Talk:Sappho/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

GA nomination failure

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

It's clear that significant work has gone into this article, but I'm afraid I can't currently support GA status for it in its current state. Comments follow on the areas of the GA criteria I think the article fails to meet.

1(b). The article's structure strikes me as somewhat awkward. The section on "Sappho: myth and legend", given its content, should be renamed to something like "Reception in antiquity". It also seems odd to have that section separated by "Works" from "Transmission and loss of Sappho's works", when most of "Transmission" concerns the poems' fate after antiquity. I would favour putting "Works" directly after "Life"; the opening sentences of "Works" contain enough information about transmission to make clear the fragmentary state of the poems. The article could have a structure something like this:

• Life
• Works (including brief coverage of transmission, but saving reasons for loss until later)
• Reception
  • In antiquity (currently "Sappho: myth and legend")
  • Loss of Sappho's works
  • References in modern literature

Also, the external links in "Works" should be moved to footnotes; in the body of the text, they simply make it difficult to read.

• fixed, but "Works" needs to be reworded

2(b). The article needs a lot more inline citations. It's fine to have a list of references, but for most of the text it isn't clear which are being used. For example, some statements from "Life" that need citations are:

• "Sappho is believed to have been the daughter of Scamander and Cleïs and to have had three brothers."
• "Some translators have interpreted a poem about a girl named Cleïs..."
• "...the sophistication of her language and the sometimes rarified environments which her verses record..."
• "There was a tradition that suggested Sappho killed herself..."

Statements about the content of Sappho's work can, of course, reference the poems themselves.

3(a). I think the section on "Works" doesn't say enough about the poems themselves. Questions that could be addressed: What are the different types of poems in the surviving corpus? What are their main themes? How are they similar or different from the work of the male lyric poets? What metres does Sappho use? ("References in modern literature" refers to Swinburne's adaptation of the Sapphic stanza, but the article hasn't even mentioned that Sappho used this.)

4(a). I failed this simply because of the remark about "a fine modern translation". Easily fixed.

• fixed

I hope this doesn't sound too negative. This article contains much good content, and large parts of it are very well-written. I would definitely recommend re-nomination for GA status if the issues I've raised can be dealt with. EALacey 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad cleanup tags?

I'm thinking of reverting the insertion of the cleanup tags that were just placed on the page, but wanted to get some input - maybe from the person that put them there? First, there are quite a few - some might say an excessive amount. Second, it looks like the wrong ones were added - for instance, the "not verified" tags at the end of the "Life" section break the paragraph twice, whereas "citation needed" tags wouldn't. But if the user that placed them here really feels they belong, please respond. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The tags are indeed inappropriate and were added to already referenced statements. I believe whoever added them did not bother to consult the "References" at the end of the article. Had the editor done so, he/she would have seen that:

• the Rayor and Campbell translations are listed in references (the first flagged statement was simply that Rayor and Campbell have used a certain translation)
• Page DuBois's work is also in references (and, obviously enough, it is the source that both summarizes earlier Victorian views that Sappho was "the head-mistress of a girls' finishing school" and makes the argument that these views were "based more on conservative sensibilities than evidence"). This takes care of the editor's next two "Not verified" tags.

If anyone wants to take this as a cue to add footnotes with even more specific references to these books, great. Meanwhile, unlike most of Wikipedia, all these statements are clearly attributed to reliable sources and furthermore presented without any POV problems I can discern. Wareh 16:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A few reservations about today's edit (diff)

1. "Greatly admired in her own lifetime" is a point that does need to be clear, and indeed stronger: "throughout antiquity" would be much better.
2. This sentence is confusing: "Contemporary admiration of her poetry and writing skill, however, is expressed often in diverse ancient sources from her own and other cultures, during a time when few are recognized among the educated of other cultures." In the previous sentence, "contemporary" means "contemporary with Sappho." What is the "contemporary admiration" from "other cultures"? This should be deleted if it can't be explained better.
3. "It is based upon the ancient legend regarding the withholding of sexual activity with their husbands by the women of Lesbos—in order to put a stop to war—is unrelated to Sappho." Reliable source? This is poorly written, and to me, as it stands, suggests that the eventual use of "Lesbian" to refer to sexual orientation has nothing to do with Sappho of Lesbos, which is dubious at best.
4. To say that Socrates (as opposed to Plato, maybe) "disparaged the pleasures of the senses" is perhaps half true, but seems tendentious here.

My conclusion: This edit was well-intentioned, but it contains error and imprecision, and it lacks a single footnote pointing to a reliable source. I'm reverting but using #1 to improve he last sentence of the lead. But I wanted to mention my reasons here, so that other editors can look at the changes and see if there is anything valuable to which I'm not giving due consideration, or for which citations can easily be found. Wareh 15:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see you comments until I had made another edit -- will look over your comments and respond later today -- do not have time at this moment... 83d40m 15:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary for your second edit says "insert missing word and moved discussion of work to follow the work section." As far as I can tell, the word you inserted is "There was a Roman tradition that suggested Sappho killed herself by jumping off the Leucadian cliffs for love of Phaon." But this tradition goes back at least to Menander (fragment 258 in Koerte's numeration) in the 4th century BC. If you'd like to learn more about this, I'd recommend the article "Phaethon, Sappho's Phaon, and the White Rock of Leukas: 'Reading' the Symbols of Greek Lyric", by Gregory Nagy (conveniently in Reading Sappho: Contemporary Approaches). Meanwhile, while everyone who works on this article accepts that it has deficiencies, I hope you will bring up proposed changes here on the talk page, especially when they are facts for which one would expect citations, and when your information does seem a bit incomplete. Wareh 16:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Charles Gounod's Sappho an homage?

I added the entry on Gounod's opera on Sappho, and the description in the article was changed to call it an 'homage'. Based on my understanding of the word, the Wikipedia definition thereof, and my knowledge of the opera, I really wouldn't call it an 'homage'. Are there any objections to it being changed? Perhaps my original wording wasn't ideal, but it was IMO more accurate. Anchoress 10:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lesbian or Bisexual?

Her lesbianism is based on her poetry, no? Well, she wrote poems of sexual attraction to men also. Shouldn't she be listed as a bisexual writer?Andral 18:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that both categories are appropriate for Sappho. Clearly, she came from Lesbos and would be a Lesbian under that geographic link alone : - ) But what little we have of her works and what little we can guess of her life seems consistent with the bi-sexual designation as well. I would hope that there is no policy restricting our choices of categories here. Ande B. 07:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, out of all her works only ONE has so far been found almost intact with many of her fragments translated into modern era idealism, with translators filling in the gaps as to what she might have actually been writing; in essence modern translators were writing Sappho's poems for her. So how come its take at face value that she was a lesbian or bisexual? There is nowhere in her own written works which she claims a physical sexual relationship with another woman. How can someone who has lived over 2000 years ago be categorized "lesbian", "bisexual" when there isn't any evidence of such in her own actual works. BONK 13 June 2006

Sappho's poetry clearly expresses same-sex desire; it's not necessary for someone to have a physical relationship for the claim that they're lesbian, gay, bisexual, or whatever. Historically, Sappho has been a kind of Lesbian icon, so no matter what an individual editor might think her poetry says, because she's historically been perceived as a Lesbian poet, the category belongs.

It is, however, a commonplace of classical scholarship that categories such as lesbian, bisexual, and gay are relatively recent historical developments, and don't accurately describe ancient Greek and Roman sexuality. (Michel Foucault and Holt Parker are some references that immediately spring to mind.) Nevertheless, the lesbian and bisexual categories should be used on this article, simply because they'll help guide Wikipedia users here. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

How can it be clearly expressed as same-sex desire when only one of the poems from her nine books survived intact with several of her fragments translated in modern era idealism in which the translators are filling in the gaps? What I mean about translators filling in the gaps are comments such as these:

"There seem to be no problems inreading this English translation just as it stands, but there are two readings in the badly fragmented papyrus of the Greek which are difficult. First, just what word has disappeared right after the goddess "Persuasion" (Peitho)? Could that word "peitho" be not the Goddess but a form of the verb "persuade", e.g. "you persuade..."? Second and more important, the what are words "despite herself" (etheloisa)? This is important because "etheloisa" is a feminine form and this word is the only sure evidence that it is a girl that Sappho and the goddess are speaking about. Since we have nothing better for a reading here, we should go with this reasonable feminine participle, and continue with the poem being spoken to a girl." [1]

Its only one poem which talks about a young woman's beauty which could be seen or not be seen as "same-sex" desire. Where is the mounted of evidence and poems which support her desires of the fairer sex? Plus her original works she writes epithalamia. BONK 13 June 2006

How about this translation of fragment 94, from the same site that you quote from:

I just really want to die.

She, crying many tears, left me

And said to me:

"Oh, how terribly we have suffered, we two,

Sappho, really I don't want to go away."

And I said to her this:

Go and be happy, remembering me,

For you know how we cared for you.

And if you don't I want to remind you

.............and the lovely things we felt

with many wreathes of violets

and ro(ses and cro)cuses

and.............. and you sat next to me

and threw around your delicate neck

garlands fashioned of many woven flowers

and with much...............costly myrrh

..............and you anointed yourself with royal.....

and on soft couches.......(your) tender.......

fulfilled your longing..........

--Akhilleus (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you just proved my point about how the same poem when translated from another language can have different meanings and feel to them when translated into a foreing language... and this one by the same translator no less. The following is also from Harris, I belive, in pdf file from the same site [2] scroll down to page 123 to read this version of his fragment 94 translation, specifically notice how the wording in each version changes in specific areas which gives it a different feel/meaning when comparing the version you posted above and the one I posted below. BTW, the one below is closer to the original Greek version found on page 122 here[3], so no, the one above is not as "faithful" to the orignal Greek as believed...oh and Harris does state that the underline letters of words in his translations, including the Greek version on page 122, are his tentative guesses (see page 127 for this): BONK 15 June 2006

“I….really wish I were dead”

She, shedding many tears, was leaving me

And she said to me:

“Oh my! What awful things we have had to endure,

Psappho. It is really unwillingly that I leave you now…”

And I answered her with these words:

“Go away in happiness, remembering

Me, for you know how I cared for you.

And if you don’t know, I want to

Remind you….. (if)

And we felt lovely things

With many garlands of violets

And roses and crocus for you

An….you set down beside me

And sweet scented garlands with many

Braids around your lovely neck

Your threw, of flowers fashioned,

And with much…..myrrh

The royal ru...n

Then desire…… ……nidon

And nobody or nothing

Holy nor……

Was there, from which we were lacking

Nor grove dance

Instruments

Song….”

Doesn't look same-sex desire to me when read this way. Infact it could be a tender moment between any two females of a whole wide range, mother or sister saying goodbye to daughter/sister getting married; best friend moving away; etc. not necessary between two lovers only. ~Mallaccaos, 16 June 2006

This looks like same-sex desire to me. No, nothing explicitly says that Sappho desires this girl, but it sure looks like it to me, and I think most readers would agree. And that's with all the holes in the papyrus. Anyway, regardless of what we want to think, countless readers have seen Sappho as a lesbian or bisexual or whatever you'd like to call it, and the scholarly consensus is that Sappho portrays same-sex desire, and that's more important than our personal opinions: Wikipedia is supposed to report the opinions of experts. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That poem can be interpreted as epithalamia. Also its nicely translated into 'English' which can fit whatever ones view want's it to be, but anyone can tell that meaning of words and phrases, specifially when one translates from ancient dialects such as Aeolic Greek, which is not understood by many, are usually Lost in Translation when even translated into modern Koinen Greek, never mind another totally foreing language all together. The point of my posting from that website was to show how some who translate her poems are basically filling in the gaps, in which case as the writer from that site states: "First, just what word has disappeared right after the goddess "Persuasion" (Peitho)? Could that word "peitho" be not the Goddess but a form of the verb "persuade", e.g. "you persuade..."? Second and more important, the what are words "despite herself" (etheloisa)? This is important because "etheloisa" is a feminine form and this word is the only sure evidence that it is a girl that Sappho and the goddess are speaking about." Its the second and most imporant word that is missing, etheloisa, which I find interesting, because as the writer of that site states, its that word which would tell us if Sappho is talking about a female or not. As for wikipedia, I was under the impression that its an encyclopedia base on much factual info as possible and if opposing views are out there, then they are also put into the articles. Am I not correct in that regards? Thanks for clearing it up for me, if that is true. Regards. BONK 13 June 2006

Do you read ancient Greek? If so, find a text of Sappho, and compare Harris' translation with it; I think you'll find he's faithful and accurate. In the translation quoted above, the ellipses and parentheses represent where words are missing or difficult to read, so he's not making stuff up. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very familiar with the different ancient Greek dialects that existed back then, as well as the different modern ones in existance today and as pointed above, there are two Harris translations each given the poem a different feel and meaning to it. The fact remains that no piece of literature is a complete translation from one language into the other as faithfully as one would think them to be. Even Harris himself states "Sappho is virtually impossible to translate effectively" and even quotes Robert Frost, "Poetry is what's lost in translation". [4] As Harris points out, words, notions and sentiments are not cross-culturally exchangable, especially when one is trying to translate from such an obscure dialect as Aeolic. Each translation, is often fudged to reflect the translator's interpretation, which in this case has been an essential element in the influence of Sappho's poem on later writers of lyric that can have different meanings from each other and from the original. Sappho's poems are difficult to translated, even by academic standards, some of the forms are different from the modern ones, there are variant forms and the vocabulary can be interpretated in different ways. Also the sound of her poems, which are of extreme importance have consistently resisted translation into English and since the Greek language is incompatible with English, its impossible to convey into the translation. BONK 15 June 2006

Further, you've misread his essay. The word etheloisa is apparently difficult to read on the papyrus, but the word is there. Nearly every editor agrees that etheloisa is the correct reading (as does Harris). There's no controversy on this point, unless you go back to the mid-19th century, when readers were scandalized by the idea that Sappho might have desired another woman. Anyway, the fragment with etheloisa is a different poem than the one I quoted above, so I don't see how your objection applies here. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily correct since there is no way of knowing how the word was actually written and in Greek a slight twicking of a word can give a sentence a whole different meaning. I'm not saying that what Harris and others are claiming is not true, only that the likelyhood of them being wrong is just as good as is the translators from the 19th century being wrong, since there is no way of ever finding out. Which is why I said different people can translate literature of another language in different ways, giving the work different meanings not always faithful to the original work, particualry when one is talking about literature from over 2000 years ago in which little of the original work is in existance and from a dialect as obscure as Aeolic. BONK 15 June 2006

I don't think epithalamia are usually written in the first person (well, I think they often use a first person plural, since they're performed by a chorus), --Akhilleus (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sappho composed epithalamia for performance by a group but she also composed songs to be sung or recited by an individual to the accompaniment of a lyre, some perhaps for religious festivals such as the only complete poem that is in existance, Ύμνος στην Αφροδίτη', credited to Dionysos, 30 BC. During the 2nd AD Roman-Greco world Sappho was sung in a set performed by groups. In the papyri titled Poetarum Lesbiorum fragmenta 44, ed. Lobel-Page, it preserves a composed epithalamia composed lyrics of the wedding of Hector and Andromache singed by a Sappho, Lyrics; Beta. BONK 15 June 2006

but even if this poem is an epithalamium, what's your point? This fragment still represents same-sex desire, no matter what genre it belongs to. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Not if you read it in its original Greek it doesn't sound so, nor does it sound as such in the other translation of Harris' found hereScroll to page 123. When those versions are read you can't tell if there is any same-sex desire between the two. Infact the original sounds like any relationship found between two females who have a very close bond with each other who are feeling sorrow at the fact that they will be parting ways, be they mother/daughter, sisters, female friends, female teacher to female student or even lovers. If you read the actual work you can't tell if it represents same-sex desire, just that these two females have a close bond which is felt in their sorrowful good-bye which are feeling not exclusively only towards female lovers. The point being here is that there is no refrence in Sappho's lyrics to any physiological detail of female homoerotic involvement. Even Judith Hallett admits that there isn't any evidence of such in Sappho's works. And since we are refrencing Harris here alot, he also makes a point to remind us that "its a poem and not an entry in a lady poet's diary." BONK 15 June 2006

Wikipedia is based on expert opinion, and should represent opposing views where they exist. See WP:V and WP:NPOV. If you've got verifiable sources for what you're arguing, then we should consider including your arguments in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. BONK 15 June 2006

---

I'll just respond down here. Love the Frost quote, but he's not saying that translation is impossible, he means something similar to what our friend Harris says (p. 6 of the pdf linked to above): "Translation can do fairly well with Meaning if done conscientiously and with attention to background and historical change, but the Form can only try to match the original at specific points, as it manages to touch base with the original text here and there." So our translator, at least, thinks that he can communicate the meaning of the original poem fairly well. The idea that translation cannot reliably capture the meaning of the original leads to the conclusion that we cannot understand the ancient Greek language at all, nor anything about ancient Greek society and culture. You'll pardon me if I disagree; I don't think the time I spent learning Greek (including Aeolic) was in vain.

Instead of generalities about translation, let's focus on a specific passage: lines 21-23 of fragment 94, καὶ στρώμν[αν ἐ]πὶ μολθάκαν / ἀπάλαν πα . [ ] . . . ων / ἐξίης πόθο[ν ] . . νίδων. A literal (but non-poetic) translation: "and on soft beds you satisfied your desire for tender _______" Pretty suggestive of same-sex desire to many readers (e.g. Klinck, Journal of Homosexuality, 49 (2005), p. 200), though perhaps there's wiggle room since a few words (probably an objective genitive governed by πόθον) are missing. Not everyone sees this passage as erotic (e.g. Lardinois, Making Silence Speak, p. 51, Princeton 2001), but the majority of readers do, and I think it's hard to interpret ἐξίης πόθον ("you satisfied your desire") as meaning anything else. I can't see this as part of a poem in which two sisters are saying goodbye to each other. At any rate, look at how Harris translates these lines in both of his versions and decide which is more accurate; I think you'll find that it's the first.

On etheloisa in fragment 1, I'd have to agree with Harris' note on p. 83: "Traditional Classicists have had a problem with this word 'etheloisa' on what seemed then a textual problem but was certainly more of a sexual than textual matter." In other words, though the manuscripts are not completely clear, scholars are now confident that etheloisa is the correct reading; different readings were motivated by prudery, not textual criticism.

Your reference to Judith Hallett seems to depend on this website. The verb "admits" mischaracterizes what Hallett says; it implies that Hallett doesn't want to acknowledge an inconvenient fact. In fact, Hallett argues that Sappho was not a lesbian--the idea that there was no "physiological detail of female homoerotic involvement" supports her case. But it doesn't matter if there's no "physiological detail", which apparently means that there's no detailed description of sexual activity between women. We're talking about desire--an emotion, not a "physiological detail" (although fragment 16 is a vivid picture of the physical effects of passion). And a majority of readers have found same sex-desire, not just in fragment 94, but in 1, 16, 31, and 96, among others.

If your last quote from Harris is urging us to avoid the biographical fallacy, I completely agree. But we can talk about what Sappho's poetry says, and how readers have responded to it, and that's exactly what I'm doing when I say that the poems represent same-sex desire. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

SR I dont see the problem about her sexuality. Sappho writes love poems towards other women,one doesn't need to talk about sex to be in love with a women sexually. She compares a woman leaving her with Helen of Troy, the most sexual and desirable of ancient women (with a very bad reputation see Sappho's contemporary Alkaois on Helen) hardly someone you would compare you loved sister with. Now it is very normal for works in which women become more than the object of men's desires to be questioned by some forms of partiarchy and this seems one of those times. We might only have fragments of her work survive but the ancient authors had full poems and knew them well. Now SUPA says of Sappho she had hetairai in her groups of pupils, that can be translated as associates (which could have also described the other group Supa describes as Mathetai or student) or Herairai in Supa's time quite often meant sexual partners, he also mentions she had a bad name for indecent friendships with her girls. Many ancient writers eg Latinus refer to Sappho as homosexual or a lover of women,does this mean they also translated the texts wrong?

Women who had sex with women were well known in the Ancient World whose idea of gender was slightly different than ours(see the tribas or tribades..thus Ptolemy Tetrabiblus 3.14.171) I don't see the fuss anyway, she may have loved other women, big deal many do. However the body of academic work seems to think she had homosexual tendencies so I think wiki should stick with the experts on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.250.137 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

3rd century BC papyrus in the Cologne University collection

Could we have a brief sentence or two telling us how and where the new finding was discovered?--Derusa (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't we already have this? I think what we really need is some decent treatment of fragments 1, 16 and 31. Haukur (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes we do have a section on the papyrus but it doesn't tell us how or where it was discovered. That info would be interesting. I agree re needing treatments of fragments 1, 16 and 31.--Derusa (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

by john doe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.11.145.152 (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The picture

The current picture bothers me for two reasons. First, it seems unverified that it's really supposed to be Sappho. The fact that the Istanbul museum says it is doesn't mean much. Museums have a special interest sometimes in accepting glamorous identifications for their holdings, since it builds up patronage: would you be more likely to go to a museum which had a "Bust of Sappho" or one which had a "Monumental head of unknown female?" I'd like to see a citation from a respectable scholar identifying this piece as a portrayal of Sappho and explaining why. Second, even if it is supposed to be Sappho -- that is, if the original artist can be reasonably demonstrated to have intended it to be Sappho -- that doesn't necessarily mean it looks like her. To the best of my knowledge, there is no ancient portraiture tradition of Sappho dating back to the subject's life such as there was, for instance, probably of Alexander the Great and maybe of Socrates and a few other prominent Greeks. I'm admittedly not very knowledgeable about these issues, but comment would be welcome from people who are. Given the prominence of Sappho outside the scholarly world, I think it's important not to mislead people to think that they're really looking at her likeness. Strawberryjampot (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

For the reasons given above, I've changed the caption of the picture to indicate that the sculpture is Hellenistic (i.e. centuries after Sappho's lifetime) and is "said to be Sappho." If anyone wants to change it further, please discuss here. Strawberryjampot (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this portrait bust similar to those of Homer, Hesiod, Socrates, and so forth--unlikely to bear a resemblance to the real person, but a standard and widely used likeness nonetheless? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, probably, but I think a lot of people reading the article might naively assume that that is what Sappho really looked like -- a misconception which Wikipedia shouldn't encourage. Personally, I think that all ancient representations of famous ancient people in a reference work for general readers should have a note saying how likely it is that the representation is based on a tradition of realistic portraiture. I know that isn't often done, but I think that there's a special reason to do it for a statue of "Sappho," since so many non-specialists are interested in her, so the danger of being misled is greater. Does anyone reading this know more about that sculpture and why it's supposed to be Sappho? Suggestion: we could add a sentence or two saying that though none of the ancient depictions of Sappho (including several on classical vases which actually label her by name) is likely to be realistic, there is a literary tradition usually considered reliable that she was "small and dark" (quoted already but we'd move it.) That would make things clear. Strawberryjampot (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Current version

I think this article is in much better shape now. I agree with taking the Calame references out, though maybe a brief mention of his work may be acceptable. Calame is a respectable scholar and his work has received some approving reviews, but it is certainly not the case that his theories represent what scholars and historians generally believe were Sappho's actual circumstances, and it would be misleading to imply that this is the case. Some further minor changes and expansion may be useful, but I suggest that no major changes be made now unless they are discussed here first. Strawberryjampot (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The current article is not horrible. Its primary fault, in my opinion, is that it lacks any detailed coverage of Sappho's surviving poems and fragments. The three or four best known poems need sections (perhaps even articles) of their own. A second fault, more subject to debate, is that the article probably strays from a neutral point of view in being too reductionist. The idea that Sappho had a school is not some absurd Victorian notion to be sneered at by us enlightened modern people. The ancient sources do say that Sappho taught girls and had pupils. You can quibble that a 'school' isn't explicitly mentioned but the current article goes overboard here. Personally I think Parker's article is another entry into the everlasting scholarly quest to sanitize Sappho according to the sensibilities of the time. Now that it is no longer problematic for Sappho to have been a lesbian, Parker instead bends over backwards in trying to show that she wasn't a pedophile. Haukur (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a somewhat fuller treatment of what Sappho actually wrote would improve the article, though it should avoid getting bogged down in the sometimes very technical arguments of scholars and critics about interpretation. As for Sappho's historical circumstances, I think it's extremely important for this article to distinguish clearly and carefully between (1) what are considered by a consensus of scholars to be the historical facts, (2) what are considered plausible though unproven theories about the historical situation, and (3) theories about it which are generally not credited by scholars. The idea that Sappho had a "school" of some sort is surely either (2) or (3); I'm not up enough on recent scholarship to judge for certain, though from what I have read it seems to still be (3). Strawberryjampot (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Fragment numbering

The current references to fragment numbers are confusing, because there are in fact four numbering systems for these fragments found in scholarly literature, named after different editors: 1) Bergk, 2) Diehl, 3) Loebel-Page, and 4) Loeb Lobel-Page (the Lobel-Page numbers with slight variations as found in Campbell's Loeb edition.) Since 4 is the most recent and most easily accessible, I suggest standardizing all fragment number references (except for papyri that aren't in the Loeb) on the Loeb Lobel-Page numbers. We can put a note somewhere that there are other numbering systems and that the Loeb gives a table of corresponding fragment numbers in them. If there's no objection to this, people are invited to go ahead with the revision if they want; I could do it myself but won't have time in the near future at least. (I haven't checked to see which number system is currently being used in the article or if it's consistent; if the Loeb Lobel-Page numbers are already being used, then we need only add the suggested comment.) Strawberryjampot (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. And I think 4) is already in use. Haukur (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's good to use that numeration and to refer readers to the Loeb for a complete text. But "Loeb Lobel-Page numbers" are really the numbers of E.M.Voigt, Sappho et Alcaeus, Amsterdam 1971 (as Sjp says, basically the numbers of Lobel-Page with minor variations). All pre-Lobel-and-Page numbering systems are so obsolete that I believe there is no point in even mentioning their existence, unless necessary to explain a specifically cited or linked source that uses them. Wareh (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)