Jump to content

Talk:Lamia

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 217.118.64.61 (talk) at 14:19, 11 January 2015 (→a questionable link to aristophanes: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misquotation?

In the very start it says this - "Similar in type to other female monsters from Greco-Roman myth, such as the empuses and the mormolyces, she is distinguished from them by her description as half-woman and half-serpent." And the source of which is this page - http://www.theoi.com/Ther/Lamia.html

But as I've read, there is no mention whatsoever of any 'serpent' form.

I suggest the text be changed to reflect this, seeing how it's just simply a case of someone writing what they 'think' and then being linked to a source which in NO way backs the idea up. 202.42.98.24 (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussion

I could swear I'd heard of lamia who were lions with human head/breasts, covered in scales, and occasionally bearing dragon wings. Where did that come from? Mytho-biology seems to be fraught with these mystery monsters named after better-known unrelated things.

  • Another unsourced, uncharacteristic description: "Some stories also describe the Lamia as a demon with the upper torso of a woman, the lower front half of the body that of a lion, and the back half of a black goat, similar in appearance to Centaurs." Can any editors identify this description and return it to the article? --Wetman 06:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found it - http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/lamia.htm

I saw once in a Spanish textbook what seemed to be four pictures of creatures in some form of South/Central Native American mythology. One of them was labeled, "Lamia" and had a picture of what looked like a hybrid between a snake and a duck. --70.114.239.33 22:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC) (Please forgive me if in any way this is the wrong format; I've never used this before.[reply]


earned the mechanics of citation, but that's no reason to delete a whole section of information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baligant (talk • contribs) 07:21:50, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

How can one begin to explain the basic concept of relevance? In those video games, an understanding of Lamia adds to the experience, or may even be necessary: Lamia is relevant. The converse (not reverse: a good concept also to grasp) is not necessarily true: these factoids about the appearance of this or that being called lamia in various market-driven games add nothing to an understanding of lamia, which is the subject here. Baligant and her like must go to the relevant articles and explain there how lamia is being used, adapted or misused, with a link here. That will be relevant there. Doesn't everyone older than ten understand this? Am I the only adult watching this page?--Wetman 07:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chill the fuck out. It's not very 'adult' to be insulting for no reason. Now, Mr. Adult, if you look at the articles for any number of mythological figures (like Lakhesis for example) such information as appearances in games, movies, and other media is commonly included. As it should be, because it constitutes a representation of the mythological figure. The only difference between these representations and, say, a carving or tapestry from the Hellenic period (which you would certainly agree is relevant) is the culture and time period. Because these two things are a continuum, it is arbitrary to draw the line anywhere, and it can actually be informative to see how representations of the figure have changed over the ages. Maybe next time you can assume people actually know something instead of being a douchebag. Also, I'm not a 'her', but that's a different matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baligant (talk • contribs) 23:50, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Different Image?

Could we perhaps use a different image for the Lamia (at the top). While it is a nice and famous painting, it does not display any accurate info about the Lamia (its just a woman. almost looks like he could be depicting an average nymph.) Perhaps we could find a more suitable image. Canutethegreat (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehesible trivia

Can someone either rewrite the material about "Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles" and "Flyff" coherently, with some context, or remove it? As it is, it is probably not comprehensible to one reader in twenty. (e.g. "she will continue to heal her husband just before he is KO'd, and debuff the player(s) with her Slow spells.") - Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Perhaps this page should be located simply at Lamia, since it's likely the most common meaning. — Feezo (Talk) 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Cleanup"

Removing original research and attempting to clarify article. Tulpa 08:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trashed! Someone will have to restore some of the competent, sourced text that has been blanked. This is no way to clean up an article. --Wetman 11:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more references. In order that the bumperstickers can be removed, can anyone copy here sentences that leave their lip muscles numb, so that Incoherent can be eliminated? And is the bumpersticker Neutrality a joke? What violation of mainstream opinion concerning these creatures of myth is offensive to our critical sense? --Wetman 13:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence construction ignores many rules of grammar or comprehension, and the article isn't very encyclopedic in tone. It uses non-neutral language in almost every sentence. Bogey, for instance, is used incorrectly and really just makes the article difficult to understand. The placement of clauses in the sentences just confuses the reader. Tulpa 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For instance. I'll just go through some of the article for now.
  1. "Lamia was one of the monstrous bogeys that terrified children and the naive, like her daughter Scylla, or Empousa." implies that Scylla and Empousa are either terrified children, or naive. Also, bogey doesn't apply here.
No it doesn't imply any such thing: "Bogeys that terrified children" cannot be misread by any normal grownup. Children were terrified, or the naive, (such as those who have not read any mythology). Would a change to "as did her daughter Scylla, or Empousa." "Bogey: a phantom causing fright" is a highly accurate designation : please offer us an equally focused synonym from your own vocabulary. --Wetman 07:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "A doublet of Lamia was Mormo." is barely comprehensible, considering that doublet is not the word you want to use. I'm sure you didn't mean to say that Mormo was Lamia's buttoned jacket, stylish in the 14th century.
I didn't realize that "doublet" is mythology-jargon: which would be better: "double" or "duplicate", to imply that the two are one, like Typhon and Typheous? --Wetman 07:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Diodorus Siculus made of Lamia the daughter of Poseidon and Lybie—a figure that is no more than a personification of Libya—and a queen of Libya herself, whom Zeus loved, according to Aristophanes." This sentence is spectacular for the lack of comprehension it causes. "made of" doesn't mean what you want it to mean.
It means she wasn't a queen nor a daughter of Poseidon until Diodorus Siculus made her out to be those things. --Wetman 07:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'm curious about the non-neutral language without a citation? Why specifically state that Lybie is "no more than a personification"? Wouldn't "Lybie is a personification" be more encyclopedic in tone? Being that Lamia never was the subject of the sentence, and the next phrase refers to a queen, it has to be assumed that it is still talking about Lybie. That wasn't your intention. Overall this is a run on sentence that can be broken into two or three logically constructed and understandable shorter sentences.--Tulpa 15:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid the use of "being that". First, you want to suggest that Lybie is perhaps more than a personification? On what grounds? or is this simply your opinion of Lamia? The fact is, Libyie's "a figure that is no more than a personification of Libya"— until you can adduce some testimony to the contrary.You're quite right: this sentence does have too many concepts in it: it needs to be broken apart. Perhaps you'd do so right here, and let's work on it. --Wetman 07:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I only removed unsourced statements from the article during my editing. Don't assume that any significant change from the earlier article is an act of vandalism. Tulpa 15:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not in fact true: see diff. Don't delete sensible sourced statements. And by the way, where are your sourced statements? --Wetman 07:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the removal of Lempriere's Dictionary, I quote WP:V: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." as Lempriere's dictionary fulfills the criteria of having a poor reputation for fact-checking, with what editorial oversight it had adding to that poor reputation. Tulpa 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tulpa has never ever heard of John Lemprière or Lemprière's Bibliotheca Classica? Easy to believe, after all. This is incompetent muddling. Please desist. --Wetman 07:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the condescension and read WP:V. That is a direct quote from it. Is it written in standard English so you can't quite grasp what it's saying? Lempriere's dictionary defines what the quote is talking about. It's a questionable source with NO fact checking or editorial oversight. Popularity doesn't define factuality. Accusing anyone who edits the article for what seems to be the better of being incompetent is in bad faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tulpa (talk • contribs).

By the way, citation needed for the notoriety of the relationship between Demetrius and the Courtesan. One source that notes it on a single page does not constitute notoriety. Tulpa 22:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notorious in Antiquity. Not notorious to Tulpa, needless to say, so considered "POV" or something. Please don't apply your cultural level as a yardstick: mightn't you be a few inches short, just in this particular area? --Wetman 07:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved some of trivial details into infobox. The last one I don't know what to do with, as it's a meaningless piece of info without a source that explains the connection to hypocrisy. Otherwise I would move it to Interpretations. Tulpa 03:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete anything that you don't "get". Copy it here: that's what a Talk page is for. Working with a little modesty we'll get this article into such clear condition that any adult will comprehend it, I'm sure. I have not made any changes yet. --Wetman 07:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern folk traditions

I'm taking this whole thing out because it's an unsourced mess that seems completely made up. Feel free to find sources for it. Proserpine 08:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the modern Greek folk tradition, the Lamia has survived and retained many of her traditional attributes. John Cuthbert Lawson comments, "....the chief characteristics of the Lamiae, apart from their thirst for blood, are their uncleanliness, their gluttony, and their stupidity" (Lawson, Modern Greek Folklore and Ancient Greek Religion: A Study in Survivals). The contemporary Greek proverb, "της Λάμιας τα σαρώματα" ("the Lamia's sweeping"), epitomises slovenliness[citation needed]; and the common expression, "τό παιδί τό 'πνιξε η Λάμια" ("the child has been strangled by the Lamia")[citation needed], explains the sudden death of young children (ibid). As in Bulgarian folklore and Basque legends, the Lamia in Greece is often associated with caves and damp places.

In modern Greek folk tales, Lamia is an ogress similar to Baba-Yaga.[citation needed] She lives in a remote house or tower. She eats human flesh and has magical abilities, keeps magical objects or knows information crucial to the hero of the tale's quest. The hero must avoid her, trick her or gain her favour in order to obtain one of those. In some tales, the lamia has a daughter who is also a magician and helps the hero, eventually falling in love with him.[citation needed]

I have returned it, well buttressed now with sources from even the most persistent temptation to delete, I imagine. I have deleted a thoughtless call for citations in a couple of places where the sources were already mentioned.--Wetman (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poliziano

In 1492 Poliziano gave the title Lamia to an introductory lecture on Aristotle's Prior Analyrics. If anyone who has read it can add a remark on Poliziano's apprehension of Lamia, that induced this odd choice of title, that would enrich the article.--Wetman (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People who worship Lamia today?

Is there any mention to worship of Lamia today in the occult? I hear it talked about but any data? (anon.)

C16 emblem of hypocrisy

Citation has been requested for the statement In Renaissance emblems, Lamia has the body of a serpent and breasts and head of a woman, like the image of hypocrisy. I'm trying to recall an article published c. 1970 (Burlington Magazine?) on an allegorical representation of fraus (hypocrisy, fraud) described as I've mentioned, in a French C16 painting as I recall; the article discussed its iconography. I can't find it searching JSTOR. Can anyone help? --Wetman (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor rewrite

Someone had rewritten the myth section (mostly the section from Diodorus Siculus) in a way that was conversational and jarring. I've attempted to rewrite it in a more encyclopedic fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proserpine (talk • contribs) 21:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who rewrote that section. I did it because I found the original version clumsy and overly academic. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your rewrite is not written in an encyclopedic tone - you editorialize about points in a way that is not appropriate. You also continue to denote Lamia as a 'demon' and a 'demigoddess', when neither is true. She is the daughter of Poseidon but is never stated to be anything other than mortal, and the greek daemon is an entirely different creature from the contemporary 'demon'. Please do not revert again without defending that choice here. Proserpine (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My tone is a matter of opinion. Also, all my information is well cited. In fact, most of it comes from the original version of the article.
A demigoddess is a creature who is half human, half god/goddess. Therefore my usage of this term is correct. I described Lamia as demonic because she eats children and feeds on the blood of men. That's a correct usage for the adjective demonic.
Wikipedia policy recommends a compromise when two editors begin butting heads on content, something I'm very willing to do. I just finished a rewrite which represents precisely that. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise is fine, and I will go back and take a look. The problem with 'demonic' is that it has a contemporary connotation that is inappropriate to ancient scholarship. Proserpine (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I've been doing some close reading of the antique sources.
The vampiric/seductress elements aren't in the original myth, they're later antique tradition -- the 'interpretations' section lower in the article, so I'm making that clear in the header. The idea of multiple lamiae is supported by the much later (c. 170–c. 245 AD) Life of Apollonius of Tyana, also cited there, which describes the lamia in question as "a lamia", not Lamia the Queen of Libya. Life of Apollonius of Tyana is also the most common source describing a lamia as serpentine, and is the source referenced by -Keats-, who has made the serpent image the most readily accepted one today. Most actual ancient sources do not refer to a serpentine appearance, citing her as a beautiful phasma (ghost, phantom), and I think the article should reflect that.
Diodorus Siculus (circa 1st century BC) is the most complete and widely cited ancient source of this myth. He does not describe Lamia as a serpentine creature - Lamia simply becomes "frightfully distorted" and ugly in the face - and does not have Hera responsible for the transformation. Diodorus Siculus also does not cite Poseidon as her father, so I'm putting a note about that (and her potential nature as a demigoddess) in the mythological history section and taking demigoddess out of the header. The Lamia who is the daughter of Poseidon is described by Pausanius and may be a different character altogether. Siculus also does not describe Scylla as Lamia's daughter, so I'm keeping that part out of the Siculus portion.
Please don't hesitate to ask any questions. Proserpine (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It all sounds good. I have only one objection. The wording of the first three paragraphs is to academic. I'm going to make it a bit more conversational. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do have one question. Why did you remove the reference to Lamia eating her own children when Horace suggests it himself? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The devouring of her -own- children seems to be a later addition to the myth, as opposed to the initial version reported by Diodorus Siculus. Proserpine (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the following sentence because it struck me as personal analysis: This Lamia may be a different character altogether, perhaps an aunt (as Lamia's father Belus was also a child of Poseidon). Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Lamia - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 04:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Lamiai

The Lamiai article seems like it would fit better within this one. It seems that Lamiai is just a derivative of the Lamia myth, and would be better treated here instead of as a separate article (I've also seen sources that refer to Lamiai as simply a plural of Lamia) --KarlB (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wrong target for merge - it is a vampire variation and only the name is vaguely similar to this name. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aristophanes claimed her name derived from the Greek word for gullet (λαιμός; laimos), referring to her habit of devouring children.
Aristophanes, The Wasps, 1177.

I don't know Ancient Greek, but I checked Loeb version of 'The Wasps' with the parallel greek text, ~1177 line is 'πρωτον μεν ως η Λαμι αλουσ επερδετο' about 'how Lamia spluttered when they caught her' (in another, more rude, translation 'Lamia, seeing herself caught, let fly a fart'), the Greek text doesn't have any λαιμός word nearby, only the name of the monster, nothing about gullets either.

May be it was some scholiast on Aristophanes, anyway it needs clarification IMO.217.118.64.61 (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lamia&oldid=642013947"