Talk:Sappho 31

Sappho 165 refers to Lobel-Page 165

It's confusing because different collections use different numbering systems, but this site shows Lobel-Page 165: http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/ and implies that the opening is all that's left. 108.56.154.33 (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Trouble archiving links on the article

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=y1_pWrIey_AC&pg=PA58

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sappho 31. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121113014916/http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TQyRX6WmMUMC&pg=PA29 to http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TQyRX6WmMUMC&pg=PA29

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Translation

I have just removed the translation added as it does not seem to comply with Wikipedia's guideline on non-free content. Specifically, Wikipedia requires non-free content be fair use, which has to meet four criteria:

1. That there is no free equivalent, and no reasonable possibility of there being a free equivalent.
2. That the non-free content has been previously published.
3. That the content is contextually significant.
4. That the usage is minimal.

The first of these criteria is certainly not met: even if there is no public-domain or freely licenced translation of Sappho 31 (and I am fairly sure there is: John Hall translated Longinus' On the Sublime, including Sappho 31, into English in the 1650s, according to our article Sappho) it would be possible for someone to make one.

Further, the examples given by the guideline specifically say "extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited". Extensive is not defined, but 16 lines of poetry certainly seems like it is in danger of falling foul of that rule to me.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It does seem odd though that this article is all about a poem and doesn't quote the poem itself or even a line of it either in Greek or in translation. I think it would be desirable and permissible to add both. Kanjuzi (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Galavotti suggestion

Dozens of views have been published about this poem, and it seems odd that just one, Gallavotti's, who suggested in 1942 that 'phainetai moi' ('he seems to me') might be a corruption of 'phainetai whoi' ('he seems to himself'), has been singled out for special emphasis. Moreover the conclusion drawn ('meaning that the man is not challenged by her sight') doesn't obviously follow at all. We are left tantalised by a reference to a line of Apollonius Dyscolus which allegedly supports the new reading. Since this suggestion doesn't seem to have won general recognition, I think the it has been given too much prominence in this article. Kanjuzi (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kanjuzi: The suggestion you are referring to, the one championed by Gallavotti, was added to the article just yesterday with this edit by Livio94. I will not object to users adding more scholarly perspectives on the poem, although I must agree that, if we include one perspective, we need to include all the others of equal prominence to avoid giving undue weight. The user who originally wrote this article was Caeciliusinhorto, who unfortunately no longer seems to be a very active editor. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, Katolophryomai; glad to see that you're still around! I haven't been very active this year on wikipedia, but the article seems to be substantially as I left it. Regarding the addition of Gallavotti: as far as I can remember from the work I did on this last year, it's not a generally-accepted theory (I don't recall coming across anyone other than Gallavotti advancing it, though that doesn't necessarily mean that no one has; it suggests that no one easily accessible in English has, though!); I would tend to agree that its current inclusion is undue weight. Without burying myself back in the notes, I can't comment really on what should be in the article; if you are interested in the poem, Kanjuzi, I would very much encourage you to contribute! (One brief note regarding the tantalising reference to Apollonius Dyscolus: I assume it's a reference to Sappho fr. 165, quoted by AD, which reads "to himself he seems"; Rayor & Lardinois (2014) comment that it may derive from an alternative version of fr.31, Carson (If Not, Winter) and Campbell (Loeb) both say believed by some (unspecified) to be a "more correct" reading of Sa.31.1.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

In fact since Gallavotti made his suggestion (in 1942, according to Bonelli (1977), p. 269), it does not seem to have been taken up by other scholars, although there has been plenty of discussion of other lines of the poem. Bonelli himself says that there are good philological arguments, certainly, but on the whole he doesn't think it's correct. So it doesn't deserve such great prominence and perhaps should be altogether omitted. The discussion in Most (1995)'s article "Reflecting Sappho" is more interesting and to the point, but has not yet been mentioned. Kanjuzi (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Two quick notes: Firstly, I read "Reflecting Sappho" last year and made plenty of use of it in writing Sappho; I have no notes on it which refer specifically to Sappho 31, though, and cannot recall why. Secondly, while I am less active on-wiki this year than last, I still try to check my notifications periodically, so if anyone wants assistance with work on Sappho-adjacent articles do please message me. I am happy to review your work, and can also provide quite a lot of Sappho-relevant sources (or check them myself if they're in English). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)