Talk:Sappho/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Out of date on Sappho's sexuality

The article is out of date on Sappho's sexuality to the extent that scholars are now generally agreed that the fragments are largely homoerotic (OCD⁴, s.v. Sappho; see also, BNP, s.v. Sappho). It is interesting that in this regard the article's sources drop off just as/before three of the four most important monographs dedicated in whole or in part to the subject were published:

Boehringer, Sandra. L’Homosexualité féminine dans l’Antiquité grecque et romaine. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2007.

Snyder, Jane McIntosh. Lesbian Desire in the Lyrics of Sappho. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

Williamson, Margaret. Sappho’s Immortal Daughters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.

These are now standard references on their subjects. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"The fragments are largely homoerotic" is, I think, a bit strong. However, many of the best-known and most substantial fragments are now generally accepted as being homoerotic, and you are correct that this should really be better discussed in the article. I have just finished reading Sappho's Immortal Daughters, which is a nice source, but I would really like to find something which discusses general trends in scholarship so that I can attribute claims about a shift towards homoerotic interpretations of Sappho to that (and I don't see anything all that strong in Brill's New Pauly...) I don't have immediate access to Boehringer or Snyder, but both are on my mental list of "things to read when I track them down". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I have seen several recent articles which seem to speak of Sappho's sexuality as though it is still somewhat in doubt, with some of them appearing to question whether we can really infer anything about her life at all from her poems. Nonetheless, if there are more sources available, I am not opposed to including them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue requires assumptions more complicated than those on which discussion here has been based. Scholars since the 1950s have generally agreed that much of Sappho's poetry celebrates strong, clearly homoerotic passion. But this doesn't necessarily mean that her poetry celebrated or expressed specific homosexual acts. There are all kinds of reasons besides prudery for believing that it might not have. Besides which, one school of scholars today would argue that it doesn't make sense to describe an ancient Greek as having "a sexuality." The Uncle of History (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I join, as I do not understand categories: If history has not kept any known lover or romantic interest of Saphho, neither female nor male, on the basis of what we put the category of "bisexual women"? Yes, from the point of view of modern people her poetry is extremely homoerotic, but is this enough to determine the author's sexuality, especially considering the mores of Ancient Greece? At the same time, Alexander the Great, who had a fairly strongly implied relationship with males, did not have a similar category. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that we should keep the category. As the article and the above discussion make clear, she certainly seems to have had a homoerotic interest in women of some kind. In any case, historical record notwithstanding, Sappho has long been culturally associated with lesbianism to such an extent that the word sapphism itself is a synonym for it. More details about her associations with lesbianism can be found in the "Legacy" section. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

From this point of view, any author of works about LGBT themes is homosexual or bisexual. For example, I know several female authors who have written several extremely famous homoerotic or clearly lesbian light novels. Is this the reason to consider them lesbians? This is obviously an original study, although I myself also perceive her as a bisexual woman. Do not get me wrong, I'm not going to argue about her sexuality or delete the category, I just do not understand the logic when obviously a bisexual male does not have any category, and a bisexual woman gets a category only on the basis of homoerotic interpretations of her works. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The interpretation of Wittig’s “blank page”

The “Life” section begins with a reference to Monique Wittig’s “blank page”, and I’d like to suggest that reference needs to be reconsidered. This article basically says that there's very little known for certain about Sappho’s life, and it cites Wittig’s “blank page” to illustrate that. The source in the footnote is Diane Rayor in her 2014 book. But Diane Rayor doesn’t point to Wittig’s “blank page” as a good way to illustrate anything, Diane Rayor doesn’t agree with it’s use in the way Wikipedia is doing. She doesn’t cite the “blank page” approvingly: she cites it to criticize it — to disagree with it. She describes it and immediately points out that it’s not accurate: the situation is “not so dire”, she says. And Rayor, on the same topic and in the same sentence, uses sharp language, when she apparently criticizes Wittig by saying that those who don’t at least try to give some of the original context of Sappho’s poetry are “reneging on their duty”. If Rayor is not citing Wittig’s “blank page” as an illustration in the same way that Wikipedia is citing it, then what’s her reason for citing it? She says she cites it as a warning that people are going to disagree with her. So what disagreement is Rayor specifically referring to that might serve as a warning? Rayor has just expressed her disagreement with the “commonplace” citing of Wittig’s “blank page” — which would seem to include disagreeing with Wikipedia’s citing of it. I’m suggesting it’s not proper to cite an author and use her ideas in a way that she doesn’t agree with.

Second, there are those who don’t agree with Rayor’s interpretation of what Wittig means. Rayor’s interpretation is quite simple, but it needs to be pointed out that Wittig was a wildly inventive and experimental writer — her experiments include using typography and how things appear on the page to contain her complex and cryptic (her word) ideas. And by leaving a “blank page” she took a risk that it might annoy her critics, it might be ridiculed, or it might be interpreted in some disparaging way. Anything Wittig says or does is rarely if ever simplistic, which would seem to rule out Rayor’s interpretation from the start. It’s easy to imagine that few things would be more infuriating to Wittig than for someone to repackage her ideas in a simplistic and inaccurate form, and then criticize Wittig for the creativity of the translator.

Writing in 1997, and published in Namascar Shaktini’s 2005 book On Monique Wittig, Wittig discusses what the “blank page” meant to her when she was writing about Sappho. And nowhere in that does she suggest anything like the interpretation that's in this article.

I think the passage needs to be edited somehow, either to include alternate ideas, or maybe it’s not needed. Wittig seems to suggest that she may have put it in her book as an “effect”, and sometimes “effects” are spoiled when they’re described. In other words, you need to be there: You need to open the page and be surprised by the blankness. Gaustaag (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not convinced that Rayor/Lardinois is in fact a wholesale rejection of the "blank page" metaphor. They say, in effect, "we can do better than that"; they don't say "the metaphor is entirely useless". The introduction to Rayor & Lardinois' work even says that the blank page "serves as a cautionary reminder that little of what we know of Sappho is certain" – and, of course, Wittig's blank page is the first thing that their introduction to Sappho mentions.

As for "Sometimes effects are spoiled when they are described": we should not be concerned with whether or not we spoil Wittig's work; only with whether or not our article on Sappho is good. WP:SPOILER explicitly says "Spoilers may be used in Wikipedia articles[...] It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot[...] The same reasoning for including spoilers when appropriate in articles on works of fiction applies to other types of "spoilers" as well" Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto:, I think we’re in a lot of agreement. As I pointed out, and as you seem to agree, Rayor cites Wittig for a particular purpose: As a warning, or as Rayor puts it a "cautionary reminder". However that "cautionary-reminder" use of the reference is not indicated in this article, and that is an omission that is misleading to the reader, who can’t be expected to know the true story. As Rayor says (and I think you and I can agree) the "cautionary reminder" includes the idea that little is known, and it includes the prediction that there will be a great deal of disagreement. The "disagreement" is omitted from the article, but it is an object of the "cautionary reminder", which Rayor gives as her reason for including the Wittig reference. However, based on your comment, I think we both agree that Rayor is not offering a "wholesale rejection of the blank page metaphor." Also Rayor critiques Wittig, when she suggests that Witting describes the situation as "dire" — Rayor does not agree. But the way the article is written, Rayor seems to be in perfect accord with Wittig, which is not true. Wittig also suggests that a classicist who does exactly as Wittig does is "reneging" on her duty. Harsh words. However the article seems to suggest that all is in accord, and that Rayor approves of Wittig’s idea. That’s not at all true. And I suggest that this article needs reflect the source more accurately. If that’s not possible, it’s too misleading — too much is omitted.

Secondly, Wittig’s own incredibly subtle and complex descriptions of the meaning of her "blank page" show that it is of major importance to Wittig — she mentions it often, and she connects it to her attempts to write on Sappho. It seems (to me anyway) almost sacred to her. It has to do with her creativity and her understanding. It is vastly different from Rayor’s simple interpretation. Plus, there are others that also don’t agree with Rayor's interpretation. Which is fine, but there needs to be some indication in the article of some of this.

[We also agree on your last point: Neither you or I have any interest what-so-ever in "spoilers" in the sense that you describe— I mean I haven’t given a thought to “whether or not we spoil Wittig's work” as you put it, by revealing a "plot twist" or anything of the kind. I can’t even imagine it. But you and I both don’t care about that, and I’m glad. My only concern is that if, as Wittig indicates, her blank page is there in part for a particular effect, a consideration of the effect may belong in the article, though describing it may (or may not) present difficulties to an editor.] Thanks. Gaustaag (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

So, after this discussion, I will delete the phrase regarding Monique Wittig’s blank page from the section “Life”, for the reasons given above: one reason being that the citation is to Rayor, who disagrees with the blank page as an accurate metaphor to indicate how little is known., etc. Thanks for the discussion. Gaustaag (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The 2nd to last sentence in the lead section

The 2nd to last sentence in the lead section has some difficulties. For example, when it says “most of Sappho's poetry is lost, but it is still considered extraordinary” — it sounds as if her lost poetry is considered extraordinary, but perhaps not necessarily her surviving poetry. And the words “up until” suggest needlessly that there may be a stopping point. The idea that “most of Sappho's poetry is lost” is already stated once in this section, and the second time seems once too often. Also, “other writers” sounds way too vague, and the word “today” sounds funny in the expression: “Today most of Sappho's poetry is lost”. The word (today) might sound better in a newspaper, which has a journalistically specific dateline. I think the 2nd to last sentence could instead go like this:

“Sappho's poetry continues to be considered extraordinary and influential.” Gaustaag (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I made this change, and of course other editors are welcome to consider it. Gaustaag (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I have slightly amended the change you made. I do not think that the phrase "other writers" is problematic because the lead does not need to describe in detail all the writers she has ever influenced and how her works have affected them; if the readers need that information they can find it in the "Modern reception" section. In my view, stating that "her works continue to influence other writers" is actually more specific than simply calling her "influential," which I think is too vague. I also disagree with your view that saying "most of Sappho's poetry is lost, but it is still considered extraordinary" somehow implies that her surviving poetry is not considered extraordinary; I do not think that the sentence sounds like it is even remotely trying to imply that. Nonetheless, I do agree that saying that most of her poetry is lost twice in the lead is redundant and, since both criticisms pertain to the same clause, I have not made any efforts to restore that particular statement. Aside from the disagreements I have listed here, I think that I agree with everything else you are saying.

Please do not be offended that I have changed what you wrote and I apologize in advance if what I say here has offended you. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Katolo, What's with all the fretting about offending me? I am the most insensitive thing I know on that score. Nothing ever bothers me, you dope. People sometimes complain about that. But I don't care. Anyone is welcome to test this and see if I'm kidding. I'm like a tree stump. However thanks for your edits on this, I think they sound fine and make some smidgeon of sense. Gaustaag (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samuel1418.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wpfortlewisstudent.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Organization of the article

I think this article needs more section divisions. Not a lot, but even 2 or 3 would help. For example the section that’s headed “Life” has some good paragraphs that are really not that specifically about her life, which I find not only unhelpful regarding the topic, but also they are distracting as a question of style. The “life” section has content regarding ancient sources, there is a paragraph devoted to the testimonia, and content about her appearance. This content can be very easily divided and given headings. Of course her appearance, and sources, do have something to do with her life, but so do her verse, and her sexuality, etc., and those topics get their own headings. So the experience of reading the “life” section feels a bit meandering as the section interrupts itself, to change topics, then it returns to the main thread (if it is the “main thread”) then it veers off a bit again. This gives the reader the feeling that there is not complete certainty regarding where things are going.

There is a bit of a “math puzzle” that begins the “life" section: It says that there are 3 main sources (and one of them is plural, so there are more than three): then in the next paragraph we read that there are 2 sources: her own poetry, and the “other” one is testimonia. The answer to how we went from 3 to 2, and if the 2 is actually the first 2 of the 3 may need a bit of backtracking and study and weighing of the slightly different descriptions. The section says that Sappho’s poetry “is a source for information about her life”, and then the section shifts ground (which is really a contradiction) and the section then says her poetry “might” be so. But maybe not.

Also the testimonia is unique to Sappho, and is so interesting and important, it deserves its own heading, it isn’t covered elsewhere, and it is worth expanding. The article doesn’t give a clear picture of what exactly it is. Gaustaag (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I will venture a bit of editing, step one, to try to work on a small bit of organizing and simplifying, without losing any content. Gaustaag (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a fine idea. I will let you know what I think once you have finished. Presently, it is rather difficult to judge what to think of the proposal since it has not yet been implemented. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I like the new "Biographical sources" section at the beginning of the article and I think that was a good idea. (In fact, I did something similar myself with the article Pythagoras a few months ago.) I have moved the vase painting back to the first section because having two main images is highly atypical of high-status articles and I think the vase painting fits perfectly well where it was before.

I also moved the information about her appearance back to the "Life" section because I think having a separate section just about her appearance is undue. It also seems vaguely sexist, because we would probably not have a whole "Appearance" section for an article about a male poet. Also, the new section was really short (only one paragraph) and I tend to dislike short sections. (Short subsections are fine in my opinion, but generally not short sections.) I understand what you mean about the "Life" section sort of meandering a bit, but I think that it does fit. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be saying, Kato, that certain content should be buried inside of another section, so that perhaps it will be camouflaged among all the other words, in order that it won’t stand out so much. (You want to keep content about her appearance confined inside the larger section about her “Life” so that it won’t be too, as you say, “undue”.) This reasoning sounds dubious to me. It seems disrespectful of the “Life” section, if you’re suggesting it be treated as a place to stash things so that they may hide among the clutter. I think content about “her life” needs to be treated with more care than that — because the history attempts to go so far back in time, and because so little is known. I also think that if the story of her “appearance” is so little appreciated, then it should be either included or not. Perhaps a better title could be “How she has been portrayed”. And it could be expanded to show that the topic is not just about how she might actually have appeared, but also about the ancient history of the various portraits and comments. As it is, the section on her appearance, doesn’t fit well — if you want it to be in the “Life” section and be considered a part of her actual life. And the editorial principle of “burying content in larger sections, to give them a lower profile” needs to be questioned. Also the link that you linked to (regarding the idea of something being undue) links to an article about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is a different topic, and doesn’t support your idea. Perhaps you linked it without actually reading what you apparently want others to read. Gaustaag (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No... That is not what I am saying at all. You are misconstruing what I said. I am not in any way trying to hide content, nor am I suggesting that the "Life" section should be a place to "stash" "clutter." I have no idea where you are getting the impression that that is what I am trying to do. I am merely maintaining that the information about her appearance is better suited in the "Life " section. Singling it out in a section of its own puts too much emphasis on it and implies that her physical appearance is equally as important as her poetry, since both of them are given their own sections. In any case, if I were trying to hide the information about her appearance, placing it in the "Life" section would not be a very effective means of doing so. Assuming that the person reading the article actually reads it, they will still read the paragraph regardless where it is located. What I am talking about is a matter of emphasis, not apparentness. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the WP:UNDUE article, my interpretation of the Wikipedia policies is more of a "common law" perspective: the policies as they are generally implemented. The policy states that we should not give undue weight to certain minority perspectives and, in a "common law" perspective, that includes not giving undue weight to certain minor aspects of the subject also. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Kato, you’re equivocating. I respectfully don’t agree with your suggestion that the content regarding Sappho’s “appearance” should be manipulated regarding it’s “emphasis” by moving out of it’s own section and into another section. And I stand by how I think it seems, which is exactly as I stated above.

I think Sappho’s “appearance” is interesting for a number of reasons — and deserves to be expanded, but the content doesn’t fit well with the section about her life, which is different, in that the section is attempting to get at what “little is known about Sappho's life for certain”. That seems to be the unifying idea, and it’s stated in the first sentence.

I’m afraid you’re idea of “interpreting the policies of Wikipedia” is too vague for me to understand. What I do get from you, and you can correct me if I’m mistaken, is that you sometimes respect the policies, and sometimes don’t. Which seems unprincipled, so I won’t assume. Gaustaag (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not see why you seem to think that I am trying to "equivocate" because I am not; you are jumping to faulty conclusions and assuming that I must have the worst possible motive for saying what I am saying. Look, if you really think that the content about Sappho's physical appearance is so important that the article needs to have a whole section about it, I am tired of arguing with you and I will not try to stop you, but I will state right from the beginning that I disagree with it and I think it is a bad idea. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

[comment deleted] Gaustaag (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Gaustaag, I do not poke around talk pages. I spend almost all my time here at Wikipedia writing articles and I have never even visited the Village Pump once. In fact, I am honestly not entirely sure what the "Village Pump" really is or why we have it, so I have no idea what on earth gives you the impression that that is what I do here. Believe it or not, I actually do not like arguing and my motive for contributing to Wikipedia is that I enjoy writing articles and spreading accurate and verifiable information. I always try to be friendly and respectful to other users and I am greatly sorry that I have apparently given you such a drastically skewed impression of who I am. The only reason why I am so grouchy towards you is because you keep insulting me and accusing me of being disingenuous. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I was mistaken, Kato, my comment was untrue and unfair. I apologize. I’ll try to delete it. Gaustaag (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Missing citations

Hi, several short citations currently don't point to long cites: note 28: Burn 1968; note 49: DeJean 1989; note 91: Reynolds 2000; and note 93: Woodard 2008. Hope this helps. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Added DeJean, and corrected Reynolds 2000 to Reynolds 2001; I don't know off the top of my head what Burn 1968 and Woodard 2008 refer to. Anyone else? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Burn 1968 is probably a typo for Burn 1960, and Woodard 2008 is probably something by Roger Woodard, perhaps The Ancient Languages of Europe from CUP. This is yet another brilliant example of why this system of citations is profoundly unhelpful and should never be used. DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have found the Woodard citation in this diff. DuncanHill (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have also found "Burn1968". It was introduced in this edit. I have restored the reference as it stood before that edit. DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

lede picture

The picture of Sappho on the vase should replace the very dubious sculpture in the lede. T8612 (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

There are four known vases of Sappho, three of which are represented in this article. Which vase do you mean? Our best image of a vase is the Sappho Painter's kalpis (right), but I suspect the other vases are better known... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The first picture looks better imo. T8612 (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, looking into it further I am dubious about the copyright status of the Sappho Painter's vase, which is a concern. I prefer the Brygos Painter's vase as an image, but our photograph of it is not very good: the background is messy, you cannot see either the lower half of Sappho or the whole of her instrument, you can see reflections in the glass of the case the vase is kept in, her face is slightly out of focus. The third vase is okay, but the photo is not quite straight on, and there's problematic glare and reflection on the vase.

If we could get a good image of the Brygos painter's vase that would be ideal – there's not prospect of me being in Munich any time soon, though (or indeed Warsaw, Athens, or Bochum, where the other three Sappho-vases live.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

We could write to the relevant museums and ask for a suitable freely licensed picture. They wouldn't necessarily do it but they might. Haukur (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Haukurth, I’m curious: Did you or anyone else that you know of follow up on this? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I haven't. But last time I contacted a museum they were happy to help so it's a strategy I recommend :) Haukur (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Medieval Sappho

It doesn't make sense to say that "by the medieval period, Sappho's works had been lost" and then in the next sentence "her works began to become accessible again in the sixteenth century, first in early printed editions of authors who had quoted her". Surely the authors who quoted her were themselves preserved in medieval manuscripts? Srnec (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source at the moment – I can check when I get home – but I'm fairly certain that "lost" is Reynolds' word. Yes, there were medieval manuscripts of Longinus and Dionysius Halicarnassus (one manuscript in the case of Longinus; our article on D.H. doesn't say and I don't know the textual history off the top of my head), but manuscripts can be lost and then rediscovered. And even if the existence of the manuscript is still known, if there's only one and it's not being looked at, it's quite possible for the fact that it quotes a Sappho poem to be lost, even if the manuscript is still there. And remember that many of the sources to quote Sappho's poetry, including D.H. and Longinus, wrote in Greek, and the resurgence in European scholars reading Greek was one of the key aspects of the Renaissance. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there might be a bit of (unintentional) equivocation here. My concern is that whereas independent transmission of her works may have ceased and whatever copies there were may have been lost in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance did not rectify this in any way. They just printed quotations of Sappho that were never in any sense lost. As the article states earlier, "Until the last quarter of the nineteenth century, only the ancient quotations of Sappho survived." But were these ever, in any sense, lost? Srnec (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

the Renaissance did not rectify this in any way... were these every, in any sense, lost? Yes. I've had a little bit more time to dig, and Margaret Williamson explicitly says that these manuscripts were rediscovered in the Renaissance. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Williamson 1995? Can you give a page number? Thanks, Srnec (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Williamson 1995. p.43: quite a number of the treatises and commentaries in which Sappho is quoted were among the manuscripts discovered by Renaissance collectors Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

To me the thrust of that passage is that they (the manuscripts with quotations) were not lost: This was not quite the end of Sappho. There were still texts by other authors containing excerpts from her poems ... The survival of even these texts was by no means assured ... In any case, the problem I have with the article text is that the "works" which were lost in the first sentence are not the same "works" that became accessible again in the Renaissance. The works that were lost (like Sappho 94) were not found in the Renaissance, rather relatively inaccessible quotations of her work became accessible through the printing press (with credit to Renaissance collectors). I have tweaked the wording in the article in a way which I think is still consistent with the citation. Let me know what you think. Srnec (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)