This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Charles Anthon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Articles like this are the little gems in the WP crown. Never heard of this guy before, just followed the links, and I have now squirreled away his edition of the Anabasis for my own use. I don't suppose his Anabasis is up to date but it has charm and it costs nothing. What other encyclopaedia offers all that? Thanks to all who contributed. McZeus ( talk) 23:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC) I was going to download his edition of Juvenal and Persius too. It's a school edition and the naughty bits have been cut out but I wanted some commentary on Persius. Unfortunately, while there is a lengthy commentary on Juvenal, there is none on Persius. I call that false advertising and very peculiar. I've scanned the PDF version several times and can't find it. McZeus ( talk) 23:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
For a Persius commentary, give yourself a quick tour of Drummond 1799, Stocker 1839, Macleane 1867, Pretor 1868, Conington 1872 (based on lectures of 1855; here 3rd ed. of 1893), Hart 1875, Gildersleeve 1875 and I know you will find something agreeable. Wareh ( talk) 00:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)With regard to Persius, you may remember that I intended to edit his Satires along with those of Juvenal until you dissuaded me from the attempt. I have therefore contented myself with merely giving the Latin text, unaccompanied by a single word of comment. This part of the volume, I am very sure, will meet with the undivided approbation of those critical friends of mine, who have uniformly condemned my commentaries as exuberant, if not useless, and over whose fairness and acumen you and I have had many a pleasant chat.
Thanks for the extra links - very useful! And for carving the Anthon text into such neat portions. I should have spotted the comment in the dedication myself but I tend to consume text like a blind man, feelingly, rather than incisively, the way a scholar should. So it's right for me to leave articles like this to guys like you. McZeus ( talk) 01:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I have always been taught and believe it to have been the traditional Latter Day Saint position that Professor Anthon is specifically the very person referred to by the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 29:11. The Latter Day Saint position is that Anthon is the "one who is learned" and Joseph Smith Jr. is the "one who is not learned," and that the "book that is sealed" is none other than the Book of Mormon and that this is the meaning of the prophecy in Isaiah chapter 29 which has now been fulfilled. Surely if sources can be found for this in Latter Day Saint books, the fact that this interpretation of Isaiah has been written about would be notable and thus worthy of inclusion? I mean it's not just anybody who has an entire religion claiming that they are referred to personally in Biblical prophecy.
It should be noted that this view does not depend on the dubious authenticity of the paper which has been called the "Anthon transcript," which could very easily be a forgery and not the original paper presented to Anthon. -- BenMcLean ( talk) 19:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, the following image from the library of congress was recently removed: file:Charles Anthon - Brady-Handy edit.jpg, by someone stating this is not him. I would like to bring this to the attention of other editors. Is the library of Congress wrong? If yes, this also needs to be changed on Commons, on Wikidata and our sister Wikipedias. Sincerely, Taketa ( talk) 07:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Article currently says (quoting Encyclopedia Britannica IX) that In 1835, he succeeded to the chair of Professor Morse.
It isn't clear who this Morse is, but in trying to hunt him down, I notice that
NYU's Grey Art Gallery says that
Samuel Morse of morse code fame was a professor of painting and sculpture at New York University. Unfortunately, this doesn't match Anthon's subjects, and Morse apparently stayed as a professor there until long after 1835 (teaching until 1841; listed as a professor until 1872). Nonetheless – could this be the Morse being referred to? The Britannica doesn't have an entry for any other Morse (though nor does it mention Samuel's professorship)...
Caeciliusinhorto-public (
talk)
15:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Charles Anthon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Articles like this are the little gems in the WP crown. Never heard of this guy before, just followed the links, and I have now squirreled away his edition of the Anabasis for my own use. I don't suppose his Anabasis is up to date but it has charm and it costs nothing. What other encyclopaedia offers all that? Thanks to all who contributed. McZeus ( talk) 23:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC) I was going to download his edition of Juvenal and Persius too. It's a school edition and the naughty bits have been cut out but I wanted some commentary on Persius. Unfortunately, while there is a lengthy commentary on Juvenal, there is none on Persius. I call that false advertising and very peculiar. I've scanned the PDF version several times and can't find it. McZeus ( talk) 23:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
For a Persius commentary, give yourself a quick tour of Drummond 1799, Stocker 1839, Macleane 1867, Pretor 1868, Conington 1872 (based on lectures of 1855; here 3rd ed. of 1893), Hart 1875, Gildersleeve 1875 and I know you will find something agreeable. Wareh ( talk) 00:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)With regard to Persius, you may remember that I intended to edit his Satires along with those of Juvenal until you dissuaded me from the attempt. I have therefore contented myself with merely giving the Latin text, unaccompanied by a single word of comment. This part of the volume, I am very sure, will meet with the undivided approbation of those critical friends of mine, who have uniformly condemned my commentaries as exuberant, if not useless, and over whose fairness and acumen you and I have had many a pleasant chat.
Thanks for the extra links - very useful! And for carving the Anthon text into such neat portions. I should have spotted the comment in the dedication myself but I tend to consume text like a blind man, feelingly, rather than incisively, the way a scholar should. So it's right for me to leave articles like this to guys like you. McZeus ( talk) 01:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I have always been taught and believe it to have been the traditional Latter Day Saint position that Professor Anthon is specifically the very person referred to by the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 29:11. The Latter Day Saint position is that Anthon is the "one who is learned" and Joseph Smith Jr. is the "one who is not learned," and that the "book that is sealed" is none other than the Book of Mormon and that this is the meaning of the prophecy in Isaiah chapter 29 which has now been fulfilled. Surely if sources can be found for this in Latter Day Saint books, the fact that this interpretation of Isaiah has been written about would be notable and thus worthy of inclusion? I mean it's not just anybody who has an entire religion claiming that they are referred to personally in Biblical prophecy.
It should be noted that this view does not depend on the dubious authenticity of the paper which has been called the "Anthon transcript," which could very easily be a forgery and not the original paper presented to Anthon. -- BenMcLean ( talk) 19:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, the following image from the library of congress was recently removed: file:Charles Anthon - Brady-Handy edit.jpg, by someone stating this is not him. I would like to bring this to the attention of other editors. Is the library of Congress wrong? If yes, this also needs to be changed on Commons, on Wikidata and our sister Wikipedias. Sincerely, Taketa ( talk) 07:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Article currently says (quoting Encyclopedia Britannica IX) that In 1835, he succeeded to the chair of Professor Morse.
It isn't clear who this Morse is, but in trying to hunt him down, I notice that
NYU's Grey Art Gallery says that
Samuel Morse of morse code fame was a professor of painting and sculpture at New York University. Unfortunately, this doesn't match Anthon's subjects, and Morse apparently stayed as a professor there until long after 1835 (teaching until 1841; listed as a professor until 1872). Nonetheless – could this be the Morse being referred to? The Britannica doesn't have an entry for any other Morse (though nor does it mention Samuel's professorship)...
Caeciliusinhorto-public (
talk)
15:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)