Talk:Gaius Julius Hyginus

(title of the work)

• Who calls it Poeticon astronomicon? It's usually cited as de Astronomia, which the 1992 Teubner calls it.
• Both works are widely held to be abridgements of the same work actually by Hyginus; but who claims they are "by the same hand" - and, more importantly, on what evidence? MSS from the late Roman period are very rare; and the two texts do differ non-trivially in dealing with common matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarissimi uiri Hyginii Poeticon astronomicon opus utilissimum. The title under which a text attributed to "most famous" Hyginus appeared in its editio princeps, Erhard Ratdolt from Augsburg, Venice, 1482. The Wikipedia article Poeticon astronomicon could use improving. --Wetman 01:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hardly English or modern usage; and unlikely to reflect MS usage in 1482. I see no reason not to amend. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that "from the same hand" is from the 1911 Britannica. If I find it in a modern editor, I will put it back, but for now, see my edit summary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1911

This article does contain text from the 1911 Britannica; the diff from the copy makes that clear. (It is, of course, no longer entirely from the Britannica; but the "it is suggested" locution, now tagged, survives verbatim, and the entire line of argument is from 1911.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs an intro

The article is good, but it needs an intro. Said: Rursus (☻) 16:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ehmm, I disagree with myself a little, the text adulescentem imperitum, semidoctum, stultum etc. seems to be unencyclopedic drivel from Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911. Wikipedia don't do such illformulated subjective statements, we're making a real encyclopedia. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again!! Only the three leading and neutral-in-tone paragraphs are from Encyclopedia Britannica. They're OK. That adulescentem imperitum, semidoctum, stultum is from somewhere else. I still think those statements don't belong to here, in their current form. I'm going to find the source and fix it! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved the foul-mouthed statements from H. I. Rose and A. L. Keith (neither of them having an article on Wikipedia) to an independent para. If anyone feel like "then-do-it-better-yourself-Rose-and-Keith!", that new para is very removable, and few will complaint. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

H. J. Rose is not wholly obscure.--Wetman (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then keep it. Besides, now it looks nice indeed! (The edits after mine!) Thanks a lot! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Authorship

"Under the name of Hyginus there are extant what are probably two sets of school notes abbreviating his treatises on mythology"

Can someone make this more clear? He didn't write these two works, correct? You could say that they are an epitome of his work by some other unknown author. But as it stands, the phrasing is very unclear. 216.54.22.188 (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact in the Italian language Wikipedia reports two different entry: "Igino (astronomo)" (I century AD), to whom are attributed the De Astronomia and the Fabulae and "Caio Giulio Igino" (64 BC – AD 17), to whom are attributed some works nowadays almost entirely lost, while and the English version reports only the entry "Gaius Iulius Hyginus". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldan~itwiki (talk • contribs) 10:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gaius Julius Hyginus. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.theiet.org/about/libarc/archives/featured/julius-hyginus.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324053652/http://hos.ou.edu/galleries//01Ancient/HeroOfAlexandria/1575//15thCentury/Vespucci/ to http://hos.ou.edu/galleries/

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) 07:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hyginus

Discussion copied from User talk:Michael Aurel#Hyginus

Please can you do the Hyginus split which I attempted to do, I don't know how to do it without being reverted by bots or admins. The consensus of most scholars is that these are two different people. One is Julius Hyginus and another is just Hyginus (also called Hyginus the Astronomer or Hyginus the Mythographer, author of the Fabulae). If you look at the encyclopedia Britannica, Loeb classics or the Italian encyclopedia Treccani (or the Italian wikipedia that is better on this issue) they clarify that it's a common mistake to confuse these two people. It's a minority and old view that they are the same. 2A01:E11:17:40B0:6043:F799:2474:1D52 (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

My concern is that I don't really think there is much at all to say about that Hyginus. I do understand your general opposition to the current situation at Gaius Julius Hyginus – the discussion of each work probably shouldn't be quite so prominent there, and the Fabulae should undoubtedly have their own page. On the actual author himself, however, I'm not entirely sure what could be said. I would opt instead for a mention of the attributions at Gaius Julius Hyginus, and for De astronomia and Fabulae to have "Authorship" or "Attribution" sections (or something of the sort), which could discuss the matter within the context of each work. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Gaius Julius Hyginus, definitely needs a rewrite along the lines you suggest. No one is sure (or apparently can be sure) who wrote either the Fabulae or the Astronomy. Our only ancient source for the authorship of the Fabulae simply names "Hyginus". There were many works by men named Hyginus, and there appears to be no way to determine which Hyginus the author of the Fabulae might be (nonwithstanding the title of Jacob Micyllus's 1535 edition: The Book of Fabulae by Gais Julius Hyginus, the freedman of Augustus). When referring to the author of the Fabulae, it is certainly misleading to have "Hyginus" be a redirect to Gaius Julius Hyginus. "Hyginus" needs to be a disambiguation page! As for what can be said about Gaius Julius Hyginus, Suetonius includes him as one of the 20 grammarians he writes about in De Illustribus Grammaticis (via Google translate):

Gaius Julius Hyginus, a freedman of Augustus, a Spaniard by birth (some think he was an Alexandrian and was brought to Rome as a boy by Caesar after Alexandria was captured), listened to and imitated with great interest Cornelius Alexander, the Greek grammarian, whom many called Polyhistor, some Historia, because of his knowledge of antiquity. He was in charge of the Palatine library, and taught many others; and he was very familiar with the poet Ovid and the consular Clodius Licinius, the historian, who relates that he died very poor and was supported by his generosity as long as he lived. His freedman was Julius Modestus, who followed in the footsteps of his patron in his studies and learning.

Paul August ☎ 17:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

"Hyginus" needs to be a disambiguation page – I agree. We do currently have Hyginus (disambiguation), but it should be located at Hyginus (I don't think that Gaius Julius Hyginus can be considered the primary topic here). If you wanted, you could use your admin abilities to move the page (it requires moving over an existing redirect), or we could start an WP:RM, though I don't think anyone would disagree with the change. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Have done so. I hesitate to think about all the inappropriate links to Gaius Julius Hyginus there are, many of them mine. %&&@#%! Paul August ☎ 14:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

%&&@#% indeed! [1] – Michael Aurel (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I now think those links are not so bad after all. I had thought that when referring to the author of Fabulae, we should link to Fabulae (A link you've now turned blue!): "[[Fabulae|Hyginus]]" and likewise for the author of the Astronomy, but now I think this is probably for the best. Paul August ☎ 17:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I agree (in citations) – I would probaby opt for [[Gaius Julius Hyginus|Hyginus]], ''[[Fabulae]]'' 50, as we link Hesiod for the Catalogue of Women, Homer for the Iliad, and so on. In prose, I suspect there are probably a few places where links/phrasing might need changing (eg. [2][3]). – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎ 14:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

By the way, regarding which Hyginus wrote what, we are standing apparently on a shifting landscape. Hard, in his 2015 Eratosthenes and Hyginus: Constellation Myths, p. xxvi, writes:

It has been disputed whether [the Astronomy and the Fabulae] were really written by Gaius Julius Hyginus ... In recent times the consensus has shifted, with fewer scholars taking a resolutely negative line, and more admitting the possibility that [Gaius Julius Hyginus] ... may have been the true author.

Paul August ☎ 17:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I'd remembered reading that (and it being part of my reason for reverting the IP), but I couldn't recall where! Sources seem to differ here somewhat. Smith and Trzaskoma, p. xliii, state: although a few scholars have continued to try to identify the Palatine librarian as our Hyginus, the vast majority now reject the identification. Smith, p. 101, suggests a date c. 150–200 AD for our Hyginus, though he does also note: a few scholars maintain that our Hyginus can be identifed with the Palatine librarian of Augustus (La Boeufe 2002: xxxi–xxxvi; Expósito 2003). Interestingly, Hard (p. 11) himself says (in the 2020 edition of his 2004 book, published after his 2015 book): it is generally agreed that these cannot be genuine works of Hyginus, and they were probably written after his time in the second century AD. (This doesn't necessarily contradict what he wrote in 2015, though.) Also interestingly, Fletcher, p. 201, seems at least open to the idea that Gaius Julius Hyginus may have been the author:

Ancient authors attribute a variety of historical, didactic/agricultural, religious, and biographical works to this Hyginus, so the subject matter of the Fabulae fits his interests (Del Hoyo and García Ruiz 2009: 10–12), and there is nothing in the text that necessarily postdates his lifetime (save chapters 258–261, taken from Servius’s commentary on Vergil’s Aeneid), and it has even been argued that a possible allusion to Genesis in chapter 143 suggests an author with the librarian’s background and access to the Palatine library (Inowlocki 2007). The form of the text as we have it, however, means that if Gaius Julius Hyginus was the author, the text has suffered so greatly over time that one of its most famous editors could call its author “unskilled,” “semi-educated,” and “foolish” (Rose 1967: xii).

– Michael Aurel (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

As for Hard, his 2020 Hyginus blurb, is identical to his 2004 one, so ... ? Another point to keep in mind is that, according to Smith & Trzaskoma 2007 (p. xlii), since the Fabulae:

as we have it is the result of many modifications, we are better off speaking about authors rather than a single author, and dates instead of a single date. Simply put, the collection of myths we possess under the name Fabulae is likely so far removed from the author's original that, we suspect, he would have scarcely recognized it as his own.

Paul August ☎ 16:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

We should really be having this discussion on Talk:Gaius Julius Hyginus. If you don't mind, we could copy this discussion over and continue it there? (The same consideration applies to the discussion we are currently having on my talk page). Paul August ☎ 17:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Certainly, that's a good idea. I'll move both of them now. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

End of copied discussion

Well, yes, quoting the 2004 edition would have been the same – I was checking that Hard wrote the same in 2020 as in the 2004 edition, just in case the "shift" he was talking about had occurred between 2004 and 2015. And yes, it would certainly be a good idea to mention something about the level of corruption of the text, perhaps in the "Textual history" section at Fabulae – feel free to add or rework anything you'd like, of course. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Michael Aurel and Paul August:, now that the disambiguation page has been created, did you both agree that links to "Hyginus" should go to this article? or should they be unlinked, or linked to Fabulae or De astronomia? Natg 19 (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Natg 19: Thanks for your help with fixing these. I personally would link it as [[Gaius Julius Hyginus|Hyginus]], ''[[Fabulae]]'' 50 in citations (and similarly for the Astronomia), and in prose I would probably replace mentions such as [[Hyginus]] says ... and [[Gaius Julius Hyginus|Hyginus]] says ... with something to the effect of In the ''[[Fabulae]]'', ... (or, alternatively, In the ''[[Fabulae]]'', attributed to [[Gaius Julius Hyginus|Hyginus]], ...). – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  As I wrote above, I think it's fine to have all links to "Hyginus" (in this context) go to Gaius Julius Hyginus. The formulations that Michael Aurel suggests for prose, are also fine, but would be tedious and repetitive if used more than once (or twice), in an article. Trying to have links go to either Fabulae or De astronomia now seems inappropriate to me, (not to mention difficult). Paul August ☎ 14:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your input! I have begun disambiguating the links to Hyginus. However, on 2nd thought, should this be a disambiguation page to begin with? If we are altering all these links to point to Gaius Julius Hyginus, shouldn't Hyginus just redirect directly there, and Hyginus be moved back to Hyginus (disambiguation)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natg 19 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I've wondered that myself. I may not have thought through well enough my move. It has certainly caused unforeseen problems! I'm willing to move "Hyginus" back, if others thought I should. It's a question of who the primary topic is. I at first thought there was no primary topic, but now I'm not sure. Paul August ☎ 19:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I would stand by your original move on primary topic grounds, though I see the point around the muddle this has caused – we now have four ways the name is linked in mythological articles! [[Hyginus]], [[Gaius Julius Hyginus|Hyginus]], [[Fabulae|Hyginus]], and Hyginus (ie., in some cases someone has removed the link). There is of course also the IP's original proposal to create Hyginus (mythographer), which would make it clear where to point links, though I would return to my original contention that I don't know what could be said there that isn't just as effectively covered at Fabulae and De astronomia. Perhaps we should leave a note at WT:CGR (or even move the discussion there), to see what others think as to which pages should have which titles and should redirect where, and how "Hyginus" should be linked in articles. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure what to do at this point. Paul August ☎ 15:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I do think that the original "split" was good, as the Fabulae is notable to have its own article. I think it is a good idea to ask the CGR Wikiproject for their thoughts. Natg 19 (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Great, I'll leave a message there then. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

For the record, this discussion was continued at WT:CGR, here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)