Template:Did you know nominations/Rhapsodomancy


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Rhapsodomancy

 * ... that rhapsodomancy was so vague, Virgil wrote against it in The Aeneid?
 * Reviewed: Freeheld (upcoming film)

5x expanded by Panyd (talk). Self nominated at 20:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC).


 * Article was expanded from 1052 to 6324 bytes on October 21. My interpretation of prose portion calculates 779 to 3012, which is less than 5-fold, because of blockquotes.  However, the original version incorporated text from Britannica and/or Cyclopedia, so I am inclined to think some of it should also be discounted as quote, for a 5-fold credit.  Due to offline sources, I didn't test for plagiarism, but at least it doesn't smell like it; I'll AGF.  Otherwise it sounds pretty neutral in tone.


 * Hook is short, interesting, and obviously not about living people. :) It is sourced inline.  Again I'm going to have to AGF about it, though given how ironic it is (given the use of Virgil for rhapsodomany later on) I would like to see the primary reference to the Aeneid itself, lest we be playing a game of telephone here.


 * No image is submitted.

Given these things I don't see a problem with passing this, with the recommendation, if possible, to find that Aeneid passage. Wnt (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * * Here is the passage in question. (Summary: the prophet lays down her texts in a very careful order. Then a breeze comes and she doesn't notice it's shuffled her texts. Then she reads the completely random texts in an obfuscating manner. Then you'll go sailing....good luck.) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a great find! But I have to say, this is the kind of thing that makes me wonder.  Helenus begins by reciting a long prophecy, then exhorts the crew to go see the Sibyl, saying


 * There shalt thou see a frenzied prophetess,
 * who from beneath the hollow scarped crag / sings oracles, or characters on leaves
 * mysterious names. Whate'er the virgin writes, / on leaves inscribing the portentous song,
 * she sets in order, and conceals them well / in her deep cave, where they abide unchanged
 * in due array. Yet not a care has she, / if with some swinging hinge a breeze sweeps in,
 * to catch them as they whirl: if open door / disperse them flutterlig through the hollow rock,
 * she will not link their shifted sense anew, / nor re-invent her fragmentary song.
 * not link?
 * Oft her unanswered votaries depart, / scorning the Sibyl's shrine. But deem not thou
 * thy tarrying too Iong, whate'er thy stay. / Though thy companions chide, though winds of power
 * invite thy ship to sea, and well would speed / the swelling sail, yet to that Sibyl go.
 * In other words, really important to go see her
 * Pray that her own lips may sing forth for thee / the oracles, uplifting her dread voice
 * in willing prophecy. Her rede shall tell / of Italy, its wars and tribes to be,
 * So her singing is accurate, the leaves are accurate, the winds foul them up?
 * and of what way each burden and each woe / may be escaped, or borne. Her favoring aid
 * will grant swift, happy voyages to thy prayer. / Such counsels Heaven to my lips allows.
 * arise, begone! and by thy glorious deeds / set Troy among the stars! “


 * Now I'm not a scholar of Virgil, or even a passable student, and no doubt some expert interpretation might be that he is alluding to a well-known practice of rhapsodomancy using her words that wasn't really done just by the wind. But if so, is he really saying that the predictions are vague, or is he denying that random selections of verses have any merit at all?  Or rather, is it possible he's simply recounting a bit of myth with no particular judgment on the practices in general?  In the end, Wikipedia is verifiability not truth, especially where matters of myth and legend are concerned.  I have no right to override the person who is holding the book about what it says.  So it's your call. Wnt (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The scholar I got the interpretation from was a...scholar who knew her stuff. Interpreting Virgil is also not my specialty. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. :) Wnt (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)