Talk:Odyssey

Previous discussion: /Archive

Women in the Odyssey

After reading the Odyssey, I notice that women seem to have a distinct role in a male patriarchy, influencing almost every man in the story. A section to clarify?Signor Pastrini 03:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Robert Graves' novel Homer's Daughter imagines a female author! --Wetman 06:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Influences, Precursors, Models

In the section "Influences, Precursors, Models (Gilgamesh)" I recommend (a) changing the citation to a reference, with full details to be given in bibliography at the end of the article; (b) giving a citation that is:

• more recent;
• has full bibliographical details (this one has no date);
• published in English (this is en.wikipedia.org, after all); and
• where we can get access to the author's own words (this appears to be Kordatos cited by Kakridis, rather than Kordatos' own words).

Something like Martin West's 1997 The East Face of Helicon would be a much more suitable work to cite. Petrouchka 05:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Too long

The lead paragraphs are too long and unstructured. Ideas leap from place to place, and is too difficult to read.

The book-by-book summary is too long. We've already established many times that for a long book or narrative, we won't go into a book by book or chapter by chapter summary. Or else books like War and Peace would be far too lengthy. A detailed long summary is far more helpful, and more enticing to read. Wikipedia is not Cliff's Notes. Mandel 17:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I agree with you about removing the book-by-book summaries for this. Many of these books come from seperate legends, and were only later combined into a single work. The Odyssey is probably more cohesive then the Iliad, but in general each book stands on its own. Several later works of Ancient Greek literature will reinterpret a story contained in a single book. Such as Cyclops by Eurpides is a kind of spoof on book 9 of the Odyssey. For someone reading that article, a specific book 9 summary would be very useful to them. Same situation with the play Rhesus, it refers to book 10 of the Iliad. In general, I think for these very old, very inluential works, its hard to say there is "too much" info on them. Take the Bible for instance, you wouldn't want to combine each book of that into one summary. However, like that - what we could do is give each book of the Iliad and the Odyssey it's own page, and link to those. For the page title, each book does have it's own greek name that it was known by. Such as book 11 of the Odyssey is the Nekuia. - Ravenous 01:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Not each episode. --Wetman 06:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

copyright violation?

the book summaries sound like a clone from this website: http://www.mythweb.com/odyssey/index.html , which is copyrighted Mythweb ....

The summaries have been edited away from the mythweb text, but this still looks like a copyvio to me. The summaries really ought to be eliminated; as is said in the section above, Wikipedia isn't Cliff's Notes. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

1997 TV movie

A touching film interpretation reviewed at imdb: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118414/>

vandalism?

surely this is vandalism : "The suitors mock Halitherses is a wiener head, who makes the prophecy"

fixed, thanks for the catch, but feel free to fix it yourself next time... --Akhilleus (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Book III Missing

Just chanced to notice that the Book III summary is missing. I don't know if it never was, or if it was just (inadvertantly) removed at some stage. This is not really of import if the individual book summaries are to be removed, as suggested above, but otherwise the missing summary is surely needed. It has also been suggested above that the book summaries are derived from the mythweb site, in which case the details of [1] could be rewritten. Please advise best course. Xpi6 17:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Some jackass vandalized the article again, can someone fix it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.199.197.12 (talk • contribs) .

You can. Just edit the page, and fix the vandalism. In most themes, the appropriate tabs are at the top of the page. Be bold! --Akhilleus (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

i think the start of the epic poem u present is wrong, i dont know the accurate english translation but i ve known since forever that the poem starts like this "Tell me oh muse of the man-who-found-many-ways= (greek:Politropon, english roughly: cunning, had guile, dexterous)

Authorship

I think the Penthelia authorship of the theory belongs on the page, perhaps not as high up on the page as I put it, or possibly moved to the Homeric question page. I think an outright deletion of a theory that is included in an important sociopolitcal text is unwarranted and tantamount to vandalism. True, Gage did not cite Bryant's first name; the convention of 1893 didn't demand more than author surname and title, and this Bryant doesn't have an entry on Wikipedia yet, but Gage wrote a small book about men stealing credit for things women did. Gage was a very important part of the first wave feminist movement, essentially written out of history because she refused to ally herself with the Women's Christian Temperance Union, but that does not invalidate the ideas of as well-researched a book as Woman, Church and State Certainly, it has more credibility than the various anti-Stratfordian Shakespeare authorship theories.Scottandrewhutchins 01:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Scottandrewhutchins

The theory is not notable. Gage was not an Egyptologist or classical scholar. No reputable scholarship of the 19th, 20th, or 21st century argues that the Homeric epics are Egyptian in origin. It's a crackpot theory.

Worse, if our Bryant who lacks a first name is indeed an eighteenth-century writer, his work dates from before the decipherment of hieroglyphic; there's no way he could have had any real knowledge about Egyptian literature. Gage herself seems to be an important figure, but that doesn't mean that her theory of primitive matriarchy is correct or that any opinion of hers about Homer is worth including in this article. Please don't restore it. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I get three total google hits, searching on homer bryant penthelia -- two are Wikipedia (Odyssey and Iliad and one is an online text of Gage's book. Doesn't sound like a particularly important theory... --Ogdred 00:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, here is the full quotation:

"From the highest to the most humble priestly office, women officiated in Egypt. A class of sacred women were doorkeepers of temples, another order known as "Sacred Scribes" were paid great deference. The Pellices or Pellucidæ of Amun were a remarkable body of priestesses whose burial place has but recently been discovered. They were especially devoted to the service of Amun-Ra, the Theban Jove. Egypt was indebted to priestesses for some of its most important literature. To Penthelia, a priestess of Phtha33 the God of Fire, in Memphis, Bryant ascribes the authorship of the Iliad and the Odyssey, Homer34 in his travels through that country, by aid of a suborned priest, having stolen these poems from the archives of the temples of Phtha where they had been deposited for safe keeping.

33. Bryant was an English writer of the last century, a graduate of Cambridge who looked into many abstruse questions relating to ancient history. In 1796, eight years before his death, he published "A Dissertation Concerning the War of Troy."

34. That Homer came into Egypt, amongst other arguments they endeavor to prove it especially by the potion Helen gave Telemachus--in the story of Menelaus--to cause him to forget all his sorrows past, for the poet seems to have made an exact experiment of the potion Nepenthes, which he says Helen received from Polymnestes, the wife of Thonus, and brought it from Thebes in Egypt; and indeed in that city, even at this day, the women use this medicine with good success, and they say that in ancient times the medicine for the cure of anger and sorrow was only to be found among the Diospolitans, Thebes and Diospolis being affirmed by them to be one and the same city.--Diodorus Siculus, Vol. I, Chap. VII.

Obviously, Bryant was a scholar of some note. Scottandrewhutchins 03:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Scottandrewhutchins

found info on Jacob Bryant:

"BRYANT, JACOB

"(1715-1804), English antiquarian and writer on mythological subjects, was born at Plymouth. His father had a place in the customs there, but was afterwards stationed at Chatham. The son was first sent to a school, near Rochester, whence he was removed to Eton. In 1736 he was elected to a scholarship at Kings College, Cambridge, where he took his degrees of B.A. (Il4o) and M.A. (1744), subsequently being elected a fellow. He returned to Eton as private tutor to the duke of Marlborough, then marquess of Blandford; and in 1756 he accompanied the duke, then master-general of ordnance and commander-in-chief of the forces in Germany, to the continent as private secretary. He was rewarded by a lucrative appointment in the ordnance department, which allowed him ample leisure to indulge his literary tastes. He twice refused the mastership of the Charterhouse. Bryant died on the ,4th of November 1804 at Cippenham near Windsor. He left his library to Kings College, having, however, previously made some valuable presents from it to the king and the duke of Marlborough. He bequeathed 2000 to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, and 1000 for the use of the superannuated collegers of Eton.

"His principal works are: Observations and Inquiries relating to various Parts of Ancient History (1767); A New System, or an Analysis, of Ancient Mytkology, wherein an attempt is made to divest Tyc4ition of Fable, and toreduce Truth to its original Purity (1774 1776), which is fantastic and now wholly valueless; Vindication of the Apamean Medal (1775), which obtained the support of the great numismatist Eckhel; An Address to Dr Priestley upon his Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity (1780); Vindiciae Flavianae, a Vindication of the Testimony of Josephus concerning Jesus Christ (1780); Observations on the Poems of Thomas Rowley, in which the Authenticity of those Poems is ascertained (1781); Treatise upon the Authenticity of the Scriptures, and the Truth of the Christian Relzgion (1792); Observations upon the Plagues inflicted upon the Egyptians (1794); Observations on a Treatise, entitled Description of the Plain of Troy, by Mr de Chevalier (1795); A Dissertation concerning the War of Troy, and the Expedition of the Grecians, as described by Homer, with the view of showing that no such expedition was ever undertaken, and that no such city as Phrygia existed (1796); The Sentiments of Pho Judeseus concerning the Abyos or Word of God (1797)."

from http://www.1911ency.org/B/BR/BRYANT_JACOB.htm

Scottandrewhutchins 03:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Scottandrewhutchins

You're missing the point. Bryant's theory that the Homeric poems were stolen from Egypt is not mentioned in subsequent classical scholarship. This is because the theory is obviously false and patently ridiculous. Because the theory has left no trace in Homeric scholarship, it's not worth including in this article, nor in the Iliad and Homeric Question articles. If you want to create a Jacob Bryant article, or include this theory in the Gage article, that seems appropriate, but it doesn't belong here. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Does Akhilleus have final say about these pages? Scottandrewhutchins 06:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Scottandrewhutchins

There is a Jacob Bryant article. The essence of this thread should be edited there, where it;s directly relevant. Akhilleus is correct: only current mainstream opinions are encyclopedia-worthy—and minute details of video games, of course... -Wetman 06:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

I've read many stupid things on Wikipedia. But a spoiler warning "Plot and/or ending details follow" for the Odyssey is the stupidest thing so far.Kar98 16:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So take it out, then... Actually, I'll do it. But why complain about something being "stupid" and not take action to change it? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining, I was sniggering ;) Kar98 19:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the spoiler warning isn't stupid. A surprising number of people haven't read the Odyssey. 68.160.120.5 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the least surprised to see a spoiler warning (recently replaced by User:Bwithh) in an encyclopedia article where the role of analysis is assumed by a plot summary. --Wetman 02:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone actually explain WHY they think adding a spoiler warning is "the stupidest thing so far" in Wikipedia? Is it because everyone knows the plot and story? Is it because noone will ever read the story for enjoyment's sake? Or is it just out of pure philistinism? Bwithh 04:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's rather like a spoiler warning for Sleeping Beauty: "dumb" is not undeserved. The "why" is simply because every literate person knows the Odyssey's overall narrative. Every literate person. No one should be asked to spend time debating this. --Wetman 06:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)--Wetman 06:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Geography in the Odyssey

Wouldn't it be a good idea to name the Atlantic Ocean as an alternative for the whereabouts of Odysseus' travels as for instance Iman Wilkens does. I consider his theory very plausible. He also points to the high degree of realism that Homer presents throughout the poem, especially in his description of sailing. The fact that the text of the Odyssey does not contain many modern place names that can immediately be located on a map of the Mediterranean and that scholars both ancient and modern are divided as to whether or not the locations were in any way real places or mere inventions is understandable in his point of view as he claims all the travels took place in the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea: in Western Europe a far greater amount of Homeric place names can be found than in the Mediterranean and all the directions and distances in the Odyssey make sense in this alternative theory, according to this author. --Antiphus 11:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wilkens is not a reliable source, in my opinion. There is, however, a long history of geographic theories placing Odysseus' adventures in the Atlantic, starting with Strabo, and this should be covered; detailed exposition of Wilkens' theories should remain in Iman Wilkens, if anywhere. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed a couple of sentences that deal with Wilkens' theory. Wilkens is not a reliable source. His theories are so far out of the academic mainstream, that he is not even mentioned in classical scholarship. There are no reviews of his book in professional journals, no citations in scholarly articles or monographs. For instance, search for "iman wilkens" on scholar.google.com; the first result is Wilkens' book, the second is an article in the Hydrographic Journal (not exactly a journal on classical antiquity) which places Wilkens' book alongside such other scholarls as Immanuel Velikovsky. Wilkens' book is being reprinted in a revised edition by Gopher Publishers, which appears to be a vanity press: on this page, see FAQ #G, "What does it cost to publish my manuscript?" Self-published sources are not suitable references for Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that many people find Wilkens's ideas exciting? The world is larger than the scholarly community and research and knowledge is not only to be found there. Wilkens ideas are notable, I think, because many people believe in their probability: Copies of his books are very popular, much sought after on the internet, and rank high on a number of lists of most wanted out of print books. [2]; [3]. I will restore the link that is removed Antiphus 11:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia, it doesn't matter how "exciting" Wilkens' ideas are. His work does not meet Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources--he does not have academic credentials in classics, his work is not peer-reviewed, it is not cited or reviewed in scholarly literature in classics, and it's being reprinted as a self-published source. If you feel that Wilkens' work should be considered a reliable source, then please explain why, according to the standards laid out in the policy; otherwise, the work should not be cited in Wikipedia articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Found a short reference to Wilkens' book in the Cambridge Archeological Journal (available here) by Anthony Snodgrass, one of the most well respected scholars of this topic today. He compares the methods used by some scholars to those used to make 'infinitely less serious arguments' and uses Wilkens' as his prime example. '...if serious researchers spared the time to refute Wilkens' thesis, they would do so partly by use of equally tradiitional evidence, partly by use of common sense observations (Homer's referencse to continuous rain and occasional snow are not, in themselves, a proof that the Iliad is set in Britain).' (CAJ 12:2 p. 190). Even though Snodgrass is criticizing current historical methods, it seems evident that scholars hold Wilkens' argument to be worth a mention only insorfar as to make an example of a ludicrous argument in the illustration of an academic point. Therefore, I would think it's not really worth mention here. I can, however, pick up the book from my library at my next convienence and page through it. CaveatLector^Talk 19:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, why not. Make sure you get the 2005 edition. Wilkens did his homework. (For instance the mentioning of thousands bronze items, mainly weaponry, excavated in the Fenland region.) Snodgrass' argument is not fair. This remark about the weather is not Wilkens "piece de resistance" to prove the theory. He has lots of arguments. He never claimed this to be "the evidence". This is cheap and too easy for Snodgrass. Well respected as he may be. Antiphus 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wilkens is lunatic fringe. We may still mention him in a separate article, see for example Proto-Ionians (we have Category:Pseudoarchaeology, after all), but he cannot be discussed as part of a serious discourse. dab (ᛏ) 09:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Dieter A. Bachmann from Zürich, why do you believe that it is necessary to be insulting? I take it that you refer to the ideas of Wilkens, or do you mean Mr. Wilkens personally? And Mr Akhillleus, why do you think it necessary to call in the help of Mr. Bachmann? Antiphus 11:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather than these expressions of outrage, if it is to be demonstrated that Wilkens' work is not "lunatic fringe", we need evidence that his ideas have been accepted by scholars. In the absence of such evidence, this article should not include him. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

How can Wilkens be accepted by scholars if he's made an example of someone who is least scholarly and who is the last person on earth to be taken seriously? How can Wilkens be accepted by scholars if he's made an example of someone who is least scholarly and who is the last person on earth to be taken seriously? Have you actually ever for one instance tried to imagine what he is about? Antiphus 15:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, Antiphus. Wilkens is not accepted or taken seriously by scholars because the conclusions he draws are outlandish and the evidence and arguments used to come to such evidence are faulty. He has never recived any training in conducting historical or classical research (he has a degree in economics). I'm not sure, to be blunt, that the question 'How can Wilkens be accepted by scholars if he's mad ean example of someone who is least scholarly and who is the last person on earth to be taken seriously?'...do you expect someone who is not scholarly or who uses faulty methods to actually be taken seriously? CaveatLector^Talk 20:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it really the method you are worried about? Or did you start to worry about the method after you've heard the outlandish?, lunatic?, fringe? conclusions? Who is talking about methods? Is acceptance and correspondence between accepted people a method and is that the issue? Please stop thinking about methods and acceptance for one minute and start worrying about the real issue: Have you actually ever for one second tried to imagine what Where Troy Once Stood is about? Who's missing the point? Antiphus 05:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A discussion of Wilkens' methods and conclusions is beside the point, so let's not have one. It doesn't matter why scholars don't take Wilkens seriously. The quotations given above show that his views are far outside the academic mainstream, and it's clear that his book doesn't meet the definition of a reliable source. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nu breekt mijn klomp! Academic mainstream can't be wrong? Is it clear that Wilkens' book is not a reliable source? To whom? I know why he is not taken seriously and anyone who reads the previous discussion can tell why: because everybody is told not to. Is it really the method you are worried about? Or did you start to worry about the method after you've heard the conclusions? Wilkens' method is nothing other than collecting hard evidence if possible and circumstantial evidence of which there is plenty. What's wrong with that? I think that his conclusions are beyond some people's imagination. Antiphus 13:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Antiphus, the definition of "reliable source" is found in Wikipedia policy. Wilkens' book is not a reliable source according to this definition; our personal opinions of Wilkens' work don't enter into this. Even if you somehow convinced us that Wilkens' argument was correct, the book would still not meet the definition: it isn't peer-reviewed, it's not accepted in academia, it wasn't written by someone with credentials or training in the field, and its new edition is essentially self-published. You haven't disputed any of these facts, so I think you would have to agree that Wilkens' book doesn't meet the definition. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Akhilleus, Wikipedia is based on notability (in the first place) and reliability (about equally important). I respect your efforts to guard the quality of the content, but I can't agree with you about Wilkens' alleged lack of reliability, because it is against my own conviction. Antiphus 23:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Which makes your position pure POV....right? I'm not entierly sure what your conviction is anyway. Wikipedia should operate on academic consensus. CaveatLector^Talk 23:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability is not a policy, but a guideline, and it applies primarily to whether a subject is important enough to have its own article. (As I write, there seems to be a dispute whether Notability is a guideline or a proposal, but it's clearly not a policy.) A commonsense extension of the guideline is that only notable sources should be used for the article. On that criterion Wilkens shouldn't be included, since his work is not reviewed in scholarly journals, or cited in scholarly articles or monographs.

WP:RS is policy, which is more important than a guideline. I strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with the policy, because it lays out straightforward criteria for determining what is and what isn't a reliable source. I've already said several times why Wilkens isn't one, and in return you've only got your own conviction that he is a reliable source. I agree with CaveatLector: one editor's POV cannot determine what a reliable source is, we have to go with academic consensus.

Since you have not given any valid reason for Wilkens to be considered a reliable source, and a clear majority of editors thinks that he shouldn't be used, I am removing him from the article. If you are unhappy with this outcome, please do not revert the change. Instead, provide evidence that Wilkens is a reliable source, according to the policy; or, if you feel that this procedure is incorrect, seek some other remedy, such as a request for comment. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Proficiat. You win but History loses. It's a shame that a chance to bring a new vision on Western European History under the attention is lost. Antiphus 06:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

I added this to the article and also to the The Illiad and it was removed by User:Shanes with the dismissive comment that this was "sillyness". Why? I see it as perfectly reasonable.The Illiad and The Odyssey are two of the great seminal works of Western literature, and saying that it doesn't deserve a spoiler warning makes the assumption that no-one will read this works for enjoyment's sake and/or that everyone knows the plot and history. I don't believe that either of these is true. I think we should give the Illiad's and Odyssey's plot proper recognition. These are works of literature, are NOT historical accounts. Compare Richard III (play) and War and Peace which both have spoiler warnings. Bwithh 04:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

See my comment at Talk:Iliad. In addition to what I've said there, consensus has been that the spoiler warnings aren't necessary. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments at Talk:Iliad are not about the Odyssey and the Illiad specifically - you are arguing only against all spoiler warnings in any article in general. That kind of discussion is for the manual of style talk pages not here. I don't see consensus on this talk page about this either - even if one counts the "sniggering" Bwithh 05:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

A demand to debate a spoiler warning for the Odyssey is uncalled-for. Just move on to something useful. --Wetman 06:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with Wetman here, but for the record, there was a debate, at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, whether there should be spoiler tags in articles about classical Greek and Latin literature. The consensus was that there should not be spoiler tags. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Derivative Works

I think Ulysses, Samuel Butler's & Kazantzakis' Odyssey should be first in this section. I think these come first to mind.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.75.77.97 (talk • contribs) .

His sojourn

In the article it says that Odysseus was gone for only 20 years. If I remember correctly, he is held by Calypso for 10 years and THEN tries to get home. He gets sidetracked with Kirke for one year and so that means he is away for at least 21 years. How long did he actually take? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UAAC (talk • contribs) .

20 years is right. He only spent 7 years or so w/Kalypso. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted UAAC's changes to the article. Here's why:

• written between 800 and 600 BC: probably true but not certainly. I believe Martin West and Gregory Nagy argue for the sixth century.
• is set directly after the Iliad: no, there's a long gap, from the funeral of Hector to Odysseus's last meal with Calypso (his earlier wanderings are told in a "flashback" so to speak)
• the events that befall the Odysseus, a Greek hero, on his long sojourn: a sojourn isn't a journey, and the Odysseus is a slip.
• It takes Odysseus more than ten years to return. I see this has already been discussed above. Like Akhilleus, I reckon it's ten, not more than ten. Andrew Dalby 08:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you reckon--it's more than ten years ... go to Sparks notes. I just read the Odyssey again and it is more than ten years. It is ten years on Calypso's island. A year on Kirke's and more at other places.

"Ten years have passed since the fall of Troy, and the Greek hero Odysseus still has not returned to his kingdom in Ithaca"--That is from Sparknotes and that is the first thing they say about the plot. You must be right Andrew; I think you reckon correctly. If you read the text, it says he and his men are trapped with Kirke for 1 year and that is just one other event in his trek back home.(UAAC 02:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC))