Talk:Greek water deities

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brook597.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

(talk) 16:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 

Much information was recently deleted (as "NPOV"!) by someone whose usual contributions to Greek myth are better balanced, but who apparently has not read the reference I added, namely Karl Kerenyi, The Gods of the Greeks, 5:"The Old Ones of the Sea." Perhaps the problem is with Kerenyi's interpretations? Perhaps we could be told whom we should be reading instead? Shall I add some Walter Burkert quotes? The following not very original statements have been suppressed:

1. "The ancient Greeks had a large number of sea gods, or, alternatively, they had numerous localized names for the "old" deities that preceded the arrival of the Olympian Gods. Tethys, Thetis or Eurynome may all be manifestations of the same sea goddess, and indeed Homer refers to Phorcys, Proteus and Nereis on different occasions each as the "Old Man of the Sea." What could be an issue with this material? Are the alternative readings of large number vs. localized deities an issue somehow? Can anyone not know that there is a level of Greek myth that precedes the introduction of the Olympian gods?
2. "...to Poseidon, made into an Olympian and given a son, Triton, who wrestled with Heracles." Poseidon precedes the Olympian twelve: his name appears at Pylos. This is not in contention, is it?
3. "some early Greek thinkers like the writers of Orphic hymns (see Orpheus) made the sea-divinities into primordial powers." Is there something that needs to be defended here?
4. "Several names of sea gods conform to a single type: that of Homer's halios geron." What would induce one to suppress the name of Homer (it's the source/reference) in this statement? The expression is well-attested of course.

I've worked hard on this entry, and I'm at a loss as to how to defend these normal interpretations. I have not stooped to reverting. But the pervasive combination of self-confidence and ignorance at Wikipedia is exhausting. --Wetman 09:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stumbled on this article by accident. What an awful mess! JMcC 22:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)