Jump to content

Talk:Myrrha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articleMyrrha has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 20, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
February 17, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 23, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that after Myrrha made love with her father, she was transformed into the myrrh-tree and gave birth to Adonis?
Current status: Good article

Austria

[edit]

The national language of Austria is German. It really surprises me to hear Austrian expressed as a language. Sure there is a dialect, but the language is German. Would you say we speak American over here? Really? Especially for a WRITTEN scientific document, to say that it was written in Austrian?

P.s. My mother is Austrian born and raised and I've spent a LOT of time over there. Never have I heard a single person refer to themselves as speaking Austrian.

TCO (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is from multi-German's. They have always said that Austrian's do not speak German. The Austrian language does exist see samples of Austrian here. I guess because this is a 1905 scientific paper the language is Austrian German rather then Bavarian, I'll change it to Austrian German pending further comment. Just using 'Austrian' being short for 'Austrian German' was a little confusing. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying Texans don't speak English! We don't list Texan as a language. Or Mancusian or Liverpuddlian. Certainly not for written works! Sigh.TCO (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you read the website (an archive) that lists the work, they call it German. Also, the wiki article for Austria, describes German as the official language. Also even the link you gave for Austrian German refers to it as a dialect and talks about German as the written form. Plus, um...there is no Wikipedia for "Austrian", just as there is no Wikipedia for "Australian". And just as it would not be helpful to label that the language for some article from Journal of Australian Herpetology.TCO (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are several dialects of German, just as there are of English. The most well known is probably Schweizer-Deutsch, or Swiss-German. Though they are basically the same language, there are differences in pronounciation, spelling and grammar. Take a look at British English, American English and Pidgin English. The latter barely even resembles the language you and I speak! Accents (Texan, New England, Southern etc) obviously don't qualify as dialects, because there is not a signifigant difference between those and American English. I have no idea if Austrian German is a true dialect or not, but it would certainly not be surprising, especially in archaic documents.-RHM22 (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Nobody there says the language is "Austrian". It's just not normal usage.

2. The official language is German. Our wikipedia site say that as well as the Austrian government.

3. Even in the article that SunC sent to, which is very minor usage, on Austrian German, it is clear that it is a dialect, not a language and also it says that that German is the language of writing.

4. Hearing some German say that the Austrians don't speak German and then construing that to invent a new language is bizarre. I mean if some Brit says we don't speak English over here, will we start listing the language for the New York Times as "American"?

5. There is not a Wikipedia project in the "Austrian" language.

6. Gottlieb August Wilhelm Herrich-Schäffer was a German from Regensburg. Do you think he was writing in a foreign tongue, when he wrote a paper in a Vienese journal? If some Brit writes something in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, should we list his contribution as "American" in parens?

7. I'll put some serious money on the line that if we go over to the German wiki project and ask either Germans or Austrians whether we should record that paper as in the Austrian language, they will laugh at us.TCO (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some assistance to TCO's question on de:wikipedia: Austrian is not just a German dialect but an own language. Maybe comparable to British / American Englisch. Very similar, but not the same. The differences aren't just a matter of dialect - which would mean that one of both is the real language, the other is not. If you (TCO or others) want more about this, please email me directly freud@econ-ub.de --FreudGermany (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should I start putting in parentheses (American) for all our references that are from U.S. sites? AFter all, it's not English.TCO (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)To TCO: You're right, but you're missing the point a little. There is no "Austrian" language per se, rather Austrian German, which seems to be a legit dialect. I don't have any expirience in relating the language of an academic paper, though, so I have no idea if you would actually label something as being written in "Austrian German" or just "German". For an interesting example of a derivative language, take a look at the Pennsylvania German Wikipedia. It's probably pretty small, but Pennsylvania German is undoubtedly a unique language, and you don't necessarily speak German if you speak it. By the way, it really doesn't seem relevant that there are no Wikipedias in that dialect. I'm certain that there are numerous African and Asian languages (not just dialects, but languages) that have no Wikipedia. Anyway, like I said, I have no opinion on whether or not to list any work as being written in Austrian German, I was just pointing out a few interesting tidbits that might be useful. Sorry for hijacking the conversation!-RHM22 (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you click on the link, you will see that the Internat Archive that stores that paper (and a lot of other old science papers) puts it under German. I bet they don't even have a slot for Austrian! It's not just an issue of how this one ref looks in article, but if someone is using a bot to check tags and we lable something like this, it's a pisser. Also, I went on the German Wikipedia, and 2 of 3 responses agreed with me. Freud did not. Although even him, I wonder if he wants other people from foreign countries to list a written science paper as having been done in "Austrian". Yeah, a Bup versus Jugend might have crept in, but I'm pretty sure most people would call it German and I bet it's pretty close to Hochdeutsch as well (given written and in a formal context). Even if not, it's still just not how people call it. Not like saying we speak American or New Zealanders speak New Zealander.TCO (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is Maori!-RHM22 (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isay erethay anay igpay atinlay ikipediaway? ;)TCO (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Far more important: while there is certainly an Austrian dialect, I see no trace of it here, and it is somewhat less likely to be used for scholarly publication than broad Scots in Edinburgh. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well after making some irrelevant, misleading and silly remarks TCO did hit apon something of substance - the fact that Gottlieb August Wilhelm Herrich-Schäffer was a German. I'm going to challenge the Austro-Bavarian_language article to see if there is substance to it's contents. Then will look at the articles where Austrian German is given as a reference language and that includes at least one FA article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That damned TCO, that old permabannee alligator snapping turtle.  ;) I could bring in the wlinks to three different German speaking parts of wiki, which all backed me up. But I felt like it would be like doing a sack dance. I do enough to aggravate my enemies. Need to take it easy on my friends.TCO (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To do content-wise to bring it to FA (my suggestions)

[edit]
  • Cinna - Zmyrna (if it's even translated - it seemed like it was closely related to Ovid's)
  • Joanna Laurens - Poor Beck (modern version of Myrrha as depicted by Ovid)
  • Mary Zimmerman - Metamorphoses (The Myrrha part)
  • Nagle paper - she answered my request saying she did not have a digital copy of it, but linked to Jstor so (I guess) I could buy it myself. What's the price for a paper in Jstor? :/
Don't buy it yet. There is a process to ask someone who has access.
I got my hands on it now using the resource exchange! --Mottenen (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other critical papers that reference Nagle (some are free), "Ovid's bad girls" and all that.
  • Byron's Myrrha?

Please add to the list if there's any content I've forgotten. Afterwards it should need a copy-edit by the GOCE and maybe a peer review and then I'll take it from there. Mottenen (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could add a little more information about the meteorite. For instance, was it named after Myrrha because of certain characteristics, or was the discoverer just going through a list of mythological figures to name his/her discoveries? Also, do you have any sources that actually state that the butterflies and moths are named after Myrrha because they metamorph? FA review is very particular, so you might run also run into troubles with some of the sort of slangily-worded passages. It doesn't bother me any, but FA people are really picky about everything being worded in a pretty formal way.-RHM22 (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since almost all mythological characters from the Greek mythology have some asteroid named after them, I guess they were just going through a list - all I know is that it was named after our Myrrha. Seems we gotta find some biology professor with a very weird book to find out whether they were named after our Myrrha :/ one has to wonder why that is of any importance to an encyclopedia ... what if we can't find any sources saying how and why they name things?? Mottenen (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not that the information itself is important, it's just that trivia needs some sort of context. For instance, if you just said "there is a bug named after Myrrha", that would be considered trivial information unless there's some kind of reason for its inclusion, such as "this bug is named after Myrrha because it changes form". If you can't find any sources as to why, they may or may not accept it at FAC when you decide to try that. I can't say for sure, because I don't have a ton of experience in that area.-RHM22 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For a sideline matter like this you could leave it out and be fine but if there are more central facts to the article that can't be cited then it can fail due to WP:FACR "1.b (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;". Note the word 'major' which in my view doesn't apply to the why of asteroid naming. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just read in the Schmadel book that naming minor planets with classical names (Myrrha, Juno, Vesta etc.) was commonly accepted and even as they started discovering a lot of new ones they kept doing this instead of giving numbers because that could lead to confusion. So there we have it on the asteroid. Mottenen (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But we will nail it. We will figure it out. I'm in touch with really top entomologists. Usually (80%) we end up with even more interesesting content, but sometimes we have to cut something. We won't forget it, but at the end of the day, it is a detail, with a lot of work to nail it. Bigger issues are the literary understanding, scholarship around origin, and then all the formatting crapola. It's worth the shot at FA, since it is SUCH a delicious myth. It really is the most evil incest. Myrrha knew what she was doing, that tramp, that slut. Oedipus was by mistake. Kharma still. But not outright lust defeating society's bounds. And then the whole tree thing! So cool. "Wrapped in the stone cold tomb, myrrh is mine" and all that jazz. What I mean is ya got something here. Develop it and take it to FA. But have your shit in one sock. The standards there are high. (There is some bullshit too, but also high standards, make sure we get the job done.)TCO (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so worried about the meteor. I think that is presented with low amount of writing and at the end. Like SunC says, it is pretty deadpan. I would like to nail the species a teensy bit better, but we will get it. And even those are pretty tangential. Getting more on top of the scholarship in the literature and the writing style in that area is more the priority. But this is a cool myth. Wikipedians will love the wickedness of it. I know how they are!TCO (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient sources

[edit]

From the new Pauly:

  • Ovid
  • Antonius Liberalis 34
  • Hyginus 58 and 242
  • Helvius Cinna (lost, but see speculation and fragments)
I think the main think is to discuss the timing and whatever is known about it, under the context of other versions. Using secondary sources would be fine. If there is some Latin (either the myth itself, or commentary), we could get someone with good Latin to skim it and answer any key questions.
  • Okay I found it now. That it is unthinkable is quite well shown in all the 4 accounts of the myth (he chases his own daughter with a sword). We can add that incestuous marriages were not unheard of in the East (as a note to one of the "Assyria accounts), is that good enough? Mottenen (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • mention in Josephus: Antiquities 19.94f

Rearrange these to make clear that Ovid is a late and literary interpretation of a pre-existing myth.

I'm not sure that I follow you on this one. Do you want Ovid at the end? Or chronologically? (at the moment that would be Apollodorus, Hyginus, Ovid, Liberalis). Calling Ovid late is pretty hard - the earliest we have right now is only 100 years older (give or take). Unless you want to call them all "late". Don't you think people can figure out if they read first the "Origin"-part and then the rest, seeing the years, that Myrrha was a pre-existing myth? Mottenen (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've already wrestled with this some. My prefernce is not to put Ovid last, since his work had so much impact and since so little is known about the oral tradition of the myth. Really like to use the right context setting wording to make it clear that Ovid's version IS the myth, and discuss origins and later work in that context. For instance, Ovid's version is totally the plot summary that a literate person would want to see. Differences can be discussed in context of that.TCO (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually see this topic as more of a literary topic than a religious one, given the preponderance of information and the impact that has been created.TCO (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation and commentary

[edit]
  • Natalis Comes
  • Boccaccio de genealogia deorum
  • Robert Graves (possibly more sources)
  • Karl Kerenyi
  • Walter Burkert
  • ? Starnes: Classical myth and legend in Renaissance dictionaries.

Cultural influence

[edit]
  • the tragedy by Alfieri
  • the opera by Domenico Alaleona.
 Done --Mottenen (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see much of this is done. But there is an FA in this field at Orion (mythology), which should show what can be done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, I had some discussion of painting. There's at least one well known engraving from the 1600s, which we are not using. It's another "change into a tree" version, so doubt we are missing much. And I had some sentence on all the paintings we do have, that was cut. I understand why cut. Wasn't saying much and we have the paintings in front of us. But doing a little bit of research, hopefully we can put this into some sort of context. At least three pretty well-known art works from the 1600s showing Myrrha. Some art history book or whatever, ought to mention this directly, or perhaps we can use a little synthesiss to slide in some comment on general use of mythology during that time frame. Was the sex or magic a common theme? Also, maybe one of the three artists has a bio or the like. I already tried the trick of looking at Wiki articles, but they were slim. I know it;s work, but there's gotta be some way, we can find something interesting to say to the reader in text as well as all our visuals.TCO (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done with the discussion of the works, material is slim, but it's there. I've looked after the last one (I know which you mean), but since I've only found it on Allposters.com I guess it's a modern made depiction. As it has not been able to get better places than poster selling websites, I don't think it should be covered. It's an encyclopedia, not advertising bureau :) --Mottenen (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[1] this one Mottenen (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might want to revisit the list I had of pop culture things. (video game, race horse, etc.) Will be some serious work to see if they really refer to our Myrrha. If we find any rock and roll, I would keep that with music. but the rest of it could go in some "miscellanous" section.TCO (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EL sounds good.TCO (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some references to Myrrha here in some German opera. I get the impression it is not a direct myth retelling (think here she has sex with brother, not father). But probably likely that it was an inspiration (as say the Shelley work is). Need to go find out the name of the opera and research that. "Carl Maria von Weber and the search for a German opera By Stephen C. Meyer"TCO (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am seeing enough on the Amazon Myrrha/Smyrna that we probably want to adress this. Mention the issue and discuss if they are joint origin or not, or unknown. Probably also mentioning that there is some downstream usage from Amazon Myrrha as opposed to regular Myrrha. Not a tangent and not to go in depth on that. But more like a para summary to just explain to reader this issue.TCO (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Workpage

[edit]

Okay I'm making a workpage for the stuff I will/might add - just so I can make it great before adding it :)

/workpage Mottenen (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adonis & Semitic roots

[edit]

This has to be properly referenced and documented. Otherwise, it will be removed. A Wikipedia article cannot be based on hypotheses.Amadeus webern (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, it's been a while since I wrote that, but I'm pretty sure that was what it said in the Oxford dictionaries that are referred to in the end of the sentence. Here is a link for the entry online. I hope it's been cleared up now. --Mottenen (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Myrrha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  1. https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/psup/milton-studies/article-abstract/14/1/59/263467/CINYRAS-MYRRHA-AND-ADONIS-FATHER-DAUGHTER-INCEST?redirectedFrom=fulltext
  2. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA295171239&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00145858&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E4fd40712&aty=open+web+entry
  3. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001458581204600104
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myrrha&oldid=1209289970"