# Talk:Sappho

Given that identification of ancient images of Sappho is a perennial subject of sturm und drang on this talkpage, I've put together some notes on what I can find out about all of the supposed ancient depictions available on Commons (plus a couple of well-known ones that we don't have illustrated!) here.  In general, it's nothing we haven't discussed before: all identifications of ancient sculpture as depicting Sappho are tenuous at best.  
Hopefully this is a useful resource.  If anyone has any further sources on the identification of any of these works (in particular some of the sculptures) do add them – all contributions greatly appreciated. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

"Whilst her importance as a poet is confirmed from the earliest times, all interpretations of her work have been coloured and influenced by discussions of her sexuality."
This seems extremely subjective and of the opinion of the author of the content and not the reality. Sappho has long been know for her poetry. Not everything is about sexuality. Spiel (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, this was introduced by someone who has not otherwise edited this article with the summary "small changes for clarity". As this is a very strong claim that isn't supported by the body of the article, I have removed it from the lead. (Though I note that it does not at all contradict the claim that Sappho is known for her poetry!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

No reliable portrait of Sappho has survived; all extant representations, ancient and modern, are artists' conceptions. In the Tithonus poem she describes her hair as now white but formerly black. A literary papyrus of the second century AD describes her as very small. Alcaeus possibly describes Sappho as "violet-haired", which was a common Greek poetic way of describing dark hair. Some scholars dismiss this tradition as unreliable.
I am increasingly uncomfortable with this.  The first sentence is true, though it's not exactly what the cited source is saying; Richter says that no ancient sculpture has been reliably identified as depicting Sappho, not that none of the ancient sculptures of Sappho are reliable likenesses.  The second is true but I am incredibly uncomfortable with our article inferring details of Sappho's personal appearance from her poetry: aside from the fact that the speaker does not name herself as Sappho in fr.58, there's no reason to think that the poet would necessarily faithfully record her hair colour rather than e.g. use the contrast of black and white for poetic effect.  Unless we can find reliable sources making this connection I think we should steer well clear.  As for the literary papyrus, there are several sources rather better than Smyth's comments from 1900 which discuss in rather more depth why we shouldn't take that as a useful description: e.g. Marguerite Johnson, Sappho (2007); Mary Lefkowitz, The Lives of Greek Poets (2012); Jane McIntosh Snyder, "Sappho in Attic Vase-Painting" (1997).
Finally, the Alcaeus fragment is an enormous can of worms.  Whether it mentions Sappho at all is disputed: it doesn't in Voigt's edition, nor in Liberman, Alcée (1999); Neri (2021) discusses the controversy in some depth and concludes that "μελλιχόμειδε Σάπφοι" is wrong.  Even if it is right, citing the LSJ dictionary entry to support "a common poetic way" seems to be stretching the source way beyond the limits of what it actually says, and e.g. Snyder 1997 argues that it should be interpreted as meaning "O weaver of violets" rather than "violet-haired Sappho". And I can't lay my hands on a source at the moment, but I've definitely also seen it translated as "Sappho with violets in her hair".  (Meanwhile, Yatromanolakis, Sappho in the Making (2008), goes so far as to say that the ascription of the fragment to Alcaeus is uncertain and it may have been authored by Sappho!)
I've tried to rewrite this in a way that I'm happy with, but I haven't been able to come up with anything which doesn't end up as footnotes upon footnotes of hedging and clarifying.  Ultimately, I think the reason is that this doesn't really belong in the section of Sappho's life; the stories about her appearance are only relevant insofar as it tells us something about her reception.  So I've cut it out; I'm going to try to fit some discussion of how Sappho's appearance is described in the sources (the Oxyrhynchus biography is not the only relevant source here!) into the section on reception. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto, hello!
"In the Tithonus poem she describes her hair as now white but formerly black. A literary papyrus of the second century AD describes her as very small."
I think these sentences should be restored. We can also add that Maximus of Tyre described her as short and dark-complexioned.
"there's no reason to think that the poet would necessarily faithfully record her hair colour rather than e.g. use the contrast of black and white for poetic effect"
The vast majority of Greeks had black hair, what's surprising? "For poetic effect" is far-fetched. Becarefulbro (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, per WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR, we can't add any of that unless a secondary source (that is, a modern academic one) ha said the same thing. From what Caecilius has set out above, it sounds like the consensus of modern sources is that we can't use these ancient testimonies as good evidence for Sappho's actual appearance, as opposed to how later people thought of her. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
What UndercoverClassicist said, basically.  Sure, it's likely that Sappho had dark hair because probably most ancient Greeks had dark hair, but if secondary sources do not think that's important (and to my knowledge they do not) then we shouldn't be including it. And if the best we can say is "in the Tithonus poem, the speaker says that her hair was once dark but is now white.  We don't know if the speaker is meant to be Sappho or not, and even if the speaker is Sappho we don't know that she would have been concerned with accurately describing her actual appearance" then I don't really see what the point of including it is.  What is the benefit to readers here? (As for Maximus of Tyre, he was writing eight centuries after Sappho's lifetime and he is no more a reliable source for what she actually looked like than I am for what William of Waddington looked like.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
The benefit to readers is they will have access to interesting information from which they can draw their own conclusions. Maximus had ancient sources that have not survived to us.
"in the Tithonus poem, the speaker says that her hair was once black but is now white. We don't know if the speaker is meant to be Sappho or not."
Good. She used the word melainan, which means black, not just dark. Brown hair is also considered dark in UK, but for Greeks it was light and described by same word xanthos as blond. Becarefulbro (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of random bits of "interesting" information, but a summary of what reliable sources have actually said about a subject. Even if we grant that "Sappho might have looked like what most ancient Greeks looked like" is interesting information, which I'm skeptical of, that's still not a compelling reason to include it in the article.  It's already a pretty long article – it's not as if we are desperately looking to find more stuff to say about Sappho to fill out the space! The section on Sappho's appearance was previously sourced to Herbert Smyth's 1900 book "Greek Melic Poetry"; scholarship on Sappho has developed enormously since 1900 and Smyth is no longer in any way relevant (and at any rate all he actually says on Sappho's appearance is that there's no reason to believe that Maximus of Tyre's report has any relationship to reality!)  Modern scholarship does not, to the best of my knowledge, care at all about what Sappho actually looked like. Unless there's actual scholarly discussion of this which would make it possible to write something about Sappho's appearance which is reliably sourced and due weight, then we shouldn't be including it in the article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
To put the point above in (further) policy terms, this is the principles that Wikipedia must be selective on the information it includes and, more importantly, statements of fact must be cited to up-to-date, reliable scholarship. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This article could use a bit more information about the music associated with Sappho—at the moment the only substantial information on it is hidden away in a note! ("Other musical inventions...", note n) For example, in her Grove article, the two leading scholars on Greek music doubt that she invented the Mixolydian mode (among other things), which is to be fair, a bit nonsensical anyways. Certainly there isn't a lot known about the music associated with her, but there is certainly more known than what is in the article. Would be happy to add some myself, if there is agreement from others that I should do so? (asking since this is a GA). Best – Aza24 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Music isn't really my area – as far as I'm concerned you should just go ahead and write something if you think there's something to be said! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Happy to—as I said above, the only reason I came here first was to double check since its a GA. Will get to this in a few days. Aza24 (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Haven't forgotten about this, just delayed for now. Best – Aza24 (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the new infobox recently added by Laharmo1 was a good addition to the article, and an improvement on the previous infobox which was removed by Caeciliusinhorto about a month ago.So 3 editors want an infobox, and 1 is against. I'm posting this here to try and get a consensus. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

That infobox wasn't a good addition. Nearly all the content in it was speculative and contested. As the article says, there are ten conjectures for the name of Sappho's father, and he does not appear to have been notable for anything else. Nor does her mother, about whom there is less speculation and indded less said at all, which is normal for ancient Greece. The sources for the names and number of her brothers are inconsistent. It's uncertain whether Sappho's mention of a Cleis may refer to a child or a lover, but the infobox says it's the possible name of her daughter, a daughter that we don't even know existed at all and conversely, that if she existed she was Sappho's only child. Yet if we have an infobox, such parameters are inevitably filled in by someone, sooner or later, because they're there, because why would they be there if they're not to be used, because the infobox would look insubstantial or useless without even those scraps.
And what do they tell us about Sappho? That the key information about her is who her father and mother were, who her brothers were, that she was a mother. That is utterly misleading and does our readers a gross disservice. The article's lead has its priorities right. Let it be the readers' focus. NebY (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
NebY perfectly explains my dislike for an infobox in this article.  Virtually nothing about Sappho's life is certain, and infoboxes aren't set up to do nuance.  Readers blindly looking for Facts™ in an infobox,  without concern for the uncertainty surrounding them, is exactly what I would rather avoid. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
While it is true that not much is known for sure about Sappho's life, that dosent mean there shouldnt be an infobox. For example, Menes has an infobox despite knowing almost nothing for sure about them. To add on to that, they might not have even existed. The readers of the infobox would know the uncertainty of the information. The dates of when she was born and died and how old she was when she died have circas next to them. With regard to her realatives, I wouldnt mind if they were removed (even though I wrote possibly next to their names). Laharmo1 (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Menes is a perfect example of why if I were benevelont dictator of Wikipedia, we'd do away with infoboxes on the grounds that editors can't be trusted with them.  Of the "facts" included in that infobox,  the dates are already included in the first sentence of the lead, and that his sucessor was Hor-Aha is apparently disputed – with a respectable minority opinion being that he was Hor-Aha!  The only thing in that infobox which can usefully be digested as a simple fact and isn't already in the first sentence of the lead is the meaning of the name mnj – and that isn't visible on mobile! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the new infobox did a better job of making clear that most of this info was only 'possibly true'. Perhaps we could scrap the parents though, and add 3 of her famous poems. That would make the infobox more useful imo. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It did, though I generally think that infoboxes do a bad job of conveying nuances, and simply saying "Father: Scamondronymos (possibly)" isn't super useful.  Why only "possibly"?  And for that matter, why are we suggesting more certainty about who her brothers were?  Cleis is at least mentioned in Sappho's poetry, possibly as her daughter; Eurygios isn't in any surviving poems, and the other "brothers" aren't explicitly called her brothers in the one poem where they are explicitly named. (And André Lardinois, at least, has suggested that they were entirely fictional and only existed in Sappho's poetry).
I agree that if we do have to have an infobox, it would be useful to include some of Sappho's major works – probably the Ode to Aphrodite and Sappho 31.  A minimalist infobox which doesn't contain anything actively questionable or misleading might look like the example to the right, but at that point I don't see what information this adds over just reading the first paragraph of the lead.  Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I've added her brothers and possible daughter to the candidate infobox (right), because of the link to her poetry. Combined with the "Notable work" section, I think this makes the infobox a useful addition. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Do you mean that Cleis might have been Sappho's daughter? That Sappho had a daughter whose name might have been Cleis? Or that Sappho might have had a daughter? If the latter, do you wish to imply that she only had one daughter, or only had one child, or that she had more than one child (note that the infobox says children, not child)?
You haven't explained why you added those three names as brothers, even though it's just been explained to you immediately above how uncertain it is that they were her brothers at all.
Your eagerness to fill in infobox parameters is entirely normal and illustrates the problem well. However clearcut a consensus might emerge here on which parameters should not be filled, subsequent editors will in good faith see those parameters missing and fill them in. That will be extremely difficult to manage; in each case, reversions will be hard to accept, explanations will have to be repeated, feelings will be hurt and everyone will be wearied, of this article and of Wikipedia. But it will keep happening, to no good purpose. None of these names are key infomation about Sappho, nor are any of these people otherwise notable.
Infoboxes are optional. (The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes that confirmed or established (depending on your POV) this ended a long and bruising conflict and it's to various editors credit that they are still active even after suffering severe sanctions.) An article without an infobox is not a vacuum waiting to be filled. NebY (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that [[Laharmo1 is a block-evader, therefore their opinion should be discounted. Graham87 03:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know, Graham87! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
An article doesn't need an infobox, but this article did have one for some time. I think Caeciliusinhorto was right in saying it was poor, and he removed it. So I've tried to work out with others what would make a good infobox here. Note the lead currently doesn't mention Sappho 31, so I think the infobox is now adding something. I've removed the brothers, and Cleis can go too if necessary. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The article had one for about 18 months, introduced in February 2021 by an editor with no other substantial contributions; for the previous twenty years it did just fine without one!  The lack of infobox is also consistent with other similar articles: of the Nine lyric poets, only Pindar has an infobox; of Antipater's canon of female poets, only two of the nine (Nossis and Telesilla) have infoboxes.  Pindar may be the only ancient poet where an infobox is justifiable (though the current example I would consider pretty useless), but the Telesilla and Nossis examples are not ones to emulate, frankly.  In a perfect encapsulation of the problem of people filling in infobox parameters for the sake of it whether or not they are useful, discussed by NebY above, the infobox on Nossis has the gem "Resting place: unknown". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
You illustrate the problem so well!. If someone who's trying to persuade us that an infobox would be a good idea writes, despite repeated explanations and objections, "Cleis can go too if necessary", imagine how much harder it would be to repeatedly persuade helpful parameter-filling editors to see the necessity, perceive the problem or even engage with the issue. NebY (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. We know basically the same amount ifnromation on Sappho as for Homer and Hesiod, yet they have infoboxes. I personally think that since Sappho was prominent poet there should be infobox, should mentions at least one of her work (Ode to Aphrodite), time she lived, and Cleis as her possible daughter. Yes, there are uncertainities about her life, but so about pretty much every other archaic poet. Infoboxes help people to pick the most important infors without reading this very interesting but very long and momentary confusing article. Such facts as important works, style and Sappho's presumed child (tradition says she had a duaghter, most historians and classicists accept she had a daughter and identify Cleis-girl from her poems with this daughter) are basic facts that can help people to catch important facts and do not do any harm. I think her brothers should be mentioned too, since they appear in Brothers poem, though they are of coyrse less important than children.
Those infos help to quickly point to specific time, specific place, specific genre and family info. I really do not understand a problem. We know more on Sappho than about Homer. We know her genre, time, place and fact that she presumably has a child and three brothers of whom two are characters in her poem. On Homer we know only he supposedly came from Ionia. Sobek2000 (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
We know basically the same amount ifnromation on Sappho as for Homer and Hesiod, yet they have infoboxes. I don't think those infoboxes are especially helpful either. The Hesiod one in particular is an excellent example of why I think almost no article on an ancient person is improved by having an infobox. It states as fact several things which I would question (according to Works and Days, Hesiod's father came from Cyme, but we don't know that Hesiod was born there, and at least one ancient source puts his birth in Ascra; there are several ancient traditions about his death of which at least one was set in Locris rather than Ascra; I'm not sure it's really true to describe Hesiod as a philosopher by occupation; listing the Shield of Heracles as a notable work when its authorship is at best disputed seems questionable to me). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
I am not saying Hesiod's infobox is good, however I tried to do Sappho infobox with as much accuracy as I could.  Sobek2000 (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't suggest you didn't. However, as discussed above, little accuracy about Sappho's life is possible, but infoboxes convey the impression of accuracy ("key facts"). Also, as discussed and demonstrated above, they create a significant maintenance problem in cases such as this, when other editors see an opportunity to contribute by filling in parameters, inserting in good faith ever more poorly attested material. There's no consensus on Wikipedia that infoboxes are a general good and no principle that they should be added (see for example last year's RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes) and they remain a contentious topic (Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Infoboxes; WP:ARBINFOBOX; WP:ARBINFOBOX2). NebY (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
I would still say that such things as place of her birth, genre, lifetime and children are key facts that are not contested. None is disputing facts she was a poet, that she was born on Lesbos, she lived around 6th century BC and she is credited with Ode to Aphrodite. The only disputing factor was name of her daughter, but many historical figures had in their infoboxes possible children (for example Akhenaten or Ankhesenamun), so I would say that it is good to acknowledge Cleis as her child within infobox, as long as she is listed as "possible". Having a child is probable factor in her life and one of few things we know about her, so I see no reason to not highlight it, as long as it is acknowledge with addnotation that matter is probable, but contentious.
Regardless, it seems we have different points of view, so my question is: who is the authority who decide on matter? If you, then I will go away.  Sobek2000 (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Having a child is not really one of the things we know about her; it's something that was deduced from her poetry, along with almost everything else about her that's reached us from classical antiquity, because almost nothing was known about her then. Thus we don't know if she was writing metaphorically or even in her own voice; in so much poetry then and now, even the poet writing in the first person is projecting and inventing, not writing autobiographically, and will use a name that fits their verse best rather than any actual person's. If we do assume she was writing about herself, it's a leap to say that mentioning only one daughter means she had only one child - albeit a leap of the sort that was often made (cf classical etymology).
But no, I am not the authority on this article. Wikipedia proceeds by consensus, albeit skewed towards the status quo (e.g. WP:ONUS The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content). We have a whole range of ways of achieving consensus, described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and if you'd like to talk with uninvolved experienced editors about the alternatives, the Teahouse is just the place. NebY (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
None is claiming that she had only one child - claim is: she probably had at least one child. And because we are not certain, hence addnotation "possibly". When infobox mentions children of historical individual, it is always assumed children - none can preclude possibility individuals had other children, who are simply not known.
Yes, in poetry, persona is not always the same as poet, however, but mentioning daughter in the Ovid's Heroides suggests existence of tradition already in antiquity that Sappho had at least one child, even if it was not this Cleis-girl from her poetry.   Sobek2000 (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto, as discussed above, I've now added a music section, which I hope is satisfiable. I have some thoughts regarding this new section:

Should its last paragraph on later composers be in the reception section instead?
Does it make sense as a sub-section of "Works" or should it be separate?
Any other suggestions on the section would be most welcome, of course
Also, the now two-picture (and even when it had three) gallery in the Ancient sources section strikes me as very strange and out of place. Do we really need these at all? Aza24 (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Aza24: thanks!  The content looks good to me, to the extent that I understand music – which, to be fair, is not very far!  I think that the bulk of this makes sense where it is, as part of the discussion on works, though the last paragraph on composers influenced by Sappho should probably be integrated into the reception section.
As for the two heads in the "ancient sources" section, I have been dubious about those for quite some time.  Especially as there's no particular reason to believe that either head was originally intended to represent Sappho - the Istanbul head is of a type commonly referred to as the Sappho/Olympias type, but which almost certainly was originally meant to be an Aphrodite; the inscription on the Vatican herm was a renaissance addition. I've removed them now. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I favor the picture of the bust over the much smaller picture on a vessel as the first photo@, even if the latter is older. What do others think ?  Wuerzele (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

So you favor a depiction which is: a) less close to Sappho's lifetime, b) not certain to be Sappho, c) more likely to be imaginative and d) not even the original version? Can't say I agree. Aza24 (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Too bad.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the vase painting is more appropriate on multiple axes: it's closer in time to Sappho than the bust, it is securely identifiable as Sappho on the basis of its inscription, and it's iconography is more distinctive, showing Sappho holding her lyre.  The bust, to me, has nothing to recommend it as the lead image - it is both less confidently identified as Sappho, and less iconographically distinct - if not for the caption telling you it was Sappho, it could be any ancient Greek person. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I do not agree with you.
since you reverted my suggestion I would definitely change the language in the lede to make her gender visible in the first sentence.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
In your edit summary, you suggested that readers would assume from her name that Sappho was male. I find this surprising and fear you might be extrapolating from a very small sample. But If our reader has taken an interest in Sappho without having gathered she was female, the second sentence of the article uses a female pronoun, and the rest of the article does so repeatedly. This is similar to our sexing of other Greek poets of that period, eg Alcman, Terpander and Tyrtaeus, let alone Thaletas.
If we do need to provide a picture so readers will know a subject's female before reading an article, that bust's no help. Is it a boy or is it a girl? We don't even know that it was meant to represent Sappho. The figure on the kalpis was, and shows her in the garb of a woman too.
More broadly, Wikipedia doesn't have a policy that subjects will be assumed to be male unless otherwise stated, and therefore female subjects must be identified as such in the first sentence or image, otherwise readers will be startled when they reach the second one. NebY (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

In my attempts to bring this article up to featured, I've spent much of today trying to get my head around our image licensing rules; I still have a few outstanding queries so I'm summarising everything here in the hopes of getting to the bottom of things.

There are really two images that I'm concerned about: the one of Grenfell & Hunt in Egypt and the one of Sappho and Erinna in a Garden at Mytilene.  Both are claimed as public domain in the US due to pre-1928 publication, but I can't find any evidence for either.  
The Solomon painting can be swapped out if necessary for an image of Amanda Brewster Sewell's "Sappho" (exhibited Chicago 1893).  There's nothing great on Commons for Grenfell and Hunt (there's a studio portrait of Grenfell which is much less relevant to the topic, and the only photo of AS Hunt itself needs its US public domain status establishing), or for the Oxyrhynchus excavations.  There is a nice image in the Illustrated London News from 23 May 1914 showing the excavations at Oxyrhynchus; its photographer isn't listed but if it's by Grenfell or Hunt it's PD-old, and if we can't establish a photographer it's PD-UK-unknown. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: some searching has found the Solomon painting was exhibited in 1896, which makes life easier.  Still not convinced about the G&H photo Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I would say remove the Grenfell image entirely and instead add a quote box with an excerpt of her poetry beside the "Only approximately 650 lines of Sappho's poetry..." paragraph. Would seem beneficial to have some actual lines in the article! Quote boxes can be seen in George Bernard Shaw, for instance. Aza24 (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, you are right that it would be good to have some of Sappho's poetry in there!  Unfortunately for me I have Opinions On Translations and we are limited by WP:NFC which means that we can't use any in-copyright translations where free ones exist or can be made. Fortunately for me I have found a translation that I am at least not unhappy with... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Great addition! You might consider changing the subject line from "— Ezra Pound, "Ἰμέρρω"" so something like "–Sappho, translated by Pound". At the moment, it appears (in isolation) as written by Pound. Aza24 (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
"Translated" is a bit strong, even given Pound was working from Edmonds' famously optimistic restorations! But I've noted which fragment he is adapting – it's an interesting example, actually, which might get expanded on if I ever get around to writing Reception of Sappho... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

An IP editor removed "The legend may have resulted in part from a desire to assert her as heterosexual.". I was going to restore it routinely as sourced content (and indeed UndercoverClassicist did restore it) but reviewing the source, I found that the statement might look plausible but isn't clearly supported by the source.
Hallett describes how the legend was used to assert Sappho as heterosexual but doesn't suggest that was its origin, even in part. She does write "Various works from the fourth century onward also represent Sappho as a mythic heroine, driven by her love for a younger man, Phaon, to a dramatic suicide"; "in the fifteenth of Ovid's Heroides, a fictive epistle from Sappho to Phaon, she is portrayed as discomfited by allegations that she enjoyed erotic attachments with other women; at line 201 she complains that her love for the women of her native Lesbos has made her infamous" (p448) and "Three of these sources ... insist that Sappho's primary erotic allegiances were heterosexual, citing as evidence that she was infatuated with Phaon, was married, and had a daughter" (pp448–449).)
Should we remove the statement as WP:SYNTH or do we have a source that does directly support it? NebY (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

DeJean has the following (p52f).  -- it's a little more flowery but gets to the same place:
The history of Sapphic speculation provides countless examples of the tendency to literalize references in Sappho's poetry in order to make them into elements from which a biography can be constructed ... The first male author who made the actual Sappho ... commit suicide for love of a man named Phaon ... reassured his male audience: the desiring woman rejects her love for women.
This has all the key ingredients -- DeJean suggests that the Phaon story, particularly Sappho's suicide (which is the topic here in the article) is an invention by later readers of Sappho, and that it served to reassure them that Sappho was indeed heterosexual. I've added a reference here. Could amend "served to" for "resulted in part from" if we want to be absolutely rock-solid on WP:TSI, but to be honest I think we're already fine with this additional ref. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
That ref is strongly interpretive, is somewhat contrary to our preceding sentence's "perhaps invented ... or originating from a misreading") and is still a little indirect for "resulted in part from". How about bringing the two sentences together, thus?
The story of Sappho's leap is regarded as ahistorical by modern scholars, perhaps invented by the comic poets or originating from a misreading of a first-person reference in a non-biographical poem, but was used in antiquity as evidence that Sappho was heterosexual. The ancient use of the story by multiple writers is significant, after all, and more so than speculation about why it was created. NebY (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
There are some other good sources about how the myth really took off in modern times, and how nineteenth-century writers, in particular, were keen to reimagine Sappho as heterosexual. Adding one of those sources, I'd favour something like:
The story of Sappho's leap is regarded as ahistorical by modern scholars, perhaps invented by the comic poets or originating from a misreading of a first-person reference in a non-biographical poem. It may have served to reassure ancient audiences of Sappho's heterosexuality, and became particularly important in the nineteenth century to writers who saw homosexuality as immoral and wished to construct Sappho as heterosexual.
Source for Walen: Walen, Denise A. (1999). "Sappho in the Closet". In Davis, Tracy C.; Donkin, Ellen (eds.). Women and Playwriting in Nineteenth-Century Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 233–256. ISBN 9780521659826.
I think we need a bit more than just "it was used as evidence that Sappho was heterosexual", as our sources are fairly clear that this was a major reason why it was popular, even if they stop short of saying that this is why it was invented. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Aha! That addition tells the story of the legend well. I take your point about the reason why it was popular, but does "may have served to reassure" convey that fully? We could say - with I think slightly more direct reading - "it was used to assure". NebY (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Agreed: good idea. Will implement. Pinging User:Caeciliusinhorto, who may have some thoughts on the matter. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping – this all looks reasonable to me! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Grand! NebY (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)