Talk:Cyclops

Three names of Cyclopes

The names of the first three Cyclopes roughly translate to i, like, and pie

Headline text

.

Incorporated into text. Thanks. --Wetman 05:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Various origin speculations

Elephants

The skulls giving origin to the legend would be Deinotheriums or Sicilian Palaeoloxodons? Is there a way to choose? (Anon.)

"Tatoos"?

"Blacksmiths also tattooed themselves with concentric circles in honor of the sun; this is another possible source of the legend. " Which? whom? where? I suspect manufactured post-literate "tradition" in this statement. --Wetman 02:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fetal development

In about 1997, I was in the hospital with pinched nerves in my back and extreme pain. The pain medication would wear off during the night, and I would turn on TV until the new medication put me to sleep, which was too long a wait for me.

One earl morning TV session, I switched to the PBS station in Dalls, and caught a video that a man made when his wife first became pregnant. He actually had a doctor to insert some fiber optic strings into her and attached them to his movie camera. It was fascinating, to say the least, to actually see the development of the body destined to house a new Soul.

At one point, the fetus was facing the camera, and I saw the spaces where the eyes wer to be located. They were only indentations, covered over with skin.

Shortly after that scene, I saw one very large eye appear in the absolute center of the forehead, then begin to pull apart, and looking every bit like it was just detaching one eye from another eye, and each eye began a slow movment downwards and to the left and right until they were located firmly in their correct places.

This experience was astounding to say the least.

I think this may be the results of the development of man that had goten to the pont where the body needed two eyes, and not one. As this is obviously a development process, now, the true cyclops fell by the wayside and has not been a part of modern man since.

A few years later, I had a desire to see it again, but when the PBS station showed it, the sequence where the single eye split into two eyes had been cut out. Perhaps the powers that be, church or politician or scientist decided it would be way too much for the average person to handle to know we are descendants of one-eyed giants. I don't know.

I have tried to find that video, and it can be found on Amazon.

If anyone who has more research skills than I is interested, (s)he might find the original producer/photographer and see if he has an original that new, complete versions might be made available to the general public. (Anon.)

Could that feature be the pineal gland, which some link to the third eye? --Error (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

=Congenital cyclopia

"It is also possible that the rare but occasional birth of malformed children affected by cyclopia, a rare congenital cephalic disorder, could have inspired the legend." Moved here from text. This shows a fundamental misunderstandings of mythology comparable to the fetal cyclops above. Too cranky. --Wetman 05:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I added a rather nice picture. It's an animatronic.--Codenamecuckoo 14:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Sicily and Cyclopes

Is possible that Syracusae, in Sicily, may be the Land of Cyclopes?

Etymologically, there is an identification of Cycl-opes and Sicelians (the ancient Sicels, a non-Greek people of this island).

Note: In ancient times, there were three non-Greek and non-Phoenician peoples lived in Sicily.

1. Sicelians (or Sicels or Siceli, lived in eastern Sicelia)
2. Sicanians (or Sicani, lived in central Sicelia)
3. Elymians (or Elymaeans, or Elymi, lived in western Sicelia)

--IonnKorr 19:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about this etymology, but there is a connection between the Cyclopes and Sicily--as metal-workers, the Cyclopes were localized in areas where there was volcanic activity, and that means Mt. Etna. There are sources for this, but I don't have them to hand--Theocritus 11 might be a place to look. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

spelling?

What is the spelling in Greek? My guess would be KYKΛOΨ. Michael Hardy 01:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

In Greek, the word "Cyclops" is "Κυκλωψ" and "Κυκλωπες", in plural .

--IonnKorr 16:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, in my all-capital notation, it's KYKΛΩΨ; I had the penultimate letter wrong. I checked this in the Oxford English Dictionary and I've added the spelling in Greek letters to the article. Michael Hardy 19:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirects?

I'm thinking that there isn't much to add to the individual articles for Brontes et al. What if I made those into redirect or disambiguation pages, pointing readers to this article? The only additional information that was in those articles was the translations of the names, which is why I added those in here. Nareek 18:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

All three articles now lead readers back here. My feeling is that a lot of mythological stubs need to be either redirects or disambigs--there's only so much to be said about a lot of minor figures. Nareek 12:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Two generations?

Methinks this article is doing a bit of original research: I don't think any Greek source says that there are "two generations" of Cyclopes. Rather, like much of Greek mythology, the sources are simply inconsistent: you have Hesiod's Cyclopes, Brontes, Steropes, and Arges, and you've got the Odyssey's Cyclopes. But Hesiod and Homer don't try to reconcile these groups of Cyclopes. I doubt that any later writers (out of those we have) give a schema of two generations, but if someone does, it would be nice to have some sources in the article... --Akhilleus (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not work that right into the article? --Wetman 03:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I take "generations" to mean "groups distinct in time"--which they plainly are. I don't think it necessarily implies parenthood, which would be not OR but inaccurate. Nareek 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To say that there's two generations of a particular group or creature naturally implies that the second generation is descended from the first. If you want to say "groups distinct in time", just say "groups distinct in time." Except, that's not as clear as you say--the Homeric Cyclopes are described as a kind of race or tribe of human-like beings, and so presumably have a history of their own, stretching back several generations. Note that the Phaeacians lived close to the Cyclopes, but then moved to a new land because the Cyclopes were too troublesome--and this happened at least a generation before the "present time" of the Odyssey (the relevant lines are at the beginning of book 6, I think).

There's actually a controversy, reaching back to antiquity, about the connection between Homer's Cyclopes and Hesiod's (see e.g. R. Mondi, "The Homeric Cyclopes: Folktale, Tradition, and Theme", Transactions of the American Philological Association 113 (1983) 17-38). The two-generation solution adopted by the article looks like original research to me, since it's not supported in any of the original sources or the modern scholarship I've seen--it appears to be an original, ad hoc solution to the problem of the two groups of Cyclopes. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The word "generation" is often used in a figurative sense, not implying actual parenthood. If I said that the Sex Pistols were part of the generation of musicians that followed the Beatle, would you assume that I meant that Johnny Rotten is John Lennon's son? Nareek 13:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But what if I said there were two generations of Beatles? Two generations of Sex Pistols? Two generations of the Ramones?

Or, to use "generation" figuratively, let's say that there were two generations of punk rock music. The Stooges belong to the first, and Sonic Youth belongs to the second. Doesn't that mean that Sonic Youth was influenced by the music of the Stooges--that, figuratively, Sonic Youth descends from the Stooges?

Even in this figurative sense, then, "generations" implies some kind of descent or genetic connection.

At any rate, the notion of "generations" stems from ancient attempts to reconcile Homer and Hesiod's Cyclopes (see Aristotle, fr. 172 Rowe), and there the idea is that they were related. (I was mistaken earlier when I said the "generations" idea was an ad hoc solution.) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

One or Two eyes?

Is it possible that Cyclopses may not necessarily be 'one eyed' since the greek word Cyclops in fact means Round eyed? Perhaps it should be mentioned that the perception of Cyclopses having only one eye is only the result of popular social belief? This is just a suggestion.

I've infered that regardless of the number of eyes it has they're going to be round. As there are so few texts it's entirely possible that there "were" two-eyed cyclops, but they just weren't interesting to write about :-) Well, this article seems to focus on one-eyed and doesn't really mention round, so I'll try to add it in a NPOV way. Rodiger 19:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Added more Real-Life Refrences

Just added Artemis Fowl addition to Real-Life References.

Lost information

For the record, the following has been lost during recent months:

• Κύκλωψ, "meaning round eye"
• Note to Kyklopes: "In English usage, this more strictly accurate transliteration may appear pretentious." (replaced by Futurama references).
• "Their individual names were secondary, save Polyphemus, singled out for his encounter with Odysseus."

--Wetman 03:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The second and third items don't seem like losses to me. It would be useful to include information on the etymology of Κύκλωψ; I don't have references at hand, but I believe that a few people think "round eye" is a folk etymology. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Nareek 10:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Harryhausen

Isn't that the same cyclops at the beginning and the end of the film? Nareek 20:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

polyphemus in Homer's Odyssey

I read Robert Fitzgeralds translation, and in it Odyessus and his crew definetly knew the Cyclopes ( called Kyklops in this version) lived in the cave. Odysseus and his men go in, and even though his men protest lingering, and suggest they grab and run Odysseus decides that they stay. There they eat Polyphemus' sheep, and steal his cheese.

The rest here is definetly just my speculation...

When Odysseus and his crew came to the island, they had been plundering and pirating (their attack on Ismaros an example). Their coming to Kyklopes island was more of the same. They ate Polyphemus's sheep, which in this he calls his children, and cousins. Also when talking to the Kyklopes, Odysseus lies to him, saying they are shipwrecked and asks for his help. Polyphemus sees through the lie, and a few other lies, with the third eye he's the 'seer of the meaning of things'.

Anyway, the movies always depict the Cyclops as a monster, and I don't think I've ever seen him use language at all. I figure mentioning that Odysseus did know what he was getting in to, and definetly brought some of the trouble on himself. Without going way off on a tangent, it just seems that the Cyclops is often passed off as not important, but he really shows at the time that Odysseus was acting rather brutishly and greedily. It's an important part of Odysseus's character development through the story.

But, how much of that was speculation, and what could I do to put it into the page?

The encyclopedia question is only, was Polyphemus, the easily-fooled but dangerous being of some primitive order, meant to be a sympathetic figure to Homer's hearers? (No.) Our sentimental reaction of universal sympathy for all creatures has only developed since the 18th century: not encyclopedic, except as an example in a subsection "Homer and the Romantics", which would belong at Homer. Do you see how that is?--Wetman 04:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I do see, but what about the issue that they knew he was going to come back all along? Odysseus's men even impore him to leave before the beast comes back. Saying it was unknown seems to be a contradiction to that. --KLoverde 04:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If the article is misrepresenting the plot of Homer, that ought to be corrected. As for the rest of your question, I would say it relates more to the character of Odysseus than to Polyphemus, and so belongs (if anywhere) in his article. Nareek 04:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Nareek) The article may be a bit unclear. Odysseus and his men know the cave is inhabited, but they don't know who lives there. The text could use some editing.

I think you raise a valuable point, too--eating Polyphemus' food without being invited to do so is a violation of hospitality, and you could draw a parallel between that and Odysseus' piratical behavior. To make it into the article, this analysis would need to be based on secondary sources. I know that a few people have written about this very question, and have compared Odysseus' behavior in the Cyclops episode to the suitors' behavior in Ithaca, but I don't have references at hand. I'll look for them tomorrow. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll look for a source on the issues of Odysseus's morality, and piracy.

But as for the crew knowing who inhabited the cave, when they are leaving the island of the Lotos eaters, there is this passage

" In the next land we found were Kyklopes, fiants,louts,without a law to bless them, "

Odysseus then continues to describe them, as savages. Now, I just remembered that all this is a retelling of the tale to the Phaikins(sp?), so that might be why he mentiones this. But.. Right after they make landfall and Odyessus takes 12 men to scout the island I find this passage " A wineskin full I brought along, and victuals in a bag, for in my bones I knew some towering brute would be upon us soon --all outward power, a wild man, ignorant of civility " This is right before they get to the cave, and in the cave his men urge him to leave swiftly. So this makes me think that they did know who was going to be in the cave. So saying they were caught unknown is misleading, or it's incompatitable with the Fitzgerald version that I have, I figure this might be worth mentioning.--KLoverde 05:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wheel-eyed?

From what I've read, cyclops translates as 'round eye', not 'wheel-eyed'. A source to back this up is Dictionary.com.--Jcvamp 14:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Dajjal

How about the Muslim folklore about an Anti-Christ false prophet with one-eye called Dajjal, in which Imam Mahdi and Jesus will destroy close to the Day of Judgment? Isn't that a cyclop too? --Fantastic4boy 06:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why captilized

Why is Cyclops always captilized? Isn't it a noun? Would you captilize dog? Please answer me it's bugging me. --Alec0124 16:25, 16 April 2007

I believe that it is because this is the name of a God therefore having important significance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.161.91.13 (talk) 13:24:47, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

It's the name of a god, actually, not a God. Aran|heru|nar 15:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

so-called "Triamantes"

I moved this here:

The Triamantes in Cretan legend have been suggested - they were a rural race of man-eating ogres who had a third eye on the back of their head. Other than the detail of the eyes, they sound very similar to the Cyclopes of Homer.

There is no "Cretan legend" of "Triamantes". In fact the word "Triamantes" has never occured in any of the professional literature that is indexed at JSTOR, which goes back into the 19th century. This bit of text was added 09:47, 5 January 2004 by an administrator of Wikipedia, whom I decline to identify. Thanks to our lack of oversight, and that includes me, for this page is on my Warchlist, "the Triamantes in Cretan legend" have been mirrored and replicated all over the Internet. --Wetman 05:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Vase in origins is OR?

There is claim that the cyclops may not have been a true cyclops in the origins section, saying that there is a vase with a cyclops being stabbed in the face with a two pronged fork. But the reference given was simply an image of the vase with no text at all, which leads me to believe that the editor that added in there "worked it out" himself and then thought it would be a good idea to add it into wikipedia. It was added by IP address 81.77.229.152 on 14:58, 16 May 2007. This reference seemed to be "confirmed" by user Bibliomaniac15 two days later when he fixed up the reference at 02:18, 18 May 2007 and 02:19, 18 May 2007 and again on 02:22, 18 May 2007. This concerns me because this bit of original research has been on this article for over 5 months now, who knows how many people read it or used it as a source for a school project or official work? Or even brought it up in conversation as a fact, when it was purely original research from one random viewer. Even worse is that this original research was in a large way "approved" by Bibliomaniac15 as a verified and "checked" source by an admin! C'mon people, we need to stay sharp here, we are telling people that we are editors of an encyclopedia, it's time we started living up to it! JayKeaton 20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So much for "okayed" articles approved by the Ministry of Magic. Quite to the contrary, a major lesson in using Wikipedia is that the wise reader is always skeptical of printed "facts". Previously this was an axiom of elite education alone. --Wetman (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is always dissapointing when you find something false and completely made up in an encyclopedia. People do not come here to question what we tell them :( JayKeaton (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, too. Especially disappointing in "okayed' articles, where readers are encouraged to let their guard down, by a perhaps spurious "guarantee": not a good category, in my experience. --Wetman (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Too true and you are absolutely right, Bibliomaniac15 really let the readers down with this blunder :( JayKeaton (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible folk etymology

I saw Akhilleus' mention of it above, and added another theory with refs. in a footnote: it may be from PIE kuh-klops "cattle thief."Ifnkovhg (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Who has suggested such a PIE root for "cattle thief"? --Wetman (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, Ifnkovhg has misremembered and confused the actual proposal. Kuh is the German word for cow. What Paul Thieme has really proposed is PIE pku-klops, from peku "sheep" and klep- "steal". I'll correct that in the footnote.

If his idea is correct, the Cyclopes were originally just regular giants and the depictions of the Cyclopes as one-eyed are incorrect and just secondary consequences of the folk etymology. The elephant origin explanation is then moot, as well. --Florian Blaschke (talk)

Genetic Mutation?

I've heard of single gene mutations which cause dramatic changes in body morphology. This blog post alludes to the fact that mutations in embryonic cells can result in human changes such as "the symmetry of the internal organs reversed so the heart is on the right instead of the left". A curious comment talks about cyclops as potentially being such a mutation. Can anyone dig up anything substantive on this? http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/the-monster-is-back-and-its-hopeful/#comment-807 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1000Faces (talk • contribs) 21:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How could there be anything "substantive" on this? Only the very simple confuse fiction with fact to this extreme extent. --Wetman (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New possibilities on the origins of cyclops

Thread moved from unrelated page Wikipedia talk:Contact us. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The History channel has recently aired a documentary on the origins of certain mythological creatures of Greece. It states that certain Islands and areas of Greece were very rich in dinosaur bone deposits. There are records left behind that state that peoples of Greece would come upon large bones and either re-bury them, or bring them to a local temple as a sacred object, completely assured that they had found the bones of either ancient Gods or heros. It also states that dinosaur bones have been found in temples. Also, ancient pottery in these areas show mythological creatures in bone-only form, which are absolutely accurate to known dinosaur specimens. The theory that is set forth by the documentary is that cyclops came about by the local people finding mammoth skulls. Since it is very difficult to make out the eye sockets of a mammoth, people may well have mistaken the hole in the upper middle of the skull face for being the eye (this is the spot where the trunk would have attached itself to the skull). The cyclops was described as a misshapen giant with one eye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.212.166 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

just a link you can use; in the the subject "shangri-la" (english version) at the line "Story of the blossom valley" you need a citation; i propose http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2090 from the gutenberg site

Vandalism

The article has been completely replaced with a one that is a modern fiction story involving a teacher, that happens to be a cyclops, having sexual relations with a student. Aside from this being a disturbing look at the author. it completely messed up a good page. I am going to try to fix it. but I would like Wikipedia to treat this as vandalism.=)

Awg1010 (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Tischbein

There are better reproductions of Tischbein's Polyphemus on the Net: google image.--Wetman (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation of 'cyclops'?

Needs to be consistant. DrJimothyCatface (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)