Talk:Hecate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Neo Pagan Drivel

Look this article is being ruined in that everyone with a neo-pagan/wiccan/post 1800's view of paganism is hacking this thing to death. Some of the books cited are embarrassingly bad and aren't "scholarly" works. If you want to write about the neopagan goddess called "Hecate" then by all means start a new article. This is about the Greek Goddess of that name. Nickjost (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I just did quite a bit of work on this article, and I went to some trouble to rely on sources that are not 'neo-pagan'. I did not get to the 'Festivals' section (which is cited with a silly neo-pagan book, and is in any case useless as a distinct section), nor did I do anything with the section on 'cross-cultural parallels' (this section is currently bad, but I feel there's justification for developing it properly- just haven't gotten to it yet). However, the rest has good content, so: would you please be more specific? Just what "neo-pagan drivel" do you refer to – precisely? I confess I am keenly interested to hear about those citations you claim are "embarrassingly bad", if they are not in those two aforementioned sections. Thank you for your encouraging post. --Picatrix (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Origin of name?

What is the etymology of the name Hekate/Hecate? I mostly find the meaning "she who works from afar" and variations thereof, but how was this derived? Could someone add some information about the etymology in the article? Thanks muchly. :) 67.168.59.171 07:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you refuse to build any ideas on any "etymology", you'll save yourself from many delusions. --Wetman 00:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be [fem. of hekatos "far-shooting."] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Hecate --nonregistered user, ButtercupSaiyan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.122.13.186 (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Festivals

A "citation needed" link appears at the end of this passage, however, the information is clearly cited as Ruickbie (2004). I have therefore removed this request.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.204.125.224 (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

Who on earth confused Hecate with Trivia? I really, really want the reference work that makes that mistake. Trivia is Artemis/Diana, if she's not an independent deity. Why do I get the feeling that this article was written by a Wiccan and not a Classicist? Geogre 02:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the reference work that makes that mistake now. Thanks for using your expertise to clear up the confusion. You could have just ranted about it on the talk page without changing anything.

I myself must defer to the authority of 1911 Britannica, at least until an expert comes and corrects matters. Vivacissamamente 23:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm generally a proponent of 'Pagan' Religions, but honestly this article should be renamed 'Hecate (Wicca)' since it has very little to say about Hecate the Greek mythological figure. Robrecht 2 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)

So edit. Add referenced material. I plan to. Wiccan material should be moved to the end, in its own section. --Nantonos 22:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

1911 Britannica is out of date in terms of information on Hecate. Sarah Iles Johnston is considered one of the foremost modern historians of Hecate and in her two books (referenced in further readings) she traces Hecate's origins from Turkey into Greece and her development as a sorceress goddess. I changed some of the main entry to accommodate her research which she properly references in her two books. Also, I didn't erase anythign already on the page as it seemed accurate, just moved some stuff arouond.

Also what is with these references to the snake and Hecate holding one. I know of no references to snakes being scared to Hecate, and those images are probaly of Hecate holding a rope. (unsigned, but comments above added by User:Dorcia)

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~) in a row to add your name and date automaticaly. DreamGuy 21:31, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I have clarified that Hecate is not Trivia, among assorted other tidying-up. However, I have also come across statements such as The Romans gave Hekate the title Trivia, the Latin equivalent of the Greek Trioditis. on the otherwise careful and well-referenced theoi.com for example. --Nantonos 15:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks for all the jibes about Wiccans. A little correction is in order here. Hekate was identified with Artemis/Diana, particularly in later antiquity when she was identified with a number of other goddesses as well. According to Sarah Iles Johnston "There is evidence for Hekate's identification with Artemis as early as the fifth century (A. Suppl. 676, fr. 158; E. Phoen. 110)." (Hekate Soteira p. 31, note 8) Certainly in the Chaldaean Oracles and later works she was syncretised with a number of goddesses. (Hekate Soteira p. 141)

One of the most frequent epithets for Hekate in Greek is Trioditis (Hekate Soteira p. 24) meaning "triple crossroads". The Romans used the Latin equivalent Trivia, and erected statues to her at major intersections.

"You see Hecate’s faces turned in three directions so she can protect the triple crossroads." - Ovid, Fasti 1.141

"I have seen Sapaeans [a Thrakian tribe] and your snow dwellers, Haemus [mountain in Thrake], offer the guts of dogs to Trivia [Hekate]." - Ovid, Fasti 1.389

A brief introduction to the Goddess Trivia can be found here.

The "road" symbolism (Trivia = 3 roads) may derive from the Thessalian goddess Enoida ("of the wayside, of the crossroads") who became identified with Hekate, Artemis, Selene, Bendis, Persephone and Brimo. Little is known about Enoida except that she was a "goddess of the road", a chthonic goddess probably concerned with magic and the underworld. In most places where this name appears it is actually an epithet for Hecate. (Sarah Iles Johnston, Hekate Soteira p. 24 note 10)

Also, Hecate was primarily associated with dogs, but also with snakes: "...round her horrible serpents twined themselves among the oak boughs, and there was the gleam of countless torches; and sharply howled around her the hounds of hell." (Appolonius Rhodius, Argonautica). She was often depicted with three heads: dog, snake and horse, or dog, horse and bear, or dog, snake and lion.

An example of all this symbolism can be found in the Greek magical papyri:

Come to me, O Beloved Mistress, Three-faced Selene; [...] Three-headed, You're Persephone, Megaira, Allekto, Many-Formed, who arm Your Hands With Dreaded, Murky Lamps, who shake Your Locks Of fearful Serpents on Your Brow, who sound The Roar of Bulls out from Your Mouths, whose Womb Is decked out with the Scales of Creeping Things, With Pois'nous Rows of Serpents down the Back, Bound down Your Backs with Horrifying Chains [...] Your Ankle is Wolf-shaped, Fierce Dogs are dear To You, wherefore they call You Hekate, Many-named, Mene, cleaving Air just like Dart-shooter Artemis, Persephone, Shooter of Deer, night shining, triple-sounding, Triple-headed, triple-voiced Selene Triple-pointed, triple-faced, triple-necked, And Goddess of the Triple Ways, who hold Untiring Flaming Fire in Triple Baskets, And You who oft frequent the Triple Way And rule the Triple Decades, unto me Who'm calling You be gracious [...] Mother of Gods And Men, and Nature, Mother of All Things, For You frequent Olympos, and the broad And boundless Chasm You traverse. Beginning And End are You, and You Alone rule All. [...] Goddess of Crossroads, O Nether and Nocturnal, and Infernal, Goddess of Dark, Quiet and Frightful One, O You who have Your Meal amid the Graves, Night, Darkness, Broad Chaos: [...] You keep Kerberos in Chains, with Scales Of Serpents are You dark, O You with Hair Of Serpents, Serpent-girded, who drink Blood, Who bring Death and Destruction, and who feast On Hearts, Flesh Eater, who devour Those Dead Untimely, and You who make Grief resound And spread Madness, come to my Sacrifices, And now for me do You fulfil this Matter.

(translated E. N. O'Neil; from Hans Dieter Betz (ed.) The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation pp. 90-92)

I have reproduced this last quote at such length partly because it's such a good demonstration of the kind of syncretisation that was actually quite common in the ancient world, very unlike the common perception nowadays of a rational, ordered pantheon of deities who all represented a clearly-defined aspect of civic life. If you're going to do justice to Greek and Roman mythology, prepare for complexity and contradiction... Thanks, Your friendly Wiccan, Fuzzypeg☻ 22:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare

Shakespeare mentions Hecate in Macbeth (text is here). Hecate is in Act III, Scene V and Act IV, Scene I. However, considering that Hecate's lines in these scenes do not fit in tone with the rest of the play, some people think that Shakespeare didn't actually write them, but they were inserted in later. Can someone research up on this and add it to the article? Bbhtryoink 01:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

And lo, it is done! The Singing Badger 01:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Hecate Through Time?

I am disappointed to find no treatment of Hecate's various transformations and transmissions in the middle ages and early modern times. It seems to me her influence continued, grossly distorted to be sure, but still lively and provocative, through the folkways and symbols of Europe, long after the ancient Mediterranean world that spawned her was but a distant memory. This page would be an excellent place to trace the details of her evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collardgreene (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful idea! Would you like to make a start? I'm sure there are plenty of editors who agree with you, but the fact is there are few editors and many articles, and lots of things needing improvement. Doing a decent job on articles is actually quite a lot of work, because it involves tracking down reliable sources and careful citation of everything. We need to enrol more knowledgable and motivated people like you into editing these articles! Fuzzypeg★ 23:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Cruft

A load of half-digested material has been dumped into this formerly careful account. I have tagged some statements for citations but it looks hopeless. --Wetman 22:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I found citations for some (if they happened to be correct), added quotes against others (where they are commonly cited but likely incorrect) and added some more {{Fact}} tagging to the rest.--Nantonos 15:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Format

Can someone pull the layout together, please? I'm bored with encountering doctrinaire troglodytes over layouts, myself, but this is just not good enough at present. I'd add a "clean-up" sticker, if I were the sticker type.--Wetman 07:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I have done some cleanup, collecting together the references for example. There still needs to be some merging of attributes into the representations section. --Nantonos 15:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

NeoPagan NPOV

I have pulled the contentious "Most sects that include worship of Hecate are considered cults, even by Neopagan standards. Such sects often encourage experimentation with the paranormal." and changed 'sect' to 'group' in the remaining part of that paragraph, because of NPOV. I also pulled the inflamatory "In some cases animal sacrifices have been documented, typically taking place on the last day of a month. Animal sacrifices have included the sacrifice of goats, dogs, and chickens, which has been documented by police authorities and is often mistaken with satanic practices. Animal sacrifices is considered in the United States to be animal cruelty and is subsequently illegal, regardless of religious faith." and invite whoever posted that to put it back if they have a citeable source. --Nantonos 14:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I pulled out the reference to the Celtic festival of Samhain. There is no scholarly basis for that statement, and until it can be proved that there is an actual connection, I hope that will not be put up again. Also, the entire section about emblems seems to be mostly unsubstantiated. I hesitate to remove it completely, but I wouldn't mind if someone did so. Again, until it can be proved that there is an actual, documented connection between many (not all) of those emblems, then I would recommend deleting that section until further information has been discovered, complete with corroboration. Ryan 10:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well done. --Wetman 13:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This entire section needs a BIG rewrite. The role of Hekate in feminist witchcraft is completely missing, as is the association most neopagans have with her as a "Crone" goddess. Additionally, what's with the "Big Bad" associations? Wicca, particularly, doesn't have any concept of Hekate as a Goddess who can be invoked to punish those you don't like. She is mentioned as a Goddess who can be invoked to bind someone, but she is mostly considered to be Keeper of the Mysteries and analogous to the High Priestess tarot card (see Vivienne Crowley, Wicca : the Old Religion in the New Age, pp. 179-80) -- Maz

I removed "..erroneously.." and "..incorrect.." from the end of the intro statement regarding Neo-pagan belief. I think it is clear enough as it is.--84.92.169.252 (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Wilderness"

"... originally a goddess of the wilderness" It's not "wilderness" if you live there. What is the thought buried in this expression, still in the opening of the article? --Wetman 16:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing exactly what wilderness implies. people live in a village, there's forest around it. She was a goddess of area lying outside of towns, places not domesticated. it can still be wilderness if you live there. i don't see a problem with it at all. (Anonymous)

The forest around even the smallest Greek settlement, though beyond the reach of agriculture, was not "wilderness". There were many deities in those utterly familiar woodlands, to be sure: of trees and groves, of water sources and rivers, of mountaintops, caves and clefts. Would Potnia theron, "mistress of the animals", or "Mountain Mother" be goddesses of the "wilderness"? Or Artemis? Perhaps so. --Wetman 18:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Modern character interpretations

"Hecate provided friendship to the goddess Persephone who was newly arrived in the Underworld. Thankful for her friendship with his grieving wife, Hades honored Hecate by making her a permanent guest in the spirit world, allowing her to come and go as she wished." I moved this here: is there any psychological interpretation in surviving myth or ritual to suggest this, or is it from Xena Warrior Princess? A myth justifying Hades displacement of Hecate would be useful. --Wetman 20:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Hecate: Ancient, Powerful, Unconquerable" section

I've toned down the assertive rant to make this encyclopedic, and I've deleted the contentious supposed parallels with Virgin Mary. Material like this needs to be brought in as a report of what has been published on the subject. The survival of aspects of Hecate cult in peasant religion and Wicca does need to be reintroduced.--Wetman 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yew berries and hallucinations

The article currently states that yew berries (the non-poisonous arils) can cause hallucinations if prepared correctly. The source cited may be "The Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Plants: Ethnopharmacology and Its Applications" by Christian Rätsch [1], or other books and articles by the same author (in German or English), or any of a number of books ("Plants of the Gods" [2], "Witchcraft Medicine" [3]) written in collaboration with other authors. Unfortunately, none of these books/artices/etc are searchable on Amazon.

Rätsch is an ethnopharmacologist. According to this interview, his doctorate is in "Native American cultures", not any kind of medicine or pharmacology. I point this out not as an insult to the man, but only because I have been unable to find any reliable source for the claim that yew berries can be used as hallucinogens. According to the medical information I've been able to find, even the toxic parts of the yew plants do not cause hallucinations. I have found no indication that there are any ill or unusual effects of ingesting just the arils (no seeds/leaves/etc). Even Erowid has nothing on it. Without access to the source, I have no idea what is meant by "prepared correctly", but I can't find evidence that any preparation of yew would cause hallucinations short of one that involved lacing the berries with LSD. Are there any objections to removing this claim from the article? - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 02:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just now searched "yew taxus hallucinogen" at JSTOR and got no hits. So I'd not object. --Wetman 16:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Theophoric names

According to the intro section, amongst the Carians of Anatolia was "the only region where theophoric names are attested". That's obviously incorrect, as you should see if you follow the link. I don't know what was intended, but this statement needs to be either revised or removed. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it refers only to theophoric names derived from "Hekate"? I seem to remember reading something about this in... was it von Rudloff's book? If I have the urge to procrastinate later, I may try to track this one down. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 22:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Resemblance to Statue of Liberty

Is there any connection anyone knows about relating Hecate to the Statue of Liberty instead of Libertas? The pictures on this page both bear a striking resemblance, or maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist and don't really think of the S of L as a "gift" in the kindest way, more like an inside joke from the French. Hecate, the goddess of crossroads, borders, city walls (New York harbor??) Shown holding a torch in the drawing, shown with a crown of spikes in the sculpture? Is anyone else seeing this? I don't see any parallels drawn on this page, the Statue of Liberty page, or Bartholdi. Anyone want to do some digging? Keeper76 21:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The spikes represent the solar crown: see Sol Invictus. Hekate is chthonic, not solar. No possible connection in Bartholdi's intent, which is what counts. --Wetman 06:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate your response, Wetman, and as a newbie to Wiki-world, I will most definitely refrain from the ridiculous editing that seems to bring strife (rightfully) to loyalists and self proclaimed "addicts" like yourself and your prolific (dare I say religious?) editing. On a side note, I very much enjoyed your thoughtfully prepared userpage ( even though I politely and completely disagree with many of your leanings), as a good example for my own (not yet created) userpage. But I'm working on it. To the point at hand, when I said "spikes" I meant it rather facetiously, I realize they were publicly intended to portray "sun" not "earth". It's just striking to me how much the Roman statue looks like our Lady Baywatcher, and how the 1880 drawing by Monsieur Mallarme carries a torch, and wondering if you or anyone else knows of any connections/scandals/conspiracies worth mentioning from Bartholdi's era? Just wondering, (rather unimportantly to most probably), whether Bartholdi's charge was as golden as it appeared...even the part of "we'll give you this wonderful gift, but first build (and pay for) a base, and somewhere to put it. Somewhere GRAND..." has become suspect to me. What was his political affiliation compared to the American presidency at the time of the centennial? I'm afraid I just don't have the knowledge of the era or the mythology that I need. Thanks for indulging my overly parenthetical, and overly superlative post... Keeper76 01:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up (and the question of "In Popular Culture")

This article is a mess of disconnected snippets of insight, acumen, twaddle and nonsense. I'm now trying to clean it up. Help would be appreciated if the person offering it knows what they are doing. It will take me a while to work my way down this page, given its state.

I also feel that it is necessary to bring up this "In Popular Culture" section. I feel strongly that it should be removed. These sections amount to little more than the underside of a metaphorical desk in Junior High, where people stick juvenile bits of nonsense that are as useless as they are unpleasant to encounter. What justification exists for collecting this 'material'? Do people come to this article wondering where they can find a 'breakcore artist' or comic book character named Hecate? Some of them are frankly spam. In any case, they need to disappear into the underworld... --Picatrix (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning whether or not pre-modern sources can appear in a footnote

I've moved this extensive footnote here. What should we do with this essay? Who are these "some"? Why is Whiter's 1822 pre-modern essay to be extensively quoted in a modern encyclopedia? Persiflage?Wetman (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC):

Though it is by no means academically current or accepted today, some have related the Greek and Roman Ekate or Hecate to Germanic words related to our modern word "hag" For example, "The Greek and Latin Ekate, Hecate, should probably be referred to the Saxon Hegtys, and Haegesse. Lye explains the latter word by "Larva, lamina, furia, Hecate, Parcai, "Eumenides, Pythonissa." If this derivation should be true, we see, that Hecate is brought back to her true situation, when she is placed by the great Bard in the Dialects of the Teutonic, among those "Secret, black, and midnight Hags," who preside over the destinies of mankind. It is marvellous to observe, how words retain their original idea. We perceive, according to the derivation which I have given of the term Hecate, how, in the original and material sense of Houghing or Hacking up the Ground, she is the Goddess of Earth; and how, in the metaphorical sense, she becomes a deformed Hag - with the idea of everything Hideous annexed to her character, the Inhabitant of the lower regions, and presiding over the dark and horrid mysteries of magical incantations." (Walter Whiter, Etymologicon Universale, Cambridge, 1822, v2, p756)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary hag is usually "conjectured to be a shortened form of OE. haegtesse, haehtisse, haegtes, -tis, hegtes 'fury witch hag' = OHG. hagazissa, hagazussa, hagzus, MHG. hecse, Ger. hexe, OLG. *hagatussa, MDu. haghetisse, Du. hecse". While this corroborates one aspect of Whiter's claim, it should be noted that here no mention of Hecate is made, and the ultimate derivation of these terms is indicated as unknown.

The online etymological dictionary (www.etymonline.com) notes that "hag" is probably cognate with O.E. haga "enclosure" (from which we derive the modern English word "hedge"). Given the early association of Hecate with walls, gates and things 'liminal' this is an interesting etymological relationship. Here it is also noted that "hex" in the sense of 'to practice witchcraft' also derives from the same etymon as "hag", namely, OHG. hagazussa.

1."What should we do with this essay?" Whatever you like of course, though I should point out that it is a footnote. I assure you my essays are much, much longer. Persiflage?

2. "Who are these 'some'?" The some are the two parties referenced in the quote which immediately follows the statement, to wit: The Right Reverend Edward Lye of Oxford (1694-1767) and Whiter himself. Did you read the footnote? I recommend reading what you edit as it's generally considered to be a constructive first step. Minsheu and Somner (17th century) could be added to this list, as well as Johann Georg Wachter who discusses arguments for and against this etymological claim in his Glossarium Germanicum (1737).

3. "Why is Whiter's 1822 pre-modern essay to be extensively quoted in a modern encyclopedia?" I'm surprised that you take exception to the quoting of pre-modern material here, as the article is rife with pre-modern quotations. As I understand it Wikipedia guidelines mandate no original research, verifiable citations, and a neutral point of view. Did I miss something? I am aware of no guideline specifying that pre-modern sources cannot be used. How would such a guideline be enforced? Let us rather ask, why is it not to be extensively quoted in a footnote in a modern encyclopedia?

4. It is also worth pointing out that no 'modern' source I have been able to find even discusses this proposed etymological relationship, which is to say that I have found no source which discounts it. I'll grant that it hardly belongs in the body of the article, which is why it appeared in a footnote, with caveats. I'd welcome work on your part to identify a study which has discounted this claim.

5. I'm also surprised that you pounced on this while you seem to experience no difficulty digesting the vague, rambling and redundant nonsense about "Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches compiled by Charles Leland (1899)" which is perhaps itself a pre-modern source (though here at Wikipedia "modern" is defined as the period following the Middle Ages or beginning with the invention of the printing press). Curiouser and curiouser...

You'll forgive me, I hope, for changing the title of this section. While you might find it surprising, the title you composed is rather less gracious than one would expect after the significant work I've put into cleaning up this article. --Picatrix (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I did miss a Wiki editorial guideline: notable. If you want to make a case against inclusion that would be where the issue stands or falls. I'm happy to present justification for my feeling that it warrants a footnote.

The rambling excursus by the curate of Hardingham, Norfolk, (who died in 1832) is not noted by any modern student simply because modern understanding of linguistics has rendered it an irrelevant dead-end. Adding pseudo-etymological babble to the article, which is concerned with Hecate, is simply an exercise in curiosity, not a genuine aid to the reader. It's as simple as that. --Wetman (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? Irrelevant, dead-end, pseudo-etymological babble. You must have found a reference somewhere supporting these statements made with such certainty. No reader would be interested to hear that in Germanic languages we've got a group of words that sound like Hecate and refer to things like hags, witches, spells, and hedgerow borders that keep animals out of the field, and we've got Hecate herself who is historically associated with borders and boundaries, magic, incantations, etc. Hmmm. Seems notable - and not my original research. And rather than being a dead end it would seem to have a number of significant implications. I note that you decline to answer the points I raised.

If the excursus is too rambling may I suggest a more condensed version covering the claim to this derivation as a historical footnote? You say it's irrelevant. I say it's not. I provide citations showing that the argument was advanced, and it seems (foot) notable in the absence of any refutation. You appear to support the idea that an old theory with multiple citations (for which you produce no published refutation) should be removed basically because it's old and you personally think it's nonsense. At the same time that I reasonably ask you for more concrete justification supporting your edit, I should ask: does anyone else here have an opinion? --Picatrix (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Massive deletions

Massive deletions of cited text have recently been made: thus. Editors may want to vet the value of this former text.--Wetman (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding deletions, minor ones have been made. Much of the content was replaced (and expanded and improved, as you'll note). As for massive, there's just one:

Queen of the witches

In the so-called "Chaldean Oracles" that were edited in Alexandria, she was also associated with a serpentine maze around a spiral, known as Hecate's wheel (the "Strophalos of Hecate", verse 194 of Isaac Preston Cory's 1836 translation). The symbolism referred to the serpent's power of rebirth, to the labyrinth of knowledge through which Hecate could lead humanity, and to the flame of life itself: "The life-producing bosom of Hecate, that Living Flame which clothes itself in Matter to manifest Existence" (verse 55 of Cory's translation of the Chaldean Oracles).

In Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches compiled by Charles Leland (1899), he describes the remnants of an Italian witchcraft tradition; the text describes the exploits of the streghe and their worship of Diana (mythology) who sounds rather like Hecate. It is debatable as to whether the goddess Diana as depicted in Leland's work is actually the Greek Goddess Hecate by another name; indeed Diana was usually heavily identified with the Greek Artemis, taking on a great many of her traits. But the Diana is not depicted in Aradia as the Diana of Roman cultus. For example, she is spoken of like this in Aradia: '[...] Diana has ever a dog by her side.' Hecate is famously synonymous with dogs, driving the Wild Hunt across the skies and chasing the lost souls of the dead into the Underworld.

There are also rich references to Diana creating the worlds in Aradia: 'And having made the heaven and the stars and the rain, Diana became Queen of the Witches; she was the cat who ruled the star mice, the heaven and the rain.' Of course in Greek mythology Hecate not only predates the Greek pantheon in a historical sense but she also predates the Olympians in Greek myth. Zeus formally recognised her power by giving to her dominion over earth, sky ('[Diana] was the cat who ruled the star mice, the heaven and the rain') and the underworld as well as connections to the tide in her lunar aspect.

Hecate is also often named as 'Queen of all Witches' having long been associated with Witchcraft in both archaeological curse tablets, crossroads and myth. Both Hecate and the Roman Diana are associated with the moon, the evidence certainly points abundantly towards Diana of Aradia as being Hecate (only with a more familiar name to Italians). Indeed only Hecate was ever publicly associated with Witchcraft, whereas Diana's connection to it never existed within Roman cultus -- like the Greek Artemis, she was a moon deity and a goddess of the hunt, not a patron of Witches.

This content has some value, particularly the first paragraph, which I can probably get around to properly citing instead of partial inline citations. The three following paragraphs are a mess of material that could just as well relate to Herodias, Hecate, Artemis or Diana in 'corrupt' survivals. I place it here so that other editors can take a look and decide what to do with it. As noted in citation-needed tags, material that cannot be verified can be challenged and deleted. Please note I've already expressed my intention to remove the in popular culture material. I'm still waiting to see if anyone objects. Finally, for the record, Wetman, I appreciate the thankless job you've been doing of keeping trash out of this article, and I'd much rather work with you in a friendly atmosphere than trade barbs. --Picatrix (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Content related to the strophalos and the Chaldaean Oracles has been reinserted, in a properly cited form. It is worth observing that the previous content claimed that what is usually understood as a spinning top was described as a 'serpentine maze around a spiral' (?) and all sorts of uncited claims for the significance of this were made. So, that's that. As for the 'Aradia' material, I'm not against its mention, but we have to show that someone besides the editor associates this material with Hecate (and it's probable that someone has), as well as removing the meandering speculation that characterizes these passages. As it stands now the material belongs in the article for Diana. --Picatrix (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the 'Aradia' or 'gospel' of the witches, as far as I have been able to ascertain the material has the following provenance: Leland claims to have met an unnamed woman, one of those who "prepare strange amulets, over which they mutter spells". He says he "employed her specially to collect among her sisters of the hidden spell in many places all the traditions of the olden time known to them." And if that isn't suspect enough he goes on to say, "It is true that I have drawn from other sources, but this woman by long practice has perfectly learned what few understand, or just what I want, and how to extract it from those of her kind."

"Among other strange relics, she succeeded, after many years, in obtaining the following "Gospel," which I have in her handwriting. [...] I do not know definitely whether my informant derived a part of these traditions from written sources or oral narration, but believe it was chiefly the latter. However, there are a few wizards who copy or preserve documents relative to their art. I have not seen my collector since the "Gospel" was sent to me. I hope at some future time to be better informed."

I confess that I too hope some day to be better informed. So much for the 'provenance' of this "Gospel". I see no justification for replacing this material. --Picatrix (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hecate In Popular Culture

Wikipedia:Trivia sections "Avoid creating lists with miscellaneous facts"

Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles "In popular culture" lists should contain verifiable facts of interest to a broad audience of readers"

I realize that consensus has not been reached on the subject of "In popular culture" sections and articles across Wikipedia as a whole. However, I know that there is no guideline mandating the inclusion of an "In popular culture" section in any given article.

I would like to point out that the bald use of the name "Hecate" or a variant like "Hekarti" does not constitute the appearance of <Hecate> in popular culture. By this I mean to say that the historically attested goddess forming the subject of this encyclopedia article and the name "Hecate" would have to appear together to constitute a reference in popular culture. "Hecate is the 5th level of the Succubus, a creatable monster character class in the Disgaea games." or "Hecate is a class of destroyer in FreeSpace 2." do not meet this standard. Apologies for the puerile semiotics, but the point needs to be made.

There's also the issue of spam. Do encyclopedia readers accessing this content need to know that a 'breakcore' artist is using the name "Hecate"? How is this notable?

The majority of these references result from:

1. Confusing the subject of this article with the name of the subject ("Hecate") and;
2. Naively assuming that every marginal appearance of the name of the subject is deserving of mention or;
3. Wishing to see one's frustrated sense of agency publicly reflected in the appearance of an insignificant fact or;
4. Shamelessly wishing to promote oneself.

I have mentioned my intention to remove the "In popular culture" section of the Hecate article. I have seen no comments as regards this proposal. I have therefore removed the section. I believe this will significantly improve the quality of the article as a whole. Furthermore, removing this dangling factoid wen from the lower parts of the article might make the future addition of such irrelevant page-clutter less likely. This would be optimal. --Picatrix (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hecate and the moon

I pulled the following from the 'Places' section because characterizing the moon as a 'place' rather than a celestial object seems a bit strained:

It is often stated that the moon is sacred to Hecate. This is argued against by Farnell (1896, p.4):

Some of the late writers on mythology, such as Cornutus and Cleomedes, and some of the modern, such as Preller and the writer in Roscher's Lexicon and Petersen, explain the three figures as symbols of the three phases of the moon. But very little can be said in favour of this, and very much against it. In the first place, the statue of Alcamenes represented Hekate Επιπυργιδια, whom the Athenian of that period regarded as the warder of the gate of his Acropolis, and as associated in this particular spot with the Charites, deities of the life that blossoms and yields fruit. Neither in this place nor before the door of the citizen's house did she appear as a lunar goddess.

We may also ask, why should a divinity who was sometimes regarded as the moon, but had many other and even more important connexions, be given three forms to mark the three phases of the moon, and why should Greek sculpture have been in this solitary instance guilty of a frigid astronomical symbolism, while Selene, who was obviously the moon and nothing else, was never treated in this way? With as much taste and propriety Helios might have been given twelve heads.

However in the magical papyri of Greco-Roman Egypt there survive several hymns which identify Hecate with Selene and the moon, extolling her as supreme Goddess, mother of the gods. In this form, as a threefold goddess, Hecate continues to have followers in some neopagan religions.

My own opinion is that it would be worthwhile to address the frequent association of Hecate with the moon, but I'm not really sure that it deserves its own section. Before contriving some solution of my own I'd like to ask if any other editors have an opinion regarding what to do with this material, which, though misplaced, is cited and useful. Perhaps we can address the subject in a discussion of late and contemporary syncretic characterizations of Hecate as distinct from the attested pre-Medieval goddess? This would give neopagans a place to put their (often but thankfully not always) poorly cited and supported content, which is bound to begin to accrete here again shortly. --Picatrix (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The etymological theories of 17thC Puritan theologians and 19thC Shakespeare critics.

I've very heavily de-emphasized the 17th-19thC section of etymology for 'hex' and 'hag'; it's of historical significance, but Mr. Lye's etymological guesses of the early 18thC are about as accurate and about as scientifically valuable as phlogiston. Although, like phlogiston, it's of historical interest -- especially if there are moderns who still subscribe to that theory. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You have not de-emphasized it. You simply removed valuable information (for people who actually use Wikipedia for academic research - a minority, I know). At the same time you extended the etymological discussion to include hypothetical "proto-" forms. The previous section "Survival in pre-modern folklore" read:

Hecate has survived in folklore as a 'hag' figure associated with witchcraft. Strmiska notes that Hecate, conflated with the figure of Diana, appears in late antiquity and in the early medieval period as part of an "emerging legend complex" associated with gatherings of women, the moon, and witchcraft that eventually became established "in the area of Northern Italy, southern Germany, and the western Balkans."[66] This theory of the Roman origins of many European folk traditions related to Diana or Hecate was explicitly advanced at least as early as 1807[67] and is reflected in numerous etymological claims by lexicographers from the 17th to the 19th century, deriving "hag" and/or "hex" from Hecate by way of haegtesse (Anglo-Saxon) and hagazussa (Old High German).[68] Such derivations are today proposed only by a minority[69] since being refuted by Grimm, who was skeptical of theories proposing non-Germanic origins for German folklore traditions.[70]

Whatever the precise nature of Hecate's transition into folklore in late Antiquity, she is now firmly established as a figure in Neopaganism, which draws heavily on folkloric traditions associating Hecate with 'The Wild Hunt', hedges and 'hedge-riding', and other themes that parallel, but are not explicitly attested in, Classical sources.

It now reads:

Before Jacob Grimm and the development of etymology, it was believed that the words hag and hex derived from the name Hecate, by way of Old English haegtesse and Old High German hagazussa. The discovery of Germanic i-mutation refuted this[66], as the two words derived from a Proto-Germanic *hagatusjon- and perhaps ultimately from PIE *dhewes-,[67] but the theory still has some supporters,[68] and it is very possible that Hecate, conflated with Artemis/Diana, did influence the "emerging legend complex" of female witchcraft that developed "in the area of Northern Italy, southern Germany, and the western Balkans,"[69] reaching its most familiar form in the witch trials of the 16th and 17th centuries.

Hecate is a popular figure among Neo-pagans, who associate her with the originally Germanic Wild Hunt as well as with medieval customs of witchcraft, especially involving hedges and 'hedge-riding'.

I'd like to ask: what this section has gained? On the other hand, what have we lost?

Jacob Grimm is conflated with the development of "etymology" (when what is actually correct in the context is the development of linguistics, not etymology). The previous citation for mention of Grimm's view is placed at the end of the sentence suggesting (wrongly) that this provides support for mention of the discovery of a "Germanic i-mutation" which has nothing to do with the Grimm citation (which refers to an "unaspirated Ecate" and does not, in any case, address the possibility that both the putative Germanic forms and the confirmed Greek and Latin forms both derived from an earlier source). The online etymological dictionary (which, while useful, is a hodge-podge of information pulled from various sources) is used as the basis for detailed claims about "proto-" forms, which are always hypothetical (as linguists know well and general readers do not), though here stated as established fact. While this section deserved some expansion, it has now been chiseled down. This was a section about survival in pre-modern folklore, and the etymological items mentioned were intended to show one of the bases for the assumption of survival. The thing that concerns me the most is that the editor responsible for these edits breezed in without any worthwhile new citations (except for one from an online source), added more complex discussion of "proto-" linguistic forms and put one citation I dug up (with considerable effort) to work in a misleading way. This whole set of edits to the section adds nothing and removes supporting information (including a useful footnote that involved a lot of research on my part). Is there some reason why a useful footnote should be removed? Where else can readers find a list of people who asserted the (now out of favor) etymological basis? And it is certainly true that whether or not this interpretation has wide acceptance today, it is an historical fact, certainly warranting mention in a footnote. I will be rewriting this section. If the 'helpful' editor would like the Germanic "i-mutation" mentioned, perhaps he or she can provide a citation for this, instead of misusing the one I provided? --Picatrix (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I apologize. I had thought of this purely in terms of an artifact from the 1911 Britannica, and moved far too quickly in response -- as well as messing up my terminology. (I'm only an amateur on linguistics.) ExOttoyuhr (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Apology accepted. Do you have citation for the Germanic i-mutation and some relevant context for how it would relate to the etymology of any of the words? Also, where you mention PIE *dhewes you've gotten things mixed up a bit, as *dhewes appears to be the hypothesized root for the second part of the word: "-tesse" or "-etisse", not the first (haga, hag, haw, etc.). I'll get to it as soon as I can get around to a rewrite. --Picatrix (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Should this be added? [Unsigned comment]

No citation should be necessary for general principles of etymology, outside of cross-references to the appropriate Wikipedia articles, and I had the impression that ablaut was the subject of the Grimm quote. For references on PIE etymology, see www.etymonline.com up to a point -- it's English-only, but is exhaustively researched and cited.

Thanks for pointing that out about the second element, though. I checked my copy of The Oxford Introduction to the Proto-Indo-Europeans and the Proto-Indo-European World (softcover, 2008 reprint), and found that where EtymOnline speculates that a *khagh- is the ancestor of "hex" and "hedge," this states it conclusively -- the root *kagh- "hedge" is named on p. 223 as the ancestor of these terms, and the Celtic and possibly Italic (Lat. caulae "hole," "opening") equivalents, as also descended from them. I'll double-check *dhewes and add this to the article. 02:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex ottoyuhr (talk • contribs)

Change made. (Did I forget to sign that previous comment?) ExOttoyuhr (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thank you. I want to try to find more on this etymology though (hence my digging through the old citations). Is the Oxford work you refer to the Mallory and Adams? I don't have it at hand, but it is a very useful book. --Picatrix (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hekat

Akhilleus: «get rid of "Hekat"--I've never seen this used» — Try looking for it. Imagine how many people have never heard of Zog of Albania; should that article be deleted because of their personal incredulity at such an "implausible" name? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Results that say that "Yet a number of Karian personal names contain the Hekat- root, …" don't demonstrate that "Hekat" is used for a name for this goddess in English. Results that some equate Hecate with the Egyptian goddess Hekat don't demonstrate that "Hekat" is used as a name for Hecate in English. Results that mistakenly find "Hekat" because Google Books can't deal properly with the character Ê doesn't tell us that "Hekat" is used in English as the name of this goddess. Before you accuse others of "ignorance", please read the results of your own search.

My "personal incredulity" springs from the fact that I actually know classical Greek and I know how it's transliterated into English. Plus, I've been reading a lot about Hecate lately, and I have not seen a source that transliterates her name as Hekat--at least, not in English. Care to provide an English source that actually does so (not a Google search)? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I've seen in JSTOR suggests that "Hekat" refers to the Greek goddess. Several sources indicate that it was a unit of measurement, but a footnote in "An Oracular Amuletic Decree of Khonsu in the Cleveland Museum of Art" (B. Bohleke, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 83, (1997), pp. 155-167) mentions an Egyptian Hekat who attends childbirth along with Isis, Nephthys and Meskhenet. It is emphatically not used as an alternate for the Greek goddess Hecate. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The very first two hits in that list use "Hekat" as an alternate name for "Hecate": Donna Wilshire's Virgin, Mother, Crone (e.g. p.165 "the temple of Hekat"), and Amber K's Ritualcraft (e.g. p.502 "Hekas, Hekat, Hekate!"). How did you miss those, Akhilleus? Or were you just determined to ignore them?

Incidentally, claims of personal expertise are not citable here, Akhilleus, and certainly don't trump published secondary sources such as provided. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is no longer true that you've "never seen this used". Yet now you've deleted the name along with the citation of two published examples of its usage. So does your own personal opinion trump published secondary sources after all? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 13:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wait a minute. You're seriously arguing that because two neopagan authors use "Hekat" in poetic/ritual invocations of Hecate (actually, Wilshire p. 165 is an invocation of Hera, but whatever), this article needs to include that as a form of her name in the lead? I don't think so; Wilshire and RitualCraft might be ok sources for modern neopagan practice, but they're lousy sources for an article about an ancient goddess. That's why I ignored them; ecstatic prayers from 1993 and 2006 tell us nothing about the ancient world, and very little about contemporary English usage.

And "claims of personal expertise" may not be citable here, Sizzle, but accusations that my edits are based on an "argument from ignorance" are downright rude. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

See Argument from personal incredulity, same page as Argumentum ad ignorantiam — the fallacy involved in asserting, "I've never seen this, so it can't be true". You doubted that "'Hekat' is used in English as the name of this goddess." You have been presented with two texts in English that do so. Now your complaint is that these "tell us nothing about the ancient world". I'll grant you that no name at all was ever used for Hekate in English in the ancient world. So should we delete all the English renderings from the article now, and show only the ancient Greek version? Note that Neopagan belief in this goddess is part of this article, so Neopagan sources (and usage) are relevant here. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 14:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly. If you think that 2 uses of "Hekat" for Hecate in neopagan prayers (which, by the way, use "Hekate" way more often!) are sufficient to put this name in the lead, you're welcome to that opinion, but since these texts are decidedly non-scholarly, and an extreme minority of current English usage, I don't think the name belongs in the lead. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• It matters little, but it is not acceptable to put "Hekat" in the lede with the implication that this name is used by anyone other than neopagans, as seems shown by sources. I've added a parenthesis to clarify. Arguably it doesn't belong in the lede anyway given that there's only one sentence in the whole article that mentions neopaganism, but this is minor stuff. Moreschi (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This name isn't used by anyone other than neopagans? So Daniel Chwolson, author of the 1856 Sabians and Sabianism ("Hekat = Hekate"), was a Neopagan rather than a Jew? Or are Swedes, for using the same formation, e.g. "Den tredubbla Hekat igenom mörkren tjöt"? Clearly neopagans are not the only people who use "Hekat". And what of Shakespeare's "Hecat" (Macbeth, Act III, Scene 5)? Oh, that Neopagan! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Shakespeare's is simply a spelling variation, in other texts of Macbeth I have seen it spelt differently. This is the English-language Wikipedia and the correct transliteration (and infinitely most commonly used) into English is Hecate (yes, I can read ancient Greek as well). What the correct transliteration is into Swedish or German is irrelevant. Moreschi (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• It's questionable whether Wilshire and RitualCraft use "Hekat" as a different name for the goddess anyway; they use "Hekate" most of the time, and "Hekas, Hekat, Hekate" could easily be seen as imitating the kind of acoustic play that one sees in ancient magical spells. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sizzle Flambe, stop revert-warring. You are quite possibly over 3RR already: one more revert and I will report you for it. This is not constructive: if you have got to the level of randomly searching google books for whatever crops up, regardless of what language it's in, you clearly have nothing productive to contribute here. Moreschi (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• «Shakespeare's is simply a spelling variation» — No, "Hecate" vs. "Hekate" is merely a spelling variation, Latin hard C vs. Greek K for the same phonetic value. "Hecat" vs. "Hekat" likewise. But "Hecate/Hekate" vs. "Hecat/Hekat" are phonetically different due to (the absence of) that final "e" (η). So it is significant that Shakespeare, a non-Neopagan, used "Hecat".
• «in other texts of Macbeth I have seen it spelt differently» — And no doubt many other words' spellings "modernized". So? The lede discusses how this goddess's name may be seen; "Hecat" and "Hekat" are among those ways, in English-language texts.
• «What the correct transliteration is into Swedish or German is irrelevant.» — The complaint about the Wilshire and Amber K citations was that they "tell us nothing about the ancient world". So the Daniel Chwolson text is cited specifically about the ancient world, and documents an ancient variation on the name "Hekate" as "Hekat". If you're demanding proof of English usage in the ancient world, you're not being reasonable or realistic.
• «You are quite possibly over 3RR already» — Only if you count non-revert edits as "reverts". I've restored "Hekat" with supporting sources, first as a talkpage link, then as a footnote citing two sources, then adding a third source (Chwolson) to that footnote and adding "Hecat" to the name list (citing Shakespeare); that's not reverting to the same version every time. Meanwhile, count the reverts to the identical version of having no mention at all (even blanking cited text), including the drive-by IP's assertion of "neopagan and wiccan designation" — so Chwolson and Shakespeare are "neopagan and wiccan"?! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that adding "Hekat" to the lead is a very clear case of according undue weight to a spelling that is rare even among Neopagans, and whose usage appears ambiguous even then. Chwolson - whose work is in Middle Eastern languages and history, and is quite possibly outdated since its 1856 publication - is clearly transliterating an Arabic word (حيقات) and then offering an interpretation of its meaning. Also, the Arabic references to the Sabians date to the early Medieval period, not the ancient period as is claimed, and the source shows us little more than how the name "Hecate" is adapted to a Semitic tongue and writing system. The spelling doesn't belong in the lead, and probably doesn't belong in the article at all. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As "Sabians" notes, they existed before Muhammad, and when they did come under Islamic rule about 639 AD, were described as Greek immigrants — interesting in view of their using "Hekat"/"Hecate". While حيقات is the Arabic transliteration, that does not make it an Arabic word, any more than kaafir (written with English letters) is an English word. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. I didn't say that "Hecate" was an Arabic word; rather, it was a word adopted into a Semitic language - from Greek, as you correctly suggest. A direct transliteration of the Arabic script rendered "Hekat" (in a German-language book, incidentally) does not not support the use of this spelling in English. I stand by my earlier statement that the spelling does not belong in the article. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me amplify a bit on what Kafka Liz has said. In the passage cited Chwolson is commenting upon the Fihrist of the Arabic writer En-Nedim, which was written in the 10th century CE. At the beginning of this section, on p. 279, Chwolson says "Dieser Satz ist in den Codd. sehr corrumpirt"--this sentence in the manuscript is very corrupt, i.e. there are lots of textual problems. The passage Sizzle focuses on says: "Demnach könnte vielleicht (arabic text) wie (arabic text), Hekat = Hekate, gelesen werden" -- Thus (arabic text) may be understood as (arabic text), i.e. Hekat=Hekate. This emphatically does not say that "Hekat" is how Hecate's name was brought into Arabic, it says that "Hekat" is a textual corruption, and we should understand "Hekate" in its place.

However, there's no reason why we should be arguing about this at all. As Moreschi and Kafka Liz have already says, Chwolson isn't relevant to English usage, which is what determines the form of the lead in an article on the English Wikipedia. Chwolson doesn't even tell us anything about the proper German form of Hecate's name. For that, the easiest thing to do is to look at the German Wikipedia article on Hekate. If you want the proper Swedish, look at the Swedish article.

As for Shakespeare, it's definitely English, but of an older variety, and I don't see why it matters here. But if it does, will you argue for "Heccat" and "Heccate" to be in the lead? Because those occur in Shakespeare also. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As showing that the final "e" is sometimes (even if not often) dropped, and not just by Neopagans. I think that much is established. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• You have established nothing of the sort. This was farcical to begin with and is now becoming disruptive. Since it has been shown you have no case, please leave it at that. Since you apparently haven't realised that spelling wasn't standardized in Shakespeare's day and we have no reason to expect accurate transliterations of Greek anyway...Moreschi (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Google Books strikes again: Marion Gibson, Witchcraft and Society in England and America, 1550-1750, p. 118n82: "The Folio reads 'Hecat', showing the pronunciation demanded by the rhythm." So this isn't a different form of her name, it's a performance cue. (P.S. Apparently, the Hecate speech is generally considered inauthentic, which I didn't know before--at least I've learned something interesting from all this nonsense.) --Akhilleus (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, Hecate is thought to be have put in there by Middleton, AFAIK. Moreschi (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• And the non-spoken parts ("(Three Witches, Hecat)" / "Thunder. Enter the three Witches, meeting Hecat.") were also determined by verse rhythm?
• Non-standardized spelling — One part of why different spellings exist (along with the Latin/Greek conventions); but then the various forms should be listed in the ledes.
• The Shakespeare plays are notable, including the one in which Hecat appears; surely that merits a mention.
• How many people over the years have heard the players say "Hecat" without the final "e"? Lots, yes? Worth listing that version in the lede, then. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we're dealing with the same sort of mentality that would look at the Quarto's stage directions in Lear, and advocate putting "Bastard" as an alternative name in the lead of Edmund (King Lear). --Akhilleus (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, but I approve of listing (and REDIRECTing) "William the Bastard" at "William I of England", even though he is referred to much more frequently as "William the Conqueror" — a fine example of how the less common name is still included in the lede. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

John Milton (1634), Comus, Act I, Scene 1, line 135: "Wherein thou ridest with Hecat...."

And Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, Act III, Scene 2, line 21: "Pluto's blue fire and Hecat's tree".

And Ben Jonson's The Sad Shepherd, Act II, Scene 3, line 668: "our dame Hecat". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

See also "triple Hecat" in Arthur Golding's translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses, Book Seven, and in "Mr. Theobald" (Lewis)'s Orestes, Act III, and in William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act V, Scene 1, line 384: "By the triple Hecat's team". It's a pity none of these appeared in the English language, or else Akhilleus would surely have seen them. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• You really don't get it, do you? These are old, archaic spellings before English-language spelling became standardized, and most of them are using the shortened form to fit a poetical metre of one kind or another. You wouldn't put Chaucerian spellings into the ledes of the relevant articles, would you? No? Same principle here. Moreschi (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

But what if I want to spell knight with a "c"? Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• No, Chaucer wrote in Middle English. Shakespeare, Milton, Marlowe, Jonson, and Golding wrote in Modern English. Their spellings also show the pronunciation, which Webster (a standardizer) noted had become standard, "sinking the final e". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Although Shakespeare and co. wrote in technically modern english the classical modern period is still marked in variances in spelling and pronounciation that do not carry over to the current time. Archaic and outmoded "modern english" spellings are not appropriate. As an example I give you apricoke. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Simonm223. It's hard to believe that Sizzle's latest edit summary, "Restore amply documented & notable Modern English writers' usage, apparently mistaken for Chaucer's Middle English by talkpage commenters" is sincere--no one claims that Shakespeare, Jonson, and Marlowe are contemporary with Chaucer; they think that these authors are not evidence for current English usage. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

«You wouldn't put Chaucerian spellings into the ledes of the relevant articles, would you? No? Same principle here.» — The problem being precisely that Chaucer wrote in Middle English, while Shakespeare et al. wrote in Modern English, our own language. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I see someone's being difficult again. The lead currently reads: Hecate (ancient Greek Ἑκάτη, "far-shooting" or Hekate (Hekátê, Hekátē) was a popular chthonian goddess attested as early as Hesiod's Theogony... Now, I see no real point to having both (Hekátê, Hekátē) here, as these are both ways of transliterating the Greek Ἑκάτη while showing the accent and long vowel mark--both ê and ē are ways of bringing the long vowel η into the Roman alphabet. I see no real point to having a transliteration with an accent and a long mark at all--in general, this is a habit of scholarly texts and a few translations. So I took it out. User:Sizzle Flambé promptly reverted me, with the edit summary "Not a "double transliteration"; this shows the two common pronunciations Heh-kat-eh, Heh-kat-ee — as opposed to, say, Hee-kayt...." Well, this is news to me. "ê" represents "eh" and "ē" represents "ee"? I've never seen ê represent "eh", though ē is a common representation of "ee" (as in "bee" or "see"). I have, however, seen plenty of transliterations of classical Greek η as ê or ē. Perhaps Sizzle will address my personal incredulity with a source that supports his contention.

If it is felt necessary to give the pronunciation of Hecate in this article, it might be a good idea to read WP:PRONUNCIATION, which tells us to use IPA. If you want to use a dictionary-style pronunciation, it would be (hĕk'ə-tē), with slight variation depending on which dictionary's scheme you use. Notice how there's a stress mark there? That's one of the ways we can distinguish between a pronunciation guide and a transliteration. Of course, I don't think we need the pronunciation at all, because this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ê has been used for /ɛ/, /e/, or /ɜ/; but by all means let's use IPA instead. Do you also intend to remove pronunciations from Persephone, Antigone, and Socrates? And let new readers start saying PURS-eh-foan, ANT-ih-gawn, and SO-craytz? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the evidence for having two pronunciations of Hecate? The OED only lists one ('hɛkə-tiː, and note the stress mark goes before the stressed syllable in IPA), so does the American Heritage Dictionary. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"Pronounced approximately He-ka-tay". — Stephen Ronan, The Goddess Hecate (1992), page 8; as opposed to "he'ket" in Robert Blumenfeld's Accents: a Manual for Actors (2002), page 47. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

See also "Rules for pronouncing the vowels of Greek and Latin proper names", p.9, in Noah Webster's 1866 Dictionary:

Hecate likewise, pronounced in three syllables when in Latin, and in the same number in the Greek word Ἑκάτη, in English is universally contracted into two, by sinking the final e. Shakespeare seems to have begun, as he has now confirmed, this pronunciation, by so adapting the word in Macbeth.... And the play-going world, who form no small portion of what is called the better sort of people, have followed the actors in this word; and the rest of the world have followed them.

Another cite you will doubtless find rationalization to ignore. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I will find reasons, the main one of which is that these pronunciations are not found in current English--for that you look at recent dictionaries, such as the OED, and the American Heritage Dictionary, both of which list one (and only one pronunciation). You don't look in random Google Books search results. You don't look in self-published books like Stephen Ronan's The Goddess Hekate, published by Chthonios Press, founded by...Stephen Ronan. (Although it looks like Ronan's book is half reprints of earlier works, so perhaps this is from a reprinted section and maybe you can chase down the original--but you can't do that through snippet views on Google Books.) Blumenfeld comments specifically on how to pronounce Hecate in performing Macbeth; this is not evidence of current English usage. An 1866 edition of Webster's is similarly not evidence for current pronunciation. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well, "Hecate" in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2009: "Pronunciation: \ˈhe-kə-tē, ˈhe-kət\" — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So you finally found a current source, thank you! Now, how common do you think this pronunciation is? Remember, the OED and the American Heritage Dictionary don't have it. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A single modern source - on pronunciation, not spelling - does not not justify including the "Hekat" spelling in the lead. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This section is about pronunciation. Spelling is in the previous section. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your most recent edit [4] reintroduced the disputed spelling together with information on pronunciation. The alternate pronunciation has now been incorporated. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"Hecate" in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2000: "(hĕk'ǝ-tē, hĕk'ĭt)" — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My print edition from 1991 gives only one pronunciation, so thanks for demonstrating the revision. Do you have any others? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You asked for one, you were given two. Now even that's not enough? Wiley rather than Merriam: "(hek′ə tē, hek′it)" - "Hecate" in Webster's New World College Dictionary. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And Merriam-Webster recordings with and without sounding the final E. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead and footnotes

I've just reverted User:Sizzle Flambé twice; two reverts ago, my edit summary was "mostly revert; retain pronunciation from M-W; please try not to clutter up lead sentence with footnotes, it makes it virtually impossible to edit". For this I get called "disingenuous" by Sizzle, which I suppose is OK because I think exactly the same thing about him, as I said two sections up--no one claims that Shakespeare, etc. are contemporary with Chaucer, or unread, or anything like that--the claim is that Elizabethan usage is not modern English usage (or "current," if that makes you happier).

As for the footnotes, there are too many in the lead. Ideally, the lead should have no footnotes--they should be in the body of the article, which I would like to focus on sometime after we stop having idiotic arguments about the first sentence of the article. And Sizzle, if you really want to footnote every word of the lead sentence with information such as "From the Latin spelling" or quotes from Shakespeare, Milton, and Marlowe, please explain why. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting lede text as "unsourced", then deleting the sources as "clutter" when provided (while leaving untouched the seven other footnotes in the lede), is disingenuous. People still read Shakespeare and Milton, even today, and will come across the "Hecat" spelling there. They will also see "Hecate" and "Hekate" (even in this article), and may well wonder why — as not everyone has read everything ever written — and for them the footnotes provide explanation. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No educated person pronounces Hekate 'hɛk-ət, without voicing final e. Chaucer's and Shakespeare's pronunciations are curiosities perhaps worthy of a footnote. Is lede text a misprint for lead, signifying the text of the opening paragraph? Perhaps we have a spelling reformer at work.--Wetman (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Take it up with those three cited, standard, and current dictionaries. Are Wiki-editors' personal opinions supposed to trump reliable secondary sources? As for lede, see the American Heritage Dictionary. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest Sizzle Flambe take a look at WP:CIVIL and perhaps take a voluntary breather from this article for a few hours. Rhetoric is getting heated. Wetman: Lede is sort of wiki-slang. Nearly unused outside of wikipedia but appropriate contextually.Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians borrow lede from journalism; it's not only in the dictionary (as cited above) but in active use.
See also Word of the Day (November 28, 2000).
You might recommend WP:CIVIL to those who made insults, accusations, and threats at me here. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to basics

Can we please keep this simple? I enter "Hecate" in my search box and google gives me this article. What do I need to know, and in what sequence? I don't know. I assume the wikipedia editors do, so I read the first paragraph, expecting lucidity, not complexity - and not footnotes: why should I have to read footnotes in the lead? The structure of the lead is plain ole' potted history: a taster. No side dishes required.

As to Hekat, this seems a relatively minor historical development. It should be dealt with as such (thus in sequence) in the main body of the article. Neopaganist stuff comes last - after all, that's when it happens - and again, it belongs in the main article along with any relevant and necessary footnotes.

Any contrary suggestions? Or are the article lead and content now fairly stable? Haploidavey (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that almost all lede footnotes have been removed and their contents moved to text body, it makes sense that the Hecat & /'hɛk-ət/ discussions also take place in text body rather than footnotes. But the spellings and pronunciations themselves belong in the lede's lists of spellings and pronunciations. After all, if at the bottom of the article we say "also spelled X and pronounced Y", the reader may reasonably ask, "Well, why didn't you tell me that when you were giving spellings and pronunciations? I trusted the list in the lede, and only now do you tell me it's incomplete?" As for neopagan "stuff", that's been entirely blanked out except for the bare mention of neopaganism in one sentence. I don't think it's Wikipedia's mission to withhold information from the reader. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please appreciate that I'm here precisely because I know very little about the topic or its subtopics. I've no axe to grind. As you say, Wikipedia should not withhold encyclopedic information: it should also give information due weight, position and a rational sequence. In the lead I'd expect to find a pronunciation guide for each form and brief elucidation of historical context. In other words, though they refer to the same object (? or so I assume) they should be separated, because each has its own history: which I'd expect to read in more detail in the main article. In all honesty, the same goes for the neopagan "stuff": not the same as, but certainly inspired by, and in a category of its own. A summary here: but it really needs its own article. Haploidavey (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thus?:   Hecate or Hekate (/'hɛkə-tiː/, /'hɛk-ət/) in current standard usage, Hecat (/'hɛk-ət/) in poetry and plays esp. 16th-18th centuries, Hekate (/'hɛkə-teɪ/, /hɛk'ɑ-teɪ/) or Hekat (/'hɛk-ət/) in current neopagan usage, (ancient Greek Ἑκάτη, "far-shooting") was a popular chthonian Greco-Roman goddess, often associated with magic, witches, ghosts, and crossroads. ...

Or thus?:   Hecate, Hekate (/'hɛkə-tiː/, /'hɛkə-teɪ/, /hɛk'ɑ-teɪ/, /'hɛk-ət/), Hecat or Hekat (/'hɛk-ət/) (ancient Greek Ἑκάτη, "far-shooting") was a popular chthonian Greco-Roman goddess, often associated with magic, witches, ghosts, and crossroads. ...

I'd think the second choice makes the lede shorter, lists everything but leaves the exposition for a later section, "Spellings and pronunciations", to discuss the whys and wherefores.

Third choice:   Hecate, Hekate, Hecat, or Hekat (ancient Greek Ἑκάτη, "far-shooting") was a popular chthonian Greco-Roman goddess, often associated with magic, witches, ghosts, and crossroads. ...

This would move all the pronunciations down to that section, reducing lede detail further. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My brief comment is that the spelling is not sufficiently common to belong in the lead. It has no place in modern scholarship, and the exigencies of Elizabethan meter, while of literary interest, do not prove this spelling's common currency. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In "modern scholarship" of what, Kafka Liz? Scholarship certainly covers Shakespeare and his contemporaries, poetry and plays, and modern neopaganism (on which there are already anthropological texts as well as the obvious category of comparative religion). This article falls under the projects for mythology and Thelema as well as Greece and the Classical period; it's not limited to pre-medieval subjects. The /'hɛk-ət/ pronunciation is common enough to be in current dictionaries (three examples were cited), and explaining why requires discussing the Elizabethan writers' "Hecat". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the section itself, first draft:

Spellings and pronunciations

In current standard usage, Hecate (the Latin spelling) or Hekate (as transliterated from Greek) is most often pronounced /'hɛkə-tiː/, though sometimes /'hɛk-ət/.*

Arthur Golding's 1567 translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses refers to "triple Hecat" (/'hɛk-ət/),* and this spelling without the final E later appears in Ben Jonson's play The Sad Shepherd,* Christopher Marlowe's play Doctor Faustus,* William Shakespeare's plays A Midsummer Night's Dream* and Macbeth,* and John Milton's play Comus,* perhaps to fit the verse metres. Noah Webster in 1866 particularly credits the influence of Shakespeare for the then-predominant pronunciation of "Hecate" without the final E.*

Neopagan worshippers of the goddess sometimes use the spelling Hekat (/'hɛk-ət/)* and sometimes Hekate (/'hɛkə-teɪ/ or /hɛk'ɑ-teɪ/),* perhaps emulating respectively the Shakespearean and classical pronunciations.

Footnotes indicated by "*". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Relative weighting remains an issue. Quite apart from Kafka Liz' observations and the general consensus they appear to represent among contributors here, assertion of currency and relevance requires positive proof. Assuming such proof is found and assuming consensus is reached, a cluster of spellings and pronunciations is cumbersome, verging on unreadable. If a particular spelling and pronunciation develops in a particular context, introduce it in context: of course this is merely a suggestion. I'm sure others will be made, but not by me - I've my own things to be getting on with. Haploidavey (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Assertion of currency: cites have been provided (and deleted), can be provided again, and can be added to. Assertion of relevance: if we're discussing the history of this figure and her names (not just arbitrary subsets excluding prominent usages), it's hard to see why Shakespeare's and Milton's uses of Hecat(e) should not be mentioned, or why this goddess's current worshippers' forms of address to her should go unmentioned — it would be like an article on The Bible that didn't mention the King James Version or the existence of current Christians. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kafka Liz, and I think Haploidavey makes some great points about usability. I agree that the article should cover Hecate's appearances in English literature, but I see no reason why that mandates putting a spelling that is not common in current usage in the lead. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I see no reason to have a separate section on spelling and pronunciation; as Haploidavey says, if a spelling is important in a particular context, then it can be covered there. The proposed version above also incorporates a good deal of speculation. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Spellings in the lede: that's where to list them, if not explain them. That's why both "Hecate" and "Hekate" are there, instead of only one.

Separate section: in order to take all that explanation out of the lede.

«speculation» — Anything besides the "perhaps"s that I should cite? How many cites do you want for each? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - edit conflicts of a sudden! I don't think anyone's suggesting they shouldn't be mentioned. Clearly, they should - it's just a question of whether they're significant enough to occupy a place in the lede of an article on Graeco-Roman Hecate - the ancient deity, whose name (not cult or "person") appears in later literary works. And that's not a question I can answer. Haploidavey (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hecate's "person" does not appear in, say, fantasies where a human or superhuman character borrows her name, and I agree those don't belong in the article. But Shakespeare and Milton (as surely as Ovid and Hesiod) were referring to the "chthonian Greco-Roman goddess, often associated with magic, witches, ghosts, and crossroads" — and so are her neopagan worshippers. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I put a lot of work into this article (though I'll own it needs a lot more), and while I'm blissfully uninterested in the finer points of what spelling variants you all decide belong in the opening paragraph, I have to say that this strange anxiety about the inclusion of footnotes in the lead is baffling to me. What is the basis for assuming that content that was included in footnotes should be pulled and placed in the text? The whole point of a footnote is that information that might break the flow, or that would not be interesting for a general reader, can go in another place so that people who wish to explore things further, or specialists who need to track down details, have recourse to it. Nobody who reads the lead material "has to" read the footnotes. The whole point with footnotes is that you can choose whether or not to read them. Pulling the footnote content and placing it in the text is in many cases a sophomoric waste of time that also affects the readability of the article. Furthermore, breaking up content into sections such as "Possible Carian Origins" causes one to wonder why this needs its own section. I think that removal of footnotes in the lead is a sign of mediocritization (an ugly word, yes, but it corresponds to an ugly phenomenon, which can be seen operating here). If the editors willing to prune footnotes based on a hare-brained rationale holding that footnotes don't belong in lead paragraphs had actually done the work of gathering the valuable information contained in those footnotes, and had bothered to consider issues of readability far more important than whether or not footnotes are included (for example flow of concepts, conciseness in opening material, etc.) it is likely we would not have to watch this article get hacked up in significant ways while relatively insignificant issues about little-seen variant spellings are discussed pedantically as though of great import. I'll come back to cleaning this article up and dealing with the important stuff (like the cross-cultural parallels section that I didn't get a chance to deal with) as soon as I have time. --Picatrix (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article needs more work (but thank you for the work you already put in). It's hard to do any of that work when there are incessant arguments about trivia.

I have to disagree with you about the footnotes. First of all, when the lead sentence is sprinkled with footnotes, like this version, it is very difficult to edit--the lead sentence is broken up by several lengthy footnotes, some of which are paragraphs long, and it's difficult to even see what's main text and what's footnote in there.

As for readability, we've obviously got different ideas about this. I think that having multiple footnotes in a sentence, and having footnotes that are several setences long, make the article less readable. If something's worth writing several sentences about, it's probably worth putting in the main text; otherwise, it should just be left out. As for "conciseness in opening material"--well, the easiest way to accomplish that is to be more concise, not to stuff things into footnotes. The lead doesn't need to spend much time talking about Hecate's probable origin in Caria, and it certainly doesn't need to discuss theophoric names. What it needs to do is give a short description of who Hecate was in Greek and Roman literature and religion, and give some indication of her nachleben.

On the "Possible Carian origins" section--no, this doesn't need to be a separate section, but there is at the moment no "history" section to place this material in. The "mythology" section has kind of a historical overview, though, so perhaps the material could be merged there. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

«it's difficult to even see what's main text and what's footnote in there.» — A reader sees main text, with ^[numbers] sprinkled through it, and the footnotes all down at the bottom, no problem. Presumably editors also see that, before diving in to edit it.

«footnotes that are several sentences long» — If explaining a technical point requires several sentences, so be it. Not all technical points require main text coverage. I agree with Picatrix about concept flow, and I agree with you, Akhilleus, that not everything needs to be in the main text of the lede — which is why I had put those explanations of spelling and pronunciation into footnotes to begin with. It passes my understanding that you felt the need to delete those footnotes altogether as too trivial, yet move other footnotes (on matters at least as trivial) into main text and even as entire section; it seems a completely skewed idea of "relative weight". Being able to recognize Hecate's name as spelled and/or pronounced in Shakespeare's plays and in modern worshippers' rituals seems to me more likely to be both useful and interesting to the general reader (else one might wonder, who is that person haranguing the Three Witches?) than "possible Carian origins", yet I'm not urging the deletion of the Carian question from the article. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

See Cynwolfe's suggestion: "why can't all the other issues of naming be placed under the 'Name and etymology' section?" Which is done. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Spellings and pronunciations

All right, with this edit I've put four simple sentences into a new section (not the lede):

Spellings and pronunciations

In current standard usage, Hecate (the Latin spelling) or Hekate (as transliterated from Greek) is most often pronounced /'hɛkə-tiː/, though sometimes /'hɛk-ət/.^[7]

Arthur Golding's 1567 translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses refers to "triple Hecat" (/'hɛk-ət/),^[8] and this spelling without the final E later appears in plays of the Elizabethan-Jacobean period.^[9] Noah Webster in 1866 particularly credits the influence of Shakespeare for the then-predominant pronunciation of "Hecate" without the final E.^[10]

Some neopagan worshippers of the goddess pronounce the name as /'hɛkə-teɪ/, /hɛk'ɑ-teɪ/, or /'hɛk-ət/,^[11] the last sometimes spelled Hekat.^[12]

(wikilinks not shown) ... and accordingly removed pronunciations from the lede. Akhilleus, since your concern was solely that this didn't belong in the lede, I trust that this time you will leave it undeleted. Thank you. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm removing this section. Several reasons why:

There is no consensus to include this material as a separate section. Sizzle proposed this in "Back to basics" above, and no one agreed with his proposals.

A paragraph of the section relies on neopagan sources and picks out their pronunciation as a matter of special interest: "Some neopagan worshippers of the goddess pronounce the name as /'hɛkə-teɪ/, /hɛk'ɑ-teɪ/, or /'hɛk-ət/..." Why is this information important?

In fact, why is the spelling and pronunciation of Hecate's name important enough to warrant its own section in this article? Has anyone given coverage to the spelling and pronunciation of Hecate's name as an important topic in its own right? (The 1866 Webster doesn't qualify, because this is part of a discussion on the pronunciation of Latin and Greek proper names in general, not about Hecate specifically.)

Consider Sizzle's edit summary "New section. At least as WP:WEIGHTy as "Possible Carian origins", and very brief in main text": well, take a look at WP:WEIGHT, which says "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." If we're applying WP:WEIGHT here, we need to determine whether the pronunciation or spelling of Hecate is treated as a significant subject by reliable sources. Based on the sources Sizzle has given us, I don't think so. Dictionaries give pronunciations and alternative spellings, of course, but this is not evidence that there is a concern about the pronunciation or spelling of Hecate that goes beyond that given to any word. As I already said, the 1866 Webster doesn't treat the pronunciation of Hecate as an important subject in its own right; nor does Blumenfeld's Accents: a manual for actors (not cited in the article text, but it has been brought up on this talk page before). In contrast, Hecate's possible Carian origin is something mentioned very often in scholarship about her: the OCD entry, the entry in the Neue Pauly, and the Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae (LIMC) entry all mention it; Burkert and Kraus (both cited in the article) mention it; Berg 1974 is an entire journal article devoted to the issue. This is, unlike the pronunciation and spelling, a topic that gets significant coverage in reliable sources. But I think there's consensus on this talk page that it shouldn't be covered in a separate section, but instead it should be integrated into another section.

Let me suggest that the material on pronunciation and spelling might be at home at the Wiktionary entry on Hecate. This article links there already, but if there's concern that the links aren't prominent enough, we could add a footnote to the lead sentence (oh horrors!) that said something like "for additional material on spelling and pronunciation see wikt:Hecate and wikt:Ἑκάτη. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhilleus (talk • contribs) 01:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

«Sizzle proposed this in "Back to basics" above, and no one agreed with his proposals.» — No, the version proposed earlier listed details like the plays and authors in main text. This much shorter version moves all that to footnotes. And as to WP:WEIGHT: I think the general reader will want to be able to recognize the name when s/he reads or hears it elsewhere, and understand why those variations exist. "Possible Carian origins" may be a matter of hot debate, but to a tiny minority by comparison. You said repeatedly that you wanted this out of the lead paragraph — but now you are deleting it from farther down, a brief bit in main text and more in footnotes, not in the lede – as though no mention was permitted anywhere in the article... which wasn't what the consensus was about. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"I think the general reader will want to be able to recognize the name when s/he reads or hears it elsewhere, and understand why those variations exist." I understand that this is your opinion, but WP:WEIGHT is concerned with viewpoints published in reliable sources. As I've said, I don't see evidence that reliable sources see this as an important topic of discussion. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"If someone wants to write a section of the article that covers Hecate's portrayal in Elizabethan literature, which might include the fact that her name was variously given as Heccat, Heccate, Hekat, and Hecate (and perhaps others, since Elizabethan spelling wasn't standardized), be my guest. But Elizabethan usage isn't current English, and shouldn't determine what we see in the lead sentence." --Akhilleus, 03:06, 18 October 2009, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Classical Greece and Rome#Hekate and Hekat. Having invited a separate section to be written (as long as it wasn't in the lede), now he deletes it. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What you wrote isn't a section on Hecate's portrayal in Elizabethan literature. It's a section which includes a sentence about how Hecate's name was pronounced and spelled in early modern English poetry. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

«There is no consensus to include this material as a separate section.» — (1) Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus". (2) You yourself suggested and invited a separate section, as long as it wasn't in the lede. (3) The footnotes cite and link to six separate works by Elizabethan writers, which the reader can peruse in full if the reader feels so inclined. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sizzle's last revert, and the citation of this essay, willfully ignores the fact that I have explained, quite extensively, just above, in several comments, why I removed the material. Perhaps WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your own edit comment was "(rv. no consensus to include this material)". So see Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and my previous edit summary was remove "Spellings and pronunciations" section; see talk page for explanation. And the essay you link to says "If the only thing you have to say about a contribution to an article is that it lacks consensus, it's best not to revert it." Guess what--I have a lot to say about why I think this section shouldn't be here. I said it above! So please don't act as if I haven't discussed this; the evidence is right here. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And where you have given other reasons, those reasons have been addressed. But here you finally resorted to "(rv. no consensus to include this material)" as your last-ditch justification for removing a section when you'd suggested and invited a separate section as an alternative to lede text. Your reasons (which had support) for removing lede text don't apply; this wasn't in the lede. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you haven't addressed my objections. For instance, you're completely ignoring my point that the text you added gives undue weight to neopagan material. You're completely ignoring my point that no secondary source treats the pronunciation and spelling of Hecate as an important topic in its own right. You're misrepresenting what I said about a separate section--I specifically said a separate section about Hecate's depiction in Elizabethan poetry. The text you put in the article isn't about Hecate's depiction, it's about spelling and pronunciation. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The section is about her name, and the text added to it discusses how her name is shown in Elizabethan poetry and plays. Since you complained about length vs. weight, the six separate works from five different Elizabethan authors are listed in the footnote instead of main text; their names are wikilinked, the play titles are wikilinked, and the cited portions have external links to the play texts. You seem to be going back and forth between demanding that more information be added and demanding that even this much be removed. As to "neopagan material": one lone sentence, which on my screen is a single line, only states what pronunciation/spelling they use; the bulk of its raw (editing) text is footnote.

Per Cynwolfe: "why can't all the other issues of naming be placed under the 'Name and etymology' section?" — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can't realize what the difference is between a section discussing Hecate's depiction in Elizabethan poetry and the the text you've added, I don't think any amount of discussion is going to help here. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this section, the section you are tagging, is about her name. The short two-sentence paragraph discusses how her name is shown in Elizabethan poetry and plays. If you want to add more, feel free. But then why complain so heartily about even this widow's-pence? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Why complain? Because you have claimed, both here and at WT:CGR, that the text you inserted fulfills my "invitation" to write a separate section: [5]. Quite obviously, I meant a section about Hecate's appearances in Elizabethan poetry--which might include a short bit on how her name is spelled. I did not mean a section on her name. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I do not believe that you are unable to realize the difference--I think you are being disingenuous, and you are misrepresenting what I said to boot. That irritates me.

Another reason to complain is that you seem determined to insert utter trivia (haha, a pun) into the article. For some reason you seem to think that alternate spelling/pronunciation/naming is a matter of great concern and potential confusion, but you have no evidence that anyone thinks this is an important matter but you. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to rephrase that sentence as "Hecate appears in Elizabethan poetry and plays as 'Hecat'." — with all the same footnotes? That would suggest a more general claim than I think the evidence supports. The cites and quotes show only that she appears in these specific works under that name; and in (for instance) A Midsummer Night's Dream that's all there is, just the bare mention of her name [and, well, "thrice-crowned queen"]. If you want to go find other works, perhaps with the other spellings you mentioned ("Heccat" et al.), please feel free. In the meantime, this is just a brief sentence limited to the issue of her name, which is why it is in the section on her name.

«no evidence that anyone thinks» — Cynwolfe asked you directly: "why can't all the other issues of naming be placed under the 'Name and etymology' section?" — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, maybe you can't understand the difference. What I mean is a section that discusses the character of Hecate in Elizabethan poetry (expand it to early modern English poetry if you like, or for that matter all English poetry). Who is she, why does she appear in these works, what's her significance. Y'know, literary analysis. All you seem to be interested in here is spelling and pronunciation.

no evidence that anyone thinks--no insult intended to Cynwolfe, but the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors don't establish whether a subject is important or not. You do that by looking at a subject's coverage in secondary sources. So far, you've demonstrated that you are greatly concerned about the spelling and pronunciation of Hecate's name, but you haven't shown that this is a concern shared by secondary sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering your hostility to, and persistent deletion of, even the briefest, most basic, utterly factual details like transliterations, spellings, and pronunciations, why should anyone invest the effort to write a long section on literary analysis, and hope for better treatment?

«the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors don't establish whether a subject is important or not» — Yet you appealed to the consensus of such "personal opinions" before, as when arguing this topic didn't belong in the lede, and even when deleting the section from the article ("rv. no consensus to include this material"). So apparently only when they disagree with you do their opinions not matter.

A scholarly article debating the importance of theophoric names as a clue to the Carian origin of Hecate is unlikely to lay great stress on how her name is said in English, because (1) the latter is not controversial (but Wikipedia articles aren't solely about controversies); (2) it's not concerned with what grade-school or other new readers need to know at a basic introductory level (but Wikipedia is); (3) the scholars reading at that depth presumably already know how to say and spell the English name (but Wikipedia readers might not); (4) few if any secondary sources ever state outright that "Wikipedia should cover this detail" (about any detail).

That Noah Webster discussed the Shakespeare-influenced pronunciation at some length (even more than was quoted) signifies his opinion about its importance; that those other cited secondary sources felt the need to discuss pronunciations signifies theirs. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so now we're clear that the text you wrote is not a section on Hecate's portrayal in Elizabethan literature? Good. As for your statement that: "Considering your hostility to, and persistent deletion of, even the briefest, most basic, utterly factual details like transliterations, spellings, and pronunciations, why should anyone invest the effort to write a long section on literary analysis, and hope for better treatment?" Presumably a section on Hecate in English literature would be based on good secondary sources and would therefore focus on matters of significance, rather than the trivia of spelling and pronunciation; in short, it would meet Wikipedia policies, and be an improvement to the article (that's what I'd hope for, anyway).

And let's be clear on this: you haven't shown that secondary sources focus on spelling/alternative names/pronunciation as an important topic; in fact, you've conceded that secondary sources are likely to find this unimportant in your last post. Let me once again suggest that a section dedicated to spelling and pronunciation would be quite at home on Wiktionary, but not here, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The text in question is (as stated repeatedly) about how her name appears in the works of those Elizabethan writers. The section is about her name. Had anything beyond her name been the sentence's topic, it would have belonged in a different section. So essentially you are complaining that this addresses the section topic and not something unrelated to that topic, which is really a very strange complaint.

The secondary sources cited do discuss the pronunciation. What I've "conceded" is that "a scholarly article debating the importance of theophoric names as a clue to the Carian origin of Hecate" is unlikely to do so, because it's addressed to a different readership than Wikipedia's. This gives no support to any argument that Wikipedia should not cover basic details for the reader new to the subject. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind you, once again, that you have claimed the text you wrote was a response to my "invitation" to write a section of the article that covers Hecate's portrayal in Elizabethan literature." Since you now acknowledge that you wrote something quite different than what I was asking for, there's no reason for me to complain on this score (unless you start claiming that you wrote the section in response to my invitation again).

The rest of my comment, of course, remains salient. Let me remind, you, too, of your edit summary "At least as WP:WEIGHTy as "Possible Carian origins"..." Now you've acknowledged that this material isn't as WP:WEIGHTy--scholarship finds the subject of Hecate's Carian origin far more interesting than the spelling and pronunciation of her name in English. And let me give you a hint: if you're basing your argument on an 1866 dictionary and a handful of modern neopagan writers, you don't have a very strong array of sources on your side. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind you, once again, that the present topic, back to the creation of the talkpage sections #Hekat and #Pronunciation, has been the name of this goddess, as it is in the article section we're discussing — which includes the portrayal of her name in Elizabethan literature. If that went beyond her name, it would belong elsewhere in the article. You wanted it out of the lede, and it is out of the lede. But you have no consensus to delete it altogether from the article.

An article directed solely to scholars on the topic of possible Carian origin would not address the same topics as a Wikipedia article directed to a general readership, true. But this is the Wikipedia article directed to the general readership; it is not an article directed solely to scholars. "The spelling and pronunciation of her name in English" is relevant here. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

{{pov-section}} tag

Rather than revert once more, I've put a {{pov-section}} tag on the "Spellings and pronunciations" section. The POV problem is basically this: by breaking this out into a separate section, the article gives undue weight to the interest of a single wikipedia editor, rather than reflecting a widespread concern in secondary sources over the spelling and pronunciation of Hecate's name. A secondary problem is that the section is placing too much weight on pronunciations found in neopagan sources which aren't found in contemporary dictionaries. (See the subsection just above for more issues with the section.)

Some potential solutions:

• material on spelling and pronunciation can be transwikied to Wiktionary.
• variant spellings/pronunciation can be covered in context, as has been suggested above--e.g., Shakespeare's spelling/pronunciation can be covered in a section on Hecate's depiction in Macbeth or early modern English poetry generally. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

«The POV problem is basically this: by breaking this out into a separate section, the article gives undue weight» — easily resolved. Now combined with the previous section, "Name and etymology".

«the interest of a single wikipedia editor» — Listing variant spellings for a name that has them, and variant pronunciations likewise, shouldn't even be controversial. This isn't an archaeology or classical-history journal, where readers' basic familiarity with the name can be assumed. We need to cover what the first-time reader may not know. Deleting such basic stuff because you yourself have moved on to more advanced topics is not how to approach writing an encyclopedic article. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The "name and etymology" section, before your merger, concerned Hecate's name in Greek, which has been the subject of substantial discussion in scholarship; the variants in English spelling and pronunciation have not been the subject of such discussion, at least not on the evidence of the sources discussed thus far. The material has been included because of your interest in this matter, not because other secondary sources devote coverage to this. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the "scholarship" debating the Greek name has advanced beyond needing to know how the English version may be spoken or spelled.. We can make no such presumption about first-time readers of this article, who may never have seen or heard the name before — or who may be coming here to find out about the character "Hecat" in Macbeth, or about the goddess they heard invoked in some public neopagan ritual in their city park on Halloween. We are, in short, not writing solely for a scholarly readership. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What's more, the material still gives undue weight to neopagan material. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A single one-line sentence? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As for your point on "how to approach writing an encyclopedic article"--do other encyclopedias and reference works deal with the spelling and pronunciation of Hecate? The Online Britannica entry doesn't cover spelling or pronunciation, and neither does the Student version. The Encarta entry (which is about to disappear on Oct 31) doesn't. The Oxford Classical Dictionary doesn't; the Encylopedia of Religion doesn't, either in its first or second editions; the Oxford Companion to World Mythology doesn't. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology doesn't. Even the entry in The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare doesn't cover spelling or pronunciation: [6]. Most of these works are aimed at the general reader, but they don't seem to think that pronunciation and spelling is a matter they need to cover. Perhaps they expect their readers to consult a dictionary for such matters. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

But Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable does: "Hec'ate (3 syl. in Greek, 2 in Eng.)"; the latter part of the article even discusses Shakespeare's allusions in Macbeth. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As asked before, but never answered: "Do you also intend to remove pronunciations from Persephone, Antigone, and Socrates? And let new readers start saying PURS-eh-foan, ANT-ih-gawn, and SO-craytz?" Wikipedia gives pronunciations. We may search for and find some other sources that lack such information, but that's not prescriptive reason why Wikipedia should withhold it from the reader. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And to quote Cynwolfe: "why can't all the other issues of naming be placed under the 'Name and etymology' section?" Which is exactly what I did. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And to quote Haploidavey above: "I don't think anyone's suggesting they shouldn't be mentioned. Clearly, they should - it's just a question of whether they're significant enough to occupy a place in the lede...". Which is why they're not in the lede. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Quoting other users who aren't currently participating in the discussion isn't a great practice: they might not have meant what you think they meant. As for Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, it does indeed cover the pronunciation, in exactly the words you quoted: "(3 syl. in Greek, 2 in Eng.)" That's basically the same as the pronunciations presented in parentheses in this version of the article; I don't see how this justifies your more extensive treatment. I'm also not sure how a work from the 1890s, which is clearly erroneous in several aspects of its treatment of Hecate, should be a model for our presentation here. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The quotes are sufficient to show that there's no consensus to delete this material altogether from the article. All you asked, or got, consensus for was to get it out of the lede, which has been done. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it appropriate for that section to remain. It is encyclopedic to mention that Shakespeare et al. did spell the name differently. However, the Milton quotation should be removed. The OED (who one would expect to take care with their sources) gives Hecat' in its quotation from Milton with the apostrophe indicating a likely poetic omission. This edition based on the performing manuscript has Hecat with a footnote that Milton himself used Hecate in his handwritten manuscript. This makes the implication in our footnote that Hecat was Milton's spelling unreliable. There is enough in the footnote without it to imply that some people did use that variant spelling.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case, it would become evidence of pronouncing the word with two syllables even when spelled with the final E. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)