Talk:Homeric scholarship

message: What about the Odyssey Scholia? I was looking around at the Homer articles here on Wiki (I am a newbie, I haven't really edited before) and discovered that there is no mention made of them, even editions. Admittedly, the great majority of work is done on the Iliadic scholia... but I know of at least two edition of Odyssean scholia: Dindorf in two volumes (1855) and the more limited Scholia in Homeri Odysseaa A 1-309 Auctoria et Emendatoria of Ludwich (1888-90, republished 1966, with new forward by Erbse). We of course also have Eustathius as is mentioned elsewhere in the article. That's about the extent of my knowledge on the Odyssean scholia though. I'm going to try and make it through Erbse's "Vorwort" to the latter and see what I can learn. Here's what the Britannica 1911 has : " The Scholia on the Odyssey were published by Buttmann (Berlin, 1821), and with greater approach to completeness by W. Dindorf (Oxford, 1855)." Aithon 17:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. I also notice that in the articles on Homer, Iliad and Odyssey the word scholia doesn't appear (even as a 'see also'), which is a bad sign. Anyway, if you cared to add what you can glean from Erbse, I'm sure that would be an excellent move. Andrew Dalby 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't do a write-up on the Odyssey scholia in the initial version of the article because they're much less copious and much less interesting (except for a few isolated hotspots). Also they dwindle progressively and very conspicuously as the Odyssey progresses -- the scholia on book 1 are fairly substantial, but by the time you get to book 24 there's maybe one small comment every 50 lines or so. If someone has something interesting to say about them I certainly don't think it would be out of place. Petrouchka 08:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholia 

message: Whoever proposed the merger from Ancient accounts of Homer didn't explain, and didn't put any notice on that other article. Unless some explanation appears, I'll take the merger notice off again. These are two different subjects, I think. Andrew Dalby 18:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger

message: It seems to have been a while on this article. I think that is because it is a good article, well-written and what-not. I have not checked it for plagiarism, which I will do at some point. Meanwhile the bibliography and additional reading go below the notes, so that the notes can make reference to the items via such devices as harvnb. I notice that the appropriate bibliography is actually located in the "Homer" articles, where it tends to choke the article with huge book lists. So, I plan to move that over here. This move is consistent with the "main" reference there to this article, and the fact that this article distinguishes neoanalysis, etc, where the "Homer" counterpart does not. Such a move will mean blending some of the items.Botteville (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: * Purely in terms of quantity it is one of the largest of all literary sub-disciplines: the annual publication output rivals that on Shakespeare.
I searched these topics until I was blue in the face without being able to find any study or other mention of relative outputs. In "Who killed Homer" I read of the death of my former field, Classics, and I read of the gigantic output in publications, more than any classicist can possibly read. I did not see any comparisons. If you have the reference for this by all means put it back in; otherwise, it looks like someone's fine innuendo. If you put it back in, correct "on" to "of", as it has become ridiculous being repeated dozens if not hundreds of times on the Internet. "By their errors ye shall know them," as a certain professor who served in WWII used to tell his class.Botteville (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced statements

message: I saw the Lundon web site at which Lundon invites you to load an alphabetical list of scholia minora. Apparently all forms of this site are blacklisted. It isn't worth taking a chance on. There's a list all right but it can't possibly comprise all the scholia minora. Better to leave it off. Other sites will turn up I am sure. Meanwhile I need to clean my system now.Botteville (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Blacklisted site

message: The first section on scholia is not too clear. On investigating it I find it is a hash of EB 1911 and WP editorial speculations. Before I get back to Homer I will rewrite this section using a recent source and a lot of blue links. In fact, I'm doing it offline now, will be ready before long.Botteville (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholia section rewrite

message: The section "Hellenistic Scholars and their Aims" heavily plagiarizes "The Hebrew Bible and Philosophy of Religion" By Jaco Gericke. The test passages I located are on p.43. Our article bulletized them but he wording is exactly the same. My theory is that this practice began with EB 1911. Once it was established that anyone could copy its articles or modify them, it was only a matter of time before other works were treated the same way. That is my theory. I will have to rewrite this section also working from independent sources. It will not be a rework. I will try to find good sources ancient and modern. The question is not whether I agree or disagree with the current section. I like it. I'm sure its author did also, and he isn't us. We have met the enemy and he is us, I think Pogo said.Botteville (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: More plagiarism