Talk:Apollo

Colonisation and constitutions

Currently our lead has

On the other hand, Apollo also encouraged the founding of new towns and the establishment of civil constitutions. He is associated with dominion over colonists. He was the giver of laws, and his oracles were consulted before setting laws in a city.

The three sentences seem to be saying the same thing in different ways, at greater length than the body text they should be summarising:

As god of colonization, Apollo gave oracular guidance on colonies, especially during the height of colonization, 750–550 BCE.

No references are given for the body text either, so before copy-editing the lead, can I check? I do remember accounts of the oracle at Delphi being consulted before colonisation (eg Cyrene, Taras) but have no idea whether that was because Apollo was specifically a/the god of colonisation or constitutions, or simply one of the many things on which Greeks often sought an oracle before proceeding. Can we provide sources for either claim? NebY (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi NebY, added a journal source for his patronage of colonies C0137Hatt (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi NebY... not exhaustive by any means and of somewhat "left-handed" intent (undermining the assumptions behind the terminology), but several sources I used for Greek city-state patron gods#Foundation deities deal with this, or at least with questions arising. Those used in the second paragraph of "Foundation deities" are relevant, Detienne in particular. Haploidavey (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, both. The source C0137Hatt's added has "The fiction was maintained that Apollo had initiated the act of colonization and was himself the expedition's divine leader (archegetes)," which seems to cover our "encouraged" and even "dominion over", though as so many colonies had other patron deities, our "dominion" unqualified seems too strong. Likewise Detienne has Apollo and Hestia as "directly involved in the planning of a new city", Apollo being "known as a founder", "liked to accompany human founders", "patron of the art of city planning", but Hestia presiding over the new prytaneion. I may be skimming too fast; I'm not seeing direct support for the setting of laws. I assume we're talking about the first laws of a colony rather than all subsequent legislation everywhere, but unfortunately the latter is the obvious reading. I guess both need some copy-editing, resulting in a lead that summarises the body. NebY (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The most Greek of the gods?

Are you even trying to be encyclopedic? 2600:4040:53F8:7100:489E:4446:4ECC:ECB (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

See the thread immediately above. Deor (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hurrian-Aplu

Proposed deletion of Aplu (deity)

such a god doesn't seem to have ever existed an any actual sources. A Hurrian deity named Aplu is not mentioned in the following credible sources about Hurrian religion: G. Wilhelm, The Hurrians; P. Taracha, Religions of 2nd Millennium Anatolia; A. Archi, West Hurrian Pantheon and its Background; Reallexikon der Assyriologie; Václav Blažek proposes a Hurrian origin of the name (from a word for arrow) without mentioning the purported god "Aplu" and places the Akkadian "aplu" among outdated 19th century theories (with no mention of Nergal made), and R. Beekes in his article doesn't bring the purported "Hurrian" Aplu at all while dicussing the possibility of Apollo's Anatolian origin and only mentions Aplu as Etruscan form developed -from- Apollo.

This is a mesage from my talk page by P Aculeius (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC). I believe that Aculeius is right, and any reference to the Hurrian "Aplu" must be deleted. Jestmoon(talk) 14:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I have since removed the passage about "Aplu" from the Origins section of the article. The whole assertion of a Hurrian/Hittite deity named "Aplu" in relation to Apollo appears to be a simple & blatant a case of WP:OR. (The information can seemingly be pinned down to a particular user dating back to 2006, who seems likely to have been the performer of the original research.) — Jamie Eilat (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Seated Apollo picture is not Apollo

Apollo seated with lyre. Porphyry and marble, 2nd century AD. Farnese collection, Naples, Italy.

"Apollo seated with lyre. Porphyry and marble, 2nd century AD. Farnese collection, Naples, Italy." This statue is not of Apollo at all, it is clearly a female seated with a lyre. The statue is wearing a dress, visible empire waist and breasts. Remove the image from the Apollo wiki please - Apollo 70.15.121.120 (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Apparently it is the "diocese of Rome" restored as Apollo. Not sure - the pics here need a bit of a going over generally, I'd say. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

But MOS:IMAGES says (in summary) that images are to illustrate, not to decorate. Some latitude to give an overall impression of the topic but this one is so 'odd' that an explanation would be essential. The image was the second provided to illustrate the section Apollo#Etymology: I see nothing in the text of that section for which it is remotely relevant. I will remove it for now and repost it here on the off-chance that someone can make a convincing case to reinstate it (which will mean writing the accompanying text that it illustrates).

The work is in the National Archaeological Museum Naples (Farinese Collection), which provides a full description. This partly confirms Johnbod's recollection:

La statua è nota sin dal XVI secolo, menzionata come personificazione di “Roma trionfante” dall’Albertini (1510) e dal Fichard (1815), e riprodotta in una veduta del cortile di casa Sassi da Marten Van Heemskerck. [transl. The statue has been known since the 16th century, mentioned as the personification of “Rome triumphant" by Albertini (1510) and Fichard (1815), and reproduced in a view of the courtyard of the Sassi house by Marten Van Heemskerck.]

and goes on to say

L’intervento di restauro dell’Albacini traduce correttamente il generico schema del dio seduto su di una roccia, intento a suonare la sua cetra. Alcuni lineamenti morbidi della scultura e una possibile cattiva condizione della testa, che ne comprometteva una corretta lettura, giustificano un’iniziale identificazione della figura, vestita anche di un lungo chitone e himation, con una divinità femminile: Vesta, all’epoca dell’acquisto, e poi personificazione di Roma trionfante, in ottemperanza ai programmi celebrativi della città nel ‘500. Lo stesso Winckelmann la definisce una generica “statua femminile”. Ma l’aggiunta della cetra, del plettro e soprattutto la lavorazione della testa, di ispirazione classica, con la tipica pettinatura a nodo riconosciuta ad Apollo, l’Albacini restituisce l’esatta interpretazione della scultura con il dio Musagete. [transl. Albacini's restoration work correctly translates the generic scheme of the god sitting on a rock, intent on playing his lyre. Some soft features of the sculpture and a possible bad condition of the head, which compromised one correct reading, justify an initial identification of the figure, also dressed in a long chiton and himation, with a female divinity: Vesta, at the time of purchase, and then personification of triumphant Rome, in compliance with the celebratory programs of city in the 16th century. Winckelmann himself defines it as a generic "female statue". But the addition of the lyre, the plectrum and above all the workmanship of the head, of inspiration classic, with the typical knot hairstyle recognized by Apollo, Albacini returns the exact interpretation of the sculpture with the god Musagete.

So it may be that the work has been "restored" beyond recognition? Either way, it is really not at all obvious that it is WP:DUE in this article and thus should not remain. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I was going from the Spanish on the image file (the fullest): "Estatua de la diosa Roma, restaurada como Apolo citaredo. Pórfido rojo y mármol blanco. Obra romana de la segunda mitad del siglo II d.C. Colección Farnesio, Museo Arqueológico Nacional de Nápoles". Presumably, as with so many Roman sculptures, the head and body were not originally together, which the Italian doesn't quite get round to saying. I should have a chance to see it in a few weeks. My Spanish is home made, but at least I have been able to improve the redirect for diosa. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that was my surmise too, but the text is circumspect:

Nei disegni di M. Van Heemskerck la statua è riprodotta munita di testa ma priva delle mani e dei piedi; poi tutti gli altri testimoni del ‘500 raccontano e descrivono una scultura completa di tutte le integrazioni in bronzo. Si ipotizza, quindi, che almeno la testa fosse originale, o comunque antica, mentre gli arti furono opera di Guglielmo Della Porta, scultore e consulente d’arte della famiglia Farnese e autore dei restauri di tutte le opere poste al piano nobile del Palazzo, dove si trovava anche l’Apollo in porfido. Alcuni studiosi, in alternativa, propongono una diversa lettura: la testa, già visibile quando l’opera era collocata nel cortile di Casa Sassi, è sicuramente antica, ma non pertinente. Poi, alla fine del XVIII secolo, ormai rovinata, e secondo illustri giudizi riconosciuta non originale e di bassa qualità (J. J. Winckelmann), si decise per la rimozione e sostituzione con una in marmo bianco.
transl. In the drawings of M. Van Heemskerck the statue is reproduced with a head but without hands and feet; Then all the other witnesses of the 16th century tell and describe a complete sculpture of all the bronze additions. It is therefore assumed that at least the head was original, or however ancient, while the limbs were the work of Guglielmo Della Porta, sculptor and art consultant to the Farnese family and author of the restorations of all the works on display on the main floor of the Palace, where the porphyry Apollo was also located. Some scholars, alternatively, propose a different reading: the head, already visible when the work was located in the courtyard of Casa Sassi, it is certainly ancient, but not relevant. Then, at the end of the 18th century, already ruined, and according to illustrious judgements, recognised [as] not original and of low quality (J. J. Winckelmann), it was decided to remove it and replace it with one in white marble.

I'm with the illustrious judges . 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Apollo appears in the myths and Greek paintings as both an effeminate youth and a cross-dresser, so I would argue that the femininity of this statue must not be a reason to not identify the statue with Apollo, as even the National Archaeological Museum of Naples also identifies this as Apollo Destroyed. Though, I agree it is not very relevant to be in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo#Etymology. Adiga77 (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2024

"to append the following section"

Temples of Apollo

Etruscan and Roman temples

The Temple of Mercury at Puy de Dôme is a Gallo-Roman trachyte temple initially built in the in the 1st century BCE and later rebuilt on a larger scale in the 2nd century following its destruction. Situated at the summit of the lava dome in the Auvergne region in central France, this temple was discovered in 1872 during the construction of a meteorological observatory.

NimrifJ (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Presumptive Linkages to Homosexuality

This article has no place in being categorised as "Homosexuality and Bisexuality Deities" nor "LGBT themes in Greek mythology" as there are both no expressions of homosexuality in Apollonian myth nor are there any mentioned in the article. There are expressions of love between Apollo and males, but this is not ever stated to be nor ever manifests as sexual attraction.

The terminology "male lovers" is similarly misrepresentative, being inherently charged and suggestive of sexuality for a contemporary reading audience. Where one may interpret homosexuality, another may interpret deeply Platonic friendship - for which there is great basis to believe was the intended form of love. The suggestion that Apollo is a homosexual deity is incongruent with the sources provided, and suggests a biased POV. It is further worth mention that, with Apollo being a Greek deity, a depiction by a Roman author being depicted as mythological canon is arguable in itself. One may argue that the inclusion of later non-Hellenic depictions as canonical is legitimate, given that Apollo is still worshipped as a deity by many today.

"The romantic nature of their relationship was first described by Callimachus of Alexandria, who wrote that Apollo was "fired with love" for Admetus." To call the relationship romantic can imply a necessary sexual attraction, which is not further expressed in the text. A less charged term should be adopted.

Should one wish to highlight the modern interpretations of Apollo as a homosexual deity, they should be welcome to do so in an appropriate manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.179.191 (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Why does Thyraeus redirect here?

There is nothing in the article about this name. Should Thyraeus (mythology) be move over the redirect? There is something in Anthelioi about this being an epithet of Apollo, but the available snippet of the cited reference in Google Books doesn't provide enough context to verify. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sun is not a planet

It is said in the article that his planets are Mercury and Sun. Sun is a star and not a planet. Isn’t that a mistake to correct? Rokuon (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The ancient Greeks considered the Sun to be a planet. See classical planet (which is linked in the infobox). ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Consistency of "classical" vs "ancient" Greek religion in short descriptions

Of the 12 other Olympian deities, all but Ares and Hephaestus (which simply say "Greek") use "ancient Greek [religion|mythology|goddess]." The text "classical Greek" in this article's short summary even links to the article on Ancient Greece as well; indeed, because classical Greece is a specific subset of the period rather than a synonym for it, I feel like this is confusing. I tried reviewing talk page archives to check whether I missed a preexisting discussion and was unable to find any.

Would anyone object to my changing the short summary, then? I'll wait to edit for a few days, to be conservative. – spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The lead was changed from "ancient to "classical" without explanation, back in 2013.[1] "Classical" can be a broad term too (studying classics, the Oxford Classical Dictionary, our own Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome) but "Olympian deities in classical Greek ..." might suggest a restricted reference to Classical Greece. NebY (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you finding the history and agreed re: Classical Greece! – spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)