Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Euergetism

Much of the Euergetism article is practically unreadable, apparently because it seems to have been machine-translated from another language, probably French. Unfortunately, I have no expertise in this field, so I can't really do anything useful to improve this (although I did help fix up the reference to Andre Boulanger -- see the talk page.) Could someone with relevant knowledge help fact-check and tidy up this article? Thanks, -- The Anome (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been averting my eyes from this, but I hate it when someone leaves a comment and no one responds: yes, I would totally love to get into this topic, but simply cannot spare the time in the foreseeable future (a cliché that I love) even to do the copyediting. Please be encouraged to leave a note again saying "this is still a mess" if no one gets to it. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Orobius

Hi, I have started an AfD about the Article Orobius. Have found it while patrolling new pages and the article looks really strange to me. Thanks. --Ben Ben (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Queer

A.O. Scott calls Gatz "the Trimalchio of West Egg" in his review of the movie, leading to this, but not a single edit?  davidiad { t } 23:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Fabricia

Not particularly important, but I just found this rather humorous addition to Fabricia (gens): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fabricia_%28gens%29&diff=554803511&oldid=542596528 I thought perhaps some of the other editors might enjoy the creativity, seeing as I quickly reverted it, and it would otherwise have gone unappreciated. P Aculeius (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

χα χα χα.  davidiad { t } 02:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Glaucus vs Glaux

Please comment on this.Thanx.Thanatos|talk 23:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Agatharchides

I'm wondering if someone here can point me in the right direction. An issue has arisen at Female genital mutilation regarding one of the early descriptions of it, and what exactly was said. It is attributed to Agatharchides, who visited Ethiopia in the second century BCE and reported that it was practised there. I don't know whether we have the account from Agatharchides directly, or from others citing him. Strabo apparently made reference to Agatharchides' account, as did Diodorus and Photius. There is reference to it here in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1888: "They practised circumcision or a mutilation of a more serious kind."

Is anyone here able to help me track down what Agatharchides said? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Agatharchides' work is only preserved through references in later authors. Diodorus 3.32.4 says: "And they are all naked as to their bodies except for the loins, which they cover with skins; moreover, all the Trogodytes are circumcised like the Egyptians with the exception of those who, because of what they have experienced, are called "colobi"; for these alone of all who live inside the Straits have in infancy all that part cut completely off with the razor which among other peoples merely suffers circumcision." I believe Diodorus is relying upon Agatharchides for that information, but he appears to refer to male circumcision, not female. The relevant bit of Photius (p. 454 Bekker) looks identical to the Diodorus quote to me.

I'm not sure which passage of Strabo is meant. Strabo does refer extensively to Agatharchides, but when he discusses circumcision and/or genital mutilation I don't think Strabo is relying upon Agatharchides. I read through these passages very quickly, though, so I could be mistaken. Strabo 16.4.17 says: "They have winter when the Etesian winds blow (for they have rains); but the rest of the time is summer. They also go lightly clad, wear skins, and carry clubs; and they not only mutilate their bodies, but some of them are also circumcised, like the Aegyptians." It's not clear to me what source Strabo used for that quote. In another passage (16.4.5), Strabo cites Artemidorus: "Artemidorus says that the promontory on the Arabian side opposite to Deirê is called Acila; and that the males in the neighbourhood of Deirê have their sexual glands mutilated." At 16.4.9, Strabo writes: "And then to the Harbour of Antiphilus, and, above this, to the Creophagi,of whom the males have their sexual glands mutilated and the women are excised in the Jewish fashion." (Again, it's not clear to me who Strabo's source is here.) Another reference to genital "mutilation" is at Strabo 16.2.37: "His successors for some time abided by the same course, acting righteously and being truly pious towards God; but afterwards, in the first place, superstitious men were appointed to the priesthood, and then tyrannical people; and from superstition arose abstinence from flesh, from which it is their custom to abstain even to‑day, and circumcisions and excisions and other observances of the kind." (This is about the Jews, not the Ethiopians, and again I don't know what source Strabo relies upon.)

I hope that's helpful. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This is very helpful, Akhilleus, thank you. The issue is twofold: (1) what they called it, and whether they referred to the male and female versions with the same word (do you happen to know which words they used in the original?); and (2) what we can say, if anything, about the procedure's origins based on these texts.

The disputed paragraph of the article (which relies on sources who are not classicists) is:

After having visited Ethiopia in the second century B.C., during the reign of the Kingdom of Aksum, the Greek historian Agatharchides likewise asserted that the people he encountered there already practised female circumcision in the same traditional manner as in Egypt. In 25 BCE, another Greek geographer, Strabo (c. 64 BCE – c. 23 CE), similarly described the practice among the Colobi, an Aksumite group. He, in turn, recorded the custom when he traveled to Egypt the same year.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to elaborate, this is the main source I'm trying to check: Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. The Woman That Never Evolved, Harvard University Press, 1999 [1981], p. 183: "The Greek historian and geographer Agatharchides, who visited Ethiopia in the second century B.C., noted that the people there excised their women in the Egyptian tradition." Hrdy writes in her footnote 46: Agatharchides' observations are cited by Diodorus and Strabo. These and other early observations are summarized in Carl Gosta Widstrand, "Female Infibulation," Studia Ethnographica Upsaliensia, 20 (varia I), 95–122 (1964)."

So the question is what did Diodorus and Strabo say that she and Widstrand are basing this on, and why did one or both think it came from Agatharchides? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd expect some recent comment on these precise questions, from the classical point of view, to be in the commentary of:

• Stanley M. Burstein, translator and editor. Agatharchides of Cnidus, On the Erythraean Sea. (Works issued by the Hakluyt Society. Second series, no. 172.) London: Hakluyt Society, 1989

which, sadly, I don't have at home. I have looked at the book, about 25 years ago. In his collection of the remains of Agatharchides (I noticed because it happened to matter to me at the time) Burstein includes, as such editors often do, passages that appear to come from Agatharchides but aren't acknowledged (e.g., probably, the passage of Strabo cited above). So (probably) it depends on Burstein and his predecessors whether one should conclude that Strabo, here, was working from Agatharchides or was not. The book is in English, not Greek, so anyone who's near an academic library would be able to check it. Andrew Dalby 08:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew. I've been reading around secondary sources today, and I find it impossible to judge what is purported to have originated with Agatharchides and what from Strabo (from his own travels). Also, apart from one passage, there's no indication they're talking about female mutilation. The article currently says: "Agatharchides (c. 215–after 145 BCE) encountered people in Ethiopia in the second century BCE who practised it, according to Diodorus and Strabo (c. 64 BCE – c. 23 CE), and Strabo reported it after visiting Egypt in 25 BCE." But I don't know whether that's accurate, and another editor keeps trying to elaborate based on non-expert sources who seem to have it wrong. The footnote currently reads this like this.

Can someone here help me to write this word (with the Greek letters)? "Note that the Greek verb ... " SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Focusing on just this one passage from Geography of Strabo, 16.4.9:

"After the Altars of Conon one comes to the Melinus Harbour, above which lie a Fortress of Coraüs, as it is called, and a Hunting-ground of Coraüs and another fortress and several hunting-grounds. And then to the Harbour of Antiphilus, and, above this, to the Creophagi [meat-eaters], of whom the males have their sexual glands mutilated and the women are excised in the Jewish fashion."

Is this Strabo talking about his own travels, or is he reporting what someone else wrote (Agatharchides, or Artemidorus of Ephesos about Agatharchides)? That is, is it first hand, second hand, or third hand? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That'd be περιτέμνειν, peritemnein or, if you want the accent in the transliteration, peritémnein.  davidiad { t } 23:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Strabo travelled a fair bit himself, but his task was to write a comprehensive geographical survey for Roman administrators. Unless he says "I saw this" or "X writes this" (as he often does), one doesn't know for certain which is the case. My first thought, reading the passage you quote and having read a good bit of Strabo already, would be that there's no sign of personal observation here: this is what some source, essentially a travel guide, says.

The translation you're quoting is by H. L. Jones. I think he may have misunderstood an admittedly over-concise expression. I would take the intended sense of the Greek words to be that the women are circumcised: that's the ordinary meaning of peritemnein and the intention, in adding the adverb Ioudaikos "Jewishly", is to confirm that that's the intended meaning. (Nothing is being said here about Jews, they are merely mentioned to confirm the intended meaning of the word peritemnein.) "Excised" is an error (in my view): but then H. L. Jones wasn't an expert on this subject, any more than I am, and one doesn't look to a translation -- certainly not to an old Loeb Classical Library translation -- for technical accuracy in specialised areas. Andrew Dalby 09:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew, this is very helpful (especially about "Jewishly"; I've been reading several sources who were wondering what was meant). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Herodotus

There's another passage I'm looking for, this time from Herodotus. According to Lilian Passmore Sanderson (1981, p. 127): "Herodotus stated that Egyptians, Phoenicians, Hittites and Ethiopians practised female excision five hundred years before the birth of Christ." But I can only see Sanderson on snippet view, so I can't see her source. I've checked through all the books of The Histories (for excision, circumcision, Ethiopians) and nothing is coming up. Would anyone here know where to look for this? He does talk about circumcision in Book II, but no indication that I can see that he means women: "Dough they knead with their feet; but they mix mud, and even take up dirt, with their hands. They are the only people in the world- they at least, and such as have learnt the practice from them- who use circumcision." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems bogus. This article makes several (non-FGM) references to Herodotus Bk. 2 on its first page and then clearly states on its second page: "the first extant literary mention of it is by the Greek geographer Strabo." (Email me if you need a copy of this article in its entirety.) Huebner 2009 cited at Religious views on female genital mutilation would be another source to look at. Wareh (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Wareh, we already use that source in the article; it's a good source for this issue. The reason I'm confused (despite reading Knight) is that so many of the scholarly sources (not classicists, but anthropologists and others) make the claim that Herodotus wrote about this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

These are the entries I found on circumcision through the index of the Landmark translation [1]

• The Egyptians practice circumcision, while all other peoples (except for those who have learned it from the Egyptians) let their genitals remain as they are at birth. 2.26.3
• [The Egyptians] circumcise their men for the sake of cleanliness, esteeming purity above beauty. 2.27.2
• of all peoples, only the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians have practiced circumcision from the very earliest time. 2.104.2 The Phoeniciains and the Syrians of Palestine agree that they have learned this practice fromo the Egyptians. And the Syrians who live around the River Thermodon, with their neighbors the Makrones claim they learned it only recently from the Colchians. These are the only peoples that practice circumcision, and it is clear that they do it the same way as the Egyptinas. 2.104.3 But of the Egyptians and the Ethiopians, I cannot say which of the two learned it from the other, since it is evidently a very ancient practice. 2.104.4

So Herodotus only appear to write about male circumcision. Fornadan (t) 04:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That's great, Fornadan, many thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It may be worth adding that Egyptian origins were a bit of an obsession with Herodotus; also that he was evidently such a nice fellow that he tended to get the answers he wanted. Therefore, a statement like "the Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine agree that they have learned this practice from the Egyptians" is just the kind of Herodotean claim on which you wouldn't rely. All that having been said, he often gets amazingly close to the truth. Andrew Dalby 09:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding myself having to search through ancient texts to resolve the issue of just two sentences in the FGM article. :) It's amazing how many academics have just repeated these claims – Herodotus said this, Agatharchides said that – without checking. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Warning: original research follows :) I hadn't looked fully at the question of Strabo's source till now. Now that I do look, there is no overt evidence in Strabo's whole work that he even knew Agatharchides' book on the Erythraean Sea. He mentions Agatharchides twice. Once, under Cnidus, because that's where A. was born, and at that point he names A.'s other two books, which he calls Persica and Assyrica. Then again, as regards the name of the Erythraean Sea: but Agatharchides' views on this were attributed by him to a Persian informant, so one can't easily judge whether Strabo on this is quoting the Persica (which perhaps he knew) or On the Erythraean Sea (which perhaps he didn't know). And that's it: at any rate, he doesn't cite Agatharchides anywhere at all for any real geographical information.

This being so, the strong presumption (in my view) is that Strabo in the particular passage we're talking about was using Artemidorus -- whom he used and cited frequently. The reason (in my view) why he doesn't cite Artemidorus here is that, to him, this is uncontroversial geographical information: like an early Wikipedian, he therefore has no need to cite sources. The circumcision matter is of no importance to him: he and Artemidorus mention it because it is the one outstanding ethnographical detail that identifies this tribe to those readers who might have heard of them already.

So I think Akhilleus's statement at the head of this thread that Strabo used and cited Agatharchides frequently is a mistake [but see next paragraph!] On the other hand, Akhilleus is surely right that Diodorus Siculus (who scarcely ever cites sources by name) got his information from Agatharchides on the grounds that the information matches Photius (who was writing a report specifically on Agatharchides' book).

The question remains, did Artemidorus (Strabo's immediate source) use Agatharchides On the Erythraean Sea? Burstein, as reviewed in the Classical Review by Steven Sidebotham, is apparently certain that he did. The whole passage of Strabo, 16.4.5-20, is translated by Burstein and treated as a fragment of Agatharchides. Sidebotham tacitly accepts this as valid -- at least, he doesn't dispute it. (I have the CR review -- New Series, Vol. 41, No. 2 (1991), pp. 475-476 -- via JSTOR and could send you a pdf.) It's also pointed out in this review that Agatharchides was working from 3rd c. BC reports of official missions and "paid scant attention to reports of contemporary eye witnesses". This suggests Hardy may be wrong to say that Agatharchides visited Ethiopia at all. Andrew Dalby 11:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This is great stuff, Andrew, thank you. I don't have Burstein yet, but it's on its way. I have access to JSTOR so I can look up Sidebotham. It's very kind of you to help like this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Agatharchides, as far as I can tell, talked about, referred only to men; he said pantes, all of them did it (circumcision) -like the Egyptians did- BUT without specifically-explicitly mentioning women, something that, at least imo, unless the Egyptian custom included women and was widely known to the Greeks to have been so and unless we have sources concurrent or prior to Agatharchides attesting this Greek knowledge, should be in this case a sine qua non for someone to translate and/or interpret this passage(s) on its own as referring also to female circumcision; in other words and imo this passage(s) on its own, by itself, can not in any way be regarded as constituting a description of female circumcision.
But I may be wrong so you might want to also consult other people and especially experts; I'm only an amateur...
You can read the quoted passage (row 10-17) and one more (row 33-40) here.
Btw I've done a quick search in all the rest of the Agatharchides' book-excerpts for some other passage about circumcision but could find none.Thanatos|talk 00:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this; it's very helpful. Some of this material (that Herodotus and Agatharchides wrote about female circumcision, and that there's evidence of it on mummies) appears to have originated with an American writer, Fran Hosken, who wrote a report about FC in 1979. It seems that several academics repeated what Hoskens wrote without checking, and so now it circulates as fact on the Web. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

1. You're welcome.Mind you,

• I have to say this just to be clear cause I don't know whether you know Greek (or in this case Latin), these are excerpts; the name(s) to the left of the text denotes the author from whom the text is taken; i.e. in this page Photius and Diodorus while others (e.g. Ptolemy) are being mentioned only at the footnotes below,
• Burstein's book, as it's more recent, would be preferable but I can't find it anywere on the web (for free); so, well I guess, if you or someone else can't get access to it you'll have to make do with the old one I've provided a link to...
• I have to repeat you have imo to consult with more knowledgeable people or preferably experts.

2.Just to help you in your quest a little more (or anyway provide links that might help others help you):

• results to searching for Agatharchides at the Open library here , at the Internet Archive here.
• whence this is I guess something similar to the one I've already shown to you.Sorry but can't go through it; the calligraphic and ligature writing is very beautiful but a pain in the ass to read and I anyway have not any more time available (perhaps others could help).
• You might also want to try these two volumes, as they're free, online and include English translations; who knows, they might help...

P.S. Btw, I don't know if you know this, you don't have to read the linked to texts online; unlike google books, you can download books from the Internet Archive and the affiliated Open Library without doing anything more like e.g. installing software.

Thanatos|talk 05:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Roman architecture

… was selected (who knows how or why?) on May 6 as "today's article for improvement for a period of one week". I didn't even notice this till now. Evidently when this occurs editors are supposed to drop what they're doing and descend en masse with all the relevant sources loaded in the carts. (It takes me a week to make modest but solid improvements to articles about obscure Roman festivals, let alone "ancient Roman architecture".) I've found, anyway, that serious work on art and architecture articles requires visits to physical libraries, since even if the books are available in preview online—and they often aren't—the images in the best sources are under copyright and not viewable, so you can't see what you're doing. Just FYI. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Mysterious vandalism

Can someone solve the mystery at Talk:Demeter#Question? I'm not seeing the vandalistic phrase in edit mode either. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

WHOOP WHOOP

Queer. I've never seen that happen before. Fixed now.  davidiad { t } 15:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

But where was it? Why didn't it show up in edit mode? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

For some reason Cluebot's reversion of that vandalism, though the edit was completed and logged, didn't trigger the server to rebuild the page, so when you tried to edit, you would get the current, but undisplayed, version. If anyone had made an edit to anything else on the page, WOOP WOOP would probably have disappeared, since this would have triggered the rebuild.  davidiad { t } 15:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The only time I've seen anything that looked similar, a template was involved: the template page had been edited, but the vandalism had been made outside the template box, so it appeared on the page as a stray phrase. When you opened the article page, you couldn't see it. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Bacchae

Should Bacchae redirect to maenad or The Bacchae? Cynwolfe (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd say to the play. Bacche can redirect to maenad if it wants to. (I'd rather The Bacchae redirect to Bacchae, anyway.)  davidiad { t } 00:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Davidiad. The preferable action would be to redirect The Bacchae to Bacchae, with a hatnote for readers seeking information about maenads. As a second choice, Bacchae (play) or Bacchae (tragedy) or Bacchae (Euripedes), with Bacchae perhaps becoming a disambiguation page. P Aculeius (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's what I thought too, but wasn't feeling bold. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Mars Statue Wareswald.jpg

File:Mars Statue Wareswald.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Haven't spotted the source of the original yet. Does this qualify for copyright in the first place, if it's a faithful photographic reproduction of an ancient artwork? I'm not sure that this is, however. German Wikipedia has this photograph uploaded to their Creative Commons by the copyright holder. If the one here is deleted, I think the image from German Wikipedia could be substituted, and is more likely to be a faithful image of the statuette. P Aculeius (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"Faithful reproduction" applies only to 2D works in public domain, as the photograph of a sculpture or other 3D piece is considered a work in its own right. I think. The theoretical basis seems to be that a straightforward photo of a painting, for instance, doesn't differ in substance from just making a photocopy or scan, whereas photographing a sculpture generates a new and independent thing that will vary depending on the photographer—as is evident from the many crappy photos we have of sculptures. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Epitaph of Seikilos; score-lyrics; also syllables; how to

I've already asked for the view of musicians-people-formally-educated-in-music-music-specialists-experts and I've (thankfully) got one very good answer; but does btw anyone here, of this different crowd, have to say anything more on this subject??? If so, comment therein please. Thanx. Thanatos|talk 18:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of Egyptian and Greek Mythology afd

Comparison of Egyptian and Greek Mythology has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Egyptian and Greek Mythology. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Selene: comments?

I've more or less finished a complete overhaul of Selene. All comments, concerns welcome. I don't make announcements like this — but after reading this by Davidiad, I've been inspired to try to work more collaboratively ;-) Paul August ☎ 21:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Did some general editing today to shorten sentences, provide additional links, a few notes with respect to epithets and connections with other deities and (I hope) improve consistency and readability. Tried to keep your general structure, which seems very good, but merged alternate names and etymology into a new section. See if you agree with this result. P Aculeius (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with nearly all of your edits. The Lead reads better, the organizational changes make sense, the overall copyediting has improved readability. I much appreciate your kind attention! I do have some questions which I need to think more about. Concerning one issues, you might want to read this discussion ;-) Paul August ☎ 17:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I've edited some of your edits ;-) I'd be happy to discuss any of these. And thanks again for all you improvements. Paul August ☎ 01:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No major complaints, except for the chariot paragraph. The part about Selene's chariot being drawn by snow-white horses, here cited to Ovid, should go in the first sentence, instead of at the end. But I agree with leaving the variant where the chariot is drawn by kyne at the end. I think it would read better as "oxen or bulls" than "cattle," since reviewing the sources cited in the article it doesn't look like "cows" were intended. I would eliminate the reference to the chariot being drawn across the heavens "each night," because of course the moon doesn't rise at sunset and set at dawn. It's as likely to be in the sky in the daytime as at night, even if you don't notice it, and the Greeks knew that, even if some of the more romantic writers conveniently forgot. P Aculeius (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "each night" is problematic, so I've removed it as you suggest (though I liked the sound of the previous sentence better). I've also changed "cattle" to "oxen or bulls". I haven't moved the description of her horses as "Snow-white" to the first sentence yet. Can you say why you think it ought to go there? Are there other mentions of her horses being white? That Ovid cite is the only one I'm aware of. Paul August ☎ 22:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I just think it reads better describing the horses at the same time as mentioning them, instead of saving it as a detail for later, and lumping it together with the alternative tradition that they were bulls or oxen. As for a citation, the two Ovid references are all I've seen for the color specifically mentioned; the others named in the article don't specify. BTW, the external source for the DGRBM seems to insert an apostrophe in the title where none appears in the original. It should be "Selene," not "Sele'ne." I'm sure it's for pronunciation, but if you look at the actual pages in any of the versions I've seen (and I have a printed copy), there's no mark there. P Aculeius (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've changed "Sele'ne" to "Selene". If Ovid's description of the horses as "Snow-white" isn't common, then I'd rather not move it to the first sentence. Paul August ☎ 18:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Menae, Menai?

Are there any ancient sources which say that Selene's fifty daughters by Endymion were called the "Menai" or "Menae" (see Theoi.com "MENAI"). I do find two modern sources which say this: Westmorland, Ancient Greek Beliefs p. 103, and Judika Illes, Encyclopedia of Spirits p. 385, but I wonder where they are getting this from. See also our Menae. Paul August ☎ 11:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The latter two sources, while very recent, aren't scholarly at all; the first proposes that Oceanus and Tethys shouldn't have had so many sons and daughters, because the Guinness Book of World Records lists sixty-nine children as the record born to one woman; then justifies the mythological attribution of all the river gods and Oceanides to Tethys because she was "of Titanic size." The second source describes the mythology of Endymion immediately after an article on the deification of Elvis... neither book cites sources or shows any evidence of scholarship. They were probably compiled from other books on mythology combined with the authors' own opinions.

The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology doesn't have an article on the Menae per se, although the article here points to the page containing the brief article "Mene," which elsewhere is equated with an alternative name of Selene. So I think this citation on our page is erroneous, as the cited article probably refers to Selene, rather than the Menae. Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities doesn't make the connection between Selene and the Menae explicit under "Selene", but it does state under "Endymion" that his fifty daughters represented the months of the Olympic calendar. However, unlike the DGRBM, it doesn't provide a lot of in-line citations to ancient sources. PW makes this identification under "Luna" where it cites to Philipp August Böckh (on Pindar and/or the Olympics?) and Karl Otfried Müller (on the Dorians?). That's pretty weighty scholarship, and then of course as these are deities of months, they'd almost have to be daughters of Selene, and the significance of the number 50 in each case further cements the relationship. In any case I think it's pretty solid for Wikipedia, although I might go to the trouble of citing to said authorities just for those who want to go the extra mile. P Aculeius (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I don't have much confidence in the three sources I mention above. I had found the entries in DGRBM and Harper's, you mention above. But what is "PW"? Paul August ☎ 18:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

PW's Pauly–Wissowa. I don't have access to that volume of the old Pauly—Wikisource hasn't gotten there and I'm having trouble finding it on Google Books—, but I assume that by "PW makes this identification under ..." P Aculeius means the identification of Selene and Endymion's daughters as lunar deities, not as a group referred to as "Menai". I suspect that this is another case of Theoi.com's inventing a Greek term for an ancient concept that has in turn become a Wikipedia headword. After a cumbersome TLG search I'm pretty sure that there is no such name used for them in extant Greek literature, and a JSTOR search for menae or menai + Endymion yields no results.  davidiad { t } 18:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Davidiad. That was my suspicion. If no reliable source can be found naming the fifty daughters this, then I think we need to delete Menae. Paul August ☎ 18:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I just redirected it to Selene#Endymion. A lazy fix since I don't want to figure out what aspects of the few pages that linked to article are residue of Menae and what actually derives from scholarly discussions of the daughters of Selene and Endymion as lunar deities.  davidiad { t } 18:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I see that you have boldly redirected Menae to Selene#Endymion (making the above discussion slightly confusing ;-) But if this is an invented term by Theoi.com, then the article still needs to go. Paul August ☎ 18:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll be a big boy and figure out those other two links to Menae, so you can feel free to revert me and delete the page.  davidiad { t } 18:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You beat me to Pandia, so all the links are gone. You have it within you power and discretion to delete Menae, right? I'd say it'd be uncontroversial to do so.  davidiad { t } 18:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've undone your redirect for now. Before starting any deletion process, I would like to have P Aculeius confirm your assumption regarding the PW article. Paul August ☎ 19:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What I think we should do depends on one thing: are the months of the Olympic calendar known as "Menae/Menai?" If so, then keep the article as it's a fair inference that the children of Selene and Endymion were in fact the Menae. PW and Harper's seem to agree on that. But if the name "Menae/Menai" for the months of the Olympic calendar is a modern interpolation, then the article should probably go, or be retitled. P Aculeius (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Those months were just months, and the plural of month (μείς) is μῆνες. The plural of μήνη isn't attested from antiquity at all. I'm not sure I follow what you're reporting about PW: is a name given to the daughters of Selene and Endymion? Harper's Dictionary doesn't.  davidiad { t } 00:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, PW didn't name them under "Luna" and there's no entry corresponding to "Menae" or "Menai." But this is from an older edition, which you can view at Internet Archive. See German Wikipedia for links to all of the oldest volumes: Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft (1837–1852). The current ones (not Brill's New Pauly) aren't as easy to locate, but I suspect there might be a few volumes on-line. What I'm saying is that the article in PW and Harper's clearly states that the daughters of Selene and Endymion represent the months of the Olympiad. The question is whether those months were collectively known as the "Menae" or "Menai," or anything else. If there's no evidence of a name associated with those months, and no source to apply the name to the daughters of Selene and Endymion, then the article is erroneously titled. I'll poke around and see if I can find any more. P Aculeius (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this, P Aculeius. You have to love the old German typefaces. Nope, those months weren't collectively known as anything except old-fashioned months, and the only mention of the daughters of Selene and Endymion is Pausanias 5.1.4, "The Moon, they say, fell in love with this Endymion and bore him fifty daughters." This seems to be why we're spinning our wheels a bit: a single ancient source was spun into a logical cultic reconstruction by two giants of 19th-century continental scholarship, and we're trying to chase down references to disprove Theoi.com's glib naming convention. The identification of the daughters of Endymion with the months of the Olympiad makes a lot of sense, and is the sort of sense that would be found in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but it appears to be missing from recent scholarship. I've been able to get to the Müller (it is in Die Dorier, there he just floats the identification, citing Böckh); it also turns up, unsurprisingly, in The Golden Bough. I think there might be enough reason to mention the connection between the Olympiad and the daughters mentioned by Pausanias in the Selene and Endymion articles, though I'd like to see scholarship that's post-Frazier, and post-Ritualist, too, if possible. But the connection would really need to be made with care and without giving undue weight. These daughters did not, in any event, have a Greek or Latin name. I think the article should probably be deleted since the lunar–Olympic topic is better suited to mention briefly in the parents' articles. If it were to stay, the article would have to be moved to "Daughters of Selene and Endymion".  davidiad { t } 04:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to locate a later edition of PW but failed for the volume containing M. I did find a later edition for Endymion at Internet Archive; there the font is Roman, but as far as I can tell there's still no name for the daughters of Selene and Endymion. Of course I was skimming, since my German is next to non-existent and I have to rely on my ability to spot Greek and Latin names and the few German words I can recognize... so it might be worth a closer look. And of course if anyone has access to the volume with M, that might be a good place to check.

Failing evidence of the name "Menae" or "Menai" for the goddesses or the months they represented, I agree that the article needs to be retitled or its contents simply moved to articles such about Selene, Endymion, Months, and Olympiads. I don't think "daughters of Selene and Endymion" is a good title if it can possibly be avoided; nobody will look for it there. But without any other attested name or more logical title, that would have to do. If it comes down to that, I'll agree with eliminating the article entirely, and including the verifiable contents in other articles. I do believe that the identification of the daughters with the months is probably solid enough to state as "apparently" rather than "probably," but would disagree with characterizing it as merely "possible," which would imply much more uncertainty than the scholarship suggests. P Aculeius (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I missed the fact that Paul's already handled this well, and that Mayerson handbook in the citation is sound. The connection is also made in this from the Blackwell Companion to Greek Religion, which is a bit more confident than Mayerson, so your point about "apparently" v. "possibly" is well taken. I like the author's use of "informs" in his description of the relationship: it's positivistic and timid at the same time.  davidiad { t } 04:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Davidiad for the Davidson article from Blackwell Companion to Greek Religion, I've added a cite to that to Selene. Given the sources cited (and being conservative) I'm still not convinced that "possibly" ought to be strengthened to "apparently". I don't read Davidson's "informed" as necessarily implying that. (By the way, does your comment that the "Mayerson handbook in the citation is sound" imply some doubt about the other cites given in that same note: Seffert, "Endymion" p. 213; Cashford, p. 137? I have no idea really, how much weight we ought to be giving to such sources.) Paul August ☎ 11:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I see Davidson's finite, transitive and in persona loquens of the scholar "informed" as more demonstrative than Mayerson's "some scholars see ...", but he doesn't go as far as saying the daughters represent the months of the Olympiad. But I'm probably reading to much into brow twitches. Seyffert's fine, though it seems unnecessary to have a popular 19th-century dictionary next to the more recent sources, on of which is specialized. The Cashford gets my heckles up a bit, as looks like some pretty under researched comparatist jive that not only quotes Frazer, but seems to take over some of his spirit. But that might just be me. davidiad { t } 12:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. I can live with unnecessary, so I won't remove Seyffert, but you or others should feel free to do so. As for Cashford, yes I share your qualms, the only benfit I see is the informative (for me) details concerning how the number 50 is arrived at, but again I would have no objections for removing this cite, notice though that I've mentioned Cashford elsewhere in the article: "For the close association between the crescent moon and horns see Cashford".Paul August ☎ 13:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, I've renamed our article "Menae" to Mene (goddess), rewriting it accordingly, using the only source I'm aware of, the DGRBM entry: "Mene". That leaves the article with little content and no incoming links, not ideal. The DGRBM article cites "August. De Civ. Dei, 7.2" which says:

"But there is also the goddess Mena, who presides over the menses; though the daughter of Jupiter, ignoble nevertheless. And this province of the menses the same author [Varro], in his book on the select gods, assigns to Juno herself, who is even queen among the select gods; and here, as Juno Lucina, along with the same Mena, her stepdaughter, she presides over the same blood."

Not sure what to make of this. DGRBM gives three other sources which I find puzzling: HH 12.1; Apollonius of Rhodes, 3.533, 4.55. I find no mention of "Mene" in either HH 12.1, or Apollon. 3.533 (am I missing something here?) and the mention of "Mene" I find in Apollon. 4.55 seems to be a reference to Selene herself, see for example the Seaton translation: pp. 298–299). So I'm wondering what we really have here? Paul August ☎ 16:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, too, when I was poking around. The first AR ref. is ἄστρα τε καὶ μήνης ἱερὰς ... κελεύθους, "stars and paths of the holy moon"; if we wanted to capitalize it, this would still just be another name for Selene. The second is certainly Selene. The Homeric Hymn reference is actually to the hymn to Selene, the only occurence of Mene as a proper noun in early Greek hexameters. I guess Smith uses an older numbering system or, more likely, that's a typo: in the modern corpus the hymn to Selene is no. 32, not 12. I think I've read Cynwolfe on these one off gods in Augustine at some point: maybe she has some insight. We'd need some scholarly coverage of Augustine's Mena to warrant an article, and Smith is defective on this.  davidiad { t } 18:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I was wondering if that "12" ought to be "32". So where is the good Mme. Cynwolfe anyway? We seem to tramping all around her neck of the woods here. So I'm still not feeling all that warm and fuzzy about our article. Paul August ☎ 18:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I never finished the Luna article or List of Roman birth and childhood deities, where I'd rounded up a number of related single-function deities (including Dea Mena), in part because I got distracted by the Roman Empire article, but also because the scholarship is lacking, old, or oddly scattered. I'm no help. But see I s'pose Röscher. I suspect some kind of connection between Mana Genita and Dea Mena (note Hekate lurking around). Since I haven't been following this step-by-step, I'm not really sure what the question is. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Does this mean everybody's busily translating German, or what did I blunderingly do to shut down the conversation? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, No. Here's a brief summary of the above. The general question -- as reflected in the main section title above: "Selene: comments?"-- was does anyone have any comments/concerns about my rewrite of Selene? The more immediate question (this sub section tittled: "Menae, Menai?") was what to do about our article menae, which asserted that Selene's fifty daughters by Endymion were called the "Menae, (or "Menai"), but for which assertion none of us could find any reliable sources. So I renamed the article to Mene, based on the single source DGRBM entry: "Mene", which says:

"Mene Μήνη), a female divinity presiding over the months. (Hom. Hymn. 12.1; Apollon. 3.533, 4.55; August. De Civ. Dei, 7.2.)"

However the sources given leave me puzzled. I'm not convinced that they demonstrate the existence of such a goddess (distinct from Selene herself) for reasons given above. In particular, I'm not sure what to make of the City of God cite quoted above, about which Davidiad thought you might have something to say. Paul August ☎ 18:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

My first reaction was that Augustine's might not be the same Mena as Mēnē, but when I glanced at Röscher, he seems to be making the natural connection between monthly flow and the moon (or lunar cycle). Oh wait: duh. See Mene in the Greek Magical Papyri, especially her entry on p. 336. I knew there was something missing here. Still only one of 'em, though. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cynwolfe for that source. But since "Mene" was an alternate name for Selene, the question remains (for me) whether any of these mentions of "Mene" are referring to a goddess other than Selene? Notice the entry "Mene" in the Glossary from that book says: "This is an epithet of the moon goddess, Selene." If no such separate goddess exists then of course our article Mene (goddess) ought to be deleted. Paul August ☎ 22:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Or rather, redirected to a section titled "Mene" in the Selene article. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Assuming we all think that, contrary to what the DGRBM seems to be saying, that there is no separate (from Selene) goddess "Mene", then a redirect would be ok with me. Though others might not agree since normally articles titled with a disabiguating parenthetical, which is the case here: "Mene (goddess) ought not be redirects, The reason being that such a title will seldom if ever be searched for. In any case as the article now stands I don't think it much matters any more what we do. For me the important thing was to eliminate any assertion that the 50 daughters were called the "Menae/Menai", Which I think has now been accomplished. So unless anyone has anything more to say on this matter I think our work is done here. At some point soon, I intend to copy this discussion to Talk:Selene. Paul August ☎ 13:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

My humble opinion: I remember my teacher of Greek talking about the Menae, even though I cannot say more that they were the daughters of the Moon and presided over time. But I find illuminating a link given here above: they were the (personified) 50 aspects of the Moon throughout the year...: 12 X 4 + 2 (the lunar year is only 350 circa days so one has to add other two aspects).Aldrasto11 (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Aldrasto11. While I find it entirely plausible that a group of fifty daughters of the Moon (whether these are the fifty daughters of Selene and Endymion or not) were collectively called the "Menae" or "Menai" and that further they "presided over time" in some way (e.g. over the fifty lunar months in the Olympiad), unfortunately I can find no reliable source which says any of this, and so far apparently no one else here can either. Paul August ☎ 13:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

So the tiny bit from Pausanias is still the only source for the 50 daughters? And we have no idea where the business about the Olympiads comes from? (Other than an "internet article" Theoi.com picked up.) I'm starting to suspect a Renaissance mythographer. Oh wait: the Great Jane is involved in disseminating this. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes as far as I know (which isn't that far) Pausanias is the only ancient source which mentions the 50 daughters of Selene and Endymion. The bit about their number possibly representing the 50 months of the Olympiad, I find enough reliable sources (like the Jane Ellen Harrison source you pointed out) to satisfy me. The bit for which I find no reliable source is that these fifty daughters were called the "Menae" or "Menai". Paul August ☎ 19:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Since this doesn't originate with JEH, the only thing I can think of is that they were called Menai just as a convenient label by an earlier scholar. Otherwise, Davidiad must be right that the name is a Theoi.com fabrication. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote above I am sure my teacher sometime mentioned them. Unfortunately as we study Greek as part of the curriculum at the high school, at that time I had no interest in the topic and cannot remember the exact details. However I believe it refers to the fifty yearly phases of the Moon: the 50 months separating the Olympiads are to be explained in the same wise. BTW this is what surmises the B. Companion to Greek Religion linked by Davidiad here above. Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've copied the above discussion to Talk:Selene, please add any further comments there, thanks. Paul August ☎ 16:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Lua Mater the Great Mother Cybele?

For a long time I thought this name Lua looks Greek: also, the function of the deity ( dissolving) seems to confirm the derivation from Greek verb λύω. A look at my dictionary yielded that in Greek there exists a goddess Λυαία Κακών the reliever from evils. And that she is the Magna Mater (citing Timotheus lyricus fr. Persae 132)...Could somebody give further clues?Aldrasto11 (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Scholars have connected her to cropblight and pestilence (latin lues) apparently, so I guess maybe not. Fornadan (t) 07:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, well, it is a possibility but it does not look very sound in my view... could you please name those scholars?Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Versnel rehearses some of this (pp. 144, 181–184), though he's inclined to see Lua as related to the lu- that means "loosening", hence her place as "consort" of Saturn: for Versnel, she embodies "loosening" or "unbinding" as a function of Saturn. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes thank you I see. While deriving Lua from lues looks like a typical folk etymology, it does convey the general idea of the Romans about her. I believe the true etymology is from luo I wash away, dissolve. But probably not in the same acception of the Greek goddess Lyaia though.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Pausanias

I'm pretty sure that Pausanias the geographer is the clear primary topic, but Pausanias is now a dab. Or maybe I just don't want to friggin' type in [[Pausanias (geographer)|Pausanias]] every time. Thoughts? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, though I assume the large population of military history editors will think the Spartan is enough to say there's no primary topic. The number of links to the geographer makes it pretty obvious to me what should be done. Also, something's up with Wiki Syntax right now. I'm Davidiad, that's Cynwolfe before me.  davidiad { t } 17:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It was my formatting error above, Davidiad. You want to re-sign your comment? Even if one might think the Spartan is "important" enough to compete as "primary", I agree that the overwhelming number of links to the geographer shows how much more likely he is to be the target. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to do the honors? I'm sleepy. If not, I can nominate it this evening.  davidiad { t } 21:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Not really. I have an article I need to get off my plate for peace of mind, and we had such a delayed spring here that I'm swamped with outdoor tasks—which is why I haven't been around as much. I'll cheer you on, though, because my fear is that they're comin' for Varro next. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

But we have a clear primary topic in Varro of Atax, or, as I call him, Varro. My proposing a move would force me to actually learn a policy, so it would be great if an inthegnow editor wanted to do it. If not, I'll try to deal with it Saturday, along with the Danaids.  davidiad { t } 02:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Going off on a tangent, I think that article should be under Danaïdes, not Danaids, which looks like an Anglicization (and specifically an Americanization) to me. The latter should redirect to it. File under "how do you spell relief?" P Aculeius (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hold on, now I'd have to read policy and do research! In my experience this Anglicization to Danaids straddles the Atlantic, though German scholarship is more likely to offer a straight transliteration. I'll be sure to figure out what's most common before proposing anything.  davidiad { t } 12:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The DGRBM uses Danaides as a headword, but Danaïdes in the article (typographical issue, apparently). Harper's uses Danaïdes for both. Fairbanks' Mythology of Greece and Rome uses neither, referring to them as the "Daughters of Danaüs." The OCD 2nd Ed. uses Danaids, as does Brill's New Pauly (in English), but the original Pauly has Danaĭdes (using a breve for pronunciation) as the headword and Danaíden (with an acute accent) in the article (German), and the full RE has Danaïdes. I'm sure one could make the argument that Danaids is the "modern" form in English, but most literary and artistic references use Danaïdes, which probably explains why a Google search listed about 50,000 hits for Danaids and about 144,000 for Danaïdes, despite the number of Wikipedia clones that would automatically have used Danaids.

Perhaps this will fall on deaf ears, but if a high percentage of readers will look for the Danaïdes after encountering the name in literary or artistic contexts, and that form was until recently preferred in English-language classical scholarship, I think it should prevail... besides which, Danaids would still redirect to it, and would be included in the list of forms at the beginning of the article. It just irks me that in this age of word processors with infinite variations for typography, we're respelling historic names for no better reason than that the typewriters of the previous generation weren't equipped for accent marks, and most Americans don't seem to know what they're for. P Aculeius (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I remember there being some big fight over diacritics in article titles over the past few months, but I can't remember how the dust settled. I'll try to track that down, too, before doing anything.  davidiad { t } 17:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in DGRBM the heading "Danaides" followed by "Danaids" in the text is probably not a typo. Smith favoured Latin for titles. Thereafter, since he was writing in English, he would have used what he felt was the English form in running text. I don't feel strongly, but I think Danaids is still the English name. Andrew Dalby 17:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not the case here. The headword is DANAIDES, but Danaïdes is used consistently throughout the article, at least five times. The typesetter probably didn't have the appropriate character for a diaeresis over a capital 'I', or else it would have looked strange or caused issues with spacing. In other words, the headword has no diacritics for typographical reasons, not because the author preferred not to use them. This has nothing to do with "using Latin for titles but writing in English." And, as this article is signed, we know that it was written by Leonhard Schmitz (Rector of the High School of Edinburgh). William Smith was the editor, not the author of the encyclopedia; he only wrote the unsigned articles.

Meanwhile, in popular culture, we have:

• Les Danaïdes, the opera by Antonio Salieri,
• Les Petites Danaïdes, a ballet by Jean-Antoine Petipa,
• The Labour of the Danaïdes, a painting by John Reinhard Weguelin,
• Danaïdes, a painting by John William Waterhouse,
• The Danaïdes, another painting by Waterhouse,
• Le tonneau des danaïdes, an early motion picture,
• La Fontaine des Danaïdes, a sculpture by Jean-Baptiste Hugues,
• Les Danaïdes, a novel by Camille Mauclair, illustrated by Antonio de La Gandara,
• The Danaïdes, a fresco by John Singer Sargent,
• Le tonneau des danaïdes, a 2008 motion picture directed by David Guiraud
• Danaïdes, a 2012 album by Australian Jazz group "The Alcohotlicks"

Which I think demonstrates two things: first, that Danaïdes was and remains current in English, even if there's a recent trend of Anglicizing or Americanizing Greek names by omitting diacritical marks and changing -es to -s; and second, that people are quite likely to encounter the Danaïdes for the first time in works of art, literature, or music, and thus be expecting that spelling of the name. P Aculeius (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your report of the usage in DGRBM. Andrew Dalby 07:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It's my fault that this discussion has continued here when it should go on at the article's talk page, and folks are already making spirited and valid arguments. We should discuss it there and hopefully arrive at consensus on what title we wish to propose before nominating the move, since I think we need to nominate a specific title and can't throw out a list of options in the formal process. I'll pop by there tomorrow. If anyone else wants to start the discussion, please do.  davidiad { t } 03:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

David, you might want to consider coping the relevant portions of the above to that pages' talk page. Paul August ☎ 16:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

In my cursory review of this online, I couldn't determine the relative weight of Danaids and Danaides, but it did seem fairly clear that in post-1970 English sources, the ï was less common—although I do understand P Ac's point about it how it might disappear in the era of manual typesetting and typewriters, and then be forgotten (except, of course, by the dieresis-mad New Yorker editors—63 comments, which NYer readers will recognize as an unusually high number). I hope this means we're agreed on Pausanias? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've copied the Δαναίδες material to Talk:Daughters of Danaus. I reiterate my complete support for the geographer being primary topic, but I've got an unexpectedly early guest currently rocketing across Tennessee, so my intention to edit today and learn policy has been thwarted and I won't be writing a nom today.  davidiad { t } 18:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it can simmer a little while longer without burning and sticking to the pot. I have a self-imposed deadline for an article that has dragged on far too long, and I'm trying to resist anything that distracts from that for longer than three minutes. Or I'd try to be of more help. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

A discussion of possible interest

Some members of this project may wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Proposal: move most translations and transliterations from lead sentence to footnote, since so many of our articles, particularly those on Greek topics, begin with such parentheses. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should note that the proposal would essentially ban the use of Greek characters and transliterations in the first sentence. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't commented there yet. In that discussion the opposition to allowing Greek and transliterated Greek (etc.) in the lead comes from three positions: a, this is an English-only encyclopedia: b, if a wikipedia lead sentence permits any clutter at all, wikipedians will always clutter: c, a good, clear lead sentence is really important. Positions b and c are correct, in my view, and the always-vocal people who hold position a are potentially on to a winner here ... If we worked out a firm position on classical Greek names of classical Greek things/concepts (or, let's say, original-culture names of non-English-culture things/concepts), I would support it. Etymology rarely belongs in the introduction at all and shouldn't be allowed to confuse the alternative-names issue. Andrew Dalby 12:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Signpost article was delightful

Hi classicers! I am coming from a different project angle (science), but I ended up making a little stub on a couple museum exhibits. The topic of muhrrine (probably fluorite, for carvings) is very interesting though. The refs in the article explain the topic.TCO (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Erotes

Input sought at Talk:Erotes (mythology)#Requested move. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Roofs

I know a lot of people are away and busy now off-wiki or with other move discussions, but it has been proposed that List of ancient roofs be moved to List of ancient classical Hellenic and Roman roofs. I think we can probably come up with a more succinct title. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Acadine

This article is dependent upon The Wordsworth Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, where the story of this fountain is attributed to Diodorus Siculus. Acadine doesn't resolve into an ancient Greek word. (I suspected something in ἀκηδ- might be behind it, but Diod. Sic. uses no such form.) This old collection of marvels mentions the same fountain and says it is was consecrated by the Palicii. At Diod. Sic. 11.89 the Palikoi are said to maintain a shrine around some geysers known as the Craters which have miraculous binding properties when it comes to oaths, but nothing about writing or sinking tablets. Strabo 6.2.9 mentions the crates, but noting miraculous. The Aristotelian Mirabilium auscultationes 834a reports the sinking of written false oaths, but gives no name for the spring. The same is the case for some late paradoxographers reliant either upon that text or Isigonus' Περὶ Παλικῶν θεῶν. Any insights or ideas about what to do with Acadine?  davidiad { t } 16:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems to have been called Acadinus fons in Renaissance Latin sources. I doubt that helps (except perhaps to trace the history of the site's place on lists of mirabilia), but since people tend to think "big stone manmade water spout" when they hear "fountain", we should probably call it a "spring". Cynwolfe (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Hazlitt gives the same name, so I assume there must be some antique testimonia. I'll poke around.  davidiad { t } 16:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's the only thing resembling a lead I saw in a cursory search. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

After some inventive googling, I arrived here: [2]. Now, I won't claim to be able to read Romanian, but the gist of it seems clear enough (and the google translation is reasonably understandable) I leave it to others to pursue the references to Ovid and Virgil. In any case I think we have enough evidence to merge Acadine and Palici. According to Peter Green the two pools of ancient time have over the years become merged into one which is known today as "laghetto di Naftia". Fornadan (t) 17:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Does Green mention "Acadine" or "Acadinus" by name? I can't tell if later authors confounded Diod. Sic.'s geysers with the spring of the oath-legend. (I'm beginning to suspect that a 15th- or early 16th century Italian writer saw Aristotle's (probably by way of Stephanus) parenthetical ὡς δεκάκλινος, "about ten klinai deep or long", which is a rare adjective, and took it for a corruption of a name: "ὡς δὲ Ἀκάδινος", but that's just a guess.)

Sorry if this is an irrelevance: What is the origin of the Romanian encyclopedia that Fornadan just cited? I mean, it looks convincing, but who really compiled that stuff and when? Anyone recognise it? You'd suppose, from it, that a word of the form "Acadin-" occurs in Ovid and Vergil, but it doesn't. Nor in Servius in his commentary on those lines of Vergil. Andrew Dalby 18:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Green does not mention Acadine/Acadinus/Acadina. The two modern works he cites for his discussion on the Palici are the Budé edition of D.S. 11 by Haillet (2001) and E. Manni (1963), Sicilia Pagana. Searching for Acadina on Google turns up a number of entries in old mythological dictionaries, for example [3] and [4] (the latter cites Aristotle) and not much else. So whatever the origin of the name, and I agree that so far it doesn't look like it rests on any ancient authority, it seems exist primarily in the traditions of a long line of list makers and encyclopedia writers, of which that Romanian site (and, I suppose, Wikipedia) is only the latest. Whatever the case, I think it's clear that Acadine should not be a separate article Fornadan (t) 19:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

On Albion

Some time ago somebody (the usual person) accused me of using wikipedia as a soapbox for my personal use.

Here is some other material which disproves that innuendo.

Carlo Battisti "Illirico e paraillirico" p. 288, writing on an etymological dictionary of Illyrian by A. Mayer:

"The author himself is forced to acknowledge that a considerable number of etymologies he proposes is far from convincing. There are instances in which, for various reasons, it is preferable to posit a derivation from a Mediterranean basis. The interpretation of Albion oros in the territory of the Iapodes as "white mountain" is certainly not better than that based on preindoeuropean Alba, "mountain"."

Giovanni Alessio "Sul nome di Otranto" p. 235:

"We can imagine that the town was named after the mount on which it stood, as the numerous Alba (among which Alba Longa), which are rooted in Mediterranean alba, mountain (compare Alpes, Alburnus mons etc.; Basque albo, alpi côte, flanc) or the Iberian Mendiculeja cognate to Basque mendi mount...since the Medit. towns as a rule stood above high sites."

Roman del Cerro: "La toponimia prehistorica de los Alpes" p. 265:

"...relieve germanico: un relive que emerge desde la llanura. Asi' pues /ALB/ describe cualquier promontorio o monte que contraste con el llano, tanto en un nivel macro-geologico, como los Alpes...o relieves de pequeñas montañas que se contraponen a un llano...El vasco albariko (alto navarro) 'cuesta muy pendiente', esta' en el campo semantico.

I just wish to show that the charge is clumsily void and proves only the ignorance of the person who made it, not that this is the right interpretation.Aldrasto11 (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Junius

I'm not sure that the 18th-century writer is the clear primary topic for Junius. (Iunius redirects to the Junia (gens) article.) Junius (disambiguation) is fairly dismissive of the nomen. I was about to clarify that "Junius is an ancient Roman gens name" at the dab, but then started to wonder whether that was the real problem. Thoughts? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like there is a primary topic.  davidiad { t } 23:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'm thinking, but don't wish to be blinded by Romanocentrism. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

None of the Junii are, as far as I can see, usually now called Junius, simpliciter; the writer is. I would clarify the dab, rephrasing to link directly to Junia (gens), and including the most notable Junii as direct links (i.e. L. Junius Brutus, but not his grandson; M. Junius Brutus, the tyrannicide, but not his father). How's that? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with some recurrent pop culture issues

I'm trying to edit a mythology article and face a dilemma. What have people been doing with these constant links to God of War video games and Percy Jackson books? When I write reception sections, I use scholarship to frame the discussion, but these horribly popular items won't show up there. I'd love to simply delete mention of them as I write a proper treatment of a mythological figure's Nachleben, but wonder if I have that license. Thoughts?  davidiad { t } 00:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say you have the license to delete trivia. I do have completely eccentric and unorthodox thoughts on this. I actually love the stuff like lists of Hercules movies (see also Hercules in popular culture). There's a list article on Icarus imagery in contemporary music. Maybe it's the mom and former teacher talking, but I can't bear the thought of some excited 15-year-old noticing a reference to mythology in a pop song, adding it to Wikipedia, and then having their own little wings singed. I know many editors will consider this not the point, but to me it's a possible first step through a door to learning more, or taking a classics class. Nor is it original research unless they try to interpret it: summaries of primary sources are acceptable if they represent unambiguous content without embellishment (as is evident from the excruciatingly detailed plot summaries of TV episodes). When I cleaned up Prometheus last summer, the problem was that the bottom of the article was full of stuff thrown in willy-nilly. I never went back and developed it coherently, because I'm not that interested in Prometheus. In fact I wrote very little content, except to beef up the intro. I was just concerned with the chaotic state of the article when it was receiving so many hits because of Ridley Scott. As I recall, I organized material into sections that either had or could have sources, and thus could be treated discursively (potentially), and I think I spun off pop-culture references as a list article, or maybe that had existed already and I just dumped some of the random pop stuff there. (Too lazy to look back at what I actually did.) I don't see how the treatment of mythology by some kitschy Victorian painter is more notable than a Hollywood movie that millions of people view: the content of the movie is verifiable through published journalistic reviews, and readers come with expectations that are shaped by these. (Oh, the amount of time I've expended sorting out the non-classical association of the bident and "helm of invisibility" with the ruler of the underworld! But the association did come from somewhere.) I've found that if readers' frame of reference gets a token gesture of recognition, they're less likely to muck up the article by trying to make sure what they "know" is represented. See Melinoe: for a while I had to negotiate with the Percy Jackson crowd, but I'm perfectly happy to have her role in those books described at the bottom, because it demonstrates how myths are reinterpreted for a different audience and time. I guess my view is that if it's a trivial mention, a mere allusion, I would banish it on grounds of undue weight—unless these have a critical mass and the body of allusions are themselves weighty enough to support a list, as in the case of Icarus. I figure future antiquarians will be delighted by such compilations. Maybe we need a List of video games based on classical mythology to go with Category:Mythology-based video games. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. As long as we don't let those kids study the languages, we should be alright. It bugs me that listing this offal from primary sources is fine if no unsourced comment is offered. I'm currently trying to check the Greek and punctuation in all the Greek mythology articles and using the exercise as a way to see exactly what's out there (about to start B). I'll keep thinking about this issue as I proceed. The article that I'm trying to revamp with real sources, by the way, is Morpheus (mythology), which has been presented on Wikipedia as the primary god of dreams in Greek mythology for years, despite the fact that he appears in Ovid alone.  davidiad { t } 20:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, no respectable editor has the appetite for offal that I do. That is why I presented my view of future antiquarianism as a form of poetry and pedagogy as eccentric. I think you'll find, if you haven't already, that the conception of Morpheus owes mostly to the Renaissance (in English lit, Chaucer and Spenser, and yes I know Chaucer is usually considered medieval) when Ovid's distinction between Somnus and Morpheus was lost. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I'm going to actually have to do some research and writing well outside anything near my interests ... that's probably why all I've done so far is delete. I've got the sources lined up, though, so hopefully next weekend.  davidiad { t } 22:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

River names

There are many river names that are of interest to classical matters.

Tiber: it was invoked as Coluber (snake like, meandering) by the Roman pontiffs. But what was the meaning of Tiber, did it mean serpentine? The word is the Latin equivalent of Umbrian Tefer, Tifernus. I considered that it might be related to the name of the typha angustifolia plant which grows along the banks of rivers. But it could also be related to the name of the tribe Tifatina, from tifata oak wood as in Mount Tifata near Capua. G. Alessio ("Studi storico-linguistici messapici" p. 306) writes that "Tiber" is related to the tebae hills, ("colles", Varro explains in his De Re Rustica III 16). BTW this etymology could be another argument in favour of the interpretation of the root *alb as highland, the ancient name of the Tiber being Albula: often (not always) names were preserved either in form or in meaning (e. g. Malmédy and its German counterpart Malmünd). Many toponyms confirm that teba must mean hill e.g. the Greek and Italian (Lucania) towns Thebai, the Carian and Lycian Tabai, Tabai in Sicily, Taburnus Mons in Samnium, Atabalus the cold wind of Apulia which blows from the mountains (with the prosthetic a, probably definite article). Alessio cites Stephanus of Byzantium's glossa "taba: petra", Tabarna of Magnesia and Latin noun taberna grotto, Greek ataburion den, from Hesichius.

Cariuntis/Chariuntas (Mesogia graecorum) (anybody knows where it is? my source F. Villar does not say), Caronto,-onis (Gallia): summed up with river Acheron seem to point to a river god identity for Charon. *Kar and *kark (or voiced *garg) are frequently recurring in the Mediterranean and are thought to be related with "rock": Curicta (Isle of Krk, Croatia), Gargano, Gargaso (Asia Minor), Caria (wikipedia: Karkija in Hittite, Karsa in Babylonian, in Old Persian Kurka).Aldrasto11 (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Or, with metathesis, the Celtic root of English crag "rough, massive rock" (the OED is uncertain exactly which Celtic word is involved). It would be unsurprising to find this in Italic as well.

I would be extremely reluctant to see Thebes derived from an IE stem with *t-*; have you a source (not Isidore of Seville) who says so? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The root *kar has long been considered, as by F. Ribezzo and G. Alessio, not of IE origin. Various reasons, as the fact IE lacks a semantically suitable root: G. Alessio "La base preindoeuropea kar(r)a-gar(r)a, pietra", Studi Etruschi 1935 IX, pp. 132-151. So has Swiss linguist J. Hubschmid: Basque (h)arri < garri < *karri > Lavedan. garro rock, Bearnese carroc rocky. Recently though Spanish linguists have been keen to prove its IE affiliation: e.g. F. Villar ("El Garona y sus iguales" Palaeohispanica, 11 2011, p. 185 derives Garunda from *ĝer Pokorny IEW 390, to mash. Although my opinion is irelevant I find such an affiliation very far fetched, if not for the Garonne for the myriad other attestations. Juan José Moralejo "Toponimos celticos en Galicia" Palaeohispanica 10, 2010 p. 107 recalls Billy Thes. Ling. Gall. 1993, 43, *karanto deer, caranto *roche sabloneuse (perhaps a misprint for the asterisc's place); IEW *kar hard, and *ker head, horn.

I do agree that the basis of Thebai (as well Tebai, Tiber, Tibur, Atabalus etc.) does not belong to IE. The basis of this word "tebae colles" mentioned by Varro seems to have many cognates in modern European languages and dialects: Hubschmid lists tepé high Pyren. hillop, tepe Alps same, tepo Piedm. hay heap, tepe Sp. and Port. earthwall topped with bush, tepe Nav. mound made of roots that jugs up in a marsh or lagoon, teppa Abruz. hillop, earth mound, placing it among the Preindoeurpean group, in agreement with Alessio.Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Celtic attestations are numeros. In Italic I am not aware of the presence of this root but there may be many attestations in toponymy: I think of Cremera fl., Crema, Cremona, Carema, Carisio, Carasco, Caravino, Carovigno, Carassone etc. The Celtic words listed by Skeat bear no etymology as e.g. carac, karek etc.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

After researching the issue a bit I discovered Acheron seems to be related with white poplars, perhaps as trees that "cut" the landscape, from IE *agher and Ager fl. in Hiberia and Gallia. Probably an allusive meaning.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a little about this at Leuce (mythology). The myth in the Gallo-Roman era about Hercules founding Alesia on his western adventures (as in associations of Geryon with Spain) is tied into this, because of his association of white poplar wreaths. Mind you, I'm talking about the way ancient etymology is part of origin myths and poetic imagery, not as a matter of scientific linguistics. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It is acheroides with the aspiration, as all the instances of rivers I gave. Perhaps they are not related to "rock" basis Kar that is without.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

However they may be related to Charon or better Charon to them.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Saturn (mythology) etymology

Hi, a couple of months ago I asked the question below on the Talk:Saturn_(mythology) page, but I had no response and the text is still there, it is baffling to me what this is supposed to mean, please can some expert clarify? Also if a term that can't be found in any online dictionary is used in an article, its meaning should be defined. 86.30.129.146 (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

WTF is "phitonym"??

I have no idea, and neither Google or dictionary.com do either. All I find when I google it is a ton of references to extracts from this article :) 86.30.129.146 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I presume that should be "phytonym". Paul August ☎ 10:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. Even that's a rare word in English, which, in its monosyllabic way, is more likely to say "the name of a plant". Andrew Dalby 11:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessment question

I've been trying to see which top- and high-importance articles within the scope of our project are in most dire need of improvement. In the process, I demoted some that I thought were certifiably obscure, but these things are always arguable. Some decisions between high and mid are no doubt capricious, or even accidental, but perhaps no more so than the previous "high importance" rating for Trojan language and Lentulus Batiatus).

After that, I skimmed through the G&R articles that remain unassessed, and rated those I thought ought to be mid- or (more rarely) high-importance. Would anyone object if I had a bot assess the thousand+ others as low? It's entirely possible that my eyes glazed over and some ought to be rated of higher importance, but they too can always be changed individually as noticed.

This was in the context of looking over our out-of-date project page. But back to that another time. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No objection from me. Does assessment serve a useful function? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I used to think not. As I said, my motive in looking over top- and high-importance articles was to see which are in most desperate need of attention. So I was trying to arrive at a meaningful list of such articles. I've also been looking at which articles are most visited. I was thinking about how I might prioritize contributions when I was in the mood to improve rather than create. Quality assessment as such I'm not that interested in, and haven't been doing it. I want to move all the articles out of "unassessed importance" so I can watch the category and deal with assessment as they're bannered.

I started doing this, BTW, because I was looking through Category:Roman Republican consuls to find praetors. I noticed that we had very few men categorized as such, and I'm interested in this office for various reasons. (Obviously, a far greater number of Roman men were praetors than were consuls.) By the time I got through the Cornelii (in alphabetical order), it had become apparent to me that there are a lot of Roman biographies not bannered for our project—maybe as many as half, or more. This is useful to my mind only in so far as it causes the article to show up on the G&R article alerts should it be the subject of an AfD, move, and such. I don't watch, nor do I want to watch, all the articles with the project banner, as I'm told some stalwart souls do, but I do like knowing about these kinds of issues when they come up, and I would otherwise not. So those are some of the reasons I'm spending time on this. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Having been born with the temperament of a clerk, with matching habits—by which I mean I was born with a steamer trunk full of ill-fitting jackets and sweat stained collars, my poor mother!—, I find any sensible system of categorization helpful to those who later encounter the effort. And so many of our importance ratings were selected by major contributors to the articles in question, plus I know of one editor of Greek topics who was clearly being mischievous with his importances and ratings (before being blocked on an unrelated matter of wackiness).  davidiad { t } 23:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold too, if it's OK, about updating the project page with some fresh links for the FA, GA, and DYK lists. Please feel free to revert me, and to discuss anything you'd prefer instead or would like done and don't want to do yourself. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been mulling that, too, and I say go for it ... I might want to discuss some cute CSS if stuff don't get more prettier. The project page has served a good purpose and had a clean design, but accretions and dormancy have lessened the success of the organization, and we're capable of being a more handsome woman after seven years.  davidiad { t } 00:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I just used the layout as it was, obviously. (The emblems seemed militaristic and nationalist to me, so I swapped for images from articles that fit the categories of featured material.) We can open a new section on the project page as a whole. Evidently, a page, like a ship, is a woman???? Poor me, adrift in a masculinist world. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

So you're adrift ... like a ship?  davidiad { t } 15:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

That was the basis of the joke, yes. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Cute, toots.  davidiad { t } 01:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

OK by me. Though I think article assessment might be of use, I personally remain (as yet) indifferent. Paul August ☎ 10:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)