Talk:Cedalion

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

The naive category "Greek mythological people" (sic) does not properly apply to Cedalion: a glance at the category shows many other figures that can't rightly be called "people". -- (Wetman) 03:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In an article where eleven lines of text (in my browser) are supported by seven footnotes, drawing upon Walter Burkert, Nonnus' Dionysiaca, Hesiod, pseudo-Eratosthenes' Catasterismi, Lucian, Sophocles, Iliad, the Suda, Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker andKarl Otfried Müller, it is natural to question which is the detail that User:Pmanderson has been able to discover, in order to apply the "disputed" tag, and justify an edit summary "tissue of speculation; unsupported by ancient sources" [sic]. There must be something here that User:Pmanderson just doesn't like as his recent remarks at Hera suggest. Hyrieus, User:Pmanderson reports, "was childless and a widower when he became the father of Orion" ...as if he were reporting facts of biography, without any attribution whatsoever. So, if User:Pmanderson sets such a low standard for himself, what— one might wonder— is his authentic motivation here? Intellectual honesty? Unlikely, it would appear. --Wetman 01:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • The only things the ancients tell us about Cedalion are that he was a Cabeirus, that he was tutor to Hephaistus, and his part in the recovery of Orion's sight. The rest of this is invention. In particular, the following claims in this text are uncited, and (I believe) uncitable:
  • young
    • And quite justified in this quibble, too: "young" is unattested --Wetman 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • adept
    • Most certainly an adept, with its implication of the craft mysteries of the smithy. --Wetman 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The underworld smithy (Nonnus is an authority for the former vulcanism only, and there are better sources for that. The former volcano Moschylus is discussed both in Kerenyi; Gods, p.156, and in Frazer's Apollodorus.)
    • That a smithy in a volcano is "underworld" could not seriously be disputed. Why is the former volcanism of Lemnos suppressed?--Wetman 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no reference in the source to Hephaestus' smitny being in a volcano. As quoted below, the volcanoes of Hephaestus may well be a reference to Etna, not to anywhere in the Aegean. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orion's descent to it.
    • An ascent then? Who would quibble over this?--Wetman 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later the Lemnian cave would become famous for its mysteries, in which each initiate was united with his chthonic brother counterpart.
    • The following sentence is meaningless rhetoric.
  • Alas. Quite silly indeed. What could I have been thinking?--Wetman 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colchis
    • There is a predominant variant, represented by Lucian, in which Orion regained his sight just off Lemnos. Farnell treats this as covering all the evidence.
      • There is no trace of this information in the article. Could you squeeze it in, perhaps with a little caveat about Lucian's literary purposes and his audience, even though this "predominant variant" is your personal ..."POV" as you like to say? --Wetman 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • See Orion (mythology), where all the sources are cited, including Farnell's judgment.
    • There is a secondary variant, which can be read as Orion regaining his sight at the Eastern end of the world; but this is not - here - identified with Colchis.
    • And where then? China? Alaska? Where else is the eastern end of the Greek world, the place where the sun rose in the palace of Aeetes, where Orion would find Eos? How can a neutral reader not identify Colchis?
      • The identification of the Lands of the Dawn with Colchis is, as mythology goes, late; after the navigation of the Euxine. When Hesiod wrote, it may well have been never-never land. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The etymology is from to severely dated, early-XIX century sources; which is useless to the reader, and unverifiable. I note that Kerenyi's etymology is omitted. Why?
  • Kedalion may have been a daimon associated with the kabeiroi, the dwarfish metalworking guild and "sons of Hephaistos", who are connected with the archaic mysteries of Samothrace, a chthonic cult sited at the Samothrace temple complex.
    • This makes the drastic (and unsourced) assumption that the cabeiri were not daemones.
    • No such assumption is made in the quoted text, as any reader can see. --Wetman 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The connection between the "sons of Hephaestus" and Samothrace is a novel synthesis. Both of these can be, in different senses of the term, connected with the Cabeiri, but if A is joined with B, and B with C, it does not follow that A joins C.
    • Poppycock.--Wetman 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Find a source with both, in the same context.

I propose to trim to what Kerenyi's Gods of the Greeks says (p.156):

Not all stories agree, by the way, that it was his mother [who cast him out]. According to one tale [Note to scholia on Ξ 296,, Aeneid 10.763], Hera brought her son to the island of Naxos, to Kedalion, who was to be his tutor and teach him smithcraft. Kedalion was a figure resembling the Kabeiroi. His name is as much to say "the phallic one". He was also numbered with the Kyklopes [Note to Hesychius, without reference], from amongst whom Hephaistos took his fellow-craftsmen; but Hephaistos did this only later when the tales had begun to connect the god with the great Vulcans or volcanoes of the West, with Etna and Vesuvius. At a place where fire springs from the earth in Lemnos, on the small mountain of Moschylos, Hephaistos's companions were certain Kabeiroi called the Karkinoi, "the Crabs"....

In addition to this, there is the unblinding of Orion, told in full under Orion (mythology) (p. 203); a group of phallic or half-animal tutors (also Priapus, Chiron, Silenus, Pallas p.177); and Prometheus, "like a second Kedalion" took fire from the sun's wheel (not further explained). (sourced to a scholion on Eclogues 6.42).

I congratulate Wetman on the amount of original research he has managed to insert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcasm, though habitual, is uncollegial. There's no excuse for this toxic atmosphere. --Wetman 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of this waspish energy might go into improving the article. --Wetman 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine> Nonnus is irrelevant; I shall be removing the rest discussed here as unsourced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and I shall be vetting your excisions when I find leisure and psatience. Do remember that your personal tightness about passing on information to the reader is induced by your doctrinal background and not universally shared. Try to be more collegial, even if it does not come naturally. --Wetman 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA, please. Just for my own satisfaction, what do you suppose my "doctrinal background" to be? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

  • Theoi.com's own opinions are not reliable sources.
  • "Brown:2004" is a photo-reprint of a 1877-8 book, apparently by an autodidact. It should be cited clearly. More importantly, he has not cited his own sources clearly, or chosen them particularly well. Mueller is a notorious crank, author that "thousand-page fantasia", The Dorians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, if I considered Karl Otfried Müller a "notorious crank" I'd try to keep my dismissive POV from affecting the Wikipedia information: nothing is being based on The Dorians, an early attempt at a history. The reader should be warned that Theoi.com is not a source of opinions as our cranky poster suggests, but of quotes from classical sources. And most useful too. --Wetman 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See his article, which cites Sir Moses Finley's judgment of him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion[edit]

I have deleted the reference to Servius' commentary on Aeneid 10.763, as it bears on Orion's drunkenness and blinding but not in any way on Cedalion: is [Liber] satyros misit qui soporem infunderent Orioni et sic velut vinctum Oenopioni traderent arbitrio eius puniendum. Tum ille Oenopion sopito ei oculos sustulit. I note this because as a general rule, deleting references can be read as a mark of unscrupulous behavior. --Wetman 05:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several variant texts of Servius. I don't see the reference myself, but I must assume Kerenyi is talking about something. If someone can track it down, well and good; if not, it does no harm in our footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did Orion place Cedallion on his shoulders to take him east? Is it possible Orion place Cedallion on his shoulders so as to guide him as where to since Orion was blind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.144.248.26 (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cedalion&oldid=1216717586"