#But that was ultimately OVID'S version not the original Greek

[finisnihil]

I feel like one of the reasons "feminist" Greek mythos retellings suffer so much from being made into modern retellings is because these stories were originally kinda feminist for the times they originated from. Making these already woman-based stories feminist by modern standards only make them reductive.

Authors make some of the men involved worse than they were (Perseus, Odysseus, Ares, Apollo) and will often use the female characters to bash on other female characters (Penelope and Helen, Persephone and Demeter, etc).

You also have to take into account who wrote down these stories. If this version of it is from actual Greek records/can be corroborated by other sources or if it's just from Ovid's versions, who retold these stories from a Roman perspective and with intention to depict certain aspects a certain way because he had bias against authority. Sure, his versions fleshed out the female characters more, such as Medusa and Arachne, but was it truly out of care for the women in the stories or just to use them for his personal desire to villainize the gods and those in power? Ovid's Medusa doesn't feel anymore feminist than the original because I don't think he actually cared about the character as a woman in pain but as another knife to stab into Athena and Poseidon.

How are some modern retellings any different? Margaret Atwood uses Penelope of Ithica to beat down Helen of Troy more than anything. Lore Olympus makes Persephone a sword for her mother to fall on. How are these authors any different than Ovid?

Finally, why do the more evil female characters have to be justified? There is the aspect that if a woman is not adhering to the cultural expectation she is to be made evil, but women like that do exist. Women like Medea exist. Women like Calypso exist. Women like the goddesses exist. Why do these retellings insist on making women morally upright and entirely justified to validate being "feminist"? Doesn't it just insist on a requirement to meet a different cultural standard for how a woman should act to be considered valid?

Is your retelling truly feminist if it justifies its existence by pretending the original wasn't?

[mask131]

I finally found a post that allows me to express something I meant to say for a long time... About myths and legends and fairytales in general, and the whole business around the word... "original" (cue to Hammer horror dramatic thunder)

The massive wave across the Internet recently is to denounce the use of the word "original" as meaning absolutely nothing when it comes to myths and folklore. For example, people love, when talking about fairy tales to say "Actually, in the ORIGINAL fairytale this happened like this". And a lot of people criticize it, for good reasons. Take Sleeping Beauty. Many people will speak of the "original" Sleeping Beauty, by referring to the Brothers Grimm version of the tale, "Briar Rose", as opposed to a more recent version such as Disney's. But in truth there was a version older than that and more famous - the French version by Charles Perrault. So this is the original, right? No because many people will point out: there was a version older than this one, Basile's "Thalia, the Sun and the Moon". And this one a lot of people like to describe as the "original" Sleeping Beauty. And yet, there is still another, older version - French again, the medieval romance known as "Perceforest". And this one yet again takes inspiration from older myths and legends - including Germanic ones apparently...

So the use of the word "original" here means, indeed, nothing or is useless because fairy tales, and world-famous/ancient folktales rarely have an "original" version. They have been retold, rewritten and re-transcribed and adapted for centuries and centuries across various cultures and continents, and even the most ancient versions are just reflections of deeper oral versions.

This is what everybody has been defending, this is what everybody has been pointing out: there is a need to fight against the term "original" which can be too easily mis-used or over-used, since the actual "start" of a folktale or legend is lost, given its roots are in oral culture. The same thing is true with myths, especially things such as Greek myths. A lot of things people think they know about Greek myths start with Ovid, a Roman. Then you have to differentiate late records of Greek men, closer to the CE than BCE, and the oldest versions and records we had, Homer and Hesiod. And even then Homer reflected in his writings an even older tradition of a previous civilization lost to us since no written record exists. Take Medusa, and the post I made about her. Everybody uses today the story of her being a priestess of Athena being raped by Poseidon. This is a modern extrapolation of Ovid's tale about Medusa being a woman raped by Poseidon within Athena's temple (no priesthood involved). This in turn was Ovid's rewriting of a widespread tradition from Classical Greece about Medusa being a woman cursed by Athena for being so vain she deemed herself more beautiful than Athena (no rape involved). And this in turn was an evolution of the older Hesiodic/Homeric versions of Medusa, the Gorgon, being born a monster from monster-gods parents, and being part of the monstrous primordial forces of the sea/the underworld.

Now... here we reach my actual point. When I made my post about Medusa some people said "Its a good post but you shouldn't use the word "original" because we do not have the actual origins of Medusa". I agree that technically it is true. By all I said above - all myths and legends take roots within a lost oral culture, there is always a previous version before the one we have, etc... Yet, while I fully know this, I will keep using the word "original". To refer to the oldest record we have of Medusa as a character and myth: Homer and Hesiod (the two actually have a different take on Medusa, but they remain the oldest written records about her).

Why? Because while I agree that in itself the term "original" has been over-used and mis-used and that in the world of myths and legends and folktales it ultimately means nothing... I also strongly believe that refuse to see an origin, that refusing to see a beginning, that refusing to see a given starting point somewhere, opens the gate for all sorts of other misinformation or bad things.

The post in question was about a specific Greek myth (hence my switch to Greek mythology as an example). I won't say which but let's just say in this myth something bad happens. And it isn't an Ovid case where the thing originally was neutral or good and then was made bad later: we are talking about this bad thing happening by the oldest records we have of the story. Right. And this post reacted about an adaptation that changed this bad things to happen in a different angle and be less bad. And this person thanked deeply this adaptation because, by changing the story, it helped them "reconcile" with the myth. Because in their own words: "There were oral versions of it before it was recorded. The myth existed long before it was written. So who is to say this isn't how it happened? Who can say the version of the adaptation isn't more truthful to what the myth was originally about? It perfectly could have happened that way in the oldest versions of the myth, and I chose to believe it did!"

And that's where we fall into the pit. Yes, it is bad to over-use "original" as a word because the true origins of all myths are lost to time... But it is just as bad to not have any beginning point or refuse the idea that a myth was "created" at some point because we have this above. "What ifs", and "It could have happened" and "Why shouldn't it be like that" and "I chose to believe this because we might never know". People will start using the whole "no origins", "oral culture before written culture", "there must have been a previous version" as an excuse to invent versions of a folktale that never existed, or share versions of a myth that never was told, or defend versions of legends that are nowhere to be found.

Because that's the old logic fallacy: "If you can't prove it did not exist, then it means it could have existed". And this opens the gate for all sorts of inventions. Yes, you can invent a version of Medusa's story where she is the child of Zeus and Athena, and then claim it is a possible and likely story because "We don't know what was being told in pre-Homer times, maybe it was part of oral culture". Yes, maybe. But you will also agree with me, dear audience, that such a version is very unlikely to have existed, and that if one starts spreading this version around as a real myth they should be "booed" just as much as someone claiming Ovid's version of Medusa is the "original".

If you ask me, the oldest version of a tale, the oldest record of a myth, should be considered the starting point of the legend, the... I will dare say "original" version of story. With the caveat that, indeed, there might have been older versions, non-recorded, oral, lost to time - but given we do not know what came before this oldest record, given we will likely never know what stood before this most ancient transcription, do we really need to keep beating us over the head and conjecturing about what came beforehand, especially since we are talking about just friggin' Tumblr posts and Youtube videos and the like? For a very advanced and thorough academical research, it is understood... But when it comes to just talking simply and plainly about things, maybe we should have some common sense and have a starting point of the chronology, and focus more on "That's the oldest version we have, and here is how it evolved and moved through from there" instead of "Let's go back into a past so obscure and so distant we actually won't see anything and won't have anything to say".

I will defend the use of the word "original" when it comes to myths and folktales, as long as it is an "original" that is actually the oldest version of a legend we have, and as long as the person that use it knows very well and agrees that there might have been previous versions and evolutions before it, but that were lost to time and thus that we will never know.

... And please, stop using the "there's no original" excuse to make up myths. Because listen: if you have a problem with a legend or myth, and then love a fictional adaptation's change to it, and you claim this new version "reconciled you" with the original... No. No you don't like what the myth or legend is actually about, no you don't like the folktale. You just like and enjoy a fictional retelling, a modern rewrite of the folktale. Not the actual story or the original myth.

[mythos-madness]

Athena’s Odyssey: Ovid’s Influence on the Goddess’s Stories

It has become widely accepted that Athena was the one who punished Medusa, but that the version of the myth in which Medusa was assaulted and cursed was actually written by Ovid.

Ovid was a Roman poet who lived during the rule of Augustus. He disliked Augustus and authority figures in general, being an extreme anti-authoritarian, possibly even an anarchist. (His feelings were pretty justified considering Augustus exiled him for his poems, without the consent of the senate or any Roman judge, clearly abusing his power.)

Being so anti-authority, Ovid naturally infused his works with this sentiment, which doesn't sound so bad. However, here's where it gets interesting: he wrote extensively about the Greek gods, who are essentially Greece's authoritative figures. As you can imagine, this poses quite the "conflict of interest," right?

In doing so, he’s poisoned the view of Athena. He warped her into a cruel, envious goddess when that’s not the case in the original mythos. She did not curse nor bless Medusa, as Medusa was always a gorgon in Greek myth. In fact, she was one of three Gorgon sisters.

This myth isn’t even the only case. Ovid also twisted the story of Athena’s weaving competition with Arachne. In the original version, Athena won and transformed Arachne into a spider so she would not kill herself out of shame. While in Ovid‘s, she did it out of envy because Arachne’s was better.

I’m not saying we should erase Ovid's contributions from history. His work is crucial in understanding Roman culture and the authority of that era, as well as the underlying issues that ultimately led to its downfall. However, his interpretations should remain within that context and not blend into the original myths themselves. Especially when that so often leads to the unfair demonization of a goddess.

[seaprofound]

there's just something about a woman with snakes for hair... (a psa)

it's been a month or so now since I gushed over the idea of giving Medusa a happy ending and while I do still think that she deserves one—if only in an AU (or something similar)—I've decided to keep the relationship that she has with Po as a tragic one because I am an angst monster.

what made me decide to go this route was the rediscovery—I swear that I got a strange sense of déjà vu—of this vase painting that depicts Po rushing towards Medusa after she's been beheaded while one of her sisters tries to shield Po's eyes from the grisly sight. that made me get just so !!! because Po usually befriends her lovers before ever getting together with them—I say usually because she's not immune to one-night stands (they're just rare)—and, thus, she would dedicate time to them, becoming utterly devoted in the process. because of that, it never made sense to me that Po would seemingly have no reaction to Medusa being slain because when she cares, she cares deeply, and there's nothing she wouldn't do to avenge the ones she loves if they were hurt in any way.

I'll elaborate more on Po's reaction to Medusa's death in the future—but, for now, know that it ate her up inside.

besides my decision to keep Seidusa—yup, this is the ship name I've decided on—tragic, I'm writing this post to discuss another decision that I've made. or, rather, one that I didn't make.

in the days leading up to me writing this post, I came this 🤏 close to writing off interactions with Medusas for good after dealing with years of frustration from the general Greek mythos community—as well as people outside of it—because of the prevailing notion that Ovid's interpretation of Medusa is the true Greek version (it isn't) or, worse, it's the only valid interpretation.

it didn't help that although I've interacted with Medusas that made the sexual encounter between Medusa and Po consensual like the Hesiod version—which is the oldest written version mind you (but that's besides the point)—they all still took elements from Ovid (usually the idea that Medusa was once a beautiful maiden). as a Hesiod!Medusa truther who longs for a Medusa that's scary and unapologetically ugly (albeit still hot if you're a monsterfucker like Po), this desire for such a specific niche drove me to start creating my own Medusa in earnest. I can't wait to tell you all about her because, ugh, she is just so gender tbh. I love her.

( my Medusa is agender, for instance, and she does not give a fuck as to how she's perceived due to a gender neutral upbringing. to her, Medusa is Medusa. )

as my Medusa became a more fleshed out character, I began to wonder what I should do about the Medusas that I've already interacted with (or expressed interest in doing so). on one hand, Medusa is an important character for Po and I've never felt more free than when I started creating my own version of her and really detailing the relationship that she and Po had with each other. on the other hand, I didn't wanna hurt anybody by closing off interactions because I worried that that would come across as callous or as if I thought other interpretations inferior.

that's not the case at all.

I don't mind other interpretations of Medusa. if you wanna write her, go ahead and, by all means, have your fun. I'm not gonna stop you. ultimately, I just wanna have creative freedom in my Medusa retelling—which is why I've decided that my Medusa will be the main Medusa for Po. what this means is that, unless I indicate otherwise, any mention of Medusa will be referring to my Medusa specifically.

what does this mean for other Medusas you may ask? simple. provided that they're NOT purely Ovid-based, I'm still willing to interact.

I have just one caveat if they take a couple of influences from Ovid, though (e.g., such as Medusa originally being human, her stunning beauty—as mentioned before—or the idea that she was once the priestess of Athena which is arguably fanon for it was never directly stated in that passage from the Metamorphoses): Po did not have intercourse with Medusa in Athena's temple.

no shade meant to her male counterpart, Poseidon, but Poseida is different. although Po may have had a bit of a rivalry with Athena at times—a friendly one, though, mind you—she respects her far too much to just. do that.

( Po will stick to flowery meadows, thank you very much. )

TLDR:

Seidusa is tragic once more ( I am the monster, rawr, rawr, rawr )

I created my own Medusa and she will be Po's main Medusa from now on

that said, I'm still willing to interact with other Medusas if they're not purely Ovid-based and, if they're willing to bend on the idea of Medusa and Po having intercourse in Athena's temple if their interpretation takes any cues from Ovid

[littleapocalypsekitten]

Funnily enough, I actually read on Medusa's infamous origin, whilst the Greeks and romans were definitely not progressive in regards to gender, Medusa's case is actually more case than we thought!

You see originally Medusa and her sisters were just horrible monsters and born monsters as their parents were also horrible monsters, but Medusa was the only one that was mortal.

She was also drawn as a hideous monster around this time and her behavior in the myth of Perseus depicted her as nothing more than a mindless monster that went around killing people for no particular reason.

Anyhow the greeks started drawing Medusa's originally hideous face as attractive as time went on and she started being depicted as more of a monster person, sapient enough to have carried out a consensual relationship with Poseidon.

More time goes by and the greek myths were so liked by the conquering romans that they ultimately take their mythology for their own.

Around this time, a famous Roman writer, Publius Ovidius Naso, better known as simply Ovid, whom had been banished from Rome by the emperor, started writing stories about the roman versions of the greek gods and other characters.

In Ovid's story of Perseus, it is related by Perseus that Medusa was once a human with her sisters removed from the time. Here Medusa was a priestess of Minerva (Athena), but was raped by Neptune (Poseidon) in Minerva's temple. Minerva punished Medusa for "Defiling" her temple by turning her into a horrific monster.

Ovid's Perseus agrees with his punishment, saying it was just punishment. However whilst the original version of Perseus was pretty righteous, even by modern standards, Ovid's Perseus is more morally ambiguous.

For example, Ovid's Perseus starts a war with his fiancee's former suitor and kills many people. One of these people is a young Indian boy named Athis. Perseus brutally kills Athis in a manner described in grotesque detail, right in front of Athis's male lover and brother.

When they try to attack Perseus, he kills them too. Whilst Perseus says this is righteous and the gods are on his side, there are several signs that we are meant to feel bad for Athis. The text goes into a long description of how Athis was just sixteen, a very handsome and fine smelling boy whom was beloved by his family. Similarly it goes into the grief of Athis's loved ones.

Ovid also wrote many stories where the gods, particularly Minerva, acted like completely jerks, such as in his version of the story of Arachne.

Given Ovid was exiled by the Emperor and Minerva was one of Rome's most beloved gods, he may have been criticizing the government and getting stress out by depicting their gods and heroes as corrupt rulers and tools of an unjust system.

So think of it like someone writing a fanfiction to make characters they dislike look bad and a villain they like be a more sympathetic character.

Oh, that's based!

[basicallymyentirepersonality]

Athena. Goddess of wisdom, strategies blah blah blah.

My new hyperfixation (or rather, a re-ignited one because she’s always intrigued me).

I’m going to admit she’s my favourite goddess not because of how nice or incredible she is- she isn’t. She’s a horrible person/goddess (no offense). And I think part of the reason why shes so intriguing is she actually has many layers to her and how different people interpret her is always so interesting.

People who know the myths will start to think she’s horrible and incredibly petty, always out for vengeance and stuff, yeah they’re not wrong.

“Canon” Greek Myths:

One of the most iconic myths about Athena is obviously the myth of Medusa. But if you’ve been hyperfixating long enough you’ll know that there’s so many versions of the myths. The original one was the Medusa was born a gorgon, Ovid’s version was that Athena got jealous (some even more recent interpretations) / mad at Medusa for breaking her vow of celibacy then turning her into a gorgon. Or Athena turned Medusa into a gorgon to protect her. They sound like very different goddesses. Other gods always seem to have straight forward personalities, Hermes a prankster always mischievous he delivers mail sometimes, Apollo he does music, drives a cool car. Of course each god has minor differences when it comes to version but never as jarring as Athena’s.

My interpretations/headcanons:

(Hot take)In my head, Athena is a bad person. She believes she’s being wise, she’s doing things for the greater good. Sometimes she fails to notice whether things are for the greater good or her good. She’s selfish. She’s delusional. Maybe even a bit of a narcissist who refuses to believes she can be wrong. Which makes her even more fun to imagine!!!

Modern retellings/greek mythology ‘fan fiction’:

Aka Percy Jackson. Her show and book version is already a bit different. In the book, she can be seen as a bit of a deadbeat parent, absent, a perfectionist. But ultimately someone Annabeth looked up to (at the beginning, at least). In Mark of Athena, we (I) see her to be a bit of a bully, kind of guilt tripping Annabeth to do stuff. In the show, however, she’s hasn’t even made an official appearance and she’s already so cruel. Not helping Annabeth because she ‘embarrassed’ her. This slight change did make her more similar to the more popular myths, but slightly altered reader’s impression of her.

Which is what makes her interesting.

I can go on and on about stereotypes (what’s the definition of wise?), societal standards, the change in people’s attitudes towards different things as time passes, how time passes. Heck, if I keep going on I’m certain I’m going to end up talking about the scale of time and our insignificance in the grand universe. But I’m not going to because that draws away from the main point of the blog. Greek mythology.

To me, Greek mythology is something that is timeless and up for interpretation all the time. I love debating about Greek mythology so come debate with me 🥊 (ignore my headcanon part tho leave that niche part of my brain alone).

If you noticed anything I got wrong (or maybe this post is utterly wrong in your eyes, do tell but maybe word it nicely sorry 😅) , tell me cuz I’m always up to learn more about other people’s opinions and different Greek myths!

[antique-lamplight]

And another thing, while the ultimate downfall of Camelot as presented in Arthuriana as codified after the publishing of Le Mort D'arthur in the 1400s is the sin of infidelity, from Gwenivere's affair with Lancelot creating the conditions that allowed the product of Arthur's affair with Morgana to start the rebellion that destroyed it, that in and of itself is some symbolism that by and large was invented whole cloth by Thomas Mallory in the context of mid to late 1400s England.

For example, Lancelot's affair with Gwenivere as was canonized with a written version by Chrétien de Troyes was a good thing, with their romance being a then modern introduction of the ideal of Courtly Love as was being introduced to europe in the 11th century through exposure to arabic culture through the crusades, and it wasn't until later authors (possibly Mallory or possibly some authors in between) with a completely different view of what love and romance does and should look like than a 12th century Parisian decided to reframe that in the light of the context of their time.

And really that's something we see play out time and time again throughout history, with the most obvious example I can think of being Ovid's Metamorphosis, which was a book written by someone completely divorced from the culture and time of the ancient greek myths, and changed the context of essentially all of them to fit his personal motivation of depicting the divine as untrustworthy and capricious monsters who will abuse their power after being exiled from Rome by Emperor Augustus, who was claiming divine heritage, for being critical of his reign.

The most famous of these being Medusa, who was changed from essentially a monster to be slain by Perseus and monster from birth to a tragic figure who was cursed by Athena for being raped by Poseidon in her temple as Poseidon was above reproach as a god, and this reimagining divorced from the perspective of the greeks has grown so popular that there are still internet fights similarly removed from the context of that telling of Medusa that argue whether or not Athena was herself taking a feminist action by making it impossible for her to ever be victimized again because that depiction of Athena is incongruous with other depictions that they are familiar with.

And I suspect that the anime-ification of everything is really no different than what humanity has been doing for thousands of years, but unlike with Sir Thomas Mallory or Ovid taking their own spin on long standing traditional stories, Japan is contemporaneous enough to our time and the cultural context of Japan is miles different from the cultural similarities a lot of the western world shares so they inherently feel more alien.

Anyway, this is a long lead in to say that Medusa is in Fate, and takes heavily from both the original version and the Ovid version.

Here, her and her sisters were born as divine embodiments of humanity's desire for perfect idols, but something either went wrong or was fundamentally different about Medusa as unlike her sisters she changed with age, but commensurately had mystic eyes that allowed her to turn others to stone, which she used as a way to defend her otherwise helpless sisters.

Athena cursed her, now not out of any necessary retaliation for disrespect, but out of a jealousy for their beauty. A curse that Medusa alone bore, which turned her into a monster to be feared and reviled by humans and banished, her sisters following her. Now she had to fend off heroes that had come to slay her as well as those that sought to victimize her sisters who even with as much love as they had were cruel to her.

She slowly became more and more of a monster as she began taking pleasure in killing everyone who came to the island, eventually draining their blood before she petrified them.

In the end, consumed with grief over the death of their sister who had become the monster before them, they professed that they never desired her protection and only were allowing her to indulge in what they thought she enjoyed before sacrificing themselves to her, being absorbed into the monster and empowering the creature they had become beyond imagination.

It was a monster powerful enough that it could only be beaten when it had the effects of its bounded field turned back on it and it was paralyzed by a dream of the sisters and the life they had, causing her to despair and allow for Perseus to cut off her head in grief for how she had been the only one to hurt them through the actions she had taken to protect them

My next ask will probably either talk about Medea or Heracles

its pretty interesting that japan is whats mostly keeping this sort of thing up as far as i know even when the historical examples you gave me were both from western history.....and western creation these days just doesnt do that sort of thing as much, at least not that ive seen

again, im terribly sorry for taking so long to respond! if you're still up for talking about medea/heracles please do :o

[dandelion-turtle]

Hyakinthos

Hyakinthos was a Spartan prince, most prominently known in Amyclae with a decent cult following. there are a couple of different people listed as being his parents, but the most popular is King Amyclus and Diomedes. if Amyclus was his father, that would also make Daphne, another of Apollo’s lovers, Hyakinthos’s sister. it seems like he would be quite simple, he has a relatively small story with one of the earliest written records from Hesiod. in this version there is no love rival, just an accident. written in the 7th century BC, it was merely one, albeit long, sentence.

”. . ((lacuna)) rich-tressed Diomede; and she bare Hyakinthos (Hyacinthus), the blameless one and strong . . ((lacuna)) whom, on a time Phoibos (Phoebus) [Apollon] himself slew unwittingly with a ruthless disk.”

however, the most famous version, and one that most will know, comes from Ovid’s Metamorphosis. written somewhere between the 1st century BC and 1st century AD, this sentence long story grew to be paragraphs long. in which Ovid describes the love Apollo and Hyakinthos have for each other — which was the ultimate demise for the young prince. with parts of it coming from the perspective of a mourning Apollo, Ovid writes how Hyakinthos was turned into a flower with “ai, ai” written on the petals to express Apollo’s sadness. and the version that we all have come to know including betrayal and jealous rage from Zephyros (the West Wind), is hinted at in Pausanias’ “Description of Greece”.

”[In the temple of Apollon at Amyklai (Amyclae) Nikias (Nicias) [painter fl. c. 320 B.C.], son of Nikomedes, has painted him [Hyakinthos (Hyacinthus)] in the very prime of youthful beauty, hinting at the love of Apollon for Hyakinthos of which legend tells . . . As for Zephyros (the West Wind), how Apollon unintentionally killed Hyakinthos, and the story of the flower, we must be content with the legends, although perhaps they are not true history.”

despite this seemingly clear-cut story, there’s a lot more than meets the eye with Hyakinthos. according to many historians the -nth part of his name is pre-Hellenic and comes from the Mycenaean era. another word like that would be Corinth — a pre-Greek polis that was destroyed and rebuilt. this leads many to believe that Hyakinthos was around BEFORE Apollo. he would have been a chthonic vegetation god — almost like the male equivalent to Persephone. this leads to a few different theories, but before I get to that, let me tell you the story of Hyakinthos as told by Ovid and Lucian’s “Dialogues of the Gods”. ═══════════════════════════

⊰ The Myth ⊱

Hyakinthos was a beautiful Spartan prince. he had many lovers, but the one that had eventually won his heart was Apollo. the god taught beautiful long-haired Hyakinthos how to play the lyre, how to use a bow and arrows, a little bit on prophecies, and gave him a swan chariot. the two were incredibly in love, but sadly, there was someone who didn’t like that. Zephyros, the west wind, was jealous for he too loved Hyakinthos. he had tried to woo him but it really was no match for Apollo. he watched the two men play again and again until he had eventually had enough of it. he ultimately created one of the most tragic love stories. like most days, Apollo and Hyakinthos were together, playing around and having mild competitions throwing a discus. Apollo wanted to show off for Hyakinthos so he could see just what a god could do. he threw a discus high into the air, clearing the clouds away and it disappeared into the sky. Hyakinthos wanted to impress his lover as well, so he chased after the discus laughing. Zephyros in a fit of rage at the two men enjoying themselves changed the course of the discus. as it came to land, the force was so strong that it bounced off the ground and smashed into Hyakinthos’s face. Apollo ran to his lover and tried every kind of medicine and healing he could think of. he even placed ambrosia on his lover’s lips but blood flowed freely from the wound. there was no way for him to stop a wound of Fate. in his despair, he turned Hyakinthos into a flower, but seeing that wasn’t good enough, he wrote his grief upon the petals. ═══════════════════════════

⊰ Symbolism From The Myth ⊱

Taking A Temple as mentioned before, it’s very likely that Hyakinthos was an older deity from the pre-hellenic period. something that many Greek writers did, was create a myth of how a deity began their worship in a specific place. we know the temple that Apollo was worshipped at in Amyclae was older than when his worship would have started. one theory behind this myth then, is how Apollo came to be worshipped over Hyakinthos at the temple and area; by killing the previous deity. it sounds sad, but it’s actually happened several times, and even with Apollo specifically. the most famous example I can think of would be at Delphi. originally the temple was in honor of the titan Gaia. Apollo came in valiantly and killed the Python (which is what gives Apollo’s priestesses their name) and inevitably took the temple over with his worship. what this doesn’t account for, is the fact Hyakinthos is still worshipped at the temple heavily, his and Apollo’s worship having mingled and being near inseparable. it is even said that upon his death and burial, Apollo said to give him (Hyakinthos) all offerings first. now, if you know a thing or two about Greek worship, the first portion of the offering was incredibly important, especially considering hero worship was probably closer to chthonic sacrifices in practice; though they were not considered to be ‘dead’. within my research so far, I have yet to find this happening somewhere else, but I will update this if I ever do. now all of this is unusual with the theory that this myth symbolizes one deity taking over. if that were the case, why continue to worship Hyakinthos? Duality some of you may not know this about me, but I am a sucker when it comes to duality, specifically with lovers. this myth may be a symbol for the growing season and harvest of the crops. while it may be a common motif, especially among the Greeks, I think it’s a sweet and somber story giving personification to an important aspect of Greek life. I also believe the duality is less about the exacts of what they rule over, but the way they were worshipped. the closest example I can think of also comes from Delphi with the duality between Apollo and Dionysos (who, shockingly enough, was the only other god historians believe was present during the Hyakinthia festival besides Apollo and Hyakinthos). as a hero, or simply for his chthonic aspect, the ritual and practice would have been far different than that for Apollo. while this isn’t exactly backed by anything I can find specific to duality, I personally feel a reason both Apollo and Hyakinthos were worshipped together in Amyclae is due to that duality between them. Hyakinthos would have been a chthonic deity probably for vegetation or agriculture, whereas Apollo here is a god of light (not the sun) representing life, health, and the ultimate grief. their worship in Amyclae was always together once Apollo was introduced (to some this hinted that they were possibly the same person representing a cycle, but most disagree with this theory). the duality is clearly a theme already for Apollo, and I think what happened at Delphi with Dionysos is the same for Amyclae and Hyakinthos. together they represent loss and mourning but also happiness and life — love. ═══════════════════════════

⊰ Hyakinthos Associations ⊱

okay, now that I have bored you all to death, let’s talk about some less heavy things. due to their worship being completely together, I would say that nearly anything related to Apollo can also be associated with Hyakinthos and vice versa. however, we love individuality in this house, so let’s talk about the things either associated with him through the various, limited texts we have and some UPG. Associations ➳ larkspurs/hyacinths ➳ swans ➳ bow and arrow ➳ summer! ➳ new spring growth ➳ chiton’s (they were offered to him by the women of Sparta) ➳ death ➳ rebirth/cycles ➳ chariot’s ➳ blood ➳ blue/purple/red colors ➳ discus (sorry) ➳ lavender ➳ lyre ➳ lapis lazuli ➳ amethyst ➳ black tourmaline ═══════════════════════════ Devotional Activities ➳ keeping a garden ➳ maybe even an indoor garden ➳ go to parks and feed the swans/birds ➳ archery ➳ sports ➳ making a chiton ➳ writing poems ➳ taking care of those around you ➳ growing larkspurs/hyacinths ➳ get a devotional journal ➳ create a playlist (sad songs for the most part) ➳ fall in love deeply ═══════════════════════════

⊰ Deity Or Divine Hero? ⊱

I don’t know if this question can be answered for a fact honestly. what we do know is that he was at least worshipped as a hero, that much can be said. anything further than that comes at a later time and from the outside perspective. a lot of ancient Greek writers didn’t write down certain things because they saw them as common knowledge. this doesn’t help us looking back now. what we can say, is that some of the offerings given to him were not common with hero worship and would have been reserved for the gods. this is according to Angeliki Petropoulou, a professor in ancient greek studies/religion, and the author of “Hyakinthos and Apollo of Amyklai: Identities and Cults. A Reconsideration of the Written Evidence” pages 153-161. Within this, she makes the argument that Hyakinthos has gone through ‘apotheosis’. this is the action of a mortal, usually a hero, becoming a god. note: ‘βουθυσία’ is a traditional oxen sacrifice.

“The βουθυσία for Hyakinthos, which is indicative of his new immortal status, should be placed on the third day too. Oxen are costly victims, the bull being the most “noble” sacrificial animal. After mourning for Hyakinthos’s death and making a propitiatory sacrifice at his tomb, they honoured him with a bull sacrificed as if to a god. Yet the geographical range in which he was regarded as god was rather circumscribed and did not spread beyond the borders of Lakedaimonia. The βουθυσία for Hyakinthos would have been instituted after the construction of the altar on which Apollo received sacrifices; for the only altar excavated, in an area filled with remnants of burnt sacrifices, is attributed to Apollo.”

so there you have it. most places will probably call him a hero, and that wouldn’t be wrong. others may call him a deity, which also isn’t wrong. I’ll tell you what I’m personally going to go with, and everyone can make their own decision based on the information listed through this post and the readings I’ll link at the bottom. no matter your conclusion, the relationship you have will be completely yours, and it’s ok! if anything, I encourage that over taking my word for it. ══════════════════════════ for me, I think I consider him a deity. I know that I heavily romanticize the story, and with Apollo being so near to my heart, him having a terrible love life hurts my soul. while I don’t exactly want to rewrite any myths, I won’t claim that they are married, I will say that I believe them to be happy. their worship in Amyclae was so intertwined and based completely around each other from the history we know, that, for me, it makes sense to also honor them together. I’ll leave you all on one more incredibly sad quote from Lucien’s “Dialogue of the Gods” (that I referenced from earlier).

”Apollon : Well, my loves never prosper; Daphne and Hyakinthos (Hyacinthus) were my great passions; she so detested me that being turned to a tree was more attractive than I; and him I killed with a quoit. Nothing is left me of them but wreaths of their leaves and flowers.”

it’s ok to cry, I do nearly every time I read that.

⊰ For Further Reading ⊱

➳Hyakinthos theoi ➳Apollo theoi ➳Hyakinthos Wiki ➳My Hellenic Research Google Drive this also contains the Sparta book I reference and a few others worth a read.

[yamayuandadu]

Circe by Madeline Miller: a review

As you might have noticed, a few of my most recent posts were more or less a liveblog of Madeline Miller’s novel Circe. However, as they hardly exhausted the subject, a proper review is also in order. You can find it under the “read more” button. All sorts of content warnings apply because this book takes a number of turns one in theory can expect from Greek mythology but which I’d hardly expect to come up in relation to Circe. I should note that this is my first contact with this author’s work. I am not familiar with Miller’s more famous, earlier novel Song of Achilles - I am not much of an Iliad aficionado, truth to be told. I read the poem itself when my literature class required it, but it left no strong impact on me, unlike, say, the Epic of Gilgamesh or, to stay within the theme of Greek mythology, Homeric Hymn to Demeter, works which I read at a similar point in my life on my own accord.

What motivated me to pick up this novel was the slim possibility that for once I’ll see my two favorite Greek gods in fiction, these being Hecate and Helios (in case you’re curious: #3 is Cybele but I suspect that unless some brave soul will attempt to adapt Nonnus’ Dionysiaca, she’ll forever be stuck with no popcultural presence outside Shin Megami Tensei). After all, it seemed reasonable to expect that Circe’s father will be involved considering their relationship, while rarely discussed in classical sources, seems remarkably close. Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women and Apollonius’ Argonautica describe Circe arriving on her island in her father’s solar chariot, while Ptolemy Hephaestion (as quoted by Photius) notes that Helios protected her home during the Gigantomachy. Helios, for all intents and purposes, seems like a decent dad (and, in Medea’s case, grandpa) in the source material even though his most notable children (and granddaughter) are pretty much all cackling sorcerers, not celebrated heroes. How does Miller’s Helios fare, compared to his mythical self? Not great, to put it lightly, as you’ll see later. As for Hecate… she’s not even in the book. Let me preface the core of the review by saying I don’t think reinterpreting myths, changing relations between figures, etc. is necessarily bad - ancient authors did it all the time, and modern adaptations will inevitably do so too, both to maintain internal coherence and perhaps to adjust the stories to a modern audience, much like ancient authors already did. I simply don’t think this book is successful at that. The purpose of the novel is ostensibly to elevate Circe above the status of a one-dimensional minor antagonist - but to accomplish this, the author mostly demonizes her family and a variety of other figures, so the net result is that there are more one dimensional female villains, not less. I expected the opposite, frankly. The initial section of the novel focuses on Circe’s relationship with her family, chiefly with her father. That’s largely uncharted territory in the source material - to my knowledge no ancient author seemed particularly interested in covering this period in her life. Blank pages of this sort are definitely worth filling. To begin with, Helios is characterized as abusive, neglectful and power-hungry. And also, for some reason, as Zeus’ main titan ally in the Titanomachy - a role which Hesiod attributes to Hecate… To be fair I do not think it’s Hesiod who serves as the primary inspiration here, as it’s hard to see any traces of his account - in which Zeus wins in no small part because he promises the lesser titans higher positions that they had under Cronus - in Miller’s version of events. Only Helios and Oceanus keep their share, and are presented as Zeus’ only titan allies (there’s a small plot hole as Selene appears in the novel and evidently still is the moon…) - contrary to just about any portrayal of the conflict, in which many titans actually side with Zeus and his siblings. Also, worth noting that in Hesiod’s version it’s not Oceanus himself who cements the pact with Zeus, it’s his daughter Styx - yes, -that- Styx. Missed opportunity to put more focus on female mythical figures - first of many in this work, despite many reviews praising it as “feminist.” Of course, it’s not all about Helios. We are quickly introduced to a variety of female characters as well (though, as I noted above, none of these traditionally connected to the Titanomachy despite it being a prominent aspect of the book’s background). They are all somewhat repetitive - to the point of being basically interchangeable. Circe’s mother is vain and cruel; so is Scylla. And Pasiphae. There’s no real indication of any hostility between Circe and any of her siblings in classical sources, as far as I am aware, but here it’s a central theme. The subplots pertaining to it bear an uncanny resemblance to these young adult novels in which the heroine, who is Not Like Other Girls, confronts the Chads and Stacies of the world, and I can’t shake off the feelings that it’s exactly what it is, though with superficial mythical flourish on top. I should note that Pasiphae gets a focus arc of sorts - which to my surprise somehow manages to be more sexist than the primary sources. A pretty famous tidbit repeated by many ancient authors is that Pasiphae cursed her husband Minos, regarded as unfaithful, to kill anyone else he’d have sex with with his… well, bodily fluids. Here she does it entirely  because she’s a debased sadist and not because unfaithfulness is something one can be justifiably mad about. You’d think it would be easy to put a sympathetic spin on this. But the book manages to top that in the very same chapter - can’t have Pasiphae without the Minotaur (sadly - I think virtually everything else about Pasiphae and Minos is more fun than that myth but alas) so in a brand new twist on this myth we learn that actually the infamous affair wasn’t a curse placed on Pasiphae by Poseidon or Aphrodite because of some transgression committed by Minos. She’s just wretched like that by nature. I’m frankly speechless, especially taking into account the book often goes out of its way to present deities in the worst light possible otherwise, and which as I noted reviews praise for its feminist approach - I’m not exactly sure if treating Pasiphae worse than Greek and Roman authors did counts as that.  I should note this is not the only instance of… weirdly enthusiastic references to carnal relations between gods and cattle in this book, as there’s also a weird offhand mention of Helios being the father of his own cows. This, as far as I can tell, is not present in any classical sources and truth to be told I am not a huge fan of this invention. I won’t try to think about the reason behind this addition to maintain my sanity. Pasiphae aside - the author expands on the vague backstory Circe has in classical texts which I’ve mentioned earlier. You’d expect that her island would be a gift from her father - after all many ancient sources state that he provided his children and grandchildren with extravagant gifts. However, since Helios bears little resemblance to his mythical self, Aeaea is instead a place of exile here, since Helios hates Circe and Zeus is afraid of witchcraft and demands such a solution (the same Zeus who, according to Hesiod, holds Hecate in high esteem and who appeared with her on coins reasonably commonly… but hey, licentia poetica, this idea isn’t necessarily bad in itself). Witchcraft is presented as an art exclusive to Helios’ children here - Hecate is nowhere to be found, it’s basically as if her every role in Greek mythology was surgically removed. A bit of a downer, especially since at least one text - I think Ovid’s Metarphoses? - Circe directly invokes Hecate during her confrontation with king Picus (Surprisingly absent here despite being a much more fitting antagonist for Circe than many of the characters presented as her adversaries in this novel…) Of course, we also learn about the origin of Circe’s signature spell according to ancient sources, changing people into animals. It actually takes the novel a longer while to get there, and the invented backstory boils down to Circe getting raped. Despite ancient Greek authors being rather keen on rape as plot device, to my knowledge this was never a part of any myth about Circe. Rather odd decision to put it lightly but I suppose at least there was no cattle involved this time, perhaps two times was enough for the author. Still, I can’t help but feel like much like many other ideas present in this book it seems a bit like the author’s intent is less elevating the Circe above the role of a one note witch antagonist, but rather punishing her for being that. The fact she keeps self loathing about her origin and about not being human doesn’t exactly help to shake off this feeling. This impression that the author isn’t really fond of Circe being a wacky witch only grows stronger when Odysseus enters the scene. There was already a bit of a problem before with Circe’s life revolving around love interests before - somewhat random ones at that (Dedalus during the Pasiphae arc and Hermes on and off - not sure what the inspiration for either of these was) - but it was less noticeable since it was ultimately in the background and the focus was the conflict between Circe and Helios, Pasiphae, etc. In the case of Odysseus it’s much more notable because these subplots cease to appear for a while. As a result of meeting him, Circe decides she wants to experience the joys of motherhood, which long story short eventually leads to the birth of Telegonus, who does exactly what he was famous for. The final arcs have a variety of truly baffling plot twists which didn’t really appeal to me, but which I suppose at least show a degree of creativity - better than just turning Helios’ attitude towards his children upside down for sure. Circe ends up consulting an oc character who I can only describe as “stingray Cthulhu.” His presence doesn’t really add much, and frankly it feels like yet another wasted opportunity to use Hecate, but I digress. Oh, also in another twist Athena is recast as the villain of the Odyssey. Eventually Circe gets to meet Odysseus’ family, for once interacts with another female character on positive terms (with Penelope, to be specific) and… gets together with Telemachus, which to be fair is something present in many ancient works but which feels weird here since there was a pretty long passage about Odysseus describing him as a child to Circe. I think I could live without it. Honestly having her get together with Penelope would feel considerably less weird, but there are no lesbians in the world of this novel. It would appear that the praise for Song of Achilles is connected to the portrayal of gay relationships in it. Can’t say that this applies to Circe - on this front we have an offhand mention of Hyacinth's death. which seems to serve no real purpose other than establishing otherwise irrelevant wind god is evil, and what feels like an advert for Song of Achilles courtesy of Odysseus, which takes less than one page. Eventually Circe opts to become mortal to live with Telemachus and denounces her father and… that’s it. This concludes the story of Circe. I don’t exactly think the original is the deepest or greatest character in classical literature, but I must admit I’d rather read about her wacky witch adventures than about Miller’s Circe. A few small notes I couldn’t fit elsewhere: something very minor that bothered me a lot but that to be honest I don’t think most readers will notice is the extremely chaotic approach to occasional references to the world outside Greece - Sumer is randomly mentioned… chronologically after Babylon and Assyria, and in relation to Persians (or rather - to Perses living among them). At the time we can speak of “Persians” Sumerian was a dead language at best understood by a few literati in the former great cities of Mesopotamia so this is about the same as if a novel about Mesopotamia mentioned Macedonians and then completely randomly Minoans at a chronologically later point. Miller additionally either confused or conflated Perses, son of Perseus, who was viewed positively and associated with Persia (so positively that Xerxes purportedly tried to use it for propaganda purposes!) with Perses the obscure brother of Circe et. al, who is a villain in an equally obscure myth casting Medea as the heroine, in which he rules over “Tauric Chersonese,” the Greek name of a part of Crimea. I am honestly uncertain why was he even there as he amounts to nothing in the book, and there are more prominent minor children of Helios who get no mention (like Aix or Phaeton) so it’s hard to argue it was for the sake of completion. Medea evidently doesn’t triumph over him offscreen which is his sole mythical purpose. Is there something I liked? Well, I’m pretty happy Selene only spoke twice, considering it’s in all due likeness all that spared her from the fate of receiving similarly “amazing” new characterization as her brother. As is, she was… okay. Overall I am definitely not a fan of the book. As for its purported ideological value? It certainly has a female main character. Said character sure does have many experiences which are associated with women. However, I can’t help but think that the novel isn’t exactly feminist - it certainly focuses on Circe, but does it really try to “rehabilitate” her? And is it really “rehabilitation” and feminist reinterpretation when almost every single female character in the book is the same, and arguably depicted with even less compassion than in the source material?  It instead felt like the author’s goal is take away any joy and grandeur present in myths, and to deprive Circe of most of what actually makes her Circe. We don’t need to make myths joyless to make them fit for a new era. It’s okay for female characters to be wacky one off villains and there’s no need to punish them for it. A book which celebrates Circe for who she actually is in the Odyssey and in other Greek sources - an unapologetic and honestly pretty funny character -  would feel much more feminist to me that a book where she is a wacky witch not because she feels like it but because she got raped, if you ask me. 

Circe evidently having the time of her life, by Edmund Dulac (public domain)

[aliciavance4228]

Yup! And yeah, I hate that statue where their roles are "reversed" too, especially because it was originally made for the #metoo movement and Perseus didn't rape nor SAd Medusa in any way. Also I do not like the way they always make her look like a beautiful woman, but that's another story. If they really wanted to follow Ovid's version they could've depicted Medusa with the head of Poseidon. But then again, in the oldest version of her myths she was born a gorgon and had consentual sex with Poseidon.

If they really wanted to use this myth properly in the first place they could've depict Perseus petrifying Polydectes (his mother's rapist/assaulter) or Phineus (Andromeda's uncle who most likely wanted to marry her in order to be the next one to the throne and even kidnaps her in one version of the myths). Ironically enough, people tend to erase/ignore any other victims of Rape/SA from Greek Mythology in order to portray Medusa as the ultimate tragic victim to ever exist.

Many people talk about how Cellini's depiction of Perseus with the head of Medusa is disturbing because Perseus is shown holding her head victoriously/full of pride, but if you view the statue from below this is literally his face:

It seems to be an effect Michelangelo's Statue of David has too, with the difference that the angles are reversed. If you watch the statue from below David seems glorious and has a god-like appearance, but if you watch it from above you realize that he is in fact afraid, because in that scene he's supposed to look at Goliath.

[greekbros]

(so I got into an extremely pointless argument with someone on Reddit, nothing unusual or anything but it shows how willing people are to believe in the trendy idea of "Tumblr-fied" Greek mythology and history....)

(here it goes, I mentioned the Medusa mythology and how there's very little proof of her image being used as a safe space for female victims. The image of Medusa is more synonymous with Athena as her Aegis (either a protective symbol of a gorgon or some other creature.) which is what likely people who believe in the ovid version of Medusa myth is confused with)

(I'm saying confused because this individual brutally insisted that Ovid's version is the only source that matters....)

(like what? They were implying that a culturaly appropriated ROMAN version of a GREEK mythical story has more validity than the original GREEK version? That's completely ignorant.)

(on top of that, they also implied the Medusa was a symbol of sexual protection, ok... again that's the ovid version. Medusa was a born gorgon who had 2 other sisters and was the child of Echidna and Typhon. They rebuttal by stating "That's not relevant because that doesn't actually explain her story about being raped".......she .....was.....never....raped?)

(If I had to properly interpret her existence as anything, it would be either an opposing religion or folk religion that was considered a threat to that time period 's current or predominant religion....the story of Perseus is ancient Greek version of St.Gorge vs the dragon.....the reason being is because of the way the story patterns itself and Medusa 's parental history.)

(it's that simple....if anyone wants to find a female character to use as a feminist representation of sexual assault there's several female characters in Greek mythology that LITERALLY had it worse than Medusa....)

(You have Hermaphrodites, the mother of Adonis, in a sad sense anyone that Zeus had relations in a forced manner with that is both in an ancient and modern way rape, and several others....I honestly can't fathom why Medusa is the poster child for this. If anything she should represent the pagan group of people whom were prosecuted by the more dominant religions at the time.....)

(for someone to take and remove the cultural, religious and mythological context of the original GREEK story, (call me a hoebag for even saying anything) and ultimately get their main source of information from Instagram or Tumblr than get pissed honestly should do another trendy thing)

(read a book, do your research and think about how silly you sound when you say things you don't know)

[gingerwarrior]

I saw the post about Hapi and thought I'd share another intersex deity. This one is named Hermaphroditus, a Greek deity. The term hermaphrodite, the former term for intersex originated from this god's name.

Hermes, the messenger of the gods and Aphrodite, the goddess of love bore a beautiful son. Combining their names together, they decided to name him Hermaphroditus. They didn't raise their son, however. Alternatively, he was sent to Mount Ida, a mountain of Asia Minor, where he was raised by nymphs.

Hermaphroditus was extremely handsome, and he knew it. His ego even convinced him he could conquer the world with his looks alone. As a result, when he turned fifteen, he set out to try to do just that.

One of the places he visited was Caria. One day, he ventured out to explore some woods near Halicarnassus and came upon a nymph named Salmacis sitting near a fountain. This nymph must have agreed with the current assessment of his beauty because she was instantly suffused with lust for him.

Salmacis's urge to have the boy was so overpowering, she tried desperately to seduce him. But her love was one-sided, as Hermaphroditus wanted nothing to do with her and rejected every advance.

Ultimately, Salmacis gave up and left, or so Hermaphroditus thought. The nymph was actually hiding behind a tree, watching as the god undressed and began to bathe in the pool.

Just when she undoubtedly knew his guard was down, Salmacis jumped nimbly into the shimmering water and entangled her body tightly around Hermaphroditus. Although he struggled fiercely to get away, the nymph fervently kissed him and kept him in her clutches.

As Hermaphroditus tried to doggedly fight her off, Salmacis cried out to the gods and beseeched them to unite the two together forever. What she likely meant was to be joined in a committed relationship. What the gods did, however, was physically join the two.

Hermaphroditus' flawless skin began softening, his face and legs became more feminine, and he grew breasts; however, his male genitalia stayed. He was devastated! He knew he could no longer conquer the world with his youthful looks because the world would fiercely reject him.

As told by the Roman poet, Ovid, in Metamorphoses, a distraught and spiteful Hermaphroditus went to his parents and beseeched them to curse the fountain; so that anyone who utilized it would also become like him. Some versions of the tale say anyone who drank from the pool would also grow weak. His parents granted his request.

Thanks to the concupiscent Salmacis and the events of that day, Hermaphroditus naturally became the god of hermaphrodites and of the effeminate and the ultimate symbol of androgyny. He also physically represented the union of a man and woman in marriage.

Alternative stories say that he was “born that way.” As we might tell, this is where the term, “hermaphrodite” naturally comes from.

Additionally, he was numbered amongst the winged love-gods known as Erotes.

#Hermaphroditus #hermaphrodite #intersex #greekgods

[antiloreolympus]

3 Anti LO Asks

1. I’m going to agreed with that other anon. It’s a little questionable Rachel’s main sources such as Nonnus, Ovid, and Robert Graves are all non-Greeks and are separated well after even the times of proper mythology worship.

Nonnus is just a speculative tool, but the latter two are especially bad as Ovid hated the “authority” of the gods so he purposely made up worse versions of any myth he could get his hands on to demonize every single one of them (ie. Medusa being turned into a victim of SA and a monster via Athena, which wasn’t the original myth, turning a a famed intersex deity who was born that way into being the result of attempted child r*pe and said child being stuck with their r*pist, he’s also the only source for “Aphrodite caused HxP to be s thing”, because he was literally calling her and eros evil and was pretty explicit hades violently r*ped Persephone over it because she didn’t get any “love arrows” either, etc etc though Ovid as far as I can tell is the only source for Minthe’s existence, so I suppose he’s kinda unavoidable in this case) while Graves is not even Latin, he’s a British man who died 1985 (!) who literally wrote FanFiction, such as claiming Persephone’s name is only through marriage and her “actual birth name” is Kore (yep, he’s the source on that!), that Apollo and Artemis are in fact lovers and even have a daughter together, that the British actually do get claim over Greece, the mythology, and its treasures because the ancient Greeks and Trojans were “all just British who migrated down south”, and many many more awful takes claimed as “fact”. He’s not even an admitted greek expert, his focus was actually Celtic myth (which is also full of bad, incredibly distasteful takes to demonize the Irish and Scottish compared to the “godly” English) and he was uh, how you said, a raging racist who say whiteness has “the ultimate sign of divinity” and anyone who was even tanned, much less actual people of color, were abominations who the gods hated. Graves is an especially awful man and even worse “source”, and no one with an inkling of respect of the mythology or even a hint of academic knowledge would trust him, much less hold him up as a source as legitimate or even more so than the actual greeks. The fact Rachel puts so much credibility and even places most of her “research” on a man who wasn’t a source in anything besides being a white nationalist and proud racist colonizer who loved nothing more than making sure white people were on top and that it’s good the British have abused and stolen so much from Greece and everywhere else is concerning to say the least.

2. That anon is doing a LOT of heavy lifting trying to turn the Minthe and Thetis relationship as anything but a way to demonize two women. It would be a good argument if we had any other and actually healthy female friendships to go off of, but we don't. Even the potential for friendships are non-existent in the comic, especially among women. The only "ok" examples are the nameless nymphs who only exist for P's "development" and Daphne, who also exists to only defend P and excuse HxP's actions.

3. As someone who really like the fonts used in Lo let me just say this: they're not used properly. It's the only webtoon as far as i can tell that uses what would be considered a "normal" font with upper and lower case letters, but that's not good for comic design, especially dialogue. You want them to be in an all caps style so it's easier to read especially on a phone screen. the font it uses would be great for prose and narration and even showing passage of time, but it's awful for dialogue.

[yurifem]

You said drop some knowledge, so here is why I believe the evil eye originated as a way for Hera to protect a woman from Zeus.

So the Nazar 🧿 is the most widely recognized apotropaic charms against the evil eye. It's the Arab version of the older Greek "eye cups" used to protect against it. The oldest evidence of the evil eye and charms against it are Greek.

I've always thought, but can't prove, that the evil eye ultimately shows us that Hera is a protector goddess.

Io was an Argive princess and priestess of Hera. Argos was home to one of Hera's largest and most important temples. Zeus saw his wife's beautiful priestess and lusted after her. She refused his advances repeatedly, as she was his wife's priestess. Zeus, ultimate God of Prophecy, even over Apollon, caused the local oracles to tell the king, Io's father, to banish her from his home and city.

Here's where it gets iffy -and I swear I'm getting to the evil eye connection. Ovid claims that Zeus turned Io into a beautiful white heifer. These were sacred to Hera. So Hera, knowing what was happening, asked Zeus to give her Io as a gift. He had no choice. Hera placed Io under the watch of Argus, who had 100 eyes all over his body. Only half would blink at a time, so he was always able to watch Io. Zeus, still lusting after Io, sent Hermes to kill Argus and chase Io out of the temple. He defiled her and she eventually had a lineage of heroes.

Hera was devastated by the loss of Argus and placed his eyes upon the tails of her sacred peacocks, in honor of her loyal companion. I believe this is where the evil eye charm comes from. I believe it's a protective symbol of Hera.

Ovid of course paints Hera to be the bad guy. In his version, she sends a gadfly to torment Io once the heifer "escapes." But other sources indicte that Hera bore no ill will towards Io. First, she set her servant to guard Io. That could have been to spite Zeus, or or could have genuinely been to protect Io. Second, she had Argus watch Io inside the grove in the Temple of Hera at Argos (the Argive Heraion) which was one of her oldest and largest temples. Third, priestesses actually observed a mourning ceremony for Io at the Heraion. Would they do that for someone their goddess hated?

The evil eye is often interpreted as malicious envy or covetousness. Zeus coveted Io and ruined her life. Hera tried to counter Zeus' gaze with Argus' watchful eyes. She was trying to protect Io and gave us eye amulets and cups to protect us.

i enjoy your take. my gf loves greek mythology so i feel like she will appreciate this @nephilimfem

[prettylittleproblem]

What is your favorite Greek or Roman myth and what is it about? [4:32]

Medusa. Always. Always and forever. Although, when I was younger, I viewed her story much differently than I do now and that is mainly because of the way it’s always been retold--the way it’s always been presented to us. The way I take her story now-to me-is the better rightful version and it makes much more sense especially when you take a look at other myths and see the theme of women helping women behind their actions.

TLDR/L: Medusa. That ain’t no curse; that’s POWER.

So, a little recap, Medusa was a mortal woman, at least in Ovid’s retelling of it, and she had sworn to a life of celibacy. She had long, beautiful locks of hair, and is described as being exceptionally attractive. Poseidon, god of the sea, lusted after Medusa and he raped her in Athena’s temple. After finding out about Poseidon’s attack on Medusa, a supposedly jealous Athena turns Medusa’s lovely locks into snakes and cursed her with the ability to turn men who looked at her into stone.

Medusa’s immortal sisters-she had two of them-they were also turned into gorgons for standing by their sister’s side. All three of them were seen as monstrous for having the power to kill men. Medusa was the only mortal one and she was the most attractive of the three. She was also the most powerful. She killed more men than either of her sisters, and that made her the most threatening and the most feared. Every time I have heard or read Medusa’s myth retold, the fact that she was a victim of rape is dwarfed by her frightening appearance and ability to turn men into stone. It sweeps the original violence against Medusa under the rug to center it on the violence she commits against men.

Athena turning Medusa’s hair into snakes, it’s always perceived as punishment, and the theme of revenge is stressed in different versions of the myth, but Medusa’s rape is glossed over. It’s mentioned once at the beginning of the tale, if at all. I’ve seen it called an “affair” or that she “slept with” Poseidon. Medusa was raped. Poseidon raped her.

Athena was aware of Poseidon’s hunger for Medusa and she also knew of Medusa’s vow of celibacy. So, what if Athena’s curse on Medusa wasn’t a punishment at all but an act of kindness and protection?

Get this, Medusa’s name originates from an ancient Greek verb that means “to protect and guard,” which might be a nod to Athena’s attempt to guard and protect Medusa from further abuse at the hands of Poseidon and other men. So with that in mind, Athena’s curse was not a punishment for Medusa but a punishment for the gods and men who intended to harm her. After all, if you think about it, Athena gave Medusa the ultimate power against men: the power to both punish and avoid the male gaze regardless of the rank or status of the man daring to look at her. Am I right?

There are other Greek myths in which women covertly help protect each other. Read about Philomela and Procne, also the Sirens. It’s there.

So, anyway, after killing Medusa, Perseus gave Athena her head, which Athena then placed on her shield as protection for herself.

Over and over again when I look past how we’ve been retold these stories, ya know, with women being jealous and competing with one another, I can see the female relationships that are there in relation to the male figures and it changes so much.

[eucanthos]

eucanthos

Thisbe’s metamorphosis, 2019. The metamorphosis in the primary story involves Pyramus changing into river and Thisbe into a nearby spring. 1.Pyramus and Thisbe, 1585-89. Hendrick Goltzius (atelier of). 2.Polaroid patent

Ovid's (adaptation of an existing etiological myth) Pyramus and Thisbe lived in Babylon and Ctesias had placed the tomb of his imagined king Ninus near that city, the myth probably originated in Cilicia (part of Ninus' Babylonian empire) as Pyramos is the historical Greek name of the local Ceyhan River.

The tragedy of Romeo and Juliet ultimately sprang from Ovid's story. Here the star-crossed lovers cannot be together because Juliet has been engaged by her parents to another man and the two families hold an ancient grudge. As in Pyramus and Thisbe, the mistaken belief in one lover's death leads to consecutive suicides.

A 2nd-century mosaic unearthed near Nea Paphos on Cyprus depicts this older version of the myth. -wiki