Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)

Comments

The Gorgias (dialogue) page needs some serious work and more foot-traffic. I added a link to the page under "See Also" to encourage more visitors. 209.135.141.57 (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay i just rewrote the entire thing . . . so please look for mistakes and comment on stuff. thanks --He:ah? 09:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You know what??

You could have made life much easier of yourself by using WP:CITES. Instead of writing all those "ibids", you can just use <ref name="PH"> Plato. etc.. </ref> at the top of the article and then <ref name="PH" /> for each repeated reference to the same book. Then in the refs section, you just type </ references> and you are done.--Lacatosias 17:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No,I see. You want to cite the page numbers. I think you've done a good job. I can't see any significant errors. But then I haven't read the dialague in about ten years. --Lacatosias 17:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Slight Rewording?

"Some have not been recently initiated, and mistake this reminder for beauty itself and pursue pleasure and making babies."

Maybe it's just me, but I think the "making babies" part needs to be reworded.

Use the original text

Whereas it is quite obvious that Socrates often addresses his young partners flirtatiously, the claim that the mesembria stathera in 242a connotes sexually laden "straight-up" is preposterous. Gerard Huijing, Leiden NL 11:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nickname

Beyond that, the only remarkable thing about Phædrus is his personality. Plato often names Socrates' foils for characteristics of their personality. A young, overtalkative, innocent and good-natured foil in the Gorgias is named Polus, which is Greek for "colt". Phædrus' personality is different from this. He is unallied to any particular group. He prefers the solitude of the country to the city. He is aggressive to the point of being dangerous. At one point he threatens Socrates with violence. Phædrus, in Greek, means "wolf". In this dialogue he is carried away by Socrates' discourse on love and is tamed. -- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

-- Sy / ^(talk) 03:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, . . . the author of "Z&TAMM" was mistaken, as I believe he admits in a later printing of the novel—the Greek adjective phaidros, a, on means bright or beaming (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%23110090) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.53.122 (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This section may contain original research or unverified claims.

Why does the Pederasty section deserve this label whereas the other sections under "Interpretations and themes" do not? The other sections similarly lack citation, but are deemed appropriate? Did the person who added the "unverified claims" tag ever read the Phaedrus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.70.102 (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to removing the entire Interpretations section, or replacing it with how specific interpreters have read various aspects of the dialogue. The entire thing looks like original research to me. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 16:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Two contradictory sections in current Phaedrus (dialogue) article are self-contradictory and should be repaired

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus in the discussion. The arguments are good, but evenly divided. One argument is that there is a conflict and sources are provided, the other that the sources contradict the claim and that its still all interpretation and WP:OR. AlbinoFerret 23:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The following 2 sections, section 3.3.1 and section 4.1, contradict each other on the translation of the same Greek term used in the Arts: (theia mania). Two editors believe that the contradiction should be allowed to remain in its current form without correction. In the one case, there is the recognition that the term is used differently in different contexts (as it should be in section 4.1), while in the other case (section 3.3.1) the article forces one and only one translation upon the reader without indicating the common alternate translations. Should the two contradictory sections be repaired so that they are consistent in the article on Phaedrus (dialogue). The two editors have opposed the previous correction to the article which would have removed the self-contradiction within the article in its current form. Should the current contradiction between sections 3.3.1 and section 4.1 be repaired to remove the self-contradiction currently contained in the article? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the current text of section 3.3.1:

3.3.1 Madness (244a–245c)

Socrates begins by discussing madness. If madness is all bad, then the preceding speeches would have been correct, but in actuality, madness given as a gift of the gods provides us with some of the best things we have. There are, in fact, several kinds of divine madness (theia mania), of which he cites four examples:

1. From Apollo, the gift of prophecy;

1. From Dionysus, the mystic rites and relief from present hardship;

1. From the Muses, poetry;

1. From Aphrodite, love.

As they must show that the madness of love is, indeed, sent by a god to benefit the lover and beloved in order to disprove the preceding speeches, Socrates embarks on a proof of the divine origin of this fourth sort of madness. It is a proof, he says, that will convince "the wise if not the clever".

The above section is inconsistent with the below section (4.1) in the same article on Phaedrus (dialogue)

4.1 Madness and divine inspiration

In the Phaedrus, Socrates makes the rather bold claim that some of life's greatest blessings flow from madness; and he clarifies this later by noting that he is referring specifically to madness inspired by the gods. It should be noted that Phaedrus is Plato's only dialogue that shows Socrates outside the city of Athens, out in the country. It was believed that spirits and nymphs inhabited the country, and Socrates specifically points this out after the long palinode with his comment about listening to the cicadas. After originally remarking that "landscapes and trees have nothing to teach me, only people do", Socrates goes on to make constant remarks concerning the presence and action of the gods in general, nature gods such as Pan and the nymphs, and the Muses, in addition to the unusually explicit characterization of his own daemon. The importance of divine inspiration is demonstrated in its connection with and the importance of religion, poetry and art, and above all else, love. Eros, much like in the Symposium, is contrasted from mere desire of the pleasurable and given a higher, heavenly function. Unlike in the Ion, a dialogue dealing with madness and divine inspiration in poetry and literary criticism, madness here must go firmly hand in hand with reason, learning, and self-control in both love and art. This rather bold claim has puzzled readers and scholars of Plato's work for centuries because it clearly shows that Socrates saw genuine value in the irrational elements of human life, despite many other dialogues that show him arguing that one should pursue beauty and that wisdom is the most beautiful thing of all.

Simple correction to 3.3.1

Simple correction to 3.3.1 to remove contradiction with section 4.1 in the Phaedrus article: Socrates begins by discussing madness and divine inspiration as documented in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in the article titled "Plato's Aesthetics". If madness or inspiration is all bad, then the preceding speeches would have been correct, but in actuality, madness and inspiration given as a gift of the gods, as stated in the W. Hamilton English translation of Phaedrus, and provides us with some of the best things we have.[Note 1] There are, in fact, several kinds of divine madness and divine inspiration (theia mania), of which he cites four examples: The section title should be corrected to "3.3.1 Madness and divine inspiration."

RfC Question for discussion: Should the current contradiction between sections 3.3.1 and section 4.1 be repaired to remove the self-contradiction currently contained in the article? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Support/Oppose

• Support. As originating the discussion. Correct the current article to remove the self-contradiction between the 2 sections. The current article already recognizes different translations of the key term for "divine inspiration" as used by Plato for the Arts and it should be consistently applied throughout the article on Phaedrus using the simple correction to 3.3.1 indicated above. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose too much synthesis and interpretation of primary sources. Find peer reviewed sources and we can look it. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• No synthesis at all, and the material is already documented in the article here on Phaedrus in section 4.1. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no "self-contradiction" there.

Section 3 is Summary of Plato's dialogue, and it correctly says 'madness' for the Greek 'mania'; Section 4 is Interpretations and themes and it consists of mostly unfounded, anachronistic, but interesting original commentary from previous editors. Without academic citations, there is absolutely no expectation why any of that commentary should agree with what Plato said. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Its difficult to see it as "unfounded", as you state it as being "unfounded", since Phadrus 230 is cited by the previous editor who wrote section 4 and who uses it as a proof text. There are four contexts given in section 3.3.1 for "Madness and divine inspriration" and each of them has a slightly different connotation for interpreting "divine inspiration" which you appear to not pay attention to. "Madness" only works fore one of the four contexts stated and not the others. At the very least "divine inspiration" should be added to section 3.3.1 which currently ignores "divine inspiration", which is not ignored in section 4. Section 3.3.1 needs to still be fixed. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not what Plato says in the Phaedrus. Plato's point is that all kinds of madness (mania), and some, but not all kinds of love are irrational. Divine inspiration (enthousiazontes) is found elsewhere in some other dialogues. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral I was invited to comment by the Feedback Request Service, so I will, but I cannot take a position because I cannot see an apparent contradiction and am not even sure what the proposed change to repair the purported contradiction is. Just a change to the title of Section 3.3.1? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Giraffedata: The contradiction appears in section 3.3.1 which gives 4 contexts for interpreting the term (theia mania) but only one translation for "madness", while ignoring the other valid translations such as "divine inspiration". Cuurently section 4 does cover at least 2 version, both "madness" and "divine inspiration" as valid translations of the central term. Section 3.3.1 should cover both versions as is now done in section 4, but currently section 3.3.1 does not do this. Section 3.3.1 should be repaired and made consistent with the 2 versions of the translation currently covered in section 4. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral Some scholars consider that this dialogue subject is Rhetoric, the art of constructing speeches. I think that the edition of this article would gain in clarity if build with more attention to this focus, and then probably contradictions like the one presented in this discussion would be seen in a better light.--Auró (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Auró: That's very true. The current version of Phaedrus in English is very rudimentary at a C-Class level of development. In comparison to the current German version Featured Article for Phaedrus which does cover Rhetoric, the English version here is relatively weak. The sections in the English Phaedrus article for Rhetoric should be improved, and the poor translation and contradiction between sections 3.3.1 and section 4 should be repaired. Both "madness" and "divine inspiration" should be covered in both of these two sections. The current section 3.3.1 ignores any mention of "divine inspiration" as a valid translation of the Greek term (theia mania) for the different contexts listed there. Section 3.3.1 should be repaired, and the sections mentioning Rhetoric should be improved. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

According to all the scholars, there are a number of topics in the dialogue, more important than rhetoric. As the French Phaedrus article says,

-- Le Phèdre ... traite une diversité de sujets en variant les formes : la question de la mort, de l’amour, de la rhétorique et de l’écriture sont abordées, sous forme de dialogues, de discours, de descriptions, de mythes et de prières. --

BlueMist (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure of your point here with this French material you are citing as your proof text which seems against your own case. You French quote is making the point that "love" and "rhetoric" are to receive at least equal weight. The point being made by the French citation you give does not indicate anything about a subordinate status of "rhetoric", nor does it state that "love" is more "important" as you state above. Why cite French material which does not make your point? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

According to you, "'une diversité de sujets'" translates as "rhetoric"? ~~ BlueMist (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If you do not speak French, all you need to do is to ask for someone to translate your own French quote of material. You are using the wrong part of your own quote which states: "de l’amour, de la rhétorique et de l’écriture", where "Rhetoric" is listed alongside the other subjects covered in Phaedrus, and not as you state in your own words "more important than rhetoric". A well developed Rhetoric section would be highly useful to improving the English version of this Phaedrus article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I will first ask excuses for not being sufficiently active in the following of the present discussion. I have examined anew the change proposed by Fountains-of-Paris. He is proposing to change "madness given as a gift of the gods" by "madness and inspiration given as a gift of the gods". I have the W. Hamilton English translation of Phaedrus. Reading Socrates speech that starts at 244 I find that madness as described in it is clearly driven by divine inspiration. But this is only my personal opinion, and there are two editors that oppose on the grounds of citations needed. But maybe leaving the sentence as it is, will not be a big problem for the interpretation and understanding of Phaedrus.--Auró (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Auró: That sounds very good especially if the wording and spirit of the notable translation by Walter Hamilton about 'divine inspiration' could be put into the current wording of section 3.3.1. This would be a very welcome addition to section 3.3.1 in the Phaedrus article here. Could you make a suggestion of the easiest way to incorporate Hamilton's wording, with references of course to your 'starts at 244', directly into section 3.3.1, and show it to us here with 'divine inspiration' added according to Hamilton. This sounds very interesting and notable. Can you show us how you would suggest to do it? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That is why Wikipedia rules require, not original interpretation from each of us, but a 'Platonic' interpretation from Plato scholars.

Those scholars have knowledge of ancient Greek plus a thorough knowledge of Plato's works. For a philosopher as important to Western culture, morality, and religion as Plato, only expert citations from peer reviewed sources can be acceptable. BlueMist (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The word "madness" in the second speech of Socrates is synonym with "inspiration". I have made a search for "divine inspiration in Phaedrus" in Google and have got 36.800 returns. I take Phaedrus, Ion, and the lure of inspiration by Barry Dixon, in the Internet Journal of the International Plato Society. In the discussion the term "inspiration" is used in preference over "madness". The second instance is Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and the title of the article Plato's Aesthetics. In section #3.2 about Phaedrus, it talks about the "inspired" or possessed person. I hope these two examples will suffice, but as you see, there are still many others that could be cited.--Auró (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• User:Auro has presented two strong reliable sources for supporting this edit, both the notable Hamilton translation and the article from the Stanford Encyclopedia on "Plato's Aesthetics" which I have added to the RfC proposed change for section 3.3.1 presented above. Good research from User:Auro. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

1) Did you also do a search for "madness in Phaedrus" and "mania in Phaedrus" in Google?

2) Madness and inspiration are different to Plato, But they are both irrational in different ways. They appear in different places in different dialogues for different reasons.

3) Madness and inspiration have divergent valuations in modern English usage. Psychological science sharply differentiates madness as an affliction of various categories, and inspiration as a positive contribution to creativity.

It is this that you get in an indiscriminate search on Google, and not the scholarly consensus which is required. ~~

BlueMist (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Still original research and interpretation. No case to make the proposed change ----Snowded ^TALK 17:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Giraffedata: @Snowded: Three new citations from multiple established sources is usually more than enough to justify making Auro's version of the edit. What do you mean by your "No case" point, what about the three new cites? Support for Auro's new version seems justified. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Plato’s words often cannot be taken at face value. The text must be interpreted. Those interpretations must be defended by philosophical argument consistent in a larger Platonic context.
• Wikipedia editors are not qualified to have their own personal opinion on what "Plato said" !
• That is one reason why Wikipedia has requirements for acceptable, in this case peer reviewed professional citations. ~~

BlueMist (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Both the Hamilton English translation of Phaedrus and the Stanford Encyclopedia article about it are significant reliable sources as provided by User:Auro for this edit above. The inclusion of the citations by User:Auro should be supported in the proposed version of the edit presented in this RfC above. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Here are some authoritative sources that link divine madness and inspiration, in the second Socrates speech.

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

In reference to Phaedrus says: "Divine madness in turn takes different forms: love, Dionysian frenzy, oracular prophecy, and poetic composition (244b–245a). In all four cases the possessed or inspired person (enthousiazôn: 241e, 249e, 253a, 263d) can accomplish what is impossible for someone in a sane state."

• The Internet Journal of the International Plato Society

Commenting on Phaedrus 244a-245c: "Although the Ion is undoubtedly the most prolonged Platonic treatment of inspiration, Socrates’ second speech in the Phaedrus, where he recants the first, is undeniably the most renowned exposition on the matter"

• Inter-disciplinary.net

"...in the Phaedrus, madness does not denote an evil disposition, instead it is a referent of a philosophic inspiration."

"...Plato has accredited the word madness by pointing out its etymology which renders it as being highly inspirational or as an intense motivation(passion)."

"It is inferred, here in the paper, from the above stated references from the dialogue that divine inspiration =(is equal to) madness and human reason =(is equal to) sanity".

"...enumerates that there are different benefits conferred by different kinds of inspired passion".

"It may appear that Plato has radically altered the connotation of passion by changing the denotation of its source i.e. from being human disposition to being an inspiration from the divine".

"The meaning that has been ascribed to eros in the Phaedrus is that of madness, and intense inspiration derived from divine sources."

--Auró (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Your references are opposed to your reading about Phaedrus 244ff. To quote from your reference:

One such misrepresentation is prevalent, I believe, in the case of Plato’s apparent lauding of divine inspiration in the Phaedrus [1]. What this paper hopes to show is the degree of irony in Socrates’ comments on divine inspiration in this work, and how connected the use of irony here is to the mechanics of dialectic

~~ BlueMist (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

You are quoting one of my three references, and the quote is only saying that the lauding of divine inspiration is ironic. This has nothing to do with the present discussion. Ironic or not ironic the link between madness and inspiration is there. The irony of this section of the second Socrates speech is something that could be considered, looking if other commentators/scholars agree or disagree. But this is a new subject.--Auró (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Auró: Support for Auro here. This section and Auro's point of view now have multiple citations. The point remains that there are already four (4) contexts of interpretation already identified in this section of Phaedrus. Blue Mist is only covering one of them, while Auro's references are comprehensively covering them all. The Auro version of the edit is both sound and well-referenced for inclusion in the article. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Still original research and interpretation. No case to make the proposed change ----Snowded ^TALK 17:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Giraffedata: @Snowded: Three new citations from multiple established sources is usually more than enough to justify making Auro's version of the edit. What do you mean by your "No case" point, what about the three new cites? Support for Auro's new version seems justified. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I moved this down - apologies my fault on the original edit - so if you want to delete that response given the context fine. If not then per BlueMist. You keep assembling references as does Auró and then interpret it. Without other editors getting involved this will do no where ----Snowded ^TALK 17:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Snowded: Moving downyour edit into the correct edit order is fine. Auro's point is still a good one. The section in Phaedrus already identifies four (4) different contexts for the term and it deserves multiple citations to cover each of the different contexts already given in that section of Phaedrus. Auro's edit does this, Blue Mist's does not. Why not give Auro the credit for very good sources and very good research. The Stanford Ency of Philosophy is a very reliable source. Auro's edit is justified and should be included. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry we disagree ----Snowded ^TALK 18:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Snowded See that I give three sources and quote them. I make no interpretation, so where is my "original research and interpretation? I think that the material quoted is such that there is objective evidence, without any need to add anything, as in fact I have done. I think that the change proposed by Fountains-of-Paris is supported by reliable sources, and therefore justified.--Auró (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Others disagree and have explained why. There is no obligation to carry on making the same points time and time again ----Snowded ^TALK 21:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Auró is allowed to ask why. Since Auro is presenting three citations to support his point and others have not presented citations to support their view, then he is allowed to ask for clarification. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And answer has been given above you and s/he just don't like it. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not quite what was being said. Be fair. Auro has given 3 cites and is expecting to see rational Talk and discussion here, as something more than subjective opinion without sources being given. If you have sources to back up your opinion then Auro is allowed to ask to see them here on the Talk page. Fair is fair, Auto has given 3 citations to support his edit. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

He has presented an interpretation those sources which has been challenged. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

If only you would show this challenged interpretation, may be we could move.--Auró (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problems with Derrida section

The section headed "Derrida and pharmakon" is badly worded and never says what Derrida had to say about this dialogue or about pharmakon. Then it wanders into quoting the Second Letter – and attributing it to Socrates! I don't know much about Derrida, so I don't want to edit the section; I would hope that someone who does can clean it up. Maybe it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgrommel (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to make the same point. The section says nothing about Derrida's ideas; it seems to imply some kind of academic conspiracy with the "scholars have kept in secret"; and the relevance of the quote from the Second Letter isn't explained (and yes, surely "Socrates writes" is a mistake?). Seeing that this issue was raised two years ago and is still unaddressed, I'm just going to remove the section. Dan from A.P. (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phaedrus (dialogue). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206010046/http://www.glbtq.com/literature/plato,3.html to http://www.glbtq.com/literature/plato,3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Lysias'; or Lysias's?

The article currently uses a possessive form of Lysias which adds only an apostrophe (Lysias') rather than apostrophe and letter 's' (Lysias's). See, for example, the Lysias' speech (230e–235e) section. Though that usage is correct by, for example, the Assosiated Press styleguide, by my reading it is incorrect by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style's rules on Possessives (and also hard to read): "For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle). Exception: abstract nouns ending with an /s/ sound, when followed by sake (for goodness' sake, for his conscience' sake). If a name ending in s or z would be difficult to pronounce with 's added (Jesus's teachings), consider rewording (the teachings of Jesus)."     ←   ZScarpia   09:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)