Talk:Polyphemus

Polyphemus (band)

Any Wikipedia info on California '90s neo-psychedelic band called Polyphemus? I know of two albums of theirs: "Stone House" and "Scrapbook of Madness," both excellent.

Polyphemus in Homer's Odyssey

I read Robert Fitzgeralds translation, and in it Odyessus and his crew definetly knew the Cyclopes ( called Kyklops in this version) lived in the cave. Odysseus and his men go in, and even though his men protest lingering, and suggest they grab and run Odysseus decides that they stay. There they eat Polyphemus' sheep, and steal his cheese.

The rest here is definetly just my speculation

When Odysseus and his crew came to the island, they had been plundering and pirating (their attack on Ismaros an example). Their coming to Kyklopes island was more of the same. They ate Polyphemus's sheep, which in this he calls his children, and cousins. Also when talking to the Kyklopes, Odysseus lies to him, saying they are shipwrecked and asks for his help. Polyphemus sees through the lie, and a few other lies, with the third eye he's the 'seer of the meaning of things'.

Anyway, the movies always depict the Cyclops as a monster, and I don't think I've ever seen him use language at all. I figure mentioning that Odysseus did know what he was getting in to, and definetly brought some of the trouble on himself.

But, how much of that was speculation, and what could I do to put it into the page?

Deletion of "Homer's Odyssey: Tale of the Cyclops" info

Why was information about the Radio Tales production of "Homer's Odyssey: Tale of the Cyclops" deleted from the "Other Information" section of this article? The "Homer's Odyssey: Tale of the Cyclops" program was a dramatic radio adaptation of the portion of the Homeric epic in which Polyphemus appears, so it certainly is relevant to the subject matter, and the "Other Information" section includes dramatic adaptations so it seems the right place for the inclusion of this info. Why was it deleted? Soundout (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Polyphemus: Homer's Odyssey

In Sameul Butler's translation of The Odyssey, King Alcinous is not seen until the island of the Phaeacians being that he is the king. This meeting happens many years after Odysseus' encounter with the cyclopes Polyphemus so the wine given to intoxicate the giant could not possibly have come from Alcinous. Butler's translation more correctly points to Maron son of Euthanes, a priest of Apollo who is the patron god of Ismarus, who was spared during the sacking of Ismarus after this tribute of wine was given. Ismarus is a neighbor of Troy and was sacked soon after the seige ended producing a more time relevant scenario. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.105.125 (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bucolic/pastoral styles

I changed "bucolic style" to "pastoral style." Pastoral and bucolic are generally juxtaposed in genres, with Theocritus being the poet par exemplar of pastoral tradition (he invented it). I also changed "farmers" to "shepherds." Not only is pastoral more concerned with idle shepherds than laboring farmers, but, more to the point, Polyphemus is figured as a shepherd in both of the Idylls he appears in. 97.91.191.87 (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)MOB

Why this image?

Apparently this is an amateur painting done by a Wikipedia user. The caption says it depicts Polyphemus, but the subject seems to not be a Cyclops, or even missing an eye. It's confusing to say the least.--67.54.192.53 (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Polyphemon

I've redirected Polyphemon here due to this. Hopefully I haven't misunderstood noun pl masc acc. Jack (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Improper use of references

The use of citations to Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Wikipaintings, YouTube, and many of the art gallery links (Web Gallery of Art, Academy Art History, Muian, French Government Culture Site, etc. etc.) are inadequate to support the claims that are being made in the article. References must embody claims made by someone who is not the author of the Wikipedia article. Making the claim that "the Mona Lisa bears a slight smile" requires as reference either a text or vocal assertion bolstering this claim. Simply linking to the painting as a reference requires that the Wikipedia article writer and the reader both have to make personal interpretations of the painting and that's considered original research at Wikipedia. After all, I could make the claim that "the Mona Lisa depicts a woman with a forced smile" or "the Mona Lisa depicts a woman with a confused smile" or any other interpretation and my citation to the image would be equally valid. Paintings and videos depicting characterizations don't make claims. Voice and text make claims. Claims in Wikipedia must be supported by reliable claims of third parties. I've restored the cleanup tags for now. If the above explanation isn't clear I can try to rephrase it. -Thibbs (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It has been reiterated several times in WP discussion of reference issues that if absolutely everything had to be attributed, there wouldn't be a Wikipedia. To take your example of Mona Lisa, the smile is obvious and a reference to the Wikimedia illustration should be enough to establish this. I'd agree, however, that qualifying it with an interpretive adjective would need a reference. My point is that common sense should apply and that where things are listed, rather than interpreted, then all that is needed is a pointer to where they can be found.

I would make a further analogy here with the bibliographies which frequently accompany articles on authors. Strictly speaking, these can be counted as OR unless they are copied from some other source - when they often then get a plagiarism notice! Such listing is tolerated in these cases, whereas bullet pointing (which might be an alternative approach in articles) is discouraged by guidelines. Extreme interpretation of guidelines as in the present case seems unhelpful and discouraging. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to discourage you, Mzilikazi1939. I can see that you've done a lot of work on this article and I applaud your efforts. I don't think my interpretation of the sourcing rules is extreme, however, and I am not calling for citations for everything. What I am saying is that several of the sources currently used for citation in this article are improper because they are links to images and videos that do not make claims. When a citation is used in the encyclopedic context, it must provide the reader with a reliable authority who is the source of the claim. A link to an image provides no such authority.

This is standard for all art-related articles. If you examine articles like Self-portraits by Vincent van Gogh and Dutch Golden Age painting where you might expect similar citations you'll notice that there are extensive galleries and numerous images within the article but that the end citations are restricted to books and scholarly papers. The reason for this is that books and scholarly papers make claims that can be cited as the authority behind Wikipedia's claims whereas images only bear mute witness and make no claims whatsoever. I think it might be a good idea to include several of the wikipedia and wikimedia images in a gallery in the article and then reference could be made to them with an inline "(see gallery below)" notice, but using them as citations is improper and you can see that no other high quality art-article on Wikipedia has adopted this practice. -Thibbs (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Y - I've just repaired the improper references. They have all been retained either as images posted to the new gallery or as external links. Some of the external links such as the YouTube links to the 1955 Ulysses film and the modern reenactments of Bononcini's Polifemo may violate copyright and will have to be removed. If anyone objects to the use of the gallery format or any other aspect of this edit, please make additional changes. Please do not simply revert the edit, however, as the previous referencing structure is inappropriate for an encyclopedia (as I indicated four months ago, above). -Thibbs (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• One final tweak: Some of the textual sources were also flawed. When the article makes a claim like "In Act 2 of XYZ's Opera of 1777, Polyphemus discovers Acis and Galatea and accidentally causes a landslide in his efforts to eavesdrop upon them" then it's fine to cite the opera itself as a source, but when the claim is "In 1777, XYZ wrote a politically allegorical opera depicting a clumsy and feminine Polyphemus who represented the Hapsburg Maria Theresa," or even simply "In 1777, XYZ wrote an opera," then the opera itself usually makes no such claim and thus cannot be used as a reference. The references that are not used to back up claims but rather provide navigational assistance to get further related information on the same topic (e.g. links to fulltext versions of operas not used for the claims they make) should be removed from the reference section and I think these are best converted into the new notes section I've set up. They aren't references, but they are potentially helpful to readers so they should be retained but treated separately. And some of the footnotes (e.g. those that simply say "text online", "translation available", "online archive," etc.) still need to be properly formatted according to WP:CITEHOW. These refs need to be made more specific as well, pointing to the exact part of the opera where Polyphemus causes the landslide (using my hypothetical example from above). So I've left that cleanup tag for now. -Thibbs (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Questions and comments

1. "Other sources credit them with three children, Celtus, Illyrius and Galas, from whom descend the Celts, the Illyrians and the Gauls respectively."

What are the sources? Please list.

2. "Galatea, who had fled into her native element, returns and changes her dead lover into the spirit of the Sicilian river Acis."

Does "native element" mean she ran back to the sea since she was a sea nymph?

3. The translation of "Fra l'ombre e gl'orrori" to "From horrid shades" is improper. A more accurate translation is "From shades and horrors". The translation of "i ciclopi amanti" as "the amorous cyclops" is awkward. A better translation is "the loving cyclops".

4. The section called "Painting and sculpture" is not in chronological order. I think it should be.

5. The gallery of images at the bottom of the article should also be reorganized in chronological order.

6. From what I read in the article, Polyphemus played the pipes, the flute, the cithara and the syrinx.

What kinds of pipes? Also, did he play anything else?

ICE77 (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

1. I do not know which sources are being referred to here either; the article never mentions them by name.

2. Yes. I think it is pretty obvious that "native element" is referring to the sea.

3. I have generally found the usage of the word "amorous" in articles to be misleading because the word holds certain risqué connotations that make it confusing when used in an encyclopedic context.

4. I agree. Chronological order would be the best arrangement for the section.

5. I agree once again.

6. The set of "pipes" mentioned in the article is probably referring to the Greek aulos. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Katolophyromai, thank you for the feedback. ICE77 (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Polyphemus. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121119114155/http://muian.com/muian03/03Moreau408.jpg to http://www.muian.com/muian03/03Moreau408.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202200306/http://tribes.tribe.net/b9b544af-89e5-4aa7-8dec-c917f83c3bd7/photos/ce5f648c-2c00-4f13-9147-55c24bbbbc1b to http://tribes.tribe.net/b9b544af-89e5-4aa7-8dec-c917f83c3bd7/photos/ce5f648c-2c00-4f13-9147-55c24bbbbc1b

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Meaning of 'Polyphemus'

Hi all, I asked a native Greek speaker what the name meant, she said it meant "famous", which does not match the article's etymology. I'm not disputing it, but any thoughts on whether 'famous' makes any sense? is it a possible alternative or was she just wrong? 85.211.202.149 (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Polyphemus basically means something like Muchspeaky (Poly-phem-us, Much-speak-y), covering both famous and the article's etymology. Untitled50reg (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

New content copied from Cyclopes

Recently a considerable amount of new content was added to our article Cyclopes, see sections: "Polyphemus and Galatea", and "Polyphemus' transformation from Homer to Ovid". In my opinion, this article, "Polyphemus", is a more appropriate place for this content. Consequently I've copied the content from those sections to this article. In some cases there was considerable overlap between the old content and the new. I've done my best to carefully integrate this new content.

This represents a considerable expansion to the section "Polyphemus and Galatea" and the addition of the new section "Polyphemus' transformation from Homer to Ovid". I've also completely reviewed the new content, and I believe it is well sourced, and accurately reflects what the cited sources say. I am happy to discuss any of this here, especially with Sweetpool50, who wrote most of the old content, and Bitwixen, who wrote most of the new content.

Paul August ☎ 12:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy enough to see the article remodelled and think you've done a good job of dove-tailing, Paul August. However, I found the repetitiousness of the transferred sections and their tendency to wander off-subject more than a little jarring. I've therefore tried to edit them down. Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: Yes I understand perfectly. While, as I said above, I think that this new content is more appropriate here than at Cyclopes, that doesn't mean that I think that all of it is necessarily appropriate for this article. I think your edits have been reasonable. Let's see what Bitwixen has to say. Paul August ☎ 00:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It looks very good, with a lot of interesting well explained content. I noticed that Sweetpool deleted a great deal of content, sources, and quotations in one large edit on December 12 with almost no explanation. I think it is not a proper editorial practice to edit that way. The procedure should have been to first discuss on the talk page, and give other editors time and opportunity to discuss. Much of that content was important and needed to be there. Bitwixen (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bitwixen: I agree, for the most part, with Sweetpool50's edits, some of those sections were, in my opinion, somewhat over long, and wandering. (In fact, I've often thought that this sentence in the "Aristophanes" section: "the dramatist delivers a satirical rebuttal to the dithyrambic form that has wandered into territory more properly the domain of drama" was ironically appropriate ;-). In any case, we can still discuss these changes here (whether before or after the fact, doesn't much matter). Paul August ☎ 10:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

As an addendum to my initial post above, I've have just now also copied the section "Polyphemus' transformation from Homer to Ovid", which I mentioned above as being copied, but forgot to actually copy. @Sweetpool50: thoughts? imprimatur ? Paul August ☎ 10:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I am wondering whether that additional section serves a useful purpose. There is nothing there that has not already been said - an unreferenced assertion about Euripides apart. The section seems based entirely on an essay in the Classical Quarterly which cannot be checked to see how close the account of it comes to plagiarism. In that the section acts more like a summary of earlier sections, it could justifiably be reduced to two (at the most three) sentences by way of summing up the Classical literary sources. The later literary and artistic sources could then by given a section of their own, which I think they need. Omnia obstant, I think! Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I finally tracked down Creese's ingenious article on JSTOR. What has been made of its opening section by the editor of the Cyclopes article is, as I suspected, largely plagiaristic. Let's minimise it. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: Well, I copied this text here, since I thought it did not belong in the our article Cyclopes, and I thought that something like it, at least, might be useful in this article. I also wanted other editors to have a change to see and discuss it. I agree for the most part with what you've written above. Although, looking at Creese's Classical Quarterly article, I can see no issues regarding plagiarism? Also I'm not certain which "assertion about Euripides" you mean, but if you are referring to Polyphemus is transformed by Euripides from the Homeric bachelor into an intoxicated lover of young boys, then here is what Creese, pp. 563–564, has to say:

"(2.) Eroticism. Euripides created humour out of the image of an intoxicated and aggressively amorous Cyclops, who calls Silenus his 'Ganymede', declares his general preference for boys, styles himself Silenus' ἐρατής, hauls the protesting satyr into his cave (thankfully offstage) to bugger him there (Cyc. 581-9). If Polyphemus' Euripidean transformaion was from the confirmed bachelor to the pederast,⁶ then Philoxenian transformation involved a change of sexual preference.

⁶ There were female Cyclopes in the Homeric version (Od. 9.115), but none lived with Polyphemus.

Having said all that, please feel free, for my part at least, to edit the section to your heart's content.

In a related matter, since copying all this content from Cyclopes to here, I tried to delete it from that article, but have been reverted by Bitwixen. I would appreciate your—or any other editor's—thoughts about this on that article's talkpage. Paul August ☎ 12:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply @Paul August:. I used the adjective "plagiaristic" rather than the noun since the WP editor follows portions of Creese closely but makes changes so they won't be picked up by the bots. To quote a single example: Where Creese has "Ovid appropriates these three elements (size, eroticism, musicality)" the editor substitutes "Ovid makes use of each of these factors of size, eroticism and musicality". I had a brief look at the Euripides play but need to look closer. I suspect that his Cyclops is not named, although the conclusion drawn from allusions in his text points to dependence on the Homeric narrative concerning Polyphemus.

As for Bitwixen, he struck me as belonging to the new breed of 2019 editors who think their job is to police articles like a two-gun sheriff on account of knowing a few guidelines, without looking at the fine print. They certainly need to acquaint themself with WP:Faith and WP:TOPIC in this case. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: As for Euripides' Cyclops, Poseidon is named, see for example Cyclops 91, where the satyr Silenus says "They know not what our master Polyphemus is like". Though I'm not sure why this matters, nor what your issue is, exactly, with Euripides' Cyclops.

Also, as I said above, I would appreciate your joining the ongoing discussion at Talk:Cyclopes. Paul August ☎ 20:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There wasn't an issue with the Euripides play really. I've now read the translation and find Polyphemus is named only near the start. I think Creese was making too much of the comic reversion of expectations there, though. I've now edited down the section based on his article and tucked it into the lede, since that is what it read like. I wanted to get my head round the articles with a Polyphemus focus before looking at Cyclopes. That's where I'll head now. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Your edits all seem fine to me. (I did though move the section "Later European interpretations", back as a subsection of "Polyphemus and Galatea" since this section seems to be just about them.) I've been poking around our Polyphemus related articles also. Looking forward to your thoughts on any of them. Paul August ☎ 16:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

A couple of Spanish musical items didn't fit, but only a purist would object. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I've now done what I hope is a final edit of the new material. The aim has been to focus on Polyphemus, the subject of the article, and edit out all the off-topic details about the texts as literature. I also took a look at what had been lost in the editing, which was all mention of the content of Theocritus' Idyll VI and of the antinomy between the elements of earth and water that was created by the poets. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

These edits all seem reasonable to me. Paul August ☎ 14:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

O&P, ancient sources

This section is almost entirely original research. I added a tag. Untitled50reg (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

The lead has this sentence:

The satyr play of Euripides is dependent on this episode apart from one detail; for comic effect, Polyphemus is made a pederast in the play.

I am dubious about the first part since for example there are satyrs present, a second detail. I am dubious about the second part since this "comic effect" seems to me more of a Silenus joke than a Polyphemus joke, which latter the lead seems to suggest. Untitled50reg (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Category

@Sweetpool50:, first you removed the category on account of not being congenital, which is entirely irrelevant as the category is not about congenitally blind people to begin with, then you remove if because 'it's not in all versions', ignoring the fact that it is in the most notable and famous one, the one that people familiar with Polyphemus know at all. Polyphemus' blindness is a defining feature, the same way Artemis' virginity is, even though in some cults in Ephesus she was a fertility goddess. But just like removing Artemis' chaste goddess attribute on account of Ephesus would be silly, so do I see no reason why the main point about Polyphemus should be removed on account of secondary tales. Do you also think 'Characters in the Odyssey' should also be removed because the other myths he stars in are not the Odyssey? Deiadameian (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Deiadameian, per WP:BRD, the correct procedure is to wait until consensus is reached before proceeding with your preferred edit. Your truculent summaries suggest a know-it-all attitude that is far from ideal when WP is supposed to be a co-operative enterprise. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Sweetpool50, the point that I made is that the category is a a) sourced (existing material in the article itself) and b) a defining point of the subject. So a removal is in my view not really explained. And you proceeded in the same edit-warring as well, without much explaining of your edits, after removing sourced and correct material. In fact, you gave two rather arbitrary reasons, little related to each other, for which I offered counter-arguments and explanations. Deiadameian (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

So Deiadameian, anyone so bold as to question your editing is "edit warring"? Your preference for justifying yourself via edit summary rather than discussion here is equally questionable. No one is denying that Polyphemus was blinded in Homer's account, a wound confirmed in the Aeneid as well. However, when that cyclops appears in the work of the Greek pastoral poets, and in Ovid, it is as an uncouth lover, monocular (and proud of it) but perfectly sighted. As such he figures in Classical wall-paintings and in Renaissance paintings as well, and much supplementary literature. These occurences are also well sourced and defining. The category you are trying to force through is therefore (partially) misleading and I suggest you ask the opinion of those with an interest in Classical literature on the question to see if you have a consensus. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia:Edit warring occurs when two or more editors disagree about the content of a page and proceed to make edit and undo each other's edits, which you did as much as I did, not when someone disagrees with me, as much as you would like to simply accuse me all you want about things you also are guilty of, with a holier-than-thou attitude and ignore the things I am actually saying because it is easier to play defense instead of actually talking about the issue at hand. This is apparent with how you were not the one to open the discussion about it (I made the talk section) and how in your first reply, instead of discussing the points I made, you simply chose to use insults. To this I can add how you offered two altogether different points in succession (congenital blindness and different sources) making it seem like what mattered to you was to undo my edit no matter what, and simply used some excuses at hand, and not care about the article.

None of the Renaissance paintings are the original Greek tale, or more known than the original tale, or are the main subject of the article, that they should take precedence over the main tale (the Odyssey), and they definitely are no more defining than it, unless you imply that the average person is more familiar with Polyphemus as he appears in Ovid and the Renaissance than in the Odyssey, which I do not think it is the case, unless you have relevant sources for the opposite.

I repeat a point I made in my first reply, which you ignored since attacking me was more important to you apparently; if a defining element of the tale is misleading because of Ovid's Metamorphoses, does the same apply to the Category:Characters in the Odyssey? If the blindness which is in the Odyssey does not count, then the same principle should apply and only leave the Category:Metamorphoses characters.

And if we accept that only one source can stand at the time and they cannot co-exist in the article for some odd reason (which I do not), may I ask why should it be the Metamorphoses and not the Odyssey? Who, how and when decided that the article will not reflect the Odyssey, even though it's the principal source of Polyphemus? Was it you?

There are several articles with conflicting categories because of conflicting accounts, and they can all stand just fine, because of differences in tellings, without the need of one to trample the others. You are saying that only one version should be reflected in the article (which entirely contradicts the point of wikipedia and non-centralized mythologies as a whole), and that one cannot be the Odyssey for some unexplained reason, and this is something I simply and strongly disagree with.

And another point; you are wrong about Ovid, he does mention Polyphemus being blinded:

But when flight rescued you from certain death, he prowled groaning all over Aetna, groping through the forest, stumbling eyeless on the rocks, stretching his bloodstained arms towards the waves, cursing the race of Greeks: "O for some chance to get Ulixes or some mate of his to vent my rage, whose guts I might devour, whose living limbs my hands might rend, whose blood might sluice my throat and mangled body writhe between my teeth! How slight, how nothing then the loss of sight they ravished!" This and more in frenzy. Horror filled me as I watched his face still soaked with slaughter, his huge hands, those savage hands, his empty sightless eye,

trans. Melville. So while he is still sighted while with Galatea, this incident might be instead placed before he met Odysseus. So are you saying that Category:Mythological blind people is misleading because Polyphemus was not blind before he was blinded? Deiadameian (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

If you like, yes. Alternatively, there are different mythical accounts, in one of which Polyphemus is blinded, in another equally well attested, he is not. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

So your point is the most known version should be discarded just because? I am sorry I simply disagree, and find the reasoning to be extremely poor and unfounded as well. You're already wrong about Ovid. Deiadameian (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Ovid's alternative account is cited in the article too. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not an alternative version, this simply happens chronologically before he is blinded. It's from Book 13; the blinding takes place in Book 14. See what a prophet tells Polyphemus in the link you provided:

‘That single eye now midmost in your brow Ulysses will take from you.’

Polyphemus then laughs at him, not believing him. It's a common element in ancient Greek and Roman works, called tragic irony, the audience knows something that will happen but the character does not. You are essentially saying that because Polyphemus is not blind before he is blinded, he is not blind at all ever, and that counts as an alternative version. No, it's simply his backstory. It happens before he is blinded and the very text you provided states clearly that he will be blinded. Your argument is like saying that the myths set during Cronus's rule of the world are alternative versions where he is not overthrown by Zeus, simply because they take place before the Olympians overthrow him. No, it's simply stories that chronologically take place before another story. Polyphemus is not blind in the stories with Galatea simply because he has not met Odysseus yet, not because he is not supposed to be blinded ever at all. Deiadameian (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph removed

The following paragraph, that has been in the article for four and a half years, was removed today from the section "Possible origins", which discusses "Folktales similar to that of Homer's Polyphemus":

An example of such a story is one from Georgia, in the Caucasus, which describes several brothers held prisoner by a giant one-eyed shepherd called "One-eye". After all but two of the brothers are roasted on a spit and eaten, the remaining two take the spit, heat it red hot, and stab it into the giant's eye. As One-eye let his flock out of their pen, he felt each sheep as it passed between his legs, but the two brothers were able to escape by covering themselves with a sheepskin.

References

It seems appropriate to provide an example of the kind folktales that this section is discussing, which the removed paragraph does. @Sweetpool50: Can you please say what your objection to this content is? Paul August ☎ 00:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the removed para for discussion, Paul August. It looks like an example of drive-by editing that failed to establish that the story mentioned bears out the final sentence of the preceding para: - "The consensus of current modern scholarship is that these "Polyphemus legends" preserve traditions predating Homer". The first sentence of the next para began "An example of such a story is one from Georgia, in the Caucasus," as you have it above, thus giving the impression that a story with a series of remarkable parallels to that of Homer records every detail of a pre-Homeric story.

Personally I think it is far more likely that an early folktale has been padded with material from Homer, but I have no way of ascertaining that because the source quoted is not publicly available to be checked. The nearest detailed comment that I can find is at Researchgate, which makes no mention of such a parallel other than that one section of stories there concerns Cyclopes. Also that the book is an anthology of tales from fourteen different Caucasian ethnic groups. Per WP:RS it requires assurance that the book's editor remarks on this parallel and draws the conclusion given, rather than that this is a piece of WP:Original research on the part of the editor contributing to the article here. I suspected the latter, in the absence of a source that could be checked, and therefore deleted it. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I added the paragraph here, based upon my careful reading of Hunt. You've misunderstood what the provided example is meant to be an example of. It is not meant to be an example of a story which, either in whole or in part, is completely independent of Homer. Rather it is presented as an example of the kind of story which, according to modern scholarly consensus, collectively preserve traditions predating Homer. So there is no implication that this story, or in fact that any particular story preserves such pre-Homeric traditions. If you have no further objections I intend to restore the stable version of the article. Paul August ☎ 14:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Analysis of the folk-tale material shows that the poet was using two originally unconnected stories, the first about a hero blinding a man-eating giant. Consistent features of this story are the hero's use of an animal, usually a sheep, or at least an animal skin, to effect an escape and the giant's attempt to bring the hero back with the help of a magical object. The second story concerns a hero outwitting a monster by giving a false name, usually 'I myself'. The fusion of these two stories is surely the work of the poet himself.

— Heuebeck and Hoekstra, A Commentary on Homer's Odyssey

I do take it rather as Sweetpool50 does, that a story detailed under "Possible origins" is or seems to be offered as a possible original. Reading diffs, I thought at first that the quotation from Heubek and Hoestra in the ref (currently #18) was quoted in our body text and rendered the example redundant. I do still like it, a scholarly description of the many repeating features to be found, much better than a single example. Could we not bring that quote into the article proper as body text or with {{block quote}} or {{quote box}}? (Rough sample provided to save hunting for the quote.) NebY (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, like NebY, I found the 'example' redundant in view of the concluding sentence of the earlier paragraph, as well as contentious without corroborating quotation from Hunt. I continue to find it destabilising and would not agree to its restoration. It would be a better approach to conclude with Heubek and Hoestra's comments. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

References

I continue to believe that a particular example of the kind of folktale this section is discussing is extremely useful. (For myself reading this example in Hunt's book brought this section into much clearer focus.) That the presentation of this example might be misleading is indeed problematic, but that should be fixable through clarification. And suggested language would be helpful.

As for the Heubek and Hoestra quote, it does not seem appropriate for a blockquote template, and quote boxes in general seem weird to me, and in this case would take up more space than the rest of that section. But a paraphrase might work. In any case, a general discussion of these folktales might make an example unnecessary, but it does not make it redundant. In fact, except where other examples are present, I don't see how an example can be redundant.

@Sweetpool50: I'm not sure what kind of quote from Hunt you are looking for. What exactly needs "corroborating"? Could you please explain? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul August (talk • contribs) 12:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not married to the use of quote boxes or block quotes; I included that mainly so that we'd have the quote available for discussion here, and secondarily so we could see and perhaps dismiss how it might appear. The core of it is so succinct, it might be hard for me to paraphrase well, but you might, Sweetpool50 might and I suppose I might, if I thought we'd use it. I find this overview far more valuable than an example, and the presence of a modern example problematic; whether we choose to leave it out as superfluous, redundant, unnecessary or misleading, let's leave it out. NebY (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

My free time is limited at present, so I failed to establish at the time that the example over which we disagree was contributed by Paul August, otherwise I would have used a second person address and not third. To clarify, however, what WP:RS requires in relation to the episode under discussion is what Hunt himself says about its relationship to Homer's account and whether it is derivative or otherwise. If he makes no such comment, it is not helpful as an example. Unless there is a significant link with pre-Homeric accounts, I lean to supporting some redacted version of Heubek and Hoestra's commentary, in whatever format. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Hunt discusses the relationship between Homer's story and what he describes as "Cyclops Legends" from the Caucasus (pp. 210–247). Here is some of what he says:

In the Caucasus folklore there is a whole constellation of legends and tales that can be classified as being of the Cyclops type. A constellation of stars consists of a loose grouping of stars, of which some are more prominent, others are less so; but it does not contain a supreme central star, as in a planetary system. There is a temptaion to define the 'Cyclops' constellation of legends as if it were a planetary system that could be grouped around the Homeric tale. However the Homeric tale itself was probably also part of a contemporary constellations of legends, of which all have been lost except the one that Homer recorded. There is no evidence that the Homeric tale was the unique central 'sun' within a planetary type of legendary system: at the time of its recording it was probably just one version among many.

As for a link with pre-Homeric accounts, there are no known pre-Homeric cyclops stories. What scholars, like Hunt, Fowler, and Heuebeck and Hoekstra (etc.), are saying is that there is compelling evidence that there were such stories now lost, and that later stories, such as the example given above, preserve traditions predating Homer. Paul August ☎ 11:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks Paul August for hunting out the commentary on the Caucasian folk tale. It was rather as I expected, part of a gathering of cyclops tales but no mention of the name of Polyphemus - in the passage you quoted, anyway. There's nothing there either that is an advance on Heuebeck and Hoestra and I am not convinced that a single example paraphrased from Hunt is helpful. I propose that there should be only a single para in the "Possible origins" section, supported by an appropriate quotation selected from the H&H commentary. To add much more strikes me as adding nothing to an article dedicated to discussion of Polyphemus, not to the diversity of Caucasian folklore. Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hunt's mention of the Homeric tale is a reference to the Polyphemus story. Paul August ☎ 00:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposal

How about this? We add the following sentence, describing what Heubeck and Hoekstra have to say about the two types of ur-Polyphemus stories, while including the Georgian story in a note to that sentence, as an example of Heubeck and Hoekstra’s first story type:

Heubeck and Hoekstra, identify two such story types, one about a hero who blinds a man-eating giant, and escapes disguised as an animal (usually a sheep), the other about a hero who outwits a monster by giving a false name, which were then combined to produce the Odyssey's Polyphemus story.

References

I was almost seduced into agreeing to the proposal, but before doing so I had a look at the essay by Julien d'Huy, "The story-type of Polyphemus" (2012) and was intrigued to learn there of Amerindian versions of the tale. One typical story involves the trickster Crow, who has sequestered bison in his carvern. A human enters and liberates them, escaping the villain waiting to kill him at the mouth of the cave by hiding in the bison's anus (ie under its tail, p. 51). D'Huy draws two conclusions at least arising from this. First that the presence of such stories exist among the tribal peoples of North America, with a fair probability that they ultimately go back to the Stone Age - information missing from the "origin" para under discussion. Second, that the details of the story (allowing for cultural adjustments) are more or less homogenous and fit within the general outlines also found in the Old World series discussed by the author.

There is to my mind something dishonest about including, even as a footnote, a story so obviously parallel to the Homeric account when D'Huy quotes others from Europe that are not so dependent but having a generic common ancestry. In view of this, I still prefer we allow the para to come to rest on some modification of the Heubeck|Hoekstra commentary. What we're recreating here is a debate started over a decade ago in the Talk page of the Cyclopes article when it was finally concluded that discussion of Caucasian legend would be WP:OFFTOPIC there, a debate in which User:Paul August also took part. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)