to the publication of Volk's book, scholarship on Manilius had largely been restricted to Italy and Germany." This almost gives the impression that this scholarship is less important for that fact, and it's also odd that you place it after the discussion of Volk in what is otherwise primarily chronological. As I say, I won't hold up the review with this, but it's something you may want to think on. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  I tried to reword and make it clear that a) Volk and Green's book features scholars from all over the world (many of whom are referenced in this article), and b) prior scholarship had only emerged within the last few decades and was mostly contained in France, Germany, and Italy. I feel mentioning many of those European papers is somewhat unnecessary, since Volk takes most of them and distils their ideas into her 2009 book.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• "A certain irony about Manilius and his poem – namely that Manilius had penned the work in the hopes of attaining some form of literary immortality, only for the work barely to make it to the present day in one piece – has been noted by various authors." Again, just a tad prosaic, I feel.

  Do you have any suggestion for how to rewrite this? I'm at a loss.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  How about "Scholars have noted the irony in Manilius's relative obscurity, given that he had penned the workAstronomica in the hopes of attaining some form of literary immortality."

  That seems good. Implemented.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Your Hübner source is to an entry in Brill's New Pauly. The citation needs attention!

  I'm not sure I see the problem. The bottom of the website/entry gives the author as "Hübner, Wolfgang", and Brill is the overall publisher.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Surely you should cite it as a chapter in the book? You can still cite it as having come from the online source rather than the original print version. Something like the following would work: Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Hübner, Wolfgang (2006). "Paranatellonta". Brill's New Pauly. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. doi:10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e907920 – via BrillOnline Reference Works. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

  Oh, I see now. Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Do you not know the author of the Britannica entry? Same with the "Trimble" source. You should really cite the author and entry, not the editor and encyclopedia!

  I found the author of the Trimble piece; Britannica does not list an author for its entry, however.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Hmmm; not ideal. You could consider putting "Anon."; the source is definitely reliable, though, so I suppose I've no business fussing about it. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Another contradiction is pointed out by Green and Volk, who note that Manilius paradoxically claims that astrological knowledge can both be sought out by the human individual, but is also only granted by divine favor." Have you got the right citation for this sentence? Or perhaps is it not Green and Volk who make the claim?

  Good catch. It was Caroline Stark who made the claim.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, "Sister Wilfrid" is Title Name (Mr John). If you want to cite her like this, it should be simply "Sister Wilfrid", not "Wilfrid, Sister".

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a great article which I really enjoyed reading. I've no doubt I'll be happy to promote once a few fixes have been made. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: thanks for the very thorough review. I have either corrected all the issues, or asked for clarification on others.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Left some replies; thanks for the quick response! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I fixed some of 'em. I'll be back for more later.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I believe I have changed everything you requested; the only thing I didn't remove was the Harvard blurb, as I still feel it makes sense in the article. Thank you for going through and explaining what you meant, even when I was being thick-skulled!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I also added a few more additions if you wanna peep 'em.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic; I'm happy that this is more than ready for GA status. It's very close to FAC-ready; I can offer a few more comments with an eye to FAC if that would be useful to you. Either way, I'm promoting now. Great work, and do feel free to message me if you nominate further articles in this vein; while I can't make any promises, I may be interested in reviewing them, too. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: thanks! I'm planning on prepping this one and Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi for FAC. If you want to take a look at that one, it would be much appreciated (it's already been promoted to GA, but your review here was so thorough and helpful. As such, I can only image a look over the article would be helpful). But no pressure or anything. Thanks so much!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)'

I don't know quite where to put this, but is it worth mentioning that Housman's work had a second edition, with addenda, corrigenda, etc? Also he published a one-volume editio minor. Goold too published a second edition of the Loeb, which I think he called a corrected edition. It took account of continuing work by others, especially a paper by W S Watt called Maniliana (1994, I think). Goold told me that the first printing had one of the biggest demands of any Loeb, so it is certainly true that it greatly increased accessibility. Anyone buying a Loeb should make sure of getting this edition. Seadowns (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)I am afraid I can't reference any of this at present, as my books are ou t of reach. Seadowns (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Good stuff. I've added information about Housman's editio minor and Goold's second edition. Since I have access to the 1992 edition of Goold, I've specified that here.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Subject to confirmation, I think the chronology is like this: 1992 Watt starts to read Manilius (I know this) 1994 Watt publishes his paper 1998 Goold's corrected edition comes out. This is the edition people should look out for. Goold was particularly abashed by his mistranslation of IV 3, pointed out by Watt. He also printed at least one of Watt's conjectures. A 1992 printing of the Loeb would, I think, be a reprint of the original to meet demand, without the later corrections.

I have now described the 1992 volume as a reprint. It is really misleading to call it a second edition. Goold would not have done so. (Incidentally, Goold told me that the star charts in his volume had been created by his brother.) Seadowns (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The article deals with the mss. fully enough, but it does not quite bring out how over the centuries editors have repaired the text to make it intelligible. To some, this is the most interesting thing about Manilius. Seadowns (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I misread the preface of the Loeb I have access to. It is a corrected version of the third(?) edition from 1997. Here's the change I've made.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas on how we might expand on the revisions and intelligibility over the years?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest a sentence like 
Seadowns (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) "It is thanks to the exertions of scholars, including some of the very greatest, over the years since the discovery of the manuscripts, that we are now able to read and comprehend Manilius reasonably coherently."

But I can't give a reference for it.

"Harvard University Press"

I agree with the reviewer above that "Harvard University Press" is not a suitable source for a quotation. The sentence sticks out as a bit amateurish. Nor should it be assumed that the writer of the blurb was Goold; it could have been any of their editors. I think the sentence should be omitted. Kanjuzi (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Epic

This poem is not an epic. It is a didactic poem, like De Rerum Natura, which is correctly so described by Wikipedia. I suggest that all the references to it as an epic should be altered. Seadowns (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I still don't see the point of describing this as an epic, when it most certainly is not one. It is a didactic poem, like De Rerum Natura, to which it is a feeble response (impar congressus Achilli, as Goold says), and which is correctly so described in the Wikipedia article. Nor is the Metamorphoses an epic: it is, one could say, of a form sui generis, and therefore difficult to classify. To call this an epic is a vulgar journalistic error, which ought not to appear in an encyclopedia. The next error would be to call Virgil's Georgics an epic: if the Astronomica is an epic, why not they? I suggest that Aristotle's discussion of epic is worth consulting. Manilius himself at the beginning of Book 2 distinguished his work from epics such as Homer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadowns (talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments moved from the GA page. @Gen. Quon: Could you look into this? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

One can argue that this is not an epic with good reason, but the fact remains that many, many, many other sources call it such. For instance, Alison Keith (a Classics professor at the University of Toronto) includes parts of Astronomica in her book A Latin Epic Reader: Selections from Ten Epics, writing "Manilius is the earliest exponent of imperial epic with his Astronomica". However, you are correct that others, such as Volk, contend that it should be seen as a didactic poem. As such, to write that "call[ing] this an epic is a vulgar journalistic error, which ought not to appear in an encyclopedia" is to act as if the decision is settled, when it obviously is not. Wikipedia is not in the business of original research, so your assertion that I consult Aristotle's discussion of epic is not useful. With that being said, I'll re-write this article to reflect that there is some conflict as to what to label this, and add some footnotes/endnotes. A reason I reverted your edits its because you were not providing sources for your assertions, and this is the lifeblood of Wikipedia.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It now reads as thus.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I would need to look at the context of Keith's remark, since the Aeneid is usually considered an imperial epic, and the author, Virgil, died in 19 BC, so it was some 30 years earlier than the Astronomica. I wonder if by some printer's or other error she put Manilius and Astronomica when she meant to put Virgil and Aeneid. My suggestion about Aristotle was just to help you personally, since it must be difficult for you to consider whether something is an epic or not, not knowing what an epic is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadowns (talk • contribs) 21:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

There's really no need to be so patronising. If you're incapable of disagreeing with someone without throwing around ad hominem claims, perhaps a collaborative project isn't for you. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Volk and others who call it an epic don't know that Aristotle in chapter five of the Poetics said that anything found in epic can also be found in tragedy, but not vice versa; and in chapter 15 said epic has a single plot, diversified by episodes, without which it would be "watery" because of its length. This excludes didactic poetry poems from being epics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.253.234 (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what Aristotle had to say about what is or isn't an epic: Volk notes that there has been a long debate about this. As a result, many (but not all) sources describe it as an epic. Since Wikipedia goes by what the sources say, I added the hatnote near the start of the article to explain why the debate about this poem exists in the first place.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 16:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Seadowns: Here's a preview of the book, if you'd like to look at it. Anyway, I second what J Milburn has to say; don't be so rude and patronizing. I've conceded my point based on evidence brought to my attention, but your assertion that "it must be difficult for [me] to consider whether something is an epic or not, not knowing what an epic is" is just rude, uncalled for, and assumes that you have a monopoly of Classical knowledge. Now, from your knowledge and edit history, it does indeed sound like you know what you're talking about, but as my point about Keith shows, there is a disagreement about classification (further evidence: this this book published by the Harvard Press refers to the poem as an "epic", and King's College London lecturer Victoria Moul notes that "there is very little acknowledgement in either ancient of early modern criticism of didactic as a genre of its own, rather than a form of epic, and a marked division in current classical scholarship between those who endorse and those who reject the broader term 'didactic epic'." here.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

This is somewhat unrelated, but @Seadowns: do you have a source for this? I think it would make for an excellent addition, but it needs to have a source before it is added in.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't get a response, so I thought I'd try again: @Seadowns: do you have a source for [https://wiki.riteme.site

I regret that I have not looked at this page for quite some time, so have missed the preceding remarks. I much regret also that words that I meant as a genial piece of banter, and would have taken as such if they had beeen directed at me, have given offence. I must be more careful in future. Meanwhile, I apologise. Seadowns (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC) https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Astronomica_(Manilius)&action=edit&section=1#

As to the epic question, clearly there are two meanings to "epic". The first is, very roughly, a long narrative poem, usually heroic. The second seems to be any very long poem. There is no doubt that the Astronomica is a long poem, so in this sense it can be called an epic without any question. But this is an unacademic and uninformative sense. As to the first, Aristotelian, sense, the Astronomica lacks all the necessary features. It is not a narrative and has no hero or heroics. As I said before, Manilius goes out of his way to claim that he is doing something quite different from Homer, and indeed any other poet.

As to Housman's remark on the Andromeda episode, it is a note to the relevant place in Book V. It actually reads "purpureus vix bene adsutus pannus", since his notes are in Latin. I don't know quite what counts as a "source" in Wikipedia, but I doubt if there is any published work where you will find it quoted, if it is not enough to have the actual words in front of one. At present I have access to Creech, but not to any other Manilian book, and I can't go round libraries, so I can't give the line number. (It would be prudent to verify what Housman said, since I have to rely on memory.) Seadowns (talk) 10:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It's all good, I appreciate the apology, and I too apologize if I came across as hard-headed—I was just trying to do as the sources told! I'm assuming the Housman volume you're talking about is this one, so I'll look through it and try to find the comment. Thanks for the heads up and the starting point from which to look.--13:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seadowns: Ah yes, I found it: page 70, "purpurae non sane splendidissimae adsutus pannus."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:11, 29 June 2017 (UT

In that case perhaps the translation, if one is needed, should be something like "a sewn-on patch of far from the best purple", rather than what I have given. Seadowns (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Nice wording. I have added it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I notice that someone has given an alternative translation of Housman's note, but I think that Housman was translating the common derogatory expression "purple patch". It is the bit that is sewn on that is purple, not the cloth it is sewn to. (Johnson warned against purple patches when he advised that one should reread one's writing and strike out anything that seemed particularly fine.) I would therefore suggest that it should revert to a translation that brings out this intention of AEH's. Seadowns (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I have retranslated Housman's words about the Andromeda. It is just impossible that purpurae is to be taken as dative. The pannus is the Andromeda story, which Housman goes on to compare unfavourably with Ovid's treatment of the legend. Purpurae is a genitive of quality: the purple patch is not even very good purple. Seadowns (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The re-translation was taken from Wolfgang Hübner's Brill article on the Astronomica: "The abundance of articles on the Andromeda epyllium is symptomatic of this: its expressly astrological meaning has been so misjudged by scholars that it has even been said that the story has nothing to do with the sky at all – here following Housman’s famous verdict, with Hor. Ars P. 15 f., of a purpurae non sane splendidissimae adsutus pannus (“rag sewn to a not particularly splendid purple cloth”; 1930, p. 70 on Manil. 5,540–618)." I included it, as per WP:NOENG, "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, if Hübner is correct, I think "purpurae splendidissimae" must be in the dative case because "adsutus" is a compounded verbal form.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

If it is Wiki policy that translations from published sources take precedence I must give way. But.....yes, yes, purpurae could, syntactically, be dative, but this is one of those places where Latin makes you use your nous to find the right meaning. Housman is calling the episode a purple patch sewn on, not a rag sewn on to a purple cloth. This is obvious, and is also made clear by the Horace: the purple thing is the patch, which should shine -splendeat-, echoed by Housman's non splendidissimae. To make the patch purple purpurae has to be genitive.

To see people, including academics, getting things wrong one can look up Horace's "diva potens Cypri", or Virgil's "fallax herba veneni", where Lewis and Short are wrong, among others. Or Housman passim. I mean for the endless examples he fishes up, not his own work, of course! 14:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Seadowns (talk)

Honestly, I liked your original version better. The more I look at it the weirder Hübner's translation seems. I actually think your points are better, and since published translations are preferred rather than required, I have reverted to what you originally provided.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the happy ending. I wonder what the rest of Hubner is like, but am content to go on wondering. If he can't translate this, what else can't he translate? Perhaps he should have chosen an easier author, or taken up a simple manual job.( Can't get the umlaut.) Seadowns (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

A W Verrall was less indulgent than Housman, calling it "a poor mixture of childish rhetoric and utter commonplace" (p. 630 in J E Sandys's "A Companion to Latin Studies", Cambridge UP 1910). Seadowns (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Verrall's remark, in the 1910 work at least, was only directed at the Andromeda episode in Book V, not at the Astronomica as a whole. I am sorry if my entry was unclear on this point.I see it is inserted in the article as applied to the whole poem, with a different source reference. The reference I gave can be found on the net, via the JE Sandys entry. Seadowns (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• I made a hasty edit based on your suggestion; sorry about that, and thanks for the catch! How does this modification look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"The one Latin poet who excelled even Ovid"

Under "Style", would it not be worth mentioning Housman's remark that he was "the one Latin poet who excelled even Ovid in verbal point and smartness"? (Edition of Book I, 1903, p.xxi). Seadowns (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Astronomica (Manilius)/GA1. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a good idea. How does this addition look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Seadowns has left a second comment at Talk:Astronomica (Manilius)/GA1. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Style: I see my suggestion about Housman's tribute to M's wit has been accepted. I also think that his description of him as "facile and frivolous" could profitably go in. It could follow straight on after the comment on wit. Reference is Housman 1916 p.xix. Seadowns (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Later: I would still urge that this notable judgment of Housman's should be included. It would counteract what seems to me an impression given by the article that Manilius is more important than he actually is, or would be thought by many. There is also a tendency among the scholars quoted to do what Perry Mason used to call "taking a button and sewing a vest on it". Seadowns (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I lost track of things and forgot to implement your idea. Do you have a suggestion as to where it would best go? I agree that the article shouldn't pretend that Manilius was anything greater than he actually was.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that after the extract from the Loeb blurb, presumably written by Goold, it should read on "Housman, however, called him 'facile and frivolous', but also described him as 'the one Latin poet'... etc." Seadowns (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

How about this?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good. (Housman was ready to criticise M for writing about astronomy and astrology without knowing either, but could also defend him when doing so allowed him to pour scorn on earlier scholars.) Seadowns (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Another comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that Scaliger and Bentley praised his handling of numbers in verse (Housman 1920 p.51) Seadowns (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that would go best in style? (Along with the Harvard UP blurbl?)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, probably. I wanted to get away from the impression that this is only a comparatively modern appraisal.Seadowns (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

How does this edit look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it gets it in. Thanks. Seadowns (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astronomica (Manilius). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160913071926/http://arts.leeds.ac.uk/lics/2007/200701.pdf to http://arts.leeds.ac.uk/lics/2007/200701.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Decans

I seem to remember that there was also another sense of "decans", but I am unable to verify it at present, since I cannot get at my copy of Goold, which I would need to find the place. It is a long time since I read through Housman, whom I can only get on line at present, with too much labour.--Seadowns (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)