Talk:Circe

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2020 and 9 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mjrcw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Doesn't Homer place Circe somewhere to the west, rather than the east, of Greece?

I've also found a reference http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Circe.html) that suggests she may have lived on a mountain named Circaeum, which looked like an island since it was surrounded by marshes and sea. I don't have time to rewrite this article tonight, I'll give it a shot soon though if nobody else does.

REPLY: Homer places her island in the east, where the sun rises (Odyssey 12.1-4):

αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ ποταμοῖο λίπεν ῥόον Ὠκεανοῖο

νηῦς, ἀπὸ δ᾽ ἵκετο κῦμα θαλάσσης εὐρυπόροιο

νῆσόν τ᾽ Αἰαίην, ὅθι τ᾽ Ἠοῦς ἠριγενείης

οἰκία καὶ χοροί εἰσι καὶ ἀντολαὶ Ἠελίοιο.

But when the ship left the stream of the river Okeanos

And from the undulation of the wide-wayed sea

It came to the island of Aiaiē, where are the home and dancing-spaces

Of the early-born Dawn and the rising places of the Sun.

But she has equally strong links in the west, where her island of Aiaie was often located, especially at Kirkaion (Latin Circaeum), now Monte Circeo or Promontorio del Circeo, on the west coast of Italy halfway between Rome and Naples, where she was worshipped. Here is some of the evidence for this:

1. A scholia on Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica 3.311 (from the Codex Laurentianus in R. Merkel, Apollonii Rhodii Argonautica (Leipzig 1854) p. 460) reads as follows: Κίρκην ἑσπερίης: ἠκολούθησεν Ἀπολλώνιος τοῖς κατὰ τὸ Τυρσηνικὸν πέλαγος ὑποτιθεμένοις τὴν Ὀδυσσέως πλάνην, ὧν ἀρχηγὸς Ἡσίοδος κατῳκηκέναι λέγων Κίρκην ἐν τῷ προειρημένῳ πελάγει. ἑσπερίης εἴσω χθονός: περὶ τὴν Ἰταλίαν ᾤκησεν ἡ Κίρκη, ὅθεν ὄρος Κιρκαῖον ἀπ’ αὐτῆς πολυφάρμακον. φησὶ δὲ Ἀπολλώνιος Ἡσιόδῳ ἑπόμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ ἅρματος τοῦ Ἡλίου εἰς τὴν κατὰ Τυῤῥηνίαν κειμένην νῆσον τὴν Κίρκην ἐλθεῖν. ἑσπερίαν δὲ αὐτὴν εἶπεν, ἐπεὶ πρὸς δυσμὰς κεῖται. Apollonios follows those who set the wanderings of Odusseus in the Tursenian sea,† of whom the main one is Hesiod who says that Kirke has her home in the sea already mentioned. Kirke lived around Italy, where the mount of Kirkaion is located, which is named after her and which has many medicinal herbs. Apollonios says, following Hesiod, that Kirke came to the island lying opposite Turrhenia on the chariot of the sun. He calls it ‘the western land’ because it lies towards the west.

† The sea off Tursenia (Etruria, roughly modern Tuscany: but from c. 700 BC the Etruscans expanded both north into Umbria and south into Latium. Rome – Etruscan ruma, ‘teat’ – may even be an Etruscan foundation).

There is no extant verse that can certainly be assigned to Hesiod which locates Aiaiē in the sea off the west coast of Italy, but Hesiod, Theogony 1011-16, does say that Kirke married Odusseus and bore two sons to him. The name of the second, Latinos, suggest an association with Italy and Latium in particular. But the important point to note is the early date from which Kirke was associated with this part of Italy.

2. μετὰ δὲ Ἄντιον τὸ Κιρκαῖον ἐστὶν ἐν διακοσίοις καὶ ἐνενήκοντα σταδίοις ὄρος νησίζον θαλάττῃ τε καὶ ἕλεσι: φασὶ δὲ καὶ πολύρριζον εἶναι, τάχα τῷ μύθῳ τῷ περὶ τῆς Κίρκης συνοικειοῦντες. ἔχει δὲ πολίχνιον καὶ Κίρκης ἱερὸν καὶ Ἀθηνᾶς βωμόν, δείκνυσθαι δὲ καὶ φιάλην τινά φασιν Ὀδυσσέως. After Antion lies Mount Kirkaion at a distance of 290 stades, an island or promontory in the sea and marshes. They say it has many root plants, probably to reach accommodation with the myth about Kirke. It has a small city and a temple to Kirke and an altar to Athena; and they also say a certain bowl that belonged to Odusseus is on display. Strabo 5.232.

3. Quamquam Circem quoque coloni nostri Circeienses religiose colunt. Although they worship Circe devoutly too in our colony of Circei. Cicero, De Natura Deorum 3.48.

So there is no agreement in the ancient sources on this. But all of Odusseus' wanderings, including his year-long stay with Kirke, are set in the Greek equivalent of fairyland. They are off the map.

Lloyd Bye (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

For years, mythologers have been trying to prove that the legend of Circe is in fact true. However, there is a large argument that the people in the legend could not have existed. The main attack by scientists is that 'How can the potions brewed up by Circe have ever been real if there are no traces today'? The mythologers argue back, that, there is actually a mansion that suits the one in the story. It has also been proved that wild animals such as in the legend were present in the area, but there have been no immediate accounts of animal attacks around the house. To learn more, please visit, Http://my/website/on/Circe/at/WWW.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.155.4 (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In the version I read, it was presented as an island. But perhaps it was just a poor translation. --KQ

REPLY: Bearing in mind my comment above that the whole of Odusseus' wanderings are off the map in fairyland, try this explanation from the ancient historian Procopius of how Mount Kirkaion (the alleged home of Kirke) could look like an island:

[ἀμφὶ πόλιν Ταρακίνην] ἧς ἄγχιστα ὄρος τὸ Κιρκαῖόν ἐστιν, οὗ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα τῇ Κιρκῃ ξυγγενέσθαι φασὶν, ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐ πιστὰ λέγοντες, ἐπεὶ ἐν νήσῳ Ὅμηρος τῆς Κίρκς οἰκία ἰσχυρίζεται εἶναι. ἐκεῖνο μέντοι ἔχω εἰπεῖν, ὡς τὸ Κιρκαῖον τοῦτο, ἐπὶ πολὺ τῆς θαλάσσης διῆκον, νήσῳ ἐμφερές ἐστι, καὶ τοῖς τε πλέουσι ἄγχιστα τοῖς τε εἰς τὴν ἐκείνῃ ᾐόνα βαδίζουσι νῆσος δοκεῖ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον εἶναι. καὶ ἐπειδάν τις ἐν αὐτᾷ γέηται, τότε δὴ μεταμανθάνει ψευσθῆναι τῆς δόξης τὰ πρότερα. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Ὅμηρος ἴσως νῆσον τὸ χωρίον ὠνόμασεν. [around Tarakine] the mount of Kirkaion lies very close, where they say Odusseus lived with Kirke, but for me what they say is not persuasive, since Homer says very firmly that the home of Kirke was on an island. However, I can say this, that Kirkaion, since it stretches a long way into the sea, has the appearance of an island, and for those who sail very close and for those who walk to it along the beach it appears very like an island. An whenever someone is on it, then he learns he is mistaken in his previous opinion. Because of this Homer similarly called the place an island. Procopius (History of the Wars 5.11.2-3)

Lloyd Bye (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly an island in the "Ocean" - i.e the water around the edge of the known world.

-This article conflicts with information presented in Medea

I've also read that she lived on Circaeum. Also, this site has a lot about Circe: http://www.maicar.com/GML/Circe.html. 71.207.246.105 21:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If the Greek form of Circe is Κίρκη, than the C's should have the hard sound of the Greek letter Kappa rather than the soft sound of the Greek letter Sigma, which does not appear in the word at all. Wallaby 65 (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't want to be classed with the people who show how educated they are by talking about the kinema, do you?--Wetman (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Radio drama

Why was the information about "Homer's Odyssey: Voyage to the Underworld" deleted from the Derivatives section of this article? The Derivatives section describes various popular culture resources which mention Circe, are inspired by the Circe legend, or are actual retellings of the Circe stories. The "Homer's Odyssey: Voyage to the Underworld" information was a description of a radio drama adaptation of Circe's story from Homer's Odyssey. This seems as relevant as any of the other items on the Derivatives list, and shares the most in common with the description of Nathaniel Hawthorne's retelling of the Circe story in his "Tanglewood Tales". How is a modern radio drama adaptation of Circe's story irrelevant to the subject matter? Soundout (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Barren lists of appearances of "Circe" in modern this-and-that don't help the reader understand the subject of this article. Remembering that Wikipedia is simply a readers' service helps keep one focused on the subject at hand.--Wetman (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Take His Manhood

I don't know what this means: "She would take his manhood unless he had her swear by the names of the gods that she would not." The wikilink for manhood points to the article "Man" which isn't informative. It seems wrong, too: isn't manhood different from man? Noloop (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Manhood refers to his penis, as in, she would chop it off.

Cape Circeo

Cape Circeo was the place of Circe... Böri (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical Errors

I just re-wrote the second paragraph, which was full of grammatical errors that were introduced in the last batch of edits, by User:Paul August. The previous form of the article said:

"By most accounts, Circe was the daughter of Helios (or Helius), the god of the sun, and Perse, an Oceanid and the sister of Aeetes, the keeper of the Golden Fleece and of Pasiphaë, the mother of the Minotaur."

I was wrong in the edit summary though, since this was so confusing. This paragraph was saying that Helios and Perse were Circe's parents (which is true), although it incorrectly said that Perse was the sister of Aeetes and that Aeetes guarded Pasiphaë.

I've corrected it, so now it says that Circe's parents were Helios and Perse and that Circe's siblings were Aeetes and Pasiphaë. (Huey45 (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC))

tails = tales?

It says somewhere that someone listens to 'tails'. Shouldn't that be 'tales'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirk Bontes (talk • contribs) 02:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw that too, along with major typos in the quoted lines for Solinus that made it practically unreadable so I fixed them using OpenSourceShakespeare.org's transcript for Comedy of Errors 149.55.30.100 (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions and comments

1. "In Homer's Odyssey, Circe is described as living in a mansion that stands in the middle of a clearing in a dense wood."

Should it be in a "dense forest" or something like that?

REPLY: Homer's words are these (Odyssey 10.210-11):

εὗρον δ᾽ ἐν βήσσῃσι τετυγμένα δώματα Κίρκης

ξεστοῖσιν λάεσσι, περισκέπτῳ ἐνὶ χώρῳ:

They found Kirke's well-made palace in a glen,

Made of dressed stone, in a place visible from all round.

βήσσῃσι is usually taken to mean a wooded glen. If we take the meaning to be just that, then the following line implies that her palace stands in a clearing that has been made in the woods.

N.B. I transliterate directly from the Greek, not via the Latin spelling: so for me the goddess is Kirke not Circe. But this is a matter of preference.

Lloyd Bye (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

2. "Later poets generally only speak of Telegonus as Odysseus' son by Circe."

Who are these poets?

REPLY: There are lots of them. Here is a flavour (I give the original Greek and Latin along with my literal translations in case anyone wants to get all the way back to the original sources).

The earliest source is Hesiod (Theogony 1011-14): Κίρκη δ᾽, Ἠελίου θυγάτηρ Ὑπεριονίδαο, γείνατ᾽ Ὀδυσσῆος ταλασίφρονος ἐν φιλότητι Ἄγριον ἠδὲ Λατῖνον ἀμύμονά τε κρατερόν τε: [Τηλέγονον δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔτικτε διὰ χρυσέην Ἀφροδίτην]. Kirke, the daughter of Helios son of Huperion, Bore in love to patient-minded Odusseus Agrios and Latinos blameless and mighty: [And she bore Telegonos through golden Aphrodite]. Line 1014, though, is missing from some MSS, is unmetrical and is probably an interpolation. See M. L. West, Hesiod: The Theogony (Oxford 1966) pp. 434-5. However, lending some support to the line’s authenticity, Eustathius (1796.45) says: ἐκ Κίρκης υἱοὶ καθ’ Ἡσίοδον Ὀδυσσεῖ Ἄγριος καὶ Λατῖνος. The sons of Kirke, according to Hesiod, are Agrios and Latinos. Eustathius, a few lines later (1796.52), also says: ὁ δὲ τοὺς Νόστους ποιήσας Κολοφώνιος Τηλέμαχον μέν φησι τὴν Κίρκην ὕστερον γῆμαι, Τηλέγονον δὲ τὸν ἐκ Κίρκης ἀντιγῆμαι Πηνελόπην. The Kolophonian poet of the Returns says Telemakhos later married Kirke, and Telegonos the son of Kirke married Penelope in turn.

The Epitome of Apollodorus (7.16) succinctly records that the parents of Telegonos were Odusseus and Kirke: καὶ λαβὼν ὅρκους Ὀδυσσεὺς παρ᾽ αὐτῆς μηδὲν ἀδικηθῆναι συνευνάζεται, καὶ γίνεται αὐτῷ παῖς Τηλέγονος. After Odusseus had taken the oath from her [sc. Kirke] not to do harm, he slept with her, and a son Telegonos was born to him. Hyginus (Fab. 125) says Odusseus and Kirke had two sons: Circe … ipsa cum eodem concubuit, ex quo duos filios procreavit, Nausithoum et Telegonum. Circe … herself slept with him [sc. Ulysses], by whom she produced two sons, Nausithous and Telegonus.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1.72.5), quoting Xenagoras who wrote a book ‘On Islands’ (Ξεναγόρας ἐν τῷ περὶ Νήσων, Tzetzes, ad Lyc. 447), says: Ξεναγόρας δὲ ὁ συγγραφεὺς Ὀδυσσέως καὶ Κίρκης υἱοὺς γενέσθαι τρεῖς, Ῥῶμον, Ἀντείαν, Ἀρδείαν. Xenagoras the historian [says] Odusseus and Kirke has three sons, Rhomos, Anteias and Ardeias. Lastly, and in contrast to all of the above, Eustathius (1796.35) says it was Kalupso who was the father of Telegonos: ὁ δὲ τὴν Τηλεγόνειαν γράψας Κυρηναῖος ἐκ μὲν Καλυψοῦς Τηλέγονον υἱὸν Ὀδυσσεῖ ἀναγράφει ἢ Τηλέδαμος. The Kurenian poet who wrote the Telegoneia writes that Kalupso bore a son Telegonos, or Teledamos, to Odusseus.

Lloyd Bye (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

3. "In later tales Circe turned Picus into a woodpecker for refusing her love"

Is there a source for these tales?

REPLY: Yes, try Ovid, Metamorphoses book 14. Lloyd Bye (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

4. "The phrase "Circean poison" has been used to refer to intoxicating things, such as applause."

Should "applause" be written in italics?

ICE77 (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Maintaining focus

Earlier on, the new article Circe in popular culture was created in order to keep the main focus in the article here on the character and historical development of the figure of Circe. It has now become clear that later treatments of her in painting, literature and the performing arts have been so rich and abundant that there is a need for a separate article on those too. I therefore propose an article on Circe in the arts that features direct treatments of the mythological figure in post-Classical culture, including some material from both the already existing articles. Derivative popular creations based on the Circe figure can then be the main focus of "Circe in popular culture". Hopefully that will bring greater clarity to the subject. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure there needs to be a "Circe in the arts" article. For what it is worth, Circe is at most a minor character when compared to other major mythical characters, say Venus or Zeus (in Greek mythology) or Rama or Durga (in Indian mythology), all of whom probably have for more "treatments" in later artistic and literary works. Yet, none of these characters has a separate "X in the arts" article. Makfa Ninmu (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, even if the judgment that Circe is 'minor' breaches Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. One aim of the article, which is now under construction, should be to dispel such an impression. Circe has been of great interest to artists and writers since Renaissance times and a large amount of works have been devoted to her. To discuss them in all their variety (poetry, drama, opera, ballet, etc) would shift the focus away from mythology in the main article. Since it is also WP policy to split articles when they become too long, the proposal above is made to avoid creating such an imbalance. It might also inspire others with an interest in cultural reinterpretations to create similar articles. Just because something is not common does not mean it should not be tried. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

"Thanks for your interest, even if the judgment that Circe is 'minor' breaches Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy." I don't see how it breaches NPOV: it just seems a statement of fact: I gave examples where a better case could be made for a separate article and where none has appeared to be needed (if you notice, the current article also says so in the head "In Greek mythology, Circe (play /ˈsɜrsiː/; Greek Κίρκη Kírkē "falcon") is a minor goddess of magic", and has said so for a while. Further, in support of my position, right now there seems to be a lot of text overlap between Circe in the arts and Circe, which again suggests merging to be a better solution. Next, much of Circe in the arts sound like original research, a big Wikipedia taboo. Here are a a few examples:

"Several poets who deal with the story of Circe attempt to portray the emotional force of its various episodes. "

"The treatment of Circe in the section named after her in James Joyce's novel Ulysses is in line with the commentators who see in the goddess merely an unprincipled strumpet."

"In more liberated times, the British poet Carol Ann Duffy wrote a monologue" -- more liberated for whom and according to whom?

"Both poets appropriate the myth to make a personal statement about their broken relationships."

There are several others. To summarize: given the text overlap alone, it would be a good idea to merge the articles, and the original research in the new article only strengthens that point.

Makfa Ninmu (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

In line with the discussion in the "Maintaining Focus" section above, I am proposing a merger of the article Circe in the arts into this article. The reasons are as follows:

1. Substantial text overlap between the current versions of the two articles
2. The article Circe's point already appears to be deal with the mythological character of Circe as she appears in various literary and artistic media.
3. (An editor above said this point may not be NPOV, but I disagree. I will let the community make a decision on that) Much more "major" mythological characters such as Venus, Zeus, Rama or Durga who have probably had much more influence on later literature and art do not have a separate article on their appearance in arts and literature.

Makfa Ninmu (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer, for reasons given above. Makfa Ninmu (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Against - Makfa Ninmu has rushed into this proposal without waiting for even the first section of the new article to be completed, in spite of the fact there is an Under Construction sign at its head. It is too early to propose a merger before the evidence is clear. The literary section (still unfinished) is almost as long as the whole Circe article. Those planned on opera/ drama and ballet could be equally as long and if merged would alter the balance of the original article. I am therefore arguing for a separate focus in each. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Against Merging this article would unbalance the original article and it would become convoluted. The article is notable as a stand alone as well.Righteousskills (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Against – per reasons given above.--Morel (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

contradictory stement

Towards the end of Hesiod's Theogony (1011f), it is stated that Circe bore Odysseus three sons: Ardeas or Agrius (otherwise unknown); Latinus; and Telegonus, who ruled over the Tyrsenoi, that is the Etruscans. The Telegony (Τηλεγόνεια), an epic now lost, relates the later history of the last of these. Circe eventually informed him who his absent father was and, when he set out to find Odysseus, gave him a poisoned spear. With this he killed his father unknowingly. Telegonus then brought back his father's corpse, together with Penelope and Odysseus' other son Telemachus, to Aeaea. After burying Odysseus, Circe made the others immortal. According to Lycophron's Alexandra (808) and John Tzetzes' scholia on the poem (795 - 808), however, Circe used magical herbs to bring Odysseus back to life after he had been killed by Telegonus. Odysseus then gave Telemachus to Circe's daughter Cassiphone in marriage. Some time later, Telemachus had a quarrel with his mother-in-law and killed her; Cassiphone then killed Telemachus to avenge her mother's death. On hearing of this, Odysseus died of grief.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1.72.5) cites Xenagoras, the second century BC historian, as claiming that Odysseus and Circe had three sons: Romus, Anteias, and Ardeias, who respectively founded three cities called by their names: Rome, Antium, and Ardea. In a very late Alexandrian epic from the 5th century AD, the Dionysiaca of Nonnus, her son by Poseidon is mentioned under the name of Phaunos.[7]

In the 3rd century BC epic, the Argonautica, Apollonius Rhodius relates that Circe purified the Argonauts for the death of Absyrtus,[8] maybe reflecting an early tradition.[9] In this poem, the animals that surround her are not former lovers transformed but primeval ‘beasts, not resembling the beasts of the wild, nor yet like men in body, but with a medley of limbs.’[10]

Three ancient plays about Circe have been lost: the work of the tragedian Aeschylus and of the 4th century BC comic dramatists Ephippus of Athens and Anaxilas. The first told the story of Odysseus' encounter with Circe. Vase paintings from the period suggest that Odysseus' half-transformed animal-men formed the chorus in place of the usual Satyrs. Fragments of Anaxilas also mention the transformation and one of the characters complains of the impossibility of scratching his face now that he is a pig.[11]

Odysseus didn't die twice!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.107.101 (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Kirki Kalliplokamos ?

Is "Kirki Kalliplokamos" related to "Circe" of the article, are this the same of one kind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2012:1:1121:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Circe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610065329/http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/enchanter's%2Bnightshade to http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/enchanter's%2Bnightshade

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Circe in the arts

The article is pretty well written, has 3 times more references than this one, and yet practically no one ever even visits it (last 20 days had only 500-some visitors, as compared to over 35,000 here). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The last time this question was raised] the decision was against it. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It's literally useless as a separate article because practically no one ever even sees it. (Circe in popular culture is more than 5x more popular despite being relatively trivial.) --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

What has to be addressed is how the problem of inbalance is to be resolved or else how better to draw attention to the separate article. I see no evidence of practical thinking so far. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly you might be right. Maybe more linking from relevant articles. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep the two articles, unmerged. The two articles cover separate subjects, which are each long enough to justify separate articles. Merging Circe in the arts into Circe would badly unbalance the proportion of content in the latter. Stating it as its corollary, if I came across the merged article, I would roll my eyes and slap a "Split" proposal on it to create the new article, Circe in the arts. — O'Dea (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There are two separate subjects here, but if one of the articles has more citations then maybe some of the most important points can be summarized in this article? Zephrine (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Circe in the arts needs an actual proper lead summary of that article, and then it can be then reworked into a section here. And even before that maybe we should actually decide on clearly defining the scopes and purposes of both articles and move stuff between, because "Medieval and modern literature" right now is just few rather random examples - maybe this article here should be really only just about the actual (classical era) legend. (I've changed the tag(s) accordingly.) --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My thoughts - Circe should be the main article with an all-inclusive overview utilizing sections/sub-sections for the various parts:

1. literature (drama & stories),
2. poetry,
3. visual & decorative arts with subsections for paintings, drawings, sculptures, enamels and graphics.

There is ample material to cite, and plenty of images to use. As each section grows, they can be spun-off into stand-alones like Circe in the arts; however, it should be done with Circe in mind as the anchor/main article. ^Atsme 📣 📧 21:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, so since nobody did anything for several months, I did a quick merge - still needs work, obviously. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Y Works for me. I'll help with the lead and prose as I get time, and that's usually in the wee hours when I can't sleep. 😳 ^Atsme 📣 📧 00:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There was no consensus for this move either on the talk page of the original article reproduced above nor for the original merge proposal at an earlier date on this page. SNAAAAKE!!'s action was therefore against WP guidelines and I have reversed it. There is nothing to stop him taking the proposal to a wider forum, but no move should be made until a majority have agreed to it. Sweetpool50 (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sweetpool150, did you read what I presented above as a way to move forward and improve these articles? As for your actions reverting SNAAAAKE!!, my comments follow:

1. The most recent discussion to merge was several months ago, it was local, and the 2 arguments against it were not convincing. I went to the link you provided in that argument and the dust and cobwebs made me cough - that discussion took place over 6 years ago.
2. WP:MERGEPROP states: If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it. That is exactly what SNAAAAKE!! did.
3. I'm not opposed to leaving "Circe in the arts" in place for now, so I'm not going to revert your edit. I think we need more time to work on the main article, Circe.
4. What we need most are active, collaborating editors who want to help improve these articles, not stonewall them.
5. What I see of your participation at "Circe in the arts" is 4 edits, 3 of which were reverting SNAAAAKE!!, and 5 edits in Circe, 4 of which were reverts. You haven't written any prose or contributed to the expansion of either article. Your reverts may have been for improvement - I didn't study them - but I'm not quite understanding the reason for your interest here.
6. SNAAAAKE!! has authored quite a bit of prose for "Circe in the arts" as evidenced by his 21 edits, and he has also authored quite a bit of prose for Circe with 53 edits.

If you are here to collaborate with us, contribute to the prose or even work as a wikignome, your participation is very much welcome. It's getting late where I am, so I bid you goodnight and happy editing! ^Atsme 📣 📧 02:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep the two articles, unmerged. It has been proposed twice already (in 2012 and 2018) to merge the two articles and on both occasions the consensus was against it. Furthermore, following a remark by Sweetpool50 in the 2018 discussion, SNAAAAKE!!, who performed today what he euphemized as "a quick merge" against the consensus, even said to Sweetpool50, "Honestly you might be right". In spite of his agreement with Sweetpool50, SNAAAAKE!! contradicted himself by unilaterally performing today's merger without consensus. This violation of Wikipedia procedure should not have been done. If anything should be merged, then logically, it should be the merging of Circe in the arts and Circe in popular culture. — O'Dea (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I changed my mind completely again, this is all a single subject through the eras. It was always "in the arts", Homer is "arts", it's a fictional character. (The only not "in the arts" content out there is a single paragraph about fanciful claims of a Roman family.) Go and look at the article right now and compare to what it was, and again consider practically no one was ever even seeing the split article (this is important) despite it being better written and better referenced than this one. And popular culture is "trivia" by Wikipedia standards, very often removed (deleted, not split) from various articles altogether. (I too actually deleted it as trivia from various articles, but now I'm having second thoughts about it and I'm open for restoring them if done properly, for example posted Talk:Mordred#Modern works after deleting it from the article and left a hidden note for people to edit it on talk page:[1]). And as for Sweetpool confused reverts: [2] was the subject of the "#Possible editing mistake" below, but stayed for 3 months until I fixed it. -SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment

Quoting SNAAAAKE!!: this is all a single subject through the eras. It was always "in the arts", Homer is "arts", it's a fictional character.

Reply: Circe was not a fictional character in the sense of Molly Bloom in Joyce's novel Ulysses – she was a goddess, comparable in her cultural role in Ancient Greece to Jesus in Christianity or Ganesh in Hinduism. As art has been inspired by biblical stories, so it has been inspired by the Greek pantheon. There is a clear distinction between a historical or mythological character and the art inspired by that character. There is also a clear distinction between a character from religion or myth and a character in imaginative fiction. Circe is in no way a creation of fictional art, even if we agree she never existed. She is a figure from myth, a different thing altogether. As for Homer, he was not "arts" – Homer was a writer – he actually existed. He was not created as a fictional character. — O'Dea (talk)

OK, prove it. Go and edit the article to provide the evidence of the cult of Circe. And of course Homer did exist, as the author of "the arts". Btw, as for the real world "not in the arts" stuff, https://www.newsweek.com/italian-towns-battle-over-odysseus-224062 is for modern claims to be her island (Ponza, Mount Circeo, San Felice Circeo). The guy cited in the article claims she might have been the same as the Roman Venus, but neither Circe nor Venus (mythology) mentions anything of that sort. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply: Hi SNAAAAKE!!. I found your comment (07:49, 13 March 2019) puzzling, and I don't understand what point(s) you're trying to make. Firstly, was your comment directed at me? Secondly, what are you asking me to prove? That Circe was a goddess? Well, that is how she is described in the first sentence of the Circle article — as a goddess and daughter of the god Helios. You have contributed 113 edits to the article without raising doubts about her status, so I am confused why you ask me to prove that she was one. Thirdly, I simply have no idea why you're talking about Ponza, Mount Circeo, and San Felice Circeo, nor the relevance of those places to the question of merging the article. I don't know what to make of your comment nor how to respond to it. — O'Dea (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, O'Dea. Text can be tricky because it lacks the important human elements of tone, gesturing and facial expression. When I read SNAAAAKE!!'s comment, it was more like, ok, if that truly is the case, provide the RS that support your position and we'll go from there, more or less, but then I'm the one who gets criticized for lacking brevity and when I shorten my thought, it doesn't always come across quite as intended. I may be wrong, but I'm of the mind that, while his reply is somewhat ambiguous, the crux of the issue lies in how a particular story/author has portrayed her. It is clear to me that Circe's persona is not consistently that of goddess, but probably not to the degree that Merlin was not depicted as one of the gods. Let's stay on point and discuss the change(s) being proposed and if there is a specific objection to the way SNAAAAKE!! has defined Circe in the lead, or is there an issue elsewhere with what is written in the article? ^Atsme 📣 📧 16:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Circe might be well regarded as a goddess, but "in the arts" - in the text of this article. As in, within (for example) Odyssey, which is a poem, which is a form of "the arts". Outside of "the arts", there's no trace in the entire article of any information of her being worshiped by anyone ever. See: #Here's entirity of the "not in the arts" version. Read the article that I gave you to read and you didn't: https://www.newsweek.com/italian-towns-battle-over-odysseus-224062 (to repeat: "The guy cited in the article claims she might have been the same as the Roman Venus, but neither Circe nor Venus (mythology) mentions anything of that sort.") Also I guess I'll give you this link & this one (featuring Mount Circeo, as "the relevance of those places to the question" that you failed to understand after not reading what I've given you to read) so you might write a proper mythology / real-world history article and then move all the arts" (including Homer) to "in the arts". Merlin: he was actually depicted as half-demon (Christian mythology). --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Check it out now. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The point is not about whether work has been done on either article but whether the move disrupts the balance of this article here. That would concern both the former Circe in the arts article and the present article about the mythological figure and you did not bother to establish whether there was agreement on this Talk page. I suggest you take a look at WP:CONCENSUS and follow the advice there to take this to administrators and get a special and wider discussion page set up BEFORE taking unilateral action. SNAAKE will do himself no favours with administrators when it is brought to their attention if he continues to defy procedures. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Almost everything here is "in the arts" expect parts. Including Homer, and everything else. It's just absurd and also misleading to divide between "in the arts" and "in the arts, but not in the arts, somehow".

Here's entirity of the "not in the arts" version

Circe (/ˈsɜːrsi/; Ancient Greek: Κίρκη Kírkē pronounced [kírkɛː]) is a goddess of magic or sometimes a nymph, enchantress or sorceress in Greek mythology.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1.72.5) cites Xenagoras, the 2nd-century BC historian, as claiming that Odysseus and Circe had three sons: Rhomus, Anteias, and Ardeias, who respectively founded three cities called by their names: Rome, Antium, and Ardea.

The gens Mamilia – described by Titus Livius as one of the most distinguished families of Latium – claimed descent from Mamilia, a granddaughter of Odysseus and Circe through Telegonus. One of the most well known of them was Octavius Mamilius (died 498 BC), princeps of Tusculum and son-in-law of Lucius Tarquinius Superbus the seventh and last king of Rome.

• Linnaeus named a genus of the Venus clams (Veneridae) after Circe in 1778 (species Circe scripta (Linnaeus, 1758) and others).
• Her name has been given to 34 Circe, a large, dark main-belt asteroid first sighted in 1855.
• There are a variety of chess variants named Circe in which captured pieces are reborn on their starting positions. The rules for this were formulated in 1968.
• The Circe Effect, coined by the enzymologist William Jencks, refers to a scenario where an enzyme lures its substrate towards it through electrostatic forces exhibited by the enzyme molecule before transforming it into a product. Where this takes place, the catalytic velocity (rate of reaction) of the enzyme may be significantly faster than that of others.

In later Christian opinion, Circe was an abominable witch using miraculous powers to evil ends. When the existence of witches came to be questioned, she was reinterpreted as a depressive suffering from delusions.

In botany, the Circaea are plants belonging to the enchanter's nightshade genus. The name was given by botanists in the late 16th century in the belief that this was the herb used by Circe to charm Odysseus' companions. Medical historians have speculated that the transformation to pigs was not intended literally but refers to anticholinergic intoxication with the plant Datura stramonium. Symptoms include amnesia, hallucinations, and delusions. The description of "moly" fits the snowdrop, a flower that contains galantamine, which is a long lasting anticholinesterase and can therefore counteract anticholinergics that are introduced to the body after it has been consumed.

References

Everything else is "in the arts". --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

In terms of content, I agree: this should be one (this) page, and you merged them nicely. However, in terms of wikirules, I think you would be much better off by doing one of three things: (a) just keeping 2nd page as is - who cares?, (b) nominating second page for deletion as a content fork, or (c) starting merging thread or an RfC on this page. If I cared, I would did (b). My very best wishes (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Why?. Are you saying that enzymology is not science? Scientific interpretations of what? Of the goddess? My very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It's about attempts to explain the myth's story using science. It was already here, I only edited it a bit. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

When I first saw the change to "In science", it seemed an appropriate segue from "In popular culture. After the title was reverted, I went back and studied the contents of the section, and now see that "Scientific interpretations" may be better as it relates to interpretations but it still falls short. The 1st paragraph states "In later Christian opinion" which is not science whereas the later reinterpretation leaves us wondering who made such an interpretation. The next paragraph begins "In botany..." which aligns more with nomenclature rather than science itself. ^Atsme 👩‍💻 📧 22:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@SNAAAAKE!!. OK, now I see that it was about a scientific explanation based on this source, for example. Fine. Happy editing! Beware of WP:OWN though. My very best wishes (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Circe in the Arts Needs Heavy Editing

I just went through the Circe in the Arts section and found it a minefield of tendentious claims, unsupported assumptions, and cloudy statements. For example, 'By the 19th century, Circe was ceasing to be a mythical figure.' This statement is senseless on any number of levels. How does a mythical figure cease being a mythical figure? Perhaps if that mythical figure is completely forgotten, you could claim it ceases being a mythical figure. Or if the mythic figure became an actual person, like Peter Pan turning into a real boy? It just doesn't make any sense. The entire section is chock full of bewildering statements like the above. RobotBoy66 (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Possible editing mistake

Just noticed that two paragraphs are repeated word-for-word in 'Medieval and modern literature' and 'Artistic representations.' Surely some of this could be removed? Thanks, Hajnalka (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Y Done. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 10:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A claim

In "Classical Literature" it says that "Some say Circe was exiled to the (fictitious) solitary island of Aeaea by her subjects and her father Helios for killing her husband, the prince of Colchis" but it has no source and I cannot find where this is from, or any mention of exile really. Does anyone know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deiadameian (talk • contribs) 06:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Homer's Odyssey

In the section 'Homer's Odyssey', the first section begins, 'In Homer's Odyssey, an 8th-century BC sequel to his Trojan War epic Iliad...' Leaving aside the odd anachronism of a 'sequel', the fact is, even if someone named Homer sang the Odyssey for a scribe to record (as Homer, if he existed, was certainly illiterate), that Homer was certainly not also the author of the 'Odyssey'. The existence of Homer is a long debated issue but as the entry for the Odyssey states, 'contemporary scholarship predominantly assumes that the Iliad and the Odyssey were composed independently, and the stories themselves formed as part of a long oral tradition.' Thus, that opening sentence needs to be altered. RobotBoy66 (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of help.

Huge swaths of this article are not written in an encyclopedic style. There multiples sections of this article that consist of editorializing and critical analysis separated by paragraphs long sections of speculation and personal interpretations of the artistic depictions of the figures depicted on various different archaeological artifacts. That's about where the contributor writes a first person perspective sentence to expressly express that he is stating an opinion before he expresses it.

I can tell this page needs a complete overhaul, but I'm note sure how to begin because it seems like a large undertaking. I would like to fix this article, but I could use some guidance. Smokesignal11 (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Anything in particular to fix? What do you suggest? Deiadameian (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we have a standard that not only North American pronunciation is rendered in IPA, but also British-Australian-New Zealand one?

No one in Australia and New Zealand and no person speaking BBC and other standard English English(es) pronounces the "r" in Circe, yet this is not rendered in the purported IPA. This is not just impolite but inaccurate.

I do understand people who edit articles can choose the spelling (which most Unitedstatesians do not respect when editing texts written in British orthography, anyway, so they leave behind a mishmash or simply edit all original British-Australian-Canadian-etc orthography to their own US based), but if you are purporting to give an IPA of the way something is pronounced in English, give it in all its variations.

Ta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.79.9 (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)