Talk:Myrtis of Anthedon/GA1

GA Review

Passed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 13:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 22:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small stuff, really: I don't think any of this is at all show-stopping.

The only surviving record of her poetry is a paraphrase by Plutarch, discussing a local Boeotian legend. In antiquity she was included by Antipater of Thessalonica in his canon of nine female poets, and a bronze statue of her was reportedly made by Boïscus: can these people be introduced briefly, at least by approximate period? We introduce, for example, Pindar and Corinna as poets.
- Introduced Antipater and Plutarch; explicitly said that we don't know anything about Boiscus (Tatian just says that he made a statue of Myrtis; he is not mentioned anywhere else)
She dates to the sixth century BC: Things normally "date to" a time period: "she lived in"?
- Changed
the fragment of Corinna: a bit classicist-ese: consider the fragment of Corinna's poetry or similar?
- Changed
Myrtis is the most obscure of the nine women poets included in Antipater of Thessalonica's canon: definitely needs a date. I'd be tempted to do a footnote with the other eight, as the phrasing raises that question. Very much optional, but lots of style guides consider "female poets" more up-to-date than "women poets", which has a slight whiff of e.g. Woman police constable.
- Changed "woman" to "female"; added footnote with the other poets and gave Antipater's date.
a woman named Ochna, Eunostos' cousin, was rejected by him and so told her brothers that Eunostos had raped her: consider sticking the word falsely or similar in here, to be clear that she didn't reveal a real crime. It becomes obvious a couple of sentences later.
- Added
On checking the Loeb, I think there's a mistake or two in the Greek transcription. Campbell's text has:

μέμφομη δὲ κὴ λιγουρὰν
Μουρτίδ᾿ ἱώνγ᾿ ὅτι βανὰ φοῦσ᾿
ἔβα Πινδάροι πὸτ ἔριν
~~καὶ ἔτι~~

You may be using a different edition, of course, but I've never seen the Greek word λιγουπὰν, and can't find any hits for it in dictionaries. Likewise, I can't see why Μουρτίδ' would lack an accent. As we're using Campbell's translation, we should surely also use the version of the text he's translating?

- Yes, I was using Campbell's Loeb text; "λιγουπὰν" for "λιγουρὰν" is my being bad at typing in Greek and the missing accent in "Μουρτίδ" is my misreading of Campbell's text. My Greek is not good enough to identify where I'm mistranscribing things so thanks for your eagle-eye here!
Corinna criticized Myrtis for venturing, as a woman, to compete with Pindar. Criticising other poets: EngVar confusion here.
- Not sure where the stray "z" came in. Don't want people to start thinking I'm American...
an 1897 painting by the Swiss artist Ernst Stückelberg depicts Myrtis and Corinna with the Potter Agathon: not sure about using the title as part of the sentence here: we're talking about what it depicts, rather than using its name, so better to deitalicise if keeping the phrasing the same.
She is included on Judy Chicago's Heritage Floor, associated with the place-setting for Sappho in The Dinner Party, and in Anselm Kiefer's series of Women of Antiquity: I found it a bit unclear as to how many works of art we are talking about here.
- I've broken this up into two sentences to hopefully make it clearer. Both works are a little confusing: The Dinner Party/The Heritage Floor are two related works of art; Myrtis is one of 999 figures on the Heritage Floor, each of which is associated with one of 39 mythical/historical women who feature in The Dinner Party. As for the Kiefer, he has a series of sculptures of women from antiquity; I can't find a comprehensive list anywhere, but at least one of them depicts Myrtis. Possibly this forthcoming book will allow me to be clearer here.
File:House of C Poppaeus Firmus VI 14,38 Pompeii 1879 drawing of painting of Pindar and Corinna from center of the south wall of triclinium (e) by G Discanno cropped.jpg: Bit of work needed on the licensing here. Firstly and most boringly, we need a PD US tag. Secondly, we need a date/PD tag for the drawing, not just the original painting, which probably would qualify as a new copyright. If you know when the painting was lost, that could give a sufficient terminus ante quem?
- Ugh, copyrights. Drawing is from 1879; artist (Geremia Discanno) died 1907. So in sensible countries the drawing is out of copyright. In the US, as I understand it, it ... may be? The earliest publication I can find evidence for is Karl Schefold, Vergessenes Pompeji 1962 (which I don't have access to, but apparently it's illustrated on pl.55,1). I have no reason to believe that was published in the US within 30 days, and if there was a US-compliant copyright notice it was apparently not renewed. So I think Commons:Template:PD-US-1996 is the right PD US tag? Does that look reasonable? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: the overwhelming presumption must be that it was published before 1923, but given that we have no solid evidence for that, the PD 1996 one works fine. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No date for the Langley source? Come to think of it, why doesn't he get to be in the bibliography?
- I'm sure I had a sensible reason for not putting the Stuckelberg catalogue raisonné and the Longley chapter in the bibliography, but I cannot for the life of me imagine what it was; now changed. I can't think there can possibly have been a sensible reason for omitting the dates from them, so fixed that.
Segal 1989: 7 Choral Lyric in the Fifth Century: is the 7 just the chapter number? Cut if so.
- Not only is it the chapter number, it's not even the correct chapter number!
Hardly a big deal for GA, but some books have ISBNs, others have no identifiers at all. Those published before ISBNs were standard could have OCLCs.
- Added ISBNs to the remainder, except the Stuckelberg catalogue which does not have one (and I can't find it on WorldCat, so no OCLC number either)
You might wish to clarify that the de Vos thesis is a PhD, since that makes it admissible as a source (whereas an MA thesis would generally not be).
- Done. Didn't know that parameter even existed.
Another minor point at this level, but it would be best to make the spacing of initials consistent in the bibliography (that is, put spaces in for e.g. Pat Easterling and Bernard Knox).
- Good spot; fixed.
Could link Stephen Harrison (classicist) and Charles Segal (classicist) in the biblio.
- Done and done.

Spot checks to follow, but only because I haven't quite got the energy this evening: fully expect all to be in order. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick additional comment (I hope it's okay to add this to the GA section; if not please move it to wherever it belongs): in the Corinna quotation (PMG fr. 664a) the last two words καὶ ἔτι (here translated "and again") are not actually part of the fragment, which ends after πὸτ ἔριν. These are the words of Apollonios Dyskolos, the grammarian in whose work this fragment is preserved. He cites two examples of Corinna's use of the Boeotian form ἱών for ἐγώ: the first is this fragment, and the second (fr. 664b) is introduced with the words καὶ ἔτι ("and also"). See Campbell's Loeb edition for the full context. Choliamb (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh -- yes, indeed, that's pretty obviously not part of the Corinna quotation in Campbell. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, yes. Thanks to both of you for catching these! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

Note 4 checks out.
Note 7 checks out.
All that is known of her poetry can be surmised from Plutarch's paraphrase of one of her poems: verified from note 1.
Note 14 checks out.
Note 13: Kirkwood doesn't quite say "Panhellenic" (only contrasting Myrtis's potential themes with the "local" ones employed by others), but I think we're good enough. You could perhaps add a cite to here, p. 181, with a note like "for the panhellenic nature of Pindar's themes and dialect, see Rutherford 2001, p. 181".

A few bits that came up from reading into the sources, that you may wish to include (or not!)

De Vos places a full stop at the end of the Greek epigram we have quoted, as does Henderson and as does Sider (the latter cited below). I've gone and added it in.
She also credits Mary Lefkowitz as suggesting Corinna's epigram as the origin of the story that she and/or Myrtis were rivals of Pindar
She suggests (as does Kirkwood 1974, p. 178) that Myrtis was known for writing monody rather than choral poetry, based on the adjectives used by Antipater and Corinna. We mention that Plutarch calls her a lyric poet, but this gives a bit more specificity. On the other hand, Henderson (p. 32) suggests that Myrtis was competing with Pindar in epinician choral works.
Snider (here, p. 262) suggests that Corinna's epigram may have been originally in the voice of a male character, not that of the poet, which would remove the elephant in the room of Corinna blaming Myrtis for doing exactly what she did. He also cites Collins (this one, I think), p. 21, as suggesting that the point of complaint might be Myrtis's provincial/humble origins rather than her gender per se, or even that the whole fragment might be praising rather than condemning Myrtis.

I'll leave this review open until you've had a chance to read the above and see what you think, but no obstacles to passing here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: Assuming you've seen the above, or will do: as I said, there's nothing to prevent a GA pass at this stage; the comments above are suggestions for further improvement. I'm passing the article now. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.