Talk:Homeridae

This text has come from Rhapsode, where it was doubtfully relevant. My aim is to shape it into an article here. Andrew Dalby 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#A_simple_formulation

That Homer was a real person is not a fact, but this article trivializes the argument that "Homeridae" might mean "descendants of hostages" as some sort of error, and suggests that it is "obvious" that it means "descendants of Homer". This is POV. The origin of the idea of Homer is in dispute, therefore the origin of the Homeridae is in dispute, therefore neither are facts which rely on the other. --76.209.59.227 01:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you've misread the article--I don't think it trivializes the "hostages" theory at all. If you know any Greek whatsoever, "Homeridae" does obviously mean "descendants of Homer", just as "Heraclidae" means "descendants of Heracles". The article also mentions that Homer's existence is not authenticated, and that his name might be only a back-formation from Homeridae. I don't see any NPOV problems here at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you've misread the NPOV article. Just because it conforms to your POV does not mean it is NPOV. If you know any Greek whatosever, "Homeridae" does obviously mesan "descendants of hostages". Also, in the article's current form, it is OR, as it "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position".--76.209.59.227 02:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggesting that it is "obvious" that "homeridae" means one and not the other is also, itself, NPOV (undue weight, fairness of tone). It can only mean "descendants of Homer" on the predication that "Homer" is a proper noun, and not a common noun. Which it can mean and which it does mean are distinct things. This article is not intended to address what it can mean. This is a matter of history. Not semantics.--76.209.59.227 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not really understanding what your problem is. The article tells us that "Homeridae" was interpreted as descendants of hostages in antiquity. Do you mean to say that this is the only meaning that "Homeridae" can have? That would be odd; the most natural meaning of Homeridae is "sons of Homer".


 * I don't really understand why you doubt this, but perhaps the following quote from Gregory Nagy will help: "The prooíma or 'preludes' are represented in Pindar's song as performances of the Homērídai 'Sons of Homer'; this name applies to a lineage of rhapsodes in Chios who traced themselves back to an ancestor called Hómeros, or Homer." (Homeric Questions, p. 85) Nagy's quote is representative of most Homeric scholars, who give little credit to the etymology "sons of hostages". However, there's no reason that understanding "Homeridae" as "sons of Homer" entails the belief that Homer was a real person; Nagy is a rather prominent example of a scholar who doesn't think there was a historical individual named "Homer" who wrote/composed the Iliad and Odyssey.


 * I should point out, also, that the meaning "sons of Homer" was what "Homeridae" was usually understood to mean in antiquity, and it might be good to cite the ancient sources on this point.


 * Once again, I see no NPOV problem here. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I may as well comment, since (if I remember rightly) I wrote that paragraph about the etymology. I intended to be neutral as between the possible origins of the word, since it appears to me that neither can be proved and both might seem "obvious": it simply depends whether you start out with the assumption that homeros in this particular case is a common noun or a proper name.
 * As I said, the Homeridae themselves "claimed" to be children (in some sense) of Homer. I don't think that's in doubt. I also said that the alternative explanation of their name was already around in ancient times.
 * If the tone sounds NPOV, it's certainly open to others to make or suggest a specific change. I continue to think that both possible origins should be given equal weight. And rew D alby  10:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)