Jump to content

Talk:Émile Gilliéron

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

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Émile Gilliéron/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 02:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved matters

Lead

  • from the Bronze Age — Not in main article.
  • Are there any sources that discuss his style of restoration against the norms of the day? While he's criticized now, I imagine his approach was much more acceptable then.
    • Somewhat -- after all, very influential people kept commissioning him, which shows us that his style was not only tolerated but positively valued. One could make a WP:SYNTHy link to the contemporary-ish restoration of buildings, such as the Parthenon and the Temple of Athena Nike, or indeed the Palace of Knossos, where imaginative reconstruction was very much in vogue for most of the C19th. However, that's increasingly less true towards G's period. The comments from Waugh about how G's work owed more to Vogue than to the Bronze Age are widely repeated in the sources and show that at least some people had issues with his philosopher. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was also likely involved in the illegal export of forged antiquities from Greece — The term "illegal export" of antiquities would normally evoke the export of real (e.g., looted) antiquities, not forged ones. Was there any suggestion that he was illegally exporting real antiquities also?
    • No, but exporting forged antiquities (while passing them off as genuine ones) was illegal, and I think it's important to be absolutely transparent that we're (via our sources) accusing him of criminal activity here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • I'm not sure you need the fils designation here.
    • I think it helps: not all readers will automatically know that fils means son, and the younger G. is generally named with that epithet: when his article is eventually written, it'll almost certainly be titled "Emile Gilleron fils". Compare Alexandre Dumas fils.
  • Were the patrons really his patrons, rather than employers?
    • A little bit of a philosophical question, but the Gillerons ran their own business and carried on doing so while working for e.g. Schliemann and Evans, so I think "patrons" is appropriate here (in the same way that we talk about painters having "patrons" in the Renaissance, even when those patrons insisted that the artist live with them and generally attaches themself to their court). Certainly, when we're talking about e.g. the DAI, employers is far less accurate than patrons or indeed customers. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Early life and career

  • MacGillivray gives his first names as "Émile Victor". — Who is MacGillivray? He hasn't been introduced yet. Also, "Émile Victor" instead of "Louis Émile", meaning MacGillivray doesn't think "Louis" is one of his names? Why the difference?
  • He attended the Gymnasium in Villeneuve Villeneuve — Timeframe?
  • What did he study at the trade school?
    • Likewise; one assumes art, draughtsmanship or something similar, but not explicitly stated in sources (I think I've managed to consult pretty much all of those that exist -- he's generally documented in sources about other things and other people, particularly Schliemann and Evans). UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He quickly gained ... until his death in 1890. — Run-on sentence.
  • This section could perhaps be broken up with a sub-section or two. Just a thought.
    • Personally, I think it's borderline: I can't see a great place to split it -- we could cut before he really gets established as an artist, but because that early period is pretty murky, we'd have to do so after the first paragraph. Really, we want to cut after the third paragraph or so, but I can't really see a clear content watershed that would justify doing so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • His fees were accordingly high. — But you've just said that he was in demand because the alternative (photography) was expensive.
    • I don't see a contradiction; presumably, Gilleron's watercolours etc were expensive, but the photographers were either more expensive, or equally expensive with other tradeoffs. Train travel is expensive, which pushes up the price of petrol, making driving expensive. However, I don't think we have enough in the sources to be more specific. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was hired by the architect and art critic Russell Sturgis to make photographs — He was a photographer too?
  • twenty-six of which — The photographs/watercolours, or the sculptures? I think the former, but it's a bit unclear.
  • Schliemann's volume publishing the results of his excavations — Why not add this to the bibliography, with a cite to it, so people can click over to see the frontispiece?
  • He designed commemorative postage stamps for the first modern Olympic Games, which took place in 1896. — I was originally going to suggest adding one of these as an image, although upon viewing them, perhaps not. More broadly, however, you might consider adding a few more images to the text. Each section currently has five (mostly lengthy) paragraphs of text, and zero or one image.
  • The accuracy of their moulds was vouched for by the archaeologist Paul Wolters, director from 1908 of the Glyptothek museum in Munich, who wrote the company's catalogue in German, French and English. — This sentence seems to hide the ball a bit. It starts off sounding as if a third-party expert is verifying the company's works, and then reveals that he's not a third party at all. Suggest rewording along the lines of "Writing the company's catalogue, in German, French and English, the archaeologist ...".
  • approximately equivalent to £1500 in 201 — Is there a reason the {{inflation}} template does work for this?
    • From memory, I think it was because the currency is Reichsmarks, and so inflating it isn't straightforward given that Germany now uses the Euro. There may be a good way to do it, however. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Currency conversion" addresses this on the {{inflation}} page. It's far from the most user-friendly explanation, however; I eventually gave up. You might take a look, or pose a question on the talk page. (Though this nomination will not hinge on you doing so.) --Usernameunique (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Looking at the explanation, it seems that you need to do the sums manually, using some sort of conversion constant. Sadly, the German currency circa 1918 was... not exactly known for its stability. I think this is a rare case when using a secondary source's estimate of the equivalence is safer than doing our own sums, given that we could pick any number of conversion rates which would wildly affect the outcome, and we've got two here which directly pull the number into modern currency. UndercoverClassicist T·C 23:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knossos and later career

  • the Minoan ruins ... of the site of Knossos on Crete — Is "ruins of the site" correct?
  • Gilliéron "began immediately to sort the fresco fragments like jigsaw puzzles" upon his arrival at Knossos. — This is the first you mentioned of him heading to Knossos. Why did he go there/who invited him?
  • In this article, this date and all subsequent dates are given in the 'New Style' Gregorian calendar, while dates before it are given in the 'Old Style' Julian calendar. — I'm probably just missing this, but why are you (a) converting the dates in the article, and then (b) dropping a footnote saying that you're using one date or the other depending on the context?
    • When Greece was using the Julian calendar, we give both dates for events in Greece to avoid confusion -- sources aren't always good at specifying which one they're using (especially, for example, when someone leaves somewhere like Britain on one date and arrives in Greece on another). I've removed the footnote; it's a boilerplate I've used in a lot of articles which have this problem, but as there's only one OS date in this one, I don't see a real need for it.
  • "bask in the radiance of Evans's success ... [and] ensure his own "fame and fortune". — Quotation marks are off. Also, is there a reason for the somewhat egotistical-sounding assessment?
    • Quote marks now fixed. Evans was a very big deal -- the discovery at Knossos was a worldwide sensation and Evans was probably just about the most powerful man in (at least) British archaeology, as well as one of very few archaeologists who would have been household names. On the other hand, there's certainly an element of ego in that judgement: if MacGillivray is right, it does a lot to explain what made G. "tick" and what sort of man he was. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They offered versions — Who is "they"?
  • Most of the colons should be semicolons. I've fixed these as I've gone, but something to keep in mind going forward.
    • Somewhat a matter of taste, I think (specifically, as to how far the second clause follows from/explains the first), but I've no issue with the amendments you've made.
  • What was Gilliéron doing at Volos?
    • Presumably working for whoever was excavating some nearby site (Volos has a big museum and is close to a number of famous Neolithic sites), but the sources are silent here. They only barely record that he was even there at all. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gilliéron et fils ('Gilliéron and Son') — If you're going to translate fils, you should translate it when it first appears.
    • I don't think that follows; here we're translating the name of the company, not simply the word. We don't routinely translate e.g. "Sandra Jones, née Smith", "M. Hercule Poirot", or similar common French terms that are dropped onto people's names.
  • How did they make the reproductions? Individually? Via some form of en masse production?
  • has been credited — By whom?
  • Is the final paragraph best suited here, in "Assessment", or in a short standalone section? It kind of comes out of nowhere.
    • Hm; it's about what he did in his career, particularly his later career, particularly at Knossos. I don't think it therefore belongs in "Assessment", which is about the quality/importance of what he did: we're still narrating his life rather than evaluating it, really. I don't think a one-paragraph section would be right, either, so on balance I think it's currently in the least bad place for it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be about what he did, but the chronology is unclear; we start in 1923 before moving back to 1906(?) with Grave Circle A, and then up to 1914. All the while, it's unclear whether his (reputed) forgeries spanned his entire career, or just a part. Meanwhile, you say it's distinct from "Assessment", yet the lead mentions his forgeries at the end of the assessment-related paragraph, and they share a nexus in that both topics concern what people say about him. Were it me, I would probably make it a subsection of "Assessment", or perhaps of "Knossos and later career". --Usernameunique (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you're right. I've done something here; see what you think. The material in that paragraph is ordered thematically rather than chronologically (that is, the most serious charge first, with the evidence for it, then the lighter charges of being somehow involved in shady stuff, with the only really concrete thing that can be pinned on G. père). The question as to when G. began his illicit work is a valuable one, but I'm not sure we really have an answer to it yet (I could simply give you the earliest date for which I've found an accusation, but that's not really the same thing, and would be OR anyway). It's worth saying that G. fils was absolutely a forger and has been well documented as such; some sources mistakenly accuse the father of forging items which were definitely forgeries done by the son. UndercoverClassicist T·C 23:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I like what you've done. There could probably be further refinement; for instance, some of "Influence of Gilliéron's work" seems like it might fit better in "Criticism", and given how you've added subsections, there seems to be a more compelling case to create an "Allegations of forgery" (or similar) subsection. But I'll leave it up to your discretion as to how to handle (with the caveat that if you would like another set of eyes, now or later, please feel free to ask). --Usernameunique (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Agreed; I've gone with "criminality", as most of the stickiest charges are about selling fake antiquities rather than making them (though he certainly was and is accused of that). UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

  • Assuming the list in the second paragraph is non-exhaustive, I would say something along the lines of "acquired by institutions including London's..."

References

Bibliography

Early life and career

  • Generally speaking, this section gives a lot of facts along the lines of "Gilliéron did X and Y", but doesn't always stitch them together into a holistic picture of (a) the overall trajectory of Gilliéron's career, or (b) why Gilliéron was good and successful at what he did. This may just reflect the state and extent of the sources, but it's something to consider.
    I've been thinking on this one: I see the point, but I must admit I'm struggling to think of what an improved version would look like. Looking at other artist FAs (I pulled Lat (cartoonist) at random), it's nice if we can find scholars saying "this stage in his development was important because...", but I don't think we really have the material to do that without crossing into OR. Thoughts most welcome. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

  • Hemingway 2011 — Why is this in the Bibliography, while other websites are given the full citation in "References" (e.g., #8, #46)?
  • Take a look on archive.org for the sources for which you don't have links. Some (e.g., Lapatin 2002) are available. You can put the URL in the "url = " parameter, and then add "url-access = registration" as another parameter. For those that are not on archive.org, too, some may be available online with a DOI; even if behind a pay wall, a link should be added when possible.
    • Let me push back on this one: one of the most, if not the most, valuable parts of most articles is the bibliography. Taking an hour to link the works that can be linked thus provides a serious boon to any serious reader. And if you want to plead the criteria, you might want to first take a look at the footnote under "Verifiable": Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sure it is valuable, but it's certainly not a requirement for GA or indeed FAC. As I read that footnote, it's a comment on the ideal reviewer, not the ideal article, and it's also immediately followed by this ideal is not often attained. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The result is the same if we look more directly at the criteria. Criterion #2 is that the article is "Verifiable". When we follow the link, we find that verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. This is different from asking whether the facts in the article are correct; it asks whether it is possible to check whether said facts are correct. The easiest way to do that, of course, is to have a link to the source. The policies reflect this reality: the page on verifiability goes on to state that For how to write citations, see citing sources, and if we follow the link one more time, we're told (under the header "What information to include") that A citation ideally includes a link or ID number to help editors locate the source. Yes, it's an ideal, not a mandate, and it uses the word "or", not "and". But the equivocal language is needed because many sources don't have a link, and a few have neither a link nor an ID number (e.g., reference 204 of Rupert Bruce-Mitford—it's not on WorldCat, so there isn't even an OCLC). Of course, if no link is available, there's no need to include one. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I realise I'm being stubborn here: as you've seen, I've got no problem with adding IA links, and indeed think it's an excellent idea for all the reasons you've laid out. However, I do want to push back against the suggestion that it's a criteria requirement: we already have a lot of mission creep in GANs, and I think it's important for the precedent it sets for other reviews and reviewers that we're clear on the difference between what the criteria require and additional, beneficial suggestions.
      On the specific point of verifiability: all of our policies are very clear that "verifiable" means that the source exists, not that any given reader or reviewer can access or understand it. WP:SOURCEACCESS is policy and explicitly says that there's no problem with using sources that are difficult or impossible for most people to get hold of. Again, I agree that it's better to include links, but have a real problem with shifting that to say that an article can't pass GA unless all of its PD sources are linked. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • de Chirico 1979 — ISBN-13 wouldn't have been around then. Per WP:ISBN, "if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it. This is because ISBNs are often used as search strings and checksum differences between the two forms make it difficult to find items listed only under the other type."
    • Still to do on this and similar.
      • Looks like there are a few more of these. Per ISBN, 13-digit numbers were used starting in 2007. I would double check any pre-2008 source for which you're citing a 13-digit ISBN. (Which is very easy to do when you've provided handy links to the books!) --Usernameunique (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll go through and do this (worth noting that WP:ISBN is neither policy nor a guideline, so has no standing in itself, but what it says here is good sense). UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These should all now be done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • de Chirico 1979 (separate point) — The date appears to be incorrect, the title appears to be incorrect, and the translator appears to be missing. All those little things a link can tell you! --Usernameunique (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prevaricated on this one, because it was a second-hand citation, and Owen did publish an edition of the text. For an autobiography, which would normally have a slight question mark as an HQRS, it's always preferable if we can show that it's been referenced (and so effectively given the seal of approval) by someone else, rather than leaning directly on it. However, I can't definitively prove that Gere had her bibliographic details right, whereas we can definitely prove that the quote is in this edition, so I've equivocated: changed the citation to the version you've very helpfully provided, and slightly changed the citation to suggest that the same words are quoted without affirming that it's the same edition. I realise that's a lot of words to say "done". UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Thanks for all these -- appreciate your time and the thoroughness of the review. Will take a look through over the next couple of days, action what I can and reply where needed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: The two isbn questions are resolved now. Palmer was indeed an SBN; thank you for the steer on that (it came up as an ISBN on the site I normally use to find them). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: Would you have any objections if I hived off responded matters that look "sorted" into a collapse template? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: Sorry to nudge, but where are we currently with this review? UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, UndercoverClassicist; I've been travelling and not paying as much attention to this as I should have. We're essentially done, save me (a) checking that the responses above are sufficient (from a quick glance earlier I believe they are, save point b that follows), and (b) responding to the point about not putting links in the bibliography. In short, that one's not going to make or break the review, but I'm a bit perplexed by how tenaciously you have stuck to your right to keep an article in worse shape than it could be. Links can only add value; as we've seen, there have already been a number of errors in the cited works (e.g., cover/frontispiece; de Chirico 1979), and it was only tracking down links on my end that revealed them. Why not spend an hour or two to so improve the article? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problems -- on the Internet Archive links, my understanding is that all the PD sources are already linked to IA (I did write a comment to that effect, but just coming to this page now, see that I hadn't sent it), now that I've added a link to Glotz. I've since added links to all the others which I could find on IA or TWL: the copyright status is more murky here, but since we've already done it for Minotaur, it seems silly to clutch pearls over doing it for others. I've left the Waugh books out, as the IA scans aren't the right editions. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: With apologies once again, any thoughts on this? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist, this review has been on hold for 62 days. Please decide whether to pass or fail the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: I'm afraid I'm the nominator: I think you meant to ping User:Usernameunique, who has been away for about a month. I may be biased, but I think it's really just a matter of a rubber stamp at this point, if you fancy coming along to offer a second opinion? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I copy-pasted the wrong username. In light of the fact that they've been inactive since 12 February, and that their only remaining point was something that is "not going to make or break the review", I'll pass this nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 17:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Émile Gilliéron was accused of making Minoan frescoes look like Vogue models? Source: MacGillivray, Joseph Alexander (2000). Minotaur: Sir Arthur Evans and the Archaeology of the Minoan Myth. New York: Hill and Wang. p. 194. ISBN 0-8090-3035-7.

Improved to Good Article status by UndercoverClassicist (talk). Self-nominated at 19:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Émile Gilliéron; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Article recently promoted to GA. Article is long enough. The article is neutral. The article is sourced. Each suggested hook is cited in the article. There are no close paraphrasing concerns (mostly bibliographical). Hooks are accurate, sourced, and interesting... personally, I'd go with ALT0, as the inherent incongruity between 20th-century popular culture (as evinced in Vogue) and Minoan anthropology is genuinely eye-catching/head-turning. QPQ done. ——Serial Number 54129 14:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


MacGillivray

[edit]

I have removed the condescending quotation from MacGillivray's book, in which he states, without evidence, that Gilliéron's motive for working at Knossos was to bask in the radiance of Evans's success ... [and] ensure his own fame and fortune. For one thing, the statement makes no sense for anyone familiar with Gilliéron's career: by 1900 he was the most successful and respected archaeological artist in Greece, with no need for Evans to "ensure his fame and fortune". More importantly, while MacGillivray may be reliable for dates and events, which he can pull from the excavation records, I'm not convinced that he is at all reliable when it comes to speculation about the motivations of Evans or his associates. His book has been criticized for its unrelenting hostility toward its subject: see, e.g., Peter Warren in the English Historical Review, who observes that MacGillivray "takes every opportunity to assign or impute the worst, meanest or crudest motives to Evans's actions", and cites numerous passages in which he adopts a "chiding and patronizing" tone when describing Evan's character. The same disdain is extended to those who collaborated with Evans, including, in this sentence, Gilliéron. Because of this (and because of his inaccuracy in other respects -- he even gets Gilliéron's name wrong), I don't think it's wise to repeat his uncharitable opinion in the WP article unless it is confirmed by some other source. Choliamb (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above, I've gone ahead and removed another one of MacGillivray's comments about "Evans's need for an earthly authority at Knossos", which seems unnecessary here, and is even more snarky and patronizing in its original context. Choliamb (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the point is well taken, though I think we need to be a little careful here. Neutrality (by Wikipedia's standards) emphatically does not mean that we only use sources that are themselves neutral, or discount non-neutral or partisan sources (as long as those sources are themselves respectable works of scholarship) but that we report even-handedly on the different views put forward in the sources. I think your removal of the speculation about G. wanting to ensure his own reputation is sound -- here, there's an independent reason to think that M.'s suggestion, frankly, isn't worth much.
However, we might perhaps have thrown two babies out with the bathwater -- the first being that G. cancelled all his other work to take the position with Evans, and the second being the speculation about the reconstruction of the "Priest-King" was motivated in part by Evans' desire for Knossos to have a king. It's fairly well documented that Evans put the cart of his ideas of Minoan society before the horse of his reconstructions at Knossos (see e.g. this page from Oxford: the famous example being his naming of the "Grand Staircase" after the one at Windsor Castle), and so I think it's at least a plausible conjecture that M. makes here -- and indeed, as I remember, we previously reported it as nothing more than a conjecture. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I don't disagree with your final sentence, but in this context I'm not particularly concerned about what Evans thought, since this article is about Gilliéron, and specifically about Gilliéron père. Because it's obviously relevant to the work that he and his son did at Knossos, I think it's fine to note that questions have been raised about the reconstructions of many of the frescoes, but I don't see this as the place to go into detail about Evans and his beliefs about Minoan society. There's a whole article on Arthur Evans for that. As for MacGillivray, if he were the only source critical of Evans, things would be different. But as you point out, there is plenty of other scholarship questioning Evans's approach to the reconstructions at Knossos, so the requirements of WP:DUEWEIGHT can be easily satisfied by quoting the more measured criticisms of more responsible scholars instead. In the case of the Priest-King specifically, the WP article already does this: the work of Coulomb and Niemeier and Shaw is mentioned in the same paragraph, and I have no problem with any of them. Shaw, who is cited, provides a good summary of earlier scholarship on the question, and she even notes in passing the effect of Evans's ideas about priest-kings, so as far as I can see MacGillivray adds nothing of value here. I'm not trying to defend Evans, about whom I have no feelings one way or another, but I don't see why you want to defend MacGillivray when there are so many other scholars who have made the same points without the sarcasm and axe-grinding. Anyway, that's my opinion, which you can accept or reject. If you want to reintroduce one or both quotes into the article, I still think it's a bad idea, but I'm not going to fight about it. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I haven't done the digging yet -- if we have a theory for why the Priest-King looks the way it does (especially in the light of increasingly overwhelming evidence that it shouldn't look like that), that's relevant to an article on Gilliéron, who actually did the restoration (even if he was influenced in doing so by Evans). I don't particularly want to defend MacGillivray, to be honest: if we've got a better source that says the same thing, it would seem a straightforward improvement to swap that one in. I do think the detail about cancelling all work is fine as a MacGillivray citation (as you note in your first comment, there's no reason to doubt M's statements of fact en masse) -- what do you think there? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get involved in a long back-and-forth here, and because Gilliéron's work at Knossos is not what interests me about him, I don't want to spend my time looking through the contemporary scholarship on the reconstructions at Knossos and trying to improve that part of the article. My purpose in opening this section of the talk page was just to explain that I had seen a bullshit quotation from MacGillivray and removed it, and why. Beyond that, I'm happy to let you do what you please with the Cretan stuff. But since you ask directly about "cancelling all work", I have to say no, I object to that statement too, partly because it is untrue, and partly because it misrepresents the source (= MacGillivray , p. 187). Before I removed the sentence, the article said Gilliéron and his son Émile, born in 1885 and generally known as Gilliéron fils, would work for Evans at Knossos for the next three decades. Gilliéron cancelled all of his other commitments to work at Knossos. The juxtaposition of these two statements seems to imply that Gilliéron canceled all of his other projects in order to devote himself exclusively to Knossos for the next three decades (or, in his case, the two decades and change that remained before his death). That is obviously nonsense, since we know that he did no such thing, and it is not what MacGillivray says. What he says is that after visiting the site around Easter in 1900, Gilliéron was intrigued by the finds and accepted Evans's offer of work. At that point "he traveled to Athens briefly to cancel other arrangements, and then returned to Crete, where he joined the team for an extended stay". Whatever is meant by "an extended stay" (weeks? months?), it is clear from the context that MacGillivray is talking specifically about the spring of 1900, and that the "arrangements" that G. cancelled were the obligations that would have prevented him from returning to Crete to start work immediately, not a renunciation of "all other commitments" or "all other work" for the duration of the excavations at Knossos. The word "all", which does not appear in the source, but does appear in the sentence I removed from the WP article (and in your comment above), helps to transform a specific comment about G.'s actions in the spring of 1900 into a general statement that implies a complete change in the course of his career. The fact that many contemporary scholars have focused exclusively on G.'s Cretan work does not mean that G. did the same. If you think it's important to mention the sequence of events in 1900 and you want to cite MacGillivray, I have no objection, as long as it is clearly placed in the context of the first season of G.'s work at Knossos, and not inflated to seem more significant than it is.
Finally, re your comment above: that's relevant to an article on Gilliéron, who actually did the restoration. Did he? My understanding is that the Priest-King as we see it today was restored by Gilliéron fils. I haven't read Coulomb and Niemeier (or Gere for that matter), but I did just go back and check Shaw to confirm that I wasn't misremembering, and she says the same thing. I wasn't going to raise this question at all, because given the nature of the family business and the way the work was carried out at Knossos, it may be difficult or impossible to sort out who actually held the brush or arranged the fragments in many instances, and there's no point in fretting too much about it until someone with access to the Knossos excavation archive and the Gilliéron archive at the EFA publishes a reliable list of who did what when (if such a thing is even possible). To be clear, I am not claiming that G. père had no role in the restoration of the Priest-King; he was presumably deeply involved in the early discussions of the fragments with Evans, and perhaps in the final arrangement as well. For modern scholars studying the creation of a "Minoan" decorative program at Knossos, this is not a hair worth splitting. But in a biographical article about one particular artist, the distinction is more important, and since this article is nominally about G. senior, it wouldn't be out of place to indicate more clearly that the criticisms of the Priest-King fresco are criticisms of an artifact produced, in its final form, by his son. I don't think this undermines the point you make above, by the way; if anything, the fact that we can't precisely allot the responsibility for the appearance of the fresco among the three people involved strengthens your argument that Evans's motivation is relevant here. I still think most of that discussion belongs in the Evans article, not this one, but I have no objection if you want to put it back here. My only suggestion is that you paraphrase rather than quoting MacGillivray directly, since "to satisfy Evans's need for an earthly ruler at Knossos" seems to me unnecessarily patronizing. For comparison, Frazer's ideas about dying vegetation gods are also out of fashion, but we don't dismiss them as a sign of his "need" for annual regicide, as if it were some irrational compulsion. Readers who want that kind of cheap psychologizing can turn to MacGillivray's book; there's no need for WP to amplify it.
That's it for me on this topic. I'll be away for the next week or so, but as I work my way through the Olympisme catalogue I may do a little more work (probably not a lot) on the parts of the article that deal with other aspects of G.'s career, which I personally find more interesting than his Cretan adventures. Now that I've made my point about MacGillivray, I won't be touching the Knossos sections, so feel free to handle those as you see fit. You've certainly read more of the recent literature on Evans and the fresco reconstructions than I have, and except in the few instances mentioned above I have no desire to substitute my judgment for yours. Choliamb (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you -- as ever, detailed, knowledgeable and well expressed. Honestly, the problem of which Gilliéron we're talking about is endemic in the sources (not helped by the fact that not all writers seem to realise that there were two of them), and I've generally taken the view that you can't separate them as long as Gilliéron senior is alive. Will have a good look through and make the edits as necessary. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gilliéron archive at the EFA

[edit]

It's clear that the Gilliéron family archive recently donated to the French School in Athens (see Mitsopoulou and Polychronopoulou 2019) is going to provide an enormous amount of new information about Gilliéron père et fils. The material is still being organized and catalogued, but some of the results of the first sifting have already been published, mostly by Christina Mitsopoulou, who appears to be the scholar charged with overseeing the collection. Two recent works in particular are full of previously unpublished material:

  • Mitsopoulou, Christina (2021). "Der Künstler Émile Gilliéron und seine Werke: Zur Vermittlung archäologischer Forschungsergebnisse an den Beispielen der Aquarellkopien aus Pompeji, Herculaneum, und Demetrias". In Lehmann, Stephan (ed.). Die Aquarellkopien antiker Wand- und Marmorbilder im Archäologischen Museum von Émile Gilliéron u. a. Kataloge und Schriften des archäologischen Museums der Martin-Luther-Universität. Dresden: Sandstein Verlag. pp. 33–65. ISBN 9783954986187.
  • Mitsopoulou, Christina; Farnoux, Alexandre; Jeammet, Violaine, eds. (2024). L'Olympisme: Une invention moderne, un héritage antique. Paris: Hazan. ISBN 9782754113830.

Both of them are especially valuable for the light they cast on otherwise neglected aspects of Gilliéron's career: the first on his watercolors of Roman wall paintings from Pompeii and Herculaneum, the second on his close association with the modern Olympic games in Athens. The Olympisme exhibition at the Louvre and the accompanying catalogue in particular draw heavily on the Gilliéron archive to illustrate his role in the promotion of the Athenian games (both the 1896 Olympics and the intercalated "Mesolympics" in 1906) and in the creation of an Olympic iconography inspired by ancient Greek sculpture and vase painting. It would be nice to see some of this material included in the WP article, which is currently heavily tilted toward his work on Minoan and Mycenaean antiquities. That tilt is understandable, since most modern scholarship has focused on this aspect of his work, and even his contemporaries agreed that this was the field with which he was, by the end of his life, most closely associated. But it's still only one facet of a long and multifaceted career, and I'd like to see the article gave a little more space to his many other activities.

In the meantime, I've added these two works to the article's bibliography and used them to expand and correct the description of his early life and education. Choliamb (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herakles and the Hydra

[edit]

In 1889, Gilliéron's watercolours of recent discoveries from the Acropolis, including parts of the sculptures of Heracles and the Hydra, which once formed a pediment of the temple known as the Hekatompedon, were exhibited in Paris as part of the Greek pavilion for the Exposition Universelle. There is a confusion of two different buildings here. The large poros group attributed to the Hekatompedon pediment (Mertens figs. 6 & 12) shows Herakles wrestling with a scaly-tailed marine creature, conventionally identified as Triton. The Hydra pediment (Mertens figs. 8 & 14), which is much smaller and executed in low relief, belongs to a different, smaller structure, perhaps analogous to the treasuries at Olympia and Delphi. Mertens does not specify which watercolors were displayed at the Paris exposition of 1889; do you have a source confirming that either Herakles and Triton or Herakles and the Hydra were among them? Mertens cites an essay in the catalogue for the first Bunte Götter exhibition, which I don't have access to. If you don't have another source, perhaps best not to be too specific here. I have removed and rephrased. Choliamb (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear -- good catch. I don't, unfortunately, and Mertens is very vague indeed, so agree that similar vagueness is a good approach here. Also fixed the same error at Panagiotis Kavvadias. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't read your article on Kavvadias before, but prompted by your reply here I took a quick look, and in the section describing the Acropolis excavations of the 1880s I noticed another small confusion regarding the nomenclature of the Archaic temples on the Acropolis. As you have already seen, I changed it, and left a very long explanation for a very small edit. I didn't read through the whole article carefully, but during my quick skim I noticed a few other small things that I think might also benefit from correction or clarification. With one or two exceptions, I probably won't try to address these any time soon, since I don't have a lot of time in real life right now, and I'd rather spend my very limited WP time on Gilliéron. (I plan to upload his watercolors of the painted funerary stelai from Demetrias to the Commons tomorrow.) Nothing in the Kavvadias article seems urgent; just my usual carping and nitpicking over small details. It goes without saying (but I will say it anyway) that it's a very good article overall. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those and your kind words -- I've seen your notes (which seems an inadequate word -- free classics lessons!) on the Talk page, and will work my way through them. If you happen to know of a good image for Balanos's work, would be gratefully received (otherwise, will scour Commons etc). UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen photographs of the damage caused by the iron pieces used in Balanos's restorations (there's one in Mallouchou-Tufano's chapter in the CCAM volume, p. 82, for example), but most of them have been taken comparatively recently, during the latest round of restorations, so they won't be in the public domain. Perhaps you could use a more general 19th-century view of the Parthenon under scaffolding, like File:Parthénon - Angle nord-ouest, échafaudé - Athènes - Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine - APMH00025645.jpg or File:Parthénon - Angle nord-ouest, échafaudé - Athènes - Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine - APMH00025644.jpg? These are in the category "Parthenon in 1898" in the Commons, although on what evidence I do not know; the source of the images (French Ministry of Culture) dates them to 1894–1895. But perhaps that's close enough, if you caption it something like "The Parthenon after the earthquake of 1894" rather than "The Parthenon during Balanos's restoration". Choliamb (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gillieron and the Olympic games

[edit]

@UndercoverClassicist: I've added a new section on G.'s work in connection with the games of 1896 and 1906, based on the essays in the catalogue of the Olympisme exhibition at the Louvre. Your advice about not overloading the article with level-2 headings is well taken, but this seemed to require one, since it doesn't fit comfortably into the existing sections. I've placed it between the section on his early career (mostly before 1900) and that on Knossos and his later career (mostly after 1900), where it seems to fit nicely. As always, feel free to edit as much as you like for style or clarity, or if you think I've included unnecessary detail. (Does it really matter where the stamps were printed, for example?)

What do you think about the images, which place G's designs next to the ancient works that inspired them? I tried to mix them up (one stamp, one plaster relief, juxtaposed with one coin and one vase painting) to show the range of the works involved and avoid duplication. There are plenty of other examples that could be used, but these are visually attractive and they read well at small sizes.

<incidental rant> To me, as someone who often finds WP conventions perverse and counterproductive, it seems obvious that readers would benefit if the text of the article were allowed to contain wikilinks pointing directly to images at the Commons, so that a single click would take them to, e.g., a photo of the red-figure krater with Heracles and Antaeus and the stamp that it inspired, or to the replica of the cup from Grave Circle A proposed as a trophy, or the cover of the 1896 program of events and official report, all without clogging up the text itself with too many images. Such links are accepted in talk page discussions and other places outside of article space, but they seem to be frowned on in articles, presumably because they are considered external links — although since they point to the Commons and use wikilink syntax they are not really "external" in the same way that links to, say, the BBC or the NYT are. What is the benefit to readers of having access to millions of Commons images while forbidding direct links to them except when the image itself is actually reproduced in the article? Articles should not be overloaded with illustrations, but if additional illustrations for specific objects mentioned in the article are in fact available, why shouldn't readers be pointed directly to them, with something more helpful than a generic "Wikimedia Commons has media related to Emile Gillieron" template? It just seems goofy to me. (Not that I hold you responsible.) </incidental rant> — Choliamb (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's excellent -- both the layout and the double images are spot on, in my view. We do often have links to Wiktionary for obscure terms (and the practice is commonly recommended at FAC), so I'd probably defend a link to Commons as fundamentally the same idea. At any rate, we can always fall back on the ultimate meta-rule: I wouldn't expect this to be an issue unless/until the article is at FAC, and we can have the discussion then if need be. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Heartened by your reply, I went back to the article with the intention of adding Commons links for the images mentioned above, only to find that the phrase "Athenian red-figure krater depicting the legendary wrestling match between Heracles and Antaeus" already has four different wikilinks to other articles, leaving no way to fit in an additional link to the Commons. And I see that WP:MOSSIS specifically names Wiktionary and Wikisource as exceptions to the rule forbidding inline links, but not Commons. Oh well, readers who care enough will find their way. It's the internet, how hard can it be? Choliamb (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Painted casts of Acropolis korai

[edit]

@UndercoverClassicist: You may remember that last year, when I uploaded the photos of the painted casts of Acropolis korai now in the cast museum in Munich, we had a disagreement on your talk page over the date. You wanted to date them to the late 19th century on the basis of this page at the cast museum web site; I countered that the museum in Munich has no information about the date of these casts independent of the records of their original acquisition in the archive of the Metropolitan Museum in New York, and that the evidence presented by Mertens and Conte 2019, who were working in the Met's archive, pointed instead to a date in the first decades of the 20th century. We let the matter drop then, but I was prompted to revisit it when I ran across two additional pieces of information: the korai are conspicuously absent from the catalogue of casts in the Met collection published in 1908, and Gisela Richter (who actually purchased the casts and was in a position to know) writes in The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks (1950 ed., p. 150, note 102) that they were painted by Gilliéron fils on the basis of watercolors made by his father. The son was born in 1885, so if it was he who painted them, they can hardly date to the 19th century; and although negative evidence is not entirely conclusive, their absence from the catalogue of casts (which is not a selection but a comprehensive listing of over 2500 pieces) strongly suggests that they were acquired after 1908. So decided to search the Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum after 1908 to see if I could find any announcement of their acquisition.

I first found this notice in the Bulletin of November 1912, which records the purchase of a colored cast of kore 680. The notice makes it clear that this was the first cast of an Acropolis kore that the museum had managed to acquire: Richter writes "they could hitherto be studied only from photographs, or in Athens itself, where the originals are; for, on account of the extensive traces of color preserved on the statues, it was thought advisable not to have them cast." But an exception had been made for an exhibition in Rome in 1911, for which ten casts were created, and the Met was able to secure one of these, which they then handed over to Gilliéron (père or fils not specified) for painting. Kore 680 was not one of the ones that I photographed in Munich, and it is inconceivable that Richter would have written this way if the Met already possessed at least four other painted casts of korai, so the others must have been acquired after 1912, and I kept looking. It took a while, but I finally found them, in the Bulletin of July 1924, in a notice by Richter entitled "An Exhibition of Greek Casts". There the four korai that I photographed in Munich (674, 675, 679, and 686) are included in a list of casts "lately bought" by the Met and exhibited in the "Room of Recent Accessions", and Richter again states that they were painted by Gilliéron fils after sketches made by his father shortly after their discovery.

So I take it as proven now that these casts were acquired in 1924 or not long before. I have changed the information on the image pages at the Commons, and in the captions of the illustrations in the Gilliéron WP article. Since we now know that the painting of the casts was the work of the son, even if based on the drawings of the father, I'm not sure we need three images of them in the article. I've retained kore 674 (the most attractive and polychromatic example) and removed the others, but feel free to change that if you think differently. Choliamb (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All sounds very sensible. One of these days, I'll get to writing the article on Gilliéron fils, and I'll trawl through the page history to pull them out! UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Émile_Gilliéron&oldid=1247250661"