Talk:Achilleid

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

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

Edit

I've reedited this page to give more information about the poem. I hope you enjoy.Jdf8 (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So this is what you were doing when you were supposed to be reading the Heroides? The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zkatroy

I am glad to see you're working on expanding the article. That said, I think that adding in pieces of commentary in the content section is a little odd. The "contents" should simply be a plot summary, not a running commentary on the lines. Also, in the final section are you summarizing the Transvestite Achilles, or are you contributing your own research? If you are merely summarizing you should say that that's what youre doing; if you are adding in original research, that's not allowed and it should be removed. Jdf8 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

possible directions....

Most of this article reads as a fairly close precis of Heslin at the moment (unsurprising, as his shockingly remains the only full-length monograph on the Achilleid, as far as I'm aware, and he covers a lot of ground). The stuff about the "alternative epic tradition" seems to come from Coleman's precis of Hinds' Allusion and Intertext (Hinds himself should be credited there, and surely we should be working with secondary rather than tertiary sources). It would be nice to see some Feeney, Rosati, Barchiesi, Hinds, etc integrated into this, not to mention some more discussion of Benker's "subversion against Domitian" hypothesis (which is mentioned, but not credited to her; sadly, my German is not up to scratch and I haven't read her book myself, though I'm familiar with its premise). If generalisations about 'women in epic' are going to be made, Keith's 2000 monograph probably should do with being cited, though she doesn't have much on the Achilleid specifically. (plus, I doubt we can say much about the gender dynamics of the "Rome of Statius' time" from something as wacky and non-normative as the Achilleid).

"Claudian believed that the inevitability" etc: from Heslin again, and I don't think he ever makes a categorical claim that Claudian believed that. He's putting forth a hypothesis, quite tentatively. I'd love to see a section on the reception of the Achilleid in the DRP, but sadly there is little secondary scholarship on that. And Hinds isn't saying that the Achilleid itself is a failure, but Statius' attempt to reshape the contours of the epic tradition.

Newlands, cited in the biblio, is discussing the Thebaid, not the Achilleid, and I'm not sure why Coleman on Silvae 4 is there. Shack's Loebs are cited incorrectly - only one volume includes the Achilleid (the one with Thebaid 8-12), not both.

Maybe some day when I'm particularly bored and have a lot of time to spare.... which may not be any time soon! ;P Also new to this editing wiki business, but my beloved Statius deserves the best. Cta77 (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good idea. I've written most of the Statius pages, and he does deserve the best!, but unfortunately I have been preoccupied by other things. I'd love for someone to bring the secondary scholarship sections up to date and add in more points of view. I did find the Heslin precis to be a bit too thorough; in fact i had to go through and try to attribute heslin's thoughts to himself, since when that section was added by someone it was entirely unsourced and unattributed. Unfortunately, i haven't read that monograph in some time. Let's hope your day of boredom comes soon.Jdf8 (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]