Jump to content

Talk:Mephistopheles: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
- Thank you all for the information. And, you're right, I shouldn't have suggested that it was Christian (or, at least, exclusively Christian) mythology. But what I really wanted to know, and I haven't used a computer in years, so please pardon my ignorance, is, who wrote the article in Wikipedia, and where they got their information from. Specifically - and none of you guys said this - what are the sources that say "Mephistopheles is the second in command after Satan", and what are the sources that say he is, in fact, different from Satan. I am not really interested in the origins of the name, I just want to know where and when he is mentioned. So if someone could just tell me the names of these "extra-biblical sources" (sorry, not my words), I would really appreciate it.
- Thank you all for the information. And, you're right, I shouldn't have suggested that it was Christian (or, at least, exclusively Christian) mythology. But what I really wanted to know, and I haven't used a computer in years, so please pardon my ignorance, is, who wrote the article in Wikipedia, and where they got their information from. Specifically - and none of you guys said this - what are the sources that say "Mephistopheles is the second in command after Satan", and what are the sources that say he is, in fact, different from Satan. I am not really interested in the origins of the name, I just want to know where and when he is mentioned. So if someone could just tell me the names of these "extra-biblical sources" (sorry, not my words), I would really appreciate it.


:I think it's very important to keep things written in the bible and things created by christians afterwards. This article does a good job of it. It's hard to keep things NPOV when different people have different [[canon]]s but at least there's precedent. One should think of it as the difference between the Torah and the Talmud.


----
----

Revision as of 03:47, 1 February 2007

It may be true that he works in the Bush administration, but that' POV. Tmesipt.


Must we call it Christian Mythology?

- Thank you all for the information. And, you're right, I shouldn't have suggested that it was Christian (or, at least, exclusively Christian) mythology. But what I really wanted to know, and I haven't used a computer in years, so please pardon my ignorance, is, who wrote the article in Wikipedia, and where they got their information from. Specifically - and none of you guys said this - what are the sources that say "Mephistopheles is the second in command after Satan", and what are the sources that say he is, in fact, different from Satan. I am not really interested in the origins of the name, I just want to know where and when he is mentioned. So if someone could just tell me the names of these "extra-biblical sources" (sorry, not my words), I would really appreciate it.

I think it's very important to keep things written in the bible and things created by christians afterwards. This article does a good job of it. It's hard to keep things NPOV when different people have different canons but at least there's precedent. One should think of it as the difference between the Torah and the Talmud.

THE OPINION OF ONE AUTHOR

I suspect the idea for Mephostophiles was taken from the demonic hierarchy of the 11th Century Byzantine philosopher Michael Psellos. People of the Renaissance knew about Psellos; I believe Anatomy of Melancholy mentions his demonic hierarchy. In this hierarchy the lowest demons are the Misophaes, i.e, Greek for Haters of Light. They are unable to communicate; and strike the people they possess deaf, mute and blind. Of course, the Devil loves to turn the natural hierarchy upside down. He gave Mephostophiles a high in Hell in the Faustbook and Doctor Faustus.

Also, I was wondering whether a demon in the Grand Grimoire was related to Mephostophiles, et al. The book was one of the manuals for invoking spirits. Usually it is suspected to be French and 18th Century when there was a great outpouring on banned subjects. A demon called up in it is Lucifuge Rofocale, Prime Minister of Emperor Lucifer. Although Lucifuge is supposedly under the karcist's, i.e., the magician's, power, he makes demands. Among them is that the karcist must give him a gold or silver coin on the first day of every month, or he will be damned. Lucifuge is Latin for flee the light.

SELECTIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Butler, E[lizabeth]M., Ritual Magic. Cambridge at the University, 1949, pp80-89

Burton, Jeffrey Russell. Lucifer. Ithaca, NY: Cornell, 1984, pp40-43

Waite, A[rthur] E[dward]. The Book of Ceremonial Magic: a Complete Grimoire. Secaucus, NJ: University Books, 1961 [1911?], Part I Chapter III and Part II, Chapter VI.

-Richard Dengrove


If you can find it in Psellus, fine. Secondary sources in this field (even these escellent ones) should be taken with a grain of salt. (If all you can find is a citation, I may be able to check it.) Septentrionalis 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Septentrionalis,

I put my views in the Discussion because the rules seem to say Wikipedia does not want opinion in its Articles. What I wrote here would be my view, which, I admitted, was less well-proven. For my own curiosity, however, I probably should get a translation of Psellus and see.

-Richard Dengrove

Can we trim down the popular culture a little? The name Mephistopheles is probably used millions of times, we don't need to record all of them.--CyberGhostface 14:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Dear CyberGhostface,

I bet we could trim down the popular culture by quite a bit. It was left over from the previous writer. I will have to think about it. -Richard Dengrove

I just removed the whole section. Looking over it, very little is important. I mean, how many goth bands are going to make reference to Mephistopheles? How many people are going to be compared to him? Its just pointless.--CyberGhostface 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think removing the whole section is too much. People who read this for pop culture deserve some information. I think the more important appearances of 'Mephistopheles' should stay. I have an idea for that. -- Rich Dengrove

That depends on your definition of important. If a character called Mephistopheles and based on the character from Faust (such as the ones that appeared on Hex and Xena), that's one things. If some stupid metal band calls themselves "Mephisto Pimp" its irrevelant.--CyberGhostface 01:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture is not my area of expertise. It seems more yours. I was just trying to give the essence of what my predecessor wrote. If you have a better idea for Mephistopheles in Pop Culture, be my guest and write it. -- Rich Dengrove

If you want to add it back in you can I guess. I think we should just be more selective. (For example, I think the music section is entirely irrevelant).--CyberGhostface 00:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

There is a great deal here about how to pronounce his name and what it could possibly mean, but although there are passing refereces regarding his being in various works of literature, it says little or nothing about his character in any of them. I was wondering whether anyone thought there ought to be? And while I know what he's like in "Dr Faustus" I am not familiar with the Faustbook enough to add a complete section on it. I wondered whether character description, mannerisms, etc., would be relevent here, as they seem to be mentioned for most other major literature characters in Wikipedia. CO.