Talk:Calydonian boar hunt

Caps Lock Chapter
Namely : "THE STATES WHICH SENT HELP TO OENEUS" To my knowledge there is no need for Caps Lock Chapters anywhere in Wikipedia. I shall therefore return it to lowercase letters. --VoiceOfThePnyx (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction
I think the objection to the introduction ("too long") is that it violates journalistic practice by plunging too quickly into the scholarly background and history instead of highlighting briefly the most important features for the general reader.

It is, however, an excellently researched and illustrated article, and should not be over-edited or simplified.

One could just make a paragraph break in the second sentence after "all the heroes of the new age take part.." But I would add the most famous detail about Atalanta from a later paragraph. And probably something of its origin in the offense to Artemis.

Here's a suggested revision and substitute for an introductory paragraph:

"The Calydonian Boar is one of the monsters of Greek mythology that had to be overcome by heroes of the Olympian age. Sent by Artemis to ravage the region of Calydon in Aetolia because its king failed to honor her in his rites to the gods, it was killed in the Calydonian Hunt, in which many male heroes took part, but also a powerful woman, Atalanta, who won its hide by first wounding it with an arrow. This outraged some of the men, with tragic results."


 * This is a good introduction yet almost exactly the same sentence now appears twice, in the introduction and the first sentence of the article. This should be altered. --VoiceOfThePnyx (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If you would like me or someone else, perhaps the orignal author, to go ahead and modify the original paragraph to accomodate it, let me know.

Winslow Shea (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Winslow Shea (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I have on June 20 added the proposed new intro paragraph, and two section headings. The rest of the original article is in my view a bit too academic in its language, but I hesitate, at least for the time being, to make it sound less like a paper for an academic audiece. -- Winslow Shea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winslow Shea (talk • contribs) 22:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Change Made. "Nevertheless, though both Homer[2] and Hesiod and their listeners were aware of the details of this myth, no surviving poet seems to have worked the pieces into a single epic, to become the classic telling"

This does not make sense. Firstly, there is no straight-forward connection between Archaic and Classical awareness and subsequent survival. Secondly, "the classic telling" is as meaningless as imputing that Brando is the authoritative Mark Anthony. Finally, the question of whether there was ever a detailed account of this episode, in either the Theban or Epic Cycle, remains unanswered (although a diversion in, for instance, the Alcmeonis is quite feasible).

Again: "Meleager's mother, sister of Meleager's slain uncles, took the fatal brand from the chest where she had kept it (see Meleager) and threw it once more on the fire; as it was consumed, Meleager died on the spot, as the Fates had foretold." What on earth is "the fatal brand"? Why the definite article? I know of no such brand. Moreover, "(see Meleager)" is offered, but I've seen "Meleager", and I am neither informed nor impressed. Making oneself understood is one of the most important things to achieve in life. It's worth working on.

Finally: "Meleager died on the spot, as the Fates had foretold." This is the first we've heard of such an omen, which is bad form. An omen should be offered, and then fulfilled. These are myths. Tell them.

elephant tusk picture
PS: There is a picture of a tusk of a straight-tusked elephant, but it is only referred to in a footnote. This is bad form indeed. Either remove the picture or, I would suggest, include mention of the elephant in the main article.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.112.144 (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The elephant tusk picture indeed is superfluous here. It invites thinking about the possible reality behind the myth but is not relevant in an encyclopedia article of it. I therefore will delete it. If any protest against this - do speak up here. --VoiceOfThePnyx (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC) As a further note, it might perhaps be valuable to add the suggestion that is offered in the footnote to the main article, but whether it is relevant enough is a different discussion. It does apply as a genuine interpretation argued by a scholar (see footnote) but putting only this one interpretation in the article would be bad form, as there must be many. Therefore either a creation of an "interpretations" section is implemented for this article, or, in my opinion, the Elephant tusk (certainly the picture) is not worth being shown. --VoiceOfThePnyx (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Diana
isn't Diana a roman goddess? I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity... (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Diana (see Diana (mythology))is the "Roman" version of the Greek godess Artemis. I would suggest, if you are interested of course, to take up a random book on Greek/Roman religion, it will certainly tell you about the merging of the two religions and their history before it. Though you are right in remarking that the tradition of referring to Greek myths and gods by their Roman names, as is sometimes still done, should be avoided. Other examples are Juppiter = Zeus, Mars = Ares, Juno = Hera... --VoiceOfThePnyx (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I reorganized this page to look more presentable --VoiceOfThePnyx (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Giulio Romano - Meleager et Atalanta.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Giulio Romano - Meleager et Atalanta.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 11, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-04-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 16:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

About the list of hunters
One source for the list of hunters is Apollodorus' Bibliotheca (1.8.2), which wasn't used here. It doesn't introduce any new names, but does include most of the names from Pausanias' list taken from the temple at Tegea & adds a few others. Is there a reason it wasn't included here? It was composed in the 1st century AD, which makes it earlier than Pausanias & contemporary with Hyginus & Ovid. -- llywrch (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to the article, I couldn't find Pirithous' name in Hyginus' list, and in Gredo's edition it is Fable 173-4, not 30! I also looked for his name using the index, but in fact it doesn't seem to be related to the hunters of the Calydonian Boar in Hyginus. Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)