Talk:Agesander of Rhodes

Queries
Intriguing article, but I found the phrase "This is the classical Spelunca of Tacitus and others,..." very confusing. What is a Spelunca? Or a "Spelunca of Tacitus"? If it was made by the sculptor Agesander, how can it be Tacitus and others' Spelunca? Were they the clients?? Etc etc. Any chance of clarification? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "...were discovered at Sperlonga. This is the classical Spelunca of Tacitus and others, on the coast between Rome and Naples, where the emperor Tiberius had a celebrated villa." Oh well.  Tacitus & other writers refer to a villa of Tiberius at "Spelunca", that's all. Now it's Sperlonga.  Clearly needs rephrasing if it's that confusing. It was all one sentence, which might have been clearer, but it got too long. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Now "Sperlonga is the classical Spelunca mentioned by Tacitus and others, on the coast between Rome and Naples, where the emperor Tiberius had a celebrated villa." which I hope is clear. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

A more substantial issue. The article contains this: "Rice makes the confident and convenient but perhaps unwarranted assumption that only one Athenodoros, the son of Agesander, practiced as a sculptor". However, hte citation for this is Rice, so the phrase "makes the confident and convenient but perhaps unwarranted assumption" represents original research by an editor. Unless a source can be cited critiquing Rice's assumption, it should be rewritten, perhaps simply as "Rice argues that only one Athenodoros, the son of Agesander, practiced as a sculptor". hamiltonstone (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, but I haven't found any exact RS criticising his assumption. However its results are completely ignored by other scholars writing subsequently (largely in French and German, followed by me in JSTOR reviews and articles) who continue to allow for two or more Athenodorus's very happily. No doubt his assumption is rebutted in the full works. Rice in 1986 writes a tad smugly about his conclusions closing the matter, but they have certainly not done so (Sauron's  "Un conflit qui s'éternalise: La guerre de Sperlonga" is 1997), nor does the argument even seem to be taking the direction of his dating, but moving to later dates instead. Sauron for example cites Rice, but does not follow his assumption at all, dating them to Tiberius' time.  I am about to do Sperlonga sculptures, so may well come up with more.  Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note added. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's clearer (on both counts). If this was GA or FA I still think you'd hit trouble with the latter point, so if had a cite to Sauron you could add in the note, that would be better. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)