Talk:Agathodaemon

Doubt about veracity of references

As part of an investigation into the concept of the Agathodaemon, I read some of the source texts cited as references in this article, specifically:

• Hor. Ep. ll, 2, 187
• Tibull. IV, 8
• Pausanias, Description of Greece, viii. 36. § 3

With regards to the specific sections of the texts referenced -- the specific books/chapters/line numbers that the citations are pointing to -- it does not seem as if any reference to agathodaemonoi (or their Roman counterpart, the Genius, as these texts are primarily written in Latin) is made. This is not to say that the entire reference corpus -- the Epistles of Horace as a whole, for instance -- do not contain information that could be used as citations for this article. It's simply that I think these specific portions of the text do not contain the information that the Wikipedia article asserts that they do.

I will admit that it is possible I was looking in the wrong section of the texts, or am misinterpreting my findings, but I'm uncertain where else the citations would be referencing.

For example, let's consider "Tibull. IV, 8", which I have taken to mean "Tibullus Book IV, Elegy 8." The 1720 text "The Works of Tibullus" as translated by John Dart provides this as Elegy VIII in Book IV:

Sulpicia to Messala. VIII

Thy Birth-Day comes, but no Diversion yields, In th' unpleasant, lonely Country Fields; And while my dear Cerinthus is away, Twill prove a dull and an unpleasant Day. What Place can, like the Town, afford Delight, Should Maids in Villages be hid from Sight? Confin'd in cold unpleasant Country Fields, Nip'd by the Winds bleak Eretinus yields; Rather, Messala, in the City stay, Nor tempt a tiresome incommodious Way; For I town shall leave my Soul behind, Where'er contrary to my Will, confin'd.

Compare this to the Latin text of Book IV, Elegy VIII:

Invisus natalis adest qui rure molesto et sine Cerintho tristis agendus erit. dulcius urbe quid est? an villa sit apta puellae atque Arretino frigidus amnis agro? iam, nimium Messalla mei studiose, quiescas, neu tempestivae saepe propinque viae. hic animum sensusque meos abducta relinquo, arbitrio quamvis non sinis esse meo.

As we can see here, no mention is made of the Genius, the Roman equivalent to the agathodaemon.

Various other poems of Tibullus do make reference to the Genius, but not the poem cited as a reference in this article.

If I've misinterpreted the specific book/section that the Tibullus citation is making -- if it is not, in fact, Book IV, Elegy VIII -- I will accept fault but it seems to me that this article has inaccurate citations to the ancient primary texts. ChrysocyonBrachyurus (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No, you're correct those citations suffered from a misuse of primary sources. The general issue of this article is that relies on pretty outdated scholarship and does not properly consider the Alexandrian developments. I will use PM Fraser, Ogden Drakon and Ogden Alexander, Agathos Daimon, and Ptolemy to expand the article a little and to incorporate some more modern scholarship. The Latin connection is almost irrelevant, the pre-Egyptian sources for Agathos Daimon are pretty sparse and the Egyptian syncretism is very important, especially because much of it gets absorbed back into the rest of the Graeco-Roman world. I'd love to add sections about its importance for the gnostic Naassenes but I'll have to wait until David Litwa publishes an actual book on the matter and not just talks. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Spiritual Deity and Psychopomp

Hello sirs. I can show you where I found those sources that the agathodaemons are deities of those things and of course they are psychopomps. Please I have proofs that I can show you. 79.131.162.137 (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Latin

The article mentions: "Agathos Daimon was the spouse or companion of Tyche Agathe (Τύχη Ἀγαθή, "Good Fortune"; Latin: Agatha)." I think the Latin is wrong. I'm pretty sure it should say "Fortuna", not "Agatha". 15:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC) 2603:8080:C6F0:36D0:68CB:E6B8:3542:E4C9 (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Certainly not Agatha! This seems to be a hangover from a transliteration in an early version of the article which someone later described as Latin, and I can't see that we need a second transliteration or a Latin translation either. I'll remove it. NebY (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Prominence, libation

Looking at the cited pages of Nilsson (33, 70, 73) I find he doesn't describe AD as prominent in Greek folk religion, does say a libation was made to him after every meal (not just every symposium), doesn't say a libation was also poured to Zeus, and does say that "it is not stated to whom the food offering was made, but if someone is to be mentioned it must be Hestia, the goddess of the hearth", which is weaker than our statement "as was done for Hestia prior to the meal". His scope seems to be basically classical (and archaic?) rather than later syncretic, suitable for this section on Greek classical period. We're also citing Fraser's Ptolemaic Alexandria for this part. I don't have access to check whether he goes beyond Nilsson in describing AD in the classical period, but I fear that ref might have become misplaced. I've taken the liberty of trimming our statements to fit Nilsson. NebY (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Fraser's book is online here, for interest (I'll let you deal with the matter as you see fit). – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I don't have an account at archive.org (not comfortable with their copyright stance). Thanks anyway! NebY (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, ok, noted (not something I was aware of). – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)