Talk:Labours of Hercules

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Consistency 2 Labours/labors 3 Zodiac 4 Confusing Argolid with Arcadia 5 Herakles 6 Zodiac redux 7 Era usage 8 Requested move 8.1 Survey 8.2 Discussion 9 Ecologist interpretation 10 13th Labour?

[edit] Consistency

The title of the article refers to "Hercules", but Heracles is used throughout, and the category uses Herakles. Is there a good reason for this? I propose one is chosen, and used throughout, with notes indicating the other names/spellings. 129.120.244.99 05:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Arjun

[edit] Labours/labors

Should "Labours" be spelled in British fashion? Haiduc 04:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's the author's choice. We just have to be consistent throughout an article. I was inconsistent in the external link only because the linked page itself uses the American spelling. —Triskaideka 17:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zodiac

Is this article perhaps too heavily weighted in its content on the zodiac? I know quite a bit about Greek mythology, but I've never seen so much (if any) on the 12 labors dedicated to the Zodiac. It is possible I just overlooked it, but then again I've been of the impression that the zodiac and astrology were not very important to the Ancient Greeks, that they were really of greater importance to the Romans.--MS

Astrology and astronomy were pretty much the same thing in ancient times. Many many myths originate from astronomical observations, either as a deliberate metaphor, attempt to understand the constellations as gods, or just an invented story to go with them that god a bit carried away. E.g. the tale of Cassiopea is intrinsically connected to the stars. W.r.t. the twelve labours, their superficial complexity can be understood simply as an elaborate description of the sun's path as it crosses the sky.

It is certainly true that in classical times (usually around the 400BC - 200BC era) that the greek culture was quite elaborate and was not so interested in simple things such as astronomy, but the tale of Herakles' twelve labours goes back many centuries before that, in much earlier times, e.g. when Hecate and Hyacinth were foreign gods, and those who told the myth of Herakles were only just arriving on the pelopennese (spelling is probably wrong), displacing the Perseus culture. Time is an important factor in understanding greek myths, and greek religion; they were not static but evolved greatly over the centuries, and the end result can be quite distinct from the starting point. ~~~~ 22:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that astrology existed in ancient times, and moreover, I understand that mythology changed dramatically over the centuries it was in active use. In fact, this goes directly to what I was saying. That is, it was my understanding that the Greeks were not too big on astrology (which should not be equated with astronomy, as each, while certainly related, was distinct, and the Greeks were very much into astronomy and it certainly could not be called "simple"). However, I might be wrong about the Greeks and astrology, which is why I ask here on the talk page rather than changing the article. What I want, and what your answer does not give, is to know whether or not the Greeks used astrology (with proper evidence, preferably cited); if so, when they started and if it is applicable to the 12 labors of herakles (which seems unlikely as the labors are given as various numbers in different texts, and probably began as a lower number--probably those labors performed in Greece--to which several more were later added)? Granted, (assuming I am correct in saying that the Romans were the ones to more frequently use astrology) it would make sense that they would have applied the Herakles myth to the stars, just as they might have with the Cassiopoeia myth. If this is the case, it ought to be more clearly stated in the article that this was a later, Roman contribution to the mythic presentation.--MS

I just did some easy research and looked up astrology here on Wikipedia, which somewhat corroborates what I've been saying. It claims that the astrology arrived in Greece in the 4th c. BC; that is centuries after the overwhelming majority (if not all) of Greek myths were first formulated(thus, the tale of Cassiopoeia cannot be said to be "intrinsically connected to the stars"), and furthermore after ancient Greece's primary cultural productions (barring a few Hellenistic pieces). The article should reflect the fact that any Zodiacal readings (it should also site these readings; as I said before, I can't remember hearing of them) of the 12 labors are later constructions mainly adhered to by the Romans (if at all). --MS

Now that depends on what you mean by astrology. What arrived only after the 4th century BC was predicting the future via the stars. Star based myths existed forever, e.g. Sirius, which means "scorching" - a direct reference to the scorching effect of the sun, as Sirius appears just before the start of the hot part of summer. The greeks also believed Sirius to be a dog, which is why they always referred to the baking hot summer days as "dog days". This was the case well before 400BC.~~~~ 07:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've been using "astrology" too loosely, (wrongly) incorporating star related legends/myths into my usage of it. However, the same criticism generally holds for these as well; Morford and Lenardon, in their book "Classical Mythology" note, "Astral legends are an aspect of Alexandrianism [post-Alexander Greece, and elsewhere], and genuinely early Greek astral myths are rare" (545). As for Sirius, I'm not an expert, and you may have some excellent sources, but in a quick search online, the things you attribute to Greeks are much more prevalent in the Egyptians and the Romans, and even later. Thus, "dog days" does not come from the Greeks, but from alternate sources in the ancient world. But I'm getting off topic... While Morford and Lenardon do say that astral legends in pre-Alexander Greek Mythology are rare, they can be found. One example they give (and which you note over in your response to similar complaints I made on the "Boast of Cassiopeia" page)is that of Orion. Still, this doesn't seem to be the case with the twelve labors. As it stands, the article seems to imply that the myth(s) spring out of the constellations; that it explains the transit of the sun, which is almost certainly not true... at least originally. Now, I'm not saying that the zodiac section should be remove, as it very well may have been important in later, particularly Alexandrian and Roman, renditions of the myths. I'm simply asking that evidence of this be presented, and that this not be presented as the implied origins of the myths when it would more likely be a later application of the myths to astronomical/-logical observances.--MS

The time period in question would be circa 9-1200BC rather than the period immediately pre-Alexander. It starts as astral myth and gets fleshed out as the centuries wear on. Myths don't come from nowhere. Beginnings are always "overly" simple, centuries of history subject them to chinese whispers, extra detail, etc. Its like crop circles - a simple thing that becomes rapidly more elaborate as people get interested in it, gaining background and extra myth, that was never really there originally. See Professor Allan Chapman (Royal Astronomical Society), a specialist historian in this area, at Oxford University. ~~~~ 23:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Your answer hasn't actually responded to anything that I've said. And the tone you've consistently taken is one that seems to characterize my questions and arguments as if I were entirely ignorant. I never implied that the origins of these myths can be found in the time directly preceding Alexander, merely that it is after this point that astral myths became common and before that time they were rare. My questions clearly assume that the origins of these myths were much, much earlier... around or before the time you suggest (it's obviously hard to know, given the lack of many pre-Homer written sources). Also, I've consistently said that myths accrete, expand, change through the centuries of their telling and as they are transferred from one culture to another, which is why I'm open to keeping the connection with the Zodiac (as a later development in the myth, rather than an originary trait)in the article, provided that some evidence is provided. Moreover, I've never said or implied that myths "come from nowhere." To do so would be silly, what I've been arguing is the unliklihood of this particular set of myths having sprung from or even been associated with the stars until a very late phase in their development. You've stated that the beginnings of myths are necessarily simple; that is purely conjecture, but I'll tentatively agree that many myths have simple beginnings and are undoubtedly elaborated upon. But this tack simply leads back to my conclusions insofar as it admits that any attempt to pin down a simplistic origin to a myth (especially when it originates long prior to any written accounts of it) are undeniably difficult at best. This is not to say that they come from nothing, but that definitively finding that origin is unlikely. There are numerous anthropological theorizations and accounts of myths and myth formation that point out that even when there is a seemingly simple point of departure for a myth, it is usually bound up in a complex mesh of cultural/linguistic/ideological intricacies that render the simple conception of the origin misleading and illusory. However, once again I am going off topic. In this particular case, you are claiming that the twelve labors are astral myths, first and foremost; I, knowing enough about this subject to find it odd that I don't know anything about that, ask for clarification, for evidence that this is the case, as I think that any significance the zodiac might have for the myths is a later development, and if it is should be more clearly acknowleged as such. I've offered a citation that suggests that what you seem to be claiming is unlikely; all I'm asking for is that since you are making a positive statement in this matter, that you provide evidence to support it, not just a reply (something akin to an ad hominem) that appears to assume that I know nothing about the subject without at least also offering an actual argument, with evidence to counter mine.--MS

You are asserting that astral myths were rare before Alexander. I am stating that they were not, but astrology and explicit acknowledgement of astral connection was. Don't you think its quite a large co-incidence that the stars happen to describe the myths perfectly - e.g. Orion - this is either an extra-ordinary co-incidence that the Greeks hardly thought worth mentioning, or the basis of the myth in the first place, that the Greeks didn't bother mentioning because it was fairly clear to them until it had become clouded over as a gradual process of accretion to the myth culminating at, say, the time of Alexander, when they needed to assert the connection that had now become obscured. I agree that it is odd that you don't know anything about that, but I cannot be responsible for the quality of your education. We are discussing myth formation, so I fail to see how Professor Chapman is not extremely important here. ~~~~ 08:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

1. I am more specifically asserting that astral myths were rare (though not absent) before Alexander in Greek mythology; other cultures certainly had an abundance of them.

   I am asserting that they were not, in common with other cultures. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

2. You bring astrology back up, but I have already conceded that I was originally using that term too broadly, and I don't understand exactly what you mean when you say "explicit acknowledgement of astral connection".

   I mean by that term "rather than just describing an astral myth, describing an astral myth and admitting it is one".~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

3. (This point is perhaps the most important for the specific, practical disagreement over this article.) This is not a simple he-said/she-said disagreement as your first two sentences indicate. I have given evidence, from experts in Greek mythology, that provides reasonable doubt as to your specific contention in this case that the Twelve Labors are based on and originate from the Zodiac. In light of what they say, and the fact that the labors have changed in number at various times (most likely beginning at a lower number), I have hypothesized that the astral connections of the myth were later developments in keeping with the increased practice of this in Alexandrian Greece and in Rome. However, I have no proof that this is the case in this specific instance (that of the Twelve Labors). Nor should I, as I am not really making a positive statement, but am countering your positive statement that the Twelve Labors originate as astral myths. That is, I am merely showing that there is good reason to doubt what you say in this particular instance, though I have not disproved it. All you need to do is provide evidence (scholarly arguments on the origins of this particular myth or arguments based on primary sources--though these would be lacking as pretty much the earliest sources would be Homer and Hesiod) that this is the case. Since you are so confident that you are correct, this should be easy.

   When you state that you "have given evidence, from experts", the only person whose name I can see in your comments is professor Chapman, who supports the case opposite to yours. When you say that you "have hypothesised", this constitutes original research, which is, for better, or worse, not allowed in Wikipedia. I have repeatedly directed you to Professor Chapman, one of the most respected sources in this field, who teaches at Oxford, and is a member of the Royal Astronomical Society. These are substantial qualifications. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

4. "Don't you think its quite a large co-incidence that the stars happen to describe the myths perfectly - e.g. Orion"... a) I've already conceded your point that Orion is one of those rare early Greek astral myths, but it wasn't through any argument of yours, it was because I happened to find evidence suggesting this when I was doing my own research. b) I've never claimed that the connection between constellations and mythology is pure coincidence, merely that for most Greek myths any astral connections are later developments and not intrinsic to their origination. c) Stars don't "describe" anything, and they certainly don't do it "perfectly". By claiming agency for the stars (as you do here) you make overt a tacit assumption that your arguments often seem to rely upon: that a particular group of stars has an intrinsic shape--a big man, a bear, a woman,etc.--which must then be explained by myths, and that this is the end-all be-all of the myth (even if it is forgotten, you suggest, it is the driving force of the myth). Rather, star formations don't look like anything save through the act of interpreting their relative positions in meaningful ways. Thus, the Big Dipper "looks" variously like a dipper, a bear, a cart, or simply seven birds, depending on the interpreter or culture doing the interpretation (and the number of stars included change depending on the needs of the interpretation). So, since it is an interpretation of the stars, a reading into their formation to see a shape, myths can be applied to them AT ANY TIME, even centuries after the initial formation of the myth. It is not a wonder that if one interpreted a formation of stars as a big man, he/she would further interpret that big man as an already existing and highly significant cultural referent, Herakles for example; or if he/she "saw" a horse, it would be Pegasus. The cultural referent thus guides the interpretation and lends it a certain cultural clout and staying power. By way of an example, if I look at the stars and see Mickey Mouse, according to the way you've presented your ideas, we reach the absurd position that Mickey Mouse must then be based on this formation of stars. Of course, this example is inapplicable if the myth, the cultural referrent, is in fact originally linked to astronomical phenomena, which is exactly what I want to know in this instance. Are the Twelve Labors in fact in origin astral myths? I've given good reasons to doubt the veracity of this claim.
   • B - I disagree. You are implying that the stars matching the myth is pure co-incidence, a highly unlikely situation, which the greeks somehow only noticed after Alexander. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
   • C - Sorry, that should have been "arrangement of the stars" (i.e. visual appearance of the constellations) rather than "stars". Star formations most certainly do look like something. Orion is almost universally identified as some kind of man, either in profile, or in portrait (usually portrait). Hydra looks distinctly like a snake, and many many cultures therefore identify it as such. If they did not have a distinct appearance, so many cultures would not all agree on what it was. The question is not what they CAN be made to look like, but what the stars NATURALLY have the appearance of. I.e. without contrived reasoning - mickey mouse would be extremely contrived to obtain from the stars, a big man is not (well, unless you live in an urban area where artificial lighting makes the visibility so low that you can only see the belt if anything). ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
5. "I agree that it is odd that you don't know anything about that, but I cannot be responsible for the quality of your education." That's kind of petty, don't you think?

   Its a trueism. I am not responsible for your education (unless you are a student in Linguistics, in a certain UK university, which I doubt, based on your spelling conventions). ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

6. And finally, if I gave the impression that Prof. Chapman is not a valid person to cite, I apologize, I did not mean to. My criticism was not of him, it was of how you used him. Rather than citing a specific text, or preferably, giving an enlightening quote or two, you simply said his work (as a whole) should be read. That is entirely unhelpful, as without specific reference it does not advance the argument (it would be like me saying, John Smith says similar stuff, and leaving it at that, expecting that to settle the matter). However, while I wasn't criticising Chapman, or rather his applicability before, I will now (to an extent). I haven't been able to get ahold of his works, but what I have found out is that his area of expertise is astronomy, and the development of astronomy in and around--I think--the medieval and renaissance periods (but also extending into other periods). In other words, he's not even an expert on mythology, it's not really his field. That being said, he does have a book on astronomy and religion (generally) going to ancient times (apparently across several cultures, not specifically Greek). Now, I haven't read his book, so I can't really criticize it, nor would I ever claim that it must lack important insights, as astronomy is related (albeit a little vaguely) to the specific matter under debate here. However, I have cited experts in the specific field of Greek mythology. You, however, have not given any specific evidence (beyond conjecture), and the one person you've mentioned is apparently not an expert on Greek mythology. Moreover, when I originally said that Chapman was probably not important to our argument, I meant the specific argument about the Twelve Labors. That is, whatever disagreements we may have about myth formation in general, these are not what is most pressing in this instance, which is this specific article, and whether or not the Twelve Labors are originally an astral myth as the article seems to imply. So, if his arguments are more generally about myth formation they are not helpful unless they illuminate this specific question.--MS

   He is an expert in the history of astronomy, including mythos developing from it, thus Greek (and Hindu/Vedic) mythology - in so far as it stems from the stars. I wasn't aware he had published a book on the subject, but I've looked it up now, its called something like "Gods in the sky". His research papers are more substantial (the published book is geared at the general public rather than academia, which makes it readable, but less detailed). Personally, I recommend talking to him over dinner somewhere, he is an entertaining speaker. And Chapman has written (and indeed given talks) explicitly about the origin of Greek myth, including the Twelve Labours. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about the "original research," which is why I have not and would not recommend my hypothesis's being in any way added to the article itself without further research and substantiation. As for my citing experts: in my fourth post on this subject I said, "Morford and Lenardon, in their book 'Classical Mythology' note, 'Astral legends are an aspect of Alexandrianism [post-Alexander Greece, and elsewhere], and genuinely early Greek astral myths are rare'" (545). You state, "You are implying that the stars matching the myth is pure co-incidence, a highly unlikely situation, which the greeks somehow only noticed after Alexander." No, I am arguing that constellations, whether of originally astral myths or not, are actively created through an interpretive scheme. Thus, it could not be a coincidence unless one assumed that the stars have inherent forms (i.e. of a man, a dog, a bear), whicch they do not. They are simple points of light in the sky that require a tremendous amount of interpretation, "fleshing out", so to speak, in order to resemble any thing. Thus, various constellations (the big dipper for example) are variously intepreted--or not even recognized, or recognized only in an entirely different form--between different cultures. (As for Orion's being interpreted as a man in multiple cultures, I can only speculate: cross cultural borrowing certainly played a part; or, perhaps in this case, pure intercultural coincidence--not that the constellation/myth relation is coincident, but that across cultures it is interpreted as man might be--based on tendencies towards anthropomorphism). As for Chapman, I'm sure he's a qualified man at what he does (after all, he is at Oxford), but simply stating and restating his qualifications is not evidence of anything other than his qualifications. If he writes about the Twelve Labors originating as astral myths, great, just quote and cite the sections where he discusses it. --MS

While I agree that some constellations, e.g. Camelopardalis, are contrived, most actively have a visual form. For example, Orion occurs as a giant in pretty much every mythological scheme on earth, even when they are completely unrelated (e.g. in cultures that haven't even met until the 17th century). This is extremely unlikely unless they have intrinsic visual forms. Drawings, and paintings, are, technically, just simple points of colour, especially when digitally printed, but nethertheless we still manage to make shapes from them. Likewise, a join the dots picture of a man quite often looks remarkably like a man, even though it is just dots. This is because of the way the mind is intrinsically wired up to pick out shapes. It is not co-incidence that many many varied and widely different cultures will pick out a join the dots picture of a simple snake as a snake, even when it isn't identified in the join the dots image. It does not require cross cultural borrowing, nor even remotely due to co-incidence. It's because it looks remarkably like a snake. Likewise with the classical constellations. As for Chapman, he is not only a qualified man, but one of the, if not the, most qualified. Like most academics in most academic research, his written material on the subject constitutes scatterings across a wide variety of different research papers and journals. It is simpler for you to just attend one of his occasional lectures on the subject. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Once again, simply saying that Chapman is qualified, and that if I'd go to his lectures I'd have the proof I need, is not evidence of what you are claiming about the Twelve Labors. You need to cite (and preferably quote) specific, written sources that could be realistically be accessed by most people.--MS

Academic papers are not easily accessable (either physically, or in readability), which is why I suggest you attend his occasional lectures on the subject instead. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Academic journals (in which academic papers are published) are available in most libraries, especially university libraries (in one of which I happen to work). So, it is relatively easy for anyone who lives near a library to gain access to the most prestigious journals. Claiming, as you are, that Chapman is a preeminent scholar in the field, he would certainly be prominently, and often, featured in the best journals in that field, and could be easily found (if only you would cite--and preferably quote--his work) by most people, and especially those near an academic library. Much more easily than happening to be in Oxford, England and going to a lecture in which he just happens to discuss the origins of the myths surrounding the twelve labors of Herakles, as that is the specific issue at hand. Once again, please actually provide evidencial support for what you are claiming, that is, that the twelve labors are originally astral myths. --MS

Moreover, a quick look at the Wikipedia entry for the constellation Orion shows that it has been differentially understood as a sheep and simply "three" by substantial cultures. This is in direct contradistinction to your claim that it is "almost universally identified as some kind of man"; of course, you say "almost," but this still goes to the point that constellations have no intrinsic (or "natural" as you say) shape guiding their interpretation, or rather that they have no intrinsic interpretive configuration above or outside of the interpretation itself, regardless of whether the constellation generates the myth or vice-versa, the myth guides the configurative choices and interpretations of the constellation. If the stars we call Orion are interpreted as a man in a preponderance of cultures, there are other explanations for it, and the exceptions suggest the invalidity of thinking that there is a natural and undeniable form to the constellation guiding its interpretation. (Of course, all of this is still beyond the scope of the specific argument at hand: whether or not the twelve labors are originally astral myths; so, I suppose I'm just being argumentative on this point). --MS

[edit] Confusing Argolid with Arcadia

I wouldn't build too heavily on an interpretation that found Argos the "capital" of Arcadia. I think a hyperlinked list of the individual labours, at the very least, belongs at Heracles. It's all too easy to detect the imngredients of a list and cannibalize an article to make a "new" one, leaving an incomplete article behind (cf. Trocadero) --Wetman 03:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Herakles

I have changed the name of Hercules from Herakles to Heracles, since Herakles was linking to a computer programme that plays othello. Hope no one minds :) - Lamuk69 (talk) 10:20, 03 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zodiac redux

In spite of the lengthy Zodiac section above, I see no sources cited for the claim that the twelve labors match up with the zodiac. Considering an earlier editor asked for citations from scholarly literature and got none, I will delete the zodiac section now.

Actually, I see no sources cited for anything in the article, except for a Burkert cite with no page #, and a cite of Morford and Lenardon. And, um, citations to mythology textbooks aren't exactly a way of improving Wikipedia's scholarly credibility. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Although it has apparently been months since you made your changes to this page, I thank you. I was the one arguing in the above discussion that the references to the Zodiac ought to be either removed (my preference) or if possible (which I doubted) substantiated with reference to scholarly sources. For reasons I won't get into I was unable to continue that argument but am glad you have changed the page for the better (though I don't understand your claim that using a textbook--written by scholars--would not help with Wikipedia's "scholarly credibility"... granted, textbooks aren't written for experts, but neither is Wikipedia, and they are a quick way of finding facts on a subject generally agreed upon by the scholarly community... it really doesn't matter anyway, as we are in agreement about the article and I was only using the textbook as easy evidence against the Zodiac claims). --MS

Thanks for your kind words.

Regarding the use of textbooks, the reason I don't think they help WP's credibility much is because textbooks are usually written without footnotes and other forms of references that enable verifiability. They are, as you say, a good place to look for facts and viewpoints that are widely accepted in the scholarly community, and so can be good starting points for us, but eventually we should cite peer-reviewed articles or monographs. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

...preferably written in Latin. --Wetman 12:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Era usage

The first reference to an era was when 6th century BC was used. This usage persisted for some time - it was the favoured usage of the original editors. Only latterly did someone introduce the BCE usage. Therefore I am reverting to the orginal preference. Here is the first usage [1] Arcturus 10:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ecologist interpretation

I remember a book for teenagers by some Green Party politician from Germany or the Netherlands, that retold the labours as ecological problems. For example, the Stymphalian birds were noise pollution, and so on. Do you know what I'm talking about?

[edit] 13th Labour?

Is there any reason why the most popular version of Heracle's "13th labour", the 49/50 daughters isn't even slightly mentioned? I find it's often controversially mentioned; and this site gives quite a good explanation regarding the labour. 81.208.161.148