Talk:Latin poetry

=

This is a stub. It shows little or no knowledge of Latin poetry or its history. The opening statement ("Latin poetry was a major part of Latin literature during the height of the Latin language") is so obvious as to be meaningless. It's like saying "English poetry was a major part of English literature during the height of the English language"!!!!) This article needs to be rewritten from scratch by an expert. Wikixosa (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

=

Really would benefit from images showing proper meter notation rather than the "ascii art"...

Poetry? Verse? Meters?

This is a highly technical subject approached in a clear and well-organized way (although the introductory statement about the Golden Age and great literature is naive, not least because we seem to be forgetting Cicero, Caesar and Livy). But I wonder whether the article title isn't misleading — I came to it expecting a literary history of Latin poetry. Shouldn't the title be something like "Latin metrical forms" or "Latin verse forms"? "Scansion of Latin poetry"? There is already a page called "Latin scansion," marked as a stub though it doesn't even really qualify as a stub. I'm going to be presumptuous and change that to a redirect page for this article, but since this is obviously ongoing work, I hope those working on the article seriously consider changing the page name.

Also, in the article Systems of scansion, it might be good under the Classical scansion subhead to add a "See" line.

More important, there is no bibliography. Even if you're using the back of Allen and Greenough, you should note that; however, if you want to write this article properly, you should also use other handbooks on meter such as The Meters of Greek and Latin Poetry by Halporn, Ostwald and Rosenmeyer. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

New broom

This article was almost entirely about Latin prosody and I have removed most of that content to Prosody (Latin), leaving here some content about the Greek influence on Latin poetry. The content left here also appears at the new article and it should be replaced/reworded when and as editors here get around to writing their history of Latin poetry. Good luck. McCronion (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, it was all I knew here, your scansion article. Now it's clear that we certainly need "good luck" writing a coherent history of Latin poetry. How was this entry never written? Asks the guy who only reads fragmentary Greek literature. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I also removed much of the talk page to the new article and deleted some talk that seemed irrelevant (much of it my own whimsical meanderings). The transfer of prosody material wasn't a unilateral decision on my part - Cynwolfe had a say in it. I have no idea why nobody has yet written an article on 'Latin poetry'. I guess the size of the topic is daunting. Maybe this article should be a very basic overview of the topic with links to other relevant articles. A bit like an index page with brief summaries attached. McCronion (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My point was that an article on Latin poetry shouldn't be exclusively about the technical issues of meter, which is not the only or perhaps primary thing readers might be expected to want to know when they look up "Latin poetry." Cynwolfe (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)