Talk:Poetae Epici Graeci/GA1

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

Nominator: Michael Aurel (talk · contribs) 05:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 14:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Will take this on. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Not strictly a GA requirement, but make sure that Latin text is in the appropriate {{lang}} template.
  • I think I've got them all now. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Lead image: worth clarifying which edition this is?
  • It's possible that I'm misinterpreting what you're asking, but I've specified in the caption that PEG II.1 contains fragments related to Orphic literature. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Slightly, but my fault: has there only been one edition of PEG, by one publisher, in one cover? If not, we could say e.g. "cover of the second (1995) edition of...". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I think so: there are two editions of PEG I, but there's only one edition of each fascicle in PEG II and I'm not aware of any versions that would have a different cover. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  No issues in that case. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• It's probably not too hard to work out, but I would translate the title (and other Latin titles used) at some point.
  • I was on the fence about this: "Greek Epic Poets" isn't all that representative of the entirety of the edition's content, so I thought it might confuse people. I've decided to put them in the body but not the lead. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  Hm: we've got that in Latin anyway, and I expect just about every reader will translate it in their head as they read it, so it seems a bit odd to believe that we can hide that from them. Perhaps, following MOS:LEADCLUTTER, stick the translation in an EFN with a note to say that only the first volume strictly contains epic poetry? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm happy with a note, so I've gone with that. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not clear from the first lead paragraph what the relationship between Bernabé's edition and that of Davies. Are those both PEG? Is Davies's a different work that happens to use the same source texts?
  • I see your point: I've tried to make this a bit clearer. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Cover of Poetae Epici Graeci, Volume II, Fascicle 1: not sure about the capitalisation here, but equally I'm not particularly confident either way.
  • It's congruent with the approach in the body (so we'd need to change that as well). "Volume II" and "Part III" feel a little more natural to me than "volume II" and "part III", though I don't feel strongly about the matter. Cf. Betegh 2007: second half of Volume II contains Part II and Fasc. 1 of Pars II. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• ILL Bernabé in the lead?
  • I wasn't sure how WP:SOB felt about this (the link turns blue once the article is created). You've queried about it, though, so added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• the Derveni papyrus, a text discovered in 1961 which preserves a commentary on an Orphic poem: can we get a date somewhere as to how old the papyrus and/or the commentary and/or the poem are?
  • I think that works. I've included a shortened version of what we have in the body. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• PEG includes around 500 more Orphic fragments than the previous edition of this material: being very picky, PEG is not an edition of the Orphic fragments (only PEG II is).
  • I've tried a few alternative phrasings and I think the current one works the best. The main reason I want to avoid "PEG's second volume includes around 500 more Orphic fragments" is that it might imply we're including the fragments of Musaeus, Linus, and Epimenides in this count, whereas they're numbered separately. Something like "The first and second fascicles of PEG's second volume include around" would be a little horrifying, and "Bernabé includes around 500 more Orphic fragments than the previous edition of this material" makes it sound as though Bernabé is an edition. We say that PEG "includes" 500 more Orphic fragments, and the reader knows from the previous paragraphs that PEG includes other types of fragments, so I think we can trust the reader to not take the statement too literally. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• PEGs initial volume is an edition of fragments: I don't think you can really use initial like that: first.
  • Mm, ok. Changed it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• an edition of fragments – that is, passages from ancient writings that convey information from or about earlier, lost works: this is true as long as none of the fragments were discovered in e.g. papyrus or graffiti: I assume that's the case?
  • We do have evidence such as the gold tablets and the Olbia bone tablets. Strictly speaking, this definition also wouldn't cover passages about Orpheus generally or passages that Bernabé thinks might contain vaguely Orphic-ish ideas. I can try to rephrase this to be inclusive of these if you like, but I fear it wouldn't be concrete enough to be helpful. The main idea here is to give the reader a more solid understanding of what "fragments" means in this context, as I think some will assume it means something else (eg. is Bernabé splitting up complete texts into "fragments"?). – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• a collection of poems, most or all of which were written during the 7th and 6th centuries BC: "composed", surely? Suggest "at least most" rather than "most or all", and suggest efn'ing an outline of the debate (why don't we have a firm answer here?)
  • Done the first two. Regarding the third point: what did you have in mind? For what it's worth, the current citation points the reader to some relevant discussion in Davies 1989b. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• These poems were arranged so that, with the inclusion of the Iliad and Odyssey (which were composed before the poems of the Cycle, and are extant), a continuous narrative was formed.: is "arranged" (as in, "put in sequence") the right word here: "conceived"? Up to you whether you want to engage in this, but the Homeric poems themselves are sometimes counted as part of the Cycle.
  • There might be a better word – I'm certainly open to suggestions – but "arranged" seem serviceable to me and is the word used by the source (a collection of early Greek epics, artificially arranged in a series so as to ...). My understanding is that we can't necessarily assume they were considered a cycle until later on, right? I think "conceived" could almost imply that one person came up with all of the works from scratch. Regarding the latter point: I considered dealing with this, but I figured it was more important to ensure no one came away thinking that PEG contains the texts of the Homeric epics. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, no -- I'd misunderstood what you meant; what's written communicates it well. No objections to your approach re. the Homeric poems. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:20, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• three covering Theban myths: I would phrase this as "myths set in Thebes" or similar: I don't think we know for sure that e.g. the Oedipus myth originated in Thebes.
  • Good point. I've gone for "myths related to Thebes". – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• from poems less often included in the Cycle: a Theogony, the Titanomachy, and the Alcmeonis.: again, I think it would help to explain roughly what these are, if only in an EFN.
  • I've added some brief explanations. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• The edition contains fragments, which are passages that claim to record specific information contained in lost writings,: this is the second time we've defined "fragments" in the body, and to be honest I think it's a weaker definition: in particular, it leaves it quite unclear as to how a fragment that isn't a quotation differs from a testimonium. See later indirect fragments, which convey information from an Orphic source without directly quoting it
  • I've gone for which are passages that claim to record, via quotation or paraphrase, specific information contained in lost writings, as the cited source already mentioned this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• according to whether Bernabé views them as authentic, uncertain, or spurious: what do those three words mean in this precise context? Does Bernabé doubt that some of these fragments truly exist?
  • Put it in terms which are hopefully more understandable for the average reader: according to whether Bernabé views their attribution to the earlier poem as authentic, uncertain, or spurious. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• a copious critical apparatus, infused with commentary and citations to modern scholarship.: WP:PUFFERY?
  • Might depend on whether you see this as a good thing (some reviewers haven't!). I've removed "copious". – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• an appendix by Ricardo Olmos Romera [de] lists artistic works: "works of visual art"? A poem is an artistic work.
  • Done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• The edition contains fragments, which are passages that claim to record specific information contained in lost writings, and testimonia (sg.: 'testimonium'), which provide information about the authors or works themselves. Fragments are grouped according to whether Bernabé views them as authentic, uncertain, or spurious: what about the testimonia? This affects the rest of the paragraph too.
  • These statements apply just to fragments, if that's what you mean. If what you're asking is why we don't explain the arrangement of the testimonia and the apparatuses used for them: I could do that, but there probably isn't anything particularly interesting to say, and I don't think it'd be sourceable to any of the secondary sources. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  Fair enough: certainly not a "major aspect" under the GACR. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• In 1988, an edition was published that covered the same genre, produced independently by Malcolm Davies; its imminence had been advertised in a 1986 article: what's the relevance or significance of this?
  • I've just removed it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Orphicorum fragmenta ('Orphic fragments': as you know, Orphicorum is genitive plural, so I think we should translate it as such.
  • Referring to "Orphic fragments" felt a little safer, but I've done as suggested. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• dating to around the end of the 5th century BC) has become around 400 BC in the lead: the latter reads as much more definitive/precise to me, but I'm not sure it's based on anything different.
  • Can't really argue with that, so I've gone with "around the end of the 5th century BC" in both places. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• the Hieronyman Theogony, associated with writers called Hieronymus and Hellanicus: I assume we have no idea as to their dates?
  • We have some idea, but there's a lot of disagreement. Estimates range from around the 3rd or 2nd century BC to the 2nd century AD. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• the Testament of Orpheus – a Jewish adaptation of an Orphic hieros logos ('sacred discourse'; pl.: hieroi logoi) – and from an Egyptian hieros logos.: ditto?
  • I'm not quite as familiar with these works, but my understanding is that the situation is more complex than we'd want to get into here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Roessli in the biblio should have a date, I assume?
  • Yes, fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• I think you've done the bibliography by hand: credit to you for that, but it leads to some oddness of formatting. See in particular the distinction between Zeyl and West 2003 (the latter of which has two years). If you're strongly wedded to this style it isn't a problem for GA, but I'll put a good word in for citation templates as a useful tool to aid uniformity.
  • That discrepancy was actually intentional. I've no doubt that some would find this a little horrifying, but I think I might be set in my ways by now. Citation templates definitely have a lot going for them, but, as I think you know, I have some qualms with them and prefer to go with my (admittedly unorthodox!) approach. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  As I said, not an issue at GA, and probably not even at FAC. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:47, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• four indexes: not indices?
  • I can change it if you want, though I'm not sure there's much (or any?) difference in this context. My brain, for what it's worth, tends to think of mathematics when I hear "indices". – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  From Googling around, "indices" is more common in academic, formal and British writing -- make of that what you will. But it seems both forms are accepted and acceptable here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• the first Orphic fragment, the text of which comprises two lines: a bold redlink!
  • It is! But I'm confident that it should have an article, and I have a fairly clear idea of what that article should include. As we say here, Bernabé includes six pages of apparatus for this fragment, so there's no shortage of scholarship on the matter. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• stripping away interpretative material that, in his view, accumulated around authentic Orphic mythemes.: this is pretty opaque, if I'm honest: MOS:NOFORCELINK on "mythemes" in particular. Ditto, later, he rejects the idea that Orphic theogonies can be fitted into a stemma,
  • I've gone for "original elements of Orphic myths". I'll have a think about the latter sentence: I agree that it's not very clear, but I'm struggling to come up with a good way of explaining what we mean. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

More to come. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• the three extant works of Orphic literature: I know it's technically covered by "extant", but it would help I think to say something like "the three works of Orphic literature which survive in full [rather than in fragments]".
  • Gone with your wording. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Fragments that bear no explicit Orphic ascription can be included on the grounds that they possess certain doctrines: presumably something like "certain doctrines he considers characteristic of Orphism"?
  • That's definitely true to a degree, but I'm fairly certain there are fragments that he includes because they contain a particular doctrine, where that doctrine isn't necessarily one he deems key to Orphism. It's worth noting that each of the cited sources frames his approach a little differently: Edmonds states that Bernabé includes fragments that are relevant to the cluster of doctrines central to his notion of Orphism, whereas Meisner makes the distinction that Bernabé does not think that Orphism can be defined as a coherent set of doctrines, but he still argues that doctrines are central to defining Orphism, and writes that Bernabé includes fragments if they contain doctrines similar to those in other Orphic works. They both agree that doctrines are key to Bernabé's inclusion of fragments without explicit Orphic ascription – which the article states – but they characterise his approach differently. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• The surviving lines from Orphic sources are presented in a detached manner: what does this mean: "detached" as in "unemotional"?
  • I've changed it to The surviving lines from Orphic sources are presented on their own. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• In some cases, Bernabé attempts to reconstruct lines of an Orphic source using Neoplatonic passages that do not quote the work: could/should this be something like "which allude to or paraphrase the work": as written, this sounds bananas, but I assume the point is that if you have ten sources that all have minor variations on what seems to be the same phrase, you can say with reasonable confidence what that original phrase was?
  • I've gone with using paraphrases in Neoplatonic sources. As to your question: kind of, although the impression I get from other scholars is that Bernabé was being pretty audacious with some of these reconstructions. West, for instance, says that he restores them at best controversially (106, 121, 225, 299.2), at worst betraying his own metrical incompetence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• We have a lot of information on the nuts and bolts of how the volumes are arranged, footnotes, appendices and so on. I'm not convinced it's a problem, but will gesture towards WP:SUMMARYSTYLE with half an eye on a future FAC run.
  • Mm, I think I agree with you. I've shortened the part about the second volume's indexes, which was probably the worst offender. I'll do another sweep before FAC, if indeed I head there. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• a passage from Plato's dialogue Timaeus: I would always date sources where we can: Plato is pretty famous but I'm not sure all readers will immediately be able to place him chronologically.
  • Forgot this one. Done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Bernabé interprets this primordial matter as Night, pointing to late sources that seemingly describe her as coming first in the poem: suggest "the goddess Night" per MOS:NOFORCELINK and to make the point clearer.
  • I considered doing this, but chose not to because I'm not sure Night actually is a goddess in this context. Compare what Betegh says: Bernabé takes it that Night in this theogony is not a divine character but a name for primeval matter. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  Fair enough, but then I don't understand how we can use the pronoun "her" if we want to keep that agnosticism. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've added some brackets: Bernabé interprets this primordial matter as Night (a primeval goddess in earlier Orphic theogonies). Someone could still take issue with this, but it avoids the somewhat literal implications I perceived in interprets this primordial matter as the goddess Night (eg. do we have a goddess made of primordial matter or something?). In the latter part of the sentence, I'm happy to switch "her" to "this figure", "Night", etc., if you think that's better ("it" would be ambiguous, as it might refer to the primordial matter). The distinction between the two parts of the sentence, by the way, is that Bernabé treats this Night as something other than a goddess, but the ancient writers who state that Night came first in the poem presumably viewed her as a goddess, at least according to anyone other than Bernabé. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

More to come.

Images

• Images really should have alt text, per MOS:ACCESSIBILITY.
  • Agh, can't believe I forgot this. Done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• File:Front cover of Bernabe's Poetae Epici Graeci, Volume II, Fascicle 1.jpg: textbook FUR, all good.
• File:Page 43 of Kinkel's Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta.jpg: needs as US PD tag (a formality, as it's clearly PD in the US due to age).
  • Done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• File:Fragment 57 in Kern's Orphicorum fragmenta.jpg: ditto.
  • Done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• File:Alberto Bernabé Pajares (2024-03-14).jpg: CC licence, all good.
• File:Palaistra scene Louvre G457.jpg: technically needs a US PD tag for the kylix.
  • Done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• @Michael Aurel and UndercoverClassicist: What is the status of this review? Is this ready to be promoted? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've read over the last part (making one minor edit); the images are now sorted. I've done a couple of spotchecks on the sources I could access via JSTOR etc and no issues there, so we're ready to go. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:35, 6 July 2026 (UTC)