Jump to content

Talk:Argos (dog)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Argos

[edit]

I named my dog Argos after this loyal pup. It's such a sappy, silly part of the story.

---Haha, very true, but to be fair, it's mostly "sappy" because so many people have reused it. I still look forward to it every time I read the Odyssey.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.134.122 (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's sappy to us but I have a feeling that it is the first time in Western literature that the "dog/master" relationship is used this way as a metaphor for faithfulness and fidelity. Can anyone confirm whether this is the case? Partnerfrance (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maera was a dog that led Erigone to her slain father's body, Icarius (not to be confused with the Icarius in the Odyssey). When they found the body both were overcome with grief and Erigone hanged herself and Maera lept off a cliff. I'm not sure if this story predates the Odyssey though. PedanticSophist (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break the poem into lines?!

[edit]

The Odyssey just so happens to be a poem... Maybe it would be proper to break it up into lines? I may come back to do this later. Tullie 19:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ha ha ha... I hate the Odyssey but i love the dog... he's so cute!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.107.1 (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argus

[edit]

Why is it spelled that way over the info box? 38.73.253.217 (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This scene broke me

[edit]

Death of a loyal servant who had waited faithfully for his master only to pass away before he could return from the war… at least he was seen Allyseus (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Argos (dog)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ThaesOfereode (talk · contribs) 00:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Michael Aurel (talk · contribs) 06:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Nice to see your work on this article. I'll hopefully provide my review within the next day or two (depending on how much I find to quibble with). I must admit I barely knew anything of this figure before noticing your rewrite, so this should be an interesting read; I'm a little perplexed to not find mention of our canine Argos in reference works such as Brill's New Pauly and the Oxford Classical Dictionary, so you must have done a bit of digging to find the collection of sources used here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, Michael. I'm looking forward to your review. I didn't know much about him either until I was reading a piece on faithful animals in literature and decided to work on this page.
I did have to do a bit of digging, but I have to give due credit to UndercoverClassicist for pointing me in the right direction; I don't think I would've come across the Steinbock source without his help. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely to see all the work on this article. If I could put in a couple of oars at this stage:
  • In general, ancient Greek υ should be transliterated u, to reflect the classical pronunciation: so kuon or kuōn for κύων rather than kyon.
  • Given Argus's role as the embodiment of the watch-dog motif in the poem, it seems remiss not to mention that he shares a name with the archetypal watchman, Argus.
UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UC. Thanks for the comments as usual. Normally, I would fight for the y transliteration, but this source (p. 42 § 17) does put the /u/ → /y/ change after the Odyssey was probably written, so I have changed the transliteration as appropriate. To the second point, I had thought about the panoptes connection (same with of course the Argo, mentioned in the body), but I didn't see a source connecting the dog with the panoptes; I will see if I can't find another source that discusses this connection. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a while (the extra Further Reading I've added represents the picked bones of the sources that didn't mention it), but I've got one: Duncan Lowe here, p. 226 n. 189, draws attention to the overlap in name, and suggests that the mythical watchman Argus may originally have been a watch-dog, citing this article by Jacqueline Chittenden from 1948 (no page numbers, but it's pp. 27–28). Chittenden does explicitly connect the two Arguses (Argi?), and join them both back to Hermes, though this bit is probably of less relevance to this article here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 23:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I really tried to find a way to link this Argos to the panoptes using the Chittenden source, but I don't think we can really link them here, as interesting as it is. Still, Chittenden does give us some interesting stuff to add to the name section since she describes argos as a common appellation for quick dogs, so I've added that in. ThaesOfereode (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would do something like "Argus also shares a name with Argus Panoptes, a hundred-eyed watchman in other Greek myths; one mythological tradition recorded that Argus Panoptes was himself originally a watch-dog", and multi-cite both sources. It's surely germane that there is independent evidence, outside Homer, for Argus as a natural name for a watch man/dog -- certainly at least as relevant and due as the reference to the ship. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat unusual figure, I must stay, in terms of the sourcing we have, and how these sources dictate we structure the page. Most mythological figures are mentioned in various ancient sources, most of which have little commentary from modern scholars, but here the situation is entirely the opposite. As to the review, everything seems to be in pretty good order, and there's not too much in the way of this becoming a GA.

A few general comments:

  • Currently there is no sourcing in the "In the Odyssey" section. While there is the implicit source of the Odyssey itself, it would be good to source things directly. Citations to a good translation of the text would be sufficient, though we would ideally have secondary sources as well (which summarise Homer's narrative), if possible. Commentaries on the Odyssey could be your friend here.
  • I do note that the Odyssey is mentioned at WP:PLOTSUM, so perhaps my suggestion isn't a necessity by the GA standards, but I believe that it is in line with standard practice across Greek mythological articles, and I do feel quite strongly that it would be good to include some form of explicit sourcing here. I think there are a few reasons in favour of doing this, but the most significant is its helpfulness to the reader. To give an example, if a reader wanted to locate the passage in which Odysseus wipes away a tear (assuming we didn't have the quote boxes, as the article should be complete without these), I think they would need to find a copy of the Odyssey online and search for "Argos" (which would mostly give results for the city), or see note a and read a bit further along in one of the translations cited there.
  • If you're convinced, citations could be given directly to the lines of the Odyssey if you'd like (eg., "Odyssey 17.301–304" or similar) or to a translation (eg. "Lattimore, p. 261"), or you could cite both simultaneously (eg., "Odyssey 17.301–304 (Lattimore, p. 261)" or similar); personally, I think including the lines of the poem in some way would be helpful (in case, for instance, the reader wants to find the cited passage in another translation, or doesn't have access to a given translation), though either is fine.
  • Secondary sourcing is often preferred (or needed) in summarising ancient sources, as they can often be misinterpreted (think, for instance, of how easily a passage from the Fabulae could be misunderstood if you weren't relying on secondary sourcing); however, since this is the Odyssey, including just citations to primary sources would probably be no issue. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several post-Homeric sources for Argos, though they appear to be relatively minor in nature. I'd encourage you to consider whether they are worth mentioning, though I do realise that they wouldn't fit neatly into the page's current structure.
    • There are two references to him in Aelian, [1][2] and one mention in Lucillius. [3]
    • He appears to have a few iconographic representations (two of them it seems?). These are apparently mentioned in Carl Robert's Die antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs. Mythologische Cyklen, though I haven't read the relevant bits. This would seem to be one of them here. [4]
  • "Name" (or "Etymology") sections are often helpful because they give the reader an idea of how the Greeks themselves conceived of the deity or figure, or because they are related to a discussion of their origins. There's nothing wrong with the current "Name" section, though I wonder (outside of the first three sentences, perhaps) how much the reader comes away learning about the article's subject. Perhaps, springboarding from UndercoverClassicist's suggestion above, there is something that could be added around the relation of this canine Argos to other so-named figures (especially the guard of Io)? I also note that in this commentary on the Odyssey [5] there is a bit of discussion on the word, coming from a Homeric perspective. To give one example of a possible change, noting that the adjective is commonly applied to dogs in Homer would help to tie the section back to the article's subject a bit more.
  • The lead and the "Analysis" section look good.

Sourcing

  • There are several translations of the Odyssey used in the article. A few comments on these:
    • I'd recommend removing the translation from Pope, which is much too old to be using here.
    • I'd also suggest perhaps removing the translation from Butler. A translation from 1900 would probably be fine for some texts, but we have more choice here, because the text in question is the oft-translated Odyssey. Butler was also primarily a novelist, rather than a classicist.
    • I'd also suggest removing Stephen Mitchell's translation, which doesn't look reliable (assuming I have the correct Stephen Mitchell here).
    • As I've suggested you remove quite a few translations, I should provide you with some alternatives to add in their place. The translations by Robert Fagles and Richard Lattimore are generally held in high regard to my knowledge, though any post-1950 translation by a well-regarded scholar would be fine. Theoretically we only need one translation, but if you'd like to include comparisons between translations (such as in the current note a), there's no issue with having several; the list at English translations of Homer could send you in the right direction if you'd like to find more.
    • This is not needed for the GACR, but you could include a citation not just to a translation of the Odyssey in each place the text is cited, but also to a Greek edition of the work. This can be handy for readers with a little more expertise in the field. M. L. West's recent Teubner edition would work well.
  • The article (minus the "Name" section) is based upon four secondary sources (de Jong, Frank, Frisch, Steinbock). While this isn't any issue in terms of the GACR, there do seem to be a number of other sources which we could be utilising – for example, looking at the bibliography in Frisch, a few look as though they might have some good information on Argos (eg., Beck, Mainoldi, Meijer, Rohdich, Wirshbo). The RE's entry under "Hund" (42 pages) may possibly also have some information.

Prose

Lead:

  • is Odysseus's faithful dog – This is certainly true, though I wonder if the use of this adjective is fully justified by the article's body. We only use the word "faithfulness" once there – perhaps this could be changed, if it would be natural to do so?
  • Not sure if it changes anything, but I also used "fidelity" in the body. Let me dig around the sources I've already used for mentions of faithfulness because I think that's a common theme throughout and if I haven't expressed that properly, I need to. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apparently missed the mention of "unwavering fidelity" when I wrote this; feel free expand on his faithfulness if you'd like, though I now think there's probably enough to justify using "faithful" in the opening sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bred by Odysseus to be a hunting dog before he leaves for the Trojan War, he is neglected and Odysseus is presumed dead. – You can tell from context which "he" is referring to whom, but perhaps the second "he" could be "Argos"?
  • immobile from age and neglect and infested with parasites – comma between "neglect" and "and"?
  • Argos has been variously described as a symbol of faithfulness and a metaphor – the meaning seems to me to be retained if "variously" is removed
  • dying warriors and periphrastic constructions – comma between "warriors" and "and"? (We don't want someone to think that the periphrasitc constructions are dying!)
  • noble deaths of dying warriors – possibly not necessary to have both "deaths" and "dying"
  • bring focus away from both the plot and human characters to Argos. – Perhaps this could be rephrased to say what focus is being brought to first (ie., Argos), and then what it is being drawn away from? The current phrasing feels slightly awkward; I feel as though I'm expecting the sentence to end at "characters".

Name:

  • also found in the related Sanskrit language – the mention of Sanskrit feels a little unexpected, and on first reading (when you are at that point in the paragraph) it doesn't seem clear what conclusion one should draw from this statement.
  • The point here was that the reader might go "So it used to mean 'white' but then means 'fast'? That doesn't make any sense." The Sanskrit comment shows that this is not a particularly unusual semantic drift. Whether you think that's a necessary addendum or not, let me know. I try to stay ahead of my tendency to talk about linguistics in a very technical way. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • meaning literally 'shining white, brilliant' with a secondary metaphorical meaning – comma between "brilliant'" and "with" possibly?
  • The name is etymologically related to the Argo (Ἀργώ), the ship used by Jason and the Argonauts in the story of the Golden Fleece. – This is an interesting fact, though I wonder how relevant it is here – it doesn't really seem to advance our understanding of the article's subject.
  • My thought process is basically that Ancient Greek myths used similar elements, often rather blunt names. We see Argo and Argos the dog and Argos Panoptes. These are all related to each other; Argo and Argos the dog are linked by this idea that they are or were speedy. Whether this is pertinent or can be salvaged, I will leave up to you. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, ok, this makes a little more sense. I think a good general rule for the inclusion of these sorts of linguistic relatives is whether or not they are related to an underlying mythological parallel (or a hypothesised one). Here that parallel is their shared speediness, so keeping the passage is fine in my view as long as we mention this link, though I also don't think the article would be worsened by removing this sentence. Either way is fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've expanded this to comment on the swiftness of the Argo. ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Odyssey:

  • As mentioned above, it would be good to provide citations in this section, so I'll refrain from making any specific comments here for the moment, in case you end up doing some rewriting.

Analysis:

  • The reunion scene between Odysseus and Argos is among the most famous episodes in the Odyssey. It has been described as one of the most emotional scenes in Western literature. – perhaps connect sentences with "and"?
  • has been largely paid – perhaps "largely" before "been"?
  • its placement in relation to other events in the story, the emotional gravity (pathos), and as a metaphor for Odysseus and the state of his household (oikos). – When I first read "the emotional gravity", my brain expected to find "of the scene" coming next; similarly, starting the third item with "as" feels a little unexpected.
  • Other than the "emotional gravity" comment, I don't think I follow you on this one. I don't see any grammatical/syntactic issue with starting with "as", but if you have a suggestion for how I should phrase it, please let me know. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I don't know there's actually an error here, just some awkwardness to my ears. I think this arises from our statement that we're listing "three major elements" of the scene, and that in the first two cases the "element" in question is clear from the phrasing (the placement, the emotional gravity), but for the third item I don't feel as though I can identify what the "element" is clearly. I like your use of "its" in front of "emotional gravity", and essentially I'm suggesting we try, if natural, to begin the third item with "its" as well. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries; I've added "its employment" to keep the flow. What do you think? ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Within the Oddyssean narrative – "Odyssean"?
  • Argos's scene is placed in the middle of the seventeenth book of the poem and is a part of a larger section of the visitation narrative in the book, where Odysseus goes to meet his wife's suitors, and is part of that scene's inversion of the expected "hospitality ritual". – The repetition resulting from "of a" and "of the", as well as "a part of" and "is part of" feels somewhat awkward to me.
  • anagnorises and is the only anagnorisis – maybe a comma or semicolon here?
  • (ἐεικοστῷ ἐνιαυτῷ eeikostōi eniautōi) – Hmm, should there be punctuation between the Greek and the transliteration, or something to divide them a bit? Same goes for the others in the article.
  • character or to signal – perhaps start this phrase with "when" for symmetry (and add a comma)?
  • story is takes place – either remove "is" or change to "taking" I think
  • by stalling out getting to the period which – I think this could be rephrased; maybe something along the lines of "by delaying the moment which"?
  • relate, sometimes word-for-word – hmm, unsure whether this should be hyphenated
  • Elements of Argos's story relate, sometimes word-for-word, to parts of the poem related to Odysseus's son Telemachus. – minor, but would it be possible to avoid having both "relate" and "related" here?
  • Odysseus is described as having raised Argos, but "got no joy of him" (οὐδ' ἀπόνητο oud' apónēto) since he left for Troy shortly thereafter. – maybe add "having" between "but" and ""got"?
  • No, I don't think so; I don't think the tense works out here. This may be an Americanism? ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe – I can't quite put my finger on what sounds slightly off to me here, so if the current wording seems correct to you then I have no issues with leaving it as is. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Unsolicited commment) The problem is that [but] "got no joy of him" is written in a place where readers will take it as naturally governed by is described as..., so we get Odysseus is described as .. "got no joy of him", which doesn't work grammatically. Michael's suggested "but having" fixes it nicely; you could alternatively go for "but he 'got no joy...'". UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argos's excellence in hunting and physical prowess – perhaps reverse the order here, as it sounds a bit as though we're saying "excellence in physical prowess"
  • the later scene between Odysseus and his father Laertes seven books later. – try to avoid repeating "later", perhaps remove either the first "later" or the phrase "seven books later"
  • Laertes no longer travels into town and awaits only his son's return to Ithaca. – There's probably no real issue here, but I feel this could potentially be ambiguous. It seems as though we could be saying one of two things: that the only thing which Laertes looks forward to is his son's return, or that, of the people expected to return to Ithaca, Odysseus is the only one Laertes looks forward to seeing. Considering the Odyssey's narrative, I'm assuming the former is meant, but possibly something could be rephrased here.
  • Good call on the "later" wording. I'm having trouble understanding your second parsing of the sentence here; I can't figure out a way to make the sentence read the way you've described it, but if a better wording comes to my mind, I will change it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth considering that we don't use the word "pathos" in the "Pathos" section.
  • amplify the emotional impact of Argos on the story. – possibly "of the scene" would be a little tighter?
  • Soft pushback here. I think the emotion of the scene (amplified by the language use) impacts the story (cf. "tension through retardation", Frank and Bowra's "true homecoming", etc.). Not very strong pushback since obviously the emotional impact is mostly inside the scene, but I think the scene affects the story, at least the rest of book seventeen. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The contrastive narrative between – perhaps just "contrast"?
  • creates an atmosphere of uncertainty about the possibility of Odysseus's chances of success against the suitors. – Hmm, this sort of sounds as though it's an atmosphere "about" the possibility. Maybe we could change "about" to "around", or shorten it to something along the lines of "creates uncertainty as to the possibility".
  • he cries and – although the tears are hidden from Eumaeus – they are not hidden from the audience. – perhaps remove the dashes, and replace with one or two commas?
  • uses language reserved for the noble deaths of dying combatants – same suggestion as in lead, if rephrasing isn't too tricky here
  • to his master and serves to further – comma between "master" and "and"?
  • serves to further the pathos of the scene and Argos's inclusion in the larger narrative. – Is it the pathos of Argos's inclusion in the larger narrative being furthered, or his inclusion in the larger narrative itself being furthered?

Notes:

  • has been variously translated – "variously" seems redundant, as we already note that the phrase is "not uniformly translated"
  • Just a point of curiosity, is the translation in note b your own?

Miscellaneous

  • Having "Species: Canis familiaris" in the infobox feels slightly odd, as this is a mythological figure; the modern scientific name doesn't really seem relevant. Perhaps change it to "dog", or, alternatively, remove it?
  • Would it perhaps be better to move the quote box under "In the Odyssey" to the right of the prose?
  • Per my comment on translations above, I'd suggest replacing the Butler translation in the quote box with a different translation.
  • On quote boxes: I'd recommend using the same translation in both boxes, and either including or excluding the Greek passage in both cases.
  • Perhaps put dashes in front of "Odyssey" in the quote boxes?
  • Could link M. L. West in the "Further reading" section.

Several further comments

  • No plagiarism or copyvio issues from what I can see.
  • It's nice to see that an ancient depiction has been added to the article – I was planning on suggesting this. It would be good to have a citation for the identification of Argos on the coin (a museum website or iconography database would work for this), and if the cited source mentions a date, this could also be added to the caption.
  • Image copyrights seem fine.
  • The collapsible Greek is a nice touch! One quick query – what's the source of the Greek text? The Internet Archive link isn't working for me at the present moment, but if my memory is correct, Fagles doesn't include the Greek.

Citation checks

  • Ref 2 in "Name" – source supports claim.
  • Ref 10 in "Narrative function in the Odyssey" – source supports claim. de Jong does use "perverting", but in this context "inversion" conveys this relatively accurately I think.
  • Ref 23 in "As a symbol of Odysseus and his oikos" – source supports claim.
  • Refs 5 & 24 in "Pathos" – sources support claim.
  • Ref 27 in "Pathos" – source supports claim.

I realise that a few small changes have been made to the article since I wrote much of the above, so if any suggestions are no longer relevant, feel free to strike or ignore them. I'll let you respond to the above, and then I'll provide any additional thoughts (and some citation checks, image checks, etc.) soon. Thanks for your work on the article! – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the thorough review, Michael. I've made most of the appropriate changes, as suggested above, with minor pushbacks as necessary. What I haven't responded too is mostly dependent on my finding a more modern translation or digging through sources so standby for that. I should be good to continue the review over the coming week, but my personal life has become increasingly hectic (doubly so with the holidays coming up), so feel free to just ping me if I take too long. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, and feel free to take any time you need. I'm all happy with everything brought up in the "Prose" and "Miscellaneous" sections, so don't feel obliged to address anything outstanding in those sections. I've also popped into the review above a few further comments and some citation checks. See if you're persuaded by my suggestion to add citations to the Odyssey (and see what else in the first two sections you think might be worth acting upon), but otherwise I don't think there's too much to go here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

  • Hi ThaesOfereode. I saw this on the list of Good Article nominees. It's a very nice article, but I have misgivings about the lead image, which I suspect is not really a depiction of Odysseus and Argos. To avoid cluttering up this review section, I've started a new section specifically about the image on the article talk page. Choliamb (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

[edit]

In my opinion, the current lead image is a poor choice, partly because it's drab and badly drawn, but mostly because it is not at all clear that this is actually a depiction of Odysseus and Argos. Yes, it is identified that way in the 19th-century publication from which the drawing uploaded to Commons was taken, but on what grounds? Without any other identifying attributes, a man with a staff and a dog is not an iconographical lock for O. and A. Depictions of men and dogs are common in Greek art, and this particular man is young and beardless as well as nude, which is not at all what one would expect in a representation of Odysseus. The gem in question was formerly in the collection of the topographer William Leake, and is now in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge. The Fitzwilliam web site appears to be down at the moment, so I don't know what, if anything, they have to say about it, but J. H. Middleton, who was briefly the curator of the museum in the late 19th century, published a catalogue of the Fitzwilliam gem collection in 1891, and he describes the scene like this: "a youth, nude, leaning on a jagged staff, bends downwards to caress his dog, which looks up affectionately at its master" (Appendix, p. vii, no. 10). No mention of Odysseus or Argos. Instead he compares it to a similar gem from the Cesnola collection, now in the Metropolitan Museum in New York, and to the representations of dogs accompanying idealized nude youths on Athenian funerary stelai. In fact, "nude youth with dog" is a fairly common subject for Greek gems, and one can easily add other examples, like this one in the Getty collection, or these two in the Louvre (one, two), or these three in the British Museum (one, two, three). I see nothing to suggest that the figures on any of these gems, including the one in the Fitzwilliam, are intended to be understood as as Odysseus and Argos.

If you'd like to compare these to a gem that does depict Odysseus and Argos, have a look at this one. Here the man is older and bearded and clad in a traveling costume, and the identification is clinched by the fact that he is wearing a pilos, a very common attribute of Odysseus in both Greek and Roman art. This gem, originally from the collection of the Polish prince Stanislaw Poniatowski and last seen in an auction at Christie's in London in 1999, would be a fine lead image, but unfortunately the photo is not in the public domain, so we can't upload it to the Commons.

But I have an alternative suggestion for you: a Roman Republican coin issued in 82 B.C. by Gaius Mamilius Limetanus (see Coinage of the Roman Republic Online RRC 362/1). It bears on the reverse a little vignette of a man and his dog, and in this case too the identification of the man as Odysseus is confirmed by the pilos. The Commons has several images of this coin in c:Category:Coins by C. Mamilius Limetanus; the clearest image of the reverse is probably File:Odysseus Argos roman coin.JPG. It's not as clear as the Poniatowski gem, but it is both (a) ancient and (b) certainly meant to be Odysseus and Argos, which I think makes it better for the lead than any of the other images currently in the article.

Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Choliamb: I find your argument compelling and agree that we should use a better image. My concern about the image you selected is twofold: it is worn to the point of being unclear and whether the ancient nature of the image has any bearing on whether it should be used. To the first point, have you considered the image File:Traianus- Restitution - Münzkabinett, Berlin - 5488480.jpg? If the image were cropped to only show the reverse (right), that would be a much better quality image for the lede. To the second point, neither of these coins are contemporary images of these characters so I'm not sure if the age of the object in question is of any benefit. Other fictional characters from literature often have modern (or close to modern) images for their ledes (e.g., Wilkins Micawber [1912], Prince Hamlet [1864], etc.). If we were to choose an image that best suits the character itself within the context of the Odyssey, I would strongly suggest either File:Louis Frederic Schutzenberger - Retour d'Ulysse.jpg, File:Ulysses and Argo.png, or File:Chatterbox1886 0373.jpg. Each of these images highlights one major aspect of Argos in the poem: the first shows Odysseus's stoic attitude (see the article for: "Odysseus's restraint demonstrates his resolve"), the second one (esp if the words are cropped out) really sells the pathetic form of both characters, and the Chatterbox one has him sitting on a pile of (what looks to be) manure, as he does in the poem, which is missing from basically every other image of the dog. Look forward to your comments. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to a modern illustration if that's what you prefer. As you say, any Greek or Roman image you can find is still going to be centuries later than the time of the composition of the Homeric poems, so neither a 5th-century BC sealstone nor a 1st-century BC coin is any more "contemporary" than a 17th-century engraving. Since Argos is not a historical dog, but a fictional character, I think it's fine to use any illustration you like (as long as it actually does depict Argos and Odysseus).
As for the Trajanic reissue of the Republican coin, it is certainly clearer, so by all means use it if you think it's appropriate. It would be nice to have an ancient image somewhere in the article, just for balance, even if it's not the lead. But I'll leave the decision to you. My only objection was to the inclusion of the Fitzwilliam gem, and as long as the article no longer claims that it depicts O. and A., you have satisfied me completely. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Argos_(dog)&oldid=1263141048"