Theoi is useful and incredibly convenient, but it it is not definitive, nor peer-reviewed:

  • Listed passages on a given subject are often assumed to be the complete body of material, which may not be the case.
  • Only a single translation of a given passage is offered
  • As these translations are often old (i.e. in the public domain which is why they may be utilized) and can contain inaccuracies.

Theoi, like Wikipedia, is a great starting place, and serves an online function similar to Graves' The Greek Myths with it's useful index, albeit in a much more limited capacity, containing only a fraction of the subjects covered in Graves, and no peer review.

In other words, Theoi is not an academic source, but it is commonly treated as one: https://mythology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/265/2892

  • uh oh.... rip me – bleh Mar 2 '17 at 3:10
  • 1
    @bleh Actually, you're an excellent researcher for the most part, and your endeavors demonstrate the value of a resource like Theoi. But on certain subjects, broadening the search will lead to more complete information and deeper meanings. – DukeZhou Mar 2 '17 at 20:33
  • 2
    I read the original books, not really using either Wikipedia or Theoi. I add some texts comments and thesis. But that comes from Theoi, Wikipedia, the Britannica, a book or something I say, one as to keep one's mind opened. I see no problem in using Theoi as a source. But in overall any reply by Andejons or Solsdottir just shows nothing is better than the knowledge of the original text. – Gibet Mar 3 '17 at 9:59
  • @Gibet Agreed. I always prefer the source text over secondary sources. It's the only way to generate useful insights, imo. Andejons and Solsdottir are rockstars because they cite academic sources in addition to the originals, and offer context so that one can easily grasp how the info fits into the bigger picture. – DukeZhou Mar 3 '17 at 20:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .