Wikipedia:Peer review/Annales (Ennius)/archive1

Annales (Ennius)

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to promote it to GA one day. Right now, it does not have a comprehensive lead section, and the "Reception" section is also a bit lacking, but I would like to see what other editors think about the main content (i.e. those sections discussing the poem and its style).

I created this article several years ago, and have been working on it sporadically since then. Any comments/constructive criticisms/ideas would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I am happy to work on this. I will add some more specific comments later but the thing that is most obvious to me is the repeated use of — symbols to break up the sentences. I have no doubt this is grammatically correct, but I personally find it harder to read, and it's not common on Wikipedia. I also think that there are some names that could be wikilinked in the main text. I will try and detail this further. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC) (Also if you could comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Icelandic writers/archive1 that would be really nice.)

Sure thing. I appreciate the response. I'm a big fan of em-dashes, but it's more or less a habit. I can try to break them up/remove them if need be. I await further comments!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, no worries. Being ultra-nitpicky now:

Contents

Ennius's Annales—which was the first epic poem that covered the early history of the Roman state^wikilink?—was originally published in fifteen books, although Ennius later amended it with the addition of three others^{this seems to be said again later on}. Fragments of the Annales, as well as ancient testimonia,^{I think this word is unusual.} suggest that Ennius opened his epic with a recollection of a dream. In this reverie, the poet claims that Homer^wikilink? appeared to him and informed him that, thanks to the transmigration of souls, his spirit had been reborn into Ennius.

The poem—which was likely presented in chronology order—seems to have been organized into triads^wikilink? with a "concentric, symmetrical structure". The first seven books concerned the events before the author's birth, whereas the following eight (and eventually, eleven) dealt with events during Ennius’ life. Although most of the poem has been lost, there is a "traditional"—albeit conjectured—organization for the book. The poem's first three books cover the fall of Troy in 1184 BC,^{add a comma?} to the reign of the final king of Rome, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus c. 535–509 BC. Books 4–6 revolve around the early Republic up until the Pyrrhic War in 281–271 BC. Books 7–9 deal with the First (264–241 BC) and Second (218–201 BC) Punic Wars, as well as the events occurring contemporaneously in the East. Books 10–12 focus on the Second Macedonian War until possibly the beginning of Rome’s campaign against Antiochus III the Great, c. 192 BC. The following three books detail the war against Antiochus (192–188 BC) until the events of the Aetolian War (191–189 BC). According to Werner Suerbaum and Werner Eck, it is likely that Ennius chose to end the original portion of his opus with the Aetolian War because of the role played in the conflict by one of Ennius's patrons, Marcus Fulvius Nobilior.

Sometime after Ennius released his poem unto the Roman world,^reword? he later amended it with three additional books,^{So how many are there now? This seems a restatement.} which concern themselves with portions of the Istrian and Macedonian Wars (214–148 BC). According to Pliny the Elder in his Historia Naturalis, it was "on [the] account" of Lucius Caecilius Metellus Denter and his unspecified brother—two Romans, Pliny claims, whom the poet admired—that Ennius penned the sixteenth book.

Extended content
References

My main issue here is stating "three additional books", twice in the same section, without saying how many there are in total in this section.

Some people use {{circa}} when marking dates like c. 535–509 BC, and more rarely {{BCE}} as well. Example: c. 535–509 BCE.

There are some very specialist words used here, and "released his poem unto the Roman world" which seems a complicated way of saying "published" (unless I am mistaken). I think the Roman state and Homer could be Wikilinked. The State of Rome seems to be ambiguous which is worth noting when linking.

Will do more later. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is a first round of edits. I'll try to cut down on the jargon in a bit. Also, I went with State of Rome, as the ambiguity fits with the broadness of Ennius's poem.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That does look good. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

Sources According to Suerbaum and Eck, it is likely that Ennius drew mostly on Greek records when he was compiling his poem, although he probably also made use of the Roman historiographer Quintus Fabius Pictor. Additionally, it was assumed for a long time that both the structure, title, and contents of the Annales were based off or inspired by the Annales maximi—that is, the prose annals kept by the Pontifex Maximus during the Roman Republic. However, the scholars Sander M. Goldberg and Gesine Manuwald write that while the title of Ennius's poem is reminiscent of the Annales maximi, the idea that the poem is modeled on this official record is "almost certainly anachronistic", since there is very little evidence to suggest that an extensive version of the Annales maximi would have existed around the time that Ennius was writing his work. Given this, they argue that the title "Annales" was likely chosen by Ennius not to connect it to the Annales maximi, but rather to emphasize that he was Rome's very first "annalist." References

Having found nothing wrong with the "sources" section, I am moving straight to the next part. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"Style" section.

---

Style

Whereas Ennius's contemporaries like Livius Andronicus and Gnaeus Naevius wrote in Saturnian verse, Ennius eschewed this style, instead penning his Annales in dactylic hexameter, in imitation of the works of Homer; according to Alison Keith, by doing this, "Ennius acknowledged the importance of Greek culture in contemporary Rome". Because of Ennius's decision, dactylic hexameter became the standard metre for Latin epic poems.

But in addition to what Alison Sharrock and Rihannon Ashley call the "Romanisation of Greek poetic sophistication", Suerbaum and Eck note that by borrowing from Homer's verse style, the work also "Homerized" the Roman historiographical tradition—his "most important achievement in his presentation consisted of Roman history", the two argue. Suerbaum and Eck cite "the appearance of deities, speeches, aristeiai, similes, ekphraseis, and the subdivision of events in single days" as decidedly Homeric elements that Ennius injected into Roman historiography. With all this said, Suerbaum and Eck do argue that the Annales is also set apart from the works of Homer by so-called "'modern' traits", such as its focus on and reference to "factual aspects" (with the aforementioned scholars citing its emphasis on "cavalry and naval battles"), as well as its use of "autobiographical, meta-literary and panegyric elements".

The scope and size of Ennius's poem was at the time of its penning also "unprecedented" (for instance, both Livius Andronicus's Odusia and Naevius's Bellum Punicum were substantially shorter). Sander M. Goldberg and Gesine Manuwald postulate that Ennius may have started writing a smaller historical poem (e.g. "a poem about the siege of Ambracia, which he came to conceive in Homeric terms and for which he adapted a suitably Homeric medium, the dactylic hexameter") that grew until it reached its relatively gargantuan size. The two write, "An expanding work of this kind would better align Ennius with his predecessors, making his achievement more comprehensible but no less remarkable."

Many scholars have declared that Ennius' poem functions as "a mediator between Homer and Vergil"; in other words, it is claimed that the Annales transmits the style of Homer into a decidedly Latin tradition (as discussed above), which would eventually be used by Virgil when it came time for him to pen his own epic poem, the Aeneid. A large reason for this is because around 80 percent of what is preserved of the Annales comes from Virgilian commentators, who were quoting Ennius's work so as to compare or contrast it to passages in the Aeneid. Jackie Elliott, however, points out that many of the extant fragments which were not derived from the quotations of commentators do not display the same "epic" style of either Homer or Virgil. Thus, she argues that "to the extent that the Annales today seem to the modern reader crucial to the epic tradition, they are the creation of Vergil and of the Vergiliocentric sources." Put another way, the understanding of the Annales as decidedly "epic" is a largely post facto one, engendered by its entextualization in commentaries on the Aeneid (i.e. the aforementioned "Vergiliocentric" sources). Expressing a related sentiment, Goldberg and Manuwald write, "Critics have grown more skeptical of a procedure that postulates echoes and then bases reconstructions upon them."

For centuries, it was believed that Ennius focused on episodes in Roman history that would appeal to the partisan interests of his patrons. However, Goldberg and Manuwald once again note that this view has come into question in recent years and has yielded to a "more nuanced view that recognizes in the very sweep of the story he tells the subordination of personal interests to larger community values."

Extended content
References

At this point not having accessed the source puts me at a slight disadvantage. Ennius's contemporaries may be mentioned in Keith (2013), p. xiv., so my question here is: Does the source for the first paragraph say that Livius Andronicus and Gnaeus Naevius wrote in Saturnian verse, or just say that Ennius's decided to use dactylic hexameter?

The source reads, "Ennius broke with his predecessor Livius Andronicus and Naevius, who had written their Latin epic poems in Saturnian verse, by adopting the meter of Homeric epic, dactylic hexameter."

"aristeiai" could be wikilinked (it might be Aristeia).

Linked!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Some people don't like the use of "aforementioned", personally I am not one of those people, but worth noting.

Interesting. I'll keep it in for the time being, but I'll also keep that in mind.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"relatively gargantuan" is an odd construct.

I just changed it to "until it comprised several books".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not completely convinced on the use of brackets () on some of the longer sentences here, I feel they could stand on their own. And the use of "e.g" seems avoidable.

I'll try to break those up.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"(as discussed above)" this somehow seems superfluous. However repeating the citation from above may be wise.

Agreed. I've just removed it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"(i.e. the aforementioned "Vergiliocentric" sources)" This really needs to be stated in a full sentence, avoiding the use of "i.e".

Otherwise everything looks good. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's my first pass over this section. I'll try to go through it all and break up some parenthetical bits, reintegrate em-dashed sections so that it flows better, and cut down on jargon.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• The "Remains" section is perfectly good. Perhaps if more detail was available it could be expanded a little, but right now it offers a good summary. You already point out that the Reception and lead sections could use improvement. The references are of course well formatted and reliable. Overall it's a nice article. Frayæ 11:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The reception section is ok. This could probably pass as good with a decent lead. While perhaps not 100% "complete", it does "address the main aspects of the topic". Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Frayae: your expansion of the lead is quite nice. I appreciate all the work that you have put into this peer reivew, and I will keep your comments in mind as I continue to improve this article... and hopefully get it up to GA one day!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries, it was an interesting topic. I do hope it gets to GA. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)