Talk:Genealogia Deorum Gentilium

Each and every book?
Please, let's not take a table of contents approach to writing this article. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be Cliff's Notes (not that they'd ever have Cliff's Notes for this book, but you get what I mean). --Akhilleus (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. better that the article be short.
 * But there is much more to be said otherwise. It does not even say until the end that it is a poem! You never say what language it is in--it is not always same to assume Latin because of a Latin title. Most WPedians will not have that knowledge when they come here. You should further describe the form of the poem--in what kind of verse is it written? How long is it? what sources are used besides the Metamorphoses? How complete is it?Are all the classical gods included, or the Latin ones only, or does he assume the identity of the Latin ones and the Greek?
 * And the bibliography. What are the standard editions? What are the translations? Check in WorldCat for which ones are likely to be held in college libraries) The papers cited in JSTOR etc--the citation should give the original journal source also--JSTOR is just the web site that hosts the content. You refer to Ovid's Metamorphoses in an online Latin edition. Are there none in English? not even partial translations? At least you should mention some common print editions--there's always the Loeb, but not all WPedians will know that.
 * and I'm not happy with the sample--it sounds very awkward. perhaps you should include the latin as well, so the verse form can be seen, and the sound of it. which translation did you use? if you cannot find a better at least find a passage that is clearer.

Are you writing about a work you know well, or just one you're aware of?DGG (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't actually understand what this section is:

Books on the Genealogies
Various genealogies of the mythological Gods (Genealogies of the Pagan Gods) are described in the fifteen books.
 * Preface
 * First Book
 * Second Book - First Mercury (part)
 * ...after a thousand years (in the Elysian fields), being placed by Mercury in the stream named Lethe;
 * ...after a thousand years (in the Elysian fields), being placed by Mercury in the stream named Lethe;


 * having drunk of this stream they would forget the labors of the present life,


 * and thus desire another time to return to bodies, to which Mercury recalled them.


 * Third Book
 * Fourth Book
 * Fifith Book
 * Sixth Book
 * Seventh Book
 * Eighth Book
 * Ninth Book
 * Tenth Book
 * Eleventh Book
 * Twelith Book
 * Thirteenth Book
 * Fourteenth Book
 * Fifteenth Book

Removed references
I'm taking a few references out, because on this topic we should be able to rely solely on academic works--e.g. articles in peer-reviewed journals, scholarly monographs, histories of literature. In case they're useful, though, I'll put what I take out here:


 * Boccaccio on Poetry - Polysemous Allegory
 * Ovid, Metamorphoses. Latin only at the Latin Library''.--I don't think we need to link to the text of Ovid's Metamorphoses here, since an interested reader can simply go to Metamorphoses. On the other hand, we could link to Ovid's text in an "external links" section if desired. But not in the main text, please!
 * Boccaccio, Giovanni (1313-75). This looks like a nice website, but I think we'd be better off relying on scholarly publications.
 * Introduction to Boccaccio. Again, high-quality print sources are available, so let's stay away from handouts for college courses. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good job. Thanks.  KP Botany 23:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll try to get to the library tomorrow and find some references tomorrow. For our friend Dionigi, too. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You might mention if there are any especially famous manuscripts around, and add the details of the transition to print - editio princeps, vernacular translations, illustrated editions etc. There is a lot on the later influence of the work in: Malcolm Bull, The Mirror of the Gods, How Renaissance Artists Rediscovered the Pagan Gods, Oxford UP, 2005, ISBN 100195219236

Johnbod 12:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are excellent suggestions. For now I'll be working on the most basic stuff, but what you mention--especially the work's later influence--should be in the article eventually. Of course, if someone else gets to it first, I'll be happy. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to add from Bull Johnbod 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Johnbod. I've got Osgood's translation of Books 14 and 15, which should prove useful. By the way, this isn't a poem, in case someone had gotten that impression--it's in nice Humanist Latin prose. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism
I removed the following two sentences from the first paragraph of the article: "This is a large collection of classical mythology in fifteen books (libri) intended as an encyclopedic compilation of ancient works from diverse sources. It personifies the concept of the Aristotelian-Catholic cycle of learning." The citation given for this bit of text is "Hyde, Thomas. "Boccaccio: The Genealogies of Myth." PMLA 100 (1985) pp. 737-745." However, Hyde does not support this assertion. Instead, they are taken from Charles Osgood, Boccaccio on Poetry (Princeton 1930), page xi: "The Genealogy is a huge encyclopaedic repository of clasical mythology in fifteen books. Both in form and in plan it is a book of its times. It embodies the the Aristotelian-Catholic idea of the cycle of learning, with pagan precedents such as the works of Pliny and Varro." This is a close paraphrase ("Aristotelian-Catholic cycle of learning"), without proper attribution, and as such, is plagiarism. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And this: "According to the Preface Boccaccio undertook the project at the request of Hugh IV of Cyprus." Two references are given: Peters, Edward. "Henry II of Cyprus, Rex inutilis: A Footnote to Decameron 1.9." Speculum 72 (1997) pp. 763-775; and Tatlock, John S. P. "The Epilog of Chaucer's 'Troilus'." Modern Philology 18 (1921) pp. 625-659. However, those references, from what I can see at the moment, say nothing about the Genealogia.

Instead, the sentence in our article is based on Osgood, p. xii: "Whether or no Boccaccio undertook the project at the request of King Hugo, as he avers in his Preface, his labor was never perfunctory. From the age of thirty or thereabouts to the end of his life he had the task by him. His endeavors were doubtless interrupted for long periods, or slackened under the very weight of the labor. But he was clearly in love with the work..."

Now, compare the text from an earlier version of our article: "According to the Preface he undertook the project at the request of Hugh IV of Cyprus.[4][5] His interest in this endeavor was never that of just a routine daily task. From his mid-thirties to the end of his life he took seriously his labor of love." This text substantially reproduces Osgood's thought, in some cases Osgood's exact words, and has the misleading citations to Peters and Tatlock--but no citation to Osgood. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well only the first 2 paras are now not by me, & I can rewrite those, then we're ok here I think. But worrying given how much else he has done. Johnbod 02:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good; I think this article will be in the clear after that. But yes, there are potential problems on other articles. Liber sine nomine is probably the most glaring right now. I'm really too tired to go through it in detail, but the summaries of the letters are drawn out of Zacour. It's not a straight copy, though, so examining it will take some time. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Done, leaving only a corrected version of "According to the Preface Boccaccio undertook the project at the request of Hugh IV of Cyprus. The first version was completed in 1360, and he continuously corrected and revised his poem (sic) until his death in 1374...." - the mistake in which I hope means it is WP original!  This is now unreferenced, though I think EB said the same.  I'm afraid I won't be any use on the other stuff, as I come at this from the art/printing side. Good luck! Johnbod 02:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Johnbod. I'll try to use what I've got to correct and expand the article--though I think I won't do it right now, dealing with this has made me annoyed and tired. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What I think especially needs expanding now is his "defence of Poetry" in the last 2 books, which I lots of references to, but don't feel able to tackle myself. Johnbod 04:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)