Talk:Eris (mythology)

Eris of Zeus and Hera?

This article states that "the other strife" is "probably" daughter of Zeus and Hera. Is Carlos Parada the only source for this claim? I'm having difficulty getting the referenced "Genealogical Guide to Greek Mytholog" in my area, so I can't seek out his reasonings for this assumption. However, on Parada's more recent "Greek Mythology Link" he makes no claim that Hera and Zeus are Eris's parents, only that her sister might be Ares.

Furthermore in the Iliad Ares is referred to as "comrade sister" of Eris. This might well be a simple reference to the fact they're both deities of war. Not necessarily that they are siblings.

The basis in Hesiod's writings saying that there is not one strife alone may very well be more symbolical rather than considered a fact of lineage. It's also written in Works and Days rather than in Theogony, where you have to consider the context differently/appropriately.

I'm just wondering if the current presumption in the article is not jumping the gun a bit on the matter. Horkosianist (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

You have a point. You can look also in "Eris in Euripides" and "Toward a Semantics of Ancient Conflict: Eris in the "Iliad"". Have you tried looking for info in the Wikipedia library? Thinker78 (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Horkosianist: Thinker78 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I've looked into the Wikipedia library before, I just don't have the necessary requirements to use it (yet). Thanks for the references though, I'll attempt to look into them. Horkosianist (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

References

"discordiansm" subsectgion in "Cultural influences

WP:UNDUE: This article is about Greek goddess, not about its discordian version, which is already covered in two other large pages. Putting the same text into the third page is an unnecessary WP:FORK. - Altenmann >talk 21:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Modern mythology is still mythology, and Discordia (a Latin name for this goddess) redirects here, so the inclusion is appropriate. You can wait until I am done working on it and start and RfC if you like. Skyerise (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, every subject has a separate article. Greek Eris is not the same as discordian Eris. If you want to detail the latter, please write Eris (discordianism). - Altenmann >talk 21:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not true. All I need is a source that says that Discordians are invoking the Greek goddess Eris in modern times. Which will be relatively easy to do. You claim they are separate: then the burden is on you to provide a source to that effect. Skyerise (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

You get it upside down. It is you are claiming they are the same. Borrowed name does not mean anything. We have plenty of things with the same name. - Altenmann >talk 21:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The lead clearly states that this was a "personification" of Chaos, not a goddess with temples. Personifications may be used by subsequent cultures in ways the more formal deities are not. If two cultures choose to personify the same concept under the same name, precisely what, pray tell, distinguishes them? Skyerise (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, I invite you to try to get Ishtar, a Babylonian goddess, split from Inanna, the Sumerian original. Like Eris and Discordia, they are considered virtually indistinguishable. Skyerise (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise: is Discordianism and the Principia Discordia meant to be satire? If this is true, then would that mean there is no real religion involved? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: two religious studies scholars are cited in the section to the effect that it is no longer considered parody but currently considered a religion or new religious movement. More details on that can be found at Discordianism § Religious studies, including the fact that the founders came to believe in it themselves. Besides the works cited there, that article has several religious studies books in further reading that also treat the theology of Discordianism seriously. There is also documented evidence that many of its followers take it seriously and object to it being classified as parody, see Religion and the Internet § Virtual religion. Skyerise (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise: OK thanks. This is pretty much what I have been learning about this topic. I admit it is interesting. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

And sorry about the clown show remark. I was a little hot under the collar at the time. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology: that's "clown show with sources" to you. Lol! Skyerise (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Daughter of Zeus and Hera

There was recently a discussion at Talk:Hera as to whether or not line 4.441 of the Iliad implies that Eris is the daughter of Zeus and Hera. Since then, the statement has been added back, here and at that page, [1][2] with Robert E. Bell's Women of Classical Mythology used as a source (and with Carlos Parada's Genealogical Guide to Greek Mythology also being added here, afterwards).

This is the relevant passage from the Iliad:

Revised version of Murray's translation: And the Trojans were urged on by Ares, and the Achaeans by flashing-eyed Athene, and Terror, and Rout, and Strife who rages incessantly, sister and comrade of man-slaying Ares

West's Greek: ὦρσε δὲ τοὺς μὲν Ἄρης, τοὺς δὲ γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη Δεῖμός τ᾽ ἠδὲ Φόβος καὶ Ἔρις ἄμοτον μεμαυῖα, Ἄρεος ἀνδροφόνοιο κασιγνήτη ἑτάρη τε,

In Bell's entry on Eris, he states that:

She was the sister of Ares, therefore a daughter of Zeus and Hera.

I can't quite see the relevant part of Parada's book in Google Books, but I assume he has "Zeus •• Hera" with the relevant passage cited below.

Here are some other sources on these lines:

Kirk, on lines 440–441: They [ie. Eris, Phobos, and Deimos] are not fully personified, and have few characteristics beyond what is implied by their names. At her most concrete Eris is depicted on the Shield of Akhilleus as associated with Ker, Doom, in dragging wounded men and corpses about the battlefield (18.535-7), or imagined as rejoicing among the fighting at 11.73 [...] At 13.299 Phobos is his son, here Eris is his sister – she has to be feminine because of the gender of the common noun she represents, and is promoted to Ares' own generation to compensate for that, in a purely ad hoc description like Hesiod's of her as a child of Night at Theog. 225.

Coray, Krieter-Spiro, and Visser, in the "Basel Commentary", on line 441: 2nd VH ≈ 24.793. — The verse was originally missing from cod. T (written in 1059 CE) and was added by a later hand; in cod. R (12th cent.), it is missing altogether, see app. crit. in West. The reason is apparently the unusual gen. form Ἄρεος rather than Ἄρηος (likewise at 19.47, Od. 8.267, 3× ‘Hes.’ Sc.; on the forms, Kirk on 440–441, end, and G 53) in combination with the anomalous genealogy (Eris as a sister of Ares). The combination of κασιγνητ- and ἑτα(ι)ρ- occurs only here and at Od. 21.216 (Τηλεμάχου ἑτάρω τε κασιγνήτω, i.e. κασίγνητος not used in a genealogical sense), also Il. 24.793 in a list (κασίγνητοί θ’ ἕταροί τε).

Giroux, in the LIMC: [Mentions her as his sister earlier in the article, citing this passage, then, in discussing her role in the Iliad, he uses quote marks around "brother":] Dans l'Iliade, lors du premier affrontement général ntre les armées grecque et troyenne, E. conduit Parmée grecque en compagnie d’Athena, de Deimos et de Phobos pendant que son «frére» Arés conduit l'armée troyenne.

Nünlist: ... in allegorical genealogy interpreted as sister of Ares (Hom. Il. 4,441) or as daughter of Nyx (Hes. Theog. 224ff., together with other negative ‘abstracta’).

Gantz: By contrast, Eris (Strife) is largely just a personification of her name (see, e.g., Il 4.440–43), but ...

Some sources (eg. Brown) do also state the siblinghood without qualification. Quite how we should treat the matter in this article (and at Hera) I'm unsure, though, to me, the above sources seem to paint a more complex picture than that presented by Bell. (I'd also note that I think Bell – and also Parada, for that matter – probably don't represent leading scholars in the field, so I would defer to the above-quoted sources where possible). At a minimum, I don't think the claim should be in the infobox at either page, where it is presented without context or qualification. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes I more or less agree with your assessment. And yes Parada, after listing Nix as her mother, citing Hesiod, lists Zeus and Hera as parents citing the Iliad passage. My feeling, for what it's worth (i.e. not much) is that the Iliad passage is really just saying poetically that war and strife are related, but I'm not an expert here. I agree that neither Bell or Parada are "leading" scholars, but they are probably good enough for our purposes. Ultimately it's our editorial judgement guided by WP:DUE. I would also like to to hear what Deiadameian has to say. Paul August ☎ 19:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

My opinion is that more or less all (credible) readings should be represented, or at least get a mention in the respective articles. There's always a thin line when it comes to deification, personification and allegory but this should not be examined in absolute binary "either this or that" terms; furthermore wikipedia isn't a strictly theological depository. It's an encyclopedia. I don't think we should cherry-pick the information we include (ie the readings that are to our liking) and exclude everything that clashes with our preferences, because this feels very antithetical to wikipedia's purpose. If certain interpretations have Eris as child of Zeus and/or Hera, they deserve at least a mention. Deiadameian (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we are all in basic agreement with the above. In particular, that the Iliad calls her a sister of Ares should (as it has been) be in the article. And that some have inferred from this that she must have been the daughter of Zeus and Hera should also be mentioned (as the article now does—although it seems to me that all that can be legitimately inferred is that she was the daughter of one of the two, but not necessarily both). And of course we should not cherry-pick the information we include (ie the readings that are to our liking) and exclude everything that clashes with our preferences (and the qualms being expressed here have nothing to do with personal preference) But, of course, we do have to use our editor judgement—as required by WP:DUE—which is inherent in the phrase more or less all (credible) readings. And MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that the purpose of an Infobox is to summarize the key facts from the article, which again requires editorial judgement. In my view, Eris being the daughter of Zeus and Hera is probably not a "key fact". Paul August ☎ 10:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Deiadameian: Sure, I'd concur with those general principles (though I would say that I don't think anyone here's suggesting we remove anything based upon personal preferences). In my view, the framing – at least at Hera – currently is of the "either this or that" variety: the parentage is included in the infobox, and we present the conclusion that Eris is "the daughter of Hera and Zeus in Homer" without qualification. I do think I'd agree with you that the parentage should be included at this page (with the appropriate nuance); while I might protest that Bell and Parada aren't exactly eminent Homericists (and finding a more scholarly source for the claim would of course be ideal), their books do meet the standards of WP:RS, I think. (As to whether it should be included at Hera, I would argue it shouldn't, though that's perhaps a separate issue, and something which should probably be discussed there.)

I'd be interested to hear what you think of the above sources (particularly Kirk, the Basel Commentary, and Giroux), and how you think we should weigh and present their views in this article. As to the infobox, I think there was a consensus in this discussion to only include an identification of two deities in the infobox if that identification was explicitly made in some extant primary source, and I think applying a similar standard for genealogical relationships would probably make sense. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for coming to this discussion after editing the infobox. I'd started by considering parenthesising as "Nyx (or Zeus and Hera)", because there's no suggestion that Eris had all three for parents and the Zeus+Hera parentage is so much more weakly supported. But no, this modern deductive leap doesn't have general consensus in WP:SCHOLARSHIP sources as even a secondary alternative, is specifically discussed and rejected as an appropriate interpretation of that line in the Iliad, and doesn't otherwise reflect attested ancient Greek conceptions of Eris. I agree, it's not a WP:DUE "key fact" for the infobox. NebY (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I included Eris in Hera's infobox because it was tidy and short enough (and also includes Enyo, which is hardly more substantial than Eris, and fairly allegorical herself. In fact Eris and Enyo seem to be identified in some extent, so I thought both would fit) unlike Zeus', whose vast number of children causes too much debate over who should be included. I think part of the problem is how Hera's children section is structured, with a table that doesn't leave much room for interpretations and further explanation. Maybe it would be better if it was short paragraphs instead (after all Hera does not have too many children, so the result would not be a hard-to-navigate page) to add nuance.

I think the scholarly explanation per allegories should be included to provide context for Eris-as-Ares'-sister so readers can have balanced information about Eris' background. At the same time I feel there should not be too much fuss over what is allegorical or not (and in turn, things being deemed 'lesser' if they are allegorical), because a lot of things in Greek myth and religion are; as the sources above say, Phobos and Deimos are themselves allegorical, Terror and Fear, the sons of War and nobody thinks we should nuke their pages. Persephone's myth is allegorical, Zeus (god of rain and father of gods) impregnating many women is (in part) allegorical, Poseidon's temper is allegorical, the cattle of Helios is allegorical etcetera. Deiadameian (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes allegories abound in Greek mythology. But when scholars qualify a genealogy as allegorical (like Nünlist), or ad hoc (like Kirk) it means they think such a distinction is relevant, useful, and significant, not because they think it's "lesser". And they are perhaps warning against drawing the same kind of genealogical conclusions which might be legitimate in some other circumstance. For example, that A is an allegorical sister of B, who is the son of C, does not necessarily imply that A is the daughter of C, either allegorically or otherwise. Paul August ☎ 15:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Further to Paul's comment and going ever so lightly out on a limb: until the fourth century BC, Greeks didn't build altars and temples to allegorical personifications, sacrifice to them, sing hymns to them or otherwise worship or propitiate them – and when they eventually did start putting up statues to Peace and suchlike, that was "more propaganda than religion" (Burkert). In sharp contrast, the Olympian gods and minor gods alike were substantive (radical philosophy aside) and their cults vital; calling them and their actions allegorical misrepresents the Greek religious experience. Of course "the poets, as their formal conventions demand, treat [the personifications] as anthropomorphic beings, in conformity with the grammatical gender of abstract nouns, mostly as young maidens" (Burkert again), and thus we have the OCD beginning Eris with "often personified as a goddess in poetry" - but that's about as far as it goes. NebY (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Without trying to be too pedantic, as I'm only getting further off topic, by "decisive break-through", Burkert is referring specifically to the development of cults to personifications who aren't found in epic poetry (such as personifications of political concepts), as there were personifications (though admittedly not very many) who were worshipped as early as the 6th century BC. Eris falls into the group of personifications found in epic poetry, though she never made it into cult (to our knowledge, at least). I'll add that a few of Burkert's statements, including the "more propaganda than religion" remark, have provoked umbrage from Emma Stafford, in her (important, if not perfect) study of ancient Greek personifications, and probably rightly so. ;) – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Hera's page, converting that table into prose might work, though I would also argue that figures who aren't unambiguously called her offspring in an extant source probably shouldn't be included, which might avoid the issue altogether. (On Enyo in particular, that parentage is unsourced, and I'm reminded of this discussion.) On the second part of your comment: as Paul has expressed above (and as I noted at Talk:Hera), the issue isn't that the genealogical relationship itself (ie., the siblinghood) is "allegorical", but that we're inferring a further genealogical connection on the basis of this relationship. (And if scholars refer to a genealogy in the way they do in the above quotes, they probably have their reasons.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Here's an attempt at a reworking of the passage, taking into consideration the comments of the above scholars (while still trying to maintain fairness towards the interpretation of Bell and Parada):

In Homer's Iliad, Eris is described as the "sister and comrade" of Ares, though according to Geoffrey Kirk she is "not fully personified" here, and this genealogy is a "purely ad hoc description". Some scholars interpret this passage as indicating she is the daughter of Zeus and Hera, Ares' parents.

I've extended the quote to include "comrade" (similarly to Hard, p. 169), because I think this gives a better sense of Homer's passage, and because the Basel Commentary seems to view the juxtaposition of the two terms as significant. I've also given precedence to Kirk, because he (naturally) provides more commentary on the passage than others, and because I think his language is a little more precise. In particular, I think readers could interpret the word "allegorical" in a few ways here: the term has been thrown around a bit in this conversation, and while I have a specific opinion on what Nünlist means by the word (and I think I could make an argument in favour of that view), theoretically, at least, we could mean it the broad sense of the regular English word (ie., something like "symbolically representative"), in the sense of the ancient Greek allegoria, or we could mean something much more specific (such as the way poets used personifications in genealogies). – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I had planned to remove your added explicit mention of Bell and Parada from the text, and instead insert some qualification such as "presumably" into "would make her the daughter of Zeus and Hera", with more nuance added in a note. But your version is much better, and seems just about perfect. (So if you don't just "boldly go" and add this, I will ;-)). I do also think adding "comrade" is useful, and I might also try to find an appropriate place to shoehorn in a cite to Hard, p. 169. Paul August ☎ 14:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Great! Added. I might've done that shoehorning myself, though I notice Hard (and quite why, I'm not sure) chooses to place "comrade" before "sister" in the quote. – Michael Aurel (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Clear and sound - as ever. FWIW, fearing a Genealogical Guide might be rather enthusiastically comprehensive, I spent a little time with an online sample of Parada this morning and wasn't entirely reassured; he doesn't use or discuss secondary sources but the primary sourcing was, at least in the case of Achelous, incomplete. NebY (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I've made extensive use of Parada's book, and to the contrary, I've found it especially accurate and complete. Paul August ☎ 16:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC) P.S. Having written our article on Achelous, I'm very curious what you find as incomplete in Parada's entry?

It's a relief to hear that, thank you! I homed in on Achelous because I remembered your intensive work on that article. Now that you've got me to look again, I see the subscripting's not what I assumed - my bad - but there are still little surprises; he cites Apd.1.7.10, Apd.Ep.7.18 for Melpomene, you give Apollodorus, 1.3.4, E 7.18; Hyginus, Fabulae Theogony.30, 125.13, 141. You include Hesiod, fr. 10.34–45 for Perimede, Hippodamas and Orestes; Parata doesn't. He has Apollodorus for Callirhoe; you add Ovid and Pausanias. NebY (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC) I was really hoping the samples would give me a hint whether Parada might have said why he took κασιγνήτη to mean born of the same mother and father - I wound up guessing not. NebY (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)