#ithaca and sparta be having MANY cultural differences

[into-the-very-fires-of-mordor]

please please please by sabrina carpenter is odypen coded, in this essay i will...

[dootznbootz]

Water Wife!Penelope having sharp teeth reminds me of how in the 1997 miniseries she sometimes covered her face in front of the suitors. Maybe she covers her face to hide her sharp teeth?

Thank you for the ask! :D

Yes and No in my writing!

Only in the beginning on Ithaca and during certain moments of scheming does she really cover her mouth. While first on Ithaca because she noticed people were a bit nervous around her because of it (not always good to have, intimidation is nice but so is flattery). As not many "wild naiads" (aka non-fountain ones) were in the city. And the Wild Naiads on Ithaca are a bit temperamental, so people would see her pearly whites and have a "oh shit, is she gonna yell at me?"

So she sometimes covers her mouth when she laughs in the beginning, in order to not startle people and make connections.

Odysseus notices this and doesn't like this as "when have you ever wilted for another?" but Penelope knows this is how she eases into this new place/culture. It's hard for her, as it's very different from what she's used to in Sparta, but the Ithacan royal family, a few other nymphs, Athena ofc, and others are supportive of her. :)

A few spats with snooty fountain naiads cause some problems as Penelope can't keep her mouth shut, but she very much comes into her own on Ithaca. Most already know she's a nymph with her ears and reputation so there's no point in hiding it. plus smiles are fun.

Another part of the reason why the suitors wanted her so much (along with the throne and her intelligence) is because nymphs, even non fullblooded ones, remain fairly youthful, live long lives, and usually affect their spouses in that way too. But it's also a whole thing of keeping them happy and that they LIKE you. xD

People already know she's a naiadborn and a smart one at that. She only hides it if the scheme needs it (and then she should cover her ears as well, and she has some scaley spots on her body). But even then, fountain naiadborn are common, so it really depends :P

[lyculuscaelus]

Yes I may or may not have researched a lot on the possible route of Odysseus’s journey and made a map myself. But if you ask me how I feel abt this…let’s just say, personally I’m feeling like I’ve stridden too far.

The thing is, we’re associating real-world places with magical realms. While we can still find a lot of archaeological evidence for those mythological kingdoms (Ithaca, Pylos, Sparta, Troy/Wilusa…), it isn’t really the case for magical creatures like Sirens and Cyclopes. It’s not that I dislike reconstructing the associations—on the contrary, I respect all the work done by so many researchers so much. But now that I’ve tried to do something similar, and almost ended up using it for my own reference—let’s just say, I’m feeling a bit lost.

How much is too much when we’re dissecting a story?

I do believe the criteria differ for different people, so persuading any of you is not what I’m trying to do here. But for me personally? Yeah, it becomes too much when we’re asking mythology to line up with reality perfectly, when it’s actually not always the case. Not especially when it might end up being used for our own reference.

No. That is something I personally do not enjoy.

As much as I appreciate some people’s effort to make mythology stuff as realistic (to that specific area and era) as possible (and these works are so amazing indeed), I personally do not feel the same impulse. Yes, anachronisms might be annoying for some, but sometimes, we just have to recognize the fact that some of them are inevitable, not because we neglect the details, but just because we don’t know.

We just don’t have enough information to completely reconstruct the ancient society and culture, events, and even the life of those heroes (if they did, in fact, exist). And some of the little knowledge we get from the archaeological analysis is still under debate. It would be nearly impossible to picture the story with completely accurate settings. That is why anachronisms will emerge more or less.

And Homer knew. After around four centuries of chaos, Homer knew.

He may or may not be bad at western Mediterranean geography as some may argue, there is the observation that the Homeric epics are Panhellenic epics with a wide variety of audience, which means sometimes certain epichoric traditions have to give way to Homer’s vision of the events, whether or not he was aware of their existence. The idea that the avoidance of real-world associations is an intentional choice to avoid clashes of opinions based on local traditions has been thriving for a while too, and to some extent I do agree with those scholars. There’s another point in this: the Panhellenic settings are more familiar to Homer, and easier to work on, compared with local settings such as Italy, which was still relatively new to Greeks in Homer’s time.

So between reality and fantasy, Homer chose the latter for the Odyssey—at least for Odysseus’s Apologoi. Our hero was wandering on that part of the sea which was supposed to be the western Mediterranean Sea but not entirely, on islands which might be totally fictional, encountering monsters and gods that might not even exist in real life. Meanwhile, those more realistic journeys of Odysseus were rendered mere falsehoods, in those Cretan tales” he made up constantly.

Reality cannot keep Homer on its leash, not this time.

Sometimes, it’s better off letting your imagination fly.

[rfallfish]

The Myth of "Greek VS Roman" Mythology

I've heard so many people insist on this hard distinction between "Roman mythology" and "Greek mythology", and I finally need to talk about it. Did Rome and Greece at one point have unique and divided folklore and stories? Of course! Rome and Greece inherited stories from the people in their area that came before them, and they changed over time. But does this mean that we can draw a clear distinction between "Roman Mythology" and "Greek Mythology". No. And here's why.

Folklore is Always a Meld

The nature of folklore is to change over time and be altered by the surrounding factors. The nature of folklore, then, is also to be swayed and changed by other stories that it comes into contact with. From the very first meeting between a Greek and a Roman, wheels began to turn that ultimately ended up with these stories being inextricably linked. Romans began to worship Apollo as early as the Kingdom period (according to Livy). In time, the Greeks would begin weaving their own stories of Janus, a quintessentially Latin god, and some such stories contradicted any Roman sources. A lot of the deities were similar, so naturally identifications began to occur. It's impossible to really tell at what point the talk between the two cultures had completely blurred the lines.

But didn't Rome have different conceptions of the gods than Greece? Yes, but didn't Athens have different conceptions of the gods than Sparta? Than Ithaca? There are regional differences in mythology and folklore, as to be expected, but if we talk about different mythologies because of it, there are far more than two at play here.

Some Stories Seem Unable to be Classified

Another problem comes in when we want to talk about some of the most popular stories we know form the ancient world. Let's start with Orpheus and Eurydice. Sure, Orpheus was mentioned in a Greek work or two that we have, but our earliest full versions of the story come from Virgil, a Roman poet. Is the story we tell each other Greek? Is it Roman? It seems weird to classify a story which was written by a Roman as Greek, but it seems equally preposterous to say that Orpheus isn't a Greek story. This is because such a firm distinction cannot be drawn.

Let's again examine a popular story: Narcissus and Echo. Almost every person I've seen talk about how they like "Greek mythology" specifically seems to like this story fine, and include it in their conception of Greek mythology. But is this not unjustified? Isn't Ovid (a Roman), as far as we can tell, the one who put these two characters into the same story? This would seem to imply that Narcissus and Echo isn't a part of Greek mythology, but that seems absurd to me.

The list of stories like this goes on, but we can also question just about any story that was first written after the Greeks and Romans got talking. How Greek is it? How Roman? Which mythology is it best placed in?

If the response is that some stories are Greek, some are Roman, and some are both, then I'd just reply with my notes on regional variations within Greece, and point out that the sharing of stories ties Greece and Rome together tightly.

The Ancients Themselves Believed They Talked About the Same Gods

I mentioned the acceptance of Apollo in Rome and Janus in Greece earlier, and that's a point worth dwelling on. Clearly these two cultures were not adverse to seeing the other culture's gods as existing in the same way as their own. Additionally, when these two cultures wrote about the stories they heard from the other, they generally used their native language names, showing that they believed them to be the same.

Conclusion

While it is tempting to separate these two cultures' folklore from each other, there's no clean way to do that and preserve a way to speak on either "Greek mythology" or "Roman mythology" as general concepts. Splitting these two regions from each other would require us to split up those regions or else have an arbitrary distinction on our hands.

As for why this insistence is so prevalent, I have two ideas. First is Percy Jackson, which I have not read. Its treatment of Greek gods versus Roman gods has been explained to me, however, and it seems like it probably sculpted a lot of the modern discourse.

Secondly, I'm almost certain that Edith Hamilton has something to do with this. She tended to glorify the Greeks over other cultures she saw as "inferior", and she had tremendous sway over our modern conception of ancient myths. Additionally, she definitely placed the Greeks over the Romans, and she attempted to separate the two from each other over the course of several of her writings.