Talk:Hesiod

message: Aeolic looses the consonant H, so ησίοδος would be pronounced /ɛsiɔðas/ (eh-see-oh-thas) /isiɔðas/ (ee-see-oh-thas) or even just /siɔðas/ (see-oh-thas) when spelled Ἡσίοδος.  Though, I am not familiar with η being accented like that in Aeolic...  Looks like someone got it confused with Attic, which is wrong.  One thing is certain, The first letter is not HEH.Lostubes (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: aeolic greek & IPA for ησίοδος

message: There are, understandably, several references to Hesiod's Works and Days in this article, however, all links redirect back to this page. I'm not entirely sure the best way to remedy this, however. Any advice left on my talk page would be appreciated, then I'll do it if no-one else wants to. Just thought I'd point it out! Holypeanut 18:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers ! Yes, I noticed the persistent elliptical problem with the link to "Works and Days" in the Hesiod article pointing back to Hesiod ! The choices have always been clear: (1) write the article on Works and Days, (2) de-Wikify "Works and Days", (3) have "Works and Days" point to an external link to the text of "Works and Days", or (4) leave it oddly perplexing as it is ! I haven't had time to write the "Works and Days" article, or I would have ! I think it's preferable to have a real article on "Works and Days" but that's the best case. For the time being, it might be best to either point to the text or de-Wikify until the article can be written. Some might argue to the contrary. Leave it as a dead pointer as a reminder, not a loop back to the Hesiod article. This would involve simply changing the 'redirect' article. Theogony has a veritable article already. Just some thoughts for your query. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 09:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elliptical Redirects 

message: *"Date of Hesiod": the range of dates given for Hesiod's career in modern discussion.
*"Manuscript tradition": Anonymity 81.106.203.205 has added an unsourced and unelucidated list of mss that makes the article look pretentious, as it stands: we can tell what's being listed because we're ever so au courant, but the Wikipedia reader...
*The "Peisistratean edition": the alleged 6th Athenian century recension and supposed conflation of earlier versions.
--Wetman (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing sections

message: Here it states that The Shield of Heracles survives in its complete form. However it says on Shield of Heracles that it is but a fragment. Which is correct?
83.92.42.149 13:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Shield of Heracles 

message: *Support  The default position should be to maintain a page's most recent stable state and a period of over a year from 1st Oct 2008 is long enough to establish this page as stable BCE. The proportion of BCE/CE in newly published works in Classics is 50-50 while among Classics pages of Wikipedia BCE pages are less than 5%.  To change this page to BC would make Wikipedia even more out of sync with the current ussage of Classics studies.Dejvid (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: *I don't really care that much which system is used--as I said above, the difference between systems is purely cosmetic. Still, every time I see a poll like this, I find the reasons advanced for using BCE/CE to be specious, and that makes me want to oppose. Also, this article spent more time at the BC/AD system, and the first entries in the page history use that system, so I think we should stick with that. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: I was coming to this discussion, hoping that this would be a simple matter of one side presenting the reasons for using CE/BCE, & the other presenting their reasons for AD/BC. Instead, this appears to be a quarrel over whether certain rules were broken -- another sterile exercise in wikilawyering, & entrapping everyone involved in their own purgatory of wikistress & making enemies over trivialities & technicalities. 
Once upon a time, when the entire CE/BCE vs. AD/BC debate first emerged, I had hoped that instead of settling on one style or another, cooler heads could develop a procedure for moving articles from one style to another, preferably using existing processes (for example, WP:BRD). I'll admit that I prefer using the AD/BC style, but that's because it's how I think. Were someone to examine one of the articles I have been the primary (if not the only non-trivial) contributor to, then ask me if she/he could convert the system from AD/BC to CE/BCE, I'd probably say yes -- & be content to live with the change because someone took the time & effort to solicit my opinion. If someone were to do the same thing -- but include a persuasive explanation for the change -- I'd be even more likely to not only agree, but help them maintain the change against other editors. But if someone were to come along & change this style simply because of some policy reason (e.g., the editor who created the article, who never touched it again, & may not even be active on Wikipedia any more, used one style & I changed it to another while undeniably improving the article), I'd be very annoyed & think the person was simply using the rules to be disruptive. 
In short, the whole point WP:ERA was intended to address was to reduce edit wars over using CE/BCE or AD/BC; if a consensus develops that one style is better for that article than another, it shouldn't matter which style is originally used. Just change it then. Otherwise, since either style is acceptable, leave it the fuck alone, & use your time on the rest of the article. -- llywrch (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral 

message: For those of you who set store by the format used at the time of creation  please check the history for yourself.  Click on the actual earliest version shown and then click on the "preceding" link.  This page goes back to 2001 and there was a conversion around that time that entailed the loss of some pages editing.  Hence it is impossible to be sure of the first version and the edit description suggests that it was BCE at least briefly before the earliest edit.  This to me illustrates why stable version is a better test than original version.Dejvid (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be noted that Dejvid claims but has been unable to prove the conversion. He is unable to prove any history whatsoever before 2001. Flamarande (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't claim to prove anything.  I am asking people to check for themselves and then come to their own conclusion without taking anyone else's word for it - yours or mine.Dejvid (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Some time ago I responded to a request for a citation about dating for Hesiod and I supplied one from M.L.West's Hesiod: Theogony OUP 1966 page 40. In West's own words: "it is hardly possible to consider any date for him later than 650 BC. Nor, I think, can we consider any date earlier than 750." This was paraphrased in the article as "No date before 750 BC or later than 650 BC fits the evidence." Yet this has now been rephrased by User:Quadalpha to "generally thought by scholars to have been active around 700 BC", with this edit tag: rm from first paragraph strongly worded material still under debate, 00.42 17 Oct. The new edit still uses the West citation. Beats me! McZeus (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hesiod is not a subject I know thoroughly, but I know enough to agree that M.L. West is a better source for the date than the more general Oxford History of the Classical World, which in giving a date may have split the difference in West's range. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the message, McZeus. Sorry to have caused confusion. I did not actually add any citations, just removed the quotation from West and attached citation. I actually feel that "around 700 BC" is a less strongly worded assertion than (paraphrasing) "can't be earlier than 750 or later than 650." I thought this assertion was slightly misleading for the opening paragraph, given how the complexities of the oral tradition affect the notion of a "date" for Hesiod. I do think that West should most definitely be included in a more comprehensive treatment of the topic, which I was thinking about writing up at some point on here for comments, but I haven't managed to get around to it just yet. Short version: West's sentence quoted out of context can be misleading; go for more vague in first paragraph. Thoughts? --Quadalpha (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Ah, I didn't add any citations or phrasing, I only removed the West quotation from the lede. Let us compromise. Tell me what you think of the new version. --Quadalpha (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  West's date - puzzling edit 

message: I'm undertaking a much needed new edit of this article. Problems with the current version include lack of sourcing and content forking e.g. it has 2 sections titled Works and Days and Theogony, though we already have articles for these works, and the documentary support for these sections is limited to the  the primary sources themselves and an OCD article by West. I'm not doing a major overhaul however and I expect to be finished within a week or so of this notice. My texts so far:
*J.P. Barron and P.E.Easterling, 'Hesiod' in The Cambridge History of Classical Literature: Greek Literature,  P. Easterling and B. Knox (eds), Cambridge University Press (1985)
*M.L. West, Hesiod: Theogony, Oxford University Press (1966)
*Jasper Griffin, 'Greek Myth and Hesiod' in The Oxford History of the Classical World, J.Boardman, J.Griffin and O.Murray (eds), Oxford University Press (1986) 
*Antony Andrewes, Greek Society, Pelican Books (1971)
I expect to dig up some online sources as well. 
Thanks! Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: HEW is a dangerous source for many of these since barely any of the papyri had shown up by his time (and he was also kind of a hack in his own day). The best general overviews of the entire corpus, with fragmentary poems, are the introduction to Most's new Loeb and E. Cingano, "The Hesiodic Corpus", in F. Montanari et al. eds. Brill's Companion to Hesiod (Leiden, 2009) 91–130, if you can get you hands on these. I have both, and can help out if need be. — the cardiff chestnut  |  talk —  02:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm a destitute signal with a library card ... and a scanner that I use compulsively to prevent myself from buying books I can't afford.  If there's anything Hesiodic you might need, shoot an electronic signal my way.  Otherwise I'll do as you say and just keep an eye out.  (The new Loebs are awesome, by the way, especially for the mass of testimonia in volume 1; Most also does a pretty good job with the fragments in vol. 2, but some more notes would have been helpful for the reader who isn't a walking dictionary of mythology.)  — the cardiff chestnut  |  talk —  03:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New edit 

message: I've moved the Pseudo-Seneca to the top, and the photograph of Helicon down to the "life" section where Helicon is actually mentioned. The Pseudo-Seneca is maybe not the best picture to have at the top, but I found it extremely irritating to have a landscape photograph for a biographical article.—Austriacus (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have found it irritating but I am irritated by the number of busts of ancient authors that are clearly fictitious and which give a false notion of the period. Busts of that quality were not produced in Hesiod's time and it is impossible that the sculptor knew what he looked like. Whether or not somebody once identified it as 'Hesiod' is irrelevant.  Just as importantly, there is a section dedicated to the bust at the end of the article and it makes no sense to place the picture at the head of the article. The picture of Mount Helicon is appropriate in an article on Hesiod and the fact that it is a photo hardly makes it inappropriate. So my advice is, thanks for the input, but no thanks, a photo brings Hesiod's biography to life in a way that a stupid bust can't. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with this in principle, though in some cases (not this one) a later artistic depiction can illustrate something about the reception of the author within the classical tradition. (Vergil comes to mind as a poet with a tradition in art.) I wonder whether there is a representation of Helicon that may be a photo, but without distracting human figures in modern dress (does the image file actually say who they are or what they're doing?), or perhaps a painting or work of art by a WP-notable artist that depicts Helicon. A better option might be a mythological genre painting which scholars have identified as directly based on Hesiod and which would represent his influence. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

text: An alternative image is fine by me. However, there is already a painting of Hesiod in the biography section with a caption that is relevant to info in that section and I don't think two paintings in close proximity make for a good idea. So my preference is for a photo of Helicon. You could use some kind of vase image but those images like busts are already over-represented in articles about Greek authors. I guess most people who browse WP articles about ancient authors actually think they should look like museum pieces and yet the past is mediated via the present, useful literature is never dead and therefore contemporary images are more apposite. WP lacks contemporary images and overuses ancient ones. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved pictures 

message: They are not pensioners. They are young, enthusiastic scholars on a research expedition. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: eh?

message: Article needs a section on transmission. I've removed this unsourced paragraph for later inclusion:
:Of the many works attributed to Hesiod, three survive complete and many more in fragmentary state. Our witnesses include papyri, one dating from as early as the 3rd century BC, and manuscripts written from the tenth century forward. Demetrius Chalcondyles issued the first printed edition (editio princeps) of Works and Days, possibly at Milan, probably in 1493. In 1495 Aldus Manutius published the complete works at Venice.
I won't do the work myself (at least, not any time soon). Just tidying up. McOoee (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transmission 

message: mɛ Lostubes (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing incorrect about the presence of h in the pronunciation. That little mark you see before the eta in  is a rough breathing.  davidiad { t } 02:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  it's not an aitch! it's an eta! 

message: what I'm saying is, is that it isn't HEH-see-oh-das, it is eh-see-oh-das(thas).  the consonant "H" isn't present. eta is a vowel.Lostubes (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing incorrect about the presence of h in the pronunciation. That little mark you see before the eta in  is a rough breathing.  davidiad { t } 02:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I know pronounce you mispronounced 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hesiod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110130214825/http://animalrightshistory.org/animal-rights-timeline/animal-rights-h/hesiod/works-and-days-2.htm to http://animalrightshistory.org/animal-rights-timeline/animal-rights-h/hesiod/works-and-days-2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040605164307/http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Hesiod/ to http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Hesiod
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't know if it is possible for anyone to expand on the merits or otherwise of Hesiod's poetry. The article seems to imply that he was incompetent. Particularly, i wonder if differing (reconstructed) pronunciations, and dead-language lenses, might distort reception of his "unflattering hobnails". Untitled50reg (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Greek 

message: The article puts Hesiod as meaning "he who emits the voice". However, there is no source for this, and everything I can find puts Hesiod as a word of uncertain etymology. I think it should at least have a qualifier. The ablaut shifts and vowel length shifts necessary to support the ἵημι *ϝοδήν hypothesis are unlikely in my opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatman212 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Etymology