Talk:Sylph

You should notice that most japanese media use "shirufido" for speaking Sylphid (check the japanese version of Record of Lodoss Wars). I think "Sylph" is not the complete word, but "Sylphid".

"Sylphid" is an occasionally encountered derivative. If you take it to be a Greek root, which it isn't, you can add the "-id" suffix, so that it can mean "sylph-like" or "descendant of a sylph." Paracelsus definitely says "sylph" though in the underived form. I'm reasonably sure he intended it as a vernacular abbreviation of the Latin sylvestris, which he uses as a synonym, but as I haven't written that in a book, that's not citable. The form and spelling are probably influenced by "nymph." That brings up the even odder question why he chose sylvestris to refer to an air spirit, since it means something like "woodsy." At any rate, sylph is the correct headword. Tarchon 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is odd, and I've personally figured that alchemy was the explanation. I know virtually nothing of their symbology, but I could easily imagine either ethanol -> spirit or an analogy based on supposed astrological/alchemical families that led him to conceive of the sylv as an air spirit. That's a pure guess on my part, but it helps me sleep at night (both the guess and the ethanol). Geogre 01:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

== Definition of Sylph == pene This article is really shoddy! The description is just some random persons idea. Its really bad. needs to be FIRXED! I know nothing about this at all, are there no experts who can provide proper refrences?! - best, Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.53.181 (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite disappointed with encyclopedia knowledge in general, since it tends to take things for granted in such a positive, affirmative way, that it leaves no space whatsoever for doubt. Actually, it completely discards the notion of doubt. And that's just not healthy.

So just ask yourself... Are there certain kinds of energies and forces yet to be understood by science? Yes, even the gravitation force is explained but not fully understood. So when these energies manifest themselves through elements, like air, thus becoming material, would they become real?

What if Paracelsus was only geting a glimpse of a certain unknown force? It is an encyclopedic fact that he invented them, giving them a name, and that, under that light, Sylphs are a product of his imagination. But is not the human imagination another mystery to be solved?

If you can admit other possibilities it will make this a better article. (abysmal grammar, spelling and typos have now been edited for this post)

Duh!

Golly! You know, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias only report what is most attested, most agreed upon, most empirically established. When there are references, citations, and proof of the other energies, encyclopedias will report it. Until then, it's unencyclopedic to mention them, as Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, and not by any means a platform for negotiating ultimate truth or revelation. The world, and the world wide web, abound with platforms for such revelatory truth, but Wikipedia is not really one of them. Geogre 14:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories and recent edits

Most of the edits lately have had to do with the fantasy authors' uses of the sylph. That's fine. I'm certainly no expert on it. However, don't let the disagreements over whether the anime term is this or that, the AD&D creature is this or that, etc. blind you to the fact that most of the article is about the concept of the sylph, where it came from, and how it has been made popular in literary sources. Paracelsus invented them, and they were sort of forgotten. Pope used them as a joke. Then some of the Romantics and Victorian poets (I didn't put this stuff in the article, as I don't know all those poems) tripped on the fantasy and used them some more. This lead to the original Monster Manual folks, who had read a great deal of literature, plugging them in (but being vague). So, if the question is whether "pseudoscience" belongs as a category, remember that the article is about their origin in alchemy and parody science. The main article is about this stuff, not the fantasy author stuff. Anyway, those are my 2 cents. Geogre 10:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention in this article (or in the one on the actual poem, or in the one on Pope I guess, I don't care enough right now to read into the whole thing) about the address Pope wrote to Arabella Fermor which prefaces some editions of The Rape of the Lock. As he goes on about the revisions he'd made after the initial publication, Pope writes

These Machines I determin’d to raise on a very new and odd Foundation, the Rosicrucian Doctrine of Spirits [...]

The Rosicrucians are a People I must bring You acquainted with ... according to these Gentlemen the four elements are inhabited by Spirits, which they call Sylphs, Gnomes, Nymphs, and Salamanders. The Gnomes, or Daemons of the Earth, delight in mischeif; but the Sylphs whose habitation is Air, are the best-conditioned Creatures imaginable.

He also mentions the "French book called Le Comte de Gabalis" as something he was familiar with or something used as a basis for the spirits in his poem. I'm not trying to be pedantic or obscurist, I just read the dedication today (in an edition with the Aubrey illustrations), but I figure this is something obvious enough to put in the wikipedia articles, instead of implying that Pope was directly parodying Paracelsus simply because the term Sylph originated with him (sources?). The article here about the Rosicrucians doesn't have anything about the Gabalis book specifically but it does have many references to alchemy. If someone cares enough they could persue thisssss.. ? 72.60.88.172 06:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, yes, Pope didn't go straight from Paracelsus, but you mustn't read the Preface as altogether straight. Paracelsus is the father of alchemy for westerners, and Rosicrucianism comes out of alchemy, so it was a going concern. The Rosicrucians were arguably active in England as late as Pope, but they were certainly active in the previous generation, with Dees and, arguably, even Aphra Behn and Pepys. As for Pope's view of the Rosicrucians, you have only to look at the satire in the parody of their system of the Sylphs. As for the source of Paracelsus inventing Sylphs, I got that from Lempriere 1843 and The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church 1970, so it sort of qualifies as "fact that needs no citation" since multiple sources agree. I did not mean to alledge, though, that Pope got them from Paracelsus. Instead, my intent was:
  1. Paracelsus invents them.
  2. No one plays with them except alchemists.
  3. Pope mentions them.
  4. They are then mainstream.
  5. Later poets invoke them in the Pope, not the alchemical, sense.
  6. They are then well known.
  7. Contemporary culture incorporates them in fantasy.
• An article on Rape of the Lock should mention the sources Pope used. For my part, I'm staying away, and I'm staying away because the article is far too shallow, and I need to be all the way in or not at all. Geogre 13:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've now added some sentences to explain that there wasn't a vaccuum between Paracelsus and Pope. I haven't included the specific book, as I still feel that's a little out of the way, but it certainly could be mentioned, and there is a nice linguistic hanger to insert it, if you'd like to do so. Geogre 14:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! I see where I had confused things, before. When I said that Pope was, in some ways, parodying Paracelsus, that lead the reader to believe that I was saying that Pope had Hermes Trismegisthus in one hand, Paracelsus, in the other. No. I meant that it was a parody of Paracelsus and alchemy, whether it was intended or not. For example, if you do a parody of a lounge singer doing "Mack the Knife" today, you are parodying Bobby Darren, even if you haven't heard him before. It's a parody of the whole systemetizing of the body and soul that alchemists did and that Paracelsus had done. Geogre 15:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I've removed the subsection entitled "Videogames" which contains biographical information (albeit brief) of a gaming organization. I believe that this violates the purpose of Wikipedia and bears no significance to the purpose of this article as well. 70.177.65.42 18:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

---

• I agree with you. In fact, I tend to try to avoid "owning" articles I write, and that can lead me to being overly tolerant. I think much, if not all, of the "pop culture" material is irrelevant. Since the article says that pop culture mythographies use the sylph, there is no point in trying to have a list of every game, book, TV show, and anime (with arguing back and forth) that has a sylph in it -- this is even more to the point because what they're really incorporating is the La Sylphide sylphs rather than the alchemical/Popian ones. Geogre 03:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

was unsure of where to place this information, however; "Wilder sylphs are intense and direct, like the birds of prey they resemble. They soar endlessly through the skies, looking for something to attract their interests and allow them to prove their worth" the above quote comes from a site of questionable credibility, the author of said site has written a biography stating her belief that she has befriended some kind of alien spirit. basically i think this quote should be removed as it seems to me to be the result of someone's imagination, not significant historical documentation or modern media references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.18.225 (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinese

May I ask whether people feel the reference to Ancient China is at all relevant to this article? The shenxian certainly cannot be equated to Paracelsus' sylphs and already occupy a separate article. I move this this section be deleted. --Gak (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The section was added by one Rakibe, who signed it as if it were a comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sylph&oldid=184575767), and has been barely touched since. It was that user's only edit, and the account seems to have been deleted. Since the section is unsubstantiated and confusing, and nobody has objected to its removal, I'm deleting it. 87.16.194.100 (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Article needs more material and to be rewritten with a neutral point of view.

Not really, absolutely no. Wikipedia never was and never will be about most people agree, because Wikipedia it is not a religion. Wikipedia it is about democratically divulge notable ideas to everyone. More specifically, Wikipedia focus in what finds some notability at past or current time. Doesn’t matter if that thought it is constricted to a sector of society, or to a group of scientists, or scholars. The goal it is to make accessible to the world those concepts from past and present.<br.> If Wikipedia was about most people think, therefore would be a return to Medieval Age. No scientific study could be divulged through Wikipedia. No fiction work could be divulged through Wikipedia. No cultures of minorities could be exposed through Wikipedia; and etc., etc., etc..
Don’t’ confuse third party reference with accepted ideas. Tertiary sources only mean that the issue may have found some notability in some level of the society. By the way Wikipedia has not rules engraved on rock, it welcomes secondary sources too, but, of course, third parties always supply more grounding.
At last my personal opinion: I have an academic formation on physics, so I scientifically cannot believe in such sylph creature. On the other hand I will not deny a room in anywhere, exposing what was spoke or studied about this subject. On the contrary, I have scientific curiosity over the issue, I want read any point of view because I want to enlarge the possibilities. Researching what still is unknown, this it is science; other way we have radicalism and narrow minds, something not at all good for none.

Conclusion: Unfortunately this article widely lacks of information and clearly doesn’t show a neutral point of view. It urgently needs improvement.VirtuousWorld (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a very poor article--far too much Pope, and not nearly enough Paracelsus, or other material on the sylph, per se. It should be re-written or deleted.Pernoctus (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)