From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"She also had an affair with Pan..."[edit]

...well I wouldn't exactly call it an "affair." ...more of a fling, I mean they were dating for a while but Pan was never serious, I mean not like serious. For him it was more of an affairette... This is not mythological thinking, is it? --Wetman 10:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Could someone who knows the pronunciation of Selene include the phonetics? I don't know how it's pronounced and that's why I came to this article in the first place. (And I also don't know enough Greek to infer it from the Greek transcription.) --Thibgc 08:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC) - the first 'e' as in 'wet', the next two as in 'see'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Cox (talkcontribs) 19:02, 21 February 2006

That pronunciation (essentially, seh LEE nee) is probably the most accurate, although SEL uh nee is also widely used. And then there are the pop culture mispronunciations, such as in the Underworld films, in which they pronounce it Celine Dion, with the "Dion" silent (oh, if only she were...). Canonblack 13:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In Ancient Greek pronunciation, all the e's would have been pronounced like the e in "end", except that the etas (the second two e's in Selene) would have been held longer than the first. ThweedaTVW

Endymion as a male prostitute[edit]

We have the revision entered 13:46, 15 March 2006 by User: to thank for this furtive vandalism. No one noticed it until today. We need to wartch this article for closely. --Wetman 06:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Why Luna is redirected here ? She is clearly a different goddess and she deserve her own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Selene is not equal to Luna. Selene is a Titan (2nd generation), Luna is not a Titan at all.[edit]

Selene is not equal to Luna. Selene is a Titan (2nd generation), Luna is not a Titan at all. (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "equal." Do you mean they're not the same goddess? If so, that's why we have Luna (goddess). If you mean "equivalent," however, then the Romans and the Greeks of the Roman era did regard them as equivalent and perhaps even interchangeable; see interpretatio graeca. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


I stumbled upon this yesterday while working on something else. Pindar fr. 104 Snell–Maehler = Schol. Theoc. 2.10b says that, as lovers, men pray to Helios and women to Selene. Trying to track this quote down again this morning I found this in Faraone. I'm plopping this here in case it can help add some flesh to the account of Selene's cult.  davidiad { t } 16:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"Moon" or "Artemis" in DC Comics 'Nu52'[edit]

There is a "Moon" as part of the Pantheon in the Wonder Woman comics now being written by Brian Azzarello for DC comics.

Should some words be drawn up on this here, or in the Artemis article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Man Moon (talkcontribs) 18:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


I've copied the following discussion from user talk: davidiad. Paul August  23:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
... I don't have access to Kerenyi or the 2nd edition of the OCD (just the third and forth): do they really call Mene the feminine form of the Phrygian Men? I thought the *men- root was simply good PIE, as in Greek μείς < *men-s and Sanskrit māsah, both "month".  davidiad { t } 22:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 :-) The OCD says "In later times, however, the Phrygian moon-good Men (q,v,; Selene was sometimes called Mene) received worship in several Greek cities." Kerenyi has "Besides being called Selene—a word connected with selas, "light"—goddess as she appeared in the sky was also called Mene. This was the feminine form of Men, a word that meant the moon, the lunar month, and in Asia Minor also meant a moon-god." As I now reread things I'm wondering if the note may need rewording? Paul August 23:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Probably. I think a gist closer to Kerenyi's train of thought here would eliminate confusion. I know little about Phrygian epigraphy or liguistics, but I know that there are a lot of correspondences between the language and Greek, some of which are considered Phrygian borrowings from the Greek, some of which are considered independently derived Indo-European outcomes. But I'm beginning to think that we call the moon god Men because that's what Greek-speakers called the fella (cf. Lucian, Juppiter tragoedus 8, Greek inscriptions, and the mass of Greek names in Meno- in Hellenic Anatolia), so it's probably safest and most instructive to go from Mene to moon to mentioning a masculine parallel in Anatolia.  davidiad { t } 01:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, poking around a bit more I think that, in all my ignorance, I've locked in on Greek v. Phrygian and that when we say Men we understand ourselves to be saying a Greek name for a Phrygian deity because the witnesses we have to his worship are all quite late. Don't worry: if I have any other questions or comments, they won't be this niggling and off topic.  davidiad { t } 02:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I think I'm understanding this. I've removed the bald "The feminine form of the Phrygian moon-god Men" from the note as misleading. I'm considering replacing it with: "The word men (feminine mene), meant the moon, and the lunar month. It was also the name of the Phrygian moon-god Men," What do you think? And no worries here, "niggling and off topic" are right up my alley. Also thanks for your copyedits, they are much appreciated. Paul August 10:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I would go with "... name of the [[Men (god)|mood-god]] in Phrygia" to avoid implying a tidier linguistic relation than should be gleaned from Kerenyi. After reading a bit more about Phrygian, I suspect that the form would more likely have been Mās or Mān before the full influence of Greek was felt upon the language (especially written)—if, that is, the god's name was actually a cognate of Greek men.  davidiad { t } 15:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but now for my own niggle. To me "[[Men (god)|moon-god]]" is what's called an "Easter-egg link" (see WP:EGG) since the reader will expect to be sent to a general article on "moon-gods" (e.g. moon-god), while the explicit reference in the text to "Men" is lost. So, what about "... name of the moon-god Men of Phrygia"? Paul August 15:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
While we've been discussing the fine points of this note, the ground has changed under our feet ;-) 16:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I saw, but haven't read the article again yet ... things move fast through these series of tubes. Yeah, you're right ... I Easter-egg when confronted with doubt. Your word order is good, and P Aculeius has hedged a bit with the recent edit, though the new "equivalent of the Phrygian moon-god Men" now implies more of a cultic parallel than your sources do.  davidiad { t } 16:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes the tubes are fast, and the little wheels in my foggy old brain turn slower and slower. In any case I like most of P Aculeius' edits. I need to think more about others including the one we are discussing here. Paul August 17:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know much about Phrygian moon gods, so I'll rely on you guys to sort out how that's connected with Selene. I was mainly revising the text for readability, and only referred to the sources where I thought I remembered some relevant detail for clean-up, or couldn't decide how to re-write without checking what the original said. In this case I just didn't want to exaggerate the importance of a name I wasn't familiar with, and I interpreted the article to say that Mene and Men were somehow cognate in this case. If I got the wrong impression, feel free to change it.
As for Euryphaëssa being an epithet of Theia, I'm sure I read it in an early source I consulted when researching Greek theology years ago. When I was in college, I drew up extensive charts based on various classical dictionaries and books of mythology, trying to connect all the names and get the big picture. Sadly, I couldn't find the source for this when you reverted my change to "probably". I thought it would be in Arthur Fairbanks' The Mythology of Greece and Rome (1907) (really a nice handbook on Greek theology), but it doesn't seem to be in there. I also checked the Oxford Classical Dictionary (2nd Edition), Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, the New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, and the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, without finding an explicit identification of the two; the Larousse uses Euryphaëssa parenthetically after "Theia", ambiguously implying an alternative name or mother. But I'm sure I learnt that Euryphaëssa was merely an epithet for Theia somewhere. Brill's New Pauly does explicitly make this identification, so there is a source we can cite, if you think it's satisfactory. I don't think there's any mention of Euryphaëssa in any other context in all of classical literature, so it does appear to be an epithet, and as far as I know Hyperion isn't paired with any other goddesses in any account. I couldn't find either Euryphaëssa or Theia in the oldest Pauly, and didn't have the previous version available on-line to check. P Aculeius (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I was just being conservative, the source cited in the article, Morford p. 61, says 'Euryphaëssa (the word means "widely shining"), given as the wife of Hyperion and mother of Helius, is probably just another name for Theia'. But M. L. West's Homeric Hymns, note 61 p. 215, for example, says: 'Euryphaessa, "Shining Far and Wide," appears only here as a name of the Titan whom Hesiod and others call Theia". Paul August 18:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Davidiad, re Men I've found the following in the OCD: "The native form of his name was Man(n)es, and his lunar associations if not original, may be due to confusion with the Greek μῄν."
End of copied text. Paul August  23:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Selene: comments?[edit]

I've copied the following discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Paul August  16:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've more or less finished a complete overhaul of Selene. All comments, concerns welcome. I don't make announcements like this — but after reading this by Davidiad, I've been inspired to try to work more collaboratively ;-) Paul August 21:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Did some general editing today to shorten sentences, provide additional links, a few notes with respect to epithets and connections with other deities and (I hope) improve consistency and readability. Tried to keep your general structure, which seems very good, but merged alternate names and etymology into a new section. See if you agree with this result. P Aculeius (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree with nearly all of your edits. The Lead reads better, the organizational changes make sense, the overall copyediting has improved readability. I much appreciate your kind attention! I do have some questions which I need to think more about. Concerning one issues, you might want to read this discussion ;-) Paul August 17:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I've edited some of your edits ;-) I'd be happy to discuss any of these. And thanks again for all you improvements. Paul August 01:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
No major complaints, except for the chariot paragraph. The part about Selene's chariot being drawn by snow-white horses, here cited to Ovid, should go in the first sentence, instead of at the end. But I agree with leaving the variant where the chariot is drawn by kyne at the end. I think it would read better as "oxen or bulls" than "cattle," since reviewing the sources cited in the article it doesn't look like "cows" were intended. I would eliminate the reference to the chariot being drawn across the heavens "each night," because of course the moon doesn't rise at sunset and set at dawn. It's as likely to be in the sky in the daytime as at night, even if you don't notice it, and the Greeks knew that, even if some of the more romantic writers conveniently forgot. P Aculeius (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that "each night" is problematic, so I've removed it as you suggest (though I liked the sound of the previous sentence better). I've also changed "cattle" to "oxen or bulls". I haven't moved the description of her horses as "Snow-white" to the first sentence yet. Can you say why you think it ought to go there? Are there other mentions of her horses being white? That Ovid cite is the only one I'm aware of. Paul August 22:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I just think it reads better describing the horses at the same time as mentioning them, instead of saving it as a detail for later, and lumping it together with the alternative tradition that they were bulls or oxen. As for a citation, the two Ovid references are all I've seen for the color specifically mentioned; the others named in the article don't specify. BTW, the external source for the DGRBM seems to insert an apostrophe in the title where none appears in the original. It should be "Selene," not "Sele'ne." I'm sure it's for pronunciation, but if you look at the actual pages in any of the versions I've seen (and I have a printed copy), there's no mark there. P Aculeius (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I've changed "Sele'ne" to "Selene". If Ovid's description of the horses as "Snow-white" isn't common, then I'd rather not move it to the first sentence. Paul August 18:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Menae, Menai?[edit]

Are there any ancient sources which say that Selene's fifty daughters by Endymion were called the "Menai" or "Menae" (see "MENAI"). I do find two modern sources which say this: Westmorland, Ancient Greek Beliefs p. 103, and Judika Illes, Encyclopedia of Spirits p. 385, but I wonder where they are getting this from. See also our Menae. Paul August 11:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The latter two sources, while very recent, aren't scholarly at all; the first proposes that Oceanus and Tethys shouldn't have had so many sons and daughters, because the Guinness Book of World Records lists sixty-nine children as the record born to one woman; then justifies the mythological attribution of all the river gods and Oceanides to Tethys because she was "of Titanic size." The second source describes the mythology of Endymion immediately after an article on the deification of Elvis... neither book cites sources or shows any evidence of scholarship. They were probably compiled from other books on mythology combined with the authors' own opinions.
The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology doesn't have an article on the Menae per se, although the article here points to the page containing the brief article "Mene," which elsewhere is equated with an alternative name of Selene. So I think this citation on our page is erroneous, as the cited article probably refers to Selene, rather than the Menae. Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities doesn't make the connection between Selene and the Menae explicit under "Selene", but it does state under "Endymion" that his fifty daughters represented the months of the Olympic calendar. However, unlike the DGRBM, it doesn't provide a lot of in-line citations to ancient sources. PW makes this identification under "Luna" where it cites to Philipp August Böckh (on Pindar and/or the Olympics?) and Karl Otfried Müller (on the Dorians?). That's pretty weighty scholarship, and then of course as these are deities of months, they'd almost have to be daughters of Selene, and the significance of the number 50 in each case further cements the relationship. In any case I think it's pretty solid for Wikipedia, although I might go to the trouble of citing to said authorities just for those who want to go the extra mile. P Aculeius (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I don't have much confidence in the three sources I mention above. I had found the entries in DGRBM and Harper's, you mention above. But what is "PW"? Paul August 18:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
PW's Pauly–Wissowa. I don't have access to that volume of the old Pauly—Wikisource hasn't gotten there and I'm having trouble finding it on Google Books—, but I assume that by "PW makes this identification under ..." P Aculeius means the identification of Selene and Endymion's daughters as lunar deities, not as a group referred to as "Menai". I suspect that this is another case of's inventing a Greek term for an ancient concept that has in turn become a Wikipedia headword. After a cumbersome TLG search I'm pretty sure that there is no such name used for them in extant Greek literature, and a JSTOR search for menae or menai + Endymion yields no results.  davidiad { t } 18:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Davidiad. That was my suspicion. If no reliable source can be found naming the fifty daughters this, then I think we need to delete Menae. Paul August 18:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I just redirected it to Selene#Endymion. A lazy fix since I don't want to figure out what aspects of the few pages that linked to article are residue of Menae and what actually derives from scholarly discussions of the daughters of Selene and Endymion as lunar deities.  davidiad { t } 18:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I see that you have boldly redirected Menae to Selene#Endymion (making the above discussion slightly confusing ;-) But if this is an invented term by, then the article still needs to go. Paul August 18:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I'll be a big boy and figure out those other two links to Menae, so you can feel free to revert me and delete the page.  davidiad { t } 18:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
You beat me to Pandia, so all the links are gone. You have it within you power and discretion to delete Menae, right? I'd say it'd be uncontroversial to do so.  davidiad { t } 18:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I've undone your redirect for now. Before starting any deletion process, I would like to have P Aculeius confirm your assumption regarding the PW article. Paul August 19:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
What I think we should do depends on one thing: are the months of the Olympic calendar known as "Menae/Menai?" If so, then keep the article as it's a fair inference that the children of Selene and Endymion were in fact the Menae. PW and Harper's seem to agree on that. But if the name "Menae/Menai" for the months of the Olympic calendar is a modern interpolation, then the article should probably go, or be retitled. P Aculeius (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Those months were just months, and the plural of month (μείς) is μῆνες. The plural of μήνη isn't attested from antiquity at all. I'm not sure I follow what you're reporting about PW: is a name given to the daughters of Selene and Endymion? Harper's Dictionary doesn't.  davidiad { t } 00:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, PW didn't name them under "Luna" and there's no entry corresponding to "Menae" or "Menai." But this is from an older edition, which you can view at Internet Archive. See German Wikipedia for links to all of the oldest volumes: Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft (1837–1852). The current ones (not Brill's New Pauly) aren't as easy to locate, but I suspect there might be a few volumes on-line. What I'm saying is that the article in PW and Harper's clearly states that the daughters of Selene and Endymion represent the months of the Olympiad. The question is whether those months were collectively known as the "Menae" or "Menai," or anything else. If there's no evidence of a name associated with those months, and no source to apply the name to the daughters of Selene and Endymion, then the article is erroneously titled. I'll poke around and see if I can find any more. P Aculeius (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for this, P Aculeius. You have to love the old German typefaces. Nope, those months weren't collectively known as anything except old-fashioned months, and the only mention of the daughters of Selene and Endymion is Pausanias 5.1.4, "The Moon, they say, fell in love with this Endymion and bore him fifty daughters." This seems to be why we're spinning our wheels a bit: a single ancient source was spun into a logical cultic reconstruction by two giants of 19th-century continental scholarship, and we're trying to chase down references to disprove's glib naming convention. The identification of the daughters of Endymion with the months of the Olympiad makes a lot of sense, and is the sort of sense that would be found in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but it appears to be missing from recent scholarship. I've been able to get to the Müller (it is in Die Dorier, there he just floats the identification, citing Böckh); it also turns up, unsurprisingly, in The Golden Bough. I think there might be enough reason to mention the connection between the Olympiad and the daughters mentioned by Pausanias in the Selene and Endymion articles, though I'd like to see scholarship that's post-Frazier, and post-Ritualist, too, if possible. But the connection would really need to be made with care and without giving undue weight. These daughters did not, in any event, have a Greek or Latin name. I think the article should probably be deleted since the lunar–Olympic topic is better suited to mention briefly in the parents' articles. If it were to stay, the article would have to be moved to "Daughters of Selene and Endymion".  davidiad { t } 04:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I tried to locate a later edition of PW but failed for the volume containing M. I did find a later edition for Endymion at Internet Archive; there the font is Roman, but as far as I can tell there's still no name for the daughters of Selene and Endymion. Of course I was skimming, since my German is next to non-existent and I have to rely on my ability to spot Greek and Latin names and the few German words I can recognize... so it might be worth a closer look. And of course if anyone has access to the volume with M, that might be a good place to check.
Failing evidence of the name "Menae" or "Menai" for the goddesses or the months they represented, I agree that the article needs to be retitled or its contents simply moved to articles such about Selene, Endymion, Months, and Olympiads. I don't think "daughters of Selene and Endymion" is a good title if it can possibly be avoided; nobody will look for it there. But without any other attested name or more logical title, that would have to do. If it comes down to that, I'll agree with eliminating the article entirely, and including the verifiable contents in other articles. I do believe that the identification of the daughters with the months is probably solid enough to state as "apparently" rather than "probably," but would disagree with characterizing it as merely "possible," which would imply much more uncertainty than the scholarship suggests. P Aculeius (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I missed the fact that Paul's already handled this well, and that Mayerson handbook in the citation is sound. The connection is also made in this from the Blackwell Companion to Greek Religion, which is a bit more confident than Mayerson, so your point about "apparently" v. "possibly" is well taken. I like the author's use of "informs" in his description of the relationship: it's positivistic and timid at the same time.  davidiad { t } 04:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Davidiad for the Davidson article from Blackwell Companion to Greek Religion, I've added a cite to that to Selene. Given the sources cited (and being conservative) I'm still not convinced that "possibly" ought to be strengthened to "apparently". I don't read Davidson's "informed" as necessarily implying that. (By the way, does your comment that the "Mayerson handbook in the citation is sound" imply some doubt about the other cites given in that same note: Seffert, "Endymion" p. 213; Cashford, p. 137? I have no idea really, how much weight we ought to be giving to such sources.) Paul August 11:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I see Davidson's finite, transitive and in persona loquens of the scholar "informed" as more demonstrative than Mayerson's "some scholars see ...", but he doesn't go as far as saying the daughters represent the months of the Olympiad. But I'm probably reading to much into brow twitches. Seyffert's fine, though it seems unnecessary to have a popular 19th-century dictionary next to the more recent sources, on of which is specialized. The Cashford gets my heckles up a bit, as looks like some pretty under researched comparatist jive that not only quotes Frazer, but seems to take over some of his spirit. But that might just be me. davidiad { t } 12:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. I can live with unnecessary, so I won't remove Seyffert, but you or others should feel free to do so. As for Cashford, yes I share your qualms, the only benfit I see is the informative (for me) details concerning how the number 50 is arrived at, but again I would have no objections for removing this cite, notice though that I've mentioned Cashford elsewhere in the article: "For the close association between the crescent moon and horns see Cashford".Paul August 13:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion, I've renamed our article "Menae" to Mene (goddess), rewriting it accordingly, using the only source I'm aware of, the DGRBM entry: "Mene". That leaves the article with little content and no incoming links, not ideal. The DGRBM article cites "August. De Civ. Dei, 7.2" which says:
"But there is also the goddess Mena, who presides over the menses; though the daughter of Jupiter, ignoble nevertheless. And this province of the menses the same author [Varro], in his book on the select gods, assigns to Juno herself, who is even queen among the select gods; and here, as Juno Lucina, along with the same Mena, her stepdaughter, she presides over the same blood."
Not sure what to make of this. DGRBM gives three other sources which I find puzzling: HH 12.1; Apollonius of Rhodes, 3.533, 4.55. I find no mention of "Mene" in either HH 12.1, or Apollon. 3.533 (am I missing something here?) and the mention of "Mene" I find in Apollon. 4.55 seems to be a reference to Selene herself, see for example the Seaton translation: pp. 298–299). So I'm wondering what we really have here? Paul August 16:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that, too, when I was poking around. The first AR ref. is ἄστρα τε καὶ μήνης ἱερὰς ... κελεύθους, "stars and paths of the holy moon"; if we wanted to capitalize it, this would still just be another name for Selene. The second is certainly Selene. The Homeric Hymn reference is actually to the hymn to Selene, the only occurence of Mene as a proper noun in early Greek hexameters. I guess Smith uses an older numbering system or, more likely, that's a typo: in the modern corpus the hymn to Selene is no. 32, not 12. I think I've read Cynwolfe on these one off gods in Augustine at some point: maybe she has some insight. We'd need some scholarly coverage of Augustine's Mena to warrant an article, and Smith is defective on this.  davidiad { t } 18:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes I was wondering if that "12" ought to be "32". So where is the good Mme. Cynwolfe anyway? We seem to tramping all around her neck of the woods here. So I'm still not feeling all that warm and fuzzy about our article. Paul August 18:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I never finished the Luna article or List of Roman birth and childhood deities, where I'd rounded up a number of related single-function deities (including Dea Mena), in part because I got distracted by the Roman Empire article, but also because the scholarship is lacking, old, or oddly scattered. I'm no help. But see I s'pose Röscher. I suspect some kind of connection between Mana Genita and Dea Mena (note Hekate lurking around). Since I haven't been following this step-by-step, I'm not really sure what the question is. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Does this mean everybody's busily translating German, or what did I blunderingly do to shut down the conversation? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
No, No. Here's a brief summary of the above. The general question -- as reflected in the main section title above: "Selene: comments?"-- was does anyone have any comments/concerns about my rewrite of Selene? The more immediate question (this sub section tittled: "Menae, Menai?") was what to do about our article menae, which asserted that Selene's fifty daughters by Endymion were called the "Menae, (or "Menai"), but for which assertion none of us could find any reliable sources. So I renamed the article to Mene, based on the single source DGRBM entry: "Mene", which says:
"Mene Μήνη), a female divinity presiding over the months. (Hom. Hymn. 12.1; Apollon. 3.533, 4.55; August. De Civ. Dei, 7.2.)"
However the sources given leave me puzzled. I'm not convinced that they demonstrate the existence of such a goddess (distinct from Selene herself) for reasons given above. In particular, I'm not sure what to make of the City of God cite quoted above, about which Davidiad thought you might have something to say. Paul August 18:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
My first reaction was that Augustine's might not be the same Mena as Mēnē, but when I glanced at Röscher, he seems to be making the natural connection between monthly flow and the moon (or lunar cycle). Oh wait: duh. See Mene in the Greek Magical Papyri, especially her entry on p. 336. I knew there was something missing here. Still only one of 'em, though. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Cynwolfe for that source. But since "Mene" was an alternate name for Selene, the question remains (for me) whether any of these mentions of "Mene" are referring to a goddess other than Selene? Notice the entry "Mene" in the Glossary from that book says: "This is an epithet of the moon goddess, Selene." If no such separate goddess exists then of course our article Mene (goddess) ought to be deleted. Paul August 22:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Or rather, redirected to a section titled "Mene" in the Selene article. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Assuming we all think that, contrary to what the DGRBM seems to be saying, that there is no separate (from Selene) goddess "Mene", then a redirect would be ok with me. Though others might not agree since normally articles titled with a disabiguating parenthetical, which is the case here: "Mene (goddess) ought not be redirects, The reason being that such a title will seldom if ever be searched for. In any case as the article now stands I don't think it much matters any more what we do. For me the important thing was to eliminate any assertion that the 50 daughters were called the "Menae/Menai", Which I think has now been accomplished. So unless anyone has anything more to say on this matter I think our work is done here. At some point soon, I intend to copy this discussion to Talk:Selene. Paul August 13:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
My humble opinion: I remember my teacher of Greek talking about the Menae, even though I cannot say more that they were the daughters of the Moon and presided over time. But I find illuminating a link given here above: they were the (personified) 50 aspects of the Moon throughout the year...: 12 X 4 + 2 (the lunar year is only 350 circa days so one has to add other two aspects).Aldrasto11 (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Aldrasto11. While I find it entirely plausible that a group of fifty daughters of the Moon (whether these are the fifty daughters of Selene and Endymion or not) were collectively called the "Menae" or "Menai" and that further they "presided over time" in some way (e.g. over the fifty lunar months in the Olympiad), unfortunately I can find no reliable source which says any of this, and so far apparently no one else here can either. Paul August 13:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
So the tiny bit from Pausanias is still the only source for the 50 daughters? And we have no idea where the business about the Olympiads comes from? (Other than an "internet article" picked up.) I'm starting to suspect a Renaissance mythographer. Oh wait: the Great Jane is involved in disseminating this. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes as far as I know (which isn't that far) Pausanias is the only ancient source which mentions the 50 daughters of Selene and Endymion. The bit about their number possibly representing the 50 months of the Olympiad, I find enough reliable sources (like the Jane Ellen Harrison source you pointed out) to satisfy me. The bit for which I find no reliable source is that these fifty daughters were called the "Menae" or "Menai". Paul August 19:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Since this doesn't originate with JEH, the only thing I can think of is that they were called Menai just as a convenient label by an earlier scholar. Otherwise, Davidiad must be right that the name is a fabrication. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
As I wrote above I am sure my teacher sometime mentioned them. Unfortunately as we study Greek as part of the curriculum at the high school, at that time I had no interest in the topic and cannot remember the exact details. However I believe it refers to the fifty yearly phases of the Moon: the 50 months separating the Olympiads are to be explained in the same wise. BTW this is what surmises the B. Companion to Greek Religion linked by Davidiad here above. Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
End of copied text. Paul August  16:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolving a dispute: image for Infobox[edit]

Detail of Selene from a Roman sarcophagus
Detail of Selene from a Roman sarcophagus
Statue of Luna
Statue of Luna
Selene from an altar piece
Selene from an altar piece
The two images in dispute, together with one previously used to head the article.

I'd say it's about time this issue got threshed out in the proper location; that is, the talk page for this article. An edit war has been going on between those who prefer each of the two images on the left. I'm going to try and list the image changes, omitting instances of vandalism:
24 June 2005: image of Luna Statue added by ChrisO.
21 Mar. 2007: altar piece added by
21 Mar. 2007: altar piece placed on the left margin opposite the statue by Irish Pearl
19 May 2007: statue picture moved to Luna section by RandomCritic
26 May 2008: altar piece switched with statue at head of article by Phalanxpursos
31 May 2009: statue placed in infobox on right by
6 June 2009: infobox deleted by Mayormaynot, but statue image remains.
29 Mar. 2010: new infobox added above statue image by
26 July 2010: statue picture added to infobox by
17 May 2013: statue replaced with sarcophagus detail by Paul August with edit summary, "better image here I think"
21 Oct. 2013: sarcophagus detail replaced with statue by Daylight15, no edit summary.
27 Oct. 2013: Daylight15's edit reverted by Paul August with edit summary, "I think this is a better image"
2 Nov. 2013: sarcophagus detail replaced with statue by, no edit summary.
30 Mar. 2013: statue replaced with sarcophagus detail by Paul August, "better image I think"
19 Apr. 2013: sarcophagus detail replaced with statue by, no edit summary.
19 Apr. 2014: statue replaced with sarcophagus detail by Paul August, "Better image, shows three typical attributes: crescent moon/horns, raised cloak, and torch, Selene versus Luna. Please discuss on talk page"
24 Apr. 2014: Paul August's edit reverted by Ghast21, no edit summary (back to statue)
25 Apr. 2014: Ghast21's edit reverted by, no edit summary (back to sarcophagus detail)
26 Apr. 2014:'s edit reverted by Ghast 21, no edit summary (back to statue)
26 Apr. 2014: Ghast21's edit reverted by, no edit summary (back to sarcophagus detail)
26 Apr. 2014:'s edit reverted by Constancia23, "this one looked better" (back to statue)
26 Apr. 2014: Constancia23's edit reverted by, no edit summary (back to sarcophagus detail)
26 Apr. 2014:'s edit reverted by Constancia23, no edit summary (back to statue)
26 Apr. 2014: Constancia23's edit reverted by, "repair vandalism" (back to sarcophagus detail)
26 Apr. 2014:'s edit reverted by Constancia23, no edit summary (back to statue)
26 Apr. 2014: Constancia23's edit reverted by, "better" (back to sarcophagus detail)
17 May 2014:'s edit reverted by Mianne23, no edit summary (back to statue)
17 May 2014: Miane23's edit reverted by Favonian, "Agree with Paul August: this image is no improvement" (back to sarcophagus detail)
31 May 2014: Favonian's edit reverted by H0elix120, no edit summary (back to statue)
31 May 2014: H0elix120's edit reverted by Favonian, "P/SPA-jumping edit warrior" (back to sarcophagus detail)
7 June 2014: Favonian's edit reverted by Mianne23, no edit summary (back to statue)

By my count, since May 17, 2013, when the statue was replaced by the sarcophagus detail, the images have been swapped back and forth 21 times. Obviously the parties both feel passionate about these images. Personally I think that the sarcophagus detail is more attractive, and that it fits well in the infobox because it's square. But the statue doesn't look bad either, and it's been with the article since 2005. If I may suggest a compromise: use the sarcophagus detail in the infobox, and then place the statue under "depictions" (moving the other sarcophagus detail to another section). At least that way both of these dearly-loved images would remain in the article, and help to illustrate it. What does everybody else think? P Aculeius (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I support this. Paul August 17:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC) (Note: many (all?) of those reverting to the statue are (probably) sockpuppets of a single editor, see for example Daylight15 (talk · contribs), Ghast21 (talk · contribs), Constancia23 (talk · contribs))
I support the proposal as well – and concur with the assessment of the putative socks. Favonian (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
A bit surprised nobody took care of this after this discussion. I've gone ahead and implemented what we talked about last year, and moved a couple of the other images around slightly to provide visual balance. I also put in the old altar piece that used to head the article, down at the bottom under cults. And since a couple of the images were really shown at too small a size, I fixed that too. At least, I hope you'll consider it fixed! Now, let's see if this arrangement satisfies everyone... P Aculeius (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It works for me. Paul August 22:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Image and chariot as a symbol[edit]

The past image of Selene was perfect, why change it with the less interesting one? and chariot was her symbol aswell. Spontanovich2222 (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I understand you here. The old image was the one from a sarcophagus; you replaced it with the current image (a freestanding statue). That's OK, but we don't need two of the same image (which is why I reverted your edit) and the sarcophagus image could have been relegated to the article body, rather than deleted. In other words, a straight swap. Haploidavey (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I personally prefer the previous image (sarcophagus). Also please note the lengthy conversation above, seemingly on this very matter, or one very similar indeed. On the whole, I think it might be best if I revert all these recent changes, and take the article images back to an apparent consensus version (as above). Then we can discuss. Haploidavey (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
the old image is way better, but it seems that it should be inserted the way the admin wants. Is it possible to put the weird-looking one below and the prettier one in the infobox? if so, why not do it? If you ask me, it should have never been changed. Please don't ignore my post.

Spontanovich2222 (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're on the same page. The "old image" -- the one you call the "weird-looking" image (Selene from a sarcophagus) had been the main image on this page for years, until you changed it. Anyway, it has now been restored and I much prefer it. Haploidavey (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

what about people who don't like it? I don't mean just editors, the viewers and readers too, and no, before the sarcophagus image was inserted, there was the old statue of Luna image and who decided to change it? It looked great and that is how I prefer it too, which I hope doesn't offend you at all. Spontanovich2222 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

What don't you like about the sarcophagus detail? Why do you like the image of the statue better? Paul August 19:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

glad you asked, I find it very attractive, especially the way it's photographed from below, since she is the moon goddess, you get the impression you're looking up to her as you're looking up to the moon or night-sky, also in sarcophagus picture, you see just the plain side of her, it's just a statue, nothing impressive or beautiful/attractive about it, you pay more attention to her torch, rather than her face, or body parts, her hands look rough too. The only reason given for placing it in the infobox, is the size and the fact that it is small and "fits" there, but aesthetically, there was absolutely no flaw in the old statue of Luna image, it was beautiful and very attractive to me as a viewer when I used to read the article in 2009-10, my colleagues liked it too when we were working on a project and used this article. Look, I hope you understand that "everyone" simply can not be satisfied with the way editors adjust pictures or information and it's always nice that you, at least consider other's opinions, before you do everything your way, that's what I wanted to say.

Spontanovich2222 (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, to me the head on photograph of the sarcophagus detail, looks better than the up view in the photograph of the statue, which distorts the statue. But perhaps other editors will agree with you, we'll see. Paul August 19:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

understood your view on head of the statue in sarcophagus, but I see no problem with her face in statue of Luna. I think the opinion of "article readers" should be considered aswell, my friends used the statue of Luna image for our project and Wikipedia was great help, seeing the new image later on, made me feel kind of sad and strange, had absolutely no idea why it was changed into new one. Thank you for your attention and I hope some editors here will state their positive opinions on my preferred image too. Spontanovich2222 (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

My proposal for main image
I notice that the main objection against the Luna sculpture seems to be the fact that it is photographed from below, but I found this image (the one at right) on the commons; it is the exact same sculpture, but it is photographed head-on, rather than from below. I think we should use this image for the infobox, rather than the sarcophogus image, which is rather dull, in my view. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I still prefer the sarcophagus detail, since it brings together the symbols well, and fits the infobox nicely. There's no reason why the other images can't go in the article, but I don't think they're as good for the lead. And given the ridiculously long edit war over this very subject, my first reaction when the same matter gets dredged up again is one of dismay. I hoped it had finally been resolved, and I see no reason to revisit this debate now. P Aculeius (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I prefer the image of the statue; I think the statue is much finer work of art than the sarcophagus detail and it still has all the same symbols in it. Most of the other deity articles use statues and I think that the statue is, by far, the better choice. Do you have any objections against the statue itself for why you do not think it is suitable? Right now it sounds like the only reason why you dislike it is just because there was an argument over this issue three years ago and it was resolved by picking the sarcophagus image, but none of the editors involved in that argument were aware that this image existed at the time. (If I had not known that there was a head-on photograph of the statue available, I would have probably sided with the sarcophagus as well.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think every image needs to be the biggest, most detailed image possible. The sarcophagus detail is attractive and fits well without shoving the information further down the page. My reasons are perfectly valid, and the fact that people have warred back and forth on the image, statue vs. sarcophagus detail, only adds strength to the argument against changing back to a statue, even though it's a different view of the same statue. Maybe it's a better image of the statue, but that's also a matter of perspective (literally, in this case). I just don't think the statue is a better an image for the infobox, no matter how well or dramatically lit it is. P Aculeius (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I like the new head-on view of the statue much better than the old one. I also agree that it is a "better" work of art. But it is even bigger than the old one and would leave quite a lot of additional white space in the lead (try it in preview mode and see what you think). And is that a torch in its right hand? It certainly not clear to me anyway. Paul August 22:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I tried it out in preview mode and I do not think there is any problem. You all keep arguing that the statue would be unsuitable for the main image because it is too big, but I do not see any problem with the size; besides, almost all the other articles about Graeco-Roman deities use statues roughly the same size as this (some of them even bigger) for their main images. The object in her right hand is clearly a torch, or at least the way I see it, though I suppose I understand your confusion. The flaming part of the torch is broken off, but if you look closely you can see where it used to be attached. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Katolophyromai, same view here, bigger size is definitely not a problem, the Luna statue is way more attractive aesthetically,

excellent quote: "besides, almost all the other articles about Graeco-Roman deities use statues roughly the same size as this..." the image is very easy on the eyes and has a pleasant appearance from every angle, I see no flaws in it, already stated my view on sarcophagus and why I don't like it, let's wait if some more editors prefer the Luna statue version of the image, don't consider the consensus closed at all. Spontanovich2222 (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


1. "Zeus granted him [Endymion] the right to choose when he would die".


2. "Smyrnaeus describes them as the four handmaidens of Hera, but in most accounts their number is three, and their parents are Zeus and Themis".

Three seasons rather than four does not make much sense. What are the accounts in this case?

ICE77 (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

1. The source for this doesn't say why exactly, other than that he was "dear to the blessed gods". Paul August 12:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
2. There is nothing canonical in nature about four seasons. In any case, as for the Horae, see our article. Paul August 12:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)