Talk:Astronomica (Manilius)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a great topic. Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Such confusion caused his identity to be mistaken for that of: Manilus Antiochus (fl. c. 100 BC) mentioned by Pliny the Elder in his Naturalis Historia; Flavius Manlius Theodorus (fl. c. AD 376–409), who was a consul in AD 399; and even Boëthius, the 6th century Roman senator and author of De Consolatione Philosophiae (whose full name was Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius)." I'm struggling with the opening of this sentence.
I changed it to: "Due to the uncertainty of his identify, over the years Marcus Manilius has been confused with: Manilus Antiochus (fl. c. 100 BC, mentioned by Pliny the Elder in his Naturalis Historia), Flavius Manlius Theodorus (fl. c. AD 376–409, who was a consul in AD 399), and even Boëthius (the 6th century Roman senator and author of De Consolatione Philosophiae whose full name was Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius)." Does that work better?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clearer. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"many have attempted to" Weasel words
Changed to :"many have claimed that".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's still weaselly. How about "Some, including [name] and [name], have suggested that"? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Volk does not lay out who have suggested, just that many have.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Others, including the 19th-century classicist Fridericus Jacobs, have argued that he was an African, based largely on his writing style, which supposedly resembles that of other African authors." Just to confirm: your sources do specify/indicate that more than just Jacobs has endorsed this?
Good catch. I added another scholar who is mentioned in the sources (i.e. Paul Monceaux).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Most scholars assume that the poem was written during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius." Again, just to confirm: Do your sources say that this is the consensus view, or is this your reading of the sources? If the latter, I feel it veers into OR.
I think it might be my reading, so I excised the line, and moved the second source to the end.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"A consensus has yet to be reached, although Chris Brennan claims, "A date of circa 14 CE is probably the safest, as this is when Augustus died and Tiberius became Emperor."[13]" I don't want to sound cynical, but is an astrologer really a reliable source? Classicists, historians, linguists, philologists, philosophers, theologians or scholars of literature might be the right kinds of scholars to cite, but I think we should only really be reprinting the views of astrologers if the reception of contemporary astrologers is part of the academic discussion of the work (e.g., if social scientists have found that modern astrologers are super into it or something).
You're right. I replaced it with a Volk quote.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What does "firmament" mean in this context?
I gave a little description and a link; while the article on "firmament" is based on the Bible, it is the word that Volk uses.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think proem is probably jargon; a link would be appropriate.
I included a link to preface; I didn't change it to preface because "proem" is almost always used in the discussion of this sort of thing.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is "Helicon"?
Mountain of the Muses; link added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the Latin belongs in footnotes, rather than in the text? I may be wrong, here; as the work seems to be primarily of interest to scholars of Latin, perhaps it belongs front and centre. Is there some convention you're following as to when to provide the original Latin and when not to?
I was a Classics major during my undergrad, and this was usually how I wrote papers. I prefer this method, since it allows someone versed in Latin to easily see what I'm (or someone else) is translating, but also for someone who is not well-versed in the language to simply move over it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to you; classics seems like the appropriate disciplinary norm to follow. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Following this proem, an elucidation of the zodiac follows" Slightly repetitive.
Is 'proem' the repetitive part? If so, I've removed it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, it was "following ... follows". Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Not an issue, as it's in the OED, but I just wanted to comment on what a great word zodiacal is.)
I learned it while writing this article, and I have to agree that it's pretty fun.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"This term is used to refer to the division of each zodiacal sign into twelve segments" 12 signs each with 12 segments? Am I understanding that right?
Yes. I further specified by adding "further". I also cited that definition really weird, so I fixed that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The following verses discuss: lots (ll. 3.43–202), calculating the ascendant and the horoscope (3.203–509),[nb 2] chronocrators[b] (ll 3.510–59), determining the length of life (ll. 3.560–617), and the tropic signs (ll. 3.618–82)." Could this be rephrased? Perhaps semi-colons could separate the list items? (Also, what a "tropic signs"?)
Semicolons would only be appropriate if there were further commas within each individual list item, I believe. I am open to rearranging them. Do you have an idea?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Following verses variously discuss lots..."? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a def. for "tropic signs".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"leading Goold to suggest" This person has yet to be introduced.
Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"the digression is very well chosen, in as much as no other mythological episode involves so many future constellations interacting at the same time: Andromeda (e.g. 5.544), Perseus (e.g. 5.67), the Sea Monster – strictly, Cetus (cf. 5.600), but often referred to in more generic terms during this story as belua (5.544, 608) and monstrum (5.581) – Medusa's head (e.g. 5.567), and Andromeda’s parents, Cepheus and Cassiopeia." This is a very long quote featuring a number of wikilinks; would a blockquote be more appropriate?
Good idea.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"the Harvard University Press writes that Manilius" I'm not sure I'm keen on citing the publishers directly like this; of course they're going to say how great it is, they're trying to sell it.
I see it more as an academic authority affirming how good the poem is. Academia is all about explaining why research/translation/etc. is important, and I think this is a good example. Also, it's Harvard, so it's a little more than just a lay publishing house.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously recognise Harvard as a highly respected university press, but I'm still not sure that what is effectively a blurb is the best source. Maybe a Harvard UP blog or something, but their page for the book isn't really appropriate for information of this sort, in my view. I'm willing to let it drop for GAC purposes, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it, to me, still feels like a publishing house explaining their reasoning for publishing a translation. And since the text reads that it has been singled out for being intelligently written, I see this blurb as a good, succinct source backing this up.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"(as mentioned above)" Avoid self references!
Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Africitas is worth a link? Don't be scared of redlinks!
Good idea.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In addition to stylistic peculiarities, the work sometimes features idiosyncratic understandings of Hellenistic astrology; for instance, Chris Brennan writes that "virtually every astrologer from the 1st century through the 7th century reports that Venus rejoices in the 5th place and Saturn in the 12th, but Manilius is the only author who says that Venus rejoices in the 10th and Saturn in the 4th"." As before.
Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"information overland" overland? Do you mean overload?
Haha, yeah!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"was seeking to "himself as a compliant imperial agent, intent on producing a creative poetic enterprise that plots its own way through the levels of acceptable stellar discourse in the early empire."" I don't follow. Are you missing a verb? Also, be aware of dash consistency and MOS:LQ.
Forgot the word 'present'; also, I have fixed the dash issue.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clearer; I've tweaked the punctuation. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why you haven't added any links to determinism? I added one in the lead, but now I'm wondering if it was a deliberate choice.
I neglected to add a link. I went ahead and stuck one in.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Manilius "was a creationist rather than a materialistic evolutionist", and in doing so" In doing what?
Boo boo on my part; reworded.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"although many scholars favor the latter position" Do you mean to say that the latter is a consensus position? What do your sources say?
I meant that many scholars today support the latter. I added a few names.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"but due to the scribe's supposed incompetence (ignorantissimus omnium viventium), Bracciolini sarcastically claimed that the resultant copy had to be "divined rather than read" (divinare oportet non legere)" There's something odd about providing the original words when you're not quoting.
Although 'ignorantissimus omnium viventium' (i.e. "of all living men, the most ignorant") is a great diss, I removed it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right; perhaps a footnote would be good! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think omnium viventium is better translated as "of all living creatures". There is nothing in the Latin to confine it to humans, I think. It is much funnier that way, too.Seadowns (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better than my previous translation, and perfect, I think -- "the most ignorant thing alive"! Seadowns (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether the textual history section may go better earlier in the article; directly after authorship/date, I would have thought. That gives a pleasing chronology; where it came from, what happened to it, what it (now) says, what people have said about it.
OK.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The editio princeps" Is the Latin necessary?
Nope! Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"As mentioned above," Avoid self references!
Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"also exhibits so many points of resemblance with the work of Manilius" Can a person resemble a work?
Metonymically, yes. However, I see your point and have rewritten it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure the reception section is all about reception; "influence and reception" or even "influence and scholarly attention" may be more appropriate.
I like the latter.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Few copies apparently survived the Medieval period." Do you mean into the medieval period? The tenth century is comfortably medieval.
Good catch. Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Yet while the work caught the attention of many, it never quite reached the same level of interest as other Classical Latin epics" This is a bit too prosaic, I think."
How is, "Despite the attention it garnered, it never received the same amount of regard as other Classical Latin epics"?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much clearer. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might complain about a slightly anglocentric bias overall (particularly clear, I think, in your reception section), but I think I'm comfortable letting that slide for GAC purposes.
I do need to find what other classicists (especially Germans and Italian) are saying, but to be fair Katharina Volk, who is the most cited authority in this article, is German (although she teaches at Columbia).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I got the impression from my "whack it into Google Scholar" research that Volk was the big name here. I think what caught my eye was the line "Prior to the publication of Volk's book, scholarship on Manilius had largely been restricted to Italy and Germany." This almost gives the impression that this scholarship is less important for that fact, and it's also odd that you place it after the discussion of Volk in what is otherwise primarily chronological. As I say, I won't hold up the review with this, but it's something you may want to think on. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to reword and make it clear that a) Volk and Green's book features scholars from all over the world (many of whom are referenced in this article), and b) prior scholarship had only emerged within the last few decades and was mostly contained in France, Germany, and Italy. I feel mentioning many of those European papers is somewhat unnecessary, since Volk takes most of them and distils their ideas into her 2009 book.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"A certain irony about Manilius and his poem – namely that Manilius had penned the work in the hopes of attaining some form of literary immortality, only for the work barely to make it to the present day in one piece – has been noted by various authors." Again, just a tad prosaic, I feel.
Do you have any suggestion for how to rewrite this? I'm at a loss.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Scholars have noted the irony in Manilius's relative obscurity, given that he had penned the workAstronomica in the hopes of attaining some form of literary immortality."
That seems good. Implemented.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your Hübner source is to an entry in Brill's New Pauly. The citation needs attention!
I'm not sure I see the problem. The bottom of the website/entry gives the author as "Hübner, Wolfgang", and Brill is the overall publisher.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you should cite it as a chapter in the book? You can still cite it as having come from the online source rather than the original print version. Something like the following would work: Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hübner, Wolfgang (2006). "Paranatellonta". Brill's New Pauly. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. doi:10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e907920 – via BrillOnline Reference Works. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
Oh, I see now. Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not know the author of the Britannica entry? Same with the "Trimble" source. You should really cite the author and entry, not the editor and encyclopedia!
I found the author of the Trimble piece; Britannica does not list an author for its entry, however.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm; not ideal. You could consider putting "Anon."; the source is definitely reliable, though, so I suppose I've no business fussing about it. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Another contradiction is pointed out by Green and Volk, who note that Manilius paradoxically claims that astrological knowledge can both be sought out by the human individual, but is also only granted by divine favor." Have you got the right citation for this sentence? Or perhaps is it not Green and Volk who make the claim?
Good catch. It was Caroline Stark who made the claim.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, "Sister Wilfrid" is Title Name (Mr John). If you want to cite her like this, it should be simply "Sister Wilfrid", not "Wilfrid, Sister".
Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great article which I really enjoyed reading. I've no doubt I'll be happy to promote once a few fixes have been made. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: thanks for the very thorough review. I have either corrected all the issues, or asked for clarification on others.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Left some replies; thanks for the quick response! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some of 'em. I'll be back for more later.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I believe I have changed everything you requested; the only thing I didn't remove was the Harvard blurb, as I still feel it makes sense in the article. Thank you for going through and explaining what you meant, even when I was being thick-skulled!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a few more additions if you wanna peep 'em.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic; I'm happy that this is more than ready for GA status. It's very close to FAC-ready; I can offer a few more comments with an eye to FAC if that would be useful to you. Either way, I'm promoting now. Great work, and do feel free to message me if you nominate further articles in this vein; while I can't make any promises, I may be interested in reviewing them, too. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: thanks! I'm planning on prepping this one and Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi for FAC. If you want to take a look at that one, it would be much appreciated (it's already been promoted to GA, but your review here was so thorough and helpful. As such, I can only image a look over the article would be helpful). But no pressure or anything. Thanks so much!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)'[reply]

I don't know quite where to put this, but is it worth mentioning that Housman's work had a second edition, with addenda, corrigenda, etc? Also he published a one-volume editio minor. Goold too published a second edition of the Loeb, which I think he called a corrected edition. It took account of continuing work by others, especially a paper by W S Watt called Maniliana (1994, I think). Goold told me that the first printing had one of the biggest demands of any Loeb, so it is certainly true that it greatly increased accessibility. Anyone buying a Loeb should make sure of getting this edition. Seadowns (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)I am afraid I can't reference any of this at present, as my books are ou t of reach. Seadowns (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. I've added information about Housman's editio minor and Goold's second edition. Since I have access to the 1992 edition of Goold, I've specified that here.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to confirmation, I think the chronology is like this: 1992 Watt starts to read Manilius (I know this) 1994 Watt publishes his paper 1998 Goold's corrected edition comes out. This is the edition people should look out for. Goold was particularly abashed by his mistranslation of IV 3, pointed out by Watt. He also printed at least one of Watt's conjectures. A 1992 printing of the Loeb would, I think, be a reprint of the original to meet demand, without the later corrections.

I have now described the 1992 volume as a reprint. It is really misleading to call it a second edition. Goold would not have done so. (Incidentally, Goold told me that the star charts in his volume had been created by his brother.) Seadowns (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article deals with the mss. fully enough, but it does not quite bring out how over the centuries editors have repaired the text to make it intelligible. To some, this is the most interesting thing about Manilius. Seadowns (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the preface of the Loeb I have access to. It is a corrected version of the third(?) edition from 1997. Here's the change I've made.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any ideas on how we might expand on the revisions and intelligibility over the years?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a sentence like 
Seadowns (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) "It is thanks to the exertions of scholars, including some of the very greatest, over the years since the discovery of the manuscripts, that we are now able to read and comprehend Manilius reasonably coherently."[reply]

But I can't give a reference for it.

"Harvard University Press"

I agree with the reviewer above that "Harvard University Press" is not a suitable source for a quotation. The sentence sticks out as a bit amateurish. Nor should it be assumed that the writer of the blurb was Goold; it could have been any of their editors. I think the sentence should be omitted. Kanjuzi (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]