Talk:Elegy

What about...?

What about its origins, forms, creators, forerunners...? This is not helpful.

I know!! there is more help in Elegiac and elegiac metre, but not for music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.232.171 (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was keep the articles separate. Jafeluv (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am proposing that both Elegiac and Elegiac couplet be merged into this article. Those two articles have a good deal of overlap in topic and content; in addition, Elegiac is at an adjectival title, which is discouraged per WP:ADJECTIVE. I think that the rather indiscriminate lists in this article should be eliminated (with individual entries, where appropriate, being added to Elegy (disambiguation)) and the material from the other two articles used to construct a proper prose article on the characteristics and history of the form here. Deor (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't think we should have both. The couplet has a greater history in Latin verse than in English or any Romance language, and my fear is that it's too narrow. The elegaic is a standard form (i.e. it's a noun, like "epic," not an adjective, like "heroic"). The elegaic is different from the Elegy only in that the latter is now in wide English use as any encomium on the dead. Thus, I feel and felt that "elegaic" is the higher up term in a taxonomy.

I think we should have more prosody in the article than I was able to muster, and we, of course, shouldn't have lists at all. Most English versions are imitations of the elegaic, anyway. The last I can think of that seriously attempted an adaptation were 17th c. By the time of In Memoriam, it's really just a vague gesture. Geogre (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Person above wants to know about music. Well... it's an adapted term. I can look at the Grove to see if there is information there, but the Classical meter won't have a rhythmic counterpoint that a musician could key in on, and keying on the Romance accentual verse would be... odd. I think in music it might have a long history, but it's not going to be more than a term with wobbly meaning. Utgard Loki (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

you are wrong. i searched for the song about the "modern major general" and found the line "I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus," which certainly refers to the two line couplets... much different than an elegy. and if they were merged, it would have been much harder for me to link from there to the germane info... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.17.253 (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think that both articles should be kept, since they refer to different things. An Elegy is a literary genre, while an elegiac couplet is a metrical device. It has been widely used in Elegy, but not only in it. For instance, many medieval (and later) short forms (aphorismes, spotting verses and so on) consisted in just one "elegiac couplet", but they aren't elegies at all! Probably it would be safer merging some parts of the content, namely the parts of elegiac couplet treating of its use in elegy. --Vermondo (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Vermondo is on the right track. Both articles should be kept; the problem lies in distinguishing between "Elegiac couplet" and "Elegy." The elegiac couplet is a metrical form; in Greek and Latin literature, it can be "elegiac" in the modern sense, in that it's the most common metrical form for epitaphs, but most of the literature written in elegaic couplets is not "elegiac" in the sense of dealing with mourning or nostalgia. Quite the contrary. The article does a good job of showing that the elegiac couplet is a metrical form, and it goes on to show the different kinds of subject matter that could be expressed in this form. The article could benefit from secondary scholarship, and begins to fall apart after claiming that Ovid was the last to produce a collection of elegies -- here we start to confuse the metrical form with a kind of content, for the very reason that elegy becomes a genre as well as a metrical form. Ovid's corpus seems rather misunderstood in the article; he used elegiac couplets for his love poems, but also for didactic poetry and verse epistles (in addition to the Heroides, also the Tristia and Epistulae ex Ponto). In fact, Ovid uses elegiac couplets for everything but the Metamorphoses, including the Fasti, his poem on the Roman calendar. There also seems to be a false distinction between epigram and elegiac couplets in the case of Martial. Many of Martial's epigrams consist of a single elegiac couplet, or a pair of couplets, but they are still metrically elegiac couplets — though he does use other meters. A succinct background to Latin love elegy (in the sense of poetry written in elegiac couplets) is given by Gian Biaggio Conte, Latin Literature, p. 321ff online. Conte's emphasis on the personal character of elegiac couplets, however, has to be understood in contrast to epic written in hexameters; the contrast between the Metamorphoses and the Fasti comes to mind. Elegy is one of the hardest genres of Greek and Latin poetry to make sense of, and this article is a good start, if undersourced. Better than the article on "elegy," which consists mostly of lists.

In English literature, "elegy" becomes a sort of mode. Some English writers may produce elegiac couplets, but these may not be elegies in the English sense of the word, and most English elegies are not written in the classical meter consisting of hexameter and pentameter. The term has to do with content and tone. That's why I think the "Elegiac couplet" article should be separate, with a brief subsection at the end pointing to the future of the literary term "elegy" and giving a "See also" to that article. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Against. I came here on a mission from little baby Jesus to write a modern elegy. It was my goal to replace "To His Mistress Going To Bed" with "To His Barman Drinking Alone". Any random twit knows 'elegy' means 'mournful'. But knowing elegiac couplets, no matter how well you think of Donne, is cooler. Modern elegy's definition is well covered on the elegy page. Elegiac couplets is well covered on its page. Sometimes I think we're too committed to abstractions that don't encapsulate the reality of our readers. Cheers, GPa Hill (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. Dactylic hexameter is seriously fucking hard. Love!

I believe that the articles should remain separate. An elegy is a type of writing, whereas elegiac couplet is a meter, much like hendecasyllabic, or Iambic Pentameter. What you would suggest is comparable to combining dactyllic hexameter with "epic". Just because elegiac and elegy sound similar does not mean they are the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.207.105 (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep them separate - I came looking for exactly what I found under elegaic, which is the word prompt I had from my reading. The topic is more in the classics. Elegy, on the other hand is a more modern topic. 211.30.232.6 (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think they should be kept separate. It's simpler for the information seeker that way. 203.129.139.88 (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)V. Kunca

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'm not happy about the definition at all

Elegiac poems haven't always been songs for funeral and laments, but at least in the Roman case, have their roots in love poems, also called shepherd songs. Some scholars consider those poems as a special type and refer to it as Augusteian elegy, but considering that masterpieces of Latin poetry like Ovid's are written in this style, it certainly requires more recognition. Thus, the definition is rather narrow and skips important aspects, not to mention the whole article is rather a stub. Take an example at the German version!

84.75.158.68 (talk) Karakasa (05.05.2009, 17:54)

Elegy & Eulogy

The article states that "The term "elegy" is not to be confused with "eulogy."", but it doesn't offer any detail as to why. I understand the difference, myself, but it seems irresponsible to say that something shouldn't be confused with something else, but then not explain why the two things shouldn't be confused. Can someone add something to this hanging chad of a line? --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not-to-be-confused-with templates are generally left at that. If they're difficult to distinguish at first glance, which is not the case here, an "as opposed to" section should be added to one to explain the finer points that distinguish the subjects of the articles. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

sources etc.

The article lists good quality sources at the end, but clearly these have not been used. Or if they have, they've been misunderstood. There's no sense that the article has a grip on the concept of literary history, and how a genre develops. Essentially, it's just a list, and probably should just be called "List of elegies." I threw in a bit of classical literature, but someone coming to this article won't leave knowing what an elegy is, or how the modern concept of elegy derived from the ancient. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have three articles—this one, Elegiac, and Elegiac couplet—that overlap considerably in their treatment of the history of the elegy as a literary form. As you can see by looking above on this page, I once suggested that these be combined to form a basis for a proper article, with most of the list being handled at Elegy (disambiguation); but too few people agreed with me for the merger to be implemented. If you have a better idea, or if you want to repropose the merger, I'll be behind you all the way. Deor (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Elegiac couplet might merit an article on its own, but an article for elegy-like things is not necessary unless and until one's content burdens the other with length. I think a merger proposal should be reraised for those two in particular, and then a merger of elegiac couplet might be considered. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that an article on the elegiac couplet that focuses on metrical matters would be fine; but much of the current article deals with the history of the elegaic form, and I think that matter would be better merged to the general article, as it overlaps with both this article and Elegaic. Deor (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Besides this, things with "elegy" in the title should be moved to the disambiguation page unless they're also stated as actually being an elegy. Most of the entries in the music section are only elegies in name. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "elegiac couplet," which is a technical article on the metrical form, works separately, but I don't see what justifies a separate article Elegiac. That article, which I didn't know existed, has content that is superior to this one. Perhaps this one should be a "List of", or simply a disambiguation page, yes. But "Elegiac" is currently the article that ought to be titled "Elegy," because it's the one you'd want to link the term "elegy" to. And I'm not sure I'll remember in future when I link (which is how I ended up here) to link to the adjectival form. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)