Talk:Greek mythology/Archive 1

Old talk from 2001
24.xxx.xxx.xxx, why did you delete Minos from the list of gods? Am I mistaken in the belief that he's a greek god? --Colin dellow
 * Appears so. He was King of Crete, and he's king in Feyworld and some other RPGs but not apparently in Ancient Greece. But I'm not 24.xxx.xxx.xxx, and my only source is a quick Google search for 'minos god' and some vague memories of some stuff I learnt long ago.

Here's a link to Bulfinch's mythology, which is in the public domain, and could be useful for some of these articles...

http://digital.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=3327 --- Minos, someoneother and Rhadamanthos are 3 mortal judges who, because of their justice AS mortals, get to assign people to their appropriate divisions in Hades.
 * They are three brothers, Minos (which may mean king), Sarpedon and Rhadamanthys. They were the sons of Zeus and Europa; following their deaths they were appointed as judges of the dead in the underworld.

The three judges of the underworld (Hades) are Minos, Aiakos and Radamanthys. I can not recall any connection (i.e. they were not relatives) between each other. They were honoured this way because of their great sense of justice. Another aspect suggests they were not real judges: They 'd rather "assist" the soul to judge itself by its deeds (makes better sense considering the ideas of old greek religion).

Jtheo

Sex talk
(Warning: amateur hypothesis to follow!) Some would query, "Why so many stories about sex?". It would seem that (in reality) many Greek sailors were on journeys that lasted for (literally) years... so were all horny so-and-so's.
 * Not if they were shagging each other!

In ancient days, strong men were fertile, and fertile men were strong and potent. Naturally, as the gods were greater than men, they were much more potent. The chief god (Zeus) in particular was always after a girl. Since Zeus was all-powerful, every time he had sex with a woman, she became pregnant. As he didn't confine himself to goddesses, this resulted in many half-human, half-god people (demigods??). -- firepink

~Well. Zeus wasn't always after a girl - there's the handsome youth Ganymede as well, you know. Just thought I'd throw that in ;) *Which of them got pregnant?

Actually they are called semigods.
 * "Demigod" (or semigod) isn't a genuine Greek category. Heroes might fill the gap. Wetman 05:31, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * The word "demigod" (hēmitheoi) occurs in Homer (Iliad 12.23), Hesiod (Works and Days 123), and a couple of other places. It's not a very common word, though. The problem with "hero" is that it refers both to men with one divine parent and to men with mortal parents. Akhilleus 00:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sex is the creative force of the universe. The world was created by the act of sex (see cosmogony -not necessarily the greek one). What more natural for a series of stories that were created to explain the beginning of everything to talk about sex!

Ganymede myth is only accepted in places like Athens or Corinth. Bisexuality was not accepted all over the hellenic word. An example of pregnant woman is Leda (mythology), mother of the Dioscuri
 * Ganymede is mentioned in the Iliad, so I'd say that myth was accepted all over the Greek world. Don't forget Poseidon's abduction of Pelops, either--this was part of the foundation myth of the Olympic games. Akhilleus 00:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Greeks necessarily drew that much of a line between sex and everything else, the way we do. So it would have been strange to not have lots of stories about sex, seeing how powerful it is and how much it rules our lives. As for the Ganymede myth, it was one of dozens of such myths, again, not much of a line between the boy myths and the girl myths, it was all love in the end (and jealousy, desire, betrayal, pride, and whatever other ingredients make up that mix). Haiduc 01:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You forgot Sparta. --Victim of signature fascism 20:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Local deities
In early Greece, there were many smaller cultures, each with their own "head god." As two cultures encountered one another, their beliefs clashed, and whichever culture was dominant had their head god absorb the other head god, along with all his myths. This was often accompanied with a new myth about this defeat, usually in the form of some sort of sexual conquest. Hence all the stories about rape and pursual attributed to Zeus, who is essentially the aggregation of dozens or hundreds of the head gods of these smaller cultures.


 * This is only one POV theory. I'm sceptical of all such POV theories. We certainly don't find such things in Mesopotamia (where Marduk essentially took over from Enlil and Anu) or from Egypt where Amon essentially absorbed Re. The theory might be true in the matter of Horus and Set.


 * But simple explanatory theories are so often the bane of true scholarship. But unfortunately they are attractive to readers who like to be among the in-crowd who delights in supposedly knowng what something really means. So misapplied solar theories are replaced by misapplied vegetation god theories are replaced by alleories of invididuation while ideas that the tales in some way indicate historical conflicts between cults and so many other theories get mixed into the brew. New Age books have their own irreconicable explanations. jallan 23:01, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ritual
I believe there is too much emphasis on stories of myth rather than the actual religious practice. The myths were never a "bible" so to speak of Greek religion. Mythographers even had contradicting versions. The ancient Greeks were also critical of Homer and Hesiod for portraying the Gods in such an unpious manner. A book you might wish to read is Did the Greeks Believe Their Myths? by Paul Veyne.

Roman "equivalents"
To: anybody who updates Greek or Roman mythology articles

Please keep Greek and Roman names separate and clear. For the time being, there is some overlap (such as Bacchus/Dionysus sharing an article) but, in general, separate articles do or should exist for both the Greek and Roman gods. Please do not edit the Ceres (Roman) article and include references to Poseidon, Zeus and Hermes (all Greek)--instead, use Neptune, Jupiter or Jove, and Mercury.
 * The initial entries invariably included a Roman "equivalent" and also a genealogy, neither of which were always relevant. Wetman 05:31, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, why are we using the Romanized 'Uranus' instead of 'Ouranos' in a Greek mythology article? The Monster 02:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Uranus" is how it is normally spelled in English. [[Image:Tycon.jpg]]Coyoty 02:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Men and women were much greater in those days, of course, though the Greeks did not see any wide gulf between their history and their religion

What exactly does this mean? -- Wapcaplet 11:22 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Criteria for Greek Mythology Articles
This comment is not so much about this article (which is so short that I'm confused as to its status as a featured article), but about how Greek mythology articles should be written, in general.

I think that there's a significant problem with many of Wikipedia's articles on this subject, as there seems to be a tendency to weed out contradictory versions and give one "real" story of how these things work. This is tempting, of course, but seems to me to be wrong. It is also wrong, I think, to just say "He was this, or possibly this, or maybe that." What we should be doing is being very clear about the sourcing. If Apollodorus says one thing, Hesiod another, and Homer still something different, and then Euripides gives a completely different recasting of the same story, we should be clear on the differing sources, and how they differently report the same basic stories. For instance, the Orestes article, which I was just looking at, basically tells the story as Aeschylus tells it, up through the Oresteia trilogy, and then switches over to Euripides's Iphigenia in Tauris, and then brings in some details about the end of his life from Apollodorus and maybe Pausanias. In the part about his murder of his mother and Aegisthus, only Aeschylus's version is described, in spite of the existence of two plays by Sophocles and Euripides on the subject (I added a brief mention of them, but I think all the different versions of the story should be told there). Then, there is absolutely no mention of the content of Euripides's play Orestes, which gives a completely different version of the resolution of the story from Aeschylus's Eumenides. And this kind of problem pervades the Greek mythology articles. At any rate, I thought I'd see if anyone else had any thoughts on this. john k 01:37, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Amen! Bullfinch and his ilk are much to blame IMHO - the popularized versions just present one version, and don't mention scholars' suspicions that an episode was added for literary purposes, or that an oddball bit has deep anthropological significance. OCD has good examples to follow; for Helen, its key point is that she is likely a "faded goddess", but it also recounts the various versions and attributes them. Stan 06:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I think John has 2 good points: 1) why was this article featured at this point? I am very surprised myself. 2) citing the different versions of myths and sources... Well, Wikipedia is a work in progress. If the articles about myths are not as detailed as John would like to, then it is simply because they are not YET that detailed. Anyone having a good knowledge of the matter is more than welcome to modify the articles and shed light on the "making of the myths". olivier 07:03, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

The Meridian Handbook of Classical Mythology does a good job, I think of explaining the different versions. Graves also did so in his book on the myths, although there was also a lot of irritating theorizing. At any rate, the problem isn't so much that the articles aren't that detailed. The problem is that the articles are structured in such a way as to be highly misleading. The featuring is really weird, though. This simply isn't featured article material at the moment. Can anyone more patient than me point us to the Featured article candidate discussion of this article? john k 08:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, some articles get to be "featured" because when we see them on the front page our ears turn pink and we get to work. Like the recent feature of Academia, eh! If featuring Greek mythology sparked John Kenny, Olivier and Stan Shebs' discussion, then it's a good firecracker! I added wikilinks to mythographers ("Interpreters") who define the post-Bulfinch tradition, taken as a group. Who's still omitted in that list? Wetman 05:31, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Opening
I changed the below paragraph because I could not parse it, I could not find the verb, and it didn't tell me what greek mythology is. I see it's been reverted, so I'll leave it for now, but surely it needs a full-stop in there, at least?


 * "The body of myth represented in Greek mythology combined with ritual practices to make clear to Hellenes the place of mankind within the natural world, the "rightness" or impiety of actions, and explained and justified events of archaic Greek history, to constitute the religion of Hellenic civilization, from the late second millenium BCE to the 5th century CE, when Christians closed the oracle sites and desecrated the temples."

From this, Greek mythology is ... what exactly? -Wikibob | Talk 19:03, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)


 * I saw this comment, and read the introduction: it was so baroque and so horribly written that I have reverted to a version from yesterday. &rarr;Raul654 19:09, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten it so that even someone who confuses myth and ritual and religion can understand. Please improve it rather than revert it. Does everyone understand the actual meaning of "desecrate"? (This may be the secret problem here, eh.) Wetman 20:37, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

...I'm very sorry, I don't understand the current opening. Why not just... something more simple...? Vincit 20:50, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * How is it now? Shorter sentences. Plain obvious statements of what everyone already knows about Greek mythology. (Now will we be hearing that it overstates the obvious?) Any concepts that are unfamiliar to the average reader, that need to be further explained? Do our critics still find it horribly written? Wetman
 * It's still terrible. It doesn't actually introduce the topic. The old one was much, much better. &rarr;Raul654 23:52, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * I added a note about impiety. I think this overstated things the other way. I was thinking of how Euripides and most of those following appear to be embarrassed by many of the tales, particularly those about Zeus overthowing his father. Euripides somewhere as one of his characters (Heracles?) claiming he doesn't at all believe that tale. In other cases Euripides seems to be inviting pointed criticism at the behavior of his gods. Plato refers to not speaking about the battles of the gods, advice which seems mostly to have been subsequently followed to our loss. All that kind of thing was found embarrassing.
 * Mostly the Hellenistic intellectual looked to philosophy to provide answers, and often attempted to understand mythology allegorically or euhemeristically. Diodorus Siculus so proudly parades one bogus euhemeristic or rational explanation of mythology after another as superior interpretations. The article as it stands doesn't manage to bring in this standpoint against the old "Lies of the Poets". And I find it somewhat a shock when in Cicero's The Nature of the Gods (3.43), Carnaedes starts trying to distinguish real gods from purely mythological gods, apparently expecting that his audience will quite agree that Orcus (=Hades) and Hecate and various others are mostly not considered real deities. In some ways Ovid's attitude was very much like Bulfinch's or like a Ginsberg in his Legends of the Jews.
 * Essentially Greek mythology as we have it seems to have been largely petrified in fixed forms (with numerous internal discrepencies) about the beginning of the Hellenistic period and became increasingly looked on a literary rather than religious, paid attention to in the way that many modern non-fundamentalist Christians rather condescendingly look at the stories surrounding Jesus' birth. Apollo might in religion be increasingly identified with Helios or even Dionysus but the mythology doesn't reflect any later religious development. Isis may be increasingly worshipped in the Hellenistic world but she can't get a foothold into the old stories. The mythology was increasingly disassociated from actual religious practise and religious belief. Yet there remained the kind of enthusiasm that leads English-speaking tourists to tour Hamlet's castle or to visit Sherlock Holmes' Baker Street or the supposed Camelot at Cabury Castle. Pausanias is full of such things.
 * I leave these thoughts for others to use, to oppose, and perhaps to incorporate in the article. But the article should make clear that this reduction of powerful myths to literary ornament was also part of the Hellenistic experience. jallan 00:51, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but maybe we should begin the article with a little stating-the-obvious-paragraph, just for more comfortable reading. Because when I first came on the page, i just could'nt read it. Maybe its just me whining, but I think the layout of this article should be more ... inviting. Vincit 08:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:jallan should give this article even a sketchy section on the Hellenistic skeptical approach and literary tradition. And User:Raul654 should give us one on the Christian view, something along the line of "silly old stories told by the heathens", with the Robert Graves quote for an epigraph, if that is the "topic" he mentions, which he fails to find introduced. I will set up the subsections. Wetman 01:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most of what I've done is minor intended fix up. (But the road to hell is paved ...)

I did smudge away the strange short discussion which seemed to list Hades as an "Olympian" god and say that it was with difficulty that Demeter and Dionysus were made "Olympian" gods. That seemed inaccurate and POV ... in that the Olympian gods were simply the most important deities generally worshipped and accordingly there was no more difficulty in including Demeter or Dionysus than "hateful Ares" or the vague personified hearth known as "Hestia" or that wild, plague god Apollo who even in the final mythology twice rebels against Zeus and is twice punished for it. Hades was never included among the "Olympians". I also removed the POV indication of an earlier period in which only local deities were worshipped. Such an evolutionary hypothesis should appear along side other hypotheses, probably in another article on various reconstructions of pre-Geek religion. I confess it seems to me an unlikely hypothesis. Is there any known religious system which worshipped only local deities?

A possible beginning sentence: "Greek mythology refers to stories of Greek gods and goddesses and ancient heroes and heroines, originally created and spread by oral tradition but (except arguably for the earliest surviving works) preserved in versions that are later literary reworkings." Use something similar for every mythology? jallan 18:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I like that opening sentence. That one is really clear. Vincit 21:14, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I added a couple of paragraphs to the opening. My goal was to try to create something where, if the reader stops after the overview, they came away with what they're likely to have come here intending to ask. I'm assuming that the main reason anybody would look at an encyclopedia for a general overview of Greek mythology is to try to make some sense of the collective whole of it, so I concentrated on the questions of who the gods were, what the Greeks meant by a god, and what the stories of the gods are about, collectively. J. Brad Hicks 13:55, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In the opening is written "The Greek gods may have birth myths but they are unaging." I don't know much about Greek mythology but this seems wrong to me. I suggest that somebody with more knowledge of the topic changes this into something like "The Greek gods may have birth myths but, once they have reached the age that is appropriate for their role, they are unaging." --Georg Muntingh 07:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Golden hind'
The Xena-inspired nonsense formerly here can be better understood by reading the entries Golden Hind and Deer (mythology). Any issues? Please don't thoughtlessly revert again. Wetman 20:37, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Featured
This mediocre article is Featured simply because its subject is interesting and important. The treatment here is not really up to par yet. Wetman 20:37, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Now in September, you need to hit the "History" link even to see why I was carping back in June. Now Greek mythology is getting to be worthy of its "Featured" status! And look at the range of contributors, too. Wetman 20:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Logos and Ergon
I just did a big revision. I tried to cut down repetition (e.g. the great many "contradictions in the sources" disclaimers, or "decline from Hellenistic era onwards" sentences) and make more distinctions between the kind and quality of sources. I also revised the Hellenistic Rationalism section. Please revert if it sucks beyond your wildest imaginings, or revise if it's just barely tolerable. Bacchiad 05:14, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Current gaps in the article: Bacchiad 06:18, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Syncretism: the current revision makes it look like a purely Late Antique phenomenon. There was a brief mention of Cybele in the older version (with the factually incorrect statement that she wasn't worshipped at Athens) but we need a good paragraph at least.
 * 2) There's now room for a bit on modern interpretations. jallan above mentioned the localist hypothesis versus others; that might be useful.
 * 3) Any more thoughts?


 * In general I think the changes are good, although some of my precious words were cut. :-) A couple general observations are that we have an article on Greek religion, and some of the religious material here should be xrefed rather than repeated, and that we really need to hammer on the "contradictions in the sources" because most people think there is one single canonical version, and there just isn't. Otherwise we get a bunch of volunteers to "fix" mythology-related articles that seem inconsistent with each other (citing of specific sources in each article will help too). Stan 07:01, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On religious material: Are you referring to the stuff in "Overview"?

On contradictions: I see your point. ;) - Bacchiad 07:18, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, a link from Overview would make sense, or else in the lead; the part above the TOC is the only part that most readers will look at, and it could use another sentence or two to delineate the topic - "for instance, worship of Demeter is part of Greek religion, while the story of Demeter and Persephone is mythology", but worded better. :-) Stan 13:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I feel like the "Etymology" section is a distraction, especially since there's already a long article on mythology that could be linked to. On the other hand, I do like the fact that we link in a couple of places to the article on Greek religion. J. Brad Hicks 01:32, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I had a couple things in mind when added that, the biggest one of which was to streamline, clarify and shorten the stuff on myth and ritual and oral passing-down that used to be at the front. I've rephrased it a bit to make it more Greece-specific.

Right now there's one huge audience that's never been particularly well-served by this article, which is casual surfers who come looking to dive into the various mythology sub-pages. We need a kind of "greatest hits" somewhere near the front. Like a sentence or two on the 6-10 big bangs of Greek mythology.

We also need a better navigation bar. Wetman has a good observation on his page about lists: the good ones are the weighted kind ("Rossini's greatest operas") and the complete kind ("all of Rossini's opera's"). The current topic box is neither complete (which would be essentially impossible) nor weighted. It's also a major PITA to edit. I've been experimenting with some things along these lines in Roman mythology that might bear fruit. - Bacchiad 02:37, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New Table
I'm trying out a new table for the front. The old one is saved at Template:Greek myth (old). The intention is to build off TUF-KAT and others' work and make this page a stronger launching-off point for the various sub-topics. If you want to edit it, it's at Template:Greek myth (big). I'm also trying to come up with a smaller version that might be appropriate for putting on subpages. It should show up at right (see Template:Greek myth; it's similar to Template:Roman myth). Bacchiad 07:51, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Why did you delete the link to Template:Greek myth? I think it looks pretty good. J. Brad Hicks 14:59, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's back. Do you think it's worth using? If so, how extensively? I've also made templates for sub-topics like Template:Greek myth (Olympian) and Template:Greek myth (Titan). Bacchiad 16:15, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * As extensively as the other stuff in the table is linked in the body of the article, and as huge and unwieldy as the big table is, I'd even be tempted to use it here. Truthfully, I only got here a couple of days ago, and have only barely started in on the various Greek mythology pages, so I can't tell you for sure how widely I'd be tempted to copy it in. I'm just saying that it's a sweet-looking piece of work; you might as well leave it in here so it's available if somebody does want to use it. J. Brad Hicks 21:20, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cool. If there are no objections in a few days, maybe we can do that. Good to have new blood on board, BTW: welcome.

Big problem right now is the material on the Heroic Age is not linked extensively from the article, which is very heavily focused/biased on the desidaemoniac Hesiod/Homeric Hymns perspective. We seriously need more on the atheistic world of the Iliad and Odyssey, the blasphemies of Thebes, the bizarre crimes of Crete and Argos, etc. before the article itself can be an honest starting point for the whole subject-matter. Bacchiad 07:35, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I've beefed up the overview so that it now has more about the various sub-topics. The abbreviated table (Template:Greek myth) is now at the top, with the large one (Template:Greek myth (big)) removed.  Feedback? &mdash; Bacchiad 01:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ril's addition
Ril, your addition looks pretty speculative to me -- can you provide sources so that the information is traceable? If this is an academic theory, I'm fine with having it presented....though not sure this is the ideal article for it...but it needs to be tied to a citable source, or else it risks being seen as Wikipedia's "position" on the origins of the gods. Jwrosenzweig 19:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Consistency with the rest of Wikipedia, for example - Then there are also other sources, (e.g. that some gods appear to be significant in Linear B writings, but only appear as minor gods when Linear B was extinguished) but internal consistency is good as a starting point.
 * Moirae
 * Ba%60al Hammon
 * Poseidon (see the Prehistory section)
 * Hecate
 * Athena (end of 1st paragraph, for example)
 * Greek Dark Ages (for the fact there was one)
 * General_features_of_Aegean_civilization (Religion section, last sentence in particular)
 * I agree, internal consistency is a real plus....is it possible to determine what sources provided the info for those articles? Well, while you make an excellent point, I'd still be more comfortable with citing at least a couple of names of scholars who support some of these ideas -- I think the ideas are quite reasonable, but we're starting to be more strict around here about Cite your sources and I think it would be great if that could be done for this section. Jwrosenzweig 20:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever tidyed it up a bit.

Thank you for putting it there in the first place! Bacchiad 19:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Request for references
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:37, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * The "Sources" listed at the bottom seem to just list sources the reader could go check. Were they in fact consulted by the page authors? Those that were should go in a ==References== section, to make it clear they truly back up the material in this article and were used properly. Thanks - Taxman 16:42, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Aside from the fact that all these are among sources that have been used, they are precisely as they are stated to be. --Wetman 18:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * All they are stated to be is "The main sources for Greek myth". Despite that they could have been completely ignored in the writing of this article and simply be made available for the interested reader. It may sound pedantic, but it is important to be clear about the use of references/sources. - Taxman 18:51, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * If any competent editor sees that an uncredited source has been used, or that a main source for Greek myth has been omitted, I'm quite sure that they will fill in the gaps without being further prodded at. --Wetman 19:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shortpages
A list of brief entry fragments: Shortpages/Mythology/Greek. I try to turn them into redirects to entries with more context when I can. --Wetman 08:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nymphs
Please review the Nymph article and the types of nymphs. There was ieimakid, which was moved to Leimakids, because it was typed with capital "I", a common source of confusion. Now because of wikispamming the web I cannot quickly verify any of them, so I leave this to the experts. Thank you, mikka (t) 22:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"Belles and Beaus of Greek Mythology?"
I moved the following here: it seems like a blond-chaser's fantasy with little to do with Greek myth --Wetman 19:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC) In Greek mythology, generally a sign of divinity or partial divinity was extreme beauty (usually accompanied by talent or ingenuity). Many of the beautiful female characters of Greek mythology (Helen of Troy, Aphrodite, etc.) are blonde - most likely because blond hair was (and is) less common, generally though of as more desirable, and usually gives an innocent and vary feminine look to a face. Male characters (Hercules, Paris, Ajax, etc.) are often times described as "buff", strong, and talented in the ways of war. --Wetman 19:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds more like a thesis about Disney films, and modern american perceptions of beauty. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 21:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Mushrooms?
Isn't there a pretty decently-regarded theory concerning the use of hallucinogenic mushrooms as a source for Greek certain myths, or at least as a material for ritual? I'm thinking there is some archeological evidence for this (ie: mushrooms painted on bowls that also have gods painted on them). Anyone know anything about this?
 * There's a cottage industry of tracing myth and ritual in many cultures to the use of psychoactive drugs (do an amazon search on Gordon Wasson to see some of the material) but as far as I've seen, there's no solid evidence for use of hallucinogenic mushrooms in Greece--i.e., no ancient author talks about it, and there's no clear-cut archaeological evidence that I know about. There's a bit of evidence for drug use (e.g., in the Odyssey, the Lotus eaters episode, and the drug that Helen uses in Book 4), but these aren't ritual contexts, and these drugs aren't hallucinogenic--they induce forgetfulness, which in the context of the Odyssey is quite sinister. Anyway, I don't know of any mainstream classical scholarship that talks about this, but I did turn up one reference to a mycological journal--Samorini, G. 2001. New data on the ethnomycology of psychoactive mushrooms. International

Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms 3, 257-278. Haven't read it, though. Akhilleus 06:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If I recall properly, Robert Graves included a very brief discussion of the "mushroom-as-ambrosia theory" in a foreword to his volumes on Greek myths. This topic has popped up on quite a few web pages, most of the sites are rather... imaginative. Ande B. 10:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading in some old very gold-standard scholarly books about the possible use of cannabis or hemp in early or proto-ancient-Greek religion in the rituals. Much of this train of thought comes from the theory that early Greek religion and ritual came from shamanistic practices of Central Asia, with possible additional influence from the Eastern Oriental or Near-Eastern religions (which may have originated in Central Asia as well). Confer:
 * The Orphic Poems by Martin Litchfield West (1983);
 * Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality among the Greeks by Erwin Rohde (1925) ;
 * The Religious Thought of the Greeks by Clifford H. Moore (1916);
 * The Cults of the Greek States by Lewis Richard Farnell (1896);
 * Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality by Lewis Richard Farnell (1921);
 * The Dramas and Dramatic Dances of non-European Races in special Reference to the Origin of Greek Tragedy, with an Appendix on the Origin of Greek Comedy by William Ridgeway (1915);
 * Origin of Tragedy with Special Reference to the Greek Tragedians by William Ridgeway (1910);
 * Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion by Jane Ellen Harrison (1908);
 * Themis: A Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion by Jane Ellen Harrison (1912);
 * Epilegomena to the Study of Greek Religion and Themis: a Study of the social Origin of Greek Religion by Jane Ellen Harrison (1921).
 * Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy by Mircea Eliade (1951)

Also, scholarly books on the origins of the Ancient Greek theatre as a continuation of early religious practice and ritual are relevant.

Off the beaten scholarly path, one encounters books by authors such as Terence_McKenna, one example of his work being "Food of the Gods" (1992).

Unfortunately, I don't remember exact page and which book from the above list. If I do I will update this post. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone interested in this topic might want to Google the word "entheogen." It refers to certain psychoactive substances used in conjunction with various ritual practices. Happily, Wikipedia has a brief section on entheogenic compounds possibly associated with classical myth & ritual. Ande B. 10:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The entheogen article is interesting, but let's stress "possibly associated with classical myth & ritual." Aside from wine, which is the ritual drug par excellence for the classical Greeks, there's no solid evidence of ritual drug use in ancient Greece. The stuff in the entheogen article about the kykeon is speculative, not based very closely on ancient evidence. The idea that the Pythia was high on nitrous oxide or ethylene has a more scholarly pedigree, but I think this line of interpretation stems from a faulty reading of Plutarch--a good place to look for a skeptical treatment of the "Pythia on drugs" theory is J. Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle (Berkeley 1981).


 * I've always found it strange that people are so eager to find use of hallucinogens in ancient Greece. I guess part of it stems from the desire to see modern recreational or spiritual drug use as connected with a long traditon of esoteric wisdom; but it seems also to spring from a (usually unspoken) belief that ecstatic states must be the result of using substances. Never mind that people can become possessed/ecstatic/have visions without any drugs at all.


 * As Ande B. noted above, the preface to Robert Graves' The Greek Myths is a place to look for the mushroom theory. Does anyone have a copy? Akhilleus 19:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got a 2 page pdf scan (not OCR) of Grave's foreword. I believe that 2 sample pages copied from a 700+ page text, used for WP research purposes qualifies as "fair use" under US copyright laws. So if you would like me to send you a copy by email let me know.

Graves doesn't spend much time on the mushroom theory and it is not incorporated into the main text of his book. I am guessing that posters to this page are aware of some of the criticisms leveled at Grave's various hypotheses and there are likely criticisms of the mushroom connection as well. He specifically points to amanita and dung-growing hallucinogenic fungi as possibilities based on his examination of some artifacts. Unfortunately, Graves doesn't identify the archeological artifacts to which he refers.

One problem with all this speculation is that we have very few written clues from ancient writers. Plus, these substances, whatever they were, were used by mystery cults that kept their mysteries to themselves.

I believe that Akhilleu has hit at the core of the problem when he points to the cultural barriers to understanding ancient practices. One cult's ecstasy is another cult's "demon possession." And modern culture seeems to be unable to recognize "ecstasy" as a natural, as opposed to drug-iinduced, state. When the shamanic practices of indigenous American peoples became widely recognized in the 1960s, their use of peyote, psilocybin, mescaline, etc. seemed to convince many that we should expect analogous practices in other ancient rituals. But analogies are not evidence, let alone proof.

Ancient nomenclature has posed difficulties to identifying substances of all sorts. Botanical names have not been used consistently over the ages, scientific taxonomy being a relatively recent development.

Still, in addition to ergot on rye, certain psychoactive molds on barley and other grains are common in the Mediterranean and Near East. Carbonized hemp seeds and poppy seeds have been found at a number of sites from ancient Greece, which shouldn't be too surprising since these things grow like weeds. A number of observers have suggested that the opium poppy is referred to by some ancient writers as a "lotus." I think the ethylene hypothesis has a sound archaeological, textual, geo-chemical and neuroactive foundation. Firm proof for any of this, however, is unlikely to be found at this date.

At any rate, I don't think this needs to be covered in the Greek mythology article since it is covered in some detail elsewhere. Ande B. 22:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It does need to be briefly summarized, with a Main article... heading. --Wetman 16:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ages of gods, heros and men
I'm having a difficult time following the structure of the section dealing with the various epochs of gods, heros, and mankind. The subsections seem to be trying to describe the "ages" but instead get a bit side-tracked and discuss comparative pantheons and the focus and styles of extant narratives. It seems to me that setting out a loose chronology is more useful for this article than talking about the nature of the narratives, which seems more appropriate for an article about literary analysis. I'm guessing that most of the difficulty stems from multiple but un-coordinated edits. Does anyone have any ideas about the best way to treat these subsections? Ande B. 10:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The "age of gods and men" and the "age of heroes" are the same thing. The whole "ages" idea seems a bit odd to me, because Greek mythology itself doesn't seem all that concerned with distinguishing between heroic and divine mythology. As an example, Heracles and Pandora, both of whom belong in the so-called "age of gods and men", are very prominent in the Thegony. It's certainly useful to have a loose chronology, as long as it is clear that there wasn't one master narrative that all poets/writers followed. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Ages", including the Devonian "Age of Fisdhes" etc, stem from C19 views of a cumulative upward linear history, leading to railroad locomotives and top hats. --Wetman 16:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Periodization. Period. :-) Carcharoth 05:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sentence construction of Introduction
I have tried to make the initial paragraph a bit more readable by simplifying the sentence structure. Many of the paragraphs in this article pose significant structural and grammatical challenges to comprehension and editing. I realize many people have worked very hard to bring order and substance to this article so I have tried to retain the essential spirit, purpose and direction of this section while making it easier for readers. Ande B 15:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reworked the part of the introduction that described the physical qualities of the gods, including immortality. Previously, there was an awkward sentence about gods not aging but being born. A few people had remarked that it was poorly worded and I hope I have improved upon it. Ande B 16:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Caption under picture of Achilles and Patroclus
Is the caption under the picture of Achilles and Patroclus accurate and appropriate, especially with regard to their relationship ? 00:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the caption is accurate, because nudity or partial nudity is common is vase-painting; that is, penises are almost always shown. It doesn't necessarily imply anything about a sexual relationship, and the crude equation of nudity and sexuality in the caption betrays a lack of knowledge of classical vase painting.


 * On the other hand, it's very clear that many classical Greeks thought that Achilles and Patroclus did have a sexual relationship, so the illustration in the article may indicate that they were lovers. But this would emerge from details of pose and expression, not from nudity, which is a regular feature of Greek art. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Revival as a Religion
There has been an attempt to revive Greek Mythology as a religion called Hept...[something]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Bart (talk • contribs) 01:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hept...[something]?? I assume thats a good faith mistake so I won't take that as offensive.  It's just as hard for us to explain what we are as it is for everyone else to understand it. For more information, refer to the article on 'Greek Reconstructionism'.  As for a 'revival', it would only be true in the smallest of senses.  Since the rise of the Byzantines we have been a very small and widely dispersed community and have not grown or shrunk in quite some time.  So in closing, not saying your wrong, but I would of said something different, like 'out of the shadows' or something dramatic like that.    --User:MrFuchs

Etymology of Ouranos from Sanskrit Varuna?
In the section of origins of the myths the article it says that Ouranos comes from Varuna. However, in the article on Ouranos it states that all serious scholars find no evidence for this claim. Which is it to be? --217.41.240.15 10:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is correct, so it should be removed. However, in the Ouranos article, I'm not sure the etymology originating with Graves is correct since it was Georges Dumezil who popularized the comparison between Ouranos and Varuna. A distinction should be made between anthropological comparison and etymology. There's much scholarly work on the comparison if not the etymology. Zeusnoos 13:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Belief
Did the Greeks actually believe these stories happened, the way the Jews would have believed that Adam and Eve were real people, or did they just regard these stories as myths? Did they really believe that their gods would rape and kill, etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.70 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The shift occurred during the fifth century. --Wetman 20:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wetman is right, it did occur in the fifth century, what was not said was that was the time that forced conversion to Christianity in Greece was in full swing. --User:MrFuchs


 * ...a different fifth century. The pagan Greek crisis occurred in the course of the fifth century BC. Partly as a result of the critical, comparative point-of-view that comes with widespread literacy. --Wetman 16:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Tantalos
We are led to believe that Tantalos actually stole nectar and ambrozine from the gods, but actually the Tantalos had such a good relation with the gods they invited him for dinner, until, of course, he served them his son cut to pieces to test their wisdom. It may be good to change that... Marten15 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Photo size
Ok, no problem with the photo sizes. I happen to like them a bit bigger, but they look fine as they are. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've got a problem. There's editting, and there's proposals.  Going through and making changes should not be called a proposal.  Not to mention -- what on earth was the problem with the sizes before?  Goldfritha 22:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If no one's willing to argue for removing the sizes, back they go. Goldfritha 15:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I argue for removing the sizes and this is my raisonné: The problem with setting a fixed size for images is you're doing it to fit your display - the web is not desktop publishing, not everyone is viewing a fixed A4 layout. If you set an explicit px size you override the users preferences, so it's discouraged except for diagrams etc where a larger size might be needed to make the image understandable - people wanting to see a photo in detail always have the option of clicking it. That is what I always do and I never again had anybody complaining. I remove the sizes.--Yannismarou 16:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A larger size might be needed to make the image understandable, as you observe. But you are removing that for many users.
 * Furthermore, you should not have reverted the changes, since you ignored the discussion. I am reverting yours.  Goldfritha 23:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While I can't cite the specific policy in question, I do believe that Yannismarou is technically correct about sizing images. I would support the removal of pixel-specific sizing in this and other articles (with the exceptions noted above). --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * After Doc Tropics intervention and until a different majority is formed I remove the unilateral reverts of Goldfritha.--Yannismarou 08:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Diachronically
I've restored this sentence per Bill's exquisitely polite request (with thanks for your courtesy). My feeling is that unless it's in the context of a direct quote, which would be enclosed in quotation marks or blockquoted, then we should make a serious effort to avoid words that won't be comprehensible to an average reader, or at least provide a brief explanation for it. My "benchmark" in this case is based on the fact that I have a decent "higher" education which actually included a moderately intensive course in Greek mythology. I just thought that if I stumbled badly on the word, then most other readers will too. What does anyone else think? Should we either define "Diachronically", find a substitute for it, or just leave well-enough alone? I don't actually care except in the context of making the article as useful as possible. Thanks for your patience :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What does diachronic mean? Seriously, if that is supposed to mean that Western lit has all along been fond of mythological allusions, then I too think we should find a more accessible phrasing. I had to go look up the word, and so will most people. Haiduc 02:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just been to Diachronic and WP:MoS to check on this. I feel fairly certain that we can link diachronically to the definition to remove the stumbling block. Also, I noticed that according to WP:MoS the author should be named on the tail of the quotation, and it should be in a blockquote to make it clear we are quoting another work. The author's name should not be in a ref tag. I am going to make these changes now. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 02:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks much better now. A minor point though (please don't hate me for this): Diachronic points to a Disambig page, which we should probably avoid. I was going to fix it myself, but I'm embarrassed to admit I'm not sure which usage the author intended. Should it link to Historical linguistics or Philosophy of mind? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You will note that the Diachronic page does not have the disambig tag on it. This is because it is both a definition, and a pointer to examples of use. I do not think we need to point this elsewhere. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 02:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, spoke out of my hat. It DOES have the disambig tag, but at the bottom of the page, not the top where it usually is so I missed it. :) --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 02:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * LMOA! I just looked at the page again and decided that you were right and it wasn't a dab page! --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I at least move the dab tag so others don't get caught the same way. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The quote
Guys, I honestly respect you efforts to contribute to this article, but I can't help myself from asking: What are you doing here?! What is this quote doing in the lead of an endangered FA?!!!

Have you seen that this article is in FARC and it may lose its star?

Have seen that I've started an extensive rewriting trying to save this article and make it be in accordance with FA criteria?

Don't you know that this kind of quotes are not acceptable in the lead of an FA article?

And why do we need such a long quote? Can't we include this scholar's opinion incorporating it in the prose? Why do we need the whole quote?

Thank you!--Yannismarou 08:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure you are talking to me or not, but I will take it. I did not add the quote. I noticed an edit and, upon inspection, realized the sentence removed was critical to the quoted paragraph, and went from there to correct it's usage AS A QUOTE. I did not put the quote there in the first place. My moving it to a blockquote was purely a matter of WP:MoS. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 14:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't speak to somebody personally. I just see a long quote in the lead, which is not good for the article and is not in accordance with WP:LEAD. That is what I say. And I think we must see what we'll do with this quote, because it should not remain as a quote.


 * Well, I now saw the history of this edit. You were right to restore this sentence, but the problem is that this is not a QUOTE. I cite Foley, but this is not Foley's exact wording to say that this is a quote. It is partly my wording. So, I keep the paragraph as it is but not as a blockquote.--Yannismarou 15:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah! My great apologies. Upon examining the ref and reading the paragraph, I concluded that it WAS a quote! My bad, and aplogies. I will leave it alone now. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 17:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sooo glad that I'm not the only one who occassionaly gets confused and makes mistakes! I apparently touched off this issue by editing the "quote" that isn't really a quote. I have no idea when or why it was originally incorporated into the lead, but I agree with Yannismarou's general points about preserving the articles FA status. I haven't reviewed the FARC yet, but I will do so in the near future. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

References section: Greek and Roman sources
What is the purpose of this section? Are the references relating purely to the article notes or is it meant to be a reference guide for Greek mythology in general? If its meant to represent the ancient Greco-Roman sources of myth it seems a somewhat odd list. --Theranos 16:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They relate to the notes. This is the use of this section.--Yannismarou 17:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Copy-edit
In working on the copy-edit I have a few questions. First off let me say that this article is really very good and I'm surprised at how quickly it has been turned around. Now for my questions/suggestions.
 * I think the final two paragraphs in the section "Literary Sources" should be combined. It appears they both discuss poetry.
 * In the section "Cosmogony and cosmology", the second paragraph discusses "theogony." Is this a refernce to Hesiod's poem or a type of poetry? If it's a reference to Hesiod, it should be capitalized and italicized, but if it is a reference to a type of poetry it should be linked. The only article that appears when I search for theogony is the article on Hesiod's poem. Should a stub be created?
 * A type of poetry. I agree that a stub should be created. But personally I donot have the time to create it during this period. I will fix the italics etc.--Yannismarou 08:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In that same paragraph, how did the Derveni papyrus "outdo" the Hesiod?
 * Nice question. Probably, Theranos is right. We speak about a more complex and slightly different theogony. For instance, as I read in Burkert, Nyx is regarded as being created before Chaos. Something like that. But I'll check that again. Maybe rephrasing per Theranos would be the best solution.--Yannismarou 08:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll add to this as I continue copyediting. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are/were numerous theogonies (= descriptions of the origins of the gods) in classical literature. A stub article for the general term "theogony" would be a good idea. The self-named work by Hesiod is only the most famous. I'll fix the literary sources section - the classifications should be numbered 1-4. I'm not sure what is meant by the Derveni "outdo" - presumably in the sense that it is a more complex theogony than Hesiod's. --Theranos 19:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See my comments above.--Yannismarou 08:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A few more questions:
 * In the Origin Theories section, it says that the Scriptural theory states that the myths are derived from the Scriptures. Exactly what Scriptures?
 * Reading Bulfich who was my source for that, I think he means the Old Testament, because all the examples he brings are from there.--Yannismarou 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In the same section Adonis is described as possibly being related to a "Near Eastern dying god." What is a dying god? A God of Death?*Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the term "dying god" was invented by Frazer in 1890. In his thesis Frazer speaks of many Mediterranean religions as having been founded on the cult of a god who was fundamentally a god of fertility of the earth. He was as a rule a male god (Persephone is an exception), and he is represented as related to a female principle of whol me is sometimes the son, sometimes teh lover and sometimes the victim (see Adonis and Aphrodite). The myth associated with the deity usually tells of his death. He is victim either of the female principle he is attached either of something respresenting the dead or sterile part of the year. Thus, according to a theory, Adonis is killed by a boar who represents the winter.--Yannismarou 20:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)