Talk:Erechtheus

Untitled
Wouldn't the main bulk of the article be about Erechtheus II? It seems to me that Erichthonius of Athens was king before the one described in the article and that he would go as Erechtheus I. --Zirk 20:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Erectheus is only the Latin way to spell Erechtheus - however you want to arrange the material, there's no point in having two entries. Hannah standeven (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The figure remains Erechtheus the archaic king of Athens, whether given a mythic birth and rearing ("Erechtheus I") or duplicated in a historicized one ("Erechtheus II"). The child in the basket is Erechthonios, whether in myth or cult (Arrhephoria). I don't know whose genealogical distinctions are being made in the article: mythic Greek genealogies are simply providing explanatory context; one doesn't begin with genealogies and come up with multiple figures.


 * I plan to report the relevant perceptions of Walter Burkert, Homo Necans, in a couple of new sections of this article, without recasting what's there now.--Wetman (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I've gone too far. I hope the revised text stands well on its references and quotes. There's more to do, once the dust settles.--Wetman (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by this article. It needs to be clarified I think. I came for info on Erechtheus but got a lot of confusing information about the variations & etc. and not a clear explanation of any of the characters or a clear definition of who they (the versions) were. Richard ruffian (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Richard Ruffian that this article is confusing. I attribute this reaction more to the wording and structure of this article than to its content. As I see it, sentences run too long and contain too many diverse details, yielding a "stream of consciousness" effect which contributes to the confusion. I might offer a revision to demonstrate my point, but I also should consult subject references before writing so that I don't muddy the waters further. Perhaps an authority on the subject could subdivide the content appropriately, and also structure the sentences to focus on each topic in order. A genealogical diagram (illustrating the subject's place among ancestors, descendants, and associates) might also be useful and helpful. --Phil Toll Jr (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Play
Shouldn't the play be given a separate entry? See http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/books/review/the-parthenon-enigma-by-joan-breton-connelly.html?nl=books&emc=edit_bk_20140124&_r=0.211.225.34.161 (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Etymology
Etymology is missing. In the article "Erichthonios", Beekes suggests Pre-Greec origin. However "chthonic" means underground.Jestmoon(talk) 19:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)