Talk:Odyssey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of top-importance within classical antiquity.


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Odyssey article.

Previous discussion: /Archive

Contents

[edit] 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)

Well put Pastrini. All the female figures, Calypso, Circe and Penelope and Athena especially, are crucial to the story. In many ways they are the movers and shakers of the epic, whether by quietly defying the men (Penelope), ensnaring them (Caplypso and Circe) or guiding them (Athena). In many ways the story is that of a male culture hero discovering and working out his relationship to the archetypal aspects of the Feminine. Someone should really go into this in detail. ThePeg 16:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

In his Oration on the Dignity of Man Pico de Mirandola says that Homer conceals in the Odyssey the truths of the Kaballah. Does anyone have anything to say about this? The relationship of Odysseus to Athena and Penelope certainly mirrors the relationship of the Kaballist to the Divine and Creaturely Shekinah and the journey home to Ithaca mirrors the return to the Garden of Eden by Adam Kadmon. Perhaps if one thinks of Kaballah and the Greek Mystery Tradition as having their roots in Egypt (ie the Egyptian Mystery Tradition which Pythagoras and Plato were supposed to have investigated and which is preserved, it is believed, in the Hermetica) there might be something worth exploring here. ThePeg 16:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] copyright violation?

the book summaries sound like a clone from this website: Mythweb, 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)
I thought the book-by-book summaries were not very "encyclopedic": now I know why. I hadn't seen these comments before. Yes, it's still true that the summaries are largely pasted in from Mythweb (as above). They really ought to be deleted at once, but it would be a pity to leave the page without any plot summary at all. Does anyone else fancy writing a new one, or shall I? Andrew Dalby 12:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I have temporarily pasted at User:Andrew Dalby/Plot of the Odyssey a summary which I wrote myself (as part of a book). I could adapt it to some extent (so that the publisher won't object, though the copyright is in fact mine) and then Wikify it and paste it into Odyssey if others think this is a good idea. Feel free to disagree! Andrew Dalby 13:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I've taken out the "plot summary" section because of the copyright violation. I should have done this a long time ago, because copyright violation is something that WP needs to be very concerned about. Anyway, Andrew's summary would be a good replacement for the removed material, but I think it might be good if it were made shorter, and if we could break things up a bit by indicating major structural units (Telemachy, Apology, etc.). --Akhilleus (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I have added this summary, without making many changes yet, but Wikifying it a bit. That's a start, perhaps. There is some slight duplication with the preceding section "Structure". If anyone wants to plunge in, edit, shorten the summary, put in the major structural divisions as Akhilleus suggests, please do. Another possibility, I guess, would be to add book.line references at the beginning or end of each paragraph? Anyway, I'll be back. Andrew Dalby 16:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, this summary must be shorter than the last one (I don't know by how much), because the warning about the length of the page no longer appears when one opens an edit window. Andrew Dalby 16:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1997 TV movie

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Every literate person? I'm sixteen and reading the Odyssey for the first time and the lack of spoiler warnings have indeed somewhat spoiled it. I was uncertain of the ending since one of the prophesies earlier on was that Odysseus would return to Ithaca and no-one would recognise him. I had a look through the article, being careful, but the whole outcome of the epic is in the last sentence, a much greater density of information compared to the preceding information so I couldn't even see it coming.
Yes, I must admit that Anonymous is right here, there are literate people who don't (or didn't) know the plot in advance; he/she is one, and Wikipedia is for them. Anonymous, if you want to get a username, log in, and insert a spoiler warning, I won't delete it. Andrew Dalby 13:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. CaveatLectorTalk 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? CaveatLectorTalk 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. CaveatLectorTalk 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)

I nominated the article on Wilkens' book for deletion. please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Where_Troy_Once_Stood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CaveatLector (talk • contribs) .

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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) .

Butler wrote a translation, not a derivative work, but I'm inclined to agree that Joyce and Kazantzakis are among the most important; I'd place Tennyson first, though, followed by J. and K.
However, I wonder about this entry:
Some of the tales of Sindbad the Sailor from The Book of One Thousand and One Nights (Arabian Nights) were taken from Homer's Odyssey.
-- I doubt this. Is it demonstrably true? Petrouchka 23:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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))

Reverted, as Andrew is correct that there is a long gap, and that it is "wanderings" rather than "sojourn" (if common practice isn't sufficient, then refer to the second line of the Odyssey); and that he spent seven years with Calypso, as Akhilleus said. I think you misunderstand the Sparknotes quote you cite: as it correctly states, when the time comes for him to go home, he has been wandering for ten years (including 7 years with Calypso and 1 year with Circe).
By the way Andrew, the dates after 600 that sometimes get cited usually refer to composition rather than transcription into text. (Nagy -- even Nagy! -- accepts the 8th century for date of "formation".) Petrouchka 03:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care. This article is not accurate, but no one wants to research it. 10 years is inaccurate.

My copy of the Odyssey is back at school (as it's Thanksgiving in Canada I am at home) but I will look when I get back. You should actual read the Odyssey before automatically reverting.

I changed wanderings becuase their is more thought behind what he is doing. O. is trying to get home, not just meadering through the seas. His journey has an end. Wanderings, according to the Mirriam Webster dictionary is: 1 a : to move about without a fixed course, aim, or goal. To me that is just wrong. Odysseus has a fixed course, an aim, and a goal. Perhaps people on wikipedia should research and not merely believe that since an article has been in the same state for a while that is the correct way. My changes are not huge; they just add minor nuances. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UAAC (talk • contribs) .

Please be civil. There's no need to fling out insults like that. It's clear we have some sort of misunderstanding here. From what I remember, the text is pretty clear that Odysseus was at Troy for 10 years and then spent 10 years getting home. Also, as far as 'wanderings' go, I'm afraid that you have not considered the possibility that we HAVE done some research in this way, and nothing as simple as a dictionary definition. There is a clear tradition throughout the western canon that views Odysseus' travel home errares. These 'wanderings' do not have to be physical. For instance, when Odysseus stays for 7 years with Calypso, that is considered 'wandering'. More often than not, Odysseus gets sidetracked from his main goal of getting home for fairly long periods of time. It's quite fair to call these years 'wanderings'. You obviously felt that we've bitten the newbie, but we haven't. Please don't take reversion of changes you make to the article as personal insults, and please assume good faith. Oh, and make sure to sign your comments with four tildas (~~~~) CaveatLectorTalk 17:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
As for the ten years, it really is stated clearly in the Odyssey. Book 17, line 327, is about the dog Argos, who recognises Odysseus on his return, wags his tail, and then dies:
autik' idont' Odusea eeikosto eniauto
which means
seeing Odysseus again in the twentieth year
i.e. ten years for the siege of Troy, ten years (or just under) for Odysseus's travels, and the dog at last sees him again "in the twentieth year". Thanks, User:UAAC, for making me check this point. I'll add the reference to the article. Andrew Dalby 18:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I hate it when someone nit picks with the signing: it is clearly me. The capitals do add to your point though. His side tracks are wanderings, but to call it all wanderings is just plain wrong/inaccurate. In truth, O. has to make those side tracks (most of them at least (after Kirke tells him where to go)). I know some have done research, but unless you post it, how do I know? To just assume would be illogical. I did look up spark notes (that was the best I could do and I did use my notes from a class). My copy of the Odyssey is not at my permanent residence (where I am now).

'For instance, when Odysseus stays for 7 years with Calypso, that is considered 'wandering'." It shouldn't be as he is trapped there. He wants to go home but Calypso doesn't help him until Athena tells her to. Wandering has no aim ... It just seems stupid to me to hold onto misconceptions. The English lexicon is very nuanced and so there is no need to use inappropriate words. UAAC 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Odysseus is far from 'forced' to stay with Calypso. Please do not consider SparkNotes a reliable source. Odysseus' true motives in staying with Calypso are rather ambiguous. If he wanted to leave Calypso's island at any time, he very well could have. The word 'wanderings' is still fairly appropriate here. CaveatLectorTalk 04:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
UAAC, I applaud your desire to improve Wikipedia based on research, but Spark notes and an English dictionary are only going to take you so far, especially when you're looking at a text that was originally composed in ancient Greek. As CaveatLector has already pointed out, there's a long tradition of seeing Odysseus' post-war travels as "wanderings", and Odysseus as a wanderer extraordinaire. There's a pretty good reason for this: the Odyssey itself calls him a wanderer. It's right there in the first two lines:
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ
πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν...
Muse, speak to me now of that resourceful man
who wandered far and wide after ravaging
the sacred citadel of Troy
This is Ian Johnston's translation, which renders πλάγχθη as "wandered", but πλάγχθη might be more literally translated as "was made to wander" or "was driven off course". For the Greeks (and Romans too), if you have been driven off course, you are by definition wandering. Odysseus' certainly intends and wants to get home, but the gods prevent his homecoming, and instead make him go other places, like Kirke's island. Even those seven years are traditionally considered part of his wandering. Note also that one of the meanings of "wandering" in English is "being unfaithful to one's spouse"--Odysseus is not exactly unfaithful, because an ancient Greek husband wasn't expected to refrain from sex with other women--but it's clear that Kirke is keeping Odysseus from resuming his life as a married head of household.
It isn't just the Odyssey that refers to Odysseus as a wanderer. You might look at Silvia Montiglio's Wandering in Greek Culture for the ancient Greek material; there's also a memorable description of Odysseus in Dante's Inferno where his essential characteristic is his desire to keep travelling--i.e., to wander. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protofeminism

The following stands in the article:

Among the most impressive elements of the text are its strikingly modern non-linear plot, and its elevation of the status of women and the lower classes.

I have added the citation request because this claim seems completely off base to me. How, exactly, does the Odyssey 'elevate' the status of women? From my reading, and from all the critics I have read, it would seem as the poem only reinforces the roles that women are supposed to play. Can anyone give me a citation on this proto-feminism comment? CaveatLectorTalk 17:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've altered the wording so that it now shows how the Odyssey does this rather than just asserts that it does it. If you still want a citation I can readily add one, but you may think this is now not necessary? Andrew Dalby 18:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geography again

I am reworking the geography section a bit. I hope no one minds. I am avoiding the idea of an orthodox theory because I'm not sure there really is one. I have removed:

However this theory has a number of flaws which make little sense either from a sailing or identification point of view. Ancient Greek ships were small, rarely ventured out onto the open sea and their captains did not explore unknown territories but instead sought to regain their course if blown off it

However, a vessel blown off course would have been more cautious and would not have ventured so far away, especially if trying to reach home.

However, for Odysseus' vessels to have caught a favourable wind all the way to Ithaca and then have an unfavourable wind blow them all the way back so that they would have had to sail through the Straits of Messina is extremely implausible.

-- because arguments based on plausibility are misconceived here. The whole story, the ten years' wandering, the Cyclops, the visit to the Dead, is implausible.

More generally the orthodox theory assumes that the ancient Greeks knew about Italy, but there are very few references at all in the Odyssey to any part of the world to the west of Greece, though lands in the east and south such as Egypt and Sudan are mentioned in several places.

-- because there's no doubt that the Greeks knew about Italy, both before and after the period when the Odyssey was probably written. I don't understand what is being argued in the rest of the sentence. Andrew Dalby 13:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a very helpful summary of modern attempts to reconstruct Odysseus' journey at Jonathan Burgess' homepage, complete with a tabulation of who locates which island where. You might want to work this in somehow, though I'd suggest just including it as an external link.
There's also a (particularly late antique) tradition of Odysseus' journey based on the fictive Dictys of Crete, whom some writers took seriously as a historical source: especially John Malalas, and Byzantine writers such as Cedrenus, John of Antioch,and John Tzetzes. Again, I think that's better treated elsewhere. But it can't hurt to know! Petrouchka 20:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Petrouchka, I will look at both of those (someone else already mentioned the Jonathan Burgess homepage to me and it had slipped my mind). It is a very long time since I last consulted Dictys of Crete! Andrew Dalby 21:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

With regards the question of the west, this touches on the broader issue of when the stories originated. If Homer was stringing together existing legends then the question of just what the Greek conception of the world comes up. Severin's theory about the location of the Laestrygonians is based on the idea that a cape at the extreme south of the Peloponese (can't remember the name) was considered an entrance to the underworld "where night and day crossed" or whatever the term Homer uses. If the Greek west coast was the limit of the known world at the time then one has to wonder how the locations of the legends turned up in the west.
As for the story in general, once prolonged stays and rests are eliminated then the "ten years" rapidly boils down to one or two sailing seasons (Hesiod recommended about only fifty days at sea before pulling the ship ashore for winter). There are many who argue that the Odyssey has so much knowledge of sailing conditions that it may reflect a potential journey or more.
And near the river Acheron (in north west Greece) archeologists have discovered traces of sacrifices almost exactly fitting the formula Homer describes - is the tale of the visit to the land of the dead so implausible? Other stories could be based in realistic sailing - for example the story of Aeolus sounds plausible as a story of an attempt to make a direct open sea journey home, rather than a cautious coasting voyage, with a local fable about a man who could control the winds worked in. Timrollpickering 21:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I'm afraid you've taken on a monster of a job there. As well as the locations in Greece that Timrollpickering mentions above, I've been poking around in some old files and there's a lot of ancient material on Od.'s wanderings taking in most of Italy. There's an incredibly detailed article, E.D. Phillips 1953 "Odysseus in Italy", Journal of Hellenic Studies 73 pp. 53-67 (available on JSTOR if you've got access; if not, I could send you a copy if you want), which covers all or most of the material (including Sicily? can't remember).

IIRC it's mostly about cult sites and foundation myths, but it should discuss things like the location of Circe at Monte Circeo, just south of Rome (cf. this external site); I think also about some source(s) that locate the Laestrygonians somewhere in central Italy. The thing I can't remember is whether these ancient traditions are Greek or Roman. Probably both, I'd guess, given the heavy influence of Greek myth on the Etruscans and the extent of Greek colonisation up the west coast of Italy; there was a lot of feedback from Romanised versions of Greek myths back into Greek traditions, e.g. the interpolation of Latinus as a son of Odysseus and Circe into Theogony 1011-13, pseudo-Lycophron locating Odysseus' grave in Etruria (Alexandra somewhere around line 810); Dionysius (1.72) even mentions a legend about Odysseus and Aeneas co-founding Rome as a team effort. Scary stuff. I suggest lots of summing things up in one sentence and adding a footnote referring to print sources. :-) Good luck! Petrouchka 22:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I always knew, of course, that this could get much bigger than it is. If it is to get much bigger, however, it will unbalance the article, because, let's face it, geography is not the chief reason why the Odyssey is a classic. Therefore (I had already wondered) should Geography of the Odyssey be a separate article? Andrew Dalby 23:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say that's a good idea. -- especially given the topic's status as a point of argument: it's by far the longest discussion on this talk page (2955 words before I added this comment), with "authorship" coming a distant second (1219 words).
I'd suggest a very firm division into ancient traditions about Od's wanderings (since those are largely non-controversial) and modern reconstructions and reenactments. I could try taking on the ancient ones if you like, since I have some material to hand. Petrouchka 23:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I also think it's a good idea to split the "geography" section into a new article. If you haven't seen them, there are a couple of articles dealing with Homeric Ithaca: Homer's Ithaca and Odysseus Unbound. Geography of the Odyssey should refer to Homer's Ithaca, at least, or maybe Homer's Ithaca could be merged into it. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for those two links which I will now insert. Personally I think "Homer's Ithaca" and the geography of Odysseus's travels are different questions (because it's hard to doubt that the poet must have considered Ithaca and its neighbours real places) and so I would incline to keep them separate. What I really mean, and what causes the greatest amount of uncontrollable speculation, is the "Geography of Odysseus's travels" or "Geography of Odysseus's narrative", whichever way you look at it. But those are not very snappy titles. Andrew Dalby 08:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B.C. changed to B.C.E.

I changed circa ... BC to BCE "B.C.E./C.E. ... do not presuppose faith in Christ and hence are more appropriate for interfaith dialog than the conventional B.C./A.D." Seems more fitting for an encyclopedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aka khan (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia accepts both systems. WP:DATE is the applicable guideline. WP:DATE also tells us to stay with whatever system was used first, which in this article seems to be BC/AD. So let's stick with that. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/d/y/Talk%7EOdyssey_ef5e.html"