# Talk:Amalthea (mythology)

It could be seen as a connection to the norse gods, that Zeus was suckled by a goat and Odin drove around in a cart drawn by goats. Zeus had a son, Herakles or Hercules, that was famous for his strength; and Odin ( or Wodin ) also had a son, Thor, famous for feats of strength. Also of interest is the similarity between the Fates of Ancient Greece and the Norn or Wierd sisters of the Norse. Three sisters for either pantheon.

I just removed a large chunk of the article, mostly dealing with the origins of the Greek deities, saying that they were the deities of the ancestors of the Albanian people, and saying the connections between Amalthea and they would be obvious to a 12 year old. If that section had been better written and with some citations for the information given, i probably wouldn't have deleted it. I did also take issue with the claim that the Greeks were Semitic and the Albanians somehow aren't Indo-European, which most scholars agree to, but I'll leave that aside for now. Ryan 04:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It was written the Greeks disassociated Amalthea from the Unicorn, however Amalthea is identified with the constellation, Capricorn. Capricorn's relation to Virgo, the Virgin, may be related to the medieval symbolism of Unicorn and Virgin. If that is the case, the one-horned Amalthea is connected to the manifestations of the Unicorn, with Amalthea being the Greek's version.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsyfingers (talk • contribs) 04:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 

The Greeks never identified Amalthea with the unicorn (of India), and neither does the Wikipedia article. Medieval associations of the Virgin are related to Virgo, not Capricorn. No "connection" of Amalthea, the goat nymph, with a unicorn, a late arrival in Greek literature, is warranted. This is a good example of why "original research" is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. --Wetman (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You didn't read correctly. I didn't say Amalthea was associated to Virgo. Read again. I said, since Amalthea is related to Capricorn which is astrologically related to Virgo. Then, the medieval Unicorn myth which was developed AFTER the Greeks could have derived from the Capricorn/ Virgo relationship. How could the Greeks relate the Unicorn with Amalthea when it was before their time? That does not prove the Greeks did not have A unicorn (not THE unicorn) identification of Amalthea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsyfingers (talk • contribs) 23:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 

No, Gypsyfingers— and anyone else who may be looking in— Amaltheia is not in fact "identified" or "related" to Capricorn in any way— whatever astrobabble vaguely to that effect may be googled up on the Internet. "Amaltheia was placed amongst the stars as the constellation Capra--the group of stars surrounding Capella on the arm (ôlenê) of Auriga the Charioteer:" thus says dependable Theoi Project (click this link and read up on Amaltheia). Capra simply means "she-goat", "nanny-goat".
So, Capricornus, first, is a male goat, and, second, Capricorn is a sea-goat with the rear end of a fish, retaining to this day the image established in its Babylonian origin. There is no connection in a Greek or Latin literary source or any ritual or inscription to join the two, though Amalthea was in fact "set among the stars".  Whatever "astrological relation" Capricorn might have with Virgo among hobbyists has nothing whatsoever to do with the goat-nymph Amalthea, subject of this article.
Well then, as for Amalthea placed among the stars, the first place one would look for such catasterisms is Hyginus, Poetic Astronomy, isn't that so? Hyginus' passage about Amalthea may be effortlessly checked in this on-line text.
The circularity Amalthea "relates to" Capricorn "relates to" Virgo "relates to" medieval Virgin  "relates to" Unicorn "relates to" Amalthea— whether or not that's being suggested at the opening of this thread above— is just gabble-gabble.
Unicorns are not part of any Greek mythology whatsoever: they are legendary figments of Hellenistic (that's post-Alexander) natural history, and in that way turn up mentioned in Pliny. Quite another ball game played in another ballpark.--Wetman (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced the former misleading text with a new section "Amalthea placed among the stars" supported by a quote from Hyginus. --Wetman (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a friendly suggestion.  Perhaps there should be a header for "Amalthea" in popular culture.  Amalthea is the name of the Unicorn in the movie "The Last Unicorn". Noblenutria (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amalthea (mythology)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Michael Aurel (talk · contribs) 09:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: XabqEfdg (talk · contribs) 11:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Lead:

the figure most commonly described This confused me at first; it is clear later on, when Amalthea is not being introduced, but here it seems like Amalthea might be a figure who is described in other ways.
This sentence is a little tricky. Our source (Kerenyi) only makes the weaker claim that she is "the being most frequently named as Zeus's nurse", rather than that she is his nurse in most sources. I've changed this to the figure most commonly identified as the nurse of, though I'm unsure whether this make a difference. The trouble here is that "the" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, as the sentence's meaning entirely changes if it's replaced. Do also let me know if you think there's room here for the reader to come away from the first sentence with the misapprehension that she is a medical nurse – if so, we might need to link to nanny. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not sure there is a good solution here. Your new text seems better, but neither is fully unambiguous. I think there are other solutions that are a bit clearer (e.g., "Amalthea is the figure with whom the nurse of Zeus in his infancy is most commonly identified"), but these are ugly. As it is, the sentence is clear enough that it satisfies GA criteria 1a.  XabqEfdg (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think either solution is very satisfactory. Taking into consideration the point you made (it seems like Amalthea might be a figure who is described in other ways), I think this rewording could work better:
In Greek mythology, Amalthea or Amaltheia is a nurse of the infant Zeus. She is described either as a nymph who raises the child on the milk of a goat, or, in some versions from the Hellenistic period onwards, as the goat itself. Throughout accounts of Zeus's upbringing, she is the figure most commonly named as his nurse.
One trouble with this is it might be too close to Kerenyi's wording (though I can't think of a rephrasing which would be quite as unambiguous). – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
I think that what is in the article now is good enough. It is important that she is not just the infant Zeus's nurse, but the one most commonly mentioned as such, and so it seems that should be stated early. However, that rewording is unambiguous and probably just as acceptable. Regarding close paraphrasing, it would likely fall under WP:LIMITED. XabqEfdg (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
I think I agree with all of that. Calling her "a" nurse fails to make clear that she's by far the most important such figure (the only one who really comes close is Adrasteia), but calling her "the" nurse implies that she's the only one, which isn't the case in a number of accounts. This'll clearly all need some careful thought later down the line, but I'll leave things as they are for now. Michael Aurel (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
As early as the archaic period ... This sentence seems to fit better with the third paragraph than the second.
Hmm, this is following the structure of the article ("Horn of Amalthea", followed by "Nurse of Zeus", and then "Merging of traditions"), and I think it makes sense to mirror that here. The hope is that the reader identifies that the two strands mentioned at the beginning of the third paragraph (the tale of Zeus's upbringing and that of the magical horn) were those discussed in the second paragraph. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. XabqEfdg (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Why does the Eumolpia not get a date, but the other texts do?
I was a little concerned someone might read it as a date for when Musaeus "lived". Added as In a narrative attributed to the mythical poet Musaeus, and likely dating to the 4th century BC or earlier, which hopefully avoids this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
This structure makes it very clear that Musaeus is mythical, and that "dating" modifies the narrative, not Musaeus. XabqEfdg (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
In the version of Zeus's childhood ... The last two sentences of this paragraph do not seem to be connected to the rest.
I think the problem here was that you're expecting this sentence to also be about the merging of the two traditions, but you realise a phrase or two in that it isn't. I've reworked things a little, and started the sentence with Another version of Zeus's childhood is found in, which perhaps differentiates the contents of this sentence enough to prepare the reader for the switch. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I think that should be fine. It is difficult to summarize an article with many significant ideas in only four paragraphs. XabqEfdg (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Etymology and origins:

these are dismissed tense: were dismissed
Fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
suggests ditto.
Fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
ἀμαλός perhaps add a translation, as with ἀμαλθεύειν
Done, for ἀμαλός and ἀμάλη. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
was found in a fragment of Sophocles ... refuting It is not immediately clear to me why this discovery refutes Gruppe's theory.
It was previously only known in very late sources (Byzantine lexicons and the like), so its discovery in writings from the 5th century BC indicates it was already in use prior to most of the sources on Amalthea. Rephrasing to thought by Otto Gruppe in 1906 to derive from Amalthea's name, was found in a fragment, published a year later, from the writings of the 5th-century BC tragedian Sophocles, refuting Gruppe's proposal, which possibly solves this? – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense, and adding the date makes the sentence somewhat clearer. Could the sentence be broken up to allow a short explanation? XabqEfdg (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
That works. I've specified the sources which were previously its only attestation, including dates for them, and I think the hope would be that the reader picks up on the chronological disparity. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Mythology:

According to Apollodorus Consider adding a note to indicate that this is the author of the Bibliotheca (or mention the text itself).
Rephrased to According to the Bibliotheca of Apollodorus. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
It was, but I think you removed it again here. XabqEfdg (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Oops, so I did. Reinstated. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Pherecydes, who described the horn's ability ... Why is his description of this ability particularly significant?
It indicates that in the version known to Pherecydes, in which Amalthea owned the horn, it had these abilities. All of the earlier sources of course don't mention this, so it's difficult to know how it was conceived of prior to Pherecydes, and surviving contemporary accounts, such as that from Pindar, aren't explicit about its abilities I don't believe. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Thessalian Perhaps add a link to Ancient Thessaly.
Certainly, done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
now-lost (both instances) The hyphen is unnecessary.
Removed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
In Hesiod's Theogony ...  The part of the sentence which is relevant to Amalthea (that Hesiod's Theogony does not mention her) seems to have already been stated above. Why is there more detail on his story of Zeus here?
I was somewhat unsure whether we should assume the reader's familiarity with the standard account – for example, perhaps they would be perplexed that women are so frequently carrying him to various locations as a newborn? Some degree of familiarity with the standard version is also needed for the beginning of paragraph on the Fabulae's account: his elder siblings are seemingly not swallowed, though Rhea still gives Cronus a stone in place of Zeus, which he consumes. That said, I dislike diverting the reader's attention to a account which doesn't mention Amalthea in a paragraph on her role as a nurse, so I've moved the information into note 78, at the point where we mention the divergent version in the Fabulae – this assumes the reader is familiar with the standard version, though gives an explanation for those who aren't. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
This is reasonable solution. I think some background knowledge can be assumed, and the article is still clear. Perhaps add a link to the first instance of Rhea and indicate that she is his mother. XabqEfdg (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Certainly, done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
nursed by the nymph Adrasteia To nurse a baby is to feed it, so it is confusing to say that he is also fed the milk of Amalthea. I think "cared for by" or "tended by" is more appropriate.
Rephrased to where he is reared by the nymph Adrasteia. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
appears to identify Kidd (in his commentary on line 163), Chrysanthou and Mair & Mair all state that he does identify it with Amalthea. Why is there doubt here?
This was because he doesn't explicitly identify the two (ie., he doesn't mention Amalthea by name), though this is probably already evident from the following phrase, so I think it was unneeded caution – changed to He identifies this goat with Amalthea. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
arm ōlénē (ὠλένη) Is it possible to put both the Greek and its romanization in brackets?
Definitely, done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
an action which, in the Catasterismi, the god would have performed for her role in his defeat of the Titans Why would Zeus have done this in the Catasterismi specifically?
Hmm, I may not entirely understand the question, but, by "Pseudo-Eratosthenes", we are referring to a summary of the Catasterismi. The summary here sort of falls off at the end of the account, and scholars interpret this confused bit at the end as a statement that Zeus places her in the stars, and they infer what Zeus's motives would have been in the original text. This was all a bit opaque, though, and wouldn't have made sense unless the reader remembered the relationship between "Pseudo-Eratosthenes" and the Catasterismi from the beginning of section. Rephrased to Pseudo-Eratosthenes, in his summary of the Catasterismi, appears to state at the end of his account (after Zeus uses the skin of Amalthea's goat against the Titans) that Zeus places the goat among the stars, an action which, in the Catasterismi, the god would have performed for her role in his defeat of the Titans., which potentially solves the issue. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I think your original phrasing was fine (I don't think you should repeat that Pseudo-Eratosthenes was writing a summary). My confusion was about the word "would"; I did not understand that the summary was incomplete. The note actually makes everything clear, so I apologize for my oversight. XabqEfdg (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. The word "appears" is troublesome here I think. I've rephrased to: At the end of the account given by Pseudo-Eratosthenes, the text contains a lacuna (or gap), where he would have described Zeus placing the goat among the stars, ... – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
aition consider adding short description of the word, e.g., "aition, or origin myth".
Done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
where he is suckled by a she-goat If this is the same goat mentioned earlier, it seems appropriate to use the definite article.
Done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
which he elegantly intertwines Unfortunately, I think "elegantly" violates WP:PEACOCK. Maybe quote, e.g., "with 'elegant interplay'" (J. F. Miller, p. 222)?
Rephrased to which he intertwines in an episode characterised by John Miller as a "miniature masterpiece". – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter, but before this change Miller was named in full and thereafter referred to by only his last name, but now he is fully named twice. XabqEfdg (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Though Ovid's Fasti is the first source Suggest "first known source"
Certainly, done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
which scholars have interpreted as It is a bit of a pain, but this statement seems to suggest a consensus, which, per WP:RS/AC, requires a source directly that such a consensus exists.
Good catch. Rephrased to which M. L. West interprets as referring to Amalthea. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
A minor point, and not part of the GA criteria: per Wikipedia:Sea of Blue, one should avoid placing two links next to each other, as in Orphic Rhapsodies and Neoplatonist Hermias
Changed to "Orphic Rhapsodies" and "Neoplatonist philosopher Hermias". – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
In addition, the version ... "In addition" does not seem necessary here.
Fixed. (Bad writing habits...) – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
After the account of Jupiter's upbringing in the De astronomia, the work states for clarity, consider "Hyginus states".
Rephrased per below, though I haven't used "Hyginus", as we haven't (outside of a note) actually specified that he is the author of the work. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
while Nonnus ... I do not see the contrast implied by "while" (and the events are not contemporaneous!).
"while" wasn't great, as there wasn't really a contrast there. The link between the two is an association with Pan, as Aegipan is sometimes a name for Pan (or his son in some sources, I believe). I've added a translation of Aegipan's name, which perhaps makes the connection a bit more obvious without straying into WP:SYNTH territory, meaning we have: The De astronomia, after its account of Jupiter's upbringing, states that, alongside Jupiter, the goat Amalthea also raises Aegipan ('Goat-Pan'),[32] and Nonnus, a 5th-century AD Greek writer, describes Pan as the shepherd of the goat Amalthea. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah, sorry for missing the connection. XabqEfdg (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Iconography:

evidence for Amalthea's horn having been needs to be rephrased or changed to "horn's".
Hmm, I must admit that I don't see the issue in that sentence (or how that solution would work). Could you explicate? – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
It's just a small grammatical point. Here, "having been" is a gerund, and so the noun that precedes it should be possessive. See Fowler on "Fused Participles". I was going to suggest making the change you made ("evidence that ..."), but you seem to have reverted yourself. XabqEfdg (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
That all makes perfect sense (not sure how I didn't see what you were saying, in fact). Rephrased to evidence that Amalthea's horn may have been part of the myth. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Notes and references (as of [1]):

25: strictly only supports Apollodorus's confusion
Ah, so it does. I've rephrased this sentence to In Apollodorus's account, Amalthea's horn is that of a bull (an element also mentioned by the 4th-to-3rd-century BC poet Philemon),[24] seemingly a result of confusion with the bull's horn of Achelous,[25] while in other versions of the myth, told by Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC) and Strabo (1st century BC/AD), the horn of Amalthea is identified with that of Achelous., which perhaps solves this (though it may be riding the line a little). – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
This fixes the issue I had (I don't think what you wrote contains anything uncited), and I think the text reads well. Why is Apollodorus not given a date the first time he is mentioned? XabqEfdg (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I think this would work fine either way, though my preference would tend to be that, when an author is transmitting information in a fragment of an earlier author, we give the date just of the earlier author (unless the earlier author's date is unknown, or the date of the author transmitting the information is significant, such as if it suggests they should be distrusted due to being late). The sentence on Pherecydes could be reworded to not mention Apollodorus, and would still work fine (we only need to mention this to give context for what Apollodorus himself says below). – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Your preference seems very reasonable. I don't think the sentence needs rewording. XabqEfdg (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
49: cites Kidd's commentary for line 156 on page 240, but I cannot see anything relevant there
I suspect this should have been 157, but on a second reading of the relevant passage (The Goat also became identified with the mythical Amalthea (see 163)) I'm not actually sure whether Kidd is referring to Aratus here – he may be referring to the other sources quoted in his commentary to line 163 – and he isn't explicit in his commentary to 163. In any case, Chrysanthou and Mair & Mair suffice here, so I've removed the citation. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Images are relevant, appropriately licensed, and informatively captioned. I found no copyvios. This seems to be a very well researched article. XabqEfdg (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your well-reasoned and thoughtful review, XabqEfdg. With the exception of one or two of your replies, I think I've responded to all of your suggestions. Do also feel free to push back on any of the above points. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I think we are almost done. I will do a final check when I have a bit more time time later today, but everything looks good to me. XabqEfdg (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Excellent, I think I've touched on everything now. Looking forward to any final thoughts. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Just a few final points:
In the lead:

Aratus ... seemingly identifies The corresponding statement in the body has been changed.
Fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Roman Empire This is linked in the body, and so should probably be linked here (or not at all).
Linked. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Mythology:

reclaimed .. obtains These should have the same tense.
Now "obtained". – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
describe that Consider a word like "state" as an alternative for describe; I think "describe that" is not quite right.
Opted for "relate that". – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Amalthea, which he associates From the context it seems that "which" refers to Amalthea, but it could refer to the horn.
I think the "which" should indicate that it's the object (ie., the horn), but rephrased for clarity. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
his mother Rhea Repeated identification as his mother
I had done this in case someone hadn't read the earlier part, or couldn't remember her identity, but probably the repetition isn't needed – removed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Iconography:

from during I think this can be changed to just "from".
Certainly, done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Notes and references:

12: I think this should be p. 314, not 340
Oops, yes of course. Fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
21, 36, 95: Just out of curiosity, since these notes are perfectly acceptable: Is there any reason they use the harvtxt template instead of the harvnb template, producing a link that includes a bracket?
Fragments (the link is to a bit of an explanation on the topic I wrote a while ago) tend to be ordered in different ways in different editions. That is, while "Apollodorus, 1.4.1" will always refer to the same passage no matter the edition or translation (it would be acceptable to cite the passage as "Apollodorus, 1.4.1", as that's unambiguous, I just tend to include a translation), for fragments, "Hellanicus, fr. 14" might refer to the 14th fragment in, for example, Karl Wilhelm Ludwig Müller's FHG, or Felix Jacoby's FGrHist, or another more recent edition, all of which could be different passages. So, standard practice tends to be to include an identifier after the fragment number, often the name of the author of the edition (eg., "Musaeus, fr. 84 III Bernabé" or "Pherecydes, fr. 42 Fowler" in the article), or some sort of standard abbreviation (eg., "Sophocles, fr. 95 TrGF" or "Anacreon, fr. 361 PMG"). In our article, I've then put whatever added information is needed to identify the source into brackets. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thank you for explaining. XabqEfdg (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
36: I think this is missing a closing square bracket.
Well spotted, fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
XabqEfdg (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

All points have been addressed, so I am passing now. Thank you for your patience. This is a really nice article. If you are taking it to FAC, I would recommend getting a review from a subject-matter expert, but I think this certainly satisfies the GA criteria. XabqEfdg (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Great, and thanks for your collegiality here. I found your review very helpful and thorough. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)