Talk:Palaephatus

Rewrite

Nice to see progress here, Pmanderson. While I don't mind waiting & seeing I was curious what you had in mind. Will you break up the different persons into separate articles? Then, I'm sure you realize that "the author of Περὶ ἀπίστων" is now treated twice, with EB1911 declaring him to be the same as "Palaephatus the Egyptian," after much hemming and hawing. Will you (A) retain this conclusion, and have the treatment of Περὶ ἀπίστων in the P.-the-Egyptian article, (B) use some more current information to assign the Περὶ ἀπίστων to a different Palaephatus, or (C) remain agnostic (in which case I'm wondering if the right thing to do wouldn't be to have an article on the text, with brief mentions there & in the Palaephatus articles, as appropriate, to possible authors)? Or am I jumping the gun here? Wareh (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that my question has been answered by "modern scholars regard the other three as different literary traditions relating to the author of On Incredible Things" + "Statements of opinion and of scholarly consensus above are from Stern's introduction and notes." Wareh (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ta. There are more recent editions than Stern's in library catalogues, but since I haven't seen them and they aren't in English, I leave them for others. Stern asserts consensus on the identity of the three Palaephati, and since at least two of them are associated with a Mythica and all three with the Troica, I think this entirely sensible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. I'm glad the way things lie are more conducive to consolidation into a single article than I had imagined in my first comment. Thanks for your contribution. Wareh (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• The only reason I am quoting Smith's version of Suda rather than translating myself/accepting the web version, is the NOR preference for not doing our own translations; if anybody wants to smooth that into English and take off the quotes, feel free. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I would, however, include Aldus, which is the editio princeps and hence relevant to when this text became available, and Gale and Dresig/Fischer, to which Stern refers. Tollius included the first usable Latin translation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to restore anything from the list of editions you think should be there, though I don't really see the notability of something like making the first Latin translation or being referred to by Stern. In any case Westermann and Festa supersede their predecessors' work. Without looking into it, I get the impression that Smith is summarizing rather than translating the Suda entries. I added a link to the SOL for the Abydene section, which I cleaned up a while back; when you're done here, I'll try before too long to link the other Suda entries and fix up the Greek throughout the article. Wareh (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Smith is, except as noted, fairly close to the on-line text of the Suda. They aren't long entries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ciris

That's as much as I care to do; the only major point I see undone is the quotation from the Ciris (l.88), which may be Vergil's. I leave explaining that quote and the nature of the Ciris to you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You've done plenty--what a change for the better! Wareh (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been unable to find any recent discussion in favor of the reading Palaephatia in the Ciris. The reading is known because it appears in the Aldine edition of 1517, and it has been suggested that this was a shameless shill for the house's previous publishing venture of 1505. The editions of Ellis (1955), Vassalini (1956), Haury (1957), Salvatore (1964), Knecht (1970), and R.O.A.M. Lyne (2004) seem to agree in rejecting Palaephatia. Without the support of some good edition of the last 50 years (I don't have Clausen's newer OCT handy), it should not be suggested as likely. Wareh (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; Stern mentions it in passing but without question, and searching JSTOR resulted in a few papers, one of which (by Osmun in 1956) mentioned it in passing but also without doubt, and Robinson Ellis' 1894 paper which suggested a return to Palaepaphia, but clearly as a novel suggestion. If your Ellis (1955) is Clarendon, I believe it's a reprint, as is Lyne. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Ellis died in 1913; his Oxford Classical Text was first published in 1907 & in many later editions. If it was a novel suggestion, he seems to have convinced. And Lyne should be 1978. This list was just my quick tour through Google Books! Wareh (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• But on the whole, the shameless shilling would be far more interesting than the third vague terminus ante quem given by the Ciris cite, if genuine; do you recall where you saw it? Fairclough's Loeb (rev. 1934) attests that that it was Aldus' edition that produced the Palaephatus conjecture, but we need a secondary source for the motive, unfortunately. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

First, note that Lyne refers to the reading Palaephatia simply with the statement that "Parrhasius' line of conjecture (Palaephatia...) seems misdirected" (p. 139). From p. 409 of this book Google can retrieve the quotation, "Palaephatia; cette leçon est due à ce que l'œuvre de Palefato avait été éditée en 1505, par les Alde, à Venise." ("This reading is due to the fact that the work of Palaephatus had been published in 1505 by the Aldi at Venice.") And this book, p. 638, has several arguments against the Aldine reading and for the one now accepted, including that "La congettura Palaephatia va dunque inquadrata sullo sfondo di quelli che potevano essere gli interessi del dotto umanista che scrisse l'Aldina stessa: proprio in quell'epoca, infatti, e precisamente nell'anno 1505, era la prima volta pubblicata l'opera di Palefato." ("The conjecture Palaephatia is therefore [because the reference is to Palaephatus] founded on the basis of what could have been the interests of the learned humanist who wrote the Aldine itself: just in this period, indeed, and precisely in 1505, the work of Palaephatus was published for the first time.") It's possible I had found another, more accessible comment to the same effect, but if so I can't now find or remember it. Wareh (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re the readdition of the Ciris factoid, I was happily going to add the references for the Aldine house's possible succumbing to the temptation to add to the celebrity of the author they'd published previously. But I just can't imagine the text that will make this rise to the level of a notable fact about Palaephatus' history in the world. If it were more than a hypothesis, maybe it would belong at Aldine Press. Anyway, as I see it, we'd have to say "If the Aldine text is wrong, and if one theory is correct in explaining it, then..." And my real objection isn't the precarity of the "ifs" but the obscure interest to be found in the "then." Just my two cents, but I think we're clinging to a legacy factoid that is hard to rescue. Wareh (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Aldine Press would have to be cleaned up first; it doesn't mention the Aldine Aesop, and gives the date of the Virgil as 1514, which is (I think) a misdate of an edition does not include the Appendix. I find the then interesting, but if you don't find it clearly stated, do what you like (you've convinced me that the first if is consensus; the 2007 Montadori Press edition of Opere Minori gives Palaepaphiae too). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. 1517 is correct for the Aldine Ciris (that is, Diversorvm vetervm poetarvm in Priapvm lvsvs. : P.V.M. Catalecta. Copa. Rosae. Cvlex. Dirae. Moretvm. Ciris. Aetna. Elegia in Mecoenatis obitvm. alia nonnvlla, qvae falso Virgilii credvntvr. Argvmenta in Virgilii libros et alia diversorvm complvra was issued "Mense Decembri M.D.XVII"), but the poem seems to have been printed as Virgil's (if so, with what text for this line?) in the earlier 1505 Aldine Virgil. In any case, who knows, really, the source of the Palaephatia text--mere confusion, corruption, or something else. I still feel that "maybe intentionally, maybe with this motive" is hard to fit into this section. Wareh (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a clear statement of the conclusion, I would like to include it; if not, I won't revert a removal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Abydos

We should do what English now does, and Latinizing second declension feminines is terribly nineteenth century; can we use Abydos, like the article? Cf. Paphos. If I hadn't begun by quoting Smith, I wouldn't have used Abydus at all; will our readers recognize it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be the only person to consider Paphos and Abydus both standard and comfortable bedfellows,[1] but I certainly won't mess with it again if you change it now. There's no rule so easily stated: Cyprus is so spelled even though a fem. island. We go through Latin, and my text of the Naturalis Historia (e.g.) has only Paphos (2x), but one each of Abydus and Abydos (but Pliny also uses Abydum, Abydon, Paphum). So go figure. Anyway, I do really consider both Abydus & Paphos equally traditional English forms (you mention Smith: Smith uses Paphos exclusively for the place and Paphus only for the person, but then prints both Abydus and Abydos). Wareh (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I will please myself. (Smith's usage does seem dated to me; I grant Cyprus is a clear exception, but it's been used as the modern name of the island since the nineteenth century.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)