Jump to content

Talk:Troilus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Troilus/Comments)
Former good articleTroilus was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 15, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 9, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 14, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
January 19, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Trojan?

[edit]

Should Troilus belong to the category "people who fought in the Trojan War"?

After all, he is a Trojan, but on the other hand, he doesn't appear in Homers works. 12:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge

[edit]

Troilius merged to Troilus at 23:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC). See Troilius revision history for full authorial information. Chick Bowen 23:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC) - I think he's mythical, not to be entertained in a real history.[reply]

Rewrite in progress

[edit]

I'm planning a major reworking of what is here and addition of substantially more material. As a preliminary step, I am splitting the material into ancient and medieval myths. --Peter cohen 18:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, rework started. Plans to add Dictys and Dares, Benoît de Sainte-Maure, Guido delle Colonne and Boccaccio. Also to check Robert Graves's references.
Then I can think about modern references unless someone else does them. --Peter cohen 21:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further thoughts. I'm now tending towards sorting the ancient sources by versions of the story, not by language. So there is the definitive story including the ambush (Sophocles and many of the paintings and sculptures); the young warrior who takes on Achilles in an unequal battle (Virgil, Dares, Quintus etc.) And then Troilos the heroic warrior (Dictys and the medieval tradition). --Peter cohen 10:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still be done

[edit]

Modern authors can be added as and when identified. If anyone has access to peer-reviewed journals etc, they can add to the analysis already present. But I judge this ready for GA nomination. --Peter cohen 12:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Rewrite

[edit]

You asked for comments about the variants, so here we go.

I like the way you've separated out the ancient version and what it later becomes in the medieval and renaissance period. It's clear from the statements within that section than there are more than enough differences to justify that and I think it makes sense. I'm less sure about the innumerable sub-headings though. On the one hand, it does definitely make what each author said very clear. On the other hand, I wonder whether all of them are necessary. Could some of them not be combined? The reason I say this is that a number of sub-sections are so short that they're not even really a proper paragraph, more like one or two sentences.

I'm also a little confused by the placement of the last section, 'lovestruck troilus'. It states that this relates to the best-known version, yet it's only right at the very end that it's even mentioned and the section is terribly short. I do note, however, that you're planning to expand this so that may rectify that problem.

What I wonder is whether, rather than separate each source out as you have done at present, you might not be better off separating things by 'theme' or 'tale'. So, for example, have a sub-heading 'the murder of troilus' in the ancient world section. Below this say what this story is, quoting sources that support it (or disagree with it) where appropriate. That would eradicate a number of sub-headings, including some of the very small sections. Then do the same again for the variant 'Troilus, the boy-soldier overwhelmed'. In the medieval section have sub-headings like 'Troilus the soldier' and 'Troilus the Lover' or something similar, and again tell each story, quoting sources where appropriate.

This is only my personal opinion though. Nothing more *g* Silverthorn 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Silverthorn. I asked for comments because, whilst I was happy with the split between medieval and classical, I was still uncertain on whether to structure things by aspect (beauty, youth, mourning etc) or by author.
I think you're right about the two main historical periods and the two main themes within them definitely needing clear headings and then the subdivisions getting rather messy. All the lower level sub-headings went in last night after I thought things were getting too complicated in each section. I think, maybe I shall shunt a load of references into footnotes on the main myths. Then authors like Cicero or Ibycus who only mention Troilus in asides or metaphors disappear out of the main text.
The main text can left clear for clear themed discussions. Within the classical period these will be the two main verisons of the story, how all the early texts which discuss the story in detail (Cypria, Socrates etc) are missing leaving only fragments, summaries and Homer's one-line reference. I can then move onto Lycophron, Virgil and Dictys who yield passages long enough to quote or discuss individually. And then discuss the pottery.
The medieveal discussion is less developed because the sources are more extended. I've been able to skim the Lydgate selection I have. My Dictys and Dares are indexed and Joseph of Exeter is online, so I can search for Troilus's name. Guido, Benoit, the Laud Troy Book Caxton, Boccaccio, Chaucer and Shakespeare, Dryden are all full length works I have in hardcopy and, in the last four especially, Troilus is mentioned throughout. The Boitani book in the reference section has separate chapters for most of these whilst all the pre-Briseis/Cressida stuff is discussed in just one chapter of. It actually will take longer for me to fully absorb the themes and how to draw them out. I know that Boccaccio and Chaucer wrote in the heyday of courtly love, whilst Shakespeare is cynical and regards Troilus as a fool, but I need to understand the differences more clearly.
A similar problem lies behind the discussion of classical art beign so sketchy after I said it was the principle source of Troilos' story. It's easy to spot the names of a dozen ancient authors in Graves, Boitani and Gantz and search out their texts and find the few lines each give to Troilus. But jotting down the reference name for the pottery and other artifacts Gantz and Boitani discuss over several pages each, looking for them online, going through the 108 listed items in the Beazley article and deciding how they fit into Gantz's and Boitani's expositions will take more than an evening's work.
Anyway, thank you very mush for your time and your constructive criticism. The first thing I shall do out of it is expand lovestruck Troilus. (I favour that over Troilus the lover, because that is a translation of Boccaccio's title Filostrato. I think I shall still leave it possitioned where it is because it is the last of the four forms of the myth to appear historically. I'll then return to the classical literature and sort tht out. Once There is one section of the article properly sorted it should be easier to model the rest on it. --Peter cohen 17:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA hold

[edit]

This article has a lot of very good information and interesting detail, but it needs to be slightly better organized and the prose needs to be clearer. I am putting it on hold for 1a and 2a.

  • 1 (a) The prose in this article can be improved. There are some awkwardly worded sentences, one-sentence paragraphs, and colloquial diction choices. I would suggest that the editors find a good copy editor to go over the article. Here are some examples of the problems:
copyeditor brought in to advise--Peter cohen 23:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose often falls into the first-person "we." This is usually discouraged on wikipedia and not necessary here.
All "we"s and "us"s now removed. Peter cohen 10:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: I think the same should go for "you", as in the text under the second picture. Lampman 10:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You"s now removed --Peter cohen 15:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the sections start to feel like prose lists of interpretations. Try to tie them together more, perhaps deleting some. Try to discover what the scholars agree upon; if there is an interpretation that is radically different from the "standard," think about whether or not to include it. Is it important or by a famous scholar? With so many interpretations floating about, the reader has a hard time getting a grasp on the most important ideas.
More in depth discussion of scholars' opinions now incorportated.--Peter cohen 23:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bulletted list in the "Modern interpretations" section should be turned into paragraphs. This would be another good place to insert some generalizations to guide the reader through the specifics.
Bullets removed and material rearranged to provide generalisations.--Peter cohen 22:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not always clear from the prose whether or not Troilus was a real person or a mythological figure. Be absolutely clear.
Attempts made to clarify --Peter cohen 15:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have far too many sentences beginning with "but." While it is legitimate to begin a sentence with "but," it is usually done for dramatic flair or to emphasize a strong contrast.
All but two removed --Peter cohen 22:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some typos and a fair number of dropped words, like "the."
copyeditor brought in, proofread by myself and spellchecker used.--Peter cohen 23:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Troilus' fate was linked by prophecy to that of Troy. So, Achilles ambushed and killed him during the Trojan War. - Beginning a sentence with "so" is too conversational. The first sentence has an awkward syntax.
Rewritten --Peter cohen 13:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But prophecies linked Troilus' fate with that of Troy. - stubby sentence
Revised --Peter cohen 13:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • His beauty meant that he was taken to be the son of Apollo. - wordy
Revised --Peter cohen 13:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Timothy Gantz[22] is more equivocal - What does he say? The sentence is missing some information.
Explained --Peter cohen 15:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A portrayal of the scene on an archaic amphora in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston can be seen by following this link [19] - Don't mention the link in the prose, just link it.
Done --Peter cohen 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Benoît de Sainte-Maure and Guido delle Colonne then elaborate it in a form that is copied by many other writers, for example, the Troy Books of Laud and Lydgate and Raoul Lefevre's Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye, which through Caxton's translation was to become the best known telling of the Troy story following its printing in 1474, influencing Shakespeare among others. - Long and convoluted sentence.
rewritten --Peter cohen 14:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the medieval and renaissance tradition, Troilus is one of those most hardline in Priam's council against the Greeks. - Anachronistic language - "hardline."
rewritten--Peter cohen 14:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 (a) - You need to cite page numbers for your sources in the notes. All links given in the notes should be cited and be given retrieval dates. See WP:CITE and WP:FOOT for advice on how to do this.

Small suggestion for improvement (not necessary for GA):

General suggestion for improvement (does not need to be fixed for GA, but would definitely need to be fixed for FA):

  • In general the article seems overburdened with plot differences. At times it is difficult to follow all of the changes you are charting because you assume the reader remembers most of the details you sketched out or that they are familiar with the authors you are referring to. Try including a few more generalized statements to guide the reader through the details and refer back to important information so that they can keep the train of the argument in their heads. Also, if someone reads only one section, they need to be able to follow (roughly) what you are saying.
more done to explain sources inclyding addition of tables.--Peter cohen 23:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why is the first image the reader sees on the page of Achilles and not Troilus?

That was the only free image initially available on wiki. There's an image of Troilus and Cressida which I shall try to import. --Peter cohen 14:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Done--Peter cohen 23:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you have any questions about this review. When you have finished revising, drop me a note on my talk page and I will re-review it. Awadewit | talk 23:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm beginning the work. I'm quite busy at present so please show patience on the progress. --Peter cohen 10:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm failing this article for now, since not all of the concerns above have been met yet (sorry!). When you relist it, feel free to contact me and I can review it again for you. Awadewit | talk 08:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass

[edit]

This article is much improved and I am passing it for GA. You have contributed a very useful and comprehensive article to wikipedia - I wish all articles were as well-written, well-researched, and well-conceived as this one! I would encourage you to take it to FAC, after fixing some small things, obtaining a peer review, and going over it with a MOS-comb. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

Lead:

  • is a legendary character who has featured in narratives of the Trojan War since before Homeric times - Since the lead is for the least informed readers, I would give dates for "Homeric times".
reworded to include date.--Peter cohen 15:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prophecies link Troilus' fate to that of Troy and he is ambushed and murdered by Achilles. - This sounds just a bit awkward - perhaps it is because the link is not fully explained.
"so" inserted --Peter cohen 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Troilus was regarded by ancient writers as a paragon of youthful male beauty and as the epitome of a dead child mourned by his parents. - the "epitome" phrase is a bit wordy
broken into two sentences--Peter cohen 16:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Troilus is the youngest of Priam's five legitimate sons by Hecuba but is now old enough to be one of the main war leaders of the Trojans. Achilles remains Troilus' killer but the death now happens in battle. - The use of "now" in these sentences throws the temporal aspect of the writing off. What about an "instead" construction?
reworded --Peter cohen 16:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Troilus lost prominence as a literary figure - "lost prominence" sounds strange to me
reworded --Peter cohen 16:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ancient world":

  • Could you arrange the sentences so that the particular translations of the names are placed closer to their meanings?
I can't see where this is an issue. Maybe I've dealt with it previously and forgotten to record here.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you outline what the prophecies were in the "standard myth" section?
done--Peter cohen 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When readers arrive at the sentence "Troilus escaped Achilles' sexual advances", they are surprised and confused, because they didn't know Achilles was making any advances.
mention of his being filled with lust added--Peter cohen 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did Apollo take his revenge?
done--Peter cohen (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This begins to build up the elements of the version of Troilus' story given above. - The precise meaning of this sentence was not clear to me.
explained in the following sentences --Peter cohen (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to him as a "lion whelp" hints at a great potential missed. - Explain for the reader.
done --Peter cohen (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depictions of Troilus in other contexts are unusual. One such exception from Apulia c.340BC shows Troilus as a child with Priam. - This exception is on what kind of media?
given as best I can. It's red figure and looks to be curved and therefore a vase, but I'm not sure what type.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his commentary on the Aeneid, Servius[30] considers this story as a deliberate departure from the "true" story, bowdlerized to make it more suitable for an epic poem. - Doesn't "bowdlerized" usually mean something like "changed to make more acceptable for families or women/children" (after Thomas Bowdler)?
Yes but looking at the wiki article on him, I see "his name is now associated with prudish censorship of literature, motion pictures and television programs" which I think fits Servius' point. --Peter cohen (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Medieval and Renaissance"

  • There are two major deviations from the classical myth in how the story of Troilus developed through the medieval and renaissance periods until the character's time as a major literary character ends with Dryden's neo-classical play. - awkward
rewritten--Peter cohen (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need a couple more citations in the "Knight and war leader" as well as in the "Death" section.
Knight and war leader done--Peter cohen (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would formalize the tone in "story of Troilus and Cressida", replacing phrases such as "make fun of", "go-between", "worked on her", etc.
Done to some extent but I have kept "go-between" which I don't consider too informal.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Troilus finds out and seeks revenge on Diomedes and the Greeks and death in battle. - a lot of "and's"
reworded--Peter cohen (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boccaccio introduces a number of features of the story that were to be taken up by Chaucer. Most obvious is that Troilus' love is now called Criseida or Cressida.[97] Another key innovation is the introduction of the go-between Pandarus. - It is not clear to me why the name change should be described as a "key innovation".
re-worded--Peter cohen (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No horses or sleeves are involved in Troilus' learning of Cressida's change of heart. - I wasn't exactly sure what this was referring to, but that could be because I read the page over the course of several days. I would suggest making a reference "as in ...."
Done--Peter cohen (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little has changed in the general sweep of the plot from Boccaccio. Things are just more detailed, with Pandarus, for example, involving Deiphobus during his attempts to unite Troilus and Cressida. - Who is Deiphobus?
explained--Peter cohen (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, The novelist and academic Joyce Carol Oates sees Troilus as beginning and ending the play in frenzies - of love and then hatred - unable to achieve the equilibrium of a tragic hero despite his learning experiences, because he is human who belongs to a banal world in which love is compared to food and cooking. - awkwardly worded
reworded--Peter cohen (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having Troilus discover he himself is cuckolded on the threshold of the cuckolded Greek is an example of how throughout the play Shakespeare draws attention to the parallels between the Paris-Helen-Menelaus and the Diomedes-Cressida-Troilus triangles. - awkward
reworded--Peter cohen (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both fights between Troilus and Diomedes take place the next day, Diomedes taking Troilus' horse for Cressida and then the Trojan getting his revenge. - awkward
reworded--Peter cohen (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening paragraph of "Reinventing the love story" is a bit awkward.
done--Peter cohen (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Modern versions" section feels a bit listy, but this seems inevitable. If there is any way to generalize more, it would help the reader.
I'm not sure how to deal with this without violating WP:NOR--Peter cohen (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The script, described in a BBC press release as "the most sophisticated used in the series" - A press release is obviously going to praise the show - this seems like a poor source since it is not independent of the show.
has been removed--Peter cohen 20:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prose overall:

  • Several times in the article, I wondered whether sentences and clauses should be reordered in terms of importance. It seemed as if unimportant clauses came too early in the sentence, while vital clauses were left to the end.
  • EX: First sentence of "story of Troilus in the ancient world"
  • EX: First paragraph of "Homer and the missing texts"
  • EX: No other written source from pre-Hellenistic times is known to have considered Troilus at any length.
I'm not sure that I agree in all those cases, but the prose has been recast here and elsewhere.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Classical" and "Archaic" should consistently be uppercase or lowercase - right now, they are mixed.
Now lower case except in proper names.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several places in the article when the prose becomes a little wordy:
  • EX: First paragraph of "The story of Troilus in the ancient world"
  • EX: Taking the Sophocles Troilos as an example, only 54 words have been identified as coming from that play.
These examples have been revised. More may be dealt with at the final read through.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "whilst" is a bit archaic. It pops up several times in the article - I would replace it with something a little more familiar.
changed--Peter cohen (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In discussing the images, could you say something like "in image at right" or devise a way of making it clearer that the web links are to images?
Now done.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anytime you mention a work of art, such as the Aeneid, could you give a rough date for it? It is helpful to the reader.
  • There are quite a few placeholder sentences - I would get rid of these.
  • EX: The two aspects of Troilus as a warrior and as a lover will now be considered separately.

This article was a pleasure to read. Thanks so much! Awadewit | talk 17:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the detailed suggestions. I intend to sit on my laurels for a bit (aka do my real work) but I shall work through these all gradually.--Peter cohen 09:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd sentence

[edit]

The following sentence, "Sommerstein favours Graves's interpretation saying that ancient sexual predators did not murder" juxtaposes ancient and modern concepts, and seems surprising in a scholarly work. Would you mind backing it up with an exact quote from the book? Thanks, Haiduc 02:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Servius on Aeneid I.474 reports a version which extenuates Achilles' guilt still further by apparently making the killing accidental: Achilles, being in love with Troilus (more on this in a moment), lured him close by releasing some doves, of which Troilus was fond, and then seized the boy who "perished in his embrace". - Sommerstein (2007, p.200).

The end of the sentence links to a footnote

The ancient sexual predator, unlike the modern one, was not thought of as likely to go on to murderis victim, nor is their anything in Servius' language tat points to the idea of an intentional killing: he seems rather to be supposing that Achilles without any evil design crushed or suffocated Troilus by the sheer strength of his arms This version of the story is now known to go back to archaic times: a sixth-century Etruscan amphora in Rome (LIMC Achle 13) shows two doves flying towards Troilus and his horse, with Achilles about to release a third. See d'Agostino (1987). - Sommerstein (2007, p.200-1).

I had the discussion of Graves and Gantz before I acquired the Sommerstein. Hence my phrasing things as Sommerstein favouring Graves's interpretation, even though he does not mention such a non-academic source by name.--Peter cohen 10:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My problem was with labeling Achilles a "sexual predator." Presumably Sommerstein will go on to identifying Daedaluas as the first aviator and Andromache as the first feminist. Without in any way denying the existence of sexual predation then and now, this particular use of the phrase strikes me as homophobic. It raises the question, which other (nonmurderous) sexual predators he is thinking of? Solon? Socrates? Aeschines? I can only view it as a homophobic remark directed at the Greeks in general. If so, that raises questions about the propriety of repeating it here.Haiduc 12:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct would be to look at other mythological predators, in which category the gods, headed by Zeus, are highly visible. Ganymede, for example, gets given an honourable role by Zeus, displacing one of Hera's children. I would have thought that Apollo turning Daphne into a tree counts as a degree of predation. But the most famous instance of sexual predation in mythology would be the abduction of Persephone. Another of the fragmentary plays dealt with in the book is Tereus, whose title character suffers because he leaves his sister-in-law alive after raping her.--Peter cohen 14:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is really important to respect the point of view of the Greeks when discussing and interpreting their mythology. The only analogous (male on male) example of sexual predation in ancient mythology that I can think of at the moment is the story of Laius and Chrysippus. Confirming the view that it was indeed seen in antiquity as an example of sexual predation is the punishment that Laius as well as the Thebans suffer for the act. So it is not what we think that matters, it is what they thought. Thus I would still not use "predator" as a descriptor, since that inappropriately modernizes the discussion. The Greeks did not see "predation." They saw hubris, and even used that word (hybrizein) to represent sexual outrage. Haiduc 01:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that, what information do we have on the respective ages of the two? Am I mistaken or was Troilus described as a boupais? It has been a while since I studied the topic, but I seem to recall he was nineteen when he died, one year short of the magic twenty needed to save Troy. Achilles, on the other hand, was sixteen when he shed his female garb and left with Oedipus to join the battle, I believe. And the killing is said to have happened early in the war. So what can Sommerstein be editorializing about? An adolescent preying upon an adult?Haiduc 12:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the art work in the first part of the article and that which I have managed to link online in the discussion of ancient art, you will find that in none of the pictures does Troilus appear older than Achilles, and in many he look substantially younger. I mention that in one early picture of the ambush, he is bearded, but this is extremely unusual. The norm is for Achilles to be a man and Troilus a boy.
Achilles may have been sixteen when found by Odysseus, but there is a considerable amount of time in between. There is the delay for the sacrifice of Iphigenia, the aborted first mission where Telephus is wounded, the second gathering, the need to fetch Telephus and heal him, the attack on Tenedos etc. In any case, early in the war is defined in terms of being before the Iliad which takes place in the ninth year of the war. Proclus' summary of the Cypria mentions Troilus' death after events such as the taking of Lyrnessos and Pedasos and Achilles' theft of Aeneas' cattle. Therefore Achilles was certainly more is in his mid-twenties.
The sources are short of specific ages for Troilus. The First Vatican Mythographer does refer to a prophecy that if Troilus reaches twenty, Troy would not fall. That source is very late and it's a leap to assume he was just short of his twentieth birthday. Dictys is also late, probably second century AD, and describes Troilus as neoi which might mean he was 19, but it describes Troilus as a warrior and therefore is not in the same tradition as Servius. There are basically two ancient traditions, one in which Troilus is young warrior killed in battle, the other in which he is a boy. In the latter, you have Horace referring to him as inpubes and Socrates as andropais - a term which Sommerstein translates as adolescent and says can mean someone who has just left boyhood or a boy with some manlike qualities. Virgil describes Troilus as puer even though he probably has him killed in combat.
One has to wonder about Sommerstein's qualifications in this respect. An andropais is generally understood to be (unsurprisingly) a man-like boy, thus a boy at the threshold between adolescence and adulthood. Nothing else makes sense. A brief search suggests that Chaucer may have represented Troilus as nineteen, an admittedly late source. And I agree with you - the iconography generally represents Troilus as a boy, as it must in light of ancient constructions of pederastic desire. Haiduc 01:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All this has to be in the context of Greek expectations about same sex relations as pederastic, in which the active lover is a man who will act as mentor to the pais, who has, at least, to pretend to the outside world that he has no interest in the sex itself. I know that the Symposium portrays Alcibiades as pursuing Sophocles, but I think this was abnormal.--Peter cohen 14:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note, I never saw anything claiming that Achilles fell in love with Polyxena at the same time as with Troilus. Everything points to his lying in wait at the Lion fountain expressly to get the boy, not the girl (though it may be significant that she was sacrificed by the Greeks at his tomb).Haiduc 12:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sommerstein thinks it of significance to the tale of Polyxena that Achilles sighted her during the ambush of Troilus. And one of the links I give, shows Achilles lying in wait and only Polyxena on the other side. There is definitely a romantic link between Achilles and Polyxena in the mythology which goes through from, at least, Dictys to Shakespeare.--Peter cohen 14:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing - when the brothers (which ones?) of Troilus ride - too late - to his rescue, Achilles meets them in Apollo's temple with an unusual weapon: Troilus' head, which he is swinging around by the hair. It is such a gory detail, it would be a pity to not include it, I just no longer have the sources. Haiduc 12:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which brothers involved vary. Some are named in the discussion of art. And the use of his head is also mentioned there.--Peter cohen 14:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More carping

[edit]

Hello, Peter. Congratulations on reaching GA. I notice that you are translating andros paidophonoio as "child-slaying man". I wonder whether a different interpretation might be more accurate, since pais could stand for son as well as boy. And would you happen to know where in Perugia the Euphronios vase is presently? Haiduc (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The translation of paidophonio came from Sommerstein who considers that Homer played on the ambiguity. I've changed it to boy-slaying with an explanation and I hope it is clear that this is Sommerstein's claim that is being reported. I've added details to the caption re Euphronios.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, you describe Troilus as an ephebe, but the preponderance of the iconography renders him as a pais. Comments? Haiduc (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Athenian ephebia started at 16. There's a considerable overlap between pais and ephebe. One of the British Sunday papers last month had an article arguing that most portrayals of pederasty actually fit with the pais being in the 18-19 age group after they are no longer gaurded by a paedagogue. I think the iconography of Troilos is compatible with portraying a 16 year old, not fully grown or yet ready to serve, but being trained for military service (as indicated by the horses and occasional spear). See note 58 and Briggite Knittlmeyer's views about Troilus as an idealised ephebe.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the source material you provided I have modified the text so as to paraphrase Sommerstein, rather than mixing his polemic targetting all Greek homosexual relations with the text of an article that is otherwise very balanced. Haiduc (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not convinced that Sommerstein is being homophobic, but I'm not going to change it back.
Thanks for yout congratulations. I'm still working through Awadewit's suggestions but I am planning to progress to FA via peer-review and possibly seeing whether the Mythology or Literature projects want to make it A class. If you have any other observations that may help progress things, then do let me know.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by your use of "exemplum" in the intro and looked it up. It seems to refer to a moral anecdote, so I wonder whether "paragon" might not be a better formulation. I was also surprised by your spelling of "cylix" having only encountered "kylix" up to now. I looked it up as well and saw it is an alternate, but would it not be better to use the form used in the Wikipedia article on the topic? Thank you, by the way, for your quick response to my previous comments. Haiduc (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 19th century source of the image obviously used Latinised spelling. I've changed both "cylix" and "Euphronius" It would be nice to find a colour version that also does not feature the measurment device, or whatever it is on the outer painting.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?! Which outer painting? Also, March (1998) is missing from the bibliography. Haiduc (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm refering to the semi-circular strip above the circular illustration. This is presumably the illustration on the outside of the kylix. (March now dealt with)--Peter cohen (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size

[edit]

An anon editor has tagged this article as "way too long". As it has not grown significantly since being passed as GA and has also been accepted for one of the CD editions, my inclination is to remove the tag.

Having checked Wikipedia:Size, I've followed the procedure for calculating readable text and have come out with 63K which is large but not huge.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Troilus/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I'd make the pictures bigger and add at least 1 table or diagram (per what makes an A article). You can compare it to some of the myth A articles, to see if you covered the main topics of mythology. If and when you feel its finished, submit for a "good article review" to go higher than B. Goldenrowley 19:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 19:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Troilus. 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:

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) 05:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Troilus. 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:

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) 21:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Troilus. 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:

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) 20:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Troilus

[edit]

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 • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. Hog Farm Talk 03:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, violating GA criterion 2b). It is also over 10,300 words long (not including numerous quotes, lists, or references) and contains excessive detail, meaning the article does not meet GA criterion 3b). Significant work is needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The excessive length was already mentioned at peer review back in 2011 as an impediment to the article reaching featured status. Aside from entirely uncited material, I'm seeing some questionable use of ancient sources (e.g. the section on "the standard myth" is supported by a citation to Apollodorus; I would like to see a secondary source saying that Apollodorus' version is in fact the standard variant).
The length issue is not helped by some overly-wordy prose: e.g. does "the story of the circumstances around Troilus' death was a popular theme among pottery painters" say anything better than the more concise "the story of Troilus' death was a popular theme among pottery painters"? Or take "Of the esteemed Nine lyric poets of the archaic and classical periods, Stesichorus may have referred to Troilus' story in his Iliupersis and Ibycus may have written in detail about the character." What is wrong with something like "The archaic lyric poet Stesichorus may have referred to Troilus' story in his Iliupersis, and Ibycus may have written in detail about him"? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some extremely impressive research here: I'm not an expert on the specific material, but most of it seems eminently sensible, which is not always the case for such monstrously lengthy articles. However, I agree that the mass of uncited material is a pretty serious problem. There are also parts of it with quite a prominent authorial voice, reading more like an essay than an encyclopaedia. I'd be reluctant to start hacking at it: I think the best way to ultimately handle it would be to split it into sub-articles (say Troilus in Greco-Roman culture and Troilus in post-classical culture, perhaps even Troilus in 20th-century culture as well?), and it would be good to have the material on hand if/when someone does so. There's a bit of flab/fat (three paragraphs on three modern interpretations?!), but I'm not seeing too much that's obviously wrong or clearly has no place anywhere on the encyclopaedia. However, I think all that amounts to a delist for now; any GA-suitable version of this article would be a rewrite. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:33, 14 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Troilus&oldid=1199657624"