Talk:Gaius Julius Hyginus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Gaius Julius Hyginus is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (marked as Low-importance).

(title of the work)[edit]

  • Who calls it Poeticon astronomicon? It's usually cited as de Astronomia, which the 1992 Teubner calls it.
  • Both works are widely held to be abridgements of the same work actually by Hyginus; but who claims they are "by the same hand" - and, more importantly, on what evidence? MSS from the late Roman period are very rare; and the two texts do differ non-trivially in dealing with common matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Clarissimi uiri Hyginii Poeticon astronomicon opus utilissimum. The title under which a text attributed to "most famous" Hyginus appeared in its editio princeps, Erhard Ratdolt from Augsburg, Venice, 1482. The Wikipedia article Poeticon astronomicon could use improving. --Wetman 01:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hardly English or modern usage; and unlikely to reflect MS usage in 1482. I see no reason not to amend. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I see that "from the same hand" is from the 1911 Britannica. If I find it in a modern editor, I will put it back, but for now, see my edit summary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


This article does contain text from the 1911 Britannica; the diff from the copy makes that clear. (It is, of course, no longer entirely from the Britannica; but the "it is suggested" locution, now tagged, survives verbatim, and the entire line of argument is from 1911.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs an intro[edit]

The article is good, but it needs an intro. Said: Rursus () 16:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ehmm, I disagree with myself a little, the text adulescentem imperitum, semidoctum, stultum etc. seems to be unencyclopedic drivel from Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911. Wikipedia don't do such illformulated subjective statements, we're making a real encyclopedia. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Wrong again!! Only the three leading and neutral-in-tone paragraphs are from Encyclopedia Britannica. They're OK. That adulescentem imperitum, semidoctum, stultum is from somewhere else. I still think those statements don't belong to here, in their current form. I'm going to find the source and fix it! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I moved the foul-mouthed statements from H. I. Rose and A. L. Keith (neither of them having an article on Wikipedia) to an independent para. If anyone feel like "then-do-it-better-yourself-Rose-and-Keith!", that new para is very removable, and few will complaint. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
H. J. Rose is not wholly obscure.--Wetman (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, then keep it. Besides, now it looks nice indeed! (The edits after mine!) Thanks a lot! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


"Under the name of Hyginus there are extant what are probably two sets of school notes abbreviating his treatises on mythology"

Can someone make this more clear? He didn't write these two works, correct? You could say that they are an epitome of his work by some other unknown author. But as it stands, the phrasing is very unclear. (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)