Talk:Apollo

Seated Apollo picture is not Apollo

Apollo seated with lyre. Porphyry and marble, 2nd century AD. Farnese collection, Naples, Italy.

"Apollo seated with lyre. Porphyry and marble, 2nd century AD. Farnese collection, Naples, Italy." This statue is not of Apollo at all, it is clearly a female seated with a lyre. The statue is wearing a dress, visible empire waist and breasts. Remove the image from the Apollo wiki please - Apollo 70.15.121.120 (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Apparently it is the "diocese of Rome" restored as Apollo. Not sure - the pics here need a bit of a going over generally, I'd say. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

But MOS:IMAGES says (in summary) that images are to illustrate, not to decorate. Some latitude to give an overall impression of the topic but this one is so 'odd' that an explanation would be essential. The image was the second provided to illustrate the section Apollo#Etymology: I see nothing in the text of that section for which it is remotely relevant. I will remove it for now and repost it here on the off-chance that someone can make a convincing case to reinstate it (which will mean writing the accompanying text that it illustrates).

The work is in the National Archaeological Museum Naples (Farinese Collection), which provides a full description. This partly confirms Johnbod's recollection:

La statua è nota sin dal XVI secolo, menzionata come personificazione di “Roma trionfante” dall’Albertini (1510) e dal Fichard (1815), e riprodotta in una veduta del cortile di casa Sassi da Marten Van Heemskerck. [transl. The statue has been known since the 16th century, mentioned as the personification of “Rome triumphant" by Albertini (1510) and Fichard (1815), and reproduced in a view of the courtyard of the Sassi house by Marten Van Heemskerck.]

and goes on to say

L’intervento di restauro dell’Albacini traduce correttamente il generico schema del dio seduto su di una roccia, intento a suonare la sua cetra. Alcuni lineamenti morbidi della scultura e una possibile cattiva condizione della testa, che ne comprometteva una corretta lettura, giustificano un’iniziale identificazione della figura, vestita anche di un lungo chitone e himation, con una divinità femminile: Vesta, all’epoca dell’acquisto, e poi personificazione di Roma trionfante, in ottemperanza ai programmi celebrativi della città nel ‘500. Lo stesso Winckelmann la definisce una generica “statua femminile”. Ma l’aggiunta della cetra, del plettro e soprattutto la lavorazione della testa, di ispirazione classica, con la tipica pettinatura a nodo riconosciuta ad Apollo, l’Albacini restituisce l’esatta interpretazione della scultura con il dio Musagete. [transl. Albacini's restoration work correctly translates the generic scheme of the god sitting on a rock, intent on playing his lyre. Some soft features of the sculpture and a possible bad condition of the head, which compromised one correct reading, justify an initial identification of the figure, also dressed in a long chiton and himation, with a female divinity: Vesta, at the time of purchase, and then personification of triumphant Rome, in compliance with the celebratory programs of city in the 16th century. Winckelmann himself defines it as a generic "female statue". But the addition of the lyre, the plectrum and above all the workmanship of the head, of inspiration classic, with the typical knot hairstyle recognized by Apollo, Albacini returns the exact interpretation of the sculpture with the god Musagete.

So it may be that the work has been "restored" beyond recognition? Either way, it is really not at all obvious that it is WP:DUE in this article and thus should not remain. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I was going from the Spanish on the image file (the fullest): "Estatua de la diosa Roma, restaurada como Apolo citaredo. Pórfido rojo y mármol blanco. Obra romana de la segunda mitad del siglo II d.C. Colección Farnesio, Museo Arqueológico Nacional de Nápoles". Presumably, as with so many Roman sculptures, the head and body were not originally together, which the Italian doesn't quite get round to saying. I should have a chance to see it in a few weeks. My Spanish is home made, but at least I have been able to improve the redirect for diosa. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that was my surmise too, but the text is circumspect:

Nei disegni di M. Van Heemskerck la statua è riprodotta munita di testa ma priva delle mani e dei piedi; poi tutti gli altri testimoni del ‘500 raccontano e descrivono una scultura completa di tutte le integrazioni in bronzo. Si ipotizza, quindi, che almeno la testa fosse originale, o comunque antica, mentre gli arti furono opera di Guglielmo Della Porta, scultore e consulente d’arte della famiglia Farnese e autore dei restauri di tutte le opere poste al piano nobile del Palazzo, dove si trovava anche l’Apollo in porfido. Alcuni studiosi, in alternativa, propongono una diversa lettura: la testa, già visibile quando l’opera era collocata nel cortile di Casa Sassi, è sicuramente antica, ma non pertinente. Poi, alla fine del XVIII secolo, ormai rovinata, e secondo illustri giudizi riconosciuta non originale e di bassa qualità (J. J. Winckelmann), si decise per la rimozione e sostituzione con una in marmo bianco.
transl. In the drawings of M. Van Heemskerck the statue is reproduced with a head but without hands and feet; Then all the other witnesses of the 16th century tell and describe a complete sculpture of all the bronze additions. It is therefore assumed that at least the head was original, or however ancient, while the limbs were the work of Guglielmo Della Porta, sculptor and art consultant to the Farnese family and author of the restorations of all the works on display on the main floor of the Palace, where the porphyry Apollo was also located. Some scholars, alternatively, propose a different reading: the head, already visible when the work was located in the courtyard of Casa Sassi, it is certainly ancient, but not relevant. Then, at the end of the 18th century, already ruined, and according to illustrious judgements, recognised [as] not original and of low quality (J. J. Winckelmann), it was decided to remove it and replace it with one in white marble.

I'm with the illustrious judges . 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Apollo appears in the myths and Greek paintings as both an effeminate youth and a cross-dresser, so I would argue that the femininity of this statue must not be a reason to not identify the statue with Apollo, as even the National Archaeological Museum of Naples also identifies this as Apollo Destroyed. Though, I agree it is not very relevant to be in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo#Etymology. Adiga77 (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Laurel on the head

2. Harp

3. Male arms and legs

4. Adam's apple

5. Apollo's face

Yes, it's Apollo Awyachin (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't rely on your judgement (nor mine) on the question, see WP:no original research (and wp: reliable sources). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Whatever. It was rightly removed over a year ago. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Why does Thyraeus redirect here?

There is nothing in the article about this name. Should Thyraeus (mythology) be move over the redirect? There is something in Anthelioi about this being an epithet of Apollo, but the available snippet of the cited reference in Google Books doesn't provide enough context to verify. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It has a {{R mentioned in hatnote}} template on the page. SeaDragon1 (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Good question. We shouldn't redirect Thyraeus here when we don't even mention the term in this article. I've retargeted the redirect to Thyraeus (mythology) and removed the hatnote from here. If we ever do mention Thyraeus as an epithet here, we can put a hatnote on Thyraeus (mythology), but it doesn't seem that such a weakly attested epithet should ever be the prime target of the redirect. NebY (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Citation number 271 is incorrect

Hello,

I have never edited Wikipedia before, or participated in a Talk so I'm sorry for if I get some etiquette wrong. Citation Number 271 on this page is incorrect. This is what the citation if referring to:

"In the first Olympic games, Apollo defeated Ares and became the victor in wrestling. He outran Hermes in the race and won first place."

And this is what it states is the citation for this claim: Herodotus, Histories 5. 7. 10

I looked up Histories by Herodotus because this is a myth I have heard second hand a few times, but no one has been able to provide an actual source. The issue is that Herodotus, Histories isn't formatted in a way in which the citation "5. 7. 10" makes sense. Still, I read through book 5 to see if this story is mentioned, but it isn't.

That's because the correct citation for this is Pausanias, Description of Greece. The person who created this citation got the numbers correct, as 5. 7. 10 does discuss this myth:

"Now some say that Zeus wrestled here with Cronus himself for the throne, while others say that he held the games in honor of his victory over Cronus. The record of victors include Apollo, who outran Hermes and beat Ares at boxing. It is for this reason, they say, that the Pythian flute-song is played while the competitors in the pentathlum are jumping; for the flute-song is sacred to Apollo, and Apollo won Olympic victories."

So I believe they simply misremembered their sources.

I was going to fix the citation myself, as the entire reason I created a Wikipedia account was to fix this citation (so others wouldn't have to go on such a journey to find the correct source), but Apollo's page is semi-protected (which I understand, he is a very popular god and I don't want his page to be vandalized), I would just like someone who can fix the citation to please do so? Thank you! Amanda0Was0Here (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, and hunting down the correct reference. I've fixed this in the article. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Plato's concept of soulmates

I've removed the section "Plato's concept of soulmates", a three-paragraph account of Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Symposium,.again (it was restored today).

1. It's not Plato's high concept of soulmates, it's Plato having comic playwright Aristophanes make up an amusing origin of love, buttressing his story with an existing myth about Otis and Ephialtes in which Apollo doesn't figure at all. That takes up the first paragraph.
2. Apollo only features in it as a story device, to do Zeus' work; it's not about Apollo.
3. It didn't come to characterise Apollo either, or become part of his mythology.
4. This article is already too long - 19,217 words of readable prose in May 2025. This is largely because it retells in story style what seems to be even the most minor mention of Apollo in myth or other story, such as this one.

NebY (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Half-Brother is incorrect

It states that Artemis is Apollo’s half brother when she’s Apollo’s twin sister. 2604:3D08:4E78:4CA0:2468:8A47:BBBD:C5D1 (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Where does it state that? I don't see it anywhere in the article. Deor (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Add Horus as Egyptian Equivalent

I’m requesting to add Horus as the Egyptian equivalent to Apollo. This equivalence is well documented with the town of Edfu, home to the Temple of Horus being called Apollonopolis Magna in Greek.

this would entail adding these lines to the infobox:

| equivalent1_type = Egyptian | equivalent1 = Horus 2601:188:C680:10E0:8421:BD45:3EC3:7A23 (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Error in date concerning Hellenistic times

"In Hellenistic times, especially during the 5th century BCE, as Apollo Helioshe became identified among Greeks with Helios, the personification of the Sun."

Hellenistic times: 323 to 30 BCE. ~2026-4534 (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is obviously wrong. Fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Misinformation

You should still correct Apollo’s spouse link. Cause you’re misinforming people on wiki that Apollo only has one lover, when he had multiple. ~2026-89561 (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

A spouse is a person's partner in marriage. NebY (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2026 (2)

Lover: Cyrene ~2026-46360-0 (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Cyrene is discussed in the "Female lovers" section, and you can view her children by Apollo in the "List of offspring and their mothers" table. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Apollo couldn't choose which of the muses to marry?

"Apollo is said to have been the lover of all nine Muses, and not being able to choose one of them, he decided to remain unwed." This passage has already been marked with 'citation needed' but it's been on the article forever and after asking around all I could find was it seemingly leading back to Rick Riordan's YA books. Does anyone know an actual source for this? If it doesn't exist could someone please delete this claim off the article? My account isn't old enough to do it myself. Thanks in advance :) Echo-loves-flowerboy (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Echo-loves-flowerboy. Thanks for pointing this out. I'm not able to find a source for that claim, so I've removed it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Name

I have a problem with this that should be changed. This is about the Greek god of light, music, archery, etc., but the actual original Greek name for him is Apollon, with an n. The Roman's, when they adopted him as a god, latinised his name to Apollo, with no n. Apollon is the actual name. Please change it. Carlaisme246 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

We title our articles according to WP:COMMONNAME, which usually means the name used in English (e.g. Hephaestus, Athens, Rhodes, Germany), and in this case we also footnote the various Greek names, including but not restricted to Ἀπόλλων (Appollon), at the very start of the article. There's no prospect of going against policy to rename the article. NebY (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

We also have articles about Plato rather than Platon, Hero of Alexandria rather than Heron of Alexandria, etc. Deor (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2026

Please add the following citation to the Apollo page for "Coronis", under "Female Lovers", using the this academic journal article which confirms the stated information:

Philbrick, R. (2018). CORONIS AND THE METAMORPHOSIS OF APOLLO: OVIDIAN RE-FORMATIONS OF PINDAR’S THIRD PYTHIAN. The American Journal of Philology, 139(3), 451–482. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/48545508?seq=1&cid=pdfreference#references_tab_contents RD INF6120 (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

That source tells us that different writers told the legend with different details - the Hesiodic Catalogue and Callimachus identify Ischys and involve the raven, Pindar has Artemis shoot Coronis but Ovid Apollo. We can't use it as a source that confirms what's stated but it can prompt us to write a paragraph which doesn't attempt to provide a unified myth. NebY (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 Summer 2026

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 May 2026 and 24 July 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nkoanakletos (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nkoanakletos (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Apollo representations

NebY, Why not include the main representations that are mentioned in the article itself? I don't understand why the lead should specifically include only the ones that currently exist, there are other equally important in the article. Léopold Favre (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

An article lead, as WP:LEAD says, "gives the basics in a nutshell, introduces the article, and cultivates interest in reading on." We should not present the reader with indigestible lists; we want them to keep reading, not skip or give up.

Note also that it is a necessary condition that article content be verifiable, but that is not a sufficient reason for inclusion anywhere in the article, let alone in the lead. As our policy Wikipedia:Verifiability says at WP:V#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Through the consensus process, editors may determine that inclusion of a verifiable fact or claim does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate." Citations shouldn't be inserted into the lead merely in an attempt to justify inclusion in the lead; as WP:LEADCITE says "Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material" (and that paragraph expands on the principle usefully). NebY (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, thank you for such a detailed and high-quality response. Would it be okay with simply adding to the list "Sun and light" to the representations already listed? The reason is that I consider them quite relevant to Apollo's iconography, especially light, given his noticeable historic representation as Phoebus Apollo — Φοῖβος (Phoibos), literally "bright", which was his most commonly used epithet among both Greeks and Romans (as the article says too). Léopold Favre (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

We already mention Apollo's late identification with Helios in the last paragraph of the lead. It's not to be found in Homer or Hesiod and though it begins in the late fifth century BCE, it's not rapidly or completely taken up (e.g. the Colossus of Rhodes is emphatically of Helios), though in the 19th and 20th centuries there's perhaps an eagerness to find sun-gods important in pagan cultures, and in the 21st we find strong identification of Apollo with the sun - but not with Helios - in the Percy Jackson stories. Walter Burkert's Greek Religion only mentions "Apollo began to be understood as a sun god" right at the end of his section on Apollo; the Oxford Classical Dictionary entry on Apollo only mentions the sun to say that "earlier theories explaining the god from the sun" were based on assumptions that have both, the entry says, been proved wrong. Pierre Grimal's long entry on Apollo in his Dictionary of Classical Mythology doesn't mention the sun.

The traditional description of Apollo as bright or radiant (Φοῖβος, Phoibos) isn't a description of him as a god of light; worse, Liddell and Scott tell us "the name Φοῖβος refers rather to the radiance of youth, which was always a chief characteristic of Apollo" (italics in original). Neither Burkert nor the OCD nor Grimal refer to Apollo as a god of light.

There might be a very interesting paper out there on the modern reception and remaking of Apollo as a sun-god or god of light, which would allow expansion of Apollo#Modern reception, but Apollo is an extremely important god in ancient Greek culture (later adopted by the Romans but without the same significance) and our lead should remain focused on the nature of that importance. NebY (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking your time making such a detailed response.

I agree that Apollo should not be presented as the original Greek sun-god, since Helios more properly fills that role in early Greek religion. However, it is too strong to say that Apollo's association with light is merely modern or that means "the radiance of youth". Ancient sources and academic scholarship support a qualified statement that Apollo was associated with light, radiance, and, in some traditions, the Sun.

• The Homeric Hymn to Apollo describes Apollo's epiphany in luminous terms, as "looking like a star at noonday", with "countless sparks flying off him" and a "brilliance" reaching heaven. Euripides’ fifth-century BCE Phaethon is even more explicit, addressing Helios with the words: "You are rightly called Apollo among men." The light association is also reflected in the Orphic Hymn to Apollo, which says “you bring light to mortals,” while Athanassakis and Wolkow note that “Phoibos (Bright One) is a common epithet of Apollon.”
• Modern scholarship is also explicit: Boutsikas writes that “Many of Apollo’s epikleses associate him with the sun” and refers to “Apollo, the god of light and divination.” Bilić likewise argues that the Apollo–sun identification “cannot be reduced to a philosophical reinterpretation.”

Therefore, I would avoid saying simply that “Apollo was the Greek sun-god,” but a qualified wording such as “Apollo was associated with light and radiance, and in some classical and later traditions was identified with Helios/the Sun” is supported by both primary evidence and academic scholarship. Léopold Favre (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

References