Talk:Vatican Mythographers

A fact from Vatican Mythographers appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 February 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a major source for Greek mythology, the first Vatican Mythographer, survives in a single text in the Vatican Library?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/February.

Wikipedia

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chronology?

It would be helpful if more information could be provided on the dates of the three mythographers. Haiduc 07:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only dates of the manuscripts can be assessed, giving the very broad termini in the article. "Nevio Zorzetti places the original text of the First Vatican Mythographer between the last quarter of the ninth century and the third quarter of the eleventh." --Wetman 09:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That still leaves me wondering about the second and the third mythographer. Do you also get the sense that the materials are in the Vatican library but are not accessible? Haiduc 00:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Second" and "Third" Mythographers are ghostly personalities, deductions drawn from the existence of additional material in mss. other than the one inspected by Mai. The Vatican? Any further material possibly lurking in the Vatican Library will have been bound in a hitherto unrecognized miscellany that has been catalogued under its first, major text— one that is otherwise well represented in numerous mss and so not very interesting and therefore has often not been looked at in decades. Or it will be in an unrecognized palimpsest that has been scraped so clean that only modern techniques will make it evident that an earlier text is actually there at all. Or it will have been chopped about and used to stiffen a binding. Slender chances. But stuff does turn up. I'd focus my hopes on a papyrus fragment of an Alexandrian copy of the missing last volume of Bibliotheke. After all we got a new poem by Sappho in 2005. Or retrieving the "missing" Latin library in unexplored parts of Villa of the Papyri: was Calpurnius Piso such a snob he just didn't have any Latin books? --Wetman 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That excavation has been blocked for years, and not for lack of funds. I have a strong suspicion that after 2000 years of successful censorship, the last thing the Vatican wants is an ancient library unearthed. Haiduc 12:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General problem

I think the article has a general problem, in that it focuses on the *authors* -- about whom little is known -- rather than the texts, which are at least solid things. I've rewritten quite a bit of it with this in mind, but more could probably be done. The real difficulty I am finding is getting any solid up-to-date information. That Elliot article just plunges into the middle of things. Roger Pearse (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Cloudz 679 07:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican Mythographer → Vatican Mythographers – Until this article becomes large enough for a split (if it should ever do so), I think that we should lose the singular title and alter the lead accordingly. No one thinks that the three works were written by a single person, and the current title is therefore highly misleading. Deor (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Roger Pearse's comment above and Wetman's comment here. I'd say "potentially" rather than "highly" misleading, since a singular title doesn't necessarily mean that only one exists, but this is probably the sort of thing meant to be covered by WP:PLURAL. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The move certainly would make the opening sentence easier to reword. ;) Deor (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Since the article implies that there are three anonymous authors, the plural is preferable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Term is intrinsically plural. Andrewa (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.