Talk:Triple goddess in Antiquity

introduction and purpose of article
I rewrote the introduction to make it clear that the verbal construct "triple goddess" is discussed as a term of scholarship, and not to prove or disprove the existence of any particular religious belief. If I can simplify or clarify the intro further, I'll do so, and hope to move some of the specific examples to subheads. I think the intro, particularly to this article with its vexed relationship to Triple Goddess (always uppercase), should be precise, clear, and uncluttered. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare material
The person who deleted the reference to Jeanne Addison Roberts on Shakespeare is way out of line. Looking just at the abstract on the article that was forerunner to the book, we see "pre-Christian Europe", Apuleius as the source of Midsummer Night's Dream, and Ovid. Ovid is a Latin author from the classical period of Latin literature; Apuleius comes from the period quaintly known as the Silver Age of Latin Literature; "pre-Christian" means that the concept pertains to the traditional religions of antiquity. It is precisely the point of this article to look at how the sources of antiquity are used in later literature. That Roberts is a feminist is beside the point; the point is that she refers directly to the source material of antiquity. Feminism is not antithetical to classical scholarship. This article was created so that the classical tradition could be discussed apart from Neopagan doctrine; the person who made this change has already indicated on Talk:Triple Goddess that (s)he doesn't know the difference between Latin and Ancient Greek, and thus is probably not qualified to edit an article on the classical tradition. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Further response to removal of Roberts material

 * Cynewolfs comment for clarity:

Hi, Davémon. I wanted to make sure you understood that I am trying to respect your position on keeping the Triple Goddess of Neopaganism separate from the triple goddess of antiquity and the influence of that concept on later literature and art. But I also wanted to make sure that you understood that Shakespeare lived several hundred years before Robert Graves; when Bottom in A Midsummer Night's Dream speaks of the triple goddess, or Prospero in The Tempest, it's because Shakespeare was familiar with the Latin texts from antiquity. I don't have time at the moment to work with restoring and amplifying the Shakespeare reference in the triple goddess (antiquity) article, but Roberts, for instance, specifically cites Ovid and Apuleius as sources for Shakespeare's use of the triple goddess concept. And that is the point of the new article (which, by the way, I didn't create): to deal with the classical and more broadly the Indo-European tradition. It will take a while for the article to evolve, but it can't develop properly if you're going to make it your mission to cut out information arbitrarily, without discussion with other contributors and without understanding the scholarly methodology. For instance, the Homeric Hymn to Demeter has in fact been discussed in light of the Maiden/Mother/Crone archetype; if I put that in, are you going to delete it, or move it to the Neopagan article? The poem is one of Graves's inspirations for his own formulation of the concept, but that approach in turn becomes part of the record of scholarship on the poem, whether or not one agrees that the mode of analysis is apt (I don't favor it as a way to read the poem, but it can be argued). You seem to care deeply about the Neopagan concept, but the new article isn't about that. It's about the literary tradition, and the history of scholarship. I'm hoping that you will respect what others have to say, and discuss before deleting. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC) The above comment prompted my response below--Davémon (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is in response to a remark voiced elsewhere, which I now reproduce here for clarity:


 * I have not deleted (nor will I delete) anything that was properly sourced, but the content may have been moved to another article. The removal of Roberts was due to her use of the MMC /TG as a feminist mythology, as pointed out by critics. While she may draw on ancient texts, the conclusions she reaches are seen through the filter of goddess-feminist doctrine. For example The Shakespearean Wild [p.175]: "As the aspects of the Triple Goddess shrank into commonplace cliches about women, patriarchal society easily assimilated the young virgin etc. etc." I would seek to avoid making the same error as Graves made in his "the Greek Myths" - by presenting Gravesian concepts as genuine scholarship of the antique and misleading readers. Graves influence goes far and wide, but it is not accepted as serious scholarship, and those that use his concepts (like Roberts) have their own agenda to push which has little to do with a scholarly understanding of the ancient world, and more an attempt legitimising a feminist mythology. In response to a situation where an antique work that inspired Graves was then interpreted using Graves models (apart from the circular reasoning this must involve) without seeing the source material I cannot make any reasonable statement about it, by all means add it. Further to this, we must be careful that the article does not end up suggesting the various different goddesses that have triplism belong to a single 'Triple Goddess' concept. We must be careful to deliniate exactly which concept is being discussed in the source rather than just saying "the triple goddess" or treating it like it is a single idea. For example, Hecate is mentioned in Midsummer Nights Dream, not the Gravesian/archetype 'triple goddess'. --Davémon (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My response now:

The character Bottom does in fact use the divine epithet "triple"; Prospero's speech does echo Medea's evocation of the triple goddess in Ovid. This documenting of sources is a separate question from Roberts' feminist interpretation — but Roberts has apparently published widely, in multiple sources, judging from what's available even online. If you say that the Neopagan divinity reverenced as the Triple Goddess has nothing to do with the goddesses of antiquity who are called diva triformis etc., and that therefore references to any triple goddess before the time of Robert Graves don't belong in that article, I'm fine with that. But obviously from a historical perspective Shakespeare's reference to a triple goddess doesn't belong in the article on the Neopagan Triple Goddess, if She was the invention of Robert Graves hundreds of years later. The goal of the new article is to explore the concept of triple goddess (lowercase) as it exists in ancient sources, in art and literary works that draw on the ancient sources, and in the history of scholarship on those works. Neopaganism is not mentioned except to redirect the user, and as far as I'm concerned it shouldn't be. Feminist criticism drawing on archetypes, even if I personally find it specious, is part of the history of scholarship. No less a scholar than the venerable Frank Kermode used the term "triple goddess" in reference to the concept in Shakespeare, as here. It isn't the job of an encyclopedia to deliver monolithic "truth"; one of its jobs, among many others, is to present the history of ideas. I've said elsewhere that distinguishing between the diva triformis and goddess triads requires care. The two concepts, however, are related and often confused in the history of mythography. And truthfully, the time I've spent on this is far disproportionate to my interest in the topic. All I need is to be able to link to a section on the triple goddess in Roman religion, art, and literature, based on scholarship rather than doctrine. I'm willing to provide such a section in the current article, but am reluctant to do so if it might be capriciously deleted without discussion before it's fully developed. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not believe Roberts is a reliable source on matters of antiquity and is not cited by antiquarians nor mythologers. She may be a fantastic literary critic, and an be excellent at deriving feminist mythologies from Shakespeare and classical sources but she is not an expert on antique religion. Far from using purely antique sources to develop a model, she adopts Graves MMC/TG and applies it to both the antique and Shakespearian in order to develop her critical argument. She also uses this model to make dubious historical claims. If I am in error on these points, then I will undo my edit. Meanwhile I see no reason this should stop anyone contributing whatever they will. --Davémon (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All I can do is to repeat that allusions in Shakespeare to Ovid and Apuleius concerning the triple goddess as the term was used in antiquity do not belong in the article on the Neopagan deity, by your own definition. And right, Roberts is not a source for antiquity; she falls in the category of "scholarship that addresses the theme of the triple goddess concept in its literary continuation." She is part of the history of scholarship on the subject. This article aims to record accurately what has been said on the subject. It does not aim to control and exclude what doesn't conform to Neopagan orthodoxy. The article is unlikely to succeed, however, because it appears to be very vulnerable to doctrinal interest. So I probably won't try to do any work on it. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. All I think needs to happen is the Shakespearian use of the Fates and Hecate be sourced to someone more reliable than Roberts. Roberts bases much of her arguments on the rejected scholarship of Graves, and this is an extreme minority view thus does not belong in a serious article about antiquity. If you wish to include Graves rejected theories and their adherents in this article, by all means go ahead, but the article will need to handle the introduction of rejected theories and their influence on scholars from outside the field of antiquity in a careful and unambiguous manner.  Personally I'd rather see the article focus on the subject of ancient triple goddesses in antiquity, such as the Roman religion, art, and literature, based on genuine scholarship rather than doctrine. --Davémon (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Cynwolfe- Just so that you are fully informed about Davemon, he has repeated exhibited a anti-feminist/misogynist POV regarding his edits on the (neo-Pagan) Triple Goddess article. For example, in response to a controversial statement by historian Ronald Hutton, I added this sourced statement (quoted from femininst writer Max Dashu):


 * "However, it should be noted that Hutton has been criticized by both feminists and neo-Pagans who have countered that Hutton's works are "intensely anti-feminist", contain major factual errors, and show a lack of skepticism toward the Eurocentric bias of Oxbridge orthodoxy."

Within milliseconds, this sentence was removed by Davemon, relocated to another section, and INCORRECTLY ALTERED to this biased statement:


 * "Goddess-feminists such as Max Dashu have attacked scholars who have rejected the idea of an ancient "Triple Goddess" as being intensely anti-feminist, entertaining factual errors, and showing a lack of skepticism toward the Eurocentric bias of Oxbridge orthodoxy."

Not only does this source not state she is "Goddess feminist" (wholly made-up information by Davemon), it now reads that Dashu "attacked scholars" and her quoted statment "major factual errors" was changed to "entertaining factual errors" in order to make the critique appear less damaging. (Ultimately, a revised and more accurate version of this sentence was removed since Dashu's critique was self-published.) Regardless, this incident is a clear example of Davemon's anti-feminist and male chauvinist bias towards this topic in general. Apparently, "Goddess-feminists" are a major source of personal frustration for him. (In addition, he certainly seems to have a personal vendetta against anything pro-Graves. Personally, I cannot think of too many things more unfortunate than someone not being able to appreciate the poetic genius of Graves, but that's just me.) tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.203.66 (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Calling people who make edits you disagree with "anti-feminist/misogynist" and "anti-feminist and male chauvinist" doesn't actually help convince people of the validity of your POV. Besides which, your comment has nothing to do with this article, or more specifically the appropriate framing and sourcing of Elisabethan use of the epithet 'triple' which I and Cynewolf were discussing. --Davémon (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

split
this article cannot stand on its own (what "Antiquity"?) The fact that the "Max Dashu dispute" has been spilling over to this page clearly establishes that this article is just an outgrowth of the Triple Goddess article. The material here inasmuch as it is presented to illuminate the background of the neopagan concept belongs merged back into Triple Goddess. Simple neutral coverage of triple goddesses in pre-Christian religions belong to Triple deity. --dab (𒁳) 09:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This article is pretty much an orphan Special:WhatLinksHere/Triple_goddess_in_Antiquity, and as a topic isn't very well defined. The material should be split into Triple Goddess and Triple deity, although I don't know what content should go where. --Davémon (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree also. It would avoid any suggestion that there was one 'Triple Goddess' in antiquity. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)