Talk:Anacreontea

Merge?
The article should be merged with Anacreon. They are imitations of a genre he created and they give us an insight into his own work. One big, combined article would be better than 2 stubs. I envision Anacreonta becoming a subsection of the article Anacreon. McZeus (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While I don't object, I'd actually prefer to imagine that Anacreontea could eventually deserve their own article again. In principle, the Anacreontea are their own subject, far removed from the 6th century BC.  But as long as we say so little about them, there is no harm (in my view) in having Anacreontea redirect to Anacreon.  Wareh (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a little wary of the Anacreon article itself, and wish someone would update any merged article with a bit of recent scholarship. I note the existence of Patricia Rosenmeyer, The Poetics of Imitation: Anacreon and the Anacreontic Tradition (Cambridge University Press, 1992), for instance. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking of doing some work on the article, unless people object (I'm probably over-represented as a contributor to the lyric poets at this point in time). I'll use Rosenmeyer's book if I can google it. The Anacreontea section can easily be detached again when and if there is a need for it. The Anacreon article averages about 80 hits per day, Anacreonta around 8. So I don't think there is going to be any need for a separate Anacreonta article any time soon. On the other hand, a scholar like Wareh could certainly pad things out if he wants to. McZeus (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You flatter me, McZeus, but you won't trick me into doing any actual work! We beg, you choose. Wareh (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave this issue hanging in the air a bit longer while I do a bit on Tyrtaeus. If there is no significant opposition, I'll then redirect Anacreontea to Anacreon and start some edits there. Thanks for support so far. McZeus (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do object. There should be a cross-reference, of course; but putting the Anacreonta under Anacreon is a misrepresentation: like putting the Constitution of Athens under Xenophon. This article should list and describe Anacreon's actual fragments, not those foisted on him centuries later. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You always assume the worst and I guess that's good for drama. No problems - the articles can stay separate but I think it's proper to include in Anacreon a section on his legacy which of course mainly involves Hellenistic confectionary. In fact I might include the Anacreontea in an article on chocolate, unless you object. McZeus (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strike that first sentence, McZeus, and I'll find that an utterly charming reply. I'm now thinking of marketing a line of luxury chocolates called Anacreontea, with the meltingly deluxe truffles wrapped as golden balls, and others stamped with Cupid's dart. In fact, a whole line of chocolates based on the Greek lyric poets. The Archilochus collection would be bitter dark and salted caramel. Sappho with fruits and florals. Pindar's would have intricate swirls and hash marks of contrasting chocolates, with surprising ingredients including actual flecks of gold leaf and bay. Solon would be bars of high-quality baking chocolate. My lingering impression, reinforced by Rosenmeyer, is that it's difficult from the perspective of literary history to disentangle the individual historical Anacreon from his multitudinous Nachleben, meaning that "anacreontics" as a style as well as a meter in later European literature draws on the whole. Explaining that doesn't require attributing the Anacreontea to the individual Anacreon or leaving that impression (not what McZeus was proposing, surely) but it does seems to me that you'd have to duplicate a lot of content in the two articles in order to, say, make Ronsard's reception of this tradition comprehensible (not to mention ms. transmission and how this relates to the question of authorship and why before the era of Wissenschaft this was not anybody's primary concern regarding the poetry). Many of our classics articles are a bit hermetically sealed; in an effort to be clear about what's ancient and what's not, they handle the classical tradition mainly in trivia lists (Icarus is a truly egregious example; this myth strikes me as having far greater importance in the tradition than in antiquity itself, and the article now consists overwhelmingly of a list of allusions, without contextual discussion). I'm not taking a position on the merge, just pointing out why this case poses special problems. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Conscientious and witty, as usual! Some points in reply. First, WP is a popular encyclopaedia and its articles are just the corks on the nets, not the nets themselves. So we don't need a trawler, just a rowing boat. (Thanks to Pindar for the image - and incidentally, he's a force of nature, not a chew). Secondly, as already stated, the Anacreontea section can be semi-detached for later incorporation in its own article. The Anacreontea article has only 8 hits a day and people are unlikely to come to it except via the Anacreon article, 80 hits a day. But this is all academic now. I said I wouldn't proceed with the merge if there are serious objections. PMA should feel flattered that I took his objections seriously enough to change my plans. On the other hand, I would have ignored him if Wareh's hesitation hadn't already given me pause for thought. McZeus (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)