# Talk:Philomela

I read this in another site of internet. "The Olympic Gods transformed Prokne into a swallow, Philomela into a nightingale (birds that remain silent except during spring) and Tereus into a flesh eating hawk." But the article says another thing. Who are right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.113.193 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 5 September 2004

Hi. I've always read/been told that Procne turns into a swallow, and Philomela into a nightingale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.66.169 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 16 February 2006
Related to the above note, the page for Hoopoe says that Terseus was turned into a hoopoe, but this page does not mention this as a possibility. Any thoughts? --Chinawhitecotton 00:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was reading through Charles Martin's translation of Metamorphosis (2005) and he does not translate within the text, specifically, whether one nor the other was transformed into the nightingale or the house sparrow, though, in his note, he makes the link between Procne and the nightingale quite clear.  Then again, in John Kerrigan's article, "Milton and the Nightingale," he suggests that there is sufficient ambiguity within the text that more traditional sources, such as Pliny, could also be considered as referentially factual.  It seems pretty safe that a reference to either Procne or Philomela is a reference to the nightingale, though, since no one is really ever interested in a house swallow, anyway... least of all Milton.  Just some thoughts.  This1trik4u 08:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with the etymology: Philomela is a transliteration and the claim about thousands of years of storytellers mistakenly attributing the origin as "lover of song" is based upon a single 19th century source. the "Mela" of Philomela comes from the greek character eta, not alpha. thus making the word correctly "song" not "sheep" or "fruit" http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2008.01.0474:book=9:chapter=451&highlight=*filomh%2Flh  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminfreyart (talk • contribs) 21:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC) 

From Encyclopedia Mythica [1]: "Before the chase could end, all three were turned into birds--Tereus into a hoopoe, Procne into a swallow, and Philomela into a nightingale. (Hence the nightingale is often called a "Philomel" in poetry.)"  
This is consistent with what the Wikipedia article says: "The names 'Procne' and 'Philomela' are sometimes used in literature to refer to a nightingale, though only the latter is mythologically correct. Philomela can also be poetically abbreviated to 'Philomel.' "
See also the comment at the bottom of the Nightingale page  [2] at the web site "The Birds of Shakespeare."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.148.33.33 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 15 April 2006
I'd agree. Philomela became the nightingale (according to Brewsters Dictionary of Phrase and Fable) and Procne became the swallow.
(SallyQ)

It's a tough call to say either way.  As I noted in my comment above, both are still being debated--kind of inactively, actually.  Suffice it to say that an oral tradition of over thousands of years long have seen both Procne and Philomela as the nightingale (one the nightingale in one version and the swallow in another).  It would be presumptuous of us to suggest that one was one thing and not another when the plurality of stories proves otherwise.  In this case, it hardly seems accurate to decide one way or another.  It doesn't make the Wiki Entry any easier to write/understand, but that's how it appears to be at the moment. This1trik4u 08:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You need to take a look at Sophocles' Electra, where quite a lot of time is spent talking about the "child-killing nightingale" (which can only be Procne). As to the swallow, it is not voiceless (as Hesiod knew - W&D 568), so it might be wise to search for a voiceless bird that might fit the bill, which the nightingale clearly doesn't.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.52.105 (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 

I suggest that Tereus, etc., article be merged with Philomela. AFAIK, Tereus himself is only notable for raping Philomela; he is otherwise unnotable, and giving him a separate article just results in repetition -- of course, calling the article Philomela makes the assumption that Philomela is the central character in the myth, and Procne, Tereus and Itlus secondary -- an assumption I myself share,  and an assumption which can be supported by the literature, but which nonetheless others may disagree with -- and thus, maybe the title should be something like Philomela, Procne, Tereus and Itlus? For none of these deserve separate articles.
The useless repetition of separate articles also also results in incorrect statements being added. For example, the statement in Tereus that Philomela as the nightingale is mythologically incorrect. The truth of the matter, which the article Philomela correctly refers to, is that the mythological sources are inconsistent as to who becomes which bird, although without doubt the identification of Philomela with the nightingale has been the most productive in Western literature. However, if we had just merged the articles together, the incorrectness of the statement in Tereus would have been plainer, and it would likely have not survived so long. --SJK 03:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
However, there should be redirects on all of the deleted articles to the Philomela if the merge takes place. I myself just looked up Itys and the information was usefull.

I think User:Pairadox was too hasty to delete the content on the Tereus article and redirect here instead. There hasn't been any discussion about this for more than 6 months and the article has developed a bit since then: it had seven Interwikilinks, 1 1/2 dozen links from other pages, and the Category:Fictional rapists. The links show the interest in this character, disputing the above assertion of unnotability. If the guy is notable for only one thing (the rape of his wife's sister and his subsequent treatment by the women), that left enough of an impression in Western mythology to warrant his own article. Also, the removal of the article on Tereus himself removed his entry in Category:Fictional rapists - which can hardly be applied to Philomela's article.
I suggest to undo the Redirect on Tereus and discussing it on Talk:Tereus. Michael Bednarek 01:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Rather than spread this discussion across three talk pages(!), please direct all comments to Talk:Tereus. Pairadox 02:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 Fixed - talk page moved to catch up with article. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philomela/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 04:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I will be reviewing this article.  --Cerebellum (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Good job with this article!  A delightful collection of allusions from a broad range of literature - I learned a lot.  My main concern is that the reference style makes some of your statements look like original research.  Here are a few issues I noticed:

Variations on the myth: The first two paragraphs don't seemed to be backed up by anything except Pope's notes to the Odyssey, which appears to speak only to the information on Eustathius.  Are there other sources on this?
Tereus: The paragraph on Tereus' transformation references only two primary sources, so I'm not sure where the information about "a number of retellings and other works" inlcuding a hoopoe comes from.  Similarly, the statement in the next paragraph that, "many later sources omit the Tereus' tongue-cutting mutilation of Philomela altogether" seems like original research.
Nymph's Reply: It is not obvious (to me, at least) that the Philomela reference here is being used to relay consolation, so a source to substantiate this interpretation would be helpful.
Shakespeare: The information on Shakepeare is cited only to a contemporary's poem.
Coleridge: The idea that Coleridge tried "to move away from associations that the nightingale's song was one of melancholy and identified it with the joyous experience of nature" is no doubt true, but as an opinion it should be cited.
Translation: This is unrelated, but you say what translation the quote of Philomela's speech is from? It couldn't tell from the citation given.
I hate to nitpick such an impressive work of scholarship, but things that are obvious to you are not to me and other readers, so more references are needed to avoid the appearance of original research.  Those are the only real problems I saw, though.  The prose is good, the images are awesome, and the breadth of coverage is astounding.  I'm placing the article on hold for seven days, and I'll promote as soon as those issues are fixed.  --Cerebellum (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Cerebellum, for taking the time to review the article.  I'll had a chance to briefly look over your concerns raised above and I'm sure in a day or two the citation issues will be remedied. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
UPDATE: I believe that tonight I have addressed the citation issues raised above, regarding Variations, Tereus, Nymph, Shakespeare, Coleridge, and Translation. Are there any issues that you see still unaddressed? --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Awesome, great job!  I am happy to pass this as a GA.  --Cerebellum (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

considering that one of the basic points of the article—that the early sources did not make Philomela the nightingale and it's only a later association—is stated but then completely ignored by the rest of the article. Her role as the nightingale (lead) is not "generally depicted" in myth; it's only done so in modern retellings and allusions. The entire section on the appearance of the nightingale from Homer to Virgil is completely aside the point: they did not consider that bird to have any association with Philomela at all and this is an article on her, not nightingales in popular culture.
Even the statement of the basic truth is done badly: Ovid did not make Philomela the nightingale; he's just ambiguous concerning who became what. Moreover the article misstates that Since Ovid's Metamorphoses, it has been generally accepted that Procne was transformed into a nightingale, and Philomela into a swallow while the exact reverse is true.
Maybe things have changed over the past few years, but the current shape of the article isn't even uninformative. It's baldly incorrect and covering that up with misread, misquoted, or misinformed sources. — LlywelynII 00:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's the diff between January 2013, when GA was awarded, and now. As can be seen, the names have been swapped in the sentence starting with "Since Ovid's Metamorphoses, it has been generally accepted that …", so changing that back might be a first step. -- Michael Bednarek (talk)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Philomela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807181158/http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~mmagouli/defmyth.htm to http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~mmagouli/defmyth.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)