Talk:Geography of the Odyssey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Geography of the Odyssey, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Low This article has been rated as a Low priority article

the illiad places ithaca very close to samos Wblakesxwblakesx

Contents

[edit] Historical Accounts

Strabo proposed that Ogygia and Skhería were located in the Atlantic Ocean:

For Homer says also: "Now after the ship had left the river-stream of Oceanus"; and "In the island of Ogygia, where is the navel of the sea," going on to say that the daughter of Atlas lives there; and again, regarding the Phaeacians, "Far apart we live in the wash of the waves, the farthermost of men, and no other mortals are conversant with us." Now all these incidents are clearly indicated as being placed in fancy in the Atlantic Ocean. (Strabo, Geography 1.2.18)

Plutarch's account on the location of Ogygia, from in his work Concerning the Face Which Appears in the Orb of the Moon, chap. 26.

First I will tell you the author of the piece, if there is no objection, who begins after Homer’s fashion with, an isle Ogygian lies far out at sea, distant five days’ sail from Britain, going westwards, and three others equally distant from it, and from each other, are more opposite to the summer visits of the sun; in one of which the barbarians fable that Cronus is imprisoned by Zeus, whilst his son lies by his side, as though keeping guard over those islands and the sea, which they call ‘the Sea of Cronus. The great continent by which the great sea is surrounded on all sides, they say, lies less distant from the others, but about five thousand stadia from Ogygia, for one sailing in a rowing-galley; for the sea is difficult of passage and muddy through the great number of currents, and these currents issue out of the great land, and shoals are formed by them, and the sea becomes clogged and full of earth, by which it has the appearance of being solid.

[edit] Modern Accounts

Henriette Mertz, "Wine Dark Sea" 1964. The title was based on the Homeric expression "Οίνωψ Πόντος". I haven't read this book yet, but I've read about this book. Here is a map with Odysseus's trip according to Henriette Mertz.

Mattievich, Enrico: Viagem ao inferno mitológico (Trip to Mytholological hell). I have read a version translated into Greek. Mattievich starts from the point where Circe intructs Odysseus to travel by way of north wind and cross the Ocean, and claims that "the rivers Pyriphlegethon and Cocytus (which is a branch of the river Styx) flow into Acheron" are located into the Amazon. --Odysses (☜) 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Odysses, thanks for providing these sources. Theories that have Odysseus visiting the Americas are pretty far outside mainstream academia. Since this article is solely devoted to geographic theories, I don't see any reason why the article shouldn't include them (I would be opposed to covering them in Odyssey, however). However, the article should make it clear that these theories are not widely accepted. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Akhilleus, thanks for your comments. These are certainly geographic theories and they should be included in the article.
However, I am not sure what do you mean by "outside mainstream academia". Do you mean that theories that claim that Odysseus traveled outside the Gibraltar straights and possibly reached America are not so academic? Plutarch himself makes an amazing statement. He claims that Ogygia is located about five thousand stadia or 900 kilometers from the great continent by which the great sea is surrounded on all sides, which we now call America. Effectively, Plutarch claims at this passage that Odysseus traveled some 5-6.000 kilometers from the straights of Gibraltar to Ogygia.

the trip would take 3 weeks and upwards Wblakesxwblakesx

Henriette Mertz is an American oceanographer I believe. Her book was given as a reference at The Ohio State University.
What was once "outside mainstream academia" may find its way "within mainstream academia". Troy for example was considered as a mythical place only 150 years ago until uncovered by Heinrich Schliemann. --Odysses (☜) 09:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, any theory that Odysseus found his way to the new world is not well-accepted within classical scholarship, regardless of what Plutarch claimed. Mertz's qualifications as an oceanographer are not indicative that she is an expert on the Odyssey or on archaic Greek seafaring, anymore than a PhD. in classics means that one is an expert on geology. This doesn't mean that her book isn't interesting, and I take your point that theories from outside academia sometimes make their way into academia. However, Wikipedia is supposed to report on the current state of knowledge, rather than try to predict whether a theory will become accepted. Right now, I don't think Mertz, Mattievich, and authors who argue similar things get much attention in academia. I'm quite happy to have them in the article, but we need to be careful to follow the NPOV policy, and not give undue weight to minority views. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the purpose of this article is to collect all reasonable theories regarding the Geography of Odysseus' narrative. From the ancient times until the present time there are two types of theories. Those that claim that Odysseus couldn't possibly have traveled in the Atlantic Ocean and those that claim that he did. Plutarch and Strabo supported the second theory. It is possible that after 100 or 200 years from now, new archeological evidence will discard one of the above theories. Until then we should take both theories into account. --Odysses (☜) 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shape/title of article

I've just added a few sentences on the location of Pylos, since even this has been disputed. This brings up a question I've got: is the name "Geography of Odysseus' narrative" the best name for the article? It's a bit clunky, as "Odysseus' narrative" is both awkward and ambigious; it could mean any story Odysseus tells, including his Cretan tales. It sounds, though, like it's supposed to refer to Books 9-12, in which case Geography of Odysseus' adventures or Geography of Odysseus' apologoi might work. But, the article contains material that isn't from the Apologoi. It's clear that the "Ithaca question" gets its own article, Homer's Ithaca (though honestly I'd rather have Homeric Ithaca), but where does this stuff about Pylos go? If it belongs in this article, then "Odysseus' narrative" doesn't seem like an accurate description of the contents. On the other hand, if the Pylos stuff belongs, I'd propose the title Geography in the Odyssey (the Ithaca stuff would still remain in a separate article, this article would refer to it with {{main}}).

I'd like to add a proper lead paragraph, but I'm holding off until I'm sure of the scope of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

These are very early days, and the scope and title could easily be changed if we decide that's best. My reason for setting out with the present scope and title was that (I continue to think) the problems of locating Ithaca (and Pylos) are quite different from the problems of putting Odysseus' narrative on a map. Ithaca and Pylos (and Sparta and Mycenae and Troy) were surely conceived by the poet as real places. As for Calypso's island, the Island of the Sun, etc., we don't even know whether the poet had placed them on a mental map: are we even 100% sure that Odysseus was telling the truth throughout?
That last detail is why I initially chose "Odysseus' narrative" rather than "Odysseus' travels".
Yes, these subjects could still all go in the same Wikipedia article, titled "Geography of the Odyssey". But the concept of "reliable source", which we have been discussing "in another place" (as they say in the House of Commons) becomes crucial here (I think). Concerning the location of Troy, Pylos, and potentially Ithaca, there can be "reliable sources". Unreliable sources can be marginalised and even, if we are being choosy, excluded. Articles dealing with those issues can be expected to make a close approach to the truth and to footnote it. With regard to the location of the Lotus Eaters, Scylla and Charybdis and their colleagues there can be no reliable source. We are talking about fictional places where fantastic things happen, and the poet (unlike Tolkien) didn't even draw us a map. An article dealing with these locations can of course state a majority view, if there is one, but I think there can be no reason (other than non-notability) to exclude other views, however different from the mainstream.
However, the title certainly isn't perfect. Calyso's island, and Scherie, belong to the same category as the Island of the Sun but are mentioned in the poem outside Odysseus' narrative. Personally, I would be just as happy with "Fictional geography of the Odyssey" but I fear that would offend all the people who dedicate their lives to showing that the places are real. Andrew Dalby 11:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, we did indeed discuss "reliable sources" elsewhere, and as I said there, WP policy defines what a reliable source is. Perhaps the phrase is a bit misleading, because "reliable" does not mean "true". It means things like peer-reviewed, published by a reputable press, adhering to scholarly standards. With regard to the location of (probably) fictional places in the Odyssey there are many reliable sources. In addition to the ones I named on the WikiProject talk page, there's James Romm's The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought, Standford and Luce's The Quest for Odysseus, the Heubeck/Hoekstra commentary on Books 9-16 of the Odyssey, Irad Malkin's The Returns of Odysseus, and others.

But anyway, it seems we agree that since this article is devoted to the subject of geography, there is space here for non-mainstream views. For instance, Iman Wilkens' views can be reported here, even though his work does not meet the definition of a reliable source. This means we're breaking or at least bending a policy, but we can fulfill its spirit by making a distinction between mainstream/academic views and those of independent scholars.

Regarding title/scope, I think that I still prefer Geography of the Odyssey. I agree that identifying the location of Pylos, the location of Scherie, and the location of Ogygia are different kinds of problems. However, it seems to me that this article can cover all that material, explaining that Pylos is part of the real geography of the archaic Greek world, Scherie may be a fictionalized version of Corcyra, and the landscapes of the Apologoi are (probably) imaginary, although they may have been inspired by tales of the western Mediterranean, and many Greeks believed that Homer was talking about places in Italy, Sicily, etc. The different sections of the poem take place in different settings, so we can simply follow the sequence of the narrative: the first section, the Telemachy, can have stuff about the location of Pylos and about Telemachus' sailing route if someone wants to write that; the second section, Odysseus' adventures vel sim., can cover Books 5-13, and talk about Ogygia and Scherie as well as the world of the adventures, and the last section, "Ithaca", covering books 13-24, would be a summary of Homer's Ithaca, with a reference to that article through the {{main}} template. Obviously, then, the largest section of this article would be on Odysseus' travels, but the other material can be included too. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the article. As discussed on our talk pages, User:Petrouchka is planning to add material on ancient views of Odysseus' travels, while I'll be developing the parallel section on modern views. Naturally, other editors are welcome! Andrew Dalby 20:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Yup, and it'll be pretty substantial. I was planning to have it up a few days ago but it's been delayed for various reasons. Petrouchka 04:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The location of Pilas

There is a place called "Pilas". It is near "Gereña" (pronounced "Gerenia", I'm referring to Nestor). To the south, "(Medina) Sidon(ia)" can be found. In the same area (Soutwest Spain) there is a mountain called "(E)sparteros". These places are not far from "Cadiz", easily reached for instance by ship or cariot.80.126.45.131 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you: these details are interesting, but they won't get into the article unless someone in a published work (preferably a notable or even reliable work) has identified these places with the places mentioned in the Odyssey. If so, let's have a reference! Andrew Dalby 17:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geography

Hello WPns, would you be interested in having Wilkens' ideas about the whereabouts of Odysseus in the article? If you like you can look them up in the history of the cleaned-up article about his book in another place. They could be added in a manner that is of course discussable, and for everybody to adjust. Do you think there should be a place for this? Either would suit me. What is your opinion? Regards, Antiphus 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient accounts

I've now put in part one of a detailed section on ancient accounts, viz. "euhemerist" accounts. It's pretty big, but it all seems good stuff to me. I'm also inclined to go for completeness of information on ancient sources because they're not really controversial. Also because I found it pretty difficult and time-consuming to collect all this information, so others might too.

A section on "foundation myths" is forthcoming, taking in Etruria, Campania, and parts of Thesprotia. I'm too worn out to do it right now ... :-) Petrouchka 23:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. I'm not 100% sure of the completeness of the section I've added, so if anyone ever wants to double-check ... better you than me! Petrouchka 23:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I really like what you've done so far, and I think completeness is warranted: if the article is going to include marginal modern theories like Wilkens and Mattevich, it should be exhaustive on the ancient stuff. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, Petrouchka! It's high time I got to work on modern views, and this gives me some useful ideas about the approach to take. Thank you. Andrew Dalby 08:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern views

I have sketched this out now. It is too much based on secondary sources at present. I could improve it when I next spend some time in a library, but meanwhile, if anyone has read Bérard, please check, improve and if necessary correct my paragraph about him (he is more important than I have made him sound) and the same with any of the other individual authors named.

The last paragraph, "aberrant views", contains some surprises. No one will be offended by "aberrant", since that is exactly what Odysseus was.

My thanks to those who have given me ideas, references and links. Andrew Dalby 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking very nice indeed, Andrew. I like "aberrant". (Perhaps even "polytropic"!) I'd love to see the "recent publication [that] argues that Homeric geography is to be found in the sky, and that the Iliad and the Odyssey can be decoded as a star map." I haven't read Bérard, alas. I would suggest a little re-phrasing in the first section, though, to make it clear that the third and fourth sentences represent Kakridis' views and not Wikipedia's (viz. "We cannot confuse ... or of the poet") -- I'm not sure the placing of the footnote reference is enough to convey that. Anyway, great work! Petrouchka 22:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to say the changes look great. While I too like "aberrant", that might be read as "erroneous" by some folks, so offense might be taken after all. The "star map" theory comes from Laurin R. Johnson, Shining in the Ancient Sea: The Astronomical Ancestry of Homer's Odyssey; a BMCR review is here. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's try "unusual" then, unless anyone can think of a mot plus juste. Thanks for the reference to Johnson. Curiously enough, that isn't the book that I remember, though it must have been published almost in the same year. I will keep on looking for the other (for completeness' sake). I still have to improve the bibliography. Andrew Dalby 13:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I must say, I didn't like "aberrant", or "unusual". I much prefer "Atlantic Ocean theories". Good work Andrew.--Odysses (☜) 15:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Odyssey of Geographers

No Greek geographer would start his work without giving his personnal answers to the homeric questions. The oldest science among the greek can be defined as a permanent interrogation of homeric hexameters, as faithfull and honest as possible, as daring as possible. This article continues a very long tradition. But the big question was not the location of the various scenes, it was the location of Okeanos, far from the medieval clerical mislead which gave different name to seas, thalassai, and make today obvious that oceans are big seas surrounding continents. Such is not the view of Eratosthenes, Strabon, Hécatée, etc…None closed the question on a definitive answer, some toward a very abstract system of astronomical coordinates, some other, like Herodotus remained quite enigmatic. But all would laugh at where we put ocean, and all where certains that Odysseus, Jason, Hercules, travelled nowhere else than along that river, ocean, and that geographers, periégètoi, their true name, would sail on those flows of knowledge freed by a good question at the old Homer. There is no Geography of the Odyssey for that good reason: Homer is the father of all Geographers, and Odyssey Geography herself, as good questions about a fine story told by a traveller, about climates, people, landscapes, and certainly not about cartesian coordinates of the greenwich meridian.

PHARNABAZE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.123.179.67 (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] World map

Is Image:Homer world map-en.svg a good image to useat the start? Some of the physical geography is all over the place whilst the placings don't appear to be the traditional ones (e.g. Aelous appears to be located on Malta) seem odd - and I'm not sure why "Helios' Island" and "Trinacria" are shown as separate places. Would a more conventional map of the Greek world or a "traditional route" in the Tyrrhenian Sea be better? Timrollpickering 11:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As you say, the locations given in the map are unconventional, and the alternatives you suggest are better. It would be nice to have several maps, based on specific sources, so the reader can compare different ideas visually. I have no skill in making maps, unfortunately... --Akhilleus (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)