Talk:Heracles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of High-importance within classical antiquity.
Wikipedia CD Selection Heracles is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Contents

[edit] the order of the twelve labors

Some information I have here says that The Apples of Hesperides is the final labor, and cerberus is the eleventh. Someone please look into this... what accounts for the difference in order?

Try doing a search on google -- Cerberus is the twelfth on all the sites I found. There may be alternate versions, though. A lot of mythological stories have multiple variations. Maybe something should be added to the article about other versions... Tuf-Kat

[edit] why did Hera hate Heracles so much?

why did hera hate Heracles so much? Kingturtle 03:32, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Because she hated all of her husband's children by women other than her. I don't know why she seemed to hate him so much more than the others. Tuf-Kat 19:14, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's because it was the first child with a mother other then her that she learned about.-Flyingcheese 01:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Graves explains much of Greek mythology as stories justifying historical events; largely the replacement of an original "Triple Goddess" matriarchical religion with a patriarchical religion brought by invaders. Graves was a little strange so I don't know how well received his interpretations are today, but in a number of ways at least, they make a lot of sense. And he was certainly the most learned classicist of his generation.

In this particular case, Heracles is interpreted as originally a kind of male champion of the female Triple Goddess, of whom Hera was the "mother" form. After the defeat of the matriarchical society by the patriarchical, the priests essentially would have announced that Heracles was actually the victim of the Triple Goddess, not her champion—much as a political leader today might try to publicly rewrite his or her personal history, however well-known, in order to match changes in public opinion. So Hera became the enemy of Heracles, and his feats, formerly accomplished to prove his worthiness as champion, now became proofs of male superiority.

Hera's hostility towards Zeus and his (and his progeny's) dominance over her are generally explained this way by Graves.

Also Heracles was half mortal and this fuelled Hera's hatred.

--207.237.240.192 16:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Graves' version is a part of the story. Any modern text offers more preceptive insights than out current jejune attempt in this article. Is anyone game to give us a couple of paragraphs on interpretations of this complicated relationship? --Wetman 08:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On Heracles' male lovers

Far be it from me to start a dispute, but if you would remove the list of his male lovers from the section on his sex life, please give your reasons.--Haiduc 02:30, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I didn't remove the list before (nor am I now), but it comes across as awkward (for lack of a better word) and somewhat POV; that is, it seems like its simply there to be scandalous. I'm not saying that it should be entirely removed; in fact, I think it should largely stay. I think that it could probably be shortened, though. I would recommend keeping the introduction to the list, and then (having already mentioned that they are numerous, the list itself becomes somewhat superfluous) limiting the list to the most important men, preferably with a short description of their importance in the Heracles myth(s).--MS

[edit] hercules

Is "Heracles" is another name for Hercules? 83.130.3.195 19:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Heracles is the Greek name and Hercules is his Roman name. So yes, they are the same person. CanadianCaesar 7 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)

[edit] Eclipse Date

The September 7, 1251 BCE eclipse date for Herakels birth is contradicted by all the major sources including Jerome (Chronicon), Eusebius (Preparation of the Gospel) and Apollodorus. February 10 1286 BC is the most likely date for the eclipse when one night was turned into three. Jerome places the end of Herakles 12 Labours in 1246 BC (see translation of Jeromes Chonicon by Roger Pearse et al.) Eusebius along with Clement and Apollodorus place Herakles reign over Argos about 91 years before the end of the Trojan War (1183 BC). If Herakles was born in 1250 then he would be younger than Theseus who was 50 when he abducted Helen (according to Plutarch's Lives), which according to Jerome occurred in 1222 BC. The September 7, 1251 BCE date should be removed and replaced with February 10 1286 BC. Calculating back from when Herakles ruled over Tyrines in Argos at the same time as Eurestheus ruled over Mycenae in 1264 BC (Jerome, Eusebius, Clement and Apollodorus), Herakles would have been born at least 18 years earlier in 1282 BC. This shows that the February 10 1286 BC eclipse date is corroborated by these ancient historians and the only date that fits the historical facts.--Argyrosargyrou 16:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Eusebius in his Preperation of the Gospel quotes Clement saying that "from the reign of Hercules in Argos to the deification of Hercules himself and of Asclepius there are comprised thirty-eight years, according to Apollodorus the chronicler: and from that point to the deification of Castor and Pollux fifty-three years: and somewhere about this time was the capture of Troy.") User:Argyrosargyrou|Argyrosargyrou]] 16:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if all of the speculation regarding the dates of Heracles' life should be included in the article, as it is just that, speculation. The application of modern astronomy to mythological figures is somewhat absurd. Moreover, trying to pin down a precise date for any event in Greek Myth is going to have serious problems due to the numerous, conflicting tellings and timelines that obscure any simple formulation of a mythological Greek "history." Going with that logic one might as well add that Heracles was believed to have paced out the Olympic stadium in 756 (a myth that someone should add to the article), which would have made him several hundred years old. It would be more helpful if it were simply stated that the Ancient Greeks believed he lived sometime in the 13th or 14th century B.C. rather than giving precise dates that would give the impression that he was a real person and that those events really happened at those specific times.--MS

A February 10 conception would place his birth in early November, but not necessarily the 4th. While ancient Greeks celebrated his birthday on the 4th of the month, remember ancient Greek months are not Roman ones. The ancient Greek calendar is essentially the same as the Jewish one - although different Greek states had different names for the months and started the year with a different month, they all followed the same lunar-based alternating 30/29 day month structure. Jess Cully 10:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It's still refered to Heracles on September 7? JanCK 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

Why is this the target of vandalism all of a sudden? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 21:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I, too, have noticed a large amount of vandalism targeting this article, particularly the section regarding Heracles' male lovers. Unfortunate, but, oh well. I guess some IP editors just can't stand the concept of the manly man Heracles having male lovers. So much for NPOV. Abhorsen327 01:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Was his name Ήρακλήζ or Ήρακληζ?? The introduction uses the first spelling but the description on the picture of the statue uses the second spelling. Which one is it the one with(ή) or the one without(η) the tonos on the Eta? 23:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably it is the one with the acute accent, but maybe they spell it in modern greek without the accents.

The accent is a circumflex, the first character needs a rough breathing, and the last character should be a final sigma-- Ἡρακλῆς. There's also an epic form: Ἡρακλέης. (These are ancient forms; I don't know what the modern Greek spelling is.) Akhilleus 22:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

Is there really value in having separate articles at Heracles and Hercules? Should the two be merged? And if so, which name should prevail — the more ancient Heracles or the more common Hercules? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't confuse Hercules of Roman myth, the Renaissance and Saturday television with the Greek Heracles, any more than you'd confuse Minerva with Athene. --Wetman 05:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heracles' children

The format of this section was bizarre, so I replaced it with a short prose summary. Obviously, this section could benefit from some editing--the children of Heracles are fairly important as a link between mythology and aristocratic identity--the ruling classes of many Dorian cities traced their ancestry back to Heracles in the archaic period. Akhilleus 05:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason

I just noticed an IP edit to Jason's listing under "Heracles' Male Lovers," which states that Jason loved Heracles, but Heracles did not love him in return. I am unsure as to the factual accuracy of this... I do not know if it is accurate, but I likewise do not know if it is inaccurate. Does anyone know whether this should be subject to a rv or not? Thanks! Abhorsen327 22:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not totally clear what the source for this material is, but the list of male lovers seems to be coming from Plutarch's Erotikos--so a good many of these relationships are late literary invetions and not widely attested. I'm inclined to get rid of most of them, but not all--Hylas is Herakles' eromenos in Apollonios' Argonautica, if I remember right--but I'm guessing that Admetus, Jason, and Nestor are rarely, if ever, said to be Herakles' lovers. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I find it significant that Plutarch describes them as beyond counting, while the names themselves come from various sources (though many later inventions seem to be known from Ptolemy Khennos alone). So against the lack of other sources we have to set the word of Plutarch, which counts for much, as well as Ptolemy. I do not see why they should not be mentioned in the article as long as a note is made of the nature of the information. I have referenced the various entries. Haiduc 12:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Haiduc, thanks for providing all the sources. (I wish the rest of the article was as well sourced.) To me, the lovers that are attested only in Plutarch and Ptolemy aren't nearly as significant as Hylas and others attested in earlier authors or cult. I doubt that it was widely belived that Jason, Nestor, or Philoctetes were lovers of Herakles--it seems more like the invention of some author who thought that Herakles slept with every hero he ever met. I wonder if it would be better to separate the lovers given only by Plutarch/Ptolemy into a separate list or paragraph from those given by earlier sources, which I think would both make the text easier to understand and make the footnotes cleaner, as we could consolidate them. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure I see the need to segregate the important from the less important, as long as the status of each is clearly stated. The problem here is that we are not playing with a full deck, so to speak. A lot of the pederastic stories were suppressed, so that our information on them is even more fragmentary than on his relationships with women. Thus even the few that are mentioned here are in all likelihood only a meager fraction of all his putative lovers, and valuable for their rarity. I would imagine that a traveler through Greece would have been told in every city he visited that yes, Heracles had been there, and such and such family hails from his tryst with so and so, and young what's his name was his lover and there's his tomb. Since what we are discussing here is not whether he "really" slept with X or Y, but whether the story was told, I think we need nothing more. And from the point of the readers, it may well be very valuable to know that some stories had a more refined pedigree while others were more spurious, and that there were a lot of them. Haiduc 23:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Haiduc, I'm not proposing removing any information, just reorganizing it some. And actually, rewriting it as prose rather than an annotated list, which I think will be easier to read. I'll try to write something up when I have a bit more time, and post it here on the talk page; then we can see if it's an improvement or not.
I'm sure you're right that every city had Herakles stories--the classical Greek equivalent of "George Washington slept here." Emphasis on the "slept," right? But the stories that are well-attested are probably well-attested because they had more than local significance--i.e., only the Pylians would say that Herakles slept w/Nestor, whereas everyone knew that Hylas was his beloved.
--Akhilleus (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies - I was still arguing against your original suggestion about removing the less well known eromenoi. And I have no doubt that you are right about local vs. universal significance, something that should be mentioned in the section. And re-writing this as prose would be an improvement, and I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. If you would do a quick first draft I'll elaborate it, time is not a problem. Haiduc 10:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I had some free time and rendered the list as prose. Hope it passes muster. Haiduc 01:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] submitting to Featured article candidates

Why not reference this article more fully and try to get it chosen as FAC? Haiduc 01:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I oppose making this a featured articles until it is merged with Hercules. Bacchiad 19:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of nomiating this as a FA, and I disagree with Bacchiad regarding a possible merge. The Greek and Roman myths regarding Heraccles, and Hercules, should be kept separate, since although they probably refer to the same person, they are separate in terms of mythological heritage. If this article were merged with Hercules, then the wikipedia editors involved in mythological articles would have to follow suit by merging the Greek and Roman counterparts of all the other heroes, creatures, and gods. Right now, all of these appear to reference to their counterparts in the other mythological set, which I believe is more appropriate than merging. In order to keep to this separation of myths, I believe that any information contained within this article which refers to Roman myths regarding Hercules should be removed and added to Hercules. Hopefully this makes sense in terms of organization and consistency—comments, anyone? Abhorsen327 00:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
There is so much to be said about both traditions, and the space we have to work with is somewhat restricted, so that we would be doing a disservice to this topic to try to include both discussions in one article of proper size. By the time we develop this article fully, with proper references, we will be close to the ideal size of a large article anyway. Furthermore, we are doing a service to our readers by separating the information on each tradition. Haiduc 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

What?!?!? I appreciate the work that Bacchiad put in to merge this with Hercules, but I thought that most people contributing to the talk were in favor of keeping the two separate. Others, please comment. Did I miss some major decision? What does the merge of this with Hercules mean for other mythological articles. If a merge of Hercules and Heracles is insisted upon, then I think the community should follow suit by merging the names of all of the articles on gods, heroes, and characters who have different names in both Greek and Roman mythology. Abhorsen327 14:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Hercules and Heracles are a special case. See this section below pasted in from the Hercules talk page. Bacchiad 15:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Either way, Bacchiad, there is no general consensus in favour of a merge, either on the Hercules page nor the Heracles page. Please revert your merge so that proper consensus can be reached.Nihiltres 02:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


Easy there, Nihiltres. There has been a merge notice up there for weeks. Only two anti-merge advocates posted in that time, and one of them seemed willing to give the merge the benefit of the doubt. Since you and Abhorsen didn't speak up until after the merge, I couldn't really take your opinions into account now, could I?

That being said, I'm open to a more scientific poll. If we can measure consensus in some more feasible way than talk-page discussions that move nowhere, I'll abide by the decision either way. As for undoing the merge: if you want to do so, I won't get into an edit war. I'm content to stand back until a better opinion-measuring process is proposed and completed.

Sorry for stepping on toes. Bacchiad 03:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

Is there really value in having separate articles at Heracles and Hercules? Should the two be merged? And if so, which name should prevail — the more ancient Heracles or the more common Hercules? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't confuse Hercules of Roman myth, the Renaissance and Saturday television with the Greek Heracles, any more than you'd confuse Minerva with Athene. --Wetman 05:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote for a merge. "Greco-Roman" gods fall into two categories.

First, there are native Roman gods who were at one point or another more-or-less arbitrarily associated with Greek gods. Your example of Athena and Minerva is a good case of that. In these cases, I advocate separate articles, with the Roman one focusing on cult practices - i.e. those traits which were not the result of borrowing.

But second, there are Greek gods that had no native Roman equivalent, and were simply imported. Apollo is the best example. But Hercules is one too. With Minerva, poetic descriptions take on Greek clothing, but the powers and rites keep on going on as if there'd been no Athena. With Hercules, it's a Greek borrowing and in constant dialogue with the Greek cult right from the start. I say merge. Bacchiad

The idea that Roman Hercules is in dialogue with Greek Herakles means that there's differences between the two, which is a good argument for having two articles. Less redundancy would be good, though--the section "The Greek Legend" can be eliminated from the Hercules article. Instead, we can have stuff about Hercules' links with Italy and the western Mediterranean--his fight with Geryon and all the little events that happen on his way back from that labor figure in a lot of local legends in western areas colonized by Greeks, and this seems to be a big factor in his popularity with the Romans. Akhilleus 18:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You're being sophistic. Minerva was a Roman goddess from way back in the mists of time. The Romans said, "hey, she's kinda like Athena". Minerva and Athena should be two separate articles. Hercules never existed until the Romans came in contact with the Greeks. They took him direct, only they happened to mispronounce his name.

If this does not sway you, however, consider that if we keep Heracles and Hercules separate, we should also have separate articles on Apollo and Apollon, Ulixes and Odysseus, Aeneas and Aineias, Oedipus and Oidipous. Bacchiad

If Ulixes had as many temples as Hercules, and was as different from Odysseus as Hercules is from Herakles, then, sure, they'd warrant separate articles. Instead of the standard you're proposing for whether there should be separate articles, try this one: how much is there to write about the different Greek and Roman figures? Would the section on the Roman version compare in length and interest to the Greek version? Then it's worth considering separate articles.
For Hercules, you can write a lengthy, informative, and interesting article that doesn't overlap much with Herakles, because Hercules was fairly important to Roman religion and literature. Ulixes, not so much, so that material should be covered in a section in the Odysseus article. Apollo doesn't seem to have many distinctive Roman features. Aineias is not very important in Greek culture, central in Roman, so one article.
It's worth noting that the Oxford Classical Dictionary has separate articles on Herakles and Hercules, on Athena and Minerva, but only one article for Aeneas, Odysseus, and Oedipus. There are definitely worse models than the OCD. Akhilleus 22:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on Ulixes; what about Apollo/Apollon? And how, specifically, is Hercules so radically different from Heracles? The article at present doesn't say; adding some well-argued text about that would be the best case against merging.

But you point to the real nut of this question, which is the overabundance of Her**les' popularity from the Greek Dark Ages up until today. The OCD has to deal with the Her**les of myth and the Her**les of cult in Greece and Rome. They take the sensible route of separating myth and Greek cult into one compartment and Roman cult into another. Also, the OCD - since it is a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia - has an editorial preference for short articles over long.

We have an extra wrinkle: beyond Greece and Rome, we have the Hercules of post-Roman culture and Saturday morning TV. I do not believe that having one article on the twelve labors and Greek temples and one on the Ara Maxima in the Forum Boarium and saturday morning cartoons makes much sense. First, the division lacks proportion. Second, those readers who come looking for the historical background on the pop-culture character are going to be better served by the material in the Greek article. The OCD entry on "Heracles" has the stuff that the average uninformed reader is going to want to find first. OCD's "Hercules" is specialist stuff. It makes sense for them, but I'd suggest not for us.

Since our subject is threefold rather than twofold, and since we do not have the same space restrictions as the OCD, I still say that a single article would be the best way to put all of the disjecta membra in proper context and proportion.

Let me be clear, however, that I do not want to establish a general precedent of merging Roman and Greek mythology articles together. I believe we've argued ourselves to a standstill here. Perhaps we should seek outside opinion? Bacchiad

You make good points. I agree that we need to structure the articles so that the general reader can find the information they need/are interested in. And, I agree that having one article on Greek Herakles and another on Roman Hercules + pop culture Hercules isn't the most logical way to divide things. So, I don't oppose a merge.
However, I do think that the potential length of a combined article may warrant *some* kind of division. Furthermore, the existing Heracles article could use more material--for instance, I think it would be useful to have separate sections on Herakles in tragedy, comedy, and philosophy, because each genre has a strikingly different idea of who "Herakles" is. Such an expansion would make Heracles pretty long, and merging in the Roman and later material might make an excessively lengthy article. I'm not sure if there's a consensus about how long is too long, though--the 32kb size seems like a guideline rather than a firm rule.
If we maintain separate articles, it should be easy to direct readers between the two with appropriate cross-references--that way we can ensure that users find the information they need. And I'll point out that edits are continuing on both articles, so there doesn't appear to be popular demand for a merge. I'll just leave it up to other contributors... Akhilleus 05:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Cross-references are in the opening paragraphs of each article, so we certainly aren't discussing possible confusion on the part of the Wikipedfia reader here. --Wetman 06:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Repeat: Hercules/Heralces (and Apollon/Apollo) are a special case. Bacchiad 15:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to go with keep separate for the Hercules/Heracles articles, based on the "special exception" and special significance that others have pointed out. I do have a related question, though. Why is the Greek "Heracles" article spell the hero's name with a "c" rather than a "k"? I mean, if we're keeping the Roman and Greek myths separate, why does the Greek article use a Romanized spelling? Maybe that's just my own bias slipping out. Ande B

I don't think that the statement that 'Hercules never existed until the Romans came in contact with the Greeks' can be correct. the Romans inherited many of their ancient religious concepts from the Etruscans, who were the original kings of Rome and founded it in terms of it being a city-state. The Etruscan name for Herakles was Hercl, and it is a a pretty easy step to derive fromn that the roman name Hercules. Tashkop 00:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bacchiad relents

I stand by my previous comments that there is greater utility in having a separate entry for Hercules and his Roman manifestations and modern revival. Haiduc 11:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be the consensus, now that all parties have had a chance to view their opinions. I'll consent to a de-merge, therefore. Let me add, for my friends who frequent the Heracles page but were not watching Hercules, that I'm sorry you all were left out of the initial discussion. Bacchiad 06:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unsourced?!

Why is this article singled out as "unsourced"? It is one of the better sourced articles, and all contain unsourced statements. I tried to remove the tag but could not find it. Haiduc 00:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Haiduc, I must have missed the comment that said this article was unsourced. But I agree the Herakles article is one of the more thoroughly sourced articles I've seen lately. Ande B 00:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Ande, look at the category line at the bottom of the article. The tag is there, and I can't figure out how to remove it. Haiduc 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
This is really weird. I probably did what you did and during the preview it looked as if I had gotten rid of the category but after I saved it, there it was again. It looks as if the change came about on April 8, 2006 during this edit: 16:33, 8 April 2006 Wetman (cleaning up and editing prolixity and naive assertions). I'll see if I can't get some help on deleting it because neither you nor I seem to be able to. I never had this trouble before, though. Ande B 02:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The category is automatically inserted when there are {{fact}} tags on the page. Eliminating the tags will cause the category to disappear.

Haiduc, you're right that this article is better sourced than most Greek mythology articles, but as you observe, it's still got some unsourced stuff. I'd like to raise the sourcing of the article to the level of the eromenoi section, if possible. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

ok, the category "Articles with unsourced statements" is gone now. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Politics of the Myth

One of Grave's themes was that the myth of Heracles was turned from that of a cahracter forming a support role in a matriarchial dominated society, to a character forming a more central role in a male dominated society. As part of that the entire myth, he says, was turned on its head, and Hera (The now depised matriachal religion) is depicted as the evil stepmother. This is all part of the overtturn of society that occurred at the time. This approach does provide a possible explanation for both - why does hera hate Heracles (Because we have to hate Hera), and why was Heracles named for Hera (Because he was originally part of her myth and subordinate to her). presumably it si easier to change the emphasis of a myth, than it is to change the names and labels. This is of course a common political gambit even in our modern times.

The question I have is - should the article mention and place in context this posible redaction of the myth through the millenia? Tashkop 00:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I do not know how widely accepted Graves' theory still is, but it seems to deserve mention as such. That myths had a political aspect, and that they evolved to suit the needs of an evolving society, is beyond question. Haiduc 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • yes - Herakles name, in Greek 'Glory of Hera' hardly makes sense in the classical interpretation.
  • Further to the above, I notice that the Etruscan Hercle redirects to this page, but according to everything I can read about the Etruscans, Hercle was the son of Zeus and Hera, called by them Tinia and Uni, which possibly represents a older and more original form of the Myth. As such, given that hercules has its own page, but is essentially the same (greek) myth (with additions), should not Hercle be deserving of its own page. Bearing in mind that it is actually asignificantly differnt myth, representing a different tradition altogther?

This is a facinating image of an adult Hercle being suckled by UNi (If the intepretation is correct, I am not sure what the provenance is). http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/uni.html In the classical myth the idea of Herakles suckling at Hera, although disonnant, is sometimes mentioned, but the image of him doing it as an adult is completely at odds with the myth. Tashkop 02:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Graves' theory isn't widely accepted, and the idea of a primitve matriarchy superceded by the patriarchal Olympian religion is generally regarded as a modern myth (at least in academia). His name is interepreted by many classicists as meaning "glorious through Hera", and others interpret the first element of his name as coming from heros ("hero"), and having nothing to do with Hera.
Beware of regarding the Etruscan myth as "older" or "original"; Hercle is a synthesis of Etruscan and Greek elements, so Etruscan iconography doesn't necessarily tell us much about the background of the Greek hero. The notion of an "original" form of a myth is highly problematic anyway.
The political nature of the Heracles myth(s) certainly should be mentioned, but we can find better sources than Graves. Two are Irad Malkin, Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean, and Karl Galinsky, The Heracles Theme. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The linked illustration purports to reproduce an engraving on the back of an (undated) Etruscan mirror. "In the classical myth" suckling Heracles is an infant: See this fourth-century Apulian lekythos: Heracles is shown as a past-weaning age boy. The adult suckling Hercules is uniquely Etruscan, part of what distinguishes Hercules from Heracles. But notice the Italian provenance of both these images. Tinia and Uni are Etruscan counterparts of Zeus and Hera, not identical with another name: compare Demeter and Ceres etc etc.: the distinction may be appear unnecessarily subtle. "An older and more original form" might be hard to demonstrate, with so little Etruscan material to go on: the suckling motif appears in two very late sources, 'Hyginus Astronomica and Catasterismi (explaining the Milky Way) and in Diodorus Siculus (iv.9.5-6), yet another source from Magna Graecia (Sicily).
The liminal role of Heracles in the transition between the old religion and the new Olympian religion is standard fare: see Ruck and Staples, Kerenyi et al. Robert Graves goes overboard in sociological-historical readings; of course, to dismiss Graves' perceptions altogether would be sophomoric. --Wetman 05:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be much better to cite Kerenyi rather than Graves. However, I don't think it's right to say that "The liminal role of Heracles in the transition between the old religion and the new Olympian religion is standard fare", at least not based on the sources you mention. Within classical studies, Kerenyi is a somewhat marginal figure; his work is cited by Burkert, but otherwise I haven't seen many citations. Ruck and Staples are the authors of a classical mythology textbook, not, in my opinion, a great source for wikipedia--we should go for monographs or journal articles instead. Otherwise the work of Ruck and Staples focuses on entheogens, which is a bit outside the mainstream of scholarship on Greek mythology. The sources I have at hand, Burkert's Greek Religion and the OCD say nothing about Heracles playing a role in a shift to Olympian religion, much less supplanting a matriarchy.
As I've already mentioned, the idea of a shift between an "old religion" (matriarchal? chthonic?) to the "new Olympian religion" is regarded with suspicion in classical scholarship; at least a few of the Olympians were around during Mycenaean times, and Heracles himself has a strong Indo-European lineage, which suggests that he or someone like him was part of Aegean religion as soon as Indo-Europeans showed up. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move (closed)

Heracles → Herakles – {'Herakles' is a better reflection of the ancient Greek spelling, and the current Herakles page is a redirect to Heracles… --Akhilleus (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)}

Note: until recently Herakles was a stub about an Othello-playing computer program, which I moved to Herakles (software).

The spelling Herakles is pretentious in English, Italian and French contexts, though not so in some other European languages. --Wetman 05:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

The request is closed, so please do not add further votes.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one


[edit] Apologies to Akhilleus

Recently I seemed to delete Akhilleus' apposite comment. I think it was that my much-too-long watchlist may have been stale when I got to Talk:Heracles, and I wasn't alert enough not to edit without shifting to the newer version of the page. My apologies.--Wetman 21:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ascension of Heracles

I noticed that this article doesn't have anything about the ascension of Heracles- I'm certain that it was a part of Greek myth. Should it be added, or was there a reason for it not being a part of it? -Elizabennet 03:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If you mean Herakles' deification, the usual word for this is "apotheosis". It should be added. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Illustrations

The Roman and Renaissance images of Hercules used to illustrate this article add to the confusion between the two and help fuel the impression that the articles should be merged. WikiCommons has Greek vase paintings of Heracles that would help illustrate the difference better. --Wetman 18:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/e/r/Talk%7EHeracles_a8a1.html"