Talk:Argonautica

Greece Mid‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poetry Mid‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED a couple of days ago by User:Aldux. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Argonautika → Argonautica — this work's most common name in English is Argonautica. See for instance [http://www.amazon.com/Voyage-Argo-Argonautica-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140440852/sr=1-1/qid=1161205568/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-0094891-6650413?ie=UTF8&s=books], [http://www.amazon.com/Jason-Golden-Fleece-Argonautica-Classics/dp/0192835831/sr=1-2/qid=1161205568/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-0094891-6650413?ie=UTF8&s=books], [http://www.amazon.com/Apollonius-Rhodes-Argonautica-Cambridge-Classics/dp/0521312361/sr=1-5/qid=1161205568/ref=sr_1_5/002-0094891-6650413?ie=UTF8&s=books]. WP:GREEK also suggests that the title should be Argonautica. A redirect page is obstructing the move. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support - I couldn't agree more; Argonautica is more common, and the guideline for Greek names points clearly in that direction.--Aldux 21:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - See discussion below. --Wirbelwind 22:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as per above --Odysses (☜) 07:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above, but somebody needs to do something about the page history apparently screwed up by cut and paste move on 21 May 2006. What we have now starts with a page request move added to existing materials, as the first entry in the history, and the rest of the history is on the history of the Argonautica redirect page. Gene Nygaard 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obvious; can we move the Kypria to its English name too, please? Septentrionalis 16:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Regards what Jene said, it's not really the case; the present article was started at Argonautika, while Argonautica was just a redirect to Jason, after a previous stub had been merged with the former. Since we all appear to agree, I'me ready to move the article personally right now; as an admin, I can overcome the redirect obstruction. Any objections.--Aldux 20:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Google test results

28,100 pages for "Argonautika"
192,000 pages for "Argonautica"

Results from Google. Wirbelwind 22:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argonautica Orphica

I was surprised to see that this article completely ignores the existence of the second work under the title Argonautica, by Orpheus. The surviving copy was written at aprox. 1st century AD.

In the Greek Mythology Link by Carlos Parada, Argonautica Orphica is described as "Another major account on the expedition of the Argonauts" [1]. Also in this page[2]

Not to mention "Argonautica by Valerius Flaccus".

Does anyone know more about this? --Odysses (☜) 08:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's a boring and surviving Latin poem written (I think) in the 1st century AD. But I believe the Argonautica Orphica is generally thought to be much later, possibly IV century AD, for its neoplatonic elements.--Aldux 17:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The surviving version of Argonautica Orphica is actualy of the IV or V century AD. It includes some 1375 verses and it describes a different return route than Argonautika by Apollonios Rhodios. From a brief search over the Internet I saw that it is considered as a rare book. Perhaps a brief mention should be made on this article. --Odysses (☜) 18:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I believe it would be better to right a new article, that could be titled Argonautica Orphica. This article should remain an article on Apollonius' epic, not on the myth in general.--Aldux 20:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a collective discussion should be at Argonauts; perhaps Jason, but that should be pargely merged here.Septentrionalis 20:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The epic by Valerius Flaccus should probably have its own page; I haven't read it, but I think most people would agree with Aldux that it's boring. Nevertheless, books and articles have been written about it.

As far as the Orphic Argonautica, I wonder if it should have its own article, or if there should just be an article Orphic poetry vel sim., because there's quite a bit of miscellaneous stuff attributed to Orpheus.

Should there also be a Argonautica (diambiguation), to direct readers to all these pages? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created the disambig page, so if the other articles get created, please update Argonautica (disambiguation). --Akhilleus (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a requested move for Kypria on [[[WP:RM]]. Septentrionalis 16:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

misinformation about translations

All the English translations were grouped under 'verse.' One that I got is prose, so I moved it to 'prose,' but several of the others may be prose also. Green's translation is the only newer verse one I have heard of by someone that has actually read it.--Dchmelik (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have Green's here, and Hunter's. Both prose. Green has splendid notes that make the reading experience much richer.--Wetman (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting, but I would not call any prose translation of poetry 'richer reading.' Poetry may be almost humourous or introspective to read, but I think it also causes only necessary (but deeper) introspection compared to prose and is more to the point. I hope we can get the 'translations' section cleaned up. It needs to show at least one academic standard translation into English verse--if it exists--because usually it can be translated into verse that mostly rhymes and it makes the book much easier to look through to find parts in. That is why epics number the verses: one can find specific statements/lines quite easily. Right now I do not trust the translations' categorization except for the one I looked up and probably the one you mentioned--since you have at least a couple--though the review I read did recommend Green's as verse: I must just check out as many as I can.--Dchmelik (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new edit

I'll be making some changes here very soon, if nobody gets in ahead of me.

Some kind of protocol is needed to divide material between this article and Apollonius Rhodius. I intend using this article for synopses of plot, characters and places, with some coverage of genre and the uniqueness of the poem. General issues of poetic style and reception should be treated over at the other article, even though based almost entirely on Argonautica, since it is not unlike his other works and is the only complete example we have. McOoee (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still a bit to do: Discussion section needs considerable expansion and Reception section hasn't even started yet. And the itinerary chart still needs Book 4 info. It's an extraordinary poem. I get the feeling it was a collaborative effort, representing the world view of a scholar on one hand and a woman on the other. I doubt it was his wife and it may have been a group of women he was consulting. They probably 'adopted' him as their very own professor, a pet monkey, and he 'adopted' them as talking parchments, another research project. Anyhow, I'll get around to finishing it in the next few weeks, I hope, and then it will be time to move on to something else. McOoee (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not in the mood anymore. The Itinerary chart still needs to be finished. If nobody is willing, by all means delete it. Thanks. McOoee (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely well written new edit! It clears up some of the obscurity in Apollonius Rhodius' poem. Oilstone (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto! ^davidiad _.: 18:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is an essay.

Most of the wiki entry for Argonautica is comprised of extraneous "information" and should be subjected to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.119.111 (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the tone is not encyclopedic at all and it very clearly is an adapted essay. It's also full of opinionated assertions like "Apollonius in fact is the most Homeric of all the poets whose work has come down to us from the Hellenistic age", "Medea is generally agreed to be the most interesting and lifelike character in the poem", and "Apollonius seems to have rejected the Aristotelian concept of unity." If I had more knowledge of the subject I'd rewrite it myself and start over with a blank slate.

Manuscripts?

As for all texts from antiquity, a section on the state of manuscript evidence (extant manuscripts, lost manuscripts documented to have existed in earlier times, their relationship, noteworthy differences...) would be very welcome. -- 194.39.218.10 (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heading levels changed

I just changed the heading levels because it makes more sense this way. I thought I would mention it here in case someone objects to it, but I don't imagine it will be a big issue. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]