Talk:Simonides of Ceos

Comments
The bit about "lofty national pride" and "genial worldliness" seemed like blatant POV, albeit the POV of a Classical scholar with an impressive vocabulary, and I've removed it.

I've simplified the literal translation of the Spartan Epitaph by replacing 'edicts' with 'words.' LSJ cites this passage in its definition of ῥῆμα as 'word'. I have also removed the superfluous parenthetical providing the etymologically derived meaning of the word (which also contained a confused understanding of this use of the dative). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.160.66 (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that ῥήμασι has been changed back to edicts. This word does not mean edicts in a free translation, let alone in a literal one. In the entry in the Liddell Scott Jones Greek lexicon, the standard reference, the word in this exact passage is cited as meaning simply word.

The parenthetical construes the dative incorrectly. The verb regularly takes a dative which in English is translated as a simple object (e.g., They obeyed their words.) To claim that it most literally means 'verbiage' is unnecessary if ῥήμασι is translated correctly and literally as 'words' in the first place. 192.17.166.100 (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)REM

Several bits of this article are repetitions. --MWLittleGuy (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Simonides of Ceos
Simonides of Ceos is the traditional name for this lyric poet, rather than Simonides of Kea. To avoid anachronism one typically gives peoples' names with the ancient placenames, rather than the modern equivalents. Hence Ceos, rather than Kea. Another example is Aristophanes of Byzantium, where the ancient name Byzantium is used instead of Constantinople or Istanbul. Dd42 (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I got convinced that the article should be named "Simonides of Ceos". But I insist that what we have at hand is a „terrible“ grammatical mistake without precedent in the history of Contemporary Classical Philology. His name in Latin is properly transcribed as Simōnidēs Cēus, which comes from Greek Σιμωνίδης "Simonides (name)" ὁ "the" Κεῖος "Κε- (root of the word for the Island Κέως)" + ι-ος "-i-an (masculine, nom. case)/man from"; note that both Κεῖος and Cēus were pronounced [kee-os|-us] during the time that the Greek name was transcribed to Latin, and that Latin has no definite articles. However, after you had reverted me (justifiably, I gotta admit), I "conducted" a hasty search in the literature and I was amazed to discover that somehow, during the last centuries, "Simonides the Ceos" (Simonides the man from Kea) has been replaced(?) in all languages, other than Greek and Latin, by "Simonides of Keos", which essentially is like saying *Alexander of Macedonian. However, this mistake is irrepairable now, so all I can suggest is that this interesting fact of Historical Grammar be mentioned somewhere in the article. Omnipedian (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. and only minutes after having written this, I finally realize my mistake. Ceos doesn't translate Κεῖος, but Κέως! So, oops.. both S. Cēus/Cēos [Κεῖος] and S. of Ceōs [Κέως] (τῆς Κέω In A.Greek) are correct and there's no grammatical mistake, after all. Of course I leave my previous comment above, in order to see my line of thought and justify my actions =] Still wondering if the readers of the article should be warned about this potential though rare confusion. Omnipedian (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

mmm
I'm tempted to have a go at developing this article. Even dead languages still breathe in the words of their poets and yet articles like this continue to be neglected while articles on dry-as-dust scholastic debris such as Roman genealogy are developed ad nauseam. What is wrong with everyone? Amphitryoniades (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Having now had a closer look at the verse of Simonides, I have to say it seems rather featureless. There is nothing noteworthy about the diction or about the rhythms. I guess he relied on cumulative effects that don't come through in fragments. Or the ancients over-estimated him (which is unlikely). He is historically significant and I'm still drifting towards refurbishing this article, which at present is largely lifted from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It also quotes at length from another source, from the 19th century, presented in the article as notes. I hate deleting sources but here it is and there are better sources around than this:
 * "<refSimonides - Thomas Bulfinch. (1796–1867). Age of Fable: Vols. I & II: Stories of Gods and Heroes. 1913. ''SIMONIDES was one of the most prolific of the early poets of Greece, but only a few fragments of his compositions have descended to us. He wrote hymns, triumphal odes, and elegies. In the last species of composition he particularly excelled. His genius was inclined to the pathetic, and none could touch with truer effect the chords of human sympathy. The “Lamentation of Danaë,” the most important of the fragments which remain of his poetry, is based upon the tradition that Danaë and her infant son were confined by order of her father, Acrisius, in a chest and set adrift on the sea. The chest floated towards the island of Seriphus, where both were rescued by Dictys, a fisherman, and carried to Polydectes, king of the country, who received and protected them. The child, Perseus, when grown up became a famous hero, whose adventures have been recorded. Simonides passed much of his life at the courts of princes, and often employed his talents in panegyric and festal odes, receiving his reward from the munificence of those whose exploits he celebrated. This employment was not derogatory, but closely resembles that of the earliest bards, such as Demodocus, described by Homer, or of Homer himself, as recorded by tradition. On one occasion, when residing at the court of Scopas, king of Thessaly, the prince desired him to prepare a poem in celebration of his exploits, to be recited at a banquet. In order to diversify his theme, Simonides, who was celebrated for his piety, introduced into his poem the exploits of Castor and Pollux. Such digressions were not unusual with the poets on similar occasions, and one might suppose an ordinary mortal might have been content to share the praises of the sons of Leda. But vanity is exacting; and as Scopas sat at his festal board among his courtiers and sycophants, he grudged every verse that did not rehearse his own praises. When Simonides approached to receive the promised reward Scopas bestowed but half the expected sum, saying, “Here is payment for my portion of thy performance; Castor and Pollux will doubtless compensate thee for so much as relates to them.” The disconcerted poet returned to his seat amidst the laughter which followed the great man’s jest. In a little time he received a message that two young men on horseback were waiting without and anxious to see him. Simonides hastened to the door, but looked in vain for the visitors. Scarcely, however, had he left the banqueting hall when the roof fell in with a loud crash, burying Scopas and all his guests beneath the ruins. On inquiring as to the appearance of the young men who had sent for him, Simonides was satisfied that they were no other than Castor and Pollux themselves.''

So, I'll replace that with other sources. Amphitryoniades (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Amphitryoniades. Can I suggest one possible avenue toward modernization?  The page currently mentions the "new" fragments from 1992 (under Poetry) and includes a reference to the Boedeker & Sider volume on them, but little is made of this discovery.  Up until really quite recently scholars were convinced that there was no true narrative elegy in the archaic and early classical periods, so the martial fragments certainly are notable, at least from a literary historical point of view--just like the new Archilochus.  And the essays in Boedeker & Sider might at least help with getting this article out of the 19th c.  Yours, P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Yes, I'm aware of the B and S collection of essays The New Simonides and that the new fragments are indicative of an 'epic' about Plataea (which suggests that S was promoting himself as a new Homer). I'll add what little I can get off the internet and I have already taken down a few notes - but it's very little. Maybe you have better access to the book. Feel free to add to it whatever you can. All my private sources are at least 20 years old. You might want to check out other articles I've done on lyric poets - Pindar, Alcaeus, Stesichorus and Bacchylides - in case there is something else I've missed out on. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

New Simonides
I'm pasting here some reference material for inclusion of New Simonides: Substantial fragments of an elegiac poem on papyrus by the great poet Simonides were published as recently as 1992; the poem describes the run-up to the battle of Plataea and more or less explicitly compares Pausanias to Achilles, the Greek leader of the mythical Trojan War. It thus equates the magnitude and importance of the Trojan and Persian wars. This remarkable find provides the ..." Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Bryn Mawr review (some good details)
 * Poxy site - pictures and stuff
 * B.Encyclopaedia: "Facts about Simonides of Ceos: poem on the Greco-Persian Wars, as discussed in ancient Greek civilization (historical region, Eurasia): Plataea:

The epitaph on the Spartans
I'd just like to note that the "paraphrase" of Simonides' epitaph on the Spartan dead at Thermopylae is, for a variety of reasons, highly unsatisfactory. For a start, it's all very well trying to pull off an elegiac couplet but English is not stressed the same way as classical Greek. Secondly, perhaps in an attempt to imitate the sound pattern of the original, the paraphrase has a very strange and stilted choice of words, while the repeated 'e' sounds pile up in a screeching trainwreck: "here/we rest, those speeches of theirs having gained our obedience." Thirdly, it clunks. For all that the translator here has brought out quite a lot of the different shades of meaning in the original, he/she seems to have failed to notice that the resulting couplet is really horrible verse. "[T]hose speeches of theirs having gained our obedience" a.) makes the subjects of the epitaph sound like they were not themselves Spartans and b.) has a dismissive tone makes them sound like they think they were duped, which is not what the original does at all. Fourthly, it's verbose: "O xein" does everything that "Oh stranger passing by" does, but does it in two syllables instead of six. I recognise that this epitaph is notoriously hard to translate well, but there are plenty of very fine existing versions and whoever did this translation needs more facility in the target language. Lexo (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I welcome criticism, especially since I just finished revising the verse moments before I saw your message. I hope you like the new version better. I don't agree that there are any good translations. The word order in the Simonides couplet is very precise and packed with meaning and I am trying to find words that retain the placement of key words, while also trying to capture something of the rhythm. The couplet you objected to had a jaunty rhythm because there was a pause for the diaeresis, which is not found in the original. I've now fixed that. Thanks for your interest and please keep me posted. McZeus (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll paste the couplets here for comparison:
 * Ὦ ξεῖν', ἀγγέλλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ὅτι τῇδε
 * κείμεθα, τοῖς κείνων ῥήμασι πειθόμενοι.
 * Paraphrased in English in the original metrical form of an elegiac couplet:
 * Oh Stranger, go and report to the Lacedaemonians that here
 * We rest, those speeches that they gave being duly obeyed.
 * The only extra word in the translation is 'duly' and I might yet be able to find some way of eliminating it. We'll see. Things to notice in the original Greek that I have preserved in the English: The 'bookends' for the first line are 'Oh Stranger' and 'here' and the reader passes 'Lacedaemonians' in transit, so there is a sense of travel, which makes the idea of reporting back to the Spartans not so strange or foreign to us. The bookends for the second line are verb forms 'We rest' and 'obeyed', the former being the resultant action and the latter being the original or causal action - here we are travelling back in time. In between the two actions, there is a disturbance in syntax that symbolizes the separation of death: τοῖς κείνων// ῥήμασι. The diaeresis separates the Spartans from their words, and also there is a separation between article and noun. I've captured something of that separation with the paraphrase 'those speeches that they// gave'. So in my mind, it's a good rendition of the original. However, I'm not going to be precious about this and I won't stop you or anyone replacing my version with something that's been published, if that's perceived to be a better option. McZeus (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, one more thing - the assonance you objected to in my previous version is present in the original Greek - there are 5 instances of ει. I haven't replicated that in my recent version, though I would if I could. :}McZeus (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Two other points you brought up need to be addressed. You said about my original version, that it: a.) makes the subjects of the epitaph sound like they were not themselves Spartans and b.) has a dismissive tone makes them sound like they think they were duped, which is not what the original does at all. These are good points. Regarding the first point, yes, they are no longer themselves Spartans - they're dead. Regarding the second point, the original Greek literally means 'obeyed/listened to the words of those'; unlike modern soldiers, and unlike the Persian armies, who simply did as they were told, the soldiers of a Greek polis had a tradition of being talked/persuaded into going to war - it's one of the key points that Simonides makes in the couplet, and it's almost always lost in translation (because the translators try to meet modern notions of heroism: Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die - a very foreign notion to the Greeks). McZeus (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't change this anymore, McZeus ... you've been working over this couplet for so long and I, at least, think you have it. Short of a prose translation or including some sort of commentary, what else can you do?  The latter portions of the second verse might be closer in meaning to "trusting in their policies", but is that poetry and does that deviate so horribly from the spirit of what you've written?  Also: your ekeinos is the only way we might render the demonstrative since we don't have a truly comparable deictic--anyway, the sentence that introduces the translation does away with any doubt concerning the polis to which the dead belonged.P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes sorry about my fanaticism, but it's such an important couplet and the translations I've seen seem so graceless or plain wrong. Even mine still seems wide of the mark in spite of the time I have put into it. You're right - it's time for me to give up on this. But I know the right combination is out there somewhere. I'll work on it in a corner somewhere. (:}) McZeus (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I take your point about Greek soldiers of that period having a tradition of being persuaded to go to war, but I think that it applies more to Athenian soldiers than Spartan ones. I admit that the evidence is largely one-sided in that the Spartans tended not to leave records of themselves (outside scattered testimonies, plus the works of Tyrtaios and Alcman) but if we are to give any credence whatsoever to all the existing evidence, Spartan society was organised very differently to pretty much every other polis in Greece. Spartan society, so every source tells us, was far more about obedience and subjugating one's own will to the common good than classical Athenian society, which for all its inequalities was based on participatory democracy for free citizens, which in turn implied more or less constant political unrest and uncertainty. This is precisely why anti-democrats like Plato despised Athenian democracy and preferred the Spartan system, and it's also why Sparta and Athens are so strange to us now (in that we would tend to associate Sparta's education of women with a democratic society, just as we find it hard to reconcile Athenian democracy with Athenian subjugation of women.) I know that there is a strong element of persuasion in "peithomenoi", but I would argue that this is Simonides giving the Spartan dead the benefit of the doubt. Pericles argued in the Funeral Oration that the Spartans were just trained to be mindlessly obedient, but on the grounds that Simonides didn't write epitaphs for people he didn't admire, I think he was trying to suggest that the Spartans (who were, as is well testified, very conservative) felt elevated by following their own traditions, and so Spartans following Spartan tradition and resolving to die at Thermopylae is not the result of the same kind of decision as, say, the Athenian assembly deciding to revoke the decision to kill the men of Mytilene and enslave the women and children. So, emphasising the 'persuasion' aspect creates, I think, a false impression of what was being conveyed, because the decision of Leonidas and his men to take the stand at Thermopylae has much to do with the peculiarity of Spartan traditions, and little to do with rational persuasion, for all that the verb Simonides chose has that as its most common meaning. Lexo (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

After further thought, I think Lexo is right - if I can't come up with something better than a published version, best to stick with the published version. But I got lot of fun out of it and I connected some neurons in my brain that will be useful to me later. [:|}McZeus (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave up too soon, owing to a bit of embarrassment. The fact is that elegiac couplets are meant to have a clunking rhythm, or dying fall, expressive of manly reticence or biting back the emotions. Sometimes, the anticlimax is almost comic. I've now settled on this version, which gets the right balance, I think:
 * "O stranger, go and report to the Lacedaemonians that here
 * We lie at rest, the commands they gave us being obeyed."

An encyclopaedia is supposed to be a learning experience and readers who are used to bad translations of Simonides' couplet will just have to get used to something they are not used to. McZeus (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to say so, but although I think this final version is better than the one I originally commented upon, and while I think it better conveys some of the nuances of the original, I still don't think it's any good as English verse. Nobody reading it will understand that Simonides is a great poet, and like it or not, something of translation is involved in the work to convince the reader that the original is a great poem, even when it's only a couplet. I'm glad McZeus has enjoyed the work entailed, and I admit that I have been walking around with the original in my head for the last week and I can't find a solution which is appropriate for this particular purpose. But I think that it would be better to go with an existing and older translation. Lexo (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I did have another comment here but I have deleted it. There are more important battles in life than this. My apologies if I have been rude and by all means feel free to change anything you like. McZeus (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Pictures


I've included this picture because it seems apt. However, many Wikipedians have no wiggle-room for experiences like this and I won't be surprised if it disappears sometime soon. I had another picture here that likened dancing to poetry but I forgot that Simonides said poetry was like painting (not dancing) and I deleted it myself, in spite of my wiggle-tolerance. Though I dare say he would have said it was like dancing if it had ever occurred to him, since the Greeks danced more than they painted. And maybe he said dancing is like painting but nobody ever recorded it. McZeus (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

To the people responsible for the page: I am Zito Giuseppe the author of the page in the external link whose address was changed to: http://zitogiuseppe.com/loci.html. This is because, as you can check yourself the page has been moved and the old address is since a few months authomatically redirected to the new one. But this will cease in the near future and so the link will be disrupted. I have moved all my pages in the new site http://zitogiuseppe.com. Here you can find also all information to contact me by email. Best regards, Giuseppe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.100.252.224 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

POV
Here is a single instance of the POV throughout the article:


 * His rival, Pindar, who identified closely with the aristocratic world and its heroic ethic, never composed anything as thoughtful or sympathetic as the following poem of Simonides

Unfortunately I do not have time to fix the whole article right now, but the article deserves attention to remove the regular frank descriptions of the quality of the work of multiple poets. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)