Jump to content

Talk:Pandora

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paul August (talk | contribs) at 10:25, 22 March 2021 (→Josef Abel Painting Title and subject). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 20, 2008Peer reviewReviewed

text missing

What happened to the body text? --Yellowdartjosh

The body of the text? I don't understand. 75.48.26.44 (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

endnotes issue

The endnotes don't work. They seem to be out of order. --Seaj11

If you have more than one text by the same author, each endnote needs to specify which text it is. Specifically, West has two books cited. Endnote 20 is from Works and Days, not Theogony. --129.252.70.40 (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text

Removed the part about resemblance between Eve and Pandora because there was no citation for that statement. I think if we were to discuss that, it merits a larger discussion. Anybody want to take this upon themselves? --Seaj11

What! no citation for Eve also being the first woman? --Wetman 04:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This part: "Possibly the similarities have something to do with the aggresive shift away from matricarchy, a defining feature of Indo-European invasion in Neolithic Europe." Not the part about Eve being similar to Pandora.--Seaj11 12:39, 27 October 2006

Removed "but Hope has a great deal of catching up to do" as that seems to be more of an editorial comment. --Tarpy 03:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear

I read this article in trying to learn about Pandora for the first time, but even after several times of reading, I don't quite understand the relationship between Pandora and the box. It could of course be just me, but I wanted to mentioned here anyway, so that in case other people have the same comment, then one should consider clearifying of the article.

What was left in the box (good/evil)

The description of the Pandora's Box legend indicates that she kept hope trapped inside the box, and therefore humanity still has hope, and then goes on to say that this doesn't make sense. In the version I recall hearing, the one misfortune which Pandora managed to keep trapped was foreknowledge, and this is why humanity still has hope; they don't know the future, and therefore can still dream to change it for the better. Does this jive with any source material on the actual legend? Bryan

One thing seems to be missing - the fact that only evils were in the box. No one seems to realize that hope or foreknowledge is an evil and not what most people seem to think it is.
I remember "foreknowledge" being the last evil trapped inside. If man knew our own future we would have nothing to live for or hope for, etc. -- goatasaur 08:13 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)
Is Hope an evil or a benefit for mankind? In the version I read in public school (circa 1960 California) Hope was the last to fly away because it was sickly. Pandora nursed it back to health as a kind of pennance for releasing the evils. This telling raises two questions. One-why was Hope in a jar full of evils and two-why was it sick? One answer to both questions comes from realising that Hope is both good and evil. Good because it helps mankind persevere and trimuph in the face of evil and evil, because it is the thing that can move us along an ultimately useless path from which we would otherwise had the foresight to abandon. The evils beat it up because it was half good but could not kill it because it was half one of them.Bozoz 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too remember it being "foreknowledge" left in the box. The evils were released out into the world when she opened the box and could never be put back in. They were things like death, sickness, famine, etc. Pandora slammed the box shut once she realized what was happening, but by that time almost everything had gotten out. She only managed to stop one evil from getting out of the box: foreknowledge. The happy(ish) spin on this was that even though she accidentally forever introduced death and famine and every other bad thing mankind has to deal with to the world, at least she didn't let foreknowledge out of the box and into the world. Because it stayed in the box, man has no knowledge of the future. And it's because mankind has no knowledge of the future that hope is possible; if we knew what was going to happen in advance, there could literally be no hope. Hope is a concept that needs "possibility" and foreknowledge implies certainty. Anyway, so my point is that logically, it couldn't be "hope" in the box. This has to be a bad translation. If hope was still left in the box we wouldn't have hope. I'm in the middle of doing some research on this and will report back once I find some better sources. I found a few "teach your kids mythology"-type books that tell it the way I remember, but I'm still looking for some more academic sources. --Jrussellsimmons (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This translation by Glenn W. Most, from 2007, uses the word "anticipation" and notes that it is "Often translated “Hope”; but the Greek word can mean anticipation of bad as well as of good things."[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.182.240 (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While not usable in the article the Haunted Junction anime goes the "foreknowledge" still in the box route. As one of the characters points out 'How could something in a box give people hope?'--216.218.97.10 (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.loebclassics.com/view/hesiod-works_days/2007/pb_LCL057.95.xml

Inconsistency-box from Hermes/Zeus

The article (under 'Legend') first states that Pandora received the box from Hermes, later it mentions that she got it from Zeus. Which is true?? Quote: -Hermes, along with giving her cunning, boldness and charm, then gave Pandora a box. -Epimetheus told Pandora never to open the box she had received from Zeus.

I did a Latin translation of Pandora. In the story, all of the evils of the world flew out of the box, except for hope. Which Pandora retained so that man can alwasy call upon it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.138.25 (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creation

Is it me or this is a ripoff of the creation story?

Which creation story do you mean, Mayan, Christian, Zoroastrian, Japanese, Australian Aboriginal? - Len
It is very likely that the person above does not realize that Greek mythology is much older than Christian mythology. TCorp 16:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. It is very likely to me that the people above what they're doing. Anyway, it shows a similar origin, hence, if the same Story happened to everyone, wouldn't different cultures adapt it to its version of the creation story-line? For example, different people in different countries might tell the Revolutionary War in different ways, depending on who's perspective its being told from. --208.127.64.127 19:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um Christianity is NOT a mytH! IF YOU THINK IT IS THEN TRY AND DISPROVE IT BY READING THE BIBLE! ENJOY!!!

You're so wrong, man! It's Greek "mythology" that's not a myth! PROVE ME WRONG!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.145.125 (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so you want to be proven wrong by reading the bible. how about we just set the book down and use your head. there are over 20 storys of a "jesus" that happened before jesus. if you dont believe me look it up. and many other stories that were "made up" before the bible was written. christians get so offended when people say something different from what they believe. but the facts are right in front of you. if you want to know more about the other 20 something stories watch the movie "religilous" with bill mahr. keep an open mind about it and listen to what he says. if you dont believe anything he says then you are just like everyone who doesnt believe a single word of the bible. which just so happens to be the top seller in the fiction section in my eyes. just a really great seller. sincerely, bill

Pandora and Pandora's Box

Pandora has no mythic existence apart from Pandora's box. There is no box separate from Pandora. Separating these as two articles isn't useful. Can we merge them? --Wetman 03:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've put merge tabs on. --Wetman 05:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not an idea that exactly set everyone on fire, it appears. Well, moving in the other direction, then, shall I start the article Lid of Pandora's Jar?--Wetman 04:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pandora does have an existence outside of the box. Look at the Theogony. As the first woman she curses mankind, and is Zeus' revenge for Prometheus taking back fire. No mention of the box. 207.118.142.98 01:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Allusions

Not sure if this belongs here, but the '80s band Orchestral Manoevres in the Dark had a song called Pandora's Box that is basically homage to the actress Louise Brooks who became a star due to the film version of Pandora's Box.

I got one too: the puzzle box from the Hellraiser movies is pretty similar to a Pandora's Box. Pinhead tries to tempt people to open the box because it will make their dreams come true ("You know where you are? You are on the door to dreams."). In fact, the box will transfer the user to the world of sadomasochistic pleasure of Pinhead and his Cenobites. A quote from the Hellraiser wiki-article: "But too late, he realizes that the Cenobites' idea of sensuality may not be perfectly aligned with that of mortals, and that he has instead condemned himself to an eternity of torture." The puzzle box from the Hellraiser series also has it's own article on Wikipedia since it is a new, and somewhat different kind of box than the Pandora's box. But if you ask me, it's pretty similar and probably inspired on the ancient tale of the Pandora's Box. After all, again it's curiosity that will do the trick, and again the box something else than what it promised. Anyway, I added this to the list of Cultural Alusions, but if anyone objects I'm sure I'll hear fromthem ;) (RagingR2 12:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

What was in Pandora's "box" (really "jar")

Will someone please tell me what exactly is Pandora's box?

It's in the article. "However, one day, Pandora's curiosity got the better of her and she opened it, releasing all the misfortunes of mankind (plague, sorrow, poverty, crime, etc.). Once opened, she shut it in time to keep one thing in the box: hope ..." --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 02:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although, it is by extrapolation and inference. The source text of Hesiod's Works and Days, the original source for the story, does not say what was in and released from the jar. Confer M.L. West's translation and commentary of Works and Days. Hesiod's text only says that Hope was left in the jar Pandora opened. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 06:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hope, "She ramained under the lip of the jar". Difficult to realise Hesiod's imagery if the jar was a box..., just as difficult to imagine if the jar was of a typical pithos shape. Under the lip suggests an inward facing overhanging lip as found on pointed base pyxis of the protogeometric period. Atypical Scot (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Headline text

inside her box were things that could ruin the world && so when she opened the box all the bad things came out like jelousy and envey and stuff like that but too things stayed in the box and they were hope and kindness!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.221.224 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jar vs. Box

It seems to me that this article considers what Pandora received and opened to be a box and then argues that this box may actually be a jar. We know, however, from the original source that it was a jar. Thus, in the earlier section on the legend, "box" should be changed to "jar" and the commentary should mention that jar has been mistranslated to box rather than noting that the box may really be a jar. Perhaps the article is fine as it stands, but that's what I thought on reading it. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Makeemlighter 19:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's in the "Commentary" section that no one has bothered to clean up. Why waste time with statements attributed to "Some"?"Some interpret the tale of Pandora's Box to show that Early Greeks imagined woman to be created by the Gods as evil on the inside and beautiful on the outside in order to make men miserable. Various feminist scholars believe..." Get the drift? --Wetman 05:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "The myth according to Hesiod" section is inconsistent in whether the box/jar is referred to as a jar or a box, even after declaring that it was actually a jar.

Also... the article explains the box/jar thing three separate times. --74.75.145.125 04:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, box wasn´t a mistranlation a couple of centuries ago. It´s just that eventually people started to think of the term 'box' meaning something different, something more edgy and rectangular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.52.175 (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

question on reference listed

I'm doing some research on Pandora's box, specifically the hope within as pertains to religion and mythology. In the references section at the bottom of the article the ninth reference listed is: God Of War " Pandora's Box Holding The Power To Become A God"

Unfortunately this reference is the only one not linked and I can't find any book, article, journal, essay, etc. under this title Any information on what this refers to would be wonderful! Thanks

Passion->suffering?

Under the lists of evils that were released is "Passion" though it was linked to suffering. Is it supposed to be suffering or does the original text indicate passion with intent of referring to suffering? --Forgottenlord 03:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of passio is a Christian usage. There is no mention of "passion" among the human ills released by Pandora.--Wetman 09:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read at top of page someone was confused how both Zues and Hermes gave Pandora the box/jar. Hermes was the messenger god so... more then likely Zues gave it to Hermes to give to Pandora. peace robb.

Where did the "cultural allusions" section go?

Last time I checked this article there was a pretty rich list of cultural references related to Pandora and her box. Does anyone why this section was deleted? Personally I felt it was particularly useful for this article, and interesting to read too. (RagingR2 15:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Anastacia

I'm pretty sure Anastacia is not british —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.217.139 (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed content from Prometheus Article

From the article Prometheus:

"Pandora, in other stories, was said to be the root of evil, knowing what was in the box when Zeus gave it to her, and opened it anyway. In some stories, she was simply a woman with an insatiable amount of curiosity. Zeus gave her the box, told her not to open it, but curiosity got the better of her, and she opened it anyway, releasing evils upon the world. In almost all Pandora stories, someone //she or Epimetheus// manages to close the box before everything escaped, but in their mourning over what had happened to the world, did not remember to lock the lid, and the last of what was in the box came out. At the bottom of the box, placed there by one of the other goddesses //Either Athena or Hera// was hope. Hope for humanity to hold to when the worst has come to pass."

This section has been removed from the article Prometheus since it does not relate directly to the subject. I thought I'd leave it here for the editors of the article to decide if they would like to use it for the Pandora article. Thanks, --France3470 03:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources presented as "in some stories" never inspire much confidence. More on-topic, the article Epimetheus (mythology) does mention Pandora. No loss to Wikipedia here , IMO. --Wetman 06:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess.

The organization of subsections is odd (and there seems to be some sloppy cross-pollenation happening), and the "Hesiod" section incorporates a lot of post-Hesiodic traditions. I'm gearing up to do some major reconstructive surgery. Also the major issue of the Works & Days account needs to be addressed: is Hope left in the jar good or bad for mankind? Ifnkovhg 08:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now a mess indeed: personal excurses on the "meaning" of Pandora are no substitute for deleted sourced information that has been assembled in this article over the last five years. After this article has been fooled with enough, and the editor has moved on, it will simply have to be reverted and a thoughtful selection made from any sourced statements that have been recently added. This is not how Wikipedia works. Fortunately Wikipedia is transparent and largely self-correcting.--Wetman 02:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman, I didn't mean to step on many toes, but radical reconstructive surgery was required. Look at the page from about 10 days ago. A lot of the stuff was just wrong. I took out some stuff I wrote that was clearly not NPOV (what a stupid I am). But I'm not sure what your problem is with the "interpretation" section is. It doesn't contain "personal excurses," but rather it summarizes the various interpretive camps re: Hope that now exist in Hesiodic scholarship. I don't endorse any of them (although I do note which one seems to be the most popular). I'm sorry if I didn't footnote the sources fast enough. But they're in the References section now.

Now then: I put the following to any and all: the "mistranslation" section and "box" section contain redundant information. One of the erasmus stories has to go. Also, the info in n.23 belongs,I think, in the "Works and Days" section. The Padraic Colum info is problematic in that the footnote, as I read it, contradicts what's in the body of the text -- Colum does not assert that Pandora is the jar at all. Am I allowed to make these changes?

Again, I do apologize for the state(s!) of disarray I left the article in. I want to add a few more footnotes (e.g., in the feminism section), and then I'll be on my merry way. Just trying to help (yeah, so was Hitler). Ifnkovhg 06:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I think was left.

I think hopelessness was the only thing left in the box. That's the one thing that is the worst of all. 71.169.79.238 (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora's husband

who was Pandora's husband?--68.1.154.182 (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always known Pandora to be married to Epimetheus, though this article does not very clearly state this. The Epimetheus article on the other hand, states plainly that: "According to Hesiod, who related the tale twice, (Theogony, 527ff; Works and Days 57ff) Epimetheus and Pandora were married."
The Pandora article doesn't really come to this clear a suggestion. It only states that "Epimetheus did not listen; he accepted Pandora", which is exactly what is said in the three different translations of Hesiod's Works and Days, that I just read through. So here's the question, does 'accepted' in this sense mean the same thing as marriage? If they are indeed the same, wouldn't it be better to use the term 'marriage' over 'accepted' in this article for the sake of being clear?
Also I think we might consider adding this information to the lead and explanding on the importance of their marriage in the myth. Afterall, in Hesiod's Theogony it says that:

Zeus who thunders on high made women to be an evil to mortal men, with a nature to do evil. And he gave them a second evil to be the price for the good they had: whoever avoids marriage and the sorrows that women cause, and will not wed, reaches deadly old age without anyone to tend his years, and though he at least has no lack of livelihood while he lives, yet, when he is dead, his kinsfolk divide his possessions amongst them. And as for the man who chooses the lot of marriage and takes a good wife suited to his mind, evil continually contends with good; for whoever happens to have mischievous children, lives always with unceasing grief in his spirit and heart within him; and this evil cannot be healed (ll. 590-612). [1]

Just some thoughts. Let me know what you think, France3470 (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to realize that there are different versions of the myth in different sources, and to write the article accordingly. Epimetheus doesn't appear in the Pandora story in the Theogony, as far as I remember. To put the marriage into the lead would be privileging the Works and Days over the Theogony, or synthesizing them into a single story; something that we should avoid. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completly agree that the stories shouldn't be combined into a single story. They contain different information and it is imporant to kept them divided into their own sections in the article. The only problem I have with this is how the article seemly contradicts this. In particular, the title "The Hesiodic myth continued" suggests, at least to me, that Works and Days is simply a continuation of Theogony rather then a different retelling. Alas, I've digressed as this is a somewhat separate issue then the one I initially raised about the inclusion/expansion of Pandora's marriage to Epimetheus. I still think it's important, even if it's impossible to put in the lead, to include the word marriage in the appropriate section, which would be Works and Days, I suppose. That is of course if there is agreement over the fact that Works and Days is where this idea of marriage sprang from. France3470 (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The synthesised vita of a mythic figure, assembled by selecting details from sources centuries apart in order to make a credible pseudobiography, is specifically a Christian approach: if Christopher can be given a "biography", why not Pandora? This was Bulfinch's approach and is still taught in parish schools, apparently, for it leaves its mark on many adults' approach to Greek mythology. --Wetman (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored deleted sections concerning "pithos into box" (essential for understanding) and the recently-suppressed feminist readings, which are part of the modern picture. --Wetman (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of which was put into Pandora's box. Please adjust your restoring accordingly. Cburnett (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feminism is more about the woman than the object. I've retitled the section appropriately. Also, the article Pandora's box would be better served as an explanation of the use of the modern phrase, of which the transition is only the initial part. The comparison provided does help the clarity of this article; if Wikipedia proves anything, readers bring their presumptions with them, and they'll want to know why they've been told she has a box instead of a jar all their lives. -Yamara ✉ 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it does not matter

the subject does no matter it start 400 year before christ and has never left sence so here is the will of god that we fin the piece and put back in. so if you read the myth it not a box or jar.it is a humain as they brokend soul that bring to the light. the gift of fire is just i mirage and but protector of pandora. there was a place earth name alantis that disapeare around that time maybe the key why we lost it to the women of temptation. the mother earth the world will not change and of die war and suffering. (the flower) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minor mirror (talk • contribs) 05:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can somebody with authority delete this? Helixer (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

prometheus/hephaistos

The text just below the table of contents Hephaistos moulded Pandora, but didn't Prometheus do that? Philip1201 (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear introduction

In Greek mythology, Pandora (from Greek: Πανδώρα, "giver of all, all-endowed"[1]) was the first woman. Each god helped create her by giving her unique gifts. Zeus offered Hephaestus to marry her (Γαîα -Gaia) as part of the punishment of mankind for Prometheus' theft of the secret of fire, and all the gods joined in offering this "beautiful evil" seductive gifts.

That doesn't make much sense. I guess some text was removed but don't really want to go through the complete history. Maybe someone knowledgeable about the subject can restore this.—Graf Bobby (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info

The article for Epimetheus (mythology), when talking about Pandora's box, says: "Hope [was], a weak creature crushed at the bottom. As evil spread, Hope became stronger and was the only good thing that came from the jar. Pandora released evil onto the world and the will to look beyond it." I think that should be noted in this article. - Shaheenjim (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Interpretation

I was just reading this article for no reason, but as I read about the consternation over the meaning of elpis, I thought to myself, why doesn't the box/jar represent the human? And I went on to say, to myself, that when the evils were inside the jar they could only plague the individual and not the group and that when the evils were released they gained the ability to affect all men. But then the elpis, which I consider to be the expectation of good, was left inside so that man would always be able to conjure up hope inside himself. I don't know if this is correct at all, and I certainly don't know enough about the subject for this statement to be certified, yet I just want to share my idea. Helixer (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Interpretation

When I read it, I had an entirely different meaning for 'jar'. This is a 'Creation of Woman' myth. The jar is her womb. It fits in so many ways. Anatomically, it appears in Greek jar form. From her alternate name, 'gives up from below'. From her womb she brings evil unto the world but what is left there - Hope, the future generations of man. I have not heard this interpretation anywhere else, surely I am not the first to think of it? Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.155.223 (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hesiodic humor

he seems to have had a vicious sense of humor. one hopes his interpreters did as well. +sj +


i don't understand nothing either can you guys make it more standable please! and thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.204.66 (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Perhaps

I don't know...maybe it is just me. But, when the story speaks of hope remaining within the jar, perhaps this is saying something along the lines of "hope will still come, one day". That age-old thought that, no matter how terrible things may get, there is always hope. And hope for a new hope brings it about. (Just a thought...I'm really just blathering on.) Andreravenclaw 7:18, 31 August 2009 (PST)


evils are a two sided coin, hope is left to illustrate this. There's no reason for it other than to illustrate 'a Point'. Any trait could be chosen. Evil is subjective anyway, what may be evil to you may be devine to me. Something as positive as hope, being in a jar of evils, is just there to keep you thinking, there's plenty of specultion, but actually no solution, kind of. see: Zen. A similar ploy was affected by Lacurgius when he wrote the laws of sparta. He had to write the final pivotal law to complete it. And said he needed to travel somewhere to finalise this, and never returned. This is a wise metaphor that recurs in Greek myth. We have figure things out for ourselves, law and spiritualities are merely a guide - fundamentaly theoritical, never literal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.125.125.76 (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

goddess o mischief

the goddess of mischief is pandora, she owned pandoras box that hrl all the evil in the world. wen she opened it all the evil was realed into the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.238.103 (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora in Aristophanes' The Birds

In the section "All-giving Pandora: a mythic inversion," the claim is made that "A scholium to line 971 of Aristophanes' The Birds mentions a cult 'to Pandora, the earth, because she bestows all things necessary for life'." The citation made for this claim is Jeffrey M. Hurwit, "Beautiful Evil: Pandora and the Athena Parthenos" American Journal of Archaeology 99.2 (April 1995: 171–186)

While Aristophanes does mention Pandora in The Birds, and Hurwit's article also mentions this play, he does not actually seem to claim that a scholium such as the one mentioned above exists. I have not read all of the scholia on the play, so I am in no position to delete the claim, but I do call it into question unless someone can back this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.244.112 (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a great article

I did not enjoy reading this article. I think it can and it should be improved. It's not written in a nice way and it requires some work. The "All-giving Pandora: a mythic inversion" is arguably the worst part of the article because it's intricate and unpleasant to read. The "Pandora's relationship to Eve of the Genesis account" section shows references [47] [48] [49] at the end. These should follow the text and not be simply thrown at the end of the section.

ICE77 (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora's relationship to Eve of the Genesis account

I've changed the section on Pandora and Eve. The previous version (which appears to have been substantially the work of 70.88.94.134, although it's hard for me to tell which revisions affected this section) listed three sources, but the text bore no obvious connection to any of them.

I've attempted to summarise the Theology Today article. I am not very happy with it, as I am concerned that what I have written may be a modern interpretation of an ancient text rather than anything the intended audience would have recognised, but I don't know enough about either society to provide the latter.

I haven't included the Tertullian quote, as I found what seems to be a translation of the original document in Logos Virtual Library, and it seems to have been taken out of context in the article. I couldn't see any suggestion that they are similar in a way other than being the first woman in their respective mythologies. He does claim that only one of them was real.

I haven't used the art history article (which places more emphasis on the similarities, but it would be hard to compare the two as it seldom indicates which sources it uses) or the Classical World article (as only the first page is available on-line for free).

I'd appreciate it if someone more familiar with the subject could look at this. I only wrote it because I think the comparison is obvious enough to be worth putting in an encyclopedia, and don't think the existing section shed much light on the subject. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endowing Pandora with curiosity and prohibiting her from opening the jar appears to be a much later embellishment of the Greek myth (perhaps to make the story more Genesis-like). It is also a kinder representation of her that blunts the explicit deceitful characterization by Hesiod. I can't find a source that discusses the origin of this embellishment. Hence, I've inserted the "citation need" tag in the article. Rrwagner59 (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pandora. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Works and Days translation for quotes?

Anyone know what translation of Works and Days is being used in the article for the quotes? Paul August ☎ 09:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora in Theogony?

This article cites Hesiod's Theogony, repeatedly, but Pandora is not in that poem. In Works and Days, the name "Pandora" specifically comes from the fact that "all who lived on Olympus gave a gift" (81-82). In the Theogony (560ff), the text says that only Hephaestus and Athena contribute to the woman that is made. Ergo, she cannot be Pandora.

Furthermore, Athena's role isn't even the same in the two poems. In Theogony, she gives the woman a veil. In W&D, she teaches Pandora how to weave.

Significantly, the unnamed woman in Theogony is identified as the first woman, but Pandora does not receive that label. Furthermore, the woman in Theogony has no jar of evils to open, a la Pandora in W&D.

In both cases, a woman is made because Zeus is mad at Prometheus, but there is no indication that one should interpret them as one and the same. Doing so is to read the texts with the mindset that Hesiod was trying to write sacred texts (in a Biblical sense) that should be reconciled with each other. But he explicitly tells us that this is not what he's doing. W&D is designed to teach his brother not to be an ass. Theogony is the Muses' version of how Zeus came to power. Neither one disguises its purpose. Meshing the two poems into one sacred narrative of creations ignores the stated goal of each.

I'm not going to change the page itself because there is a fair amount of talk by people who seem pretty invested in this, but I maintain that talking about the woman in Theogony and Pandora in W&D as identical and drawing evidence from both, without even acknowledging the vastly different nature of the two poems is a misuse of the evidence.

Cme244, (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC): C. Erlinger CME244[reply]

All the scholarly sources I've seem treat these two as essentially the same. Paul August ☎ 17:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora's curiosity

Copied from my talk page:

Thanks for spotting the error in my recent edit to Pandora's box. I'm currently working on 'modern' literary and artistic interpretations of Pandora and remembered the detail that Hera gifted her with curiosity without checking the Hesiod source. Hera's gift is mentioned in any number of post 2000 books but I can't find any old and reputable source that does so. I'll continue looking, because it bothers me where that story comes from; but if you already know, I'd be grateful if you could give me the reference. My best guess is that it was slipped into the 15th C Latin version of Hesiod, or it may be in the Calderon drama. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetpool50: I don't know where the curiosity meme comes from, but I've looked before and I don't think it is from any ancient source. But I could be wrong, it's hard to prove a negative ;-) Paul August ☎ 12:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice your name as among the editors of the Pandora article, so I guess you may eventually be looking at the additions I uploaded this evening. If the last section there seems to end abruptly, that's because there is another to follow. So far I wanted to integrate bits taken from already existing sections into a new context. It was all getting rather complicated, so I decided to go ahead with what I had so far. I may not get another chance for a day or two! Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

End of copied text

Paul August ☎ 17:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using the term "misogynous' in the lead

Misogyny is a pretty subjective term. I disagree with including the term in the lead. I am going to be bold and remove it. If you disagree with this edit, feel free to undo, just please comment in here explaining why you feel it should be undone. JDDJS (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you knew something about the subject instead of going off half-cocked with your subjective views. Hesiod's account of Pandora is notorious for its misogyny and I've provided just one reference (from a scholarly introduction) out of many that are possible. That wasn't a bold edit, it was plain ignorant. Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone is pretty close to making personal attacks and unnecessary. You also don't seem to understand my point. It's not about sources. Misogyny is subjective, and we don't usually use subjective terms like that. For example, we don't say Meryl Streep is the best actress of her generation, despite there being multiple sources saying that. We instead say "Cited in the media as the 'best actress of her generation' ". JDDJS (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I take JDDJS's point about the use of the word "misogynous", and approve of the recent rewording by JDDJS, as amendeded by Sweetpool50. Paul August ☎ 09:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Paul August. I am glad we seem to be arriving at a satisfactory version. My annoyance at the former intervention was because I interpreted the quibble over wording as an example of WP:WIKILAWYERING. The adjective 'misogynous' derives originally from the noun 'misogyny', which refers to an predominating attitude, not to a subjective evaluation; used of Hesiod's stance, it is a legitimate as well as a well-documented description. Though the word might and indeed has been applied to Hesiod's subjective attitude, there should be no objection to use of the term 'misogynous' in itself. That is a subjective use of WP guidelines that was never intended. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Abel Painting Title and subject

The title of the painting in the 'Works and Days' section by Josef Abel is 'Prometheus, Merkur, and die Pandora' in German, which translates to 'Prometheus, Mercury, and Pandora' in English. The seated figure is Prometheus, not Zeus. Hence why the same painting is used on the 'Prometheus' page in German Wikipedia.

Pandora is the standing female figure on the left, made evident by the pithos she holds; and Prometheus, recognizable by the fact he's holding a torch, is trying to protect Man (his creation) from her. Zeus is not in this painting. Sweetpool50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.21.186.182 (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point at issue is that there is, however plausible, no source given for the interpretation given the scene by the editor, and certainly not in the painting's German title. The editor alse needs to learn how to sign his name to his remarks here. Sweetpool50 (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the central seated figure is Prometheus not Zeus (I've also added some description to caption). I also think that IP 67.21.186.182's interpretation—that the (clay?) figure on the pedestal is Prometheus' creation Man, and that Prometheus is trying to protect Man from Pandora—is correct, but we would need a reliable source (see [[WP:RS) to assert this. Paul August ☎ 10:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pandora&oldid=1013571407"