Talk:Theogony

Similarity to Chinese mythology?
I've long noticed a link between the characteristics of the third generation gods and the eight trigrams of the I Ching. Their attributes are remarkably similar. The order of birth differs, but they both seem to be trying to describe the forces in nature (including human nature). Anyway, it seems like:

Parents: Gaia = 坤 kūn (receptive/field), and Uranus (maybe Cronus?) = 乾 qián (creative force heaven/sky).

The daughters: Hestia = 離 lí (fire), Demeter = 兌 duì (joy/fertility), Hera = 巽 xùn (penetrating wind).

The sons: Hades = 艮 gèn (mountain), Poseidon = 坎 kǎn (water), Zeus = 震 zhèn (thunder).

Did these two proto-scientfic systems evolve independently, or were these cultures in contact? If anyone has studied this, I'd love to know more!

Hillbillyholiday81 (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Most probably they evolved independently from one another. As far as I know there was no contact between ancient Greeks and Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.45.174 (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Eros
It mentions that Eros was created from Chaos (First Gen), and from Aphrodite (Last Gen). Which one is correct? 90.220.148.96 (talk)
 * As a matter of speaking both are correct. They are myths from different time periods just like the origin of Aphrodite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.45.174 (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms
This article is full of somewhat confusing comments on the poem Theogony (mostly so if you have not read it) and it reads more like part of a school essay than an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure what to do with it: it has a sort of vague summary, but maybe a more specific listing of the myths dealt with in the Theogony would be a good start. Andrew123 06:17, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why the author has to state specifically that Greek religion has a lot of contradictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2005-08-29T08:52:26 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-29T08:52:26

Authorship debate
This could use some mentions of the debate of authorship, no? Consider the article for Hesiod's standpoint on the notion. Λι 07:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Pontos
"After Ouranos had been castrated, Gaia mated with Pontos to create a descendent line " - I don't see the name Pontos anywhere else before this statement. Is it supposed to be Pontos? or Pontus? or Ponos? --BlueRaja 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it should be Pontos. Pontus is the latin translation and Ponos an entirely different thing (pain). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.45.174 (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Tenses
Why are certain sections written in different tenses? This reads awkwardly, especially during shifts from past to present tense. The use of the present tense to describe the events also makes little sense seeing as the events were written about in the past as if they occurred even further in the past. Is there any reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.216.178 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-16T03:01:28

Hesiod
This article seems to be drifting farther from a report on Hesiod's poem. We have a general article Greek mythology, which, if it were better, would cover thie generations of gods, and their futures, more generally. --Wetman 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article should present geneaologies as laid forth in Hesiod's poem, but I see no special reason why it must exclude them altogether. Since other versions of myths may lay forth alternate lineages, having the Hesiod versions collected in this article seems practical and useful.  It would be quite difficult to summarize the poem without mentioning any filiations. Robert K S 07:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sticking close to Hesiod's text surely involves the genealogies. Spinning them out with details that are not in Hesiod is simply distracting. --Wetman 08:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Khaos borning Gaia
I thought that Gaia came after Khoas, not a child of her, also Theoi Project can back that up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.54.124 (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Pandora
The author of the article mentions that Zeus created woman as a punishment for the theft of fire, and names her Pandora. However, the name "Pandora" is not substantiated by the text of the Theogony itself (it is a general assumption based on a similar theme in "Works and Days" which does mention Pandora). In the Theogony, the woman is nameless, and there is no discussion of her opening the jar of hope or any of the other activities associated with her. I think it should be re-written to be authentic to the text, or at least mention that this is supposition based on other works by Hesiod. Madnessandcivilization (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's Pandora. Any decent interpretation of the Theogony will tell you so. There's no reason to avoid using her name, though it should be mentioned that the Theogony doesn't use it. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Creation of the world-mythical cosmogonies
In general, I agree with people that this article has a number of confusions. With regard to the section on "Creation of the world-mythical cosmogonies" specifically:

First, "creation of the world" and "cosmogony" are synonyms, so the title of the section is odd. The author must mean something like "Comparison with Other Cosmogonies".

Second, however, there are thousands of cosmogonies, so it is not clear why an arbitrary sample of Orphic, Vedic, Judaic, and Babylonian cosmogonies should be offered, especially when they seem to shed no particular light on Hesiod's.

Third, and in a related way, concatenating Babylonian, Vedic, Judaic, Hesiodic, and Orphic cosmogonies together creates a false impression that they are contemporary somehow, when in fact they differ in time by thousands of years.

Fourth, more than this, the specific valences implied by each are radically divergent as well. The Judaic, Orphic, and Hesiodic cosmogony, for instance, have put a very different spin on the Female. The patriarchal revision of the Great Goddess and her consort (Eve and the serpent) are overly familiar, while the Orphic version makes the feminine contribution one-remove distant, when a male creator-god (Phanes) results from the splitting the "world-egg" by Khronos and Ananke, and the world-egg formed of Gaia and Ouranos. With Hesiod, the feminine is still discernible, but merely as the vaginal "gap" of Chaos.

So I see no value in this section, except that it covers some of the first events. The author had the sequence wrong, leaving out the creation of Tartaros before Eros, but I made that change as an uncontroversial addition. That part of the text being kept, I really don't see what the rest has to do with the Theogony, even as a contrast. I'd delete it.

Fifth, though this is kind of non sequitur in a Hesiod article, I'm not sure the sequence of Orphic creation provided by the author is correct. Specifically, I'm not certain why Aither or Chaos are being mentioned in regard to the world-egg or Phanes' creation. Just one more reason to delete this section as irrelevant. Talastra (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

As a further addition, to cite that "the spirit of God" did anything is problematic, since the deity claimed to do so in this biblical passage is Elohiym, not God (and not even yet YHWH). It doesn't matter if it is a convention to refer to YHWH as God (capital letter intact); that obviously has a Judeo-Christian bias, but is also inaccurate as figures like Chaos and Gaia and so forth might just as readily be identified as "God". In other words, god is a title, not a name, and to use a title in place of a name, in a passage where other names, not titles, are being used is biased in the wrong way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talastra (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

manuscripts
I moved manuscripts section from Hesiod to here, though the section has problems. McCronion (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Mummu?
"...and his power is necessary to get the job of birth." What does this mean? rowley (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made it less gibberish, but the section needs to be based upon reliable sources. West's survey of Theogonic literature in his commentary doesn't bother with Mummu.  I don't own his East Face of Helicon or Walcott's Hesiod and the Near East, but these are the sorts of works that should inform this section, not the addition of parallels adduced by editors of online sources. — [dave] cardiff &#124; chestnut —  20:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

pronunciation
I know google translate probably isn't the best source for this kind of thing (well, it's actually quite good). nonetheless, I put the greek word for Theogony into it & had a listen. I must admit, the voiced velar stop (g) sounds a bit more like a voiceless velar nasal (ŋ̊) (voiced if you count the Ohs on either side). Lostubes (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I listened to it too and as a Greek I must say the pronunciation is 100% correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.45.174 (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Manuscript Image
The image at the top of the page is not from Hesiod's Theogony, it's from his Works and Days, of which the first line is Mοῦσαι Πιερίηθεν ἀοιδῇσιν κλείουσαι  which can be seen on the first line of the manuscript. Should it be removed? ---- Brian.Bakkala (talk)
 * I agree, and yes it should be removed. Paul August &#9742; 16:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theogony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.books.google.com/books?id=k561uXI-uPgC&printsec
 * Added tag to http://www.books.google.com/books?id=k561uXI-uPgC&printsec
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170710121207/http://www.books.google.com/books?id=kFpd86J8PLsC&printsec to http://www.books.google.com/books?id=kFpd86J8PLsC&printsec

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Title
I propose to change the present title of this article from "Theogony" to "The Theogony (Hesiod)". The reason is that theogony is a general term to be used for a genealogy of the gods, of which that from Hesiod is but one, even if it is the most important.--Auró (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. If someone searches for "Theogony," the person is almost certainly searching for the poem by Hesiod. The name may have other applications, but all those applications are clearly secondary to the Hesiodic poem. If you want, you can create a separate Theogony (disambiguation) page dealing with other potential uses of the term. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Katolophyromai. Paul August &#9742; 22:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So, I create a Theogony (Desambiguation) page containing two elements. The first is an explanation of the meaning of the term "Theogony", the second is a link to "The Theogony (Hesiod)". Is it this what Katolophyromai proposes?--Auró (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not proposing anything; I am just saying that you can do that if you think it is necessary. If you think it is necessary to create another article about an alternative use of the word "Theogony" you can do that also. Really, my main point that I was trying to make is that the title of this article should remain the same as it is right now. Whatever you decide to do regarding other possible uses of the word is your decision and I do not really have much of an opinion on the matter. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless you plan on writing an article about the general term, there is no reason to have a disambiguation page, since the purpose of such a page is to disambiguate bewtween multiple articles. Paul August &#9742; 01:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it will be the best procedure. I put it in my to do list.--Auró (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Section "Children of Zeus and his seven wives"
Could you please explain why in this edit, you broke up a perfectly good paragraph, into eight separate sentences? This makes no sense at all. Paul August &#9742; 02:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with ; the paragraph format was better, in my view. I too am puzzled why ICE77 has broken it up. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

One-sentence paragraphs are generally discouraged, see for example Manual of Style/Layout which says: ”The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text”, and Writing better articles which says: ”One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly.” Since Katolophyromai concurs, and ICE77 has yet to respond (besides the "ping" above, I've also left a note at User talk:ICE77, which I assume they've seen since they've edited since), I've decided to restore the original paragraph structure. Paul August &#9742; 11:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent "Bibliography edits"
I've just undone this edit so that we can discuss these proposed edits here. I have some initial questions, and concerns. I don't understand why Gant'z Early Greek myth 1993 edition was was added&mdash;to the already present 1996 edition&mdash;to the "References section", and why the citations to Gantz were (for the most part, although one was left simply as "Gantz") were changed to "Gantz, (1993)", when in fact it is the 1996 edition that is being cited (at least by me, and I think that I'm the one who entered all these). I'm also not sure why a separate "Explanatory notes" section is needed, and why such notes needed to be separated from the "Citations", since the two often refer to and compliment each other. And it is not clear to me what the proposed criteria is for what "notes" go where? For example, other material, which I would also consider "explanatory", currently in the "Notes" section, was moved to the "Citations" section. These are just some initial thoughts. I haven't had time to examine all the proposed changes in detail. But I thought the best thing to do would be to undo the changes, until we had a chance to discuss them here first. Thanks. Paul August &#9742; 12:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been working through the proposed changes in more detail (restoring any that I don't have issues with), and I've discovered another set of changes I don't understand, the addition of the "plain link" template for external-links (the template is intended to be used only for local or interwiki links not for external links) e.g. changing: Hard, p. 67, to Hard,, seems incorrect to me. Paul August &#9742; 13:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If you want to go through the cleanup it's fine with me.


 * The reason I replaced using Gantz's 1993 were that 1) it was available in snippet view, so the page numbers could be confirmed straightaway by me or other editors (and I did check), 2) you listed the 1996 edition as "Two Volumes" so your citations were deficient when it failed to say "Gantz, volume I, p. xx".


 * "Explanatory notes" is obviously extra "explanatory" content you didn't contain in the main body but tucked it into footnote. "Citation" is just citation. Anyone can tell the difference, as I am sure you can.
 * Yes, there is probably some gray zone. And yes, I probably did leave a few which I did not shift over, because this turned out to be more laborious than I imagined.


 * This labor was that when I moved these footnotes to explanatory notes by containing it inside efn, it issued error messages, and I had to convert to Plain link to make the messages go away.


 * However you are right, the Plain link suppresses displaying the external link icon (Insertlink.gif), and the correct template I should been using was URL.--Kiyoweap (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these comments. The reason I didn't specify the volume number for the Gantz, cites is because the two volumes are continuously paged, i.e. pp. 1–466 are in vol. 1, while pp. 467–873 are in vol. 2. But if you think it's necessary I can add the vol. number?


 * The current system of a "Notes" section, containing notes with a mix of citations and explanatory material, is common (in this field at least), and seems pefectly adequate to me. It's not clear to me that trying to segregate the citations from the explanatory text, is good idea. As I said above the two seem inextricably intertwined. And yes, of course, I can tell the difference between notes which contain only citations and those that contain only explanatory text, but it's precisely the "gray zone" that bothers me, notes that contain both citations and explanatory text, which can't be separtated since they, for example, mix citations with explanations of those citations, or explanations that use citations as part of the explanation, etc. Where would these go? Having them be either in a section called "Explanatory notes", or a section called "Citations" would seem incorrect to me.


 * Paul August &#9742; 16:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The succession myth needs no introduction?
The article simply states that a succession myth exists, and gives what story is called the succession myth. It doesn't describe why it's called that or what special importance it has compared to the rest of the Theogony. That section's only source is Theogony itself. The section seems very off to me, and I can't find anything online that explains it. I imagine it's called the succession myth because its a succession within what early English writers called Greek myth, but the article doesn't give any clues on the matter. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Succession Myth, is one of the most important parts of the Theogony, arguably the main point of the poem. It is called the "Succession Myth" because it is the story of the succession of the rulership of the cosmos. How Uranus, the first ruler of the cosmos, was overthrown by his son Cronus, (i.e. succeeding his father as ruler), and how Cronus was overthrown by his son Zeus, (again succeeding his father). This is covered by that section's introduction, its first paragraph:
 * One of the principal components of the Theogony is the presentation of the "Succession Myth". It tells how Cronus overthrew Uranus, and how in turn Zeus overthrew Cronus and his fellow Titans, and how Zeus was eventually established as the final and permanent ruler of the cosmos.


 * And, contrary to the statement that that "section's only source is Theogony itself", that introductory paragraph provides secondary sources (one of which can be found online, follow the given links). And further secondary sources are given throughout that section: West 1988, p. 7; West 1966, pp. 206, 213, 214, 297–298, 303–305, 338; Gantz, pp. 10, 45; Caldwell, pp. 37, 65; Hard, pp. 74–75.
 * You say further that that section seems "very off". Could you say what it is you mean by that? Off in what way exactly?
 * Paul August &#9742; 10:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the sources besides the first one by Hard and the storm of different sources listed under (10) in that section are the text of Theogony. The latter are just commenting on different interpretations of the Succession Myth. The section doesn't explain the relevancy of the Succession Myth beyond its internal contents, although it briefly says that the Myth is in Theogony; its said to be only 'one' of the principal components of Theogony so why not list them all? Why devote a section to this one in particular? That's what's very off about it. If I created a section that called "Casablanca" in the page on Humphrey Bogart, and only said "Casablanca was a very important part of Humphrey Bogart's career" and then recounted without context that story's plot and different interpretations of it, you'd still have no idea what Casablanca is or why there's a section devoted to it in Bogart's article. A section needs to be introduced and explained for its external value, not its internal value, and simply saying "it is important" isn't enough identification or justification. Any arguments over different interpretations should be explained in the article text if they're important, not as a dialogue inside a citation.
 * The section should read in the vein of "The Succession Myth is a narrative in ancient Greek mythology central to some Greek creation myths of [eras]. [Relate the Myth]. Theogony's take on it [differs in this way]. [Describe the Myth's relation to early Mythography, if applicable; which seems to be the case since there's a special name for it in English which is not given in the primary text]. Some modern scholars on the subject [think this] while others [think that]." I recommend something like this because articles should be presented with structure and context, not as narrative stories. This section doesn't tell you anything useful about the Succession Myth beyond how it is told as a story.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hesiod's account of the Sucession Myth is obviously relevant to the Theogony. As it forms a significant fraction of the whole poem, and is in fact, as the article states, one of the " principal components" of the poem, how could it not be relevant? As for other principal compoments, two others are the genealogies, and the Prometheus story, which are described in the two sections that immediately follow: "The genealogies" and "Prometheus". As for the Succession Myth not deserving it's own section why would it not? Paul August &#9742; 14:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. The article needs to say what the Succession Myth is, and not indirectly imply what it is. I found this paper by a social anthropologist which states that "the story of the three gods is called the succession myth" and gives the West 1966 translation as a source. Do you have a copy of the West book? Is there a footnote or anything in there about what, in direct terms, the Succession Myth is, or what the impetus is for calling it that? I even looked in other language wikis, and only the Spanish one mentions it; but I looked up the term they used on Google Scholar and the term seems to only apply in Spanish literature to something that happened in the 1600s. So, it looks like the term is only used by English-speaking mythologists. However, I don't see any credence for the way this passage of myth is presented in the article from the sources given. What the current version of the article does is give interpretation and uses the primary source material as source of that interpretation. I would change it myself, but there isn't enough context for me to work with. I can't just say what I think the Succession Myth is and why it's called that, because that would be original research. But, again, it's a name not found in the primary source used as a way of identifying part of that source, for which we have no known citation. In example, we might as well call the story of Moses parting the Red Sea "The Walking on the Sea Floor Myth" simply because one scholar called it that. But why would we not clarify who calls it that and why? A tertiary source scholar doesn't necessarily inform what parts of a text are called. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So, I looked it up, and you created that section in 2019. The original source was West, and you later changed the same sentence to be sourced to Hard, whose source, if you click the Hard link, is West. I just don't understand what happened there. Could we perhaps just call that section something else? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried to implement these changes. One remaining problem is that the synopsis below the section I edited is essentially interpretation of a primary source from original research. I don't want to create a massive workload for one or two people, but it would be better if there were secondary sources. If this were a book of modern religious significance, this section style would be considered unacceptable. Very problematic, too, are the footnotes that, without any source, explain and analyze the tertiary sources (Hard, West, and the 1914 translation) in an authoritative style. This might be different if Theogony were being used as a secondary source, but describing what it intends to tell the reader from within itself seems to violate standards on sourcing. Look at the article Book of Jeremiah for a good example. When that article gives an interpretation or even general descriptions, it cites a secondary or tertiary source, not the book itself. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You say: The article needs to say what the Succession Myth is. But it seems to me that it does say what it is. It says that the "Succession Myth" is the story of "how Cronus overthrew Uranus, and how in turn Zeus overthrew Cronus and his fellow Titans, and how Zeus was eventually established as the final and permanent ruler of the cosmos." You ask why it's called the Succession Myth? It is called that because it is the myth about the succession of the first three rulers of the gods, hence "Succession Myth". Why shouldn't it be called that?

Here are some additional sources that might help:
 * Hansen, pp. 293–294
 * Sowa, pp. 145 ff.
 * Frazer, pp. 8–9
 * Graf, pp. 88–89
 * Edmunds, p. 176
 * Stamatopoulou, p. 7
 * For others see Google Books search

You also say above that the synopsis given in this section is essentially interpretation of a primary source from original research. But the summary is based on the secondary sources cited in the first sentence, Hard and West, and for specific sentences to the secondary sources Gantz, Caldwell, as well as to the linked translation of the Theogony, the translation being a secondary source as to what the Theogony says (as opposed to say what it means). Can you give, as an example for discussion, a specific sentence, which you think constitutes original research?

I've also created a new section (see below) where we can discuss the newly added "Story" template.

Paul August &#9742; 12:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The name of something can't tell you what it means. That's a self-reference. You could interpret what a word means from its constituent parts, but that's inference. Wikipedia should not rely on common sense alone to communicate ideas. And the words "succession myth" don't concretely tell you what the term means; there's nothing in the word itself that tells you "Cronus overthrew Uranus, and how in turn Zeus overthrew Cronus and his fellow Titans, and how Zeus was eventually established as the final and permanent ruler of the cosmos." You even put it in quotation marks; why? I think it's because it's a term which isn't mentioned in the actual story, especially not to describe the story. It's a succession within a myth, but only western classical scholars and mythologists, mostly working off the work of one person, call it that. As such, I think its a sort of ethnographic term passed around by western scholars. I think using terms simply because a scholar did so violates the concepts Wikipedia has been moving towards, of looking at culture from an inclusive (local and external) perspective rather than one of imperialism. Considering a Western term to describe a concept which is not from within that culture "obvious, and why wouldn't we use it?" seems, to me, to be support of the primacy of that external and examining culture. Why does Mr. West's commentary have more weight than the original text, which gives no name for the story? Or, at least, describe where the term comes from instead of assuming that it's very obvious we should use it.


 * A translation is only interpretation (and thus a secondary source) by implicit fact, so you're partially right. But a translation isn't direct commentary, and it's the only way people who don't speak the primary source's language can consider it. A translation is subject to further interpretation, so its Use the footnotes in a translation or sources like the ones you presented to give ideas which aren't in the text.


 * All that said, I've looked it over again and I was too hasty in judging the tone of some of the citations. I think a bias I have against a tone where Wikipedia articles write myths as if they happened, rather than from a intellectual point of view, tainted how I was reading your notes, and my inability to access some of the sources compounded that thinking. I now think I was wrong in thinking there was something wrong with the way the article was sourced, and I'll remove the "reads like a story" tag. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm still having some problems thinking of how to describe the Succession Myth. It seems to be the ideas behind the succession of gods to Zeus, and not exactly a specific section of Theogony. Is that right? That Theogony talks about the Succession Myth, which is an idea presented in other works besides Theogony. So when we say "it tells", what really are we describing as "it"? Theogony? The Succession Myth? Maybe I'm just overthinking things. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Story template?
recently placed the following template in the section on the "Succession Myth":

Could you please give examples?

Paul August &#9742; 12:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag, per above discussion. But I think there are still a few problems, like dropping (Sky) behind Uranus and expecting layman readers to know that doing so indicates that Uranos literally means "sky", but in a personified way. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Pseudologoi vs pseudea and logoi
Almost every page on Wikipedia shows 2 opposing ideas towards the children of Eris. Even in this page, the text states Pseudologoi while the diagram states Pseudea and Logoi. Eris's page also has this problem. One translation should be chosen. Preferably the correct one. 2A02:A210:A401:4B80:8C47:E772:37F7:C3E1 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The relevant line from the Theogony is line 229:
 * Νείκεά τε Ψεύδεά τε Λόγους τ’ Ἀμφιλλογίας τε (Most 2018, p. 20; West (1966), p. 120.)


 * Here are four modern translations of line 229:
 * and Strifes and Lies and Tales and Disputes (Most 2018, p. 21)
 * Quarrels, Lies, Pretenses, and Arguments (West 1988, p. 10)
 * Neikea, Pseudea, Logoi, and Amphillogiai (Caldwell 1987, p. 42, which on p. 6 table 5 translates the names as "Neikea [Quarrels]", "Pseudea [Lies]", "Logoi [Stories]", and "Amphillogiai [Disputes]"),
 * Quarrels and Lies and Stories and Disputes (Wender 1973, p. 30)


 * Evelyn-White's 1914 Greek text:
 * Νείκεά τε ψευδέας τε Λόγους Ἀμφιλλογίας τε
 * and corresponding translation is simply out of date.


 * Works cited above:
 * Caldwell, Richard, Hesiod's Theogony, Focus Publishing/R. Pullins Company (June 1, 1987). ISBN 978-0-941051-00-2.
 * Most, G.W., Hesiod, Theogony, Works and Days, Testimonia, Edited and translated by Glenn W. Most, Loeb Classical Library No. 57, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 2018. ISBN 978-0-674-99720-2. Online version at Harvard University Press.
 * Wender, Dorthea, Hesiod: Theogony, Works and Days; Theogonis: Elegies, Penguin Books, 1987 (first published 1973).
 * West, M. L. (1966), Hesiod: Theogony, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-814169-6.
 * West, M. L. (1988), Hesiod: Theogony and Works and Days, Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-953831-7.


 * Paul August &#9742; 12:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Recently, user, in the list of offspring of Eris, has replaced the long-standing "Pseudea" and "Logoi" with "Pseudologoi". I reverted but Horkosianist reverted me. I'm hoping that we can come to a consensus on this talk page as what should be done here. Horkosianist's last edit summary says: Just because the translation is old does not mean the new translations. The Pseudologoi is mentioned in multiple greek texts as mentioned on theoi.com. Pseudea and Logoi are mistranslations. But the issue is not necessarily with Evelyn-White's translation but with the underlying Greek text being used (see above). Also, Theoi.com's entry on "Psedologoi", only mentions two texts other than the Theogony both of which are in Latin, so neither use the Greek "Psedologoi". In my view, unless we come up with a modern reliable source (per WP:RS) which supports Evelyn-White's Pseudologoi, we need to restore the prevoius version of the article. Paul August &#9742; 11:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * PS. As for the Greek text being used, West 1966, p. 231, in the commentary on Ψεύδεά in line 229, writes: "Some MSS. have ψευδέας τε λόγους, an expression common later, especially in philosophical writing (Pl. Crat. 385B, Soph. 240E, Arist. Top. 162b3, ... etc.) but unknown to early poetry: the adjective ψευδέής is itself not certainly attested before the fifth century (IG I2, 700; ...) Λόγους can stand alone, for the context shows that it is to be understood in a bad sense." Paul August &#9742; 12:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This line you quoted is most interesting:
 * Νείκεά τε Ψεύδεά τε Λόγους τ’ Ἀμφιλλογίας τε
 * I do not have access to the wikipedia library as my account does not meet the requirements. However, as your quoted line includes a " τ’ " that is not included in the text Evelyn-White translated it piques my interest. If it is verifiable that this " τ’ " is in the original text then we can come to a conclusion, because it is the straw that breaks the camel's back.
 * Νείκεά τε ψευδέας τε Λόγους Ἀμφιλλογίας τε
 * These two lines are fundamentally different just because of that. Horkosianist (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, as I indicated above, that line is in both:
 * West, M. L. (1966), Hesiod: Theogony, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-814169-6
 * Most, G.W., Hesiod, Theogony, Works and Days, Testimonia, Edited and translated by Glenn W. Most, Loeb Classical Library No. 57, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 2018. ISBN 978-0-674-99720-2. Online version at Harvard University Press.
 * Both readily available works. Paul August &#9742; 16:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * So far I've gone through three manuscripts. Bodleian Library MS. Barocci 60, page f129v, from the 15th century, Bodleian Library MS. Barocci 109, page f95v, from the 15th century and Arundel MS 522, page f40r, from 1489. The former two mention pseudea and logoi. The latter only mentions "psadea". It occurs to me that these manuscripts are not perfect either, but so far the evidence leans in your direction. It makes me wonder why the term pseudologoi is so much better known on the internet than pseudea or logoi. I'll refrain from changing it for now. Horkosianist (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless there's a respectable modern edition which follows Evelyn-White's text, I see no reason why we shouldn't accept the apparent consensus of modern scholarship – both Glenn Most and (especially) Martin West are highly respected scholars of Greek literature, and the field has made significant advances in the nearly 100 years since Evelyn-White died. Wikipedia follows the scholarly consensus of today; not the scholarly consensus of the 1910s. (As for Horkosianist's question as to why "pseudologoi" is so much more common on the internet - dated texts are often more available for free online thanks to being out-of-copyright; you can find some incredibly questionable translations uncritically repeated!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the main reason for the ubiquity of "pseudologoi" on the web is Theoi.com (a heavily used and useful, but unreliable source). Paul August &#9742; 20:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's my instinctual criticism of new scholars that has come back to haunt me. I too did fall for those dated texts, as the most common unicode greek version of the theogony online forgoes that "τ’". It also makes me wonder which manuscript Evelyn-White translated from. At least the original texts can now be referred to as a source in this dispute. Pseudea and Logoi are the correct translation after all. Horkosianist (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As there seems to be consensus for the previous version I will restore it here (and elsewhere). Paul August &#9742; 20:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC) P.S. thanks for your gracious discussion here.

mutulation of uranus by chronos or by saturn?
see relatedcpicture and corresponding title. saturn = chronos? 94.208.121.220 (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In Greek mythology the sky-god Uranus was castrated by his Titan son Cronus (not Chronus, the Greek god of time!). The equivalent god to Cronus, in Roman mythology is Saturn. However, for some reason, the painting was titled The Mutilation of Uranus by Saturn, confusingly using the Greek name for father sky-god ("Uranus") and the Roman name for his son ("Saturn"). Paul August &#9742; 13:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Keres
This article lists both Ker (Destiny) and Keres (Destinies) among the Descendants of Nyx. They both link to this article which says there were multiple Keres, and Ker is the singular form of the word. If Ker is different than Keres, then they shouldn't both link to the same thing. And if they're the same, then either the article shouldn't list both of them, or it should explain why it lists both of them. - Burner89751654 (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The article lists "Ker" (which means death, doom, destiny, fate, etc.) and the "Keres" (the plural form of Ker) as both being offspring of Nyx, because that's what Hesiod's Theogony says. Hesiod is treating these as distinct personifications. Just like he lists both Moros (another Greek word which also means death, doom, destiny, fate, etc.) and the Moirai (the plural form of Moros) as separate offspring of Nyx. The reason that both Ker and Keres (unlike Moros and Moirai) link to the same article is because we currently only have one article which covers both topics. Paul August &#9742;

Common noun, not just 1 specific poem
Therefore, "theogony" linking here is wrong. Arminden (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well yes provided there were somewhere else to link to, but at present there isn't (yet?). Paul August &#9742; 18:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It might make sense to have a separate page for the theogonic form more broadly, though I think Hesiod's Theogony would still be the primary topic, and since we can't have "theogony" and "Theogony" going to different locations, "theogony" would still redirect here. Though maybe you're suggesting that the work by Hesiod shouldn't be the primary topic? – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)