Talk:Boast of Cassiopeia

Origins of the myth

The section suggesting that the myth originated via the constellations should, I think, be deleted. Besides being an over-simplification of the complexities of mythology, it is wrong. Astrology, though which mythological significance might be applied to the stars, did not arrive in Greece until the 4th c. BC, hundreds of years after the principle formation of the myth. Therefore, the constellations could not have been the foundation of the myth, but are instead an aftereffect of it, a novel way of using the myth at a later time.--MS

There's no evidence for the arrival of astrology in Greece. Astrology is very ancient and the Greeks are not likely not to have known about it. The possibility of mythic elements based on the stars is real and should be included as one theory.Dave 19:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mythical significance came before "astrology" (i.e. predicting the future from the stars + pre-astronomy - predicting the future of the stars). Constellation based myths exist in many cultures prior to astrology ever existing. Astrology is quite a different topic, it discusses what the stars mean for the future. The mythology is about what happened in the past, and what the stars are. People have been calling the constellation Orion a giant human/god in many many cultures vastly prior to the introduction of astrology. They have done this because it is an obvious similarity to make. Astrology is not required for people to go "oh that looks like a giant man" or "oh that looks like a woman on a throne", or "oh that looks like a woman chained up". They can, and do, make these observations by simply looking. It is not true to say that before astrology no-one ever looked at the stars and said they looked like anything. In the same way, people say clouds resemble shapes. It is not required for cloudology (prediction of the future via clouds) to exist before people can make the observation. ~~~~ 08:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The distinction you are trying to make escapes me. As for the origin of either astrology or mythology, you are oversimplifying and speculating.Dave 19:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've been using "astrology" too loosely, (wrongly) incorporating star related legends/myths into my usage of it. However, the same criticism generally holds for these as well; Morford and Lenardon, in their book "Classical Mythology" note, "Astral legends are an aspect of Alexandrianism [post-Alexander Greece, and elsewhere], and genuinely early Greek astral myths are rare" (545). While Morford and Lenardon do say that astral legends in pre-Alexander Greek Mythology are rare, they can be found. The example they give is that of Orion. So you're right in that respect. However, this does not answer whether or not Cassiopeia, or the other myths exist simply as an explanation of the stars; whether or not they are astral legends, for which I would like some better proof as they are pretty well tied into a very complex and ancient set of myths that are not simply astral myths. But even assuming they are astral myths the implication (given by the article) that the constellations were invented first and that the myths explain the scene they form is purely conjecture, overly simple, and makes an untenable and unnecessary causal assumption, and their being astral myths (if indeed they are) might better be explained. --MS

The probelm with trying to date astral myths or any myths that we do not know were devised by a specific author is that they came from oral tradition and who can date that? There are a lot of opinions in this field. Just because someone wrote one in a book doesn't make it "authoritative". It is just grist for the mill. The better article would include different possibilities. This isn't science. It is art.Dave 19:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Stand-alone Myth

Cassiopeia is a stand-alone myth. It isn't tied into a very complex + ancient set of myths. Its a really quite loose extra. Just like the greek story of Orion. Its almost completely independant. As are the labours of herakles (although there are many extensive herakles legends, there is very little dependance between them and the tale of the labours). It starts as astral myth and gets fleshed out as the centuries wear on. Myths don't come from nowhere. Beginnings are always "overly" simple, centuries of history subject them to chinese whispers, extra detail, etc. Its like crop circles - a simple thing that becomes rapidly more elaborate as people get interested in it, gaining background and extra myth, that was never really there originally. See Professor Allan Chapman (Royal Astronomical Society), a specialist historian in this area, at Oxford University. ~~~~ 23:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Cassiopeia isn't a stand alone myth... in the article itself you (I guess I'm assuming you wrote it, I haven't checked) point to its connection with a broader mythic cycle, the myths surrounding Perseus, Andromeda, several of the gods, Pegasus the Gorgons, etc; each of which has its own back stories, family lines (both descent and progeny--in this case leading to Herakles and others), and tangent myths. If that isn't a complex set of connections, I don't know what is. And, at any rate, this just misdirects away from the real problem at hand. By simply acting like I don't know anything about this, you evade actually answering what ought to be relatively simple: just give evidence that Cassiopeia is originally an astral myth (and citing one author's entire oeuvre doesn't help, if only because it doesn't give any specific answers, but also because, as you have phrased it, his work would seem to investigate myth formation in and of itself, rather than what is really at stake in this argument.) That is, whether or not we can so simply pin down the origins of the Cassiopiea myth to astronomical phenomena and whether or not the article should be changed, and to what extent, in order to meet what we know of the subject.--MS

Cassiopeia is the only myth involving Andromeda - she is part of the myth, and of no other. Perseus is the stock hero of the group who had the Cassiopeia myth, and has no connection to the myth other than being the necessary hero - it is attributed to him, simply because he is the group's standard hero. Mythical family lines are almost always a later invention - they don't appear in the early forms of the myth, for example - usually for the purpose of tying one group to another - this is particularly noticable in the case of Herakles being inserted into the Jason mythos - Herakles is from the mythos of the invaders of the Peloponnese, and Jason from that of the pre existing inhabitants. There are no tangent myths. There are other myths involving Herakles, but he is a stock hero, and they are not tangents, but independant myths where the generic "hero" is replaced with "herakles" simply because that is who the hero of the original group using the myths is. We are discussing myth formation, so I fail to see how Professor Chapman is not extremely important here. ~~~~ 08:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

So, your essential argument here is that all myths must be independent, stand-alone myths whose apparent connections are simply illusory, insignificant. While I agree that myths change over time, that for instance various groups insert their heroes in to older, foreign stories (with Herakles taking on aspects of the Jason myths, just as Theseus later takes on parts of the Herakles mythos), you denigrate and underestimate the cultural significance of these figures by reducing them to simply generic terms. For the Greeks, Herakles is the son of god (the chief god at any rate) and as such a powerful cultural icon; that he is in so many myths attests to his importance and the importance of the tight integration of myths within the mythic system. You claim that family lines are "almost always a later invention"; fair enough, the lines of descent we've received are almost certainly a later development, but then again, so is everything we've received as the earliest writers on the subject (Homer and Hesiod) are in possession of fully fleshed out mythic systems, and these systems are what we have to go on and can't be dismissed. At any rate, though the names occassionaly change and the stories are shuffled a bit, it is absurd to think that myths are simply "independent", that there are no tangents; a myth must be integrated (through familial descent, tangential myths, contact with other characters) into a mythic system, or else it lacks significance as a myth. Thus characters and gods from other cultures become integrated into another mythic system (Dionysus becomes the son of Zeus), but this should not be construed as saying that Dionysus is an insignificant, stand-alone myth, as he was--presumably--fully integrated into another system before being borrowed and fully integrated into the Greek system. However, it is precisely this movement and development of the mythic system that is impossible to ascertain for certain since we lack written sources prior to Homer and Hesiod (and a few linear b inscriptions that, in the end, are only slightly helpful), and must conjecture based upon linguistic and archaeological evidence that is unclear at best. But all of this is ultimately besides the point, as what is at stake here is simply whether or not Cassiopeia is originally an astral myth. I have provided evidence putting this in doubt. All you need to do is provide specific, citable evidence to the contrary.--MS

Actually, if you look at Hesiod and Homer, you will see quite different mythological systems to the ones of classical Helenism. Many of the gods change functions, some gods are missing, and others are present as significant deities, that later become only minor. About 50% of the mythological system they describe is the common one from Proto-Indo-European religion (if that link doesn't work, Ive typed it wrong - try going via PIE), which was already well established, but did not include Herakles. Herakles came from the mythos of the Dorians. The Jason myth came from another group (I've forgotten the name, although it might be the Achaeans (note this term also had a generic "the greeks" usage), but basically the group that was in the Peloponnese before the Dorians invaded). Likewise Perseus, and Theseus are from seperate groups. When the greeks became one cultural group rather than many (admittedly the Dorians remained viewed with slight suspicion), so these myth-systems merged together, and all the groups held them, thus causing their identities to be blurred, being involved in each other's myths, and their original origin being somewhat lost. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with practically everything in that post; though, I don't think anything I've written has disputed any of that. (Well, that was unexpectedly not longwinded of me).--MS

Well, all these theories of you contributors are very interesting, but it is all speculation and all very subjective. It sounds like the material for your different papers interpreting the myths. I'm not sure if it has any bearing of the presentation of the myths as they appear in the sources. If you were going to write the myths, then you might devise some such scheme. That is not what is happening, though. The topic is not mythology according to MS or someone else. We are relating myths from ancient sources, I believe. Stop me if I'm wrong.

Constellations

If the text relating the four constellations to the myth is not deleted, then shouldn't Perseus be added as a fifth? It lies next to the constellations Andromeda and Cassiopeia. Wdfarmer 20:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

A common human trait is to categorize things in black-and-white, either-or terms. Perhaps useful in simple situations, more complex questions require more sophisticated answers.

At issue is whether (1) the myths are stories based on pre-existant constellations or (2) the constellations were formed to illustrate the pre-existant myths. The reality is that cause and effect moved in both directions via feedback. The myths helped define the constellations, but the physical facts of the sky gave rise to details in the myths. This is particularly evident in the Perseus-Andromeda complex.

These constellations are involved here:

1. Perseus
2. Andromeda
3. Cepheus
4. Cassiopeia
5. Cetus
6. Pegasus

Of these the only one whose stick-figure outline really suggests the traditional shape is Pegasus, which is only peripherally connected to the myth. Cetus is a shapeless anything, Cepheus looks like the short side of a barn or a misproportioned baseball home plate, and Cassiopeia, of course, looks like the letter "W." Andromeda vaguely resembles a "woman in chains," but only after one has been told about it. As for Perseus, well, he is the central character in the myth, but the constellation does not particularly suggest a human figure. Still, it is easy to see that this constellation, and particularly β Persei, got things going.

However the constellation Perseus was formed in the first place, it is apparent that the mythic connection between Perseus and Medusa came from the constellation. It makes no sense to believe that this part of the myth existed, and then the ancients shopped around for an oddball star to create the constellation around. It is clear that after Perseus was formed, the variability of Algol gave rise to the notion that the hero was holding something fairly horrible in his hand.

Once Perseus was set, the next group of stars over was considered to be his girlfriend. The extention of the line of stars forming her girdle was seen as chains. Whether there already existed a homilitic tale warning of the dire consequences of boasting is unknown, but it is not unlikely, and probably Andromeda came to a bad end in the original. The vague arrangements of nearby stars were then given the names of the other dramatis personnae in the expanded myth. Pegasus, associated with the Bellerophon myth (another cautionary tale about pride), was finally connected to the Perseus cycle due to its position near the other characters' constellations.

As we have seen, there was a back-and-forth development between the constellations and the myths. Some parts of the Andromeda myth existed before the constellations, but the constellations influenced the final, complete form of the tale. For the purposes of this article, the last point is determinant. The short answer is that the constellations (as finally formed) gave rise to the myth (as finally formed). Although without the qualifications, that is how it is stated in the article, and that is how it should remain.

Regarding a point raised in the first comment — Andromeda's origin was in the Levant, not Greece, and the dates of the association between the myth and the constellation should take that into account. B00P 18:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Another associated constellation may be Pisces, representing two fish caught by the fisherman Dictys who rescued Perseus and his mother Danae and fostered Perseus on Seriphos. Anthony Appleyard 19:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I mistrust trying to present anything ancient according to some current scheme. I don't see the myths as bearing the stamp of any one unifying mind. I question whether there was an ancient "star scheme".Dave 19:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Andromeda

It's been suggested that Andromeda be merged with this article (effectively, swallowing the Andromeda article into this one). I oppose this. The attempted sacrifice of Andromeda started with the Boast of Cassopeia, but after she was rescued, she went on to lead her own life, totally seperate from the boast. If anything, this Boast article should be merged into Andromeda. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:34, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Boast of Cassiopeia should be merged into Andromeda (mythology). --Puzzlet Chung 03:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Her life after the rescue is "she had some children - X, Y, and Z". That really isn't very extensive. It's tying up lose ends - "and she lived happily ever after" ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Andromeda is still a more pertinent link than Boast of Cassiopeia. Besides, that is all Wikipedia currently mentions about her. It's possible that she figured into mythology a great deal more than the article states. That being the case, she deserves her own entry. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that she doesn't. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 01:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

-Ril- is right, except for being the wife of Perseus and mother of his children (whose progeny are important), Andromeda doesn't really have any significance beyond her mother's boast and Perseus saving her.--MS

Andromeda article should stay on its own. There is a separate Andromeda article in the Britannica 1911. Also, there is Clash of the Titans that has link to Andromeda - Vald 11:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

We can fix the Clash of the Titans link like this Andromeda, or by merely redirecting it. Britannica 1911 is a paper encyclopedia, so it doesn't enjoy these abilities. Any other reason to keep them seperate? --Victim of signature fascism 23:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the two articles shouldn't be merged together. Even though Andromeda was only on the rock in the first place because of Cassiopeia's boast, more happened afterward, as I noticed someone else mentioned. Also, I am a young student, (9th grade) and when looking for information on Andromeda, I would expect the title of the article to be "Andromeda." So,if I wasn't as aquainted with this myth, I would not have known Andromeda has anything to do with Cassiopeia. Which would cause me to look elsewhere for the information. It would be helpful for such artcles to be kept separated.163.6.254.140 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Jessica Potter

Of course they should be merged. The "and she lived happily ever after" remark made above is exactly on target. However, it is this article which should be merged into the one on Andromeda. The articles, "Cassiopeia," "Cephus," and "Cetus" (as myths) should all redirect to Andromeda. B00P 18:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If there is to be a merge, Andromeda (mythology) should be the target. — ciphergoth 08:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Link not Merge

Wikipedia's approach to presentation, which, though determined by limitations of the media, is quite a good one, is to offer a large number of smaller-sized articles tied together with hypertext links. A given topic thus is not limited by size nor does it tire the reader with more material than he wanted to read. We don't need to merge the articles. Andromeda and Cassiopeia are different people. The main objection is that some of the Andromeda myth is redundant. Stop me if I am wrong, but is not the Wikipedia solution to put it in one place only and link it from the other?

You might argue that if you take the material out of one place, not enough would remain in the article. I would like to say this. There is a lot more to be said about either character. Those articles are only works in progress. If you merge them now, you might end up separating them later.

It has been suggested above that they should or should not be together because they do or do not conform to some scheme, which I have tried to answer above. All that is strictly speculative. There was orginally no scheme, or perhaps were many schemes. We are better off sticking to the sources, which so far do not even appear in the articles. If we can do that, we can beat Britannica, which is written by experts who do not allow us to read our own Bibles, so to speak. They don't hang us up in sources, but then, they don't say too much, either.Dave 19:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Put all information on the Perseis and Andromeda story here. Let the pages for each of its characters point here. Anthony Appleyard 18:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

another merge

this topic is almost indentical to "Cassiopeia (mythology)" so those two should be merged, or one deleted.

Ethiopia

The article states: The story is set in the royal household of Aethiopia (not to be confused with Ethiopia, the modern name of Axum), but the link for Aethiopia leads to Ethiopia. Anyone care to elaborate? --Spiggot 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Translations of the names

King Cepheus (Greek for gardener), and queen Cassiopeia (Greek for cassia juice), had promised their daughter Andromeda (Greek for ruler of men) to the nobleman Phineus.

This is inaccurate:-

• In Greek, "garden" is κηπος, not κηφος.
• Cassiopeia in Greek is Κασσιεπεια = "excelling-words-female = "she whose words excel", ref. boasting
• Andromeda is Greek for "man-wise".

Anthony Appleyard 07:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)