User:Caeciliusinhorto/Citing ancient sources

Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia aimed at a general readership. While in classical scholarship it is common to refer to ancient sources using standard abbreviations, there is no expectation that our readers will be familiar with these. There is also little economic incentive to minimise our use of ink, as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. With these considerations in mind, when we cite ancient sources we should aim to be as helpful as possible to the general reader, even if that means including information that a specialist might find unnecessary.

Particularly problematic are articles based on old sources such as William Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, whose references are always heavily abbreviated and based on often highly outdated editions.

More information is better than less
Authors and works should be referred to in abbreviated form ("Hdt." for Herodotus, "Suet." for Suetonius, "Lys." for Lysistrata). It doesn't take that much effort to write out in full, and it saves readers down the line mental load. This goes double for more obscure works – a well-read layperson might know or deduce that "Hdt." is Herodotus, but they certainly won't know that "E. Gen." is the Etymologicum Genuinum!

Even in the most obvious cases of an author of a single work, strongly consider listing both the author and the work: yes, "Herodotus 2.135" does give full citation information, but there's virtually no cost to explicitly writing out "Herodotus, Histories 2.135". Again, the more obscure the author, the more useful this is to readers: even many lay readers may be confident that an unspecified reference to Herodotus is to the Histories, but they are less likely to be sure that a reference to Aulus Gellius is to Attic Nights.

Use English
Avoid gratuitous Greek and Latin. Cite "Aeschylus, Libation Bearers" rather than "Aeschylus, Choephoroi" (or worse, "Αἰσχύλος, Χοηφόροι"!) Remember that in some cases the most well-known title in English is the Greek or Latin (Aeschylus' Eumenides, not Kindly Ones); when in doubt, the titles given in texts aimed at lay- or undergraduate readers will offer guidance.

Similarly, when quoting an ancient source, quote an English translation. In most cases, there is no need to quote the original Greek or Latin at all. When quoting from a translation, use a widely accepted and available one, and give full citation details for that translation. If there is a need to quote the original Greek or Latin text (e.g. if discussing a literary technique such as alliteration) give both the original and translation. If a good enough translation is freely available (e.g. at the Perseus Project) it is helpful to use that, rather than force future readers to track down a particular print edition – though accuracy should of course trump availability. Remember that early, out-of-copyright translations may be erroneous or bowlderised: prefer a modern translation of Catullus 16 to Richard Burton's 1894 version, which renders the first line as "I'll . . . you twain and . . . "!

Use standard editions
Refer to standard modern editions. In the 21st century, there's no reason to cite e.g. Theodor Bergk's numeration for the fragments of Sappho when scholarship from the mid-20th century has virtually unanimously used variants of Edgar Lobel and Denys Page's numeration. Equally, avoid using novel numerations which have not been widely adopted – Josephine Balmer re-arranges Sappho's fragments for her translation, but specialists are unlikely to know at a glance what "Sappho 80 (Balmer)" refers to, and non-specialists are likely to be confused when they find that a standard reference like the Loeb has a completely different numbering system.

If there are different systems for refering to a particular source, explicitly say which one you are using – future readers will thank you when what you consider the standard way of referencing a particular work has been completely superseded!

In cases where there are multiple ways of referring to a particular work, it can sometimes be useful to use both:


 * Where different major editions disagree on the authorship of a work, e.g. "Sappho 168B Voigt = Page, Poetae Melici Graeci 976" for the Midnight poem
 * Where a reference by one author is included as a testimonium in the standard edition of another, e.g. in the article Sappho it is useful to refer to "Herodotus, Histories, 2.135 = Sappho 254a Voigt"

Link sources
As a courtesy to the reader, it is helpful to link an online text, especially a translation. For example, "Herodotus, Histories 2.135".

The Perseus Project is a useful resource here. WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome maintains a list of online resources, which includes many collections of ancient texts and translations.