Talk:Cyclopes

Possible new text

Sweetpool50 has suggested that some brief mention of one-eyed giants from non-Greek traditions, might be mentioned in the Cyclopes article. Above I've suggested some possible new text, here it is again, (slightly revised per P Aculeius):

Folktales similar to that of Homer's Cyclops Polyphemus are a widespread phenomenon throughout the ancient world. One example, in a story from Georgia in the Caucasus, describes two brothers held prisoner by a giant one-eyed shepherd called "One-eye", who take a spit, heat it up, stab it into the giant's eye, and escape.

References

Concerning this P Aculeius has written above:

Unless I've missed something, I think it needs to be a little longer than one sentence referring only to Polyphemus—Bitwixen has mentioned other traditions that seem to be less Polyphemorian and more something else, including a tradition that seems to have transformed Prometheus into a cyclops, and perhaps others. It still might all fit in a single paragraph, with multiple links to related articles, although it may be some of them still need to be created/split off from here (and they might not all need a "main article" header). But the section should at least cover the bases, if Bitwixen is correct and there is a significant body of cyclopes in folklore who don't appear largely derivative of Polyphemus, and if so then it shouldn't just be directing readers to that article.

Here is my response to P Aculeius:

I can’t account for what Bitwixen says, I only know what the sources I’ve read say. And I know of no sources which support the claim that "there is a significant body of cyclopes in folklore" unconnected with Polyphemus (whether "derivative of Polyphemus" or not, see "current scholarly consensus" below).

• There are many many, what are described as "Polyphemus legends", from around the world. See Polyphemus#Possible origins, and the sources cited there. For the most part these sources talk only in general terms about these legends; few details of individual stories are given.

• There is also a rich folklore tradition from the Caucasus, (see for example the Nart sagas) which contains examples of these "Polyphemus legends”. David Hunt in his book Legends of the Caucasus, has a chapter: "Legends about Shepherds, Including Cyclops Legends" (Hunt is not an academic, but his book is cited by reliable sources).

• This Caucasian folklore tradition also contains examples of Prometheus-like legends, and Hunt's book also has a chapter titled: "Prometheus legends". Although not mentioned by Hunt, there is a Nart saga (SAGA 37: A Cyclops Bound atop Wash'hamakhwa, Colarusso, p. 170) which describes a giant “with only one eye in the middle of his forehead [who] dared to learn the secrets of God." God chained him to a rock and sent an eagle to peck at the giants's heart every day. When the giant bends down to drink, the eagle swoops in and drinks all the water. There is also another Nart saga (SAGA 52: How Sosruquo Brought Fire to His Troops, Colarusso, p. 200), which is unique in that it combines a Polyphemus-like story with a Prometheus-like story (Hunt's legend "a" in Tables 1 and 2, pp. 212–213).

So while we have sources to support saying something about either (or both) of these two interesting Nart sagas, it doesn't seems to me we should include more stories from the Caucasus when we include none from the over 220 other similar stories from all over the world.

Sweetpool50 further suggested the "brief mention" could be in the "Transformations of Polyphemus" section. But, since the current scholarly consensus is that some of these “Polyphemus legends” reflect traditions that ‘‘predate’’ Homer, it seems inappropriate to consider them as all being transformations of Polyphemus.

Paul August ☎ 14:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me, but I think that Prometheus as a cyclops should be added to the proposed paragraph—at the very least, it's interesting, wouldn't (and logically shouldn't) be treated in the Polyphemus article, and while it can certainly be discussed under the Prometheus article, it needs a pointer here. I stand by my observation that readers will expect this article to treat cyclopes generally, and not be strictly limited to Greek myth, if they occur elsewhere; but if most or all of the other cyclopean lore appears to be derivative (or at least related to) Polyphemus, and the theme isn't limited to the Caucasus, then I agree that there's no reason to take up several paragraphs on the Caucasus specifically. P Aculeius (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: One problem I have with adding content on "cyclopes generally", is that it is not clear to me what the definition of a generic "cyclops" actually is. Is it defined to be any one eyed creature? If so one might assume it included creatures like the Graeae, and Odin, who could be said to be one-eyed, although I don't think they are ever referred to as being a ”cyclops". In fact I don’t know of any non-Greek tradition which calls such creatures “cyclopes”. More importantly, I know of no source which discusses generic "cyclopes”. Are there any? Paul August ☎ 18:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Presumably we would want to limit the scope to beings traditionally identified as cyclopes, or obvious analogues in non-European traditions. And while we occasionally use the word jocularly to someone who's lost an eye, I don't think that usage would be expected by readers, or of any advantage to them. Having one centrally-located eye (an actual, normal eye, not a metaphysical one) above the nose seems to be the indispensible characteristic—and except in some artistic depictions, usually not having two normal eyes—or having had them at one point. The Graeae are never depicted as giants, or (to the best of my knowledge) as having had one single centrally-located eye socket apiece. In artistic depictions, they generally have normal eye sockets, but only one eye to share between them. Odin of course had two eyes, until he gave one to Mimir as the price of looking in the Jotun's well. If you were going to include him under the definition of "cyclops", you'd need to include Moshe Dayan, Nick Fury, and most pirates. I don't think anyone would expect to find them in an article about cyclopes! Limiting the scope of the article to cyclopes mentioned in Greek mythology is too narrow, but it ought to include creatures who obviously fit the definition—preferably giant, but definitely humanoids with one centrally-located eye above the nose. P Aculeius (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok so not Nick Fury ;-) But then who specifically? Who are these other "cyclopes"? In any case whatever we choose to add would need to be supported by reliable sources, which call them "cyclopes". Other than the sources I've already given, I know of no sources that discuss non-Greek "cyclopes". Paul August ☎ 12:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary that they be called cyclopes if they clearly fit readers' expectations of what a cyclops is—at least with regard to the defining characteristic, a single eye in the center of the face above the nose, instead of two eyes in their usual position. I had hoped to find something in my ancient, water-stained, second-hand copy of Jorge Luis Borges' Book of Imaginary Beings, but although it has a chapter on "one-eyed creatures", not dependent on the word "cyclops" for inclusion, all of the examples cited are Greek. I'm not saying there are a ton of examples out there—apologies to Turanga Leela—just that in theory anything that clearly is a cyclops could properly be mentioned here. As with many articles, individual cases can be debated if and when they appear. P Aculeius (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Totally disagree. "Readers' expectations" is an irresponsible appeal to ignorance and misconception. A dictionary definition should be the source one starts from, and both the UK Oxford and the US Webster refer to the monsters as deriving from Greek mythology, not just any one-eyed beings (a freshwater crustacean apart). Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find a way to engage in the conversation without insulting both me and our readers. If a dictionary says that "centaurs are creatures from Greek mythology" and then we find creatures in Chinese folklore consisting of the torso and head of a man attached to the body of a horse, we're not going to hide our heads in the sand and pretend they don't exist just because they're not called "centaurs" in Chinese. If it walks like a cyclops and quacks like a cyclops, we'd call it a cyclops no matter what the local terminology in Svalbard or Brunei or Guyana happens to be, and it'd be reasonable to mention it here, even if it's covered in a separate article somewhere else. Insisting that something can't be a cyclops and shouldn't be mentioned in this article because it isn't Greek is just pedantic. P Aculeius (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

If you insist that the definition given in scholarly dictionaries (which are regularly updated to reflect modern usage) is to be ignored, then you are being irresponsible by Wikipedia guidelines. If you find that "insulting", perhaps you're in the wrong place. Sweetpool50 (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I object to attacks on fellow editors — as in the comment immediately above this. Also, if the Oxford dictionary is to be adhered to, the definition in the OED varies from the definition that’s in this article. And the OED certainly does not limit the term Cyclopes only to Greek mythology. - Bitwixen (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

My copy of the OED lists three meanings:

"Cyclops ... also Cyclop. Pl. Cyclopes ..."

1. One of a race of one-eyed giants in ancient Greek mythology, who forged thunderbolts for Zeus. Hence often used allusively.

2. A genus of small fresh-water copepods ...

3. attrib. and Comb. [i.e. used attributively, and in combinations. Examples given: "Cyclop like in humane Flesh to deal", "Cyclop Priests will make you truckle under", "A Cyclops pig ... because it has only one eye ... placed in the middle of the forehead"

So I see nothing here suggestive of a wider generic use of the term "cyclops" meaning, for example any one-eyed giant.

Paul August ☎ 14:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The one-eyed pig (your example) is hard to miss. The dictionary, in the examples you cite, certainly indicates a wide range. - Bitwixen (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

That's what Wiktionarians would call an "attributive" use of the word; i.e. using it to describe something other than a cyclops doesn't make that thing a definition of "cyclops". What we need is any scholarly work (using the word "scholarly" loosely here) that uses the word "cyclops" to describe giants with a single eye in the middle of their foreheads, without insisting that they can only be Greek. That would provide at least some cover for the assertion that this is a "general" article on cyclopes, rather than limited to "just the Greek ones." Although, it occurs to me that we don't necessarily have a conflict here in the first place: if something is described as a cyclops in a scholarly source, then theoretically it belongs in this article, correct? We don't even need to worry about Greekness, just whether it's considered cyclopean in the literal sense. I'm not saying that every detail and every individual cyclops needs to be discussed at length—this whole discussion began because of sections that were better discussed in other articles, but deserved a mention and link from here—but will this satisfy your concerns, P. August? P Aculeius (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@P Aculeius:. Yes, if we come across such a "scholarly" source then we should certainly consider (subject to WP:Notability) adding a brief mention of such a generic "cyclops" here. In the (in my view unlikely) event that there is a lot of such content about non-Greek "cyclopes" then we would have to decide where to best place such content, either here (which, in my view, would be an expansion of the current topic of this article, i.e. Cyclopes in Greek mythology) or in its own article. But, as it stands, this is all hypothetical. Paul August ☎ 13:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Plural title?

Why does this article have a title in plural? These are the conventions for plural titles: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(plurals) [sorry, I don't know how to shorten links]. Can anyone justify, based on those conventions, why this article is named "Cyclopes" instead of "Cyclops"? I also could have sworn it was titled "Cyclops" at some point in the past. Stvlnd (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the use of the plural here reflects the fact that the topic is primarily concerned with a collectivity. This is consistent with the names of our articles on the siblings of the Cyclopes: the Titans, the Hecatoncheires (or Hundred-Handers), the Gigantes (or Giants), the Erinyes (or Furies), the Meliae, the Graeae, as well as numerous other collectivities, such as the Korybantes (or Kouretes), the Telchines, the Muses, the Horae, the Charites (or Graces) the Oceanids, the Potamoi (The Rivers), and the numerous groups of personifications who were the offspring of Eris, which include: the Machai, the Androktasiai, the Amphillogiai, the Hysminai, the Phonoi. And many others as well. See also, for example, the entry "Cyclopes" in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, Tripp's Crowell's Handbook of Classical Mythology, and Grimal's The Dictionary of Classical Mythology. Paul August ☎ 10:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, Paul August. I guess that makes some sense, but I still wouldn't say it's justified to have a plural title. Unlike your examples (or at least most of them), this article doesn't refer to a particular group or population of Cyclopes, but to a race in general. The articles Deity, Goddess,Satyr, Centaur, Gorgon, Siren, Harpy, Daemon, Dwarf, Elf, and Jötunn, for example, are all mythological races whose titles are singular, presumably for this reason. Not to mention folkloric races like Fairy, Giant, Goblin, and Troll. It makes no more sense to me to name this article plural than any of these. Also, Britannica uses the singular form and I'm sure some other encyclopedias do too, so I don't think naming it singular would be necessarily going against the grain. Stvlnd (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I have to concur with Paul August's reasoning. The Cyclopes are usually referred to collectively in an academic context; Polyphemus is the only one likely to be mentioned by himself, and then generally by his name. There are various reasons why most of the various types of mythological/folkloric beings/creatures mentioned above are in articles with either singular or plural titles. Most of the Greek ones that are currently plural would not make sense to list under singular titles, and I think a similar argument could be made for "Gorgon", "Siren", and "Harpy", since in most cases a specific set of beings is intended, although there's considerable variation in the names and numbers of the latter two groups, most of whom are not well-personified or individually familiar to modern readers—unlike Polyphemus or Medusa. None of the others refer specifically to a limited group, but might be described as "open classes" or "types". P Aculeius (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I too agree with the reasoning above, and with Paul August's. In classical usage - and it is that upon which the article is based - the noun is used as a collective plural. Though some (like the forgemen of Hephaistos) may have had individual names, the only cyclops really to assume a singular literary existence was Polyphemus, who has an article to himself. I suggest that Stvlnd should look at the long and exhaustive conversations above on this talk page to see the background rationale for our preference for the collective form here. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Homeric (pastoral) Cyclopes

Problems with the Homeric Cyclopes section,

The fifth-century BC playwright Euripides also told the story of Odysseus' encounter with Polyphemus in his satyr play Cyclops. Euripides' Cyclopes, like Homer's, are uncultured cave-dwelling shepherds. They have no agriculture, no wine, and live on milk, cheese and the meat of sheep. They live solitary lives, and have no government. They are inhospitable to strangers, slaughtering and eating all who come to their land.[38] While Homer does not say if the other Cyclopes are like Polyphemus in their appearance and parentage, Euripides' makes it explicit, calling the Cyclopes "Poseidon's one-eyed sons".[39] And while Homer is vague as to their location, Euripides locates the land of the Cyclopes on the island of Sicily near Mount Etna.[40] Like Euripides, Virgil has the Cyclopes of Polyphemus live on Sicily near Etna. For Virgil apparently, these Homeric Cyclopes are members of the same race of Cyclopes as Hesiod's Brontes and Steropes, who live nearby.[41]

• Uncultured: Euripides' Cyclops is cultured.

• No agriculture: He quite demonstrably keeps sheep.

• Poseidon's sons: Also "τὸν μονῶπα παῖδα γῆς" (647) ie one-eyed son of earth.

• Pastoral in Theocritus too, and implicitly in Sicily. Untitled50reg (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Here "agriculture" is being distinguished from pastoralism. In what manner is Euripides' cyclops "cultured"? I'm not contradicting you, just asking for the basis upon which you're disputing the characterization. *Pictures a cyclops in a smoking jacket, sitting in an English drawing room/library surrounded by old masters and shelves full of books, blowing smoke rings from a long pipe* It's not clear that Euripides is contradicting the statement that the Cyclopes are sons of Poseidon simply because he elsewhere describes them as "sons of earth," a phrase that could either allude to the three divine Cyclopes (sons of Gaia, the makers of thunder and lightning), or simply the fact that they're bound to the land (they don't ride horses or carts, fly on wings like the Harpies, or sail the seas). P Aculeius (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: Your Cyclops picture is actually not far off. He is basically a sophist. He does know things. He just lives in a cave and eats humans and is slandered with savagery therefore. For the agriculture, I had thought that sheeprearing and milking and cheesing counted, but I confess that I do not know. And for the lineage, I suppose my issue was more with the "explicit", because the Cyclops in Cyclops is not strictly the Homeric Cyclops, but a bit of a hodgepodge. Untitled50reg (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "slander" implies a deliberate intention to defame the cyclopes, which is obviously not the case, since none of these men had ever even met a cyclops or cared about their reputations. The suggestion that any scholars, ancient or modern, is trying to do that by describing them as "uncultured" doesn't seem reasonable. And frankly in English, "uncultured" could easily apply to agriculturalists as well as pastoralists. It's one of those tricky words, "culture", that means different things in different contexts. In the loosest definition, anyone with a shared set of practices and traditions has "culture", in which sense the cyclopes would be said to possess culture in the anthropological sense; but in the literary sense, it means to possess art, literature, science, philosophy—as opposed to living in caves, herding sheep, and having the occasional passerby for dinner. Arguably the Hesiodic cyclopes belong among the gods, rather than the earthly cyclopes of Polyphemus' tribe, so we'd be talking about two different things entirely. My image of the would-be sophisticate cyclops sitting in a leather armchair surrounded by books was entirely in jest. P Aculeius (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything P Aculeius says here about "cultured". I would add that, in this context, one of the significant ways that the Euripidean Cyclopes are meant to be understood as "uncultured" is their complete disregard for the important Greek value of Xenia (guest friendship). Paul August ☎ 11:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Untitled50reg:. What is being regarded as "explicit" here, is the fact that, while Homer does not say explicitly that the other Cyclopes are, like Polyphemus, either one-eyed, or a son of Posiedon, Euripides does. Paul August ☎ 11:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

We're going to have to have a talk about the birds and the bees.

I initially found "mated" and found that quite objectionably preposterous, for similar reasons as P Aculeius. I had a look at what Hesiod actually says, and, as I explained, he says "Οὐρανῷ εὐνηθεῖσα", which came to me as basically what the Loeb offers it as, namely "having bedded with Sky". I confess that I considered this odd, and weighed this bedded with with lay with, and with the dictionaries and the Loeb offering the bedding, that is what I went for. But I also agree with Paul August that "espoused" is even worse than "mated with". Since we each evidently cannot agree on those three, I am going to put that lying with back on the table. Untitled50reg (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"Espoused" is the word that I believe is traditionally used in mythological contexts—precisely because it concerns hieros gamos as opposed to animal mating, a wedding ceremony with bows and lace, or Paul August's "bodice ripper" (although I agree with his sentiment about "bedded"). Remember, words and phrases take on new meaning over time, particularly those that aren't familiar from a specific context. And "to bed" someone, in English, is the kind of lusty language we would expect from an 18th century pirate. There are other ways to use the word "bed" that carry less cultural baggage, but in the sense of mating, they all seem inapt when speaking of a creation myth that necessarily takes place before the invention of beds—or even a place to "bed down in". That's why I used "espouse", which seems to me to be the most neutral, and also, I'm pretty sure, a typical formulation in mythological scholarship. P Aculeius (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

If you are going to rely on anachronism I am going to defend bed and reject your hieros gamos and espousals. For bed also covers Earth as bed. But there was certainly nothing to help with any hieros gamos. And for the espousal, that's a Roman word. Untitled50reg (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The first meaning of εὐνάω is "lay". And it is being used by Hesiod here figuratively—just like the English word "lay" can be—to simply mean to have sexual intercourse with (there is no sense in Hesiod of anything else). So, as to meaning, "lay with" or "bedded with" are "correct"—but—both (even more so "bedded with" or just "bedded") are figurative, and anachronistic, and so neither would be appropriate here. Paul August ☎ 12:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August: I know not what might condemn Wikipedia more damnably than your explanation that what is correct is not appropriate for it. Untitled50reg (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Correct in meaning but not correct in style. Just as "screwed" would be correct in meaning, but not in style. Paul August ☎ 12:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally I've not been a fan of any of the alternatives offered so far. My choice would be to alter the grammar a little to "Eighteen children resulted from the union of Uranus...etc". In this paragraph the main interest is in the progeny and the following sentence would flow naturally from what is suggested. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess this would be acceptable to me. But, What is wrong with the original/current "mated with"? This formulation has the virtue of preserving the meaning, in Hesiod, that this was something Uranus did to Gaia. Paul August ☎ 14:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

'Mating' suggests animal husbandry, therefore something done to Uranus and Gaia. Hesiod's account sounds similar to Gnostic speculations how reality is the end result of increasingly material emanations of original abstractions. Chatter about what happens in the marriage bed strikes me as anachronistic and inapt when dealing with what P Aculeius reminds us is a creation myth. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

"that this was something Uranus did to Gaia" - Is this so? I had read this as an active aorist female nominal participle, ie Agent Gaia. Untitled50reg (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I just went to see what the Theogony page says. "Uranus mated with Gaia, and she gave birth to the twelve" - horrible. Untitled50reg (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Over at Gaia#Mythology "She lay with Heaven". If cultural baggage is an issue then that there I propose seeks lancing. Untitled50reg (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

We're concerned with how it reads in English, not the most literal possible translation from the Greek. Overly literal translation is how we get into this kind of mess in the first place, because different languages have different ranges of meanings associated with certain words and idioms. Even when two languages have corresponding idioms, there are typically shades of meaning and other cultural baggage that don't translate well. English is versatile because there are so many ways to describe something, each with its own shade of meaning. We're discussing which turn of phrase best conveys the idea of the original myth, in the context of a mythological union between the primordial deities. If it's phrased awkwardly in another article, that can be dealt with separately; but it might be a good idea to see how we resolve it here first, or even if we can reach a consensus, so we don't wind up repeating the same discussion there. P Aculeius (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: I know, I know, what is correct is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Untitled50reg (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Untitled50reg, a self-satisfied knowledge of Greek is one thing, but where we are seeking consensus is satisfactory English wording for the English Wikipedia. A translation from the Greek follows the opening paragraph, which is not a translation but a summary of Hesiod's sense, and that's what we are discussing here. What is required of co-operating editors is not an overwhelming consciousness of their own rightness and their indispensibility to rescuing a despised medium, but a willingness to work with others and, dare one say it, learn something in the process. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

And what the people but a herd confused,
A miscellaneous rabble who extol
Things vulgar and well weighed scarce worth the praise.
They praise and they admire they know not what
And know not whom, but as one leads the other.

(Paradise Regained) Untitled50reg (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

On the Cyclops' birth myth

I remembered my original idea on the Cyclops' birth myth, which seems to me quite likely, since I confronted it with various references found on the net. I'm referring to the well-known episode from the Odyssey which describes the Cyclops Polyphemus, a gigantic monster with just one eye. Considering the oral hypothesis, the episode described by Homer would have originated in a much earlier period, and then be transmitted orally, withdrawing from previous traditions of stereotypes. In such an era, the legend about the Cyclops and the Lestrigoni, ancient inhabitants of Sicily, could have been manipulated by a hypothetical original creator of our history, for “needs of script”. According to Thucydides, the legend of the Cyclops belongs more to the fantastic sphere than to the historical tale, attesting mainly in the extraordinary poem the Odyssey is. There, Cyclopes are described as one-eyed creatures, but they should have originally been a binocular species, mainly to meet the natural needs of predation. The innatural distortion the passage to monocular beings created could be properly explained answering the following question: • how could Ulysses have instantly blinded Polyphemus, if he'd had not one but two eyes? Ancora Luciano (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• WP:OR Furius (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Ancient Greece

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2024 and 14 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Old Crooked leg (article contribs). Peer reviewers: CabbageP, Optimistic Learner.

— Assignment last updated by Johnstoncl (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

"Possible origins" section title

@P Aculeius and Sweetpool50: Perhaps the issue for the IP (or IPs) is that the word "origins" is ambiguous. Here we are using the word "origin" to mean where the idea for such one-eyed creatures might have come from. But the word could also be used to mean where the Cyclopes came from in other ways such as geographically or genealogically, etc. So perhaps the IP's title is not so bad after all? Can we perhaps think of a better title? Paul August ☎ 13:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

But that's what the section is clearly about, and it wouldn't make sense for this title to be about geographical locations, which after all are already discussed elsewhere in the article. I doubt that this is what the IP editor is getting at. Given the history of this article, and the various supposed explanations left in the edit summaries, I suspect that the editor is fixated on the idea that some cyclopes had three eyes.

A cyclops depicted with a right eye above two empty eye sockets.

A cyclops depicted with one large eye between its nose and brow ridge.

Two Greek- or Roman-era heads of Polyphemus

We've routinely described attempts by sculptors and artists since antiquity to depict cyclopes by adding a third eye—often a distinctly right eye—above the bridge of the nose, leaving an eyebrow and two distinct eye sockets that sometimes even appear to have eyes in them, as "three-eyed cyclopes". It's unclear whether these represented how cyclopes were generally envisioned, or simply the difficulty artists had in depicting an otherwise human face without a browline above two eye sockets. Which of course is why I liked the image on the right more than most of the other illustrations in the article, when we last discussed images. Incidentally, as this and another version from 2007 are on Commons as the work of the uploading photographers, and the sculpture itself obviously isn't under copyright, why can't we have either of them in the article?

But that's what I think the IP editor is getting at: the idea that because artists have struggled to depict a cyclops without right and left eyes or eye sockets, that "one-eyed cyclopes" are a distinct type from the rest—something for which there's absolutely no evidence, as all cyclopes, irrespective of whether shown with right and left eyes or eye sockets, always have a single central eye, which is what this section of the article attempts to explain; it applies to all cyclopes, not just a subset of them. The notion of "three-eyed cyclopes" is largely a matter of convenience in discussing artistic depictions, not a distinct category of cyclopes in any mythology.

That said, if you really think this is the best solution, I'll be guided by you. You've always shown fair judgment in this article, and my contributions have been minor. P Aculeius (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I very much doubt if we'll find any form of words to satisfy the IP(s). Edits are clearly part of a disruptive campaign by someone with a past grudge. Take at looks at the edits headed "This administrator continues to abuse his power by maintaining misleading content (such as the "Polyphemus" page) against Wikipedia regulations" directed at three different editors on 12. 20, 3 Dec 2023, 12.49, 3 Dec. 2023 and 14.58, 5 Dec. 2023 and at the rather similar IP addresses to the present disruptors. It's my guess that only partial protection is the solution for such malicious activity. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The Cyclops on the Map

Earlier today, someone added an illustration of a cyclops from Urbano Monti's 1587 map. It's not a great crop—too small to see any details, and badly tilted—and it raises several questions: for instance, what's the copyright status? The map is obviously in the public domain, but the version from which the image was taken was assembled by the David Rumsey map collection, which hosts the assembled map, and I gather it took a lot of work, which might be considered creative itself and perhaps give rise to copyright. I think we would need an expert on Wikipedia and copyright to determine whether we can use this.

My first thought was that the illustration isn't terribly relevant to the article. But it does show the continuing influence of cyclopes on the popular imagination during the age of exploration. And following the link the the source, where I was able to rotate the map and zoom in, it really is a fabulous drawing, on a map filled with similarly astonishing critters—there's a savage fighting a dragon, and there appears to be a dimetrodon near a rhinoceros and a giant chameleon a few hundred miles to the west—drawn three hundred years before its fossils were discovered! The buck-toothed, skin-clad cyclops has a delightfully goofy expression... it would be a shame not to use this somehow.

The editor who added it didn't seem to know where Monti placed it, but it seems to be a region identified as "Brasileia", forming the eastern half of New Guinea, and evidently distinct from Brazil. The western half is clearly labeled, and you can see the islands of the East Indies above it: Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Timor, Palau, etc. This really is an astonishing map full of amazing details. Is there a way we can keep the cyclops at the edge of the map? P Aculeius (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at the document referenced and, so far as I can see, there's no reference to the cyclops in the accompanying text, so the edit would count as WP:OR. There is a closer reproduction of the monster in the article with the description cyclops vel monoculus and I was reminded that one-eyed monsters are not limited to the classical world. There are some mentioned in India (I think) in Mandeville's Travels. It's a very dubious edit and about as helpful as "Here be dragons" maps! Sweetpool50 (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Cyclops depicted on Urbano Monti's 1587 world map.

The label "ciclops vel monoculus" is on the map, though not legible in the version of the image posted in the article, so it's not original research. It's possible to zoom in and rotate much more than in the version added to the article: on the assumption that I'm free to upload a detail, since the map itself is on Commons, I've uploaded my own image of the cyclops at much higher resolution, with the label clearly legible. I agree that the image has no more than tangential importance, but a lot of decent images of cyclopes don't relate directly to Greek myth so much as they demonstrate its continuing influence. And this represents a different style and purpose than most other illustrations. "Here be dragons" would seem like something one might mention, albeit briefly, in an article about dragons—and I bet a lot more maps have dragons than cyclopes! Again, it's not necessarily important. But not everything mentioned in articles about folklore and mythology needs to be particularly important—I think there might be a little room for whimsy from a notable historic map! P Aculeius (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. 00:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Paul August ☎ 00:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

'Reading' the illustration, I'm inclined to interpret its subject as a rather unsatisfactory Vergilian monster. His club might well be the pine tree trunk that is said to steady his blinded course in the Aeneid and the pelt in which he is clothed could, I suppose, be that of one of his sheep...or even of a wolf that had attacked his flock! On the other hand, we may rather have here an echo of the supposed inhabitants of the fabulous 'Indian isles' in the Travels of the 14th century Sir John Mandeville, as I mentioned earlier. I've now discovered the dimly remembered quotation: "In one of these isles be folk of great stature, as giants, and they be hideous to look on; and they have but one eye, and that is in the middle of the front; and they eat nothing but raw flesh and raw fish." An account mediated through the Classics, perhaps, but at a considerable remove, as is Urbano Monti's illustration. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

That Mondi's "cyclops" might be unrelated to the Hesiodic or Homeric Cyclopes is still ok I think. We can deal with this, I think, by putting references to Mondi's creature in quotes. Paul August ☎ 13:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

We'd be treading on thin ice, perhaps, considering our insistance on the fact that we're dealing with the cyclopes of the Classical accounts that all three of us have maintained in earlier discussions here, and our wariness of the place of cognate tales in other cultures in this article. Mandeville writes of Indonesian monsters and the map where the picture is inserted seems to be in that area too. The connection with the myth is much too 'whimsical' - to use P Aculeius's term. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue in the past had to do mainly with the insistence of one editor that tales from the Caucasus that either didn't clearly involve cyclopes at all, or which were rather transparently derived from the story of Polyphemus, instead showed a tradition of cyclopes unrelated to classical antiquity. The European traditions relating to cyclopes are rather obviously based on the Greek original, and there's no plausible reason to believe that a sixteenth-century Italian mapmaker would have based his skin-wearing, treetrunk-carrying cyclops on any truly independent tradition. It's equally unlikely that John de Mandeville—whoever he was—would have been unaware of the Greek cyclopes, given their prominence in the classics.

The idea that the monsters of folklore dwelt beyond the edges of the map—areas depicted in delightful detail by Monti—is nothing more than an elaboration of existing European traditions. And it's not the "connection with the myth" that's whimsical; it's Monti's decision to include one, and the manner in which he depicted it. I hope that the new transition I provided helps to clear up the relationship of the illustration to this article. P Aculeius (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Really? You just took it upon yourself to delete the brief paragraph and illustration while it was under discussion on the talk page, and after I'd taken the trouble to reformulate and improve it? How high-handed. P Aculeius (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You got in while I was giving my explanation. I deleted the modification to the section as inaccurate. It begins "The concept of the cyclops living beyond the frontiers of civilization" when the rest of the location section details places well within those frontiers. It's shifting the boundaries of the article and it's that I'm wary of given our earlier purist stance. It's beginning to look as if the complaint about us that gave rise to the last wave of vandalistic attacks was justified. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you're going on about. This article concerns "cyclopes", not "random giants of vague description from other cultures". That's not "purism", it's simply defining the scope of the article. An Italian cartographer using the word "cyclops" (however he spells it) and drawing it precisely as depicted in Greek myth has no other plausible explanation. It seems as if you're the one employing an unreasonably narrow standard. P Aculeius (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if it would have been considered relevant enough to be included in the article when I originally added it but since I have seen other Wikipedia articles about mythical creatures mention references to mythical creatures in later sources not from the mythologies they originated from which do not seem to be particularly relevant, I thought it could be added.

For example, the satyr article is mostly about satyrs from Greek mythology but there is a section that mentions artwork of satyrs from later European sources which are not Greek (see Satyr#Renaissance), so I thought it would not be too different to include a depiction of a cyclops from a map.

Also not sure if it would be considered original research, though if the inscription "ciclops vel monoculus" is included in the text of the article it might be easier for those checking the source to see the connection to the cyclops.

Below you can see a slightly modified version of the revision recently made by P Aculeius:

• The concept of the cyclops living beyond the frontiers of civilization endured well past classical antiquity. In 1587, during the Age of Exploration, Italian cartographer Urbano Monti depicted a cyclops near an inscription stating "ciclops vel monoculus", amongst the other fantastic creatures of an imagined landscape, apparently corresponding with the eastern part of New Guinea.

If anyone wants to include it, this or something similar can be added to the article along with the modified image and modified reference that were recently added. Opskind (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's "original research" to state exactly what the map says, especially when anyone viewing it can verify that. And I agree that later appearances of a mythological creature are relevant to the article, provided we're not filling it up with miscellaneous passing references in pop culture: readers won't be aided by a list of every book, story, film, or television program that includes a cyclops. But there probably aren't too many cyclopes on historic maps, and I think the connection between Monti's concept of a cyclops and Greek mythology is obvious enough not to require further documentation. Not sure why I would have written "near an inscription stating" rather than "labeled", but I can't fix that as long as Sweetpool is blocking its inclusion. But I note that three different editors in this discussion have said they think it's fine to include, so consensus would seem to be in favour of restoring it. P Aculeius (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see now: that isn't what I wrote; I didn't mention the label at all, since it wasn't necessary (though legible in my version of the image). The rest of the text is mine. P Aculeius (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

P Aculeius, it is not obstructive to ask that the inclusion in the article of an illustration from a Renaissance MS and its accompanying note be supported by a reliable source that a link with the Classical tradition is intended. The picture is sited somewhere in the complex of islands between India and China and that is precisely the location where Mediaeval tradition believed that one-eyed monsters were to be found. In the words of Sir John Mandeville (which is the assumed name of a 14th-century collector of tall travellers' tales), "In one of these isles be folk of great stature, as giants. And they be hideous for to look upon. And they have but one eye, and that is in the middle of the front. And they eat nothing but raw flesh and raw fish." I don't deny the possibility that the tradition of such monsters may stem ultimately from folk traditions assimilated to Greek and Latin texts. On the other hand, the mediaeval accounts that may still have been remembered by Renaissance authors, placing them in what used to be called the East Indies, are an alternative source for cyclopes in the case of the Monti map. I would not object to this question being raised at administrator level. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying (a) that consensus cannot be determined without the intervention of an administrator, or (b) that you won't acknowledge that consensus exists unless an administrator tells you to, or (c) that if the paragraph and illustration are restored, you will ask an administrator to intervene? I'm not sure that any of these are appropriate means of resolving a content dispute. P Aculeius (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me very possible that the map is merging this story (which might have real roots in the region) with the Classical iconography of the cyclops. That would be something worth mentioning in the article, as part of the reception of the classical monster (IMO). But it would need a source.

Including an image and comment as it stands seems valid, but not essential; there must be a lot of Renaissance MS with depictions of cyclopes and it would not be desirable for the article to list all of them. Furius (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I found out that Wikipedia has Template:Cite map which means maps can be used as their own references so using it would very likely not be original research. Opskind (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

A "ciclops" depicted on Urbano Monti's 1587 world map.

I think Monti's map would be a nice (albeit not particularly important) addition to the "Location" section. I suggest adding P Aculeius's image [right] and the following text:

In 1587 AD, Italian cartographer Urbano Monti depicted a "ciclops" in the far south of his world map.

References

With the following entry in the "References" section:

• Urbano Monti, Manuscript Wall Map of the World, David Rumsey Historical Map Collection, Stanford University (1587, 2017). Online version at Stanford University Libraries.

While we certainly can't assert, without other sourcing, that Monti's "ciclops" is meant to refer to the Classical Cyclopes (although I think the use of the name "Ciclops" almost certainly means that it is), the above image and text does not do this, so I see no WP:OR issues. As for what part of the actual globe Monti's location for his "ciclops" corresponds to, I think we need be no more specific than "far south".

Paul August ☎ 18:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The western side of the same land mass is labeled "Nova Guinea", and corresponds roughly with New Guinea in terms of location, so notwithstanding the eastern side being labeled "Braseileia Regno" (Brazil is pictured in its correct location), the cyclops would seem to be in eastern New Guinea. P Aculeius (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes the map does label the island as "Nova Guinea", but I'm not sure that means that this island corresponds to the island we call New Guinea. Note that the David Rumsey Historical Map Collection describes the world area for sheet 35 as Antartica. See also Chet Van Duzer, "URBANO MONTE’S WORLD MAPS: SOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT", p. 423:

Many earlier sixteenth-century maps show a large southern continent that was a hypothetical construct, not based on any “pre-discovery” of Antarctica or Australia. The configuration of Monte’s continent is unusual: rather than being a continental landmass occupying the South Pole and the surrounding region, it is a ring of eight islands around the South Pole.

Paul August ☎ 02:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Most of these are clearly hypothetical landmasses. However, New Guinea was already known from multiple Portuguese and Spanish reports dating back more than fifty years prior to the making of this map. According to our article on New Guinea, the island itself wasn't mapped until 1600, which would account for both why Monti included it on his map, and why his idea of its size, shape, and other features was so vague. He had no reliable accounts to suggest how big New Guinea was, although he did know where it was relative to the islands of southeast Asia, which are also identifiable and named on the map. The fact that the first explorer to report it was Portuguese might account for why Monti attributed at least part of the island to the Kingdom of Brazil—assuming that's what "Brasielia Regno" is supposed to mean. I think it's safe to say that the big green land mass on this part of the map is how Monti imagined New Guinea might look, although the neighboring lands seem to be mostly fantastic (Terra de Lacach, Terra Galleca, Terra de Vista, Patalia); Terra del Fuego at least is real, and correctly located, though the proportions are entirely wrong, as they are for New Guinea. P Aculeius (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This 1572 map seems to bear out that New Guinea was known and attributed by some to the Kingdom of Brazil. Here Terra del Fuego is part of the hypothetical southern continent; here "Lacach" seems to be about where Australia should be, so perhaps based on uncorroborated accounts of land there—the official discovery not taking place until 1606. Of course that's not something we could put in an article—but it's also not relevant to cyclopes in New Guinea! P Aculeius (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but why are we including a sentence about a cyclops appearing in this 16th century map? Without some explanation of why that appearance is significant (supported by RS, of course), it just seems to be asking for people to start listing every appearance of a cyclops in a post-classical document or artwork. That seems unsustainable. Furius (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Are there actually a lot of examples of cyclopes in art that we haven't already included? I realize that cinematic and television versions will have proliferated during the twentieth century, simply as examples of fiction, and that we don't want to create a trivia section. But I'm not sure whether there are other examples from old maps, playing the role of dragons; and if there are, then perhaps this could just be cited as an example. Otherwise, it's just an instance of the classical cyclops being borrowed for relatively serious illustrative purposes at a very late date—and still a reasonably good example of that.

I don't think that we need to bar the gates against every historical depiction of what clearly is a cyclops as described by Greek and Roman sources, simply because of a hypothetical flood of appearances in relatively insignificant contexts over the last seventy-five years, or because one determined editor tried to prove that stories about giants from the Caucasus—some of which were obviously derived from Polyphemus—demonstrate that the cyclops myth arose there before or independently from Greek myth. P Aculeius (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)