Talk:Sibyl

"Sibyl" and "Cybele"

Disputing the present root of the name Sibyl or Cybelle or various other incarnations of the goddess's name:

The root presently provided is not wrong, but it's an intermediary form and not the original. Introduced into Greece from Asia Minor it was previously CYBELE and prior to that Cybebe, with the C pronounced as a "K". The "Y" is pronounced "OO" as it also should be when pronouncing Cyrus "KOUROS". CYBEBE ------> Koo BIBI Kooh BIBI Lady of the mountain. (Kooh = Mountain, Bibi = Lady, Old old Persian, Iranian, the root of most present Indo European languages.)

We have in Iran many Ladies of the mountain, converted by some ruse into shrines of prominent Moslem ladies of the holy line of the prophet. One of the most famous being at Ghom (= Cumae??)

Sibyl and Cybele Kybele are not connected etymologically or any other direct way. Cybele was indeed introduced from Asia Minor as our Iranian correspondent says, specifically from Phrygia and Cilicia. The location of Cumae is well attested: not actually the same as Ghom. Your remark that is really most interesting is "We have in Iran many Ladies of the mountain, converted by some ruse into shrines of prominent Moslem ladies of the holy line of the prophet." That is what has happened in the Christian landscape too, though it takes a sophisticated culture to admit it dispassionately and to look into how it came about. The dogmatic elements in Islam and Christianity both forbid such inquiries. (The Lady of the Mountain is an Ancient Near Eastern figure who appears on Minoan seal-impressions.)--Wetman 16:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sibyl and Cybele Kybele are not connected etymologically or any other direct way.Is this really true they sound so similar,there must be some very ancient relationship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.68.92 (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sibyl Prophesy and Symbols

This text, spuriously attributed to "the medieval monks" has been moved here. Knowing who has actually made this up, and when, might give it a place in this otherwise carefully nuanced article (Wetman):

"The mediaeval monks reckoned twelve Sibyls, and gave to each a separate prophecy and distinct emblem:-

1) The Libyan Sibyl: The day shall come when men shall see the King of all living things. Emblem, a lighted taper.

2) The Samian Sibyl: The Rich One shall be born of a pure virgin. Emblem, a rose.

3) The Cumæn Sibyl: Jesus Christ shall come from heaven, and live and reign in poverty on earth. Emblem, a crown.

4) The Cumæan Sibyl: God shall be born of a pure virgin, and hold converse with sinners. Emblem, a cradle.

5) The Erythræan Sibyl: Jesus Christ, Son of God, the Saviour. Emblem, a horn.

6) The Persian Sibyl: Satan shall be overcome by a true prophet. Emblem, a dragon under the Sibyl's feet, and a lantern.

7) The Tiburtine Sibyl: The Highest shall descend from heaven, and a virgin be shown in the valleys of the deserts. Emblem, a dove.

8) The Delphic Sibyl: The Prophet born of the virgin shall be crowned with thorns. Emblem, a crown of thorns.

9) The Phrygian Sibyl: Our Lord shall rise again. Emblem, a banner and a cross.

10) The European Sibyl: A virgin and her Son shall flee into Egypt. Emblem, a sword.

11) The Agrippine Sibyl: Jesus Christ shall be outraged and scourged. Emblem, a whip.

12) The Hellespontic Sibyl: Jesus Christ shall suffer shame upon the cross. Emblem, a cross.

In regard to the spurriously attributed text to the medieval monks, you can go to this web site [1] for the details as to where I got the information.

(Please sign, so we know who's saying what) Okay, that site is e-text of [Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable], 1897. Generally speaking, one wants to ask, every time one reads anything: Who is writing? When? What is their agenda? Who is their audience? This is a parlor book of quick and easy reference, for a middle-class late Victorian genteel reading audience. It gives a collection of hints that need to be followed up for specifics. Because "the monks said it" "it's in the Bible" or "I read in at the Library" aren't helpful to the reader. With the history of ideas, it's always clearer to work forwards, as ideas have developed and accumuklated, rather than backwards, trying to disentangle as you go. Medieval tradition multiplied the Sibyls to make them into the magical number 12, as an analog of the Apostles. This is a part of the idea of sibyls that the article hasn't touched yet. Let's not mix these "Gothic Sibyls" up with a) Greek Sibyls b) Roman Sibyls c) Early Christian Sibyls. Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel Sibyls are part of this later tradition.

Someone's recently added two external links to illustrations of these "Gothic" sibyls. One set are holding scrolls, I remember, perhaps with the same texts on them.

So. Who is the Christian author who first attached a label and an emblem to each of these twelve "Gothic" sibyls? I don't know the answer, but that's the question. It's the connection of the Christian text to the pagan sibyls that's "spurious" from a neutral historical point-of-view— though reinterpreting texts to make them suit a Christian context goes back to the New Testament. And beyond. --Wetman 16:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sibylline Books

I removed the text in the 3rd paragraph because most of it was repeated word for word in the sibylline books topic that are referenced. It seemed redundant to have it here and then have it repeated in the exacly in the linked topic. The remainder of the text is speaking of the birthplaces of up to 3 different sibyls and has nothing to do with the books and therefore I was going to move the text to the specific topics for the appropriate sibyl. Being redundant is perhaps okay, I don't see how having information in the wrong section is helpful to the reader.

The question is, did this text offer relevant context for the Wikipedia reader? The same kind of information is repeated many times in various articles. Is the thought complete at each place, without the piece of text? Are Sibyl, Sibylline Books and Sibylline Oracles being kept clear and distinct? If so, then it's good. --Wetman 16:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sibyls and symbols

I found the following text at http://www.goddess.org/vortices/notes/cybele.html

Marcus Terentius Varro, the Roman scholar and director of Caesar's library said there were eleven Sibyls, one each residing in the great centers of the world. In Persia she was Sibylla Persica, and was depicted as carrying a lantern and had a serpent under her feet; in Libya, Sibylla Libyea held a lighted torch; at Delphi, the Sibylla Delphica wore a crown of thorns; at Cumae, Sibylla Cumana had an stone manger; at Samos, Sibylla Cania bore a reed and a candle; the Sibylla Cimmeria carried a cross; Sibylla Erythreia held a white rose; on the Tibur, Sibylla Tibertina was dressed in animal skins and carried the fascista bundle of rods; at Marpessa, Sibylla Europa carried sword; on the Hellesport, Sibylla Hellespontina carried a flowering branch; Sibylla Phrygia carried a banner and prophesied resurrection.

how do I decide if it's true and since we know Varro exist, who should get credit if the text is added? Varro or the website where this is found?

Don't be confused by all the mumbo-jumbo "big connections" at that site, like identifyng Eridu with Eridanos and Cybele with Sibyls etc etc. Track one thought at a time. Marcus Terentius Varro (116 BC - 27 BC) you'll find at Wikipedia. Varro was a Roman historian who would not likely have given all these sibyls such Christian emblems, eh? So I'd Google "Varro sibyl" for a start... If you get back to Varro, quote him and cite the work you're quoting and give the website in brackets. Don't worry about exact form: get the three kinds of information in: who, in what title, and where available, and someone'll come along and fix it up! --Wetman 16:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Later): I've found an on-line translation of Lactantius' Divine Institutions Book I, chapter vi, where he quotes the lost books of Varro, and lists ten sibyls, site by site, with a few details about each: [2]. Compare the Varro/Lactantius list with the "Gothic" Sibyls in the "monkish" quote above. --Wetman 19:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Problems with this entry

This entry is a fantastic blend of 19c. scholarship and modern religious fantasy. Although decked out with citations and other markers of reliability, it is almost completely disconnected from contemporary classical scholarship. I particularly resent that the "Delphic Oracle" is redirected here, and then completely mischaracterized. The writers' efforts to assert Delphi's connections with female divinities is remarkable; I beg you to find anything like this in a published, peer-reviewed book of the last 25 years! The entry also evinces a baldly POV attitude toward Christian authors, "reductionists," etc.

This is Wikipedia at its worst. It is junk. Lectiodifficilior 22:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some of the recent struggles in this entry come from a confident editor who is working backward from the Sistine Chapel Sibyls. Quite a hodgepodge. The Delphic Oracle was not characterized as a sibyl until the late Middle Ages, by Christians, sad to relate.... but even more interesting: what is the "modern' general text that Lectiodifficilior can recommend? --Wetman 23:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Burkert's Greek Religion is generally regarded as the most durable general work of the last 20 years. I'm actually developing a web directory on oracles (see my site on Ancient Divination and Astrology for the sort of thing I do). See also here (the references to 19c dictionaries at the top; even outdated scholarship would be better than this ignorant pagan promotion). Lectiodifficilior 23:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Restoration of this cannibalized entry

This is once more the trunk entry for sibyls. Individual sibyls are still at individual entries, ideally with more material than is once again here. A great deal remains to be done. --Wetman 06:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Confusion removed

The figure of the ageless sibyl has been confused with the Graeae by an editor who claimed that "the mark of a Sibyl possessed with the second sight is the gift to be able to take her eyes out and then put them back in." Such crackerbarrel iconography is passed around and around in social groups who are deprived of libraries. The Internet is littered with such material. We shouldn't be adding to it. --Wetman 02:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Delphic Sibyl is not the same as Pythia or Delphic Oracle

The article now says this, but I'll repeat it on the talk page: the Pythia is an entirely separate figure from the Delphic Sibyl, and Wikipedia should not confuse the two. Now it seems that in medieval times the two did get combined, and if that's the case it's an entirely appropriate matter for the Sibyl or Delphic Sibyl articles to cover, but in doing so, it would be good to make it clear that the mixing of the two only happened long after the oracle ceased operating.--Akhilleus (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So, What is a Sibyl?

Is it a Position (ministry), identifiable Person, an Oracle, a Lineage (Mistress/Dissiple), an Institution?

The striking example, the entry of Libyan Sibyl in the main article says she was presiding over the oracle at Siwa Oasis. This oracle is associated with Cambyses II, and with Alexander. About 2 centuries of time span. The same question applies to the Pythia entry above.

--Connection 21:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Add to this, the Cumaean Sibyl has various names "Amaltheia, Demophile, Deiphobe, Herophile, or Taraxandra. (In Virgil's Aeneid, she is called Deiphobe, daughter of Glaucus.)"--Connection 11:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is fascinating to me. The "original" Sibyls were supposed in popular imagination to have lived for many centuries as prophetesses, but this supposed timeframe would have been long before Cambyses and Alexander at any rate. It is conceivable that it eventually did become more of an institution, with other prophetesses claiming to be "the Sibyl" and passing on the title to their disciples in some sort of lineage. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that Sibyl-ship became institutionalized. They're legendary individuals whose prophecies circulated in written form. As far as I know, there's no source for a historical person calling herself a sibyl. The idea that the Libyan Sibyl presided over the oracle of Zeus Ammon probably got into Wikipedia as a result of confusion, similar to how Wikipedia long confused the Delphic Sibyl with the Pythia. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree with the question. The introduction of this article is not so clear for those who have no idea what a sibyl is (like myself). What is a sibyl? Are they just any prophetess or a particular type of prophetess? What's the difference between a prophetess and a sibyl? Do they particularly prophesize a particular thing or general things? If there were a were a woman today in Japan prophesizing about the destruction of Japan would she be a sibyl? If they were only known through legends, then what kind of legends, European, Christian, Mediterranean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.121.207.60 (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hellespont v. Marpessus

The Sibyl was located at Marpessus? (Not only born there). The name should be changed?--Connection 13:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the Hellespontine Sibyl is the more familiar term.

Adding assertions

All assertions added to this article need to be attributed. Otherwise this article will be as full of blather as the individual articles on individual sibyls. Please don't cut 'n paste stuff from those articles to this one.--Wetman (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sibyl & Alexander the Great

I haven't been able to find any references that discuss a sibyl foretelling anything about Alexander the Great. However, I have found 2 sources that indirectly connects the two. One says "Nicanor...wrote the deeds of Alexander the Great, is said to have reported a Persian sibyl." page 184 and "Nicanor...who wrote a history of Alexander the Great, speaks of one of these Persian Sibyls.." page 19 Perhaps a sibyl did not foresee Alexander but rather the mentioning of the two in the same sources have led to a misunderstanding? Coinmanj (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization: Sibyl vs. sibyl

The word "sibyl" is not a proper noun everywhere. It could be a title in some places (e.g., "Alexander the Great met the Persian Sibyl") but not in others (e.g., "Alexander the Great looked for a sibyl in Persia.") Compare "bishop" for a contemporary analogy. There's "the Bishop of Rome" and "a bishop in Rome." I am making edits to clarify based on this rule. --GoldCoastPrior (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sibyl. 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/20050329184954/http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/english/courses/214/sibyls/sibyls.htm to http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/english/courses/214/sibyls/sibyls.htm

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sibyl. 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/20090213120221/http://www.umich.edu/~classics/directories/faculty.html to http://www.umich.edu/~classics/directories/faculty.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/19990209155138/http://plato.evansville.edu/public/burnet/ch3.htm to http://plato.evansville.edu/public/burnet/ch3.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) 02:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No definition

The article gives no definition of an Sibyl. If you come here to understand what a sibyl is, you will not find that.The article immediately starts with an advanced discussion about etymology. Hdela (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)