User talk:Michael Aurel/Archive 2

... excellent contributions over the last two months (or so), including substantial rewrites of Orphic Hymns, and Amalthea (mythology), as well as your industrious gnomic work correcting page names and Apollodorus links, and Infobox cleanup—although unacknowledged—has not gone unnoticed by me. I've been continually impressed by your work, and particularly so lately. So thank you and well done! Paul August ☎ 15:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, and here, a barnstar ...

Thankyou Paul! That certainly means a lot, coming from you. Orphic Hymns really was an odd lapse in our coverage, and it's a truly fascinating topic (a fun fact: they make Heracles a Titan and a solar deity!). (Another fun fact, because I can't help myself – one Daniel Heinsius, in the 17th century, put forward one rather interesting "theory" as to their authorship: Est autem totus ille liber vera Satanae ipsius liturgia.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Michael Aurel: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, P Aculeius (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

P Aculeius (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, P Aculeius – happy holidays to you too! – Michael Aurel (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The article Orphic Hymns you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Orphic Hymns for comments about the article, and Talk:Orphic Hymns/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Category now up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 28. I think we have a competence problem with this editor. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Indeed – not sure when, for instance, the continent of Africa is supposed to have "returned from Troy". Thanks for letting me know of the CfD, I'll comment there now. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orphic Hymns, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dike and Hora.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Michael Aurel,

Thank you for creating Prothyraia.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

A key concern here is whether Prothyraia is independently notable of the second of the Orphin Hymns. I suggest not, given that none of the references focus on Prothyraia as the primary topic.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Klbrain (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Michael Aurel. I see that you've nominated Amalthea (mythology) for GA status. I haven't had time to read the article carefully, but I think I can help you out with one of the illustrations. The relief in the Capitoline Museum that depicts the Kouretes and Amaltheia nursing Zeus is currently represented only by a rather mediocre line drawing. In the footnote you link to a photo of the relief in the Digital LIMC, but for copyright reasons you can't use that in the article. Happily, I have some photos of the base that I took 15 years ago, and I've just uploaded them to the Commons. While they're not great as photographs go, they're better than LIMC photo and -- at least in my opinion -- much better than the drawing. You can find them at c:Category:Base with reliefs of the birth of Zeus (MC 1944). There are two versions of the panel with Amaltheia and the Kouretes, one that shows that entire side of the base, and the other cropped more tightly. I'll let you decide which one, if either, you prefer to use in the article. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Choliamb! That's excellent – I remember looking for a photo of the original relief with the appropriate copyright and coming up empty-handed. Your photos are great, and are much better than the 19th-century illustration of the relief, which is somewhat crude and fails to properly capture the original; now added to the article. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

		Scholarly Barnstar
		For your admirable contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of classical mythology. Thank you, Tenpop421 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou, Tenpop421! Very kind of you. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

On 16 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Orphic Hymns, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the Orphic Hymns the mythical Greek hero Heracles is a sun god? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Orphic Hymns. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Orphic Hymns), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This discussion was moved to Talk:Gaius Julius Hyginus#Hyginus, and continued there

Please can you do the Hyginus split which I attempted to do, I don't know how to do it without being reverted by bots or admins. The consensus of most scholars is that these are two different people. One is Julius Hyginus and another is just Hyginus (also called Hyginus the Astronomer or Hyginus the Mythographer, author of the Fabulae). If you look at the encyclopedia Britannica, Loeb classics or the Italian encyclopedia Treccani (or the Italian wikipedia that is better on this issue) they clarify that it's a common mistake to confuse these two people. It's a minority and old view that they are the same. 2A01:E11:17:40B0:6043:F799:2474:1D52 (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

My concern is that I don't really think there is much at all to say about that Hyginus. I do understand your general opposition to the current situation at Gaius Julius Hyginus – the discussion of each work probably shouldn't be quite so prominent there, and the Fabulae should undoubtedly have their own page. On the actual author himself, however, I'm not entirely sure what could be said. I would opt instead for a mention of the attributions at Gaius Julius Hyginus, and for De astronomia and Fabulae to have "Authorship" or "Attribution" sections (or something of the sort), which could discuss the matter within the context of each work. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Gaius Julius Hyginus, definitely needs a rewrite along the lines you suggest. No one is sure (or apparently can be sure) who wrote either the Fabulae or the Astronomy. Our only ancient source for the authorship of the Fabulae simply names "Hyginus". There were many works by men named Hyginus, and there appears to be no way to determine which Hyginus the author of the Fabulae might be (nonwithstanding the title of Jacob Micyllus's 1535 edition: The Book of Fabulae by Gais Julius Hyginus, the freedman of Augustus). When referring to the author of the Fabulae, it is certainly misleading to have "Hyginus" be a redirect to Gaius Julius Hyginus. "Hyginus" needs to be a disambiguation page! As for what can be said about Gaius Julius Hyginus, Suetonius includes him as one of the 20 grammarians he writes about in De Illustribus Grammaticis (via Google translate):

Gaius Julius Hyginus, a freedman of Augustus, a Spaniard by birth (some think he was an Alexandrian and was brought to Rome as a boy by Caesar after Alexandria was captured), listened to and imitated with great interest Cornelius Alexander, the Greek grammarian, whom many called Polyhistor, some Historia, because of his knowledge of antiquity. He was in charge of the Palatine library, and taught many others; and he was very familiar with the poet Ovid and the consular Clodius Licinius, the historian, who relates that he died very poor and was supported by his generosity as long as he lived. His freedman was Julius Modestus, who followed in the footsteps of his patron in his studies and learning.

Paul August ☎ 17:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

"Hyginus" needs to be a disambiguation page – I agree. We do currently have Hyginus (disambiguation), but it should be located at Hyginus (I don't think that Gaius Julius Hyginus can be considered the primary topic here). If you wanted, you could use your admin abilities to move the page (it requires moving over an existing redirect), or we could start an WP:RM, though I don't think anyone would disagree with the change. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Have done so. I hesitate to think about all the inappropriate links to Gaius Julius Hyginus there are, many of them mine. %&&@#%! Paul August ☎ 14:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

%&&@#% indeed! – Michael Aurel (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I now think those links are not so bad after all. I had thought that when referring to the author of Fabulae, we should link to Fabulae (A link you've now turned blue!): "[[Fabulae|Hyginus]]" and likewise for the author of the Astronomy, but now I think this is probably for the best. Paul August ☎ 17:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I agree (in citations) – I would probaby opt for [[Gaius Julius Hyginus|Hyginus]], ''[[Fabulae]]'' 50, as we link Hesiod for the Catalogue of Women, Homer for the Iliad, and so on. In prose, I suspect there are probably a few places where links/phrasing might need changing (eg. ). – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎ 14:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

By the way, regarding which Hyginus wrote what, we are standing apparently on a shifting landscape. Hard, in his 2015 Eratosthenes and Hyginus: Constellation Myths, p. xxvi, writes:

It has been disputed whether [the Astronomy and the Fabulae] were really written by Gaius Julius Hyginus ... In recent times the consensus has shifted, with fewer scholars taking a resolutely negative line, and more admitting the possibility that [Gaius Julius Hyginus] ... may have been the true author.

Paul August ☎ 17:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I'd remembered reading that (and it being part of my reason for reverting the IP), but I couldn't recall where! Sources seem to differ here somewhat. Smith and Trzaskoma, p. xliii, state: although a few scholars have continued to try to identify the Palatine librarian as our Hyginus, the vast majority now reject the identification. Smith, p. 101, suggests a date c. 150–200 AD for our Hyginus, though he does also note: a few scholars maintain that our Hyginus can be identifed with the Palatine librarian of Augustus (La Boeufe 2002: xxxi–xxxvi; Expósito 2003). Interestingly, Hard (p. 11) himself says (in the 2020 edition of his 2004 book, published after his 2015 book): it is generally agreed that these cannot be genuine works of Hyginus, and they were probably written after his time in the second century AD. (This doesn't necessarily contradict what he wrote in 2015, though.) Also interestingly, Fletcher, p. 201, seems at least open to the idea that Gaius Julius Hyginus may have been the author:

Ancient authors attribute a variety of historical, didactic/agricultural, religious, and biographical works to this Hyginus, so the subject matter of the Fabulae fits his interests (Del Hoyo and García Ruiz 2009: 10–12), and there is nothing in the text that necessarily postdates his lifetime (save chapters 258–261, taken from Servius’s commentary on Vergil’s Aeneid), and it has even been argued that a possible allusion to Genesis in chapter 143 suggests an author with the librarian’s background and access to the Palatine library (Inowlocki 2007). The form of the text as we have it, however, means that if Gaius Julius Hyginus was the author, the text has suffered so greatly over time that one of its most famous editors could call its author “unskilled,” “semi-educated,” and “foolish” (Rose 1967: xii).

– Michael Aurel (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

As for Hard, his 2020 Hyginus blurb, is identical to his 2004 one, so ... ? Another point to keep in mind is that, according to Smith & Trzaskoma 2007 (p. xlii), since the Fabulae:

as we have it is the result of many modifications, we are better off speaking about authors rather than a single author, and dates instead of a single date. Simply put, the collection of myths we possess under the name Fabulae is likely so far removed from the author's original that, we suspect, he would have scarcely recognized it as his own.

Paul August ☎ 16:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

We should really be having this discussion on Talk:Gaius Julius Hyginus. If you don't mind, we could copy this discussion over and continue it there? (The same consideration applies to the discussion we are currently having on my talk page). Paul August ☎ 17:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Certainly, that's a good idea. I'll move both of them now. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Amalthea (mythology) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of XabqEfdg -- XabqEfdg (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The article Amalthea (mythology) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Amalthea (mythology) for comments about the article, and Talk:Amalthea (mythology)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of XabqEfdg -- XabqEfdg (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thanks for the help cleaning up the Harv target errors on WT:CGR! I think it's collaborative editing – with all parts of technical work (the scripts needed to identify the errors as well as creating the citations templates themselves), judgement (fixing them properly and using the templates so that the errors could be found), and perseverance – at its finest. Ifly6 (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Ifly6! Certainly a pleasure chipping in – and thanks for all the effort you've put in here as well! – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I discovered your work yesterday via your accidental edit. Your user page was very interesting to me – chiefly, on the unreliability of Theoi, a resource I've been using for a long time.

What I wanted to raise with you is something quite different. It is about the Odyssey's navbox in relation to the pop culture policy. Do you think this sprawl is appropriate for the topic? It sits poorly with me but I don't understand the surrounding policies in any real detail. Do you have any thoughts on this? Please ping me if you respond. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 17:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: Hi! I'd agree that the listing of those cultural references there is inappropriate. I'm not sure whether anything at MOS:POPCULT necessarily explicitly applies to templates, though it does ask us to [a]void collections of miscellaneous facts or examples, and the listing at that template seems fairly indiscriminate to me. WP:NAVBOX also emphasises that it's best for navboxes to be confined to a small, well-defined group of articles, and says we should favour having a smaller number of links. My instinct would be that such a template, at a minimum, shouldn't include cultural references which aren't mentioned at the relevant article (and sourced there in line with MOS:POPCULT). Such a list of cultural depictions is also arguably better covered by a category (in this case, Category:Works based on the Odyssey) than a template, especially when that template is primarily about the work itself, and its characters, scholarship, etc.; feel free to cut down (or perhaps remove?) the list of cultural references there if you want, or you could leave a message at Template talk:Odyssey navbox (and perhaps Talk:Odyssey) if you think doing so might ruffle some feathers.

Regarding Theoi.com, I'm perhaps a little uncharitable towards the site. ;) I think it could potentially be useful for someone knowledgeable enough to be able to recognise and avoid its (pretty major) issues, though I think that a quality encyclopedia or handbook would almost always be more helpful (and it won't contain the mistakes!). – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I've made a post to start some discussion; it is a long-standing template so I want to see if anyone has some particularly strong views. I would welcome any thoughts you have; I will likely make some neutral posts on some WikiProjects to try and get more attention. Thank you for your thoughts!

I think of Theoi much like I think of LLMs – it's just a starting point, a little boost to send me onto better things! Always keen to be on the lookout for misinformation. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 10:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, do you know of Trappist the Monk? Thank you. Ratsmacher (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

orphic hymns

Thank you for quality articles about Greek mythology, such as Orphic Hymns and Amalthea (mythology), for thorough quality reviewing with patience and suggestions, for "I will get around (very slowly ;)", - Michael you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2963 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou Gerda! How lovely! – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

thank you ;) - spring flowers and a song bird (in places) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Greek deities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archaic period.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted multiple occurrences of centaurs in literature from the "centaur" article, giving lack of sourcing as the reason, but left a couple of well-known examples where they were, despite a similar lack of sourcing. Since works of literature are valid sources for their own contents, and broad descriptions of literary characters are difficult to pin down to one or two pages, the names of the works may be all that is necessary here—and those were already stated in each paragraph. It would have been easy to make a reference tag for each of them, giving the bibliographic information about the books: something easily found on the internet.

Is there a particular reason that only Harry Potter and Narnia were significant enough to leave in the section? Since there seems to be a stand-alone article about centaurs in popular culture, this section could probably be limited to a paragraph or two. But that doesn't mean it should consist of short paragraphs about centaurs in each of the two most significant modern works including centaurs. If their appearance is more widespread—and it appears to be—then it would make sense to mention multiple works, even if combined into one or two paragraphs. P Aculeius (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

It seemed to me – and my judgement on this point might have been wrong, of course – that the Narnia and Harry Potter references were the two cultural depictions for which there would most likely exist sourcing satisfying MOS:POPCULT. I generally try to trim these sections where I can (as they have a tendency to grow, and there are a limited number of editors who keep an eye on them), but I also try to retain depictions which look as though they might deserve a place in a more rigorously sourced section.

I think one issue here is that while references to the books themselves would be sufficient for verifying the information in the article (and adding them would certainly be an improvement over having no references), they wouldn't provide an idea of the significance or relevance of each depiction to the mythological figures (and MOS:POPCULT says that references "should be included only if they are supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth").

That said, looking at the entry for the Centaurs in a supplementary volume to Brill's New Pauly, I'm seeing discussion of Updike's book, so my deletion of that reference now seems inappropriate to me; I'll restore that one. As to the other works – Percy Jackson & the Olympians, Fablehaven, and World of Tiers – if there's sourcing which meets the requirements of MOS:POPCULT I'd certainly have no issue them being kept, though at the time it seemed unlikely to me that such sourcing existed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful explanation! My feeling is that the fact that they are significant characters (and I'm assuming they are, and not merely mentioned in passing, like minotaurs in Narnia; if they're not important to those works then your assessment was correct, at least in the Centaur article) is relevant, because it demonstrates the extent to which centaurs are represented in popular culture. I can't actually say how important Fablehaven or World of Tiers are, not having read them—but the fact that I'm well aware of Percy Jackson despite also not having read it or seen the film(s)—though I did skim the article here once or twice out of curiosity—suggests it's a fairly prominent work of literature. And obviously Updike is an important author.

So while less important literature or passing mentions might not be worth mentioning here—though perhaps they would in "Centaurs in popular culture"—I'm just wary of overtrimming when this type of thing comes up. I agree that we don't want to create "trivia" sections, as the MoS says, but I think some editors (and I don't mean to include you in this) automatically delete anything that's not "serious" literature, i.e. award-winning or preferably over a hundred years old, included in dusty tomes that most people only encounter in college English classes, etc. And that does a disservice to readers, since our symbolic or literary use of centaurs today isn't necessarily less worthy of discussion than that of fifteenth-century painters. Again, it's not my intention to suggest that's where you were going—it's just why I keep an eye on pop culture sections when I see editing going on. P Aculeius (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Your concerns here are all reasonable. I do think that a lot of our pages don't need popular culture sections – I can hardly claim to be much of a fan of them ;) – but centaurs are obviously among the handful of Greek mythological figures (alongside Medusa, Pegasus, sirens, etc.) who have had the greatest impact upon modern culture, and, in turn, for whom that cultural legacy is probably most important; given this, a popular culture section with at least some degree of depth seems warranted.

I would say my main contention (with this section, and also with other such sections in mythological articles) is sourcing, as I think that each representation should be of some significance to the mythological figures and their legacy (and that whether a representation is significant to them should be determined by sourcing). As to a source which we could use here, I notice the entry for "Centaur" in The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters (see p. 77) contains discussion of modern literary representations of centaurs; it discusses Narnia, Updike's book, Harry Potter, and Percy Jackson, so including those four cultural references in our article now seems appropriate to me (and it would seem you were on the money with your comment!). – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully now sorted. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

About the citation you asked for the picture. From the museum's description of the item:

Not included in the english text (for some reason), but you can see in the third line of the Greek text, around the middle, the word Προθυραίας in Italics. Regards, Deiadameian (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I've added the collection number as a source, and linked the Commons image, which should hopefully be sufficient in terms of sourcing. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey Michael, I see you at WP:RM/TR a lot – in fact, you've made 45 edits there! In my experience, you usually make sensible requests based on scholarly sources. If you like, you could try requesting the page mover permission over at WP:PERM#Page mover so you could swap pages yourself, instead of making a request for someone else to do it each time. Toadspike [Talk] 12:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Toadspike! I must admit I wasn't aware of that permission, so that's good to know. I've made a request there. – Michael Aurel (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Michael Aurel. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Elli (talk | contribs) 17:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey Michael. I just wanted to tell you that your work on articles like the one on Amaltheia and the Orphic Hymns is amazing. And I'm guessing you're a good person to ask questions regarding these topics. For now, I just have one question. When it comes to Amaltheia, is Eumolpia the first instance where we find written references to Amaltheia? If not, what was the first reference to Amaltheia in literature, and did any paintings of her predate the first recorded reference to her in literary works? PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@PanagiotisZois: Thanks! Very kind of you... Regarding Amalthea, the Eumolpia is the earliest work we know of which explicitly describes her as the nurse of Zeus, and includes her in the story of his upbringing; this tale is one of the oldest explicit references we have to Amalthea as a defined mythological figure, though whether it's the oldest is a little difficult to say, and might depend on how you date the work. M. L. West dates the Eumolpia to the 4th century BC, which would chronologically place it after 5th-century BC references to Amalthea in lost works from Pherecydes and Pindar; that said, Gabor Betegh disagrees with West's dating, and argues that the 4th century BC philosopher Eudemos of Rhodes knew of the work, though whether Betegh would agree with a date prior to the 4th century BC I'm unsure. As to artistic depictions, these are all quite late (and essentially all come from the first few centuries AD).

So, the earliest reference to Amalthea as a mythological figure comes either from the Eumolpia, or (perhaps more likely) from Pherecydes or Pindar, who mention her in relation to a magical horn. That said, there are references to the name "Amalthea" prior to the 5th century BC, in fragments from the 6th-century BC poets Anacreon and Phocylides which mention the "horn of Amalthea" (though these passages don't explicitly describe it as the magical horn which was described by Pherecydes). It's worth noting that Pherecydes likely didn't consider the Amalthea he knew (the one which owned a magical horn) to also be the nurse of Zeus; this is indicated by her being the daughter of a figure called Haemonius (whose name means "Thessalian").

Wandering into slightly more speculative territory, these explicit references to "Amalthea" may not be the earliest Amalthea is alluded to. Some scholars have argued that Hesiod's Theogony (the best known account of Zeus's rise to power) contains a phrase which might suggest Hesiod knew of Amalthea: he states that Zeus was raised in a cave on the "Aegean" (Αἰγαίῳ) mountain in Crete, which some have taken as referring to a kind of "Goat's Mountain", relating to the story of Amalthea (cf. αἴξ, the Greek word for 'goat'); that said, some scholars, most notably M. L. West, have dismissed this idea.

If Hesiod was indeed alluding to Amalthea here, this would mean Amalthea was a goat (rather than a nymph) much, much earlier than otherwise known; it might be worth noting here the view of Robert L. Fowler, who argues that around the time of Pherecydes a folk tale about a magical horn came into contact with a tradition in which Zeus was raised by a goat. The tempting idea here is of course that this goat was Amalthea, and (considering Hesiod places the cave in Crete) that there is some early association with Crete, but this is really without evidence, and is jumping off the speculative deep end. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much about this rundown. :D I really appreciate how you presented things in a primarily chronological order of the references. Given that Greek mythology had to fixed "canon" like, for example, the Bible, people often inserted their own ideas, and I do agree that many of the things we know of Amaltheia could have started as separate myths.

Personally, I find it quite likely that the idea of magical horn that produces endless food and drink, a horn of Amaltheia (whether a goat or the owner of one), a deity named Amaltheia, and a goat that nurses Zeus, could have all started as their own separate myths that gradually got merged with each other. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Greek deities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Perses.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

On 16 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Amalthea (mythology), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in one version of Zeus's childhood his enemies are terrified of the goat who raised him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amalthea (mythology). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Amalthea (mythology)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts

Close

Thank you for another interesting one! - My story today: Jörg Streli, an architect to whom you can listen (in German, though) and the Jahrhundertring, nominated for GA (both hidden on the main page), - you gave me good GA reviews ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

My story today is about Rachmaninoff, because of 1 April. I saw your name a lot in the history, and when I looked for the history of the infobox, that was also you ;) - many thanks! - I have a GAN running for Jahrhundertring, and the reviewer wants more lead. Could you perhaps help me with that? I'll give it a start. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, Gerda! I've added a bit, getting you up to about 200 words in the lead (which I think should be ok for an article with around 800 to 900 words in total), and I've done some basic copyediting. Some suggestions and queries do spring to mind, but I suppose I should refrain from barging into the GA review, lest I tread all over the reviewer's toes (perhaps I could give some basic suggestions on the talk). – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I was pleased with all changes! Yes, you could offer suggestions on the talk! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Tout est lumière. - Perhaps you have time to look at Easter Oratorio? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to have a look, Gerda. What would you like me to look over? – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Like in the last one, it's up for GA. It has a complex history, and I would like to know if that is clear enough. Improving my Germanic English is always welcome. I want it for Easter on it's 300th birthday, so should be "dressed up" ;) - The GA review hasn't begun in almost a week, so possibly you could even do that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give some comments on the talk page. As to the GA review, I wouldn't mind that, though I'd want to avoid commandeering it from the current reviewer if they're still planning on going ahead with it. ;) (Perhaps you should give them a ping.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I had given two, but the third now was answered ("soon"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see (I hadn't thought to look at their talk page). Well, I'm not necessarily opposed to taking it over if they would prefer (or don't have the time). – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I asked now what "soon" means. Let's wait for an answer, perhaps. You could look and put things on the talk, anyway. Each item solved makes it easier for the reviewer - whoever that may be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

My story is about the music that Bach and Picander gave the world 300 years (and 19 days) ago, - listen (on the conductor's birthday) - thank for your questions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I finally managed to upload the pics I meant for Easter, see places. - Also finally, I managed a FAC, Easter Oratorio - that music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations to your FA! - I'll get back to writing more background in the FAC and answering more questions, but can't tell when. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! As to your FAC, no problem at all; no rush. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there any specific date to be considered, or any time? I could help you with a nomination at WP:TFAR in the latter case. A date suggestion would go to WP:TFARP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou for the offer, certainly feel free to nominate the article if you'd like. There aren't any dates that stand out to me as particularly relevant (as dates are a little hard to come by with this sort of work). The 525th year since the publication of the editio princeps might work, though? (Two years ago we would've had the 600th year since the earliest known codex was brought to the West, a pity we missed that one.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

While I understand perfectly the disappointment about a chance missed (Christmas Oratorio on Easter Sunday on its 300th anniversary), I think the date connections are rather weak, and be would just go for asap. May flowers to come but I just do my morning round and then will be busy today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Found some minutes to nominate Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Orphic Hymns, - feel free to modify the blurb (which is too long) and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that! – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)