Mythology <- StackExchange top 100

Question

Why is the goat often associated with Satan in various religious folklore and illustrations? What makes the goat satanic?

Answer accepted (score 23)

Several reasons

The reasons for the associations of goats with Satan vary. Some are quite ancient, while others are of more recent vintage.

The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats

Sheep are loyal. They follow the Son of God, metaphorically a shepherd. Goats, on the other hand, are disobedient and difficult.

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

_{NIV, Matthew 25:31-33}

We see here that goats are being used as metaphor for sin in Matthew, very early in the development of the Christian church. In setting the sheep on his right hand, Jesus gives them a favored position. The goats, on the other hand….

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

_{NIV, Matthew 25:41-43}

The scapegoat

Then Aaron shall offer the goat on which the lot for the LORD fell, and make it a sin offering. 10"But the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat fell shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make atonement upon it, to send it into the wilderness as the scapegoat.

_{NASB, Leviticus 16:10}

It seems like that the idea of the goat as a repository for sin may have outweighed the knowledge that there was also a goat being sacrificed to God. After all, presumably a calf or bull is one’s richest sacrifice, so why not associate the goat with something else?

A lot of the modern associations of Satan with goats come from the idea of Baphomet, though.

Baphomet

Eliphas Levi, undoubtedly influenced by earlier associations of goats with witchcraft, propounded the idea of a goat-headed deity, which he identified with the Baphomet purportedly worshiped by the Templars:

The symbolic head of the goat of Mendes is occasionally given to this figure, and it is then the Baphomet of the Templars and the Word of the Gnostics, bizarre images which became scarecrows for the vulgar after affording food for reflection to sages – innocent hieroglyphs of thought and faith which have been a pretext for the rage of persecutions. How pitiable are men in their ignorance, but how they would despise themselves if only they came to know!

_{Dogma et Rituel de la Haute Magie (translated)}

It is from Levi that we received the most stereotypical Satanic goat image, a semi-nude individual with male, female, and goat attributes.

These ideas have had a tremendous influence on modern perception of the devil as possessed of goat attributes.

Answer 2 (score 12)

You can at least find 2 main reasons:

1. Goat gods are pretty old beliefs. You find them in almost every cultures spreading everywhere. Celts have Cernunnos. In norse myth you have Tanngrisnir and Tanngjostr. In roman myth Faunus and Hammon/ In greece Pan. In sumer you have Dumuzid, the Tammuz of the Bible. For what I am aware, as we found cavern drawings of anthropomorphic goats, it could well be one of the oldest cult. And the Bible is very keen to point out the falsehood of other Gods by demonifying them.
2. Per se goats are strange creatures, if you saw some in action. Specifically the male one, the buck. Those animals have an incredible libido and you see them having hard on all the time. And when there are females around them they are extremly demonstrative. I have seen some almost strangulating themselves to reach them. And they very casually piss on themselves; Specifically the legs, the face and in the mouth (yes). Not something you see the other flock animals like horses, sheep or bull do. Beside that, goats are prone to eat a lot of things. Give them paper and enjoy them chewing on it… An horse will ignore the paper simply.

Bible uses goat to symbolize sin rejection with the concept of scapegoat. It just makes clear the proximity between goats and human beings. In other words, Bible replaced human sacrifice by goat sacrifice. And hence why devilish creatures tend to use the feature of the goats. Because devilish creatures are full of sin.

Answer 3 (score 1)

In Märchen (aka “Fairy Tales”), the Grimms “Kinder und Hausmärchen” (Children’s and Household Tales) include a tale on how God created all animals and selected the wolves to be his hounds (KHM 1857 #148, “Des Herrn und des Teufels Gethier” (The Lord’s and the Devil’s Creatures). Since God forgot to create the goat, the the devil also wanted to create and made the goat with fine long tails. When they went to pasture, they usually got their tails stuck in the brambles. The Devil had to go in and with much effort free them. This angered the devil and he bit their tails off, as is still to be seen today in their stumpy tails.

The story continues….

https://khm.li/Des-Herrn-und-des-Teufels-Gethier

https://sites.duke.edu/adhoc_fairytalespublic/fairy-tales-by-khm-number/khm-141-160/148-the-lords-animals-and-the-devils/

“The Bolte Anmerkungen state that “An age old reason, says W. Grimm breaks everywhere through this fable; it belongs, as out of Dänhardts rich Nachweisen in the Natursagen 1, 127 – 205 belongs, to the large group of dual creation tellings. Out of envy the Devil copies Gods creations, without being able to achieve it; he creates a wolf, a goat, a horse, but only enlivens them through the word of God; instead on the human he creates an ape, instead of the bee a wasp, instead of the nut an acorn; or he is cheated in such a contest.”"

The Grimm text is from Hans Sachs 1556 Schwank “Der dewffel hat die gais geschaffen, hat in dewffel-augen eingeseczt” – “The devil had created the goat(s), had set devils eyes in.”

Question

I’ve been watching a lot of Supernatural, and I’ve been wondering. What is it with salt? They keep bringing up that one needs to salt and burn the bones. Also, salt is used to repel ghosts. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard mentionings about salt being useful, but I’m not sure why.

Answer accepted (score 9)

Salt has had a strong significance in a lot of different religions for millennia.

I believe that salt used for the explicit purpose of repelling demons originates from Buddhism or Shintoism, where salt is used to purify/sanctify a places and ward off evil spirits.

I think Supernatural draws from the Wiccan culture for its usage of salt though, as Wiccan use it almost exactly the way it’s used in the show.

Further reading:

Salt Folklore and Magic

Salt (Wikipedia)

Answer 2 (score 7)

Salt is a natural cleanser, and can be used to scour out pots, as toothpaste, to remove rust, etc. (See this page for more.) So it’s not a big leap from there to supernatural cleansing.
As for salting and burning the bones, a parallel custom was burning a conquered city and salting the ground, so nothing would grow there. The Romans supposedly did this with Carthage when they conquered it.

Answer 3 (score 7)

Salt is a natural cleanser, and can be used to scour out pots, as toothpaste, to remove rust, etc. (See this page for more.) So it’s not a big leap from there to supernatural cleansing.
As for salting and burning the bones, a parallel custom was burning a conquered city and salting the ground, so nothing would grow there. The Romans supposedly did this with Carthage when they conquered it.

Question

In Greek mythology, the words “Titan” and “God” seem to be used interchangeably. For example, Zeus is a God, but Cronus (his father) was a Titan. So what is the difference between a Titan and a God in Greek mythology?

Answer accepted (score 36)

A ‘god’ is synonymous to a ‘deity’; the Titans and Titanesses were gods, they were members of the second order of divine beings - after Gaia and Uranus, and the other primordial deities.

Cronus and his fellow Titans comprised the second Ancient Greek pantheon (the first comprising of deities such as Ananke, Gaea, and Ouranos), which the younger generation of gods, including Zeus, would later usurp, as the Titans usurped the primordial gods before them. (For more information on this concept of change in dominant deities, read up on the theory of The Golden Age, particularly that of Hesiod, who also wrote the only surviving account of the Titans in his Theogony.)

As for why the Titans have their own order name as opposed to Zeus et al who are simply ‘gods’, there is debate as to the exact etymology of the word ‘titan’ but this quote from Hesiod’s Theogony states:

“But these sons whom he begot himself great Heaven used to call Titans （Strainers） in reproach, for he said that they strained (τιταίνοντας) and did presumptuous a fearful deed, and that vengeance (τίσιν) for it would come afterwards.”

Trans. Evelyn-White, here with side-by-side Greek.

However this is not to say Hesiod was correct; he himself was writing long after the supposed Golden Age ended.

Answer 2 (score 25)

The Greek Gods have their own hierarchy/timeline going on.

First were the primordial deities, the first beings in existence, which included Uranus and Gaia.

Then, descended from the primordial deities were the Titans, which included Chronos and Rhea (Zeus’ parents). Note that the Titans were still deities. According to Wikipedia:

Among the first generation of twelve Titans, the females were Mnemosyne, Tethys, Theia, Phoebe, Rhea, and Themis and the males were Oceanus, Hyperion, Coeus, Cronus, Crius, and Iapetus.

The second generation of Titans consisted of Hyperion’s children Helios, Selene, and Eos; Coeus’ children Lelantos, Leto, and Asteria; Iapetus’ sons Atlas, Prometheus, Epimetheus, and Menoetius; Oceanus’ daughter Metis; and Crius’ sons Astraeus, Pallas, and Perses.

What you call Gods would be the Olympians, who later overthrew the Titans, some of whom were their own parents.

The Twelve Olympians are the major deities of the Greek pantheon, commonly considered to be Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Ares, Aphrodite, Hephaestus, Hermes and either Hestia, or Dionysus.

Then, there are a whole host of minor deities, who fall under the “Olympian” umbrella.

There is a family tree denoting the differences between the three classes of deity here.

In short, they are all deities, but different generations of deities.

Answer 3 (score 11)

The word “Titan” is used to denote a class of mythological entities that existed before “Gods” were born and Titans are usually used to describe the creation of the world. All titans were born from Uranus (Sky) and Gaia (Earth), which were the first mythological creatures to be created when the world was formed.

After them, Cronus was born, the cunning, youngest and the most terrifying of his her children (Gaia’s) and hated his strong father.

Uranus and Gaia had three sets of children. There were the Hundred-handed ones, or Hekatonchieres, the Cyclopes, and the Titans. Uranus thought the Hundred-handed ones and the Cyclopes were hideous, so he threw them into Tartarus. Gaia did not appreciate this and told Cronus to kill Uranus.

All mythological creatures of that generation are called Titans. Gods are the children of the Titans. Specifically, Zeus was born from Cronus and Rea. Since Cronus feared that some time his childrens would try to seize power, he would eat them, but Rea managed to save Zeus and he tried to seize power when he grew up. The series of events that followed is known as Titanomachy (battle of the Titans), in which the Gods defeated the Titans and became the kings of the world.

Question

Arthurian legend features swords called “Excalibur” and “Caliburn”. It is not clear to me whether these two swords are the same entity (at minimum, the names are clearly cognate), or whether they refer to different things. Or, perhaps, at some point in history, mythographers treated them separately before later unifying them as a single thing.

In particular, is either/both of these swords the sword that Arthur pulled from the stone? And is either/both the sword that Arthur received from the Lady of the Lake?

Answer accepted (score 36)

Arthurian legend is essentially combined from a wide variety of sources, and there doesn’t seem to be a definitive answer.

The first narrative account is from Geoffrey of Monmouth in Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain), 12th Century. He wrote, in Latin, of a sword called Caliburnus, which was made on the isle of Avalon.

Wace wrote Roman de Brut (12th Century), which is described as “an Old French translation and versification of [Monmouth]”. According to Wiki, the sword is called Calabrum, Callibourc, Chalabrun, and Calabrun (with alternate spellings such as Chalabrum, Calibore, Callibor, Caliborne, Calliborc, and Escaliborc).

Chretien de Troyes wrote, in Perceval, (again in the 12th Century), of a sword called Escalibor or Excalibor.

Robert de Boron (late 12th/early 13th Century), in Merlin, wrote of the Sword in the Stone, and about the idea of only “one true king” being able to retrieve the sword. It isn’t confirmed that this sword is Excalibur, but later versions took this story and called the sword Excalibur.

Later, in the Post-Vulgate Cycle (13th Century), French writers attempted to bring together some of the scenes and characters of the legends (Wiki calls it a “rehandling of the earlier Vulgate Cycle”). In this version, the sword is called Excalibur, and is given to Arthur by the Lady of the Lake.

In Le Morte d’Arthur, by Thomas Malory, he gives both versions, and calls both Excalibur. Arthur receives the sword three different times in Le Morte, in three different ways (the stone, the lake and once in a battle).

Finally, according to the 15th Century Alliterative Morte Arthur, there is a sword called Clarent, a fragile sword designed for ceremonial purposes rather than fighting. The internet (though I haven’t found an original source for this yet) associates this with being the Sword in the Stone.

In conclusion, there isn’t a clear answer. The stories evolved quite a bit, and the sword that some writers took to be Excalibur was taken by others to mean Clarent.

However, it does seem that:

• Excalibur and Caliburn do seem to be the same sword. It is a linguistic evolution. Both are taken to be Arthur’s “main” sword, regardless of writer or name.
• The Sword in the Stone, and the one from the Lake, may or may not be the same sword.
• Clarent is not Excalibur, and is a different sword, wielded by King Arthur at points (and later, Mordred). It may be the Sword in the Stone, but is not the sword from the Lady in the Lake.

Answer 2 (score 15)

It’s fairly easy to imagine how Caliburn may have migrated linguistically to Excalibur, especially as spelling was not standardised until the end of the 18th Century and copying of manuscripts was a performed by hand.

They are indeed two names for the same sword. Roman de Brut has both Caliborne, and Escaliborc in various copies of the document.

Answer 3 (score 0)

Caliburn and Excalibur are two different swords. Caliburn is the “sword in the stone” which is used to prove king Arthur’s right to the throne. He used this weapon in many battles and won but at some point the “King’s sword” is broken, leaving king Arthur with no powerful swords

And by accident, king Arthur found the lady of the lake and was given the sword Excalibur which is made by the wishes of mankind and said to give him the ability to win wars. Though at his last battle with Mordred, he’s been wounded very bad and cause his death but before he died he ask Merlin to throw the Excalibur back to “The lady of the lake” by means of throwing it back the lake therefore the sacred sword is never been found.

Question

Icarus, the son of Daedalus who created the maze that held the Minotaur was given wings which allowed him to fly away from the Island of Crete. He was told not to fly too near the Sun nor too close to the water, as these wings were driven by the interaction of Sun and Water. He flew too close to the sun, his wings melted, and he fell to the Sea.

What’s the moral of this story?

Answer accepted (score 13)

I think we can probably rule out the story being warning against flight, being that no one was building aircraft at the time, or for quite some time thereafter.

Icarus’s fall is a warning about youthful carelessness, and shows the terrible consequences that can bring.

Diadorus Siculus tells two versions of the story, both of which emphasize the recklessness of Icarus causing his downfall:

But when Icarus was disembarking onto the island in a reckless manner, he fell into the sea and perished
…
As for Icarus, because of the ignorance of youth he made his flight to far aloft and fell into the sea when the wax which held the wings together was melted by the sun
_{Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 4.77.6 and 4.77.9}

Similarly, Pausanias speaks of his clumsy navigation:

The ship of Icarus is said to have overturned, as he was a clumsy helmsman. The drowned man was carried ashore by the current to the island
_{Pausanias, Description of Greece 9.11.5}

And Apollodorus refers to him as infatuated, and draws attention to his disregard for his father’s instructions:

But the infatuated Icarus, disregarding his father’s injunctions, soared ever higher, till, the glue melting, he fell into the sea called after him Icarian, and perished.
_{Apollodorus Library E.1.13}

It would appear that, even 2000 years ago, teenagers thought they were invincible.

Answer 2 (score 4)

I want to give a context interpretation of the myth.

That youth will fly high ignoring advice and takes risks, as the other answer says, is the first level, “listen to your elders”.

The long term result, (moral for the present day?) is that this youth is remembered over millennia and his name was given to a sea, so there was some recompense to the bad outcome of the risk.

My main observation is that fortunately for humanity’s youth, and people who remain young in mentality, they do take risks. Had Icarus not dared to fly higher than caution, there would have been no myth and no Icarian sea.

Had the wings not melted, (50/50 chance of deterioration?) gliders would have been discovered thousands of years ago).

The present moral should be: listen to your elders precautionary instructions, and use forethought before risk taking. Suppressing risk according to the dictates of the elders would lead to a static society.

Answer 3 (score 3)

The moral of the story is life is a gift, and maintaining a balance with everything in moderation will ensure a long one. The wings represent the father giving his son life; the ocean and the sun represent the extremes of denying and overindulging yourself; flying in between is the answer.

Question

One thing has always confused me about the story of Pandora. When she opened her box (or jar, whatever), all sorts of evil things escaped outside the box, and this is why we have evil in the world now. Then, she closed the box before hope could escape, so that hope remained within the box.

Does this mean that the world doesn’t have hope, though (since it’s still stuck in the box)? I thought that the “moral” of the story, so to speak, was that even though there’s all this evil out in the world, there’s still hope, so not all is lost. But that doesn’t make sense if hope is still stuck inside the box.

Answer accepted (score 31)

Πανδώρα (παν + δώρα): the all-gifted

_{Etymology of Pandora}

The myth of Pandora (the first mortal woman) is misinterpreted. I’ve seen many modern books wrongly claiming that hope did escape the box and, despite all evil that was spread throughout the land, people still hoped that better days would soon come.

Hesiod is the one that refers to the box (it was not a box actually, but more like a jar) and claims that Pandora (actually referring to women) is the root of all evil, because she would hurt the man with her beauty and lies.

For from her is the descent of female women
a great pain for mortals, living with men,
companions not of destructive Poverty but of Plenty.

_Theogony

When Pandora opened the box, all evil escaped it, but Pandora (under Zeus’ will) held hope inside the jar by closing the lid. Isiodus doesn’t say why hope stayed into the jar, but one (judging from Isiodus’ view on women) can imply that he meant by that, that the men would have no hope against women, for without her, they would die alone, but with her, they’d have to withstand their cunning nature.

Judging by this, which is how Hesiod closes Theogony:

Thus it is not possible to escape the mind of Zeus.

Theogony

and

an angry Zeus decides to give humanity a punishing gift to compensate for the boon they had been given. He commands Hephaestus to mold from earth the first woman, a “beautiful evil” whose descendants would torment the human race

Wikipedia

One can see what Hesiod wanted to say in the end.

Answer 2 (score 15)

Only Hope remained there in an unbreakable home within under the rim of the great jar, and did not fly out at the door. Trans. Evelyn-White.

The answer to this question depends on how you interpret the above quote. Is hope being protected in the jar? Or withheld from humanity? The word Hesiod uses for hope, elpis, can also mean ‘expectation’. Verdenius states that “elpis may be regarded either (a) as a good, or (b) as an evil”. In this view, the hope in Pandora’s jar is potential, but for good or evil Hesiod never specified.

Additional sources:

West, M. L. Hesiod, Theogony, ed. with prolegomena and commentary (Oxford 1966).

West, M. L. Hesiod, Works and Days, ed. with prolegomena and commentary (Oxford 1978).

Answer 3 (score 7)

This is indeed confusingly presented but the implication is that Hope did not escape (“fly out the door”). One of the Aesop versions may clarify somewhat:

“Zeus gathered all the useful things together in a jar and put a lid on it. He then left the jar in human hands. But man had no self-control and he wanted to know what was in that jar, so he pushed the lid aside, letting those things go back to the abode of the gods. So all the good things flew away, soaring high above the earth, and Elpis (Hope) was the only thing left. When the lid was put back on the jar, Elpis (Hope) was kept inside. That is why Elpis (Hope) alone is still found among the people, promising that she will bestow on each of us the good things that have gone away.”

_{Aesop, Fables 526 (from Babrius 58) (trans. Gibbs) (Greek fable C6th B.C.)}

Question

In the first season of the TV show Slasher the antagonist is killing people he judges are guilty of the seven deadly sins. Each murder is different, supposedly reflecting the specific punishment the sinner would receive in hell for their sin.

I don’t know how accurate the show’s portrayals are, or even if they follow Christian tradition. What are the punishments for the seven deadly sins?

Answer accepted (score 8)

Since Medieval times the following punishments have been assigned to the 7 deadly sins.

1. Pride - You will be broken on the wheel
2. Envy - Placed in freezing water
3. Gluttony - Force fed rats, toads and snakes
4. Lust - Covered in fire and brimstone
5. Anger - Live dismemberment
6. Greed - Boiled in oil
7. Sloth - Thrown into a snake pit

The list of the 7 sins came first from Pope Gregory I in 590 AD.

Dante then wrote his Purgatorio & Inferno with descriptions given as to the punishments given for the sins. These were sometimes conflicted between the two books, for example in Purgatorio the punishment for lust was to be walk in flames, however in Inferno the souls of those that had committed the sin of lust were blown upon the winds.

Dante also wrote that anyone that committed any of the deadly sins would never be able to look upon the face of God.

Various Theologians came up with the accepted punishments detailed above over the centuries following Pope Gregory I’s official naming of the sins.
Numerous books on the 7 Deadly sins, as well as a number of websites, for example Sins, Virtues, and Tales explains these nicely.

Question

I have read numerous times that some Norse warriors, upon death, would go in Fólkvangr, while some others would go to Valhalla. How was it decided which warrior would go to which place? Why did the need to have many “paradises” (whatever you many call it) exist?

Citing Wikipedia:

In Norse mythology, Fólkvangr (Old Norse “field of the host” or “people-field” or “army-field”) is a meadow or field ruled over by the goddess Freyja where half of those that die in combat go upon death, while the other half go to the god Odin in Valhalla.

Answer accepted (score 9)

The Norse mythological texts record three primary places where the dead were perceived to go: Helheim (Old Norse Helheimr, “the home of the goddess Hel“), Valhalla (Old Norse Valhöll, “the hall of the fallen”), and Folkvang (Old Norse Fólkvangr, “the field of the people” or “the field of warriors”).

But they’re indistinguishable and don’t have any major differences between them.

Valhalla is presided over by Odin, and to gain entrance to it, one must be chosen by him and his valkyries, the “choosers of the fallen.”

Similarily, entrance to Folkvang is dependent upon being selected by Freya.

Valhalla is often depicted as a realm where distinguished warriors engage in a continuous battle, and just such a place is described, in important early sources, as being located beneath the ground – and, intriguingly, without the name “Valhalla” or a cognate anywhere in the account.

_{source: Ellis, Hilda Roderick. 1968. The Road to Hel: A Study of the Conception of the Dead in Old Norse Literature. p. 85-86.}

14. Folkvang is the ninth, and there Freyia arranges
    the choice of seats in the hall;
    half the slain she chooses every day,
    and half Odin owns.

_{source: 1996 Carolyne Larrington in The Poetic Edda “Grimnir’s Sayings”}

The only difference that is pointed out, is in the way that the dead are chosen to stay. Odin chooses for Valhalla, while Freya chooses for Folkvang.

Coming to the second part of the question:

And why did the need to have many “paradises” (whatever you many call it) exist?

Hel is a place where all humans have to go after their death:

“For there is a time
when every man
shall journey hence to Hel.”
_{Fáfnismál 10}

So before the dead finally reach Hel, Odin and Freyja select the ones who are worthy of living in Valhalla and Folkvang.

Therefore,

• Valhalla receives distinguished warriors.
• Folkvangr receives the rest of the warriors.
• Hel receives the rest of the dead.

_{source: Norse-Mythology.org}

Answer 2 (score 9)

The Norse mythological texts record three primary places where the dead were perceived to go: Helheim (Old Norse Helheimr, “the home of the goddess Hel“), Valhalla (Old Norse Valhöll, “the hall of the fallen”), and Folkvang (Old Norse Fólkvangr, “the field of the people” or “the field of warriors”).

But they’re indistinguishable and don’t have any major differences between them.

Valhalla is presided over by Odin, and to gain entrance to it, one must be chosen by him and his valkyries, the “choosers of the fallen.”

Similarily, entrance to Folkvang is dependent upon being selected by Freya.

Valhalla is often depicted as a realm where distinguished warriors engage in a continuous battle, and just such a place is described, in important early sources, as being located beneath the ground – and, intriguingly, without the name “Valhalla” or a cognate anywhere in the account.

_{source: Ellis, Hilda Roderick. 1968. The Road to Hel: A Study of the Conception of the Dead in Old Norse Literature. p. 85-86.}

14. Folkvang is the ninth, and there Freyia arranges
    the choice of seats in the hall;
    half the slain she chooses every day,
    and half Odin owns.

_{source: 1996 Carolyne Larrington in The Poetic Edda “Grimnir’s Sayings”}

The only difference that is pointed out, is in the way that the dead are chosen to stay. Odin chooses for Valhalla, while Freya chooses for Folkvang.

Coming to the second part of the question:

And why did the need to have many “paradises” (whatever you many call it) exist?

Hel is a place where all humans have to go after their death:

“For there is a time
when every man
shall journey hence to Hel.”
_{Fáfnismál 10}

So before the dead finally reach Hel, Odin and Freyja select the ones who are worthy of living in Valhalla and Folkvang.

Therefore,

• Valhalla receives distinguished warriors.
• Folkvangr receives the rest of the warriors.
• Hel receives the rest of the dead.

_{source: Norse-Mythology.org}

Answer 3 (score 7)

Leaving aside speculation about relative status, start with the fact that there’s a lot we don’t know about Norse mythology, and there’s no central canon that makes everything match up. So, the correct answer would be that we seem to be dealing with attempts to harmonize a number of beliefs about what happens in the afterlife.
Also, there is really no reason why everyone should have the same fate. Even Christianity has a number of options, although only one paradise.
If I was going to speculate on why Odin and Freyja share fallen warriors between them, I would go back to the Aesir - Vanir war, and suggest that since it ended in a draw, one deity from each side gets half the dead. But that’s just a suggestion.

Question

Is there a common, categorical name for creatures that become stronger and more powerful by feeding off living beings’ emotions, such as fear, anger, greed?

Answer accepted (score 9)

1. Attachment spirits. In Native American and Eastern European shamanism, they attach to people either to vicariously live through them, or to whip up the emotions so they can feed off them. This happens in relationships where the argument whips into a frenzy seemingly on its own. (Aside from hormones.) I don’t have a citation, I was married to a native shaman who talked about it.

2. Incubi and succubi are generally represented as being sexual pest spirits that feed off the victim’s sexuality, but in the Wikipedia entry for each one, the end result is death. The experience for the victim is pleasure, until they are drained of life force. Sexual pleasure is not quite the same as “emotions”, but definitely involves emotion.

3. In Christianity, demons. “Demons survive by feeding off of emotional vibrations such as anger, fear, joy, excitement and any emotion that vibrates at the frequency needed for the feeding entities. The greater the emotional vibration, the better the feeding session for those feeding. A book by John Klein and Adam Spears titled Devils and Demons and the Return of the Nephilim published in 2005 is a great source for understanding how and why entitles feed off of human energy.” http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread531240/pg2

I know this is part of older esoteric traditions. Qabbala?

I know at least one Christian who strongly believes in this as a reality: http://gnosticwarrior.com/demons-who-feed-on-human-energy.html

4. In new age speak, there are Collective Consciousness group-entities that gin up and feed off of any strong “team” related identity – sports, religion, politics. When you are trying to talk to someone who just won’t hear an opposing view, and it almost seems like something is talking through them, and they seem to get a great deal of energy from their group identity, like being a sock puppet for something more powerful. In psychology terms, I’m sure there are specific diagnoses, but still.

Answer 2 (score 5)

Soul Vampires can be the closest one.

For example, consider the Dementors from Harry Potter, according to the Potter wiki:

Dementors feed upon human happiness, and thus cause depression and despair to anyone near them. They can also consume a person’s soul, leaving their victims in a permanent vegetative state, and thus are often referred to as “soul-sucking fiends”. They are known to leave a person as an ‘empty-shell’.

So, let’s see how they are derived from mythology to fit into HP:

They are among the folkloric psychic vampires, so they definitely belong to a type/class of vampires.

So, they can be labelled soul vampires or psychic vampires

A picture from Harry Potter which shows how the soul sucking is done:

Answer 3 (score 5)

Soul Vampires can be the closest one.

For example, consider the Dementors from Harry Potter, according to the Potter wiki:

Dementors feed upon human happiness, and thus cause depression and despair to anyone near them. They can also consume a person’s soul, leaving their victims in a permanent vegetative state, and thus are often referred to as “soul-sucking fiends”. They are known to leave a person as an ‘empty-shell’.

So, let’s see how they are derived from mythology to fit into HP:

They are among the folkloric psychic vampires, so they definitely belong to a type/class of vampires.

So, they can be labelled soul vampires or psychic vampires

A picture from Harry Potter which shows how the soul sucking is done:

Question

The ancient Greek gods lived on the famous Mount Olympus, which is an actual mountain in Greece.

The Romans borrowed quite a bit of mythology from the Greeks, so I at first assumed that the Roman gods lived somewhere similar, if not in the exact same place (though perhaps with the mountain renamed and moved somewhere else). Strangely enough, though, I have not been able to find any ancient accounts that make that claim - nor any mention of the home of the Roman gods at all, save for on a certain (rather untrustworthy and often inaccurate) question-and-answer site.

Where did the Roman gods live? Were they said to live on Mount Olympus (or an equivalent place), or was their home somewhere else?

Answer accepted (score 26)

The Romans also thought them to live on Mount Olympos. For instance, Lucius Annaeus Seneca writes in his play Hercules Furens that, appealing to Jupiter for mercy, Amphitryon prayed:

[205] O magne Olympi rector et mundi arbiter,
Jam statue tandem gravibus aerumnis modum

O mighty ruler of Olympus, judge of all the world,
set now at length a limit to our crushing cares, an end to our disasters.

In the rest of the play, Senea used Roman names to refer to the deities, such as Juno instead of Hera:

[213-4] Sequitur a primo statim infesta Juno

From his very birth relentless Juno has pursued him.

Hence, the Roman equivalent of Olympos is Olympos.

Answer 2 (score 9)

There is probably something also to be said about the Lares and the Penates.
The Lares, as guardian deities (of Etruscan origin), were protecting homes, fields, cities, crossroads, etc. (One Lar protecting one home or one field, etc.) while Penates were specifically protecting household and both were thought to inhabit the place they were protecting.
Some literary evidence for this can be found in Plaut’s Aulularia for instance:

LAR FAMILIARIS
That no one may wonder who I am, I shall inform you briefly. I am the Household God of that family from whose house you saw me come. For many years now I have possessed this dwelling, and preserved it for the sire and grandsire of its present occupant.

Or in Ovid’s Fasti:

They were commanded to move the Lares to their new homes

Or again in Cicero’s De domo sua:

[109] What is there more holy, what is there more carefully fenced round with every description of religious respect, than the house of every individual citizen? here are his altars, here are his hearths, here are his household gods: here all his sacred rites, all his religious ceremonies are preserved
_{[109 ]quid est sanctius, quid omni religione munitius quam domus unius cuiusque civium? hic arae sunt, hic foci, hic di penates, hic sacra, religiones, caerimoniae continentur}

Whether the Lares qualify properly as Gods and not just spirits is to be debated though, since they were basically deified ancestral spirits. The Penates however (as in Cicero excerpt) were explicitely called gods.

Answer 3 (score 5)

Reading through the wiki article on Jupiter:

Many of his functions were focused on the Capitoline (“Capitol Hill”), where the citadel was located. He was the chief deity of the early Capitoline Triad with Mars and Quirinus.

It seems that if there were a location, the Capittoline hill would be it,

Many of his functions were focused on the Capitoline (“Capitol Hill”), where the citadel was located.

It seems that the Roman’s view was closer to the current view of the deity : in the sky , and the temples are the house of the god. It is possible that the Olympus version of the indo-European deities is particular to the region of Greece. That mostly people in other mediteranean countries had the concept of deity as somewhere in the sky, or sea, or underworld , focused on their temples. The cultural incursion of the greek point of view introduces the need for a “location where Gods gather”, and the Olympus site was adopted for the Roman gods too.

It seems also that Norse mythology has a home for the gods to gather ,

In the middle of the world, high up in the sky is Asgard. It is the home of the gods and goddesses. The male gods in Asgard, are called Aesir, and the female gods are called Asynjur. Odin is the ruler of Asgard, and the chief of the Aesir. Odin is married to Frigg; she is the Queen of the Aesir. Inside the gates of Asgard is Valhalla; it is the place where the Vikings “Einherjer” that died in battle will go for the afterlife.

Question

I hope this actually has an answer, I couldn’t find anything but speculation on the web.

Basically, the story of Odin hanging from Yggdrasil is very similar to that of Jesus on the cross. Here are the stories broadly:

In order to learn of the runes that are used to control the worlds odin hangs himself from the great world tree Yggdrasil, and stabs himself with his spear. He forbids the other gods from helping him, and he then hangs there for 9 days, staring into the dark waters below, after which he gains the knowledge he searched for. Doing this was basically him making a sacrifice of himself to himself, a sacrifice that made him worthy to obtain the knowledge he wanted.

Jesus is put on trial by the Romans and sentenced to death. He is put on a cross, on which he claims his father (God) has forsaken him. He dies, which is confirmed by stabbing him with a spear. He descends to hell, but comes back after 3 days, after which he has sacrificed himself (basically to himself in a different person), after which the sins of the world are forgiven.

(Note these may be somewhat loose interpretations and include things added by religions based on the texts instead of being in the original texts)

So the similarities I see: Both are being sacrificed by hanging from something and being stabbed by a spear, are in darkness (hell/the dark waters below) for 3 or 3x3 days, without help from other deities, having now sacrificed themselves to themselves for the greater good.

Now supposedly the Odin story is older, but as far as I’m aware we get it from Snorri Sturluson, who we know has added some christian motives in his other works (the Prose Edda for example).

Are there any reasons to think the Odin story is not based on the Jesus story? And if so, is there any way the Odin story could have affected, or shared an origin with the Jesus story? Or is it just a coincidence?

Answer accepted (score 15)

Taking a look at a few things here.

The word Yggdrasil itself firstly. “Ygg,” means Death. “Drasil” is a Nordic term that has the dual meanings of both “gallows” and “horse.” So Yggdrasil itself means “Deadly Gallows”. A kenning for Odin was Ygg and was listed in the anonymous Skaldic Poem Óðins Nöfn. There are those that speculate that Yggdrasil gets its name from Odin’s actions among its branches. It’s meaning is quite clear in the context of the myth: “Yggdrasil” is both the gallows upon which Odin hung himself, and the mount that he rode on his journey through the nine worlds.

It should also be noted that many different accounts speak of the “atrocities” of the Northmen and of their human sacrifices to Odin. Human sacrifices happened from prehistoric to well into the 13th century. These sacrifices were hung or strangled. As possible practice of Odinic sacrifice by strangling has some archeological support in the existence of bodies perfectly preserved by the acid of the Jutland peat-bogs. One of the most notable examples of this is the Bronze Age Tollund Man. However, we possess no written accounts that explicitly interpret the cause of these stranglings, which could have other explanations, such as being a form of capital punishment. Also worth mentioning in Gautreks saga(no relation to Snorri), King Vikar is hanged with the words, ‘Now I give you to Odin’.

As @andejons said below I will add this: This depends on the translation/interpretation that you read. Each has a slight variation. The word Ygg/Yggr/Ugg/Uggr are the same word just with different meanings. As a title claimed by Odin Yggr in that context would mean “Terrible One”. Ugg/Uggr also meant fear or apprehension.

Here is the excerpt from the Havamal with various translations:

“I ween that I hung | on the windy tree,” -Translation by H. A. Bellows

“Wounded I hung on a wind-swept gallows” -Translated by Auden and Taylor

“I trow I hung on that windy Tree” -Translated by Olive Bray

“I know that I hung, on a wind swept tree” -Translated by Chrisholm

“I wot that I hung on the wind-tossed tree” -Translated by Lee Hollander

“I know that I hung on a high windy tree” -Translated by Patricia Terry

“I know that I hung, on a wind-rocked tree,” -Translated by Benjamin Thorpe

Just from the variety of these translations alone it’s clear we don’t have a precise answer. There is also the suggestion that wind-swept gallows/wind-swept tree was a kenning for Yggdrasil. A wind-swept gallows or tree would be dangerous to hang from as there is the risk of bodily harm is higher.

Woo, that was a rollercoaster… lol

Human sacrifice and stuff: Human sacrifices?

Answer 2 (score 10)

It would be hard to know definitively if this was due Christian influence on Odin’s narrative b/c we don’t have pre-Christian textual sources for Odin’s. (i.e. This material was first recorded about 1000 years ago, long after the introduction of Christianity in Europe.) Also, there is evidence of hanging ordeals practiced by Native Americans which suggests that this type of ritual occurs independently.

Archetypes and symbols may provide some insight. The cross, or “crux” is a gateway between worlds for Jesus. Yggdrasil, the “world tree”, is quite literally a connector of worlds. The concept is also known as the “axis mundi”.

3 is magic number across many cultures, so while that connection suggests Christian influence, it is not a foregone conclusion.

Piercing with the spear, however, is quite specific and not so universal in my estimation, so that might very well be a Christian influence.

With all that said, I don’t think there’s any way to know for sure.

Answer 3 (score 1)

For consideration. Why limit the comparison to Jesus only?

In the Grimms “Märchen” (Fairy Tale) KHM #146 “The Turnip,” the text also ends with a man hanging in a tree in search of knowledge.

Johannes Bolte notes in his Anmerkungen to this text notes that the pretense of the captured one, that he learns hanging on the tree wisdom (Raparius V. 341), [reminds] on the way, upon which Odin becomes aware of secret knowledge. After the Edda (Hovaonl line.138. [In] Gerings translation p. 105 he offers himself, in that he hangs himself on the “weltesche” (world-ash) Yggdrasil and wounds himself with the spear:

I know, that I hung on the wind-moved tree
Nine nights through  - - - 
I thrive I began and thoughts I received.

Bolte also states that one could also consider Aristophanes “Clouds,” where Socrates speculates hanging in a basket.

Strepsiades and Pheidippides are discussing, Socrates is hanging in the air in a basket. Scene from Aristophanes’s comedy Clouds. Date: 1564 or earlier. Source From Emblemata et aliquot nummis antiqui operis, cum emendatione et auctario copioso ipsius autoris by Joannes Sambucus, 1564.

http://www.mnemosyne.org/mia/showillu?id=embmne_sam1569_105

Question

In the Táin Bó Cúailnge, or Cattle Raid of Cooley, the great Irish hero Cuchulainn is said to undergo a process which appears to be quite similar to “hulking out”. The most colorful translation of the phrase used to describe this transformation is “warp spasm”.

What did the warp spasm, and the results thereof, look like?

Answer accepted (score 12)

Hulking out is a fairly appropriate comparison to the riastrad, or warp spasm, as Kinsella put it, but far more monstrous than just green-tinged and well-muscled.

Massively muscled, lower legs twisted around backward, one eye sucked into his head, the other eye having fallen outward, cheeks peeled away from his mouth to reveal his jaw, his own internal organs visible in his mouth, hair stood up in massive spikes strong enough to skewer an apple, and blood spurting from his forehead. Rather intimidating all told.

The fullest description occurs after the slaying of the boy troop of Emain Macha. Kinsella’s translation puts it this way:

The first warp-spasm seized Cúchulainn, and made him into a monstrous thing, hideous and shapeless, unheard of. His shanks and his joints, every knuckle and angle and organ from head to foot, shook like a tree in the flood or a reed in the stream. His body made a furious twist inside his skin, so that his feet and shins switched to the rear and his heels and calves switched to the front… On his head the temple-sinews stretched to the nape of his neck, each mighty, immense, measureless knob as big as the head of a month-old child… he sucked one eye so deep into his head that a wild crane couldn’t probe it onto his cheek out of the depths of his skull; the other eye fell out along his cheek. His mouth weirdly distorted: his cheek peeled back from his jaws until the gullet appeared, his lungs and his liver flapped in his mouth and throat, his lower jaw struck the upper a lion-killing blow, and fiery flakes large as a ram’s fleece reached his mouth from his throat… The hair of his head twisted like the tangle of a red thornbush stuck in a gap; if a royal apple tree with all its kingly fruit were shaken above him, scarce an apple would reach the ground but each would be spiked on a bristle of his hair as it stood up on his scalp with rage.

Which is actually fairly concise, compared to the very direct translation of Joseph Dunn, which goes on for four paragraphs in full description of the process.

Then took place the first twisting-fit and rage of the royal hero Cuchulain, so that he made a terrible, many-shaped, wonderful, unheard of thing of himself. His flesh trembled about him like a pole against the torrent or like a bulrush against the stream, every member and every joint and every point and every knuckle of him from crown to ground. He made a mad whirling-feat of his body within his hide. His feet and his shins and his knees slid so that they came behind him. His heels and his calves and his hams shifted so that they passed to the front. The muscles of his calves moved so that they came to the front of his shins, so that each huge knot was the size of a soldier’s balled fist. He stretched the sinews of his head so that they stood out on the nape of his neck, hill-like lumps, huge, incalculable, vast, immeasurable and as large as the head of a month-old child.

He next made a ruddy bowl of his face and his countenance. He gulped down one eye into his head so that it would be hard work if a wild crane succeeded in drawing it out on to the middle of his cheek from the rear of his skull. Its mate sprang forth till it came out on his cheek. His mouth was distorted monstrously. He drew the cheek from the jaw-bone so that the interior of his throat was to be seen. His lungs and his lights stood out so that they fluttered in his mouth and his gullet. He struck a mad lion’s blow with the upper jaw on its fellow so that as large as a wether’s fleece of a three year old was each red, fiery flake which his teeth forced into his mouth from his gullet.

There was heard the loud clap of his heart against his breast like the yelp of a howling bloodhound or like a lion going among bears. There were seen the torches of the Badb, and the rain clouds of poison, and the sparks of glowing-red fire, blazing and flashing in hazes and mists over his head with the seething of the truly wild wrath that rose up above him. His hair bristled all over his head like branches of a redthorn thrust into a gap in a great hedge. Had a king’s apple-tree laden with royal fruit been shaken around him, scarce an apple of them all would have passed over him to the ground, but rather would an apple have stayed stuck on each single hair there, for the twisting of the anger which met it as it rose from his hair above him.

The Lon Laith (‘Champion’s Light’) stood out of his forehead, so that it was as long and as thick as a warrior’s whetstone. As high, as thick, as strong, as steady, as long as the sail-tree of some huge prime ship was the straight spout of dark blood which arose right on high from the very ridge-pole of his crown, so that a black fog of witchery was made thereof like to the smoke from a king’s hostel what time the king comes to be ministered to at nightfall of a winter’s day.

Just for fun, a number of comics have been made about and inspired by Cuchulain and the Tain. Here are a couple instances of a riastrad in comics:

Cover of Richard Knaak’s “The Hound”
Was to be published in 2013, but I can’t find it for sale
Patrick Brown’s “The Cattle Raid of Cooley”
Chapter 7, Page 20
From the “Slaine” graphic novel
Inspired by the Tain and Cuchullain
Artist: Glenn Fabry
Another from “Slaine”

Which all seem at least a little on the conservative side to me, given the incredible, hyperbolic description in the text.

Question

Most Egyptian gods have animal heads. Why is that?

Answer accepted (score 31)

Egyptian gods were often depicted in therianthrophic – part human, part animal form, to depict the personality of that particular god/ess in a symbolic way. For example, Sekhmet, goddess of ferocious war, was sometimes shown with the head a lioness, as lions are ferocious creatures. Similarly Anubis was shown with a jackal head because the jackal was associated with the necropolis and Anubis was a god of the dead.

There are also theriomorphic depictions, where gods are shown entirely in animal form. These are quite common, and in fact were the most common representations of gods in the very earliest periods of Egyptian history. For example, Anubis as a black jackal, or Thoth as either an ibis or a white baboon. Taweret was even a hybrid of hippo, crocodile and lioness.

It is the same reasoning behind why Christians equate Jesus with the lion, or why we give angels wings.

Answer 2 (score 18)

It’s mentioned in the Coffin Texts that only the dead can know the true forms of the gods. (Erik Hornung- Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt.) “None of these images shows the true form of a god, and none can encompass the full richness of his nature–hence the variable iconography of Egyptian gods, which is seldom reduced to a fixed, canonical form. Every image is an imperfect means of making a god visible, characterizing his nature, and distinguishing him from other deities.”

The animal heads (and various headdresses) are meant to tell us something about the gods, and to distinguish them in artwork. Aset/Isis wears a stairstep-throne on her head to show she’s the Queen. Wepwawet, “the opener of the ways,” was shown in jackal form, or with a jackal head because they stylized the jackal as sleek, fast, and agile.

Answer 3 (score 0)

Piper was partially right but her answer is not entirely correct. The other reason is because they were shape shifters. Horus could become a full-on falcon,Anubis could become a jackal and Seth(Set) could even become what I think is an aardvark. However,the case of them having animal heads was something they had to begin with.

Question

Depending on what stories you read or movies you watch, vampires will and won’t have reflections.

But what is the earliest reference to this particular myth and do we know it’s origin?

Answer accepted (score 9)

It’s a relatively new addition to the vampire mythos. Attributed to Bram Stoker’s Dracula.

Despite its important contributions to vampire fiction, several popular traits of fictional vampires are absent. Count Dracula is killed by a bowie knife, not a wooden stake. The destruction of the vampire Lucy is a three-part process (staking, decapitation, and garlic in the mouth), not the simple stake-only procedure often found in later vampire stories. Dracula has the ability to travel as a mist and to scale the external walls of his castle. One very famous trait Stoker added is the inability to be seen in mirrors, which is not something found in traditional Eastern European folklore.

Answer 2 (score 4)

In a nutshell

If you are interested in the subject, read below. Otherwise, the accepted answer was pretty much the last edit of my post. While it’s still probable that Bram Stoker did not think of the “no reflection” feature, it’s considered his invention.

Vampires

Vampires are ancient Balkan mythological being. The word actually depicts pretty much any form of non-ethereal undead (contrary to the popular belief of capes, fangs and etc). As such their soul usually passed on to the next world.

It was believed that the mirror holds and reflects a part of your soul. Like VixenPopuli said it can’t reflect what you don’t own.

This also explains why Chinese vampires are terrified of their reflection because they are reminded that they have no soul.

Also, in the past mirrors were made out of silver, and actually Balkan werewolves are considered a type of a vampire, so… if you add 2+2 you get 4. It’s quite possible that the modern myth is a combination of the silver and soul reflection theories.

As of the earlier myths, we are talking about centuries before any written language.

In other words, it’s impossible to tell how it appeared, but the most plausible theories are: No soul, thus no reflection and Bram Stoker’s imagination and bad translations, born from lack of understanding.

I mean, Bram Stoker did a pretty lame job at describing vampires, but they were sort of “the thing” back in the days and everybody just went along with it, which eventually brought us Edward the sparkling fairy. So I won’t be surprised if someone told him that vampires are terrified of mirrors, and he tried to guess why, which spawned the myth.

Sources:

• Vampires Wikipedia.
• Link from the bibliography. Fixed.
• China Vampires Jiangshi, another Wikipedia article.
• Random articles which pretty much repeat what I just said.

Now about the Stoker thing (or how he did a sloppy job, since in the comments OP’s comment sort of implied that Stoker didn’t do anything wrong). (Warning Off Topic):

1. Gypsies are afraid of vampires and will not enter their territories. Actually, they are far more superstitious than normal people.

2. Wooden stake - Actually is a specific type of wood. Cornus, also known as dogwood. And it is not required to be a stake. Even a needle will help you. Since vampires are considered something like giant balloons full of blood. The word that describes the item is Шип which can be translated as pretty much everything in between a stake, spike and a big needle. Depending on the dialect. Also, the heart is also a myth.

This thing about the wood is only about the Balkan Vampires, the Chinese ones are slain by wood from a peach tree. So it can only be a tree that destroys evil. In other words, a wooden stake will not help you in 905 of the cases.

3. He completely skipped the “cut their feet” part. You can kill vampires by cutting their feet so they won’t get up and attack the living, which will make them die of starvation. Which is pretty much the usual way vampires were killed.

4. People don’t fear vampires, they gang up to slay them when they are still young. Thus Frankenstein is more of a vampire book than Dracula.

5. Many many many other historical and translation issues. Yup Dracula was the Edward Cullen of the Victorian age. Sparkle, sparkle.

There were more but this post is not about this and I didn’t finish the book. I made it up to like page +/- 150 of Dracula and it made me understand why people burned books back in the days…

Additional info. This time on Vampire myths instead of Stoker’s mistakes.

1. There is no popular, written story dating prior to Bram Stoker, claiming that vampires are not reflected in mirrors. Actually, there are many things about vampires that appeared after Stoker wrote his novel. I wonder why?

2. Vampires and bloodsuckers, in general, are far older than the bible itself and appear through out the history in almost all mythology from China to Egypt and eastern Europe.

3. The only known ancient vampires, prior to the book Dracula, that were related to mirrors were the Chinese ones. Also they had reflection, it’s just that it scared them instead of not appearing.

4. Stoker spawned a huge cult to his creation, not the mythological being vampyr. The mythological creature vampyr is only remotely related to Dracula.

5. The mirror is most probably derivation created from combining various sources describing different types of vampires.

Also another shady source: Knowing your country’s history. Also, there were many authors that Mentioned in many of their books, the original vampires. Authors like Jordan Radichkov, Ivan Vazov and many others. They all describe different vampires.

Ok, I came back and did a quick google search. One of the 1st links. I quote:

One very famous trait Stoker added is the inability to be seen in mirrors, which is not something found in traditional Eastern European folklore.

Also, warping mythology is not modern mythology. If tomorrow someone says that Centaurs were half fishes half penguins, and it becomes a thing, it will not be considered a mythology. The mythological being will still be a man who has a body of a horse instead of his bottom half.

Answer 3 (score -1)

One neurologist, J. Afonso-Gomez, made a case that vampire myths originate from humans infected with rabies. His work was published in the prestigious journal Neurology back in 1998. If - and that is a big if - he is right, then the mirror issue may well be very old. Those suffering from rabies are often startled or even scared when seeing their own mirror image. More so when this is unexpected. This could then be the origin of Bram Stoker’s description that vampires have no mirror image at all.

Question

In my internet adventures I’ve stumbled upon the idea that the story of Jesus was heavily inspired by the ancient Egyptian god Horus. See, for example, some positing it here—by its major modern proponent Acharya S—and here, a short clip by Bill Maher.

I’ve decided to do some fact checking, but there seems to be a massive amount of stuff written by various religious activists that appear in the top search results for the Horus keyword. Wikipedia also doesn’t seem a great resource for such a controversial thing either. It seems like everyone’s offended by this.

So, my questions are:

1. Is there any artifact(rune) showing Horus’s crucifixion and is there a consensus between archaeologists that this is correct? It would be cool to see a photo of it.
2. Was he resurrected after that(a photo of an artefact would also be great)?

I know the history of Egypt gods spanned thousands of years, and that each god had their origin stories and statuses changing. But if this is present in at least one version of it, that’s good enough for me.

Answer accepted (score 24)

I’ve heard this claim before and see no evidence for it in any Egyptian texts or iconography. Acharya S is unscholarly, makes many silly mistakes, and thus is unreliable; and Maher’s people obviously got his bullet points from the Acharya piece to which you linked in your question.

Acharya throws up numerous points hoping that some of them will stick, but they don’t. She doesn’t cite any Egyptian texts that support her view, which is not surprising because there are none and, I would argue, there can be none. This is because the idea that Horus can be crucified and resurrected is logically precluded by Egypt’s mythology and religious thinking. While a person is alive (taking the king as the example), he is Horus. But once you die, you become Osiris and are not Horus, so it can only be Osiris who is resurrected.

Not having any Egyptian texts to rely upon, Acharya relies on images of Horus with his arms out from his sides, and the idea that the Egyptian ankh and Christ’s cross are the same. See this article: Was Horus “Crucified?” However, the ankh sign comes not from a cross but from a sandal strap (see Gardiner sign S34). In Egyptian, the ankh glyph is used to mean “life” as well as for the verb “to live,” but it never is an agency of death; in Egypt no one ever dies on an ankh, much less is crucified on one. There are no such images in the iconography, since crucifixion was not practiced in ancient Egypt (at least before Roman times).

Further, a figure holding out his arms in itself says nothing about death or crucifixion, or a cross or Christ. Acharya’s notion reminds me of Tertullian’s laughable interpretation of Moses’ surveying the Hebrews’ (led by Joshua) battle against the Amalekites (Exod.17:8-13), where by standing on a hill and surveying the battle below, Moses (with help from Aaron and Hur) held his hands out to his sides and so caused the Hebrews to prevail. Tertullian claimed that this posture prefigured Christ and the cross, foretelling the cross through which Christ would be victorious over death and bring salvation. (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 3, Ch. 18.) No one would agree with such kinds of interpretations today. Yet Acharya relies on similarly ignorant/silly statements and wishful thinking by Church Fathers to support her claim.

In the past it has sometimes been claimed (e.g., by Wallis Budge, in his Legends of the Gods (1912), see this article; THE LEGEND OF THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF HORUS, AND OTHER MAGICAL TEXTS. (Among Egyptologists, Budge is no longer considered reliable)) that, in a myth recited on the Metternich Stela now on exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum in New York, the child Horus is stung by a scorpion (which is Seth’s doing), dies from the poison, and is resurrected by Thoth. But I know of no modern reading/translation of this text that has him dying rather than just unconscious and on the brink of death. The Stela’s text itself says that “the child was weak beyond answering,” and “refused the jar [of drink],” which obviously means he is not dead. J.F. Borghouts, Ancient Egyptian Texts (1978), p. 63 (in lines 171-74 if the Stela). The scholarly discussions of the text accord with this interpretation. See Nora Scott, “The Metternich Stela,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 9.8:201-17 (1951) (Horus is “unconscious” (p. 213); Scott was Research Fellow in the Egyptian Art Department at the Met); John Nunn, Ancient Egyptian Medicine, p. 110 (1996) (Horus is “unconscious”); Robert Ritner, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, p. 57 n. 266 (1993) (Horus is “injured”); Geraldine Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt, pp. 144-45 (1994) (Horus is “too weak and ill to suckle” and has a “sickness”); Emily Teeter, Religion and Ritual in Ancient Egypt, p. 175 (2011) (Horus was was “cured” by Thoth, which does not seem like a raising from the dead). This interpretation makes sense in terms of the magical spells recited that invoked this myth to cure victims of snakebite, scorpion stings, etc., who are still alive; they are not being brought back from the dead. For this purpose, the recovery of Horus was being used as a parallel example, so it made sense that he too was only on the brink of death. It is like the Billy Crystal scene in The Princess Bride, where his character Miracle Max observes that Wesley is “only mostly dead,” and then proceeds to bring him back.

So, to put it bluntly, the idea is a load of Horuss**t.

Answer 2 (score 15)

Short answer, no. There is no writing, inscription, artwork, statuary, or anything that indicates Horus (or Osiris) was crucified.

There is death and resurrection in Horus’ story, though. The Metternich Stele relates the story of Horus dying by the sting of a scorpion. Budge has a nice summary:

THE LEGEND OF THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF HORUS, AND OTHER MAGICAL TEXTS.

Now soon after Isis had restored to life the son of the woman who had shown churlishness to her, a terrible calamity fell upon her, for her beloved son Horus was stung by a scorpion and died. The news of this event was conveyed to her by the gods, who cried out to her to come to see her son Horus, whom the terrible scorpion Uhat had killed. Isis, stabbed with pain at the news, as if a knife had been driven into her body, ran out distraught with grief. It seems that she had gone to perform a religious ceremony in honour of Osiris in a temple near Hetep-hemt, leaving her child carefully concealed in Sekhet-An. During her absence the scorpion Uhat, which had been sent by Set, forced its way into the biding-place of Horus, and there stung him to death. When Isis came and found the dead body, she burst forth in lamentations, the sound of which brought all the people from the neighbouring districts to her side.

A little bit later:

Then he came to Isis and told her that no harm could possibly have happened to Horus, for he was under the protection of the Boat of Ra; but his words failed to comfort Isis, and though she acknowledged the greatness of his designs, she complained that they savoured of delay. “What is the good,” she asks, “of all thy spells, and incantations, and magical formulae, and the great command of maa-kheru, if Horus is to perish by the poison of a scorpion, and to lie here in the arms of Death? Evil, evil is his destiny, for it hath entailed the deepest misery for him and death.”

In answer to these words Thoth, turning to Isis and Nephthys, bade them to fear not, and to have no anxiety about Horus, “For,” said he, “I have come from heaven to heal the child for his mother.” He then pointed out that Horus was under protection as the Dweller in his Disk (Aten), the Great Dwarf, the Mighty Ram, the Great Hawk, the Holy Beetle, the Hidden Body, the Divine Bennu, etc., and proceeded to utter the great spell which restored Horus to life.

Thinking of Horus as a prefiguration of Jesus Christ is a clear-cut case of parallelomania (warning: PDF). Unfortunately, with “researchers” like Acharya S., sometimes the faint parallels (death and revival) become the overarching theme, hiding away any (especially major!) differences, and twists the rest of the narrative to fit. For example, this was not related to any divine soul-saving god, but rather to ancient Egyptian (religiously-based) medical practices. See Nunn 2002 Ancient Egyptian Medicine pp. 108–109.

Answer 3 (score 1)

No. Osiris resurrection is recounted in the texts (The Book of the Dead), Osiris was a Victor of Amentet, thus descended to the place of the dead, and ascended to Heavens. Horus was counted as one of the Enneadic powers (High Judges, or the Council of Seven, or Nine in some text), he was rather establishing co-rule with Pharaohs as avatars or the living Horus and had a more significant role than a soteriological figure. He was a protector of the body of Osiris, nevertheless. “Pagan Christs” is a relevant book (you can find it on internet archives), regarding comparative soteriology (Mithra, Christ, Baldr and others)

Question

Who were the weapons-makers for the Norse gods? Was there a specific god like in Greek mythology?

Answer accepted (score 22)

Dwarfs, mostly. Some particular examples:

• Gungnir: created by the Sons of Ivaldi (Prose Edda, p 145)

  Loki went to those dwarves who are called Ívaldi’s Sons; and they made the hair, and Skídbladnir also, and the spear which became Odin’s possession [Gungnir]

• Mjölnir: created by Eitri and Brokkr (Prose Edda, p 146)

  Then he [Eitri] took from the forge a hammer [Mjölnir], put all the precious works into the hands of Brokkr his brother…

• Dainsleif (Prose Edda, p. 189)

  Thou hast made this offer over-late, if thou wouldst make peace: for now I have drawn Dáinsleif, which the dwarves made

• Tyrfing: created by Dvalinn and Durin (Hervarar Saga (1. KAPÍTULI))

And just maybe Völundr (Wayland the Smith) (who forged Gram), who might also have forged:

• Lævateinn (Viktor Rydberg’s Investigations into Germanic Mythology Vol. II)

Answer 2 (score 12)

Many weapons were made by dwarfs.

Brokk and Eiti (Sindri) made Mjölnir (Thor’s hammer) according to the Prose Edda and Odin’s spear Gungnir which the dwarfs originally gave to Loki.

Answer 3 (score 9)

Norse gods didn’t have a “smith” god (like the Greek god Hephaestus or his Roman counterpart Vulcan). In spite of being polytheists they didn’t divide every aspect of their lives in the way that other cultures (Greek, Roman) did.

In Norse mythology most of the “cool crafts” where done by the Dwarfs (Dwarves).

[Dwarfs had] a far greater cleverness in the arts and crafts of working with iron and gold and precious stones. These Dwarfs, with Durin as their king, made rings and swords and priceless treasures, and mined gold out of the earth for the AEsir’s use

_{(Roger Lancely Green. Myths of the Norsemen)}

There are though “legendary” smith figures in the Norse mythology beside the Dwarfs, like Waylan the Smith. Wayland (sometimes Weyland or Weiland) is, according to Völundarkviða (a poem in the Poetic Edda), one of the three sons of the king of the Finns. But, in spite of being a legendary master blacksmith, he didn’t forge any remarkable artifacts nor any of the god’s weapons. He is also a human figure (although maybe with skills that could rival with those of the Dwarves) not a god.

Question

If Zeus and his siblings were able to hold Chronos down and chop him into pieces, effectively “killing” him, could there be a way for the gods or goddesses to die as well?

Or in other words, can the gods be destroyed so that they are reduced to a state of formlessness from which they are unable to return?

And since the Titans were actually stronger than the gods, would it take as much power/people to kill them, or would it be easier for them to be killed?

In similarity to the version of the story of Chronos in which he is imprisoned, could any of the gods or goddesses be captured and/or imprisoned? What would be able to hold them? And again, would it be easier to capture the gods than it was to do the same thing to Chronos or the Titans?

Answer accepted (score 12)

Offhand, I can’t think of any examples of Greek gods dying.

• Casting down into Tartarus seems to be the favored Ancient Greek methods for taking the old powers “off the game board”.

• The turning to stone of Atlas is an alternate method, although he “lives on” as a mountain range that still bears his name. (This is similar to the memoriams of various tragic figures in Greek mythology who are transformed into constellations.)

• Dionysus/Zagreus was dismembered and returned to life, so even sparagmos is not lethal for such creatures. [See also this answer for a little more detail.]

• The binding of Prometheus is another example of constraining a rival power without killing that power, possibly because that power represents an eternal idea or ideas. (Plato would likely provide insight into this concept, which features in Ancient Greek mythology and philosophy, and provides an intersection for the two fields.)

Where we do tend see fatal consequences for supernatural creatures in Greek Mythology is the vanquishing monsters to tame the landscape so that civilization may blossom. Heracles is particularly famous for this, killing creatures such as the Hydra in his labors, and taking part in the Gigantomachy in which many earth born giants were slain.

Sorry for the brevity of this answer. When I get some more time, I’ll try to come back and add more detail and links. In the meantime, you might want to read a little Ovid–his Metamorphosis is a very comprehensive catalog of of the myths by perhaps the most influential of all the ancient mythographers (not least per his tremendous influence on Shakespeare) and you will immediately note an emphasis on transformation as opposed to death.

Answer 2 (score 7)

Yes, they can die. Only example for this is Pan:

Then the voice said aloud to him, When you are arrived at Palodes, take care to make it known that the great God Pan is dead.

Plutarch. Plutarch’s Morals. Translated from the Greek by several hands. Corrected and revised by. William W. Goodwin, PH. D. Boston. Little, Brown, and Company. Cambridge. Press Of John Wilson and son. 1874.

As for how he died… no idea.

Related question: How rare is a dead god?

Answer 3 (score 5)

The Greek Gods can’t “Die”, but they can be crippled forever, chopped into tiny pieces, or just fade. For example, when Kronos sliced Ouranus (Uranus) to death, Ouranus was never able to have a physical form again. In the 3rd Century BC, people referred to Apollo and Helios and Artemis and Selene as the same gods. Then eventually people forgot about both Helios and Selene. That would mean that Helios and Selene faded.

So, they can only be put in extreme agony or fade forever.

Source 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo

Question

In the song “Something Just Like This,” by Coldplay and the Chainsmokers, there’s a line that says:

I’ve been reading books of old

The legends and the myths.

Achilles and his gold,

Hercules and his gifts.

I recall Achilles being associated with martial prowess and his famous heel, not gold. What does the song refer to?

Answer accepted (score 14)

One of Achilles’ best known and most important connections with gold is that he rejects the treasure, including ten talents of gold (δέκα δὲ χρυσοῖο τάλαντα, Iliad 9.122 & 9.264), that is offered by Agamemnon as an inducement to rejoin the war effort. For he is in receipt of divine intelligence (from his mother Thetis, 9.410–416) that if he continues to fight at Troy he will die young, and his reward is to be immortal fame.

Provision for immortal fame involves, first, recognition from his peers, in the form of treasure-gifts, including spear-prize women, awarded by the army collectively (1.162) in recognition of meritorious service on the raids that bring in the treasure. After that, and in some measure depending on such signal honors, the hero can become a personage in heroic epic, which lasts forever. Agamemnon’s insulting and autocratic revocation of the army’s award of the woman has in effect broken the mechanism by which Achilles can hope for immortal fame. And as he himself points out, treasure itself cannot equally well be worth dying for, and cannot undo death:

Of possessions
cattle and fat sheep are things to be had for the lifting,
and tripods can be won, and the tawny high heads of horses,
but a man’s life cannot come back again, it cannot be lifted
nor captured again by force, once it has crossed the teeth’s barrier. (9.406–409, Lattimore trans.)

Another connection is the famous armor, particularly the shield, created for Achilles by Hephaestus at Iliad 18.478–607. Materials for the shield include bronze, tin, and silver as well, but the figuration or blazonry that dominates the passage prominently features gold.

The association of Hercules with gifts also raises questions. The song elsewhere uses gifts in the sense of talents (in the modern sense of extraordinary god-given abilities, not as weight or mass unit), and presumably is using it in that sense also in relation to Hercules—who is not so much known for gifts, in the sense of presents, as (say) the Magi of Christian myth.

Answer 2 (score 4)

The song apparently hints at a quote which once has been popular but now is known only by classicists:

ll entreat Achilles to lend me the gold with which Hector was ransomed (Achillem orabo, aurum ut mihi det, Hector qui expensus fuit).

T. Maccius Plautus, Mercator, or The Merchant, Act 2, Scene 4

Paul Veyne, in one of his books (‘’Did the Greek believe their myths’’, n.77), gives the line as an ironic example of something irrealistic, as we could say e.g. “I’ll ask Santa for some money”.

Answer 3 (score 2)

“What does the song refer to?”

It refers to the lyricist’s lack of knowledge & unfamiliarity with classical Greek mythology.

I looked up the whole lyrics the whole verse is this

“I’ve been reading books of old The legends and the myths/ Achilles and his gold/ Hercules and his gifts/ Spiderman’s control/ And Batman with his fists/ And clearly I don’t see myself upon that list”

The intent of the verse is clear, the writer doesn’t see himself as heroic.

But it also demonstrates unfamiliarity with the characters mentioned. What is “Spiderman’s control” supposed to mean? Does the writer mean Spidey’s agility, i.e. acrobatical control over his body? Or did the writer mean “self control” over emotions? The latter is not something the Spiderman character is known for.

And “Batman with his fists”, while Batman is known for martial arts skills, he’s much more closely associated with his detective skills & inventive gadgets.

“Hercules and his gifts” is vague & generalized.

In a later verse the writer says “Superman unrolls/ A suit before he lifts” Which doesn’t really make much sense either.

So what I think it means overall, is that the writer sat down & said “I want to write about not being heroic, & if I name some popular hero characters it will make the song more popular” then he looked up some names of popular heroic characters & put them in the song without really studying much about them at all.

Question

The Norse æsir gods had animal helpers, but did anyone of them have a bear? Have bears been found in graves, like dogs and horses et cetera? Are there Norse illustration of bears?

Some Norse warriors were called berserks because they wore the fur of bears. And fur from bears was an important export good.

Is it lost in the tradition because there never were any bears on Iceland? And absent from archaeology because one couldn’t sacrifice a wild animal that one doesn’t own.

But while the wolf was an as dangerous animal, it was semi-domesticated and Odin owned wolves. Am I just missing alot of references to bears in Asgard, or did the bear have a different kind of role to play than other animals?

Answer accepted (score 10)

You raise a really good point. It is strange that there are no bears in Norse myth. The wolf seems to have really engaged them, perhaps because of the duality of wolf/dog, tame and wild, while the bear to them was totally wild.

I wonder if @LocalFluff isn’t on to something, because berserks were seen as totally outside society, too unpredicatable and dangerous to have around. (In Egils saga Skallgrim kills a servant when the berserker rage descends on him, and nearly kills his son.) A wolf could become a dog, but you can’t tame a bear and put it to use or have it as a pet.

By the way there were a kind of berserkers, ulfhednar, who turned into wolves, although you don’t hear so much about them.

PS - The Lewis chessmen include berserks, biting their shields.

Answer 2 (score 8)

Bears do not feature much in Norse mythology, at least when it comes to the stories involving the gods. The one story I can think of which even mentions them is how Gleipnir, the chain that fettered Fenrir, was made: one ingredient was the “sinews of a bear”, together with several more fantastic items, such as the breath of a fish.

However, they do appear in other stories: in the story of Hrólf Kraki, the hero Bödvar Bjarki (the norse version of Beowulf) is asleep during a great battle, but it turns out that there is a great bear fighting in his stead. When he is woken up, the bear disappears. This is told in the Bjarkamál.

As for art, the only thing I can think of is some Vendel era metalwork, which contains what looks like a bear-man:

Question

I have heard of the Greek god, Chaos (the manifestation of the void), and of the Greek god Aither, (the manifestation of the upper air that gods breathe most often), but I can’t find reference to any deities that personify ‘space’ or ‘the cosmos.’

Who is the Western god(s) of Space and The Cosmos, if there is any?

Answer accepted (score 12)

For Egyptian, you’d have several choices. Going from the largest (at least in the Heliopolitian cosmology):

Nuun (Nun) is the cosmic ocean that our universe is a bubble in: https://henadology.wordpress.com/theology/netjeru/nun/

Atum includes the concept of “Completeness”. In a sense He/She would be related to the universe we know, and precipitated himself/herself out of the Nuun.

Shu and Tefnut would be next- Shu having a complex set of associations including emptiness and light, and Tefnut with moisture (and another set of associations).

From those two came Geb- associated with Earth, and Nut with sky. The Nuun also passed underneath the Earth.

The above is a gross simplification, especially when you mix in all the other Egyptian creation stories.

Several of the Greek philosophers talked about a spherical Earth: they noticed that you could see stars in the Southern Egyptian sky that were invisible in Greece, the reverse being true for Northern stars in Greece.

Answer 2 (score 10)

Ouranos (Roman Uranus) is the Greek (night) sky god. You will find him at the beginning of Hesiod’s Theogony. Wikipedia has an extensive list of sky gods, among whom you will find the Egyptian goddess Nut.

Answer 3 (score 10)

Ouranos (Roman Uranus) is the Greek (night) sky god. You will find him at the beginning of Hesiod’s Theogony. Wikipedia has an extensive list of sky gods, among whom you will find the Egyptian goddess Nut.

Question

In Greek mythology, Medusa was raped by the sea god Poseidon in the Temple of Athena. Athena found no fault in Poseidon, but was furious with Medusa. My question is why would Athena not find any fault with Poseidon?

Answer accepted (score 4)

There’s a discussion of this question on Quora that covers all the points I wanted to raise. Personally, I’ve always preferred the explanation that Medusa was a priestess in Athena’s temple. Defiling it by having sex there would be bad enough, but with Athena’s enemy? Athena was already a short-tempered goddess, so Medusa must have known she was in for trouble. Also, as the Quora discussion notes, the gods were notoriously lenient towards each other, while smiting mortals hard and often.

Answer 2 (score 2)

Poseidon was a god, and Athena was a goddess. She was not powerful enough to punish Poseidon. He is a elder god, which makes him second only to Zeus.

Answer 3 (score -1)

Because all religions ever were invented by some misogynist guy who wanted to set a nice delusional foundation for a patriarchal society and hence when they wrote the story they naturally put the blame on the woman?

Question

In Norse mythology, Ragnarök is a series of future events, including a great battle foretold to ultimately result in the death of a number of major figures (including the gods Odin, Thor, Týr, Freyr, Heimdallr, and Loki), the occurrence of various natural disasters, and the subsequent submersion of the world in water. Afterward, the world will resurface anew and fertile, the surviving and returning gods will meet, and the world will be repopulated by two human survivors . Ragnarök is an important event in the Norse canon, and has been the subject of scholarly discourse and theory.

At the end of this prophercy, it stated that two surviving humans will repopulate the Earth while the remaing gods will meet with each other and do something, like helping with the repopulation of the human race or something like that.

So what exactly do the remaining gods and two humans do after Ragnarök?

Answer accepted (score 15)

Most gods die during the battle together with the evil and the two people are left to repopulate the world. The Children of Odin addresses the event in an easily comprehensible way:

What said Odin to the Gods and to the Champions who surrounded him? “We will give our lives and let our world be destroyed, but we will battle so that these evil powers will not live after us.” Out of Hel’s ship sprang Fenrir the Wolf. His mouth gaped; his lower jaw hung against the earth, and his upper jaw scraped the sky. Against the Wolf Odin All-Father fought. Thor might not aid him, for Thor had now to encounter Jörmungand, the monstrous serpent.

By Fenrir the Wolf Odin was slain. But the younger Gods were now advancing to the battle; and Vidar, the Silent God, came face to face with Fenrir. He laid his foot on the Wolf’s lower jaw, that foot that had on the sandal made of all the scraps of leather that shoemakers had laid by for him, and with his hands he seized the upper jaw and tore his gullet. Thus died Fenrir, the fiercest of all the enemies of the Gods.

Jörmungand, the monstrous serpent, would have overwhelmed all with the venom he was ready to pour forth. But Thor sprang forward and crushed him with a stroke of his hammer Miölnir. Then Thor stepped back nine paces. But the serpent blew his venom over him, and blinded and choked and burnt, Thor, the World’s Defender, perished.

Loki sprang from his ship and strove with Heimdall, the Warder of the Rainbow Bridge and the Watcher for the Gods. Loki slew Heimdall and was slain by him.

Bravely fought Tyr, the God who had sacrificed his swordhand for the binding of the Wolf. Bravely he fought, and many of the powers of evil perished by his strong left hand. But Garm, the hound with bloody jaws, slew Tyr.

_{The Children of Odin}

The text goes on many deaths take place. Together with the gods, the evil also dies, which is what Odin was striving for.

After Ragnarok:

Deep in a wood two of human kind were left; the fire of Surtur did not touch them; they slept, and when they wakened the world was green and beautiful again. These two fed on the dews of the morning; a woman and a man they were, Lif and Lifthrasir. They walked abroad in the world, and from them and from their children came the men and women who spread themselves over the earth.

_{The Children of Odin}

But some of the gods survive as well:

Other survivors of Ragnarok included some of the gods, particularly Odin’s brother Honir, Odin’s sons Vidar and Vali, Thor’s sons Modi and Magni. Another of Odin’s sons, Balder, was revived from the dead after the battle.

_{Ancient Mythology}

The surviving gods talk to each other about Ragnarok:

Gods. The runes told them of a heaven that was above Asgard, of Gimli, that was untouched by Surtur’s fire. Vili and Ve, Will and Holiness, ruled in it. Baldur and Hödur came from Hela’s habitation, and the Gods sat on the peak together and held speech with each other, calling to mind the secrets and the happenings they had known before Ragnarök, the Twilight of the Gods.

_{The Children of Odin}

Question

There are many different accounts of the life of Merlin, one of the noted magical figures in the tales of King Arthur. Some accounts do not cover the end of his life, while others state that he died at the hands of the Lady of the Lake or by Niviane, his lover.

How old was Merlin when he died? I’d like to focus on these two instances, as they are the most commonly cited myths which I have been able to find. The one source I have found is Vulgate Merlin, as explained here, though it states that Niviane was also known as the Lady of the Lake - yet not the same as the Lady of the Lake who bore Excalibur to King Arthur!^*

^{*This may lead to another question. . .}

Answer accepted (score 14)

Geoffrey’s account of Merlin Ambrosius’ early life in the Historia Regum Britanniae is based on the story of Ambrosius in the Historia Brittonum.

The Historia Regum Britanniae explains that when Merlin died he was “400 Summers his Lord” (His Lord would be Arthur and Arthur died in his 40’s to 60’s). So we can assume that Merlin was around 440-460 years old.

However his character was based on Myrddin Wyllt. Myrddin died at the age of 39.

Question

I was looking up some stuff and I saw a quote about Aphrodite’s genealogy from this page.

One genealogy gives her parents as Zeus, King of the Gods, and Dione, an early earth/mother goddess. More commonly, she was believed to be born of the foam in the sea which bubbled around the severed member of Ouranos when Kronos slew him.

This is very conflicting information. Where do these two different stories appear? Is one of these officially right?

Answer accepted (score 15)

The story of her being born from Ouranos severed member is from Hesiod’s Theogony:

And so soon as he had cut off the members with flint and cast them from the land into the surging sea, they were swept away over the main a long time: and a white foam spread around them from the immortal flesh, and in it there grew a maiden. First she drew near holy Cythera, and from there, afterwards, she came to sea-girt Cyprus, and came forth an awful and lovely goddess, and grass grew up about her beneath her shapely feet. Her gods and men call Aphrodite, and the foam-born goddess

Where her lineage from Zeus and Dione is presented in Homer’s Illiad. Book 5 makes repeated reference to her parentage. These segments, for instance, which refer to her father:

I am only following your own instructions; you told me not to fight any of the blessed gods; but if Jove’s daughter Venus came into battle I was to wound her with my spear.

And her mother:

But Venus flung herself on to the lap of her mother Dione, who threw her arms about her and caressed her…

According to Plato’s Symposium, these actually represent two different entities: Aphrodite Ourania (“heavenly”) and Aphrodite Pandemos (“common”):

One, older obviously, is the daughter of Uranus and had no mother, and we call her “Heavenly Aphrodite”; the younger is the child of Zeus and Dione and we call her “Common Aphrodite”. It follows then that the Love who works with the latter Aphrodite should correctly be called “Common Love” and the other “Heavenly Love”

Question

What is the world’s oldest joke? I mean the earliest known story, set of affairs, or action that people spread to other people in order to cause the receivers to be amused.

Answer accepted (score 40)

According to Paul McDonald at the University of Wolverhampton, it’s this 3900-year-old one, from 1900BC in Sumeria:

Something which has never occurred since time immemorial: a young woman did not fart in her husband’s lap.

(I don’t get it either!)

Question

I always thought that Artemis was the Goddess of the Moon (and Hunting, stags, etc.)… until I thought about how there’s Helios/Apollo which caused me to learn about Selene. But further research revealed yet another Moon goddess - Hecate, who is associated with the moon, and is Selene’s grandmother. Still further research revealed Phoebe, whose Wikipedia article is pretty sparse and is the grandmother of Selene.

Did the goddess who had domain of the moon change over time? Did they all sort of do it together?

Answer accepted (score 19)

Actually the list of moon-goddesses goes on since, according to Selene’s Theoi page:

Other Greek moon goddesses included Pasiphae, the Leukippides, Eileithyia, Hekate, Artemis, Bendis, and Hera (who sometimes doubled for Selene in the Endymion myth).

But let’s focus first on the one you mentioned:

• Artemis. Her association with the moon seems relatively straight-forward: if Apollo is associated with the Sun, then his sister has to be associated with the moon.

• Selene (= Mene or Luna). She is the proper Titan-goddess of the Moon, often even the personnification of the moon itself. See among many other sources, Apollonius Rhodius’s Argonautica:

  Rising from the distant east, the Lady Selene (Moon), Titanian goddess…

• Phoibe/Phoebe. The Titan Phoibe doesn’t actually seem to be associated with the moon, the confusion comes from Selene being often nicknamed Phoebe (i. e. ‘bright’). Phoibe was apparently a prophetess Titan-goddess and as such is supposed to have held the Oracle of Delphi at some point. From the first line of Aeschylus’s Eumenides:

  THE PYTHIAN PRIESTESS
  First, in this prayer, of all the gods I name
  The prophet-mother Earth; and Themis next,
  Second who sat-for so with truth is said-
  On this her mother’s shrine oracular.
  Then by her grace, who unconstrained allowed,
  There sat thereon another child of Earth-
  Titanian Phoebe.

• Hecate. Now Hecate is something else I think. The different sources we have tend to contradict each other on her parentage, descendance, attributions etc. leading some scholars to think that Hecate was in fact a goddess foreign to the Greek Pantheon that was only added later (and well integrated thanks to the place Hesiod gave her in the Theogony). See for instance what Sarah Johnston says about it in Restless Deads:

  Let us go back further, to Hecate’s place of origin. There is general agreement that this was Caria, in southwestern Asia Minor, which is supported by the fact that by the Hellenistic period her precinct in Lagina was the largest of all the precincts there (in constrast, in all of Greece, only Aegina seems to have had any significant sanctuary devoted wholly to Hecate).

  Caria being in southwestern Anatolia. Similarly (from the list I mentioned earlier), Pasiphae seems to have been the cretan moon-goddess and Bendis the one from Thrace.

  The specific reason why Hecate was associated with the moon seems a bit complex. Originally, in Caria, Hecate seems to have been a fairly generic mother Goddess. Even in Hesiod’s Theogony she is presented as having dominion over basically everything:

  For to this day, whenever any one of men on earth offers rich sacrifices and prays for favour according to custom, he calls upon Hecate. […] For as many as were born of Earth and Ocean amongst all these she has her due portion. The son of Cronos did her no wrong nor took anything away of all that was her portion among the former Titan gods: but she holds, as the division was at the first from the beginning, privilege both in earth, and in heaven, and in sea.

  According to Sarah Johnston in Hekate Soteira: A Study of Hekate’s Role in the Chaldean Oracles and Related Literature (which I haven’t been able to find and thus read so I might be misrepresenting her idea here), the association came relatively late (1st Century AD) from the fact that at some point Hecate was seen as a “liminal” goddess, an intermediary between two worlds (hence also probably the association between Hecate and witchcraft), which is a quality that was supposedly shared by the Moon.

So to summarize, the difference between Selene and Artemis is that one is the moon while the other is just associated with it, and on top of that one is a Titan while the other is an Olympian; Phoebe has nothing to do with the moon; and the others are foreign/regional goddesses integrated a posteriori into the Greek Pantheon.

Answer 2 (score -1)

Hecate, Artemis and Selene are one in the same. Artemis is known as the Goddess of the Triple Aspect because she has three identities. Artemis is the virgin goddess of the hunt (Earth form), Selene is goddess of the moon (sky form) and Hecate is the goddess of witchcraft and the underworld (cthonian/underworld form). We can see this in depictions of Artemis wearing the “horns of the moon” on her crown, or images of Hecate as a three-faced goddess. It is possible that at some point they were separate deities and their stories became confused by later Greeks and Romans but our current understanding is of the three as different aspects of one.

Source: Classics 430 class at University

Answer 3 (score -1)

Hecate, Artemis and Selene are one in the same. Artemis is known as the Goddess of the Triple Aspect because she has three identities. Artemis is the virgin goddess of the hunt (Earth form), Selene is goddess of the moon (sky form) and Hecate is the goddess of witchcraft and the underworld (cthonian/underworld form). We can see this in depictions of Artemis wearing the “horns of the moon” on her crown, or images of Hecate as a three-faced goddess. It is possible that at some point they were separate deities and their stories became confused by later Greeks and Romans but our current understanding is of the three as different aspects of one.

Source: Classics 430 class at University

Question

The character of Zeus is well-known for seducing many women, both human and goddesses. In many of these stories, Zeus assumes a form other than his true self.

The most famous is perhaps Leda - it is said that Zeus seduced her in the form of a swan (some versions specify that he came to her, in swan form, seeking protection from an eagle).

However, there are many other stories - this page lists several lovers who were not seduced in human form:

ANTIOPE: A Lady of Thebes in Boiotia (Central Greece) who was seduced by Zeus in the shape of a satyr. She bore him twin sons Amphion and Zethos which were exposed at birth.

DANAE: A Princess of Argos (in Central Greece) who was imprisoned by her father in a bronze tower. Zeus seduced her in the form of a golden shower, and she gave birth to a son, the hero Perseus.

EURYMEDOUSA: A Princess of Phthiotis (in Northern Greece) who was seduced by Zeus in the form of an ant. Their son was named Myrmidon (Ant-Man).

LEDA: A Queen of Lakedaimonia (in Southern Greece) who was seduced by Zeus in the form of a swan. She laid an egg from which were hatched the Dioskouroi twins

PHTHIA: A girl from Aegion in Akhaia (southern Greece). Zeus seduced her in the guise of a pigeon or dove.

In some stories, it makes complete sense why Zeus assumed the form he did:

ALKMENE: A Lady of Thebes in Boiotia (Central Greece) who was seduced by Zeus in the form of her own husband. She bore twins: Herakles by Zeus and Likymnios by her husband Amphitryon.

The story of Semele, Dionysus’ mother, explains why Zeus does not present himself in his godly form - mortals perish when they look upon gods. However, it doesn’t really explain why Zeus chose such varied, non-human, and frankly weird (ant?!), shapes for his seduction process. My question is, do any stories every offer an explanation for Zeus’ shapes, or an indication of the motivation behind it?

Answer accepted (score 24)

I don’t think it’s explicitly said, but essentially, as being constantly unable to control himself, yet still being married to Hera, Zeus had two problems:

1. Hera, ever jealous was constantly after him. As a result, Zeus kept trying different tricks with which to hide from her (which never worked). Once, he tried blanketing the earth in clouds and transforming Io into a cow. From Ovid’s Metamorphoses:

   Meanwhile Juno looked down into the heart of Argos, surprised that rapid mists had created night in shining daylight. She knew they were not vapours from the river, or breath from the damp earth. She looked around to see where her husband was, knowing by now the intrigues of a spouse so often caught in the act. When she could not find him in the skies, she said ‘Either I am wrong, or being wronged’ and gliding down from heaven’s peak, she stood on earth ordering the clouds to melt. Jupiter had a presage of his wife’s arrival and had changed Inachus’s daughter into a gleaming heifer. Even in that form she was beautiful. Saturnia approved the animal’s looks, though grudgingly, asking, then, whose she was, where from, what herd, as if she did not know. Jupiter, to stop all inquiry, lied, saying she had been born from the earth. Then Saturnia claimed her as a gift. What could he do? Cruel to sacrifice his love, but suspicious not to. Shame urges him to it, Amor urges not. Amor would have conquered Shame, but if he refused so slight a gift as a heifer to the companion of his race and bed, it might appear no heifer!

2. The women themselves were almost never interested, and so he transformed himself to make them more willing. This happened all the time; a good example was in the myth of Leda / Nemesis:

   But Zeus in the form of a swan consorted with Leda, and on the same night Tyndareus cohabited with her; and she bore Pollux and Helen to Zeus, and Castor and Clytaemnestra to Tyndareus. But some say that Helen was a daughter of Nemesis and Zeus; for that she, flying from the arms of Zeus, changed herself into a goose, but Zeus in his turn took the likeness of a swan and so enjoyed her; and as the fruit of their loves she laid an egg, and a certain shepherd found it in the groves and brought and gave it to Leda; and she put it in a chest and kept it; and when Helen was hatched in due time, Leda brought her up as her own daughter.

So, for one or the other of these reasons, Zeus pretty much had no choice, if he wanted to keep raping every beautiful woman he met. And he was the king of the gods, so he certainly wasn’t going to give that up.

Answer 2 (score 2)

Perhaps it was simply to trick the maidens.

It is well known that Hera is infuriated by Zeus’s infidelity, and has a track record of taking out her wrath on the woman and even any children related to the affair, since she couldn’t punish Zeus himself. She has gone all the way from permanent disfigurement (of various levels) to driving individuals to madness, and even murder. She’s even tricked various mortals to kill someone they love.

Knowing Hera’s fury, no matter how charming Zeus was, I imagine that many maidens were scared off by fear of her retaliation. Therefore when Zeus changed shapes to… whatever the maidens would not necessarily know was Zeus and be less wary of hooking up with him.

Answer 3 (score 1)

Presumably when people starting putting together all the local stories that would become “Greek myth” it turned out that Zeus had slept with a lot of women, in some rather odd guises. These may have made sense as part of some local cult, but as part of a human-shaped god’s mythos they seem pretty weird.
Also, gods disguising themselves to rape a goddess or mortal woman wasn’t limited to Zeus, although he used that trick a lot. (Poseidon, for example, disguised himself as a stallion after Demeter tried to hide from him by becoming a mare. Whether you see this as a rationalization of an older cult or a sneaky god trick is up to you.)
Zeus “seduced” his future wife, Hera, in the form of a bedraggled cuckoo, which she pitied and took to her breast, so he resumed his normal form and well… raped her.

Question

Medusa is known for being so ugly that if men even look at her face, they would immediately be turned into stone statues. Perseus was somehow able to overcome this challenge of killing her by looking at her reflection in a mirror. Even though he was technically looking at her, just with a mirror, he did not turn into stone.

So how does looking at Medusa’s reflection in a mirror prevent men from turning into stone? Technically he should have turned into stone as he looked at her, but this time indirectly.

Answer accepted (score 43)

It was looking directly into Medusa’s eyes that would turn a mortal to stone, not the whole of her face. Using the shield as a mirror meant that even if Medusa’s gaze fell upon Perseus, it would be at an angle. Not that it mattered in the end, as Perseus was lucky enough to catch Medusa and her sisters sleeping:

But the Gorgons had heads twined about with the scales of dragons, and great tusks like swine’s, and brazen hands, and golden wings, by which they flew; and they turned to stone such as beheld them. So Perseus stood over them as they slept, and while Athena guided his hand and he looked with averted gaze on a brazen shield, in which he beheld the image of the Gorgon,5 he beheaded her. When her head was cut off, there sprang from the Gorgon the winged horse Pegasus and Chrysaor, the father of Geryon; these she had by Poseidon.

_{Source: Apollod. 2.4.2}

It should be noted, however, that Hesiod doesn’t mention the shield at all:

And again, Ceto bore to Phorcys the fair-cheeked Graiae, sisters grey from their birth: and both deathless gods and men who walk on earth call them Graiae, Pemphredo well-clad, and saffron-robed Enyo, and the Gorgons who dwell beyond glorious Ocean in the frontier land towards Night where are the clear-voiced Hesperides, Sthenno, and Euryale, and Medusa who suffered a woeful fate: she was mortal, but the two were undying and grew not old. With her lay the Dark-haired One in a soft meadow amid spring flowers. And when Perseus cut off her head, there sprang forth great Chrysaor and the horse Pegasus who is so called because he was born near the springs of Ocean; and that other, because he held a golden blade in his hands. Now Pegasus flew away and left the earth, the mother of flocks, and came to the deathless gods: and he dwells in the house of Zeus and brings to wise Zeus the thunder and lightning

_{Source: Hes. Th. 280}

Answer 2 (score 17)

The myths themselves are not going to give a technical explanation of this, so we are setting off on the wrong foot if we are seeking an answer at such a level, which is that of our modern technological mind.

An initial observation to make is that the myth does not always include a shield, as Yannis notes in the case of Hesiod’s account. We can also turn to the iconography, which likewise also does not necessarily portray a shield. See, e.g., the metope from Salinas ca. 540 B.C. (at the Museo Nazionale Archeologico in Palermo, Italy; in Morford & Lenardon’s Classical Mythology 8th ed., p. 552) and the black-figure jug by Amasis, Attic, 6th cen. BCE (in Neumann, Consciousness (below), illustration 25) both showing Perseus killing her while simply averting his gaze. For the Greeks, averting the gaze and looking at her reflection in the shield/mirror were obviously equivalent. Her power was either nullified or greatly diminished when looked at in reflection.

I also don’t think the eyes were crucial. I’m not aware of any source that stresses her eyes. Rather, they focus on her whole face (Ovid, Metamorphosis 4:783) or overall appearance, as in the passage from Apollodoris in the answer above. We can’t ignore her protruding tongue, tusks, or snakes for hair, since they are all essential to her character and mythological meaning. That’s why they are there. And that’s why Perseus had to look at the shield even though she was sleeping (presumably her eyes were closed).

If we go into the underlying psychological aspects of the myth (as we should with most myths), Perseus, like the typical hero, is in the process of fully realizing his ego consciousness, while this monster represents the all-consuming Terrible Mother of the unconscious seeking to suck him back into there and destroy his nascent ego consciousness. To confront her directly is too dangerous, so only averting the gaze or looking at her indirectly through the reflection will enable him to succeed. In the versions where the “bronze” shield/mirror appears, that is a solar/light symbol of the ego that not only enables him to see a diminished Medusa, but which as such also serves as a guide and beacon to him to keep him on course. Here it is also relevant that the Greeks also stressed the details of his escape. When Perseus kills the Medusa, the winged horse Perseus appears out of her (representing the ego that has escaped her, a parallel with Perseus himself), which Perseus rides while being pursued by Medusa’s sisters. His winged sandals, invisibility helmet, and hiding-wallet also play a figurative role, for which he has to thank Athena, goddess of wisdom (and so of consciousness). See Edward Edinger, The Eternal Drama: The Inner Meaning of Greek Mythology, pp. 4, 83; Erich Neumann, The Great Mother, p. 166; Erich Neumann, The Origins and History of Consciousness, pp. 87, 178, 214-16.

I hope this helps.

Answer 3 (score 10)

This is a physicist’s answer , commenting on the quotes in the checked answer:

“by which they flew; and they turned to stone such as beheld them.” There is no indication of direct gaze in the eyes in this passage. It seems a passive evil.

My impression is that the use of the shield is based on the analogy with seeing the image of the sun in water or the shield: heat/power of the sun is drastically diminished. I.e. reflections are much less powerful than the original source , a simple conclusion to draw from everyday observations.

The power of the image of Medusa would be expected to equally diminish, and could be survived.

Question

Odin’s ravens would continuously fly all over Midgard to collect information and bring it back to Odin.

In Norse mythology, Huginn (from Old Norse “thought”) and Muninn (Old Norse “memory” or “mind”) are a pair of ravens that fly all over the world, Midgard, and bring information to the god Odin.

_Wikipedia

In the poem Grímnismál, it is said that Odin is afraid the two ravens would not come back.

Hugin and Munin fly each day
over the spacious earth.
I fear for Hugin, that he come not back,
yet more anxious am I for Munin.

_Wikipedia

Why would a god be afraid that his ravens would not come back? Is there any secret meaning, connected to the ravens’ names (Memory and Thought)?

Answer accepted (score 11)

The meaning of those two ravens is not 100% answered, yet. One possible explanation is as follows:

In the Norse shamanic tradition, Odin’s ravens represent the powers of necromancy, clairvoyance and telepathy, and they were guides for the dead. This poem expresses the shaman’s fear of his loss of magical powers.

_{The Well of Remembrance by Ralph Metzner, Shambala, Boston, 1994}

However, it is implied the name of one of the ravens is mistranslated:

it’s often claimed that Munin’s name means “Memory,” but for this to be so, it would have to be derived from minni, “memory,” rather than munr, “desire.” The latter, however, is by far the more parsimonious derivation; if the former were the case, we should expect Munin’s Old Norse name to have been something like “Minninn” rather than “Muninn.” Moreover, the above verse from the Grímnismál makes much more sense if Munin’s name means “Desire” rather than “Memory”.

_{Norse Mythology for Smart People}

Another possible explanation is the following, which is similar to first one:

Anthony Winterbourne connects Huginn and Muninn to the Norse concepts of the fylgja—a concept with three characteristics; shape-shifting abilities, good fortune, and the guardian spirit—and the hamingja—the ghostly double of a person that may appear in the form of an animal. Winterbourne states that “The shaman’s journey through the different parts of the cosmos is symbolized by the hamingja concept of the shape-shifting soul, and gains another symbolic dimension for the Norse soul in the account of Oðin’s ravens, Huginn and Muninn.”

_{My Travels with Huggin and Munnin}

However, Rudolf Simek has an entirely different point to make, saying that the names of the ravens were only used in later times:

Rudolf Simek is critical of the approach, stating that “attempts have been made to interpret Odin’s ravens as a personification of the god’s intellectual powers, but this can only be assumed from the names Huginn and Muninn themselves which were unlikely to have been invented much before the 9th or 10th centuries” yet that the two ravens, as Odin’s companions, appear to derive from much earlier times. Instead, Simek connects Huginn and Muninn with wider raven symbolism in the Germanic world, including the Raven Banner (described in English chronicles and Scandinavian sagas), a banner which was woven in a method that allowed it, when fluttering in the wind, to appear as if the raven depicted upon it was beating its wings.

_Wikipedia

Answer 2 (score 11)

The meaning of those two ravens is not 100% answered, yet. One possible explanation is as follows:

In the Norse shamanic tradition, Odin’s ravens represent the powers of necromancy, clairvoyance and telepathy, and they were guides for the dead. This poem expresses the shaman’s fear of his loss of magical powers.

_{The Well of Remembrance by Ralph Metzner, Shambala, Boston, 1994}

However, it is implied the name of one of the ravens is mistranslated:

it’s often claimed that Munin’s name means “Memory,” but for this to be so, it would have to be derived from minni, “memory,” rather than munr, “desire.” The latter, however, is by far the more parsimonious derivation; if the former were the case, we should expect Munin’s Old Norse name to have been something like “Minninn” rather than “Muninn.” Moreover, the above verse from the Grímnismál makes much more sense if Munin’s name means “Desire” rather than “Memory”.

_{Norse Mythology for Smart People}

Another possible explanation is the following, which is similar to first one:

Anthony Winterbourne connects Huginn and Muninn to the Norse concepts of the fylgja—a concept with three characteristics; shape-shifting abilities, good fortune, and the guardian spirit—and the hamingja—the ghostly double of a person that may appear in the form of an animal. Winterbourne states that “The shaman’s journey through the different parts of the cosmos is symbolized by the hamingja concept of the shape-shifting soul, and gains another symbolic dimension for the Norse soul in the account of Oðin’s ravens, Huginn and Muninn.”

_{My Travels with Huggin and Munnin}

However, Rudolf Simek has an entirely different point to make, saying that the names of the ravens were only used in later times:

Rudolf Simek is critical of the approach, stating that “attempts have been made to interpret Odin’s ravens as a personification of the god’s intellectual powers, but this can only be assumed from the names Huginn and Muninn themselves which were unlikely to have been invented much before the 9th or 10th centuries” yet that the two ravens, as Odin’s companions, appear to derive from much earlier times. Instead, Simek connects Huginn and Muninn with wider raven symbolism in the Germanic world, including the Raven Banner (described in English chronicles and Scandinavian sagas), a banner which was woven in a method that allowed it, when fluttering in the wind, to appear as if the raven depicted upon it was beating its wings.

_Wikipedia

Answer 3 (score -3)

Having spend some time studying Icelandic and the older Norge, the Old Norsk seem more to me The Heart (remember, it was thought in this Nordic era that the heart was the center of thought in humans) and The Spirit or The Desire (Huginn og Muninn), both masculine here (the article is incorporated into the noun as one word and declines as such.)

So yes, I will go with The Desire or The Spirit to think and fight.

Question

Both the kitsune and huli jing are “fox spirits” with 9 tails, tricksters that can shapeshift into, or possess, young women.

• One famous kitsune appears in the true story of Hideyoshi writing a letter threatening to kill all foxes in Japan unless the kitsune ceases to possess one of his servants.
• Perhaps the most well-known huli jing is the historical Daji, consort of King Zhou and blamed for the fall of the Shang dynasty.

It seems that they either have a common origin or are greatly influenced by each other.

However, according to some scholars, the kitsune may have been native to Japan, only acquiring its negative qualities from Chinese folklore later. In particular, kitsune are strongly related to the kami Inari, whereas huli jing are not strongly associated with any god in particular. From Wikipedia:

Japanese folklorist Kiyoshi Nozaki argues that the Japanese regarded kitsune positively as early as the 4th century A.D.; the only things imported from China or Korea were the kitsune’s negative attributes. He states that, according to a 16th-century book of records called the Nihon Ryakki, foxes and human beings lived close together in ancient Japan, and he contends that indigenous legends about the creatures arose as a result. Inari scholar Karen Smyers notes that the idea of the fox as seductress and the connection of the fox myths to Buddhism were introduced into Japanese folklore through similar Chinese stories, but she maintains that some fox stories contain elements unique to Japan.

How much support is there for their separate origins? What is the relationship between these two mythical creatures?

Answer accepted (score 19)

They are not really the same. In fact, they are not both fox spirits with nine tails.

^{Left: A nine-tailed fox depicted in the ancient Chinese bestiary Classic of Mountains and Seas (山海經) | Right: A distinctly single tailed kitsune depicted in the Japanese almanac kin mou zui (訓蒙図彙)}

The fox spirits of later Chinese traditions do not necessarily have nine tails, either. Similarly, Japan later imported the Chinese nine-tailed fox, but it found a place in Japanese folklore as a distinct entity separate from the traditional kitsune.

Although they share notable similarities, such as transformation and betwitching humans, the Japanese kitsune and the Chinese hulijing actually have fundamental differences.

In the Japanese language, the word kitsune literally just means “a fox”. There’s no difference between that and the fox as an animal. As this would imply, the kitsune are regarded as simply common foxes, though held to be naturally long lived and attributed with magical abilities.

In contrast, the Chinese hulijing means specifically a “fox spirit”. They are no ordinary foxes, but instead the result of centuries or even millenia of training. Some tales further describe them as engaging in powerleveling through essence-sucking intercourse with mortal humans à la western succubi or incubi.

The Classic of Mountains and Seas for instance mentions that:

有獸焉，其狀如狐而九尾，其音如嬰兒，能食人；食者不蠱。

There is a beast, which is shaped like a fox but has nine tails, and sounds like a baby. It eats men; eating it wards off evil.

Which clearly shows that the fox spirit is considered distinct from normal foxes.

There is also a host of minor differences, such as the kitsune’s reputed love for fried tofu versus the hulijing’s preference for eggs.

Another major difference exists in the worship of the two entities.

In traditional Japanese folklore, the kitsune have an essential feature as messengers of the god of rice productivity and prosperity, the inari ōkami (稲荷大神).

In Japan, however, the fox known as kitsune has since the eight century been enshrined and worshipped in a pervasive network of sacred associations in connection with Inari. The widespread cult portrays kitsune as a divine messenger of the rice god who promotes agrarian fertility as well as productivity and prosperity in a much broader sense.

_{- Heine, Steven. Shifting Shape, Shaping Text: Philosophy and Folklore in the Fox Kōan. University of Hawaii Press, 1999.}

The association had formed as early as the 8th century and remains extremely strong to this day. The kitsune continues to feature in tens of thousands of Inari shrines across Japan, as recipients of fried tofu and rubbing by sickly miracle-seekers.

^{A stone kitsune at the Fushimi Inari Taisha, the chief shrine of the Inari god.}

In contrast, in Chinese folklore fox spirits have a much more ambiguous standing. For instance Ji Xiaolan in his Notes of the Thatched Abode of Close Observations that:

幽明異路，狐則在幽明之間。仙妖殊途，狐則在仙妖之間。

Dark and light are different, but foxes are between dark and light. Humans and objects are different, and foxes are between humasn Hsien and Yao are different, but foxes are between the two.

Unlike the worship of kitsune in major shrines as messengers of a rice god, the foxes of China were prayed to in private homes as one of a group of five animal spirits. Exact compositions vary, but these typically includes weasels, snakes, hedgehogs and rats. Families would offer sacrifices in the hopes of receiving protection.

There is no real evidence that the Chinese and Japanese versions share a common origin. Fox worship is ancient in Japan; the earliest documentation of fox folklores appeared in the late 8th century nihon ryōiki (日本霊異記), lit. Chronicles of Supernatural Tales of Japan.

That is almost as early as the first written works of any kind in Japan, and reelates the tale of a fox assuming the form of a woman and marrying a human. The tale claims the incident to be the origin of the term kitsune, but that is almost certainly an invented etymology.

昔欽明天皇御世、三乃國大乃郡人應為妻、覓好孃乘路而行。時曠野中遇於姝女。其女媚壯、馴之壯睇之。言:「何行稚孃?」孃答:「將覓能緣而行女也。」壯亦語言:「成我妻耶?」女:「聽」答言、即將於家、交通相住。此頃懷任、生一男子。時其家犬、十二月十五日生子。彼犬之子每向家室、而期剋睚眥嘷吠。家室脅惶、告家長言:「此犬打殺。」雖然患告、而猶不殺。於二月三月之頃、設年米舂時、其家室於稻舂女等、將充間食入於碓屋。即彼犬將咋家室而追吠。即驚澡恐、成野干、登籠上而居。家長見、言:「汝與我之中子相生、故吾不忘汝。每來相寐。」故誦夫語而來寐。故名為岐都禰也。時彼妻著紅襴染裳、而窈窕裳襴引逝也。夫視去容、戀歌曰: 古比波未奈加我宇弊邇於知奴多万可支流波呂可邇美江天伊爾師古由惠邇。故其令相生子名、號岐都禰。亦、其子姓負、狐直也。是人、強力多有、走疾如鳥飛矣。三乃國狐直等根本是也。

(very roughly) During the reign of Kinmei Tennō, a man was looking for a bride and met a pretty woman who was looking for a husband. They started sleeping together and produced a baby boy on December 15. Tthe family dog gave birth too and the puppy was aggressive towards the woman, chasing her. Frightened, she turned into a yakan and fled. The man saw and pled, “You and I have a child together, I cannot forget you. Come (kitsu) back to sleep (ne) at least.” She agreed. This is where the name kitsune comes from (…)

The Japanese kitsune ultimately absorbed elements, particularly of malice, from the Chinese hulijing. Both traditions were further affected by the Indian version, which spread through both China and Japan by way of Buddhism. The Buddhist spirit ḍākinī for example was syncretised with native Inari worship to become a fox spirit.

The nine tailed fox, additionally, was introduced to Japan both as a general concept as well as a specific ancient fox spirit from India. It is said to have tried to overthrow an ancient Indian kingdom, and later brought about the Shang Dynasty’s downfall as Consort Daji. The spirit eventually made it to Japan and became Tamamo-no-Mae before being exposed and vanquished.

^{The Nine-Tailed Fox terrorising Indian Prince Hanzoku, by 19th century painter Utagawa Kuniyoshi}

Answer 2 (score 7)

‘The Cult of the Fox’ by Xiaofei Kang, is a good reflection on how the ‘Huxian’/‘Huli Jing’ myths predate the popular kitsune myth, and shows the establishment of a lot of the concepts taken for granted by pop-cultural depictions today, such as foxes feeding on human essence, associating with ghosts, or taking human form. There is also some brief mention within, of how the nine-tailed fox myth is easily as old as the Eastern Han dynasty, judging by some of the imagery it has been depicted in.

What has happened then, is that through Noh, and artists like Utagawa and Hokusai in the 1800’s, Japan has claimed and revitalized the story of the nine-tailed fox, by merging it with that of numerous historical femme fatales, throughout India, China, and Japan. Bao Si. Daji. Tamamo-no-Mae. The nine-tailed fox itself, you will find, is not mentioned in any other story, about fox beings given human guise, in present recollection. Rather, it is epicly credited, within a handful of closely associated ‘comparitively-modern’ Japanese works, that the nine-tailed fox traveled from country to country to sow seditious discord, before finally ending its spree, with the life of Tamamo-no-Mae.

Best to think about it this way: the stories of the nine-tailed fox, the fox-courtesan, or ‘huxian’, and the trickster ‘kitsune’, are all variations on what foxes signified to people in different countries, over the ages. The feminine. The barbaric, outsider spirit. The trickster nature spirit. Their stories happened to grow up in tandem with folk religion, and each often contested the social norms of the time, even going so far as to spur social change (fox mediumship is one example represented in Chinese accounts). Because worship of fox spirits was heterodox–(for instance, in Shinto, Inari is discouraged from being associated AS the fox, but people form their own personal beliefs about Inari being the fox anyway), these stories often shadow a dominant religion, and are suppressed or appropriated by it in a constant struggle for rule.

What then happens is that folk superstition, especially represented in imagery, leads to the curiosity of literati, and their works preserve the ever-mutating myths. It is entirely possible that the ‘kitsune’ myth came about as a result of immigration and the influx of Buddhism and Taoism, into Japan. Looking back at some of Japan’s significant mythical figures–Abe no Seimei, child of Kuzunoha, is reflected to be an Onmyoji–a Tao sorceror. Dakini-ten from Buddhist mythos, likewise, is depicted as a divine being riding a white fox. Such similar imagery and stories readily blend together, and synchronicity makes for the telling of a great ongoing ghost tale, readily picked up by any storyteller, regardless of its veracity or true origin. Your culprits in this case, are the same artists we have discussed.

It’s easier to assume that, if there ‘were’ fox beings, they had whatever powers people wanted to ascribe to them at the time, and are only as connected or disconnected from one another, as their muddied lore, which travels orally, through visual icons, and through works of fiction– gradually deviating based on cultural assumptions. Western pop culture, has effectively nurtured its own variations on the fox myths, which now live with us through our own interest. Which often is colored by New Agery, Therians and Otherkin, and misconceived notions about Shinto and Buddhist deities–and propagated by the works of anime lovers and furries. Likewise, Korea likes to depict the nine-tailed fox, explicitly, as a vampiric human-like seductress, and they are as common of a sight in dramas and movies there, as werewolves or vampires might be, here. The main difference nowadays being, that we possess an internet, to be more aware of these cultural deviations to the myth, as they occur.

It’s a never ending process of mutation. ‘Do these foxes sparkle?’ Digging back for the ‘origin’ is practically the task for a seasoned anthropologist.

It’s worth noting, lastly–that, in Japan–the Inari fox is considered by believers in Shinto, to hold power over other foxes. Yet, its supremacy is never denoted with the presence of nine tails, as we imagine would logically be the case from what pop culture leads us to believe. It is only the one foreign fox of ill repute, that ever brings that imagery into Japanese lore.

I would propose that Japan never historically held the concept of nine-tailed foxes, until later depictions of Tamamo-no-Mae made the idea popular–and that nine-tailed fox depictions existed only in Chinese and possibly Korean works, before being appropriated alongside existing, Japanese fox myths, sometime in the last two and a half centuries. Moreover, that stories with single-tailed foxes, were the common norm, and that the nine-tailed myth has now been dug up for the sake of sensationalism and its distinctive imagery, over ‘just whatever fox’.

Answer 3 (score 2)

As an addendum: While kitsune are associated with Japanese Shinto deities Inari and Ukanomitama, as well as the Buddhist-originated Dakini-ten; Huxian or Huli Jing are, meanwhile, associated with the Chinese deities Nüwa and Xi Wangmu. Daji has also been venerated to some extent as a sort of divine entity of her own accord, and the Huxian is also directly venerated as an individual deity, a bit like a sort of guardian angel or domovoi, that deals in negotiating family relationships, wealth, and prosperity–specifically through its thieving and its attractive qualities and power of negotiation in relationships.

Question

Most of what we know of Norse mythology comes from two sources: the Prose Edda and the Poetic Edda.

What is the difference between the two?

Answer accepted (score 7)

Wikipedia answers this sufficiently:

Poetic Edda

The Poetic Edda is the modern attribution for an unnamed collection of Old Norse poems. Several versions exist, all consisting primarily of text from the Icelandic mediaeval manuscript known as the Codex Regius.

---

Prose Edda

The Prose Edda, also known as the Younger Edda, Snorri’s Edda or simply Edda, is an Old Norse work of literature written in Iceland in the early 13th century. Together with the Poetic Edda, it comprises the major store of Scandinavian mythology. The work is often assumed to have been written, or at least compiled, by the Icelandic scholar and historian Snorri Sturluson around the year 1220.

…

The Prose Edda is related to the Poetic Edda in that the Prose Edda cites various poems collected in the Poetic Edda as sources.

If you are interested in a closer look, you may find English translations of both on sacred-texts.com:

• The Poetic Edda, translated by Henry Adams Bellows
• The Prose Edda of Snorri Sturlson, translated by Arthur Gilchrist Brodeur

Answer 2 (score 4)

The “Poetic Edda” is used to refer to a group of poems dealing with the Norse Gods and heroes. There doesn’t seem to be a single version, but all versions draw from the Codex Regius. Although the Codex was written in the 13th century, the material it is comprised of may be older, as Old Norse poetry dates as far back as the 8th century. The poems constitute what may be termed “Eddaic poetry” as opposed to the more complex “skaldic poetry”. The poems themselves are unattributed and the author Codex is unknown.

The Prose Edda, by contrast, is attributed to Snorri Sturluson, although he may have simply compiled it, as opposed to having been the author. The stories contained in the Prose Edda are more detailed and reflect the more sophisticated narrative techniques of later generations. (The Icelandic Sagas, in particular, can be viewed as a precursor to the modern novel.) Although the Prose Edda certainly draws from the poems of the Poetic Edda, it also includes many embellishments.

From a personal standpoint, I feel that the Poetic Edda is similar to Classical work such as the Homeric Hymns which are more formal and have a religious context. The Prose Edda, by comparison, provides more detailed and engaging narrative similar to, say, the Odyssey, although it is a collection of stories as opposed to a single epic, with the entertainment of the reader/listener as the primary intent.

For the Norse Mythology experts, please feel free to make corrections if the are any inaccuracies in this answer! My intent is to provide helpful context beyond the bare facts.

Question

What is the difference between a cockatrice and a basilisk?

I have heard both described as a chicken’s egg hatched under a toad, and that both are snake-like animals, and that both will turn you to stone if you look at them. Are they the same thing?

Answer accepted (score 5)

My answer might not completely answer your question, but atleast would partially answer it. Some differences are as follows:

1. The cockatrice is dragon-like creature, or in short it is a dragon. However, the basilisk is a pure serpent, an have nothing to do with the dragon species.
2. The cockatrice can fly with the wings it has on it’s back. But, a basilisk can’t. The main reason being the point above.
3. Killing abilities: The cockatrice can kill it’s enemy by breathing fire and touching them. The basilisk, however has only two modes. It is by either through it’s death stare or like a regular snake attack (through it’s poisoned fangs.)

And the main difference is the way it is born:

Your interpretation:

I have heard both described as a chicken’s egg hatched under a toad

is wrong. This is how both of them are born:

The basilisk is hatched by a cockerel from the egg of a serpent or toad.

The cockatrice is hatched from a cockerel’s “egg” incubated by a serpent or toad.

Sometimes, both of them are also considered as same. For instance, in this article from the Bullfinch’s mythology:

CHAPTER XXXVI.

MODERN MONSTERS- THE PHOENIX- BASILISK- UNICORN -SALAMANDER states

There is an old saying that “everything has its enemy” – and the cockatrice quailed before the weasel. The basilisk might look daggers, the weasel cared not, but advanced boldly to the conflict. When bitten, the weasel retired for a moment to eat some rue, which was the only plant the basilisks could not wither, returned with renewed strength and soundness to the charge, and never left the enemy till he was stretched dead on the plain. The monster, too, as if conscious of the irregular way in which he came into the world, was supposed to have a great antipathy to a cock; and well he might, for as soon as he heard the cock crow he expired.

References:

Wikipedia page on Basilisk

Wikipedia page on Cockatrice

Isodore of Seville (About the Basilisk)

Answer 2 (score 1)

Cockatrice ————— Always depicted as a large rooster has the ability to fly spit poison venoms sometimes breath fire and has a petrifying gaze

Note: The Cockatrice is much larger than the Basilisk in the Basilisk’s rooster formation!

Basilisk ———- IT really all comes down to which type of Basilisk there are many at leat 5 or 6 different types it’s formations unlike the Cockatrice have evolved over the years!

1.Cockerel-head of a rooster tale of a snake able to fly spits poisonous venom and can petrify with its gaze smaller than its cousin the Cockatrice who is larger in size!

2.Lizard- Four or more legs spits poisonous venom and can petrify with its gaze sometimes able to breath fire

Note: size may differ

3.Dragon- these are able to take flight spits poisonous venom and can petrify with its gaze!

4.Serpent-A very large snake much larger than the Cockatrice in both length height and width spits poisonous venom and can kill instantly with its gaze with direct eye contact but only petrifies with indirect contact)

Note1:There is also a small winged type but is only the size of a normal snake I imagine it has the same abilities to spit poisonous venom and has a petrifing gaze!

Note2: The vision of the Basilisk is not the only thing to grow in lethality however as it’s venom eventually came to possess such potency that it is able to kill by proxy simply touching something which it had come into contact with the venom can prove leathal thus traveling along a weapon poisoning the victim with indirect contact with the Serpent!

Another main difference is the way it is born!

The basilisk is hatched by a cockerel from the egg of a serpent or toad.

The cockatrice is hatched from a cockerel’s “egg” incubated by a serpent or toad.

Question

Satan was once an angel, but was expelled from heaven because of his pride.

What type of angel is he now? A seraph, a cherub, or something else?

Answer accepted (score 11)

This answer will be based on the Catholic traditions in regards to Satan and the nine choirs of angels.

Although it is now generally accept that there are nine choirs of angel and each choir is of angel is different and ranked accordingly.

During the Middle Ages, many schemes were proposed, some drawing on and expanding on Pseudo-Dionysius, others suggesting completely different classifications. According to medieval Christian theologians, the angels are organized into several orders, or "Angelic Choirs

Pseudo-Dionysius (On the Celestial Hierarchy) and Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica) drew on passages from the New Testament, specifically Ephesians 1:21 and Colossians 1:16, to develop a schema of three Hierarchies, Spheres or Triads of angels, with each Hierarchy containing three Orders or Choirs. Although both authors drew on the New Testament, the Biblical canon is relatively silent on the subject, and these hierarchies are considered less definitive than biblical material.

Choirs in medieval theology

St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica (1225–1274):

1. Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones;

2. Dominations, Virtues, and Powers;

3. Principalities, Archangels, and Angels. - Christian angelology (Wikipedia)

St Thomas Aquinas’ list is by far the most widely accepted list of angelic choirs and places the Seraphic order of angel as being at the highest level of angels followed by the Cherubim, and so on. According to St Thomas:

1. The angels that rebelled and became demons did not lose their nature or their connatural gifts. They cast away, by their sin, the grace in which they were created. They did not cast away the beatific vision, for they never had it. Now, if we think of angelic orders as orders of angels in glory, then, of course, there are no orders of bad angels. But if we consider angelic orders as order of angelic nature simply, there are orders among the demons.

2. Certainly, there is a precedence among bad angels; there is a subjection of some to others.

3. Demons of superior nature do not enlighten inferior demons; enlightenment here could only mean the manifestation of truth with reference to God, and the fallen angels have perversely and permanently turned away from God. But demons can speak to one another, that is, they can make known their thoughts to one another, that is, they can make known their thoughts to one another, for this ability belongs to the angelic nature which the demons retain.

4. The nearer creatures are to God the greater is their rule over other creatures. Therefore, the good angels rule and control the demons. - ORDERS AMONG THE FALLEN ANGELS

This stated it only makes sense that Satan was a Seraphim, for surely some of the Seraphim fell in great revolt against God. Although one can not say with certainty it is generally believed Satan was a Seraphim.

SIN OF THE FALLEN ANGELS

3. Lucifer who became Satan, leader of the fallen angels, wished to be as God. This prideful desire was not a wish to be equal to God, for Satan knew by his natural knowledge that equality of creature with creator is utterly impossible. Besides, no creature actually desires to destroy itself, even to become something greater. On this point man sometimes deceives himself by a trick of imagination; he imagines himself to be another and greater being, and yet it is himself that is somehow this other being. But an angel has no sense-faculty of imagination to abuse in this fashion. The angelic intellect, with its clear knowledge, makes such self-deception impossible. Lucifer knew that to be equal with God, he would have to be God, and he knew perfectly that this could not be. What he wanted was to be as God; he wished to be like God in a way not suited to his nature, such as to create things by his own power, or to achieve final beatitude without God’s help, or to have command over others in a way proper to God alone.

4. Lucifer, chief of the sinning angels, was probably the highest of all the angels. But there are some who think that Lucifer was highest only among the rebel angels. - ANGELS: FROM THE TEACHINGS OF SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS

Answer 2 (score 4)

If we were to leave to expand or literature beyond Christianity for the sake of understanding angels we could look at the Qur ’an. Here we have beings called the Djinn, they were another cast of beings who had powers beyond that of man but also had free will like man. If Lucifer was indeed an angel he would not be able to rebel against the will of God. But if he were perhaps a Djinn he could do so. shaytan-jinn where jinn that where also called demons… these beings are known for their wickedness, trickery, and doing favors for humans for something else in return.Christians do not call these beings djinn and instead refer to them purely as demons, Muslims believe demons are a specific type of djinn. However it could also be the case that Lucifer may have been a hybrid of both angel and djinn. Meaning any rank would not matter to him because he was something else entirely, and perhaps being a hybrid made him more powerful than the elite angels anyway. The Djinn are said to have inhabited our world before man arrived, and that they, for the most part became corrupt and abused their powers, god sent angels to destroy the wicked djinn and replaced their dominion with mankind. Now this could have also been what added fuel to them rebellion as well. But anyways since angels cannot rebel yet Lucifer was an angel…would mean he could have been a hybrid of some sort.

Answer 3 (score 1)

The Bible say:- [] Added

NWT Ezekiel 28:16, 17 "So I [God] will cast you [Satan] out as profane from the mountain of God and destroy you, O covering cherub, away from the stones of fire. 17 Your heart became haughty because of your beauty. You corrupted your wisdom because of your own glorious splendor.. . .

Question

This is an offshoot of a question asked about the Ba and Ka.

What were the other 3 parts of the Egyptian soul and what did they represent?

Answer accepted (score 16)

The five parts of the Egyptian soul were the Ren, the Ba, the Ka, the Sheut, and the Ib.

• The Ren was the name given to a person at birth. Egyptians believed it was part of a person’s soul and that it would live for as long as that name was spoken or the person remembered.

• The Sheut was the person’s shadow or silhouette. Egyptians believed that the shadow, somehow, contained part of the essence of the person.

• The Ib was a metaphysical heart and to ancient Egyptians it was the focus of emotion, thought, will and intention. They understood it as the seat for the soul.

• The Ba was the notion of personality. Everything that makes a person unique.

• The Ka was the vital fire or spark, that distinguishes living people from dead (warm vs. cold).

Answer 2 (score 3)

The ancient egyptians believed the five parts of the soul were the Ba, the Ren, the Ib, the Ka, and the Sheut.

• The Ba was the personality, whatever makes them unique.
• The Ren was the secret name, the identity of the person. They still exist even if they die if their name is remembered.
• The Ka was the life force that leaves the body when it dies. The ka can also power spells, but doing so can be deadly.
• The Ib is the heart, the record of good and bad deeds. It is weighed against the feather of truth. If the spirit passes the test, it was blessed with Aruu, the Egyptian paradise. If it failed, the heart was eaten by Ammit the Devourer.
• The lais the last part of the soul is the Sheut, or the shadow. It could be used to perform a shadow execration, even more powerful than a standard execration. It was the silhouette of the soul, a backup copy.

Answer 3 (score 0)

Egyptian Soul Economy

Three directive souls: Akh, Ba, Ka Three Intermediary energies: Ran, Jab (Hati), Shut (Khaibit) Three executive elements: Sekhem, Sanhu, Nacht (Sat)

The interpretation and translation is based on Wiesław Bator’s, scholarly work Religion of Ancient Egypt: Perspectives from Religious Studies (Jagiellonian University Publications: Cracow, 2012)

Akh (bright, illumined) directs the whole intellectual sphere of a human being, and contains all his or hers intellectual potential (that may be trained). The hieroglyphic determinative and logogram of the concept Akh was the walking bird. This element returned to Yaaru (heavens) considered the house of Gods and Goddesses, it was this element that was the ‘messenger’ of the Gods that worked in accord with the laws of Maat, Akh of the deceased was identified with Stars across the universe, because Akh was also the source of all wisdom, the living wrote letters ‘to the stars’ or to the Akh of their ancestors, leaving them in their graves, where the statue (tut) of the deceased was erected, they awaited the reply in their dreams.

Ran/Ren (the name), nefer, it meant “beautiful”; “happy”; “joyful”; “glorious”; “splendid”. It was the mirroring of the universal creative word (kheru, medu), the name was considered a natural link in-between creative soul and Akh and its passive executive form (Sekhem), but also an inter-mediary element between the Necher (Gods and Goddesses) and affective-emotional domain of the being, called “hhekau” (represented in case of human being by triad: Ba, Yab, Sahh). Name, understood in such a way, was associated with all governing forces over energy, and thus the physical world. The power of the name Ren depends on the quality of Akh of its beholder;

Sekhem was considered the primal, unspoiled form of a human being – the ideal prototype of his body residing in the divine sphere of Nerchru. Visually, Sekhem reminded of earthly body, but it did not have any defects, nor did it undergo the effects of time. Observing representation of phenomena of time-less youth in artistic impressions conjured by Egyptian masters of Sekhem of immortal beings, as they were considered artistic ideations of the Earthly mirroring of Sekhem. This kind of idealistic portrayals were considered earthly mirroring of Sekhem and they were given the name Tut, which were included by some researchers into the fundamental elements of one’s personality. Egyptians did not deny tut (the figure) a form of “life” (Tut Ankh or “living image”) , but always considered Tut an Earthly substitute of Sekhem. Many researchers sought in Sekhem some active force, working in an autonomous manner, which might not be completely accurate, because the same element was equal in a determinative of a standing mummy, which may be found amongst the concepts of other bodies: Sahh and Djet. Thus, all three elements of human nature belong to the same category of receptive, or passive forms. This hypothesis is supported by Egyptian mythology, that the Goddess Sekhmet, of personified Sekhem of the highest being, is seen as a passive executor of the will of the King of Gods – Atum-Re-Chepri, who, according to the Stone of Shabaka, is understood as the “heart” and “word” of the panenteistic God Ptah; The above-mentioned elements of the human personality which work in the divine sphere of Necheru were considered the most perfect prototype of a mortal, thus the numinous mirroring of his Earthly nature.

The next triad of the elements of a human being are:

Ba, Yab, and Sahh, which belong to the inter-mediating sphere of the whole being. Here, all weight of afterlife of a human being rests, because it is them that determinate what will one do living one’s life, and what was the intention of his doings. Thus, they are the main protagonists of the judgment over the dead, because they are responsible for a human beings conscious actions and submit to the judgment over the dead.

They are as follows:

Ba: This element is most closely associated with the understanding of a ‘soul’ in the Western occidental civilization. Ba may be the reflexive, passionate element, responsible for life choices. Egyptians held that Ba was a loyal servant, thus a soul of one was his loyal servant (bak). Ba is described in writing by two different determinatives: the older one is a black stork, the younger one falcon with a human head. The reflexive soul was thus considered an inseparable companion, which suggests motives and way of acting. Ba was not responsible for creative thought, but advised how they should be applied, it resided in the “heart” (yab), and its inclinations influenced the active heart (Hati).

The heart commanding separate senses and movements decided which of the Ba-influences to execute, and which one should be rejected. When Ba is recommending inner tranquillity, moderation, care for oneself and others, or it “persuades Maat”, then it has a chance of attaining the state of divinity and it awaits a reward in the afterlife. This happy fate met him/her only when they conducted themselves as above. When the Ba-soul contradicted the order of Maat and influenced the human being to act against his con-science (co-feeling), or the voice of the Yab-heart which was inscribed with unfaltering laws and principles stemming from Ren in the Necheru sphere – then it must have been punished with other elements of the deceased, belonging to the sphere Hhekau, dying in cruel condition in the Underworld; The advices of the soul might be completely contradicting con-science, and even may put afterlife in doubt, in the scripture ‘Conversation of a suicide with his Ba” we may note a complete contradiction between the Ba-element and inner consideration of a man.

The soul or Ba in this case seem to be a synonym of sobriety and at all costs it attempts to silence the burdened con-science. The Ba, attached to all pleasantries of life conjures its image and recommends idleness. Operating on rational arguments the Ba negates afterlife, just to protect the protagonist from suicide. It knows that it leads to the extermination of consciousness in the afterlife. To the life in opposition to Maat it portrays a noble death, which is saving from wickedness and assures existence in the afterlife. The con-science suggests that a person living in accord with Maat has more influence in the world than the living body, attaining a degree of post-mortem divinity and the ability to conjure miracles. In the light of Egyptian narrative, the Ba is not only belonging to the human existence, also Gods and animals possess it. Yet, Gods are not limited to having just one Ba as the ‘rational friend’, the Ba may undergo transformations. Of course, a Ba belonging to a Deity is of much higher hierarchy than that of a mortal or an animal, it is higher, perfect, and infallible. In essence, the Deity-Ba is similar to human Akh, Ba of the divine is a manifestation of Necheru, may inhabit the bodies of many animals and this fact is the basis of Egyptian zoolatry (for example the Deity Horus, as the God of Life, may be emanating through all living beings in the positive aspect of their expression).

Yab/Hati, or ‘heart’ is the main concept of Egyptian anthropology and the key to the active human being, Egyptians believed that that it is the ‘temple and store-house’ of thoughts, and thus they assigned it a role similar to this that we are assigned to the brain nowadays (it might be said that the brain and associated cognitive processes and affective states and feelings are modulating the essential heart, thus experiences, and pain, suffering, influences or cleanses the heart alike to karmic inclinations, when a heart ‘drowns’ in its despair, or becomes alike to stone – different from detached abiding – it grows cold – but it may not be limited to biochemical physiological brain functions, it works with the components that give the feeling component authenticity, and the genius its proper, spiritual function, thus also it might be said that apart from a regular heart pumping blood through the organism, there is a hidden layer, a spiritual heart and its circulation, through which all states of being are carried throughout thus some believed that in blood therein is also contained the vital force of the ‘heart’, it is a violation thus to abuse the blood of one’s ‘heart’, as it develops a parasitical dependence, and reliance on someone else’s ‘heart’ thus rejecting one’s own as an independent being). The heart was divided into the passive form (con-science) called yab, and directive active part (desire, or rather – direction) – hati. As “con-science” the heart (yab) is never bribed and it may be a witness against the deceased in the world of the dead. Some researchers believed that “yab” is directed towards the meta-physical worlds, while hati directs the doing of a human being in the world of the senses, for “hatia” means also “ruler”. It thus also has in Egyptian texts a function alike to defence-double (ka) controlling the visible physical body. According to Egyptians they are different in the sense that “hati” is guided by conscious working of our body, and Ka controls only the physiological functioning of our organism that is not guided by our will (in essence Yogins of the East, by establishing Hati-Hatia command over Ka, they could be in charge of the emotional, affective, cognitive and other functions of the mind and body, thus establishing a seat of consciousness linking it with the ‘true will’ or the higher image) . The “hati” heart, as a collection of active desires, emotions, also commands the passive form (“body”) related to the sphere of Hhekau, also called Sahh

Sahh: is a passive being of the human being, which is at disposal of the heart and executed through the meditation of the Sahh(-body) the will of the Ba-soul. It works without the interference of the senses and as a signal to act it is enough to think (emanate or vibrate) a “word” (any directed thought-form, or act, voice etc.). It may be called “soul-body”, “subtle-body”, or “emotional body”. Because its determinative is also a standing mummy, a corpse, it is said the true process of mummification was an attempt at turning a regular body into Sahh (perhaps an astral double). These concepts, however, are not identical because the mummy is described with the Egyptian word “Ui” although equipped with identical determinative. In any case Sahh was the principle tool (and perhaps a protective carrier-shielding) in working of the Ba-soul through mediation of the heart, and it could take any shapes and infiltrate physical matter. It could also shape it into proper, visible imaginations; It is her that could morph its being into notions, or representations of Deities (modern idea of ‘godforms’, ‘masks’ or ‘illusions’, unlike true Deities), animals, plants, and symbols. It could also change things into another (transmutation, for example modifications on the mental-astral plane, or endowing physical objects with various kinds of energy – consecrated, or ‘cursed’ objects). That is why Sahh was an element, without which no magical work could be performed, that was considered obvious and common. The third sphere of the world, in which a human being played was the physical world, called nachtu.

There are three functional elements here: directing – Ka, intermediary (Khaibit, Shu) and executive (Djet), from all listed elements of personality only the last one is captured in a sensual way, khaibit (shadow-being) is a delicate substance, and Ka is considered an invisible care-taker sustaining the human body in a good condition.

Ka – It is not commonly agreed, but some speculate that it is closest to the form close to ‘platonic ideas’, others that it is a blind instinctual force without any form of spirituality (it might happen that in fact it is blind, instinctual at first, but undergoes refinement into the divine, numinous ‘ideas’ that penetrate this world as interpretable powers, or eternal grammar of the world, which understood, becomes reflected in it). The main function of Ka is providing nourishment to the physical body. The female version of Ka, or

Hemsut proves that this component has a role in sexual differences and regulated physiological needs. Ka has also some relation with the ancestors and heritability, Ka might look like a double (perhaps an astral double, representing the image of the person at a given time). Ka most likely was not responsible for psychic and moral traits of a human being. The energy-basis which Ka operates in , governing the physiology of a human being is khaibit (shut). After death, Ka resided (with two other elements) in the grave, still having physical needs.

Djet: One of the many names of the physical body. In Egyptian texts there are several synonyms: “kat, sat, hha”. As the most sensuous of them all and the only fully accessible sensuous element that played a major function. The most important function of Djet was to execute the commands of “heart” or hati. In such a way the physical body realised in the world ideas of purely conceptual element – Akh descending from the divine sphere of Netcheru and through Djet the effects of conscious choice of man and his decisions which he makes in the sphere of hhekau. No wonder that caring for the body was a fundamental responsibility for every Egyptian, moreover aversion towards ascesis was on par with aversion to lack of moderation in submitting to physical lusts. Both stances led, according to Egyptian wise-man to the destruction of an organism, and thus criminally limited the potential acting of the Ba-soul and divine particle Akh in the physical world. After death, Djet was transformed into a ui-mummy for Khaibit and Ka to live further

Question

The taskmaster in the story of Cupid and Psyche was Cupid’s mother, the love goddess Venus or Aphrodite. Venus had never liked Psyche, so the opportunity of putting her to a series of tests gave Venus a chance to demand the seemingly impossible. In order for Psyche to win back her husband, Cupid, Venus set 4 seemingly impossible tasks before Psyche:

1. sorting out a huge pile of seeds
2. retrieving the Golden Fleece,
3. filling a flask from the water that fills the River Styx, and
4. returning from the Underworld with a box of the beauty ointment of Proserpina (aka Persephone).

Source: What Were the 4 Tasks Psyche Had to Complete?

There are more details behind it and how she has done it.

There is also this video from TED-ED telling a smaller part of the story. (Which does not include the 4th task, I dont know why but it don’t.)

Why Venus asked her to do these specific tests and what Psyche have learned from them? I want to know the meaning behind these tests.

Answer accepted (score 9)

The beautiful mind (soul) only finds pleasure (happiness) in unconditional love (heart).

The heart (unconditional love) likewise only finds happiness (pleasure) in the soul (beautiful mind).

Diligence is required to join the two together as one. The mind does most of the work, while the heart mainly just waits patiently.

Love being divine, quite naturally and effortlessly transcends worldly diversions, while the soul has to put forth real effort into reaching that state of purity, peace, and happiness (pleasure).

1. Seeds - Birth and childhood. Logically sorting things out mentally. Ant is the teacher or parent.
2. Golden fleece - Youth. Reckless adventure, meeting challenges. The reed is intuition or subconscious. This is about the age when many people first become aware of their subconscious mind.
3. Pure spring water - Spiritual development, usually occurs in mature adulthood.
4. Intoxication - The soul encounters death, and falls asleep, as if drunk on some sweet elixer. No more pain or feeling of any kind. A lifetime of striving now ceased.

But unconditional love dwelling in the heart serves to help the mind / soul to transcend and gain victory over death. They enter paradise together. Happily ever after.

Answer 2 (score 4)

I see the stages of spiritual awakening reflected in each labor:

Stage I: Labor of Sorting Seeds - Beginning. Journey of intentionally creating internal order through disciplined action with an aim. We easily imagine the fast movement of the ants working at their aim without distraction and with great speed. It mesmerizes. They can also carry 1000 times their own weight. In life, we are burdened with our own weight and the weight of society. We successfully carry much less than we potentially can once we take the spiritual journey. The vehicle for this labor is mastery of the body, by which I mean a deep conscious knowing and love for the body to be able to use it artfully.Once known, we are able to carry the weight of our own responsibilities, the tensions evoked by engaging the disciplines, as well as the weight that monotony (conscious cycling without sensory stimulation) brings – this, to gain mastery of the body (ant/instincts).

Stage II: Labor of Acquiring the Golden Fleece - Journey of developing spiritual discernment for light/darkness, good/evil. The vehicle for this labor is the connection with or understanding of the wisdom of nature or natural laws (reed).

Stage III: Labor of Acquiring Holy Water from a Crystal Urn: Journey of making a connection with the soul, the eternal part of ourselves. The vehicle, this time, is heavenly – Jove’s bird or Zeus’s bird.

Stage IV: Labor of Making the Journey to the Underworld: The journey of necessary full release from the body with all its’ illusions (winning divine loves’favor with beauty believed to come from this elixir) and release from the illusions of the world (many snares laid by Venus). The vehicle is the action of divine love to complete her, emancipate her, humanize her, enlighten her, free her…..

Answer 3 (score 0)

I agree with one of the earlier statements that the myth is about love, but I also think it can arguably fit a huge variety of complex archetypes. While I’m not a scholar and am not intimately familiar with the myth, I do have a recommendation for a philisophical interpretation of it.

C.S. Lewis’ re-telling, ‘Til We Have Faces, is an incredibly in-depth look at his view of the myth. He uses the myth to demonstrate the ambivalence of love, and to question the role of the Divine in its application. It is a beautiful and heart wrenching book, if you can get past the traditional dryness of Lewis’ writing style.

There are technically two books: the first is a first-person retelling of events by Psyche’s sister as sort of an autobiography. The second is about a dream she had, and is where he connects the old myths with his version of events. This is where you have the symbolism of the tasks. His character ruminates over them a bit and provides insight into the symbolism by context of the events of her life in relation to Psyche and the Divine.

I really can’t recommend this book enough–it should be considered among the great classics. The audiobook is worth a listen, if you’re interested.

Question

Similar question

Why is 12 such a holy number?

7 is one of the most important number in history. It would be hard to ignore :

• The seven days of the week
• The seven deadly sins
• The lucky 7
• The seven wise men of Greece

Why is 7 such an important number? What are the other societies it had an important place in?

Answer accepted (score 13)

The number 7, symbol of perfection

In Egypt

In Ancient Egypt, the numer seven was considered a symbol of perfection and efficiency. In many myths, the number 7 is used for both good and bad events.

Then Ra repented. His fierce anger passed away, and he sought to save the remnant of mankind. He sent messengers, who ran swifter than the storm wind, unto Elephantine, so that they might obtain speedily many plants of virtue. These they brought back, and they were well ground and steeped with barley in vessels filled with the blood of mankind. So was beer made and seven thousand jars were filled with it.

In the seventh hour-division sits Osiris, divine judge of the dead.

You can find these texts and more here. Wikipedia lists a lot of occurences of the number 7.

In judeo-christian myths

This idea of perfection and completeness is found in judeo-christian beliefs as well :

Roy Alan Anderson in Unfolding the Revelationi notices that to the Hebrew: 6 represented unrest, 7 perfection and 8 victory. When the number is repeated then it signifies an eternal quality. For example 666 would signify eternal unrest.

Note that the repetition is 3 times - three being the number of holiness.

The number 7 is extremely frequent in Christianity - the Book Of Revelations mentions 7 churches, 7 trumpets, 7 bowls, 7 seals and 7 spirits. This tends to confirm that 7 is used to make a complete set.

In Greece and the origin of the 7 in Christianity

While the reason about the origin of the number 7 in Egypt is hard to know, there are sources trying to explain where the 7 came to mean “perfection” in christian myths.

The Greeks considered 6 to be a perfect number, because of its divisibility. A sixth is one, or unity. A third is two, a half is 3, etc. The foot is also a sixth of the human size, so 6 represented the human. Finally, it is the sum of its divisers. More here.

Pope Gregory I found similar properties in the number 7, aswell as considering it representing eternity according to Dialectics and Humanism, vol. VII, no. 2. One of the reasons given for his fascination with the number is its presence in Antique history : the Seven Wonders, the seven stages of man, the seven planets…

The number Seven always represented a complete set.

This changed a lot - While Saint Augustine wrote that the world had been created in 6 days, this changed to 7 in the Middle Ages.

The reason behind the Seven Sages of Greece seems thus not to be linked to mythology or religion.

Answer 2 (score 3)

It is said that that there are 7 chakaras in Human body. Please search “7 chakras meditation” on Google Images. Which are at times said to be related to the 7 colors of rainbow, Which are also in the same sequence, VIBGYOR. From Head to toe. Having activated all the 7 chakras in a human body is a person which complete knowledge of the spirituality, about the Jiv,atma, Janardana, and relation of jiv -atma-janardana. These chakras can be activated by particular humming or chating sound of typical letters. As mythology and Hindiuism always have expressed phsycological conserns about human mind, I believe that 7 have has to be related to these chakras.

Answer 3 (score 1)

One example of sevenness is that there are seven “planets” normally visible to the naked eye. Since ancient times, this has been expressed in the length of the week: seven days.

By “planet”, I mean a celestial object that moves against the background of the fixed stars. So the list includes both the Sun and the Moon but not Uranus, which is visible but only on very dark nights by those with keen eyesight.

These “planets”, listed in Chaldean order, namely in order of how fast they move against the fixed stars, from slowest to fastest, are

• Saturn
• Jupiter
• Mars
• the Sun
• Venus
• Mercury
• the Moon

Given a day of 24 hours, start by labelling the first hour of the week after Saturn, the second after Jupiter, and so on, returning to Saturn after the Moon. Each day is said to be governed by the planet after which its first hour is named after (hours numbered 1, 25, 49, etc.).

In Latin:

• dies Solis (day of the Sun, Sunday)
• dies Lunae (day of the Moon, Monday)
• dies Martis (day of Mars, Tuesday)
• dies Mercurii (day of Mercury, Wednesday)
• dies Iovis (day of Jupiter, Thursday)
• dies Veneris (day of Venus, Friday)
• dies Saturni (day of Saturn, Saturday)

This correspondence is still seen in the names of the days in French, except for Sunday (dimanche):

• samedi (Saturday, Saturn)
• lundi (Monday, Moon)
• mardi (Tuesday, Mars)
• mercredi (Wednesday, Mercury)
• jeudi (Thursday, Jupiter)
• vendredi (Friday, Venus)

Question

In the beginning of the Lokasenna, Bragi denies Loki a seat with the gods. However, Loki reminds Odin that the two of them had their “blood mixed”, and that Odin had promised that neither of them would drink with the gods unless both of them were welcomed. Odin is then left with little choice but to order Vidar to find a seat for Loki:

Bragi spake:

8. “A place and a seat | will the gods prepare
   No more in their midst for thee;
   For the gods know well | what men they wish
   To find at their mighty feasts.”

Loki spake:

9. “Remember, Othin, | in olden days
   That we both our blood have mixed;
   Then didst thou promise | no ale to pour,
   Unless it were brought for us both.”

Othin spake:

10. “Stand forth then, Vithar, | and let the wolf’s father
    Find a seat at our feast;
    Lest evil should Loki | speak aloud
    Here within Ægir’s hall.”

_{Source: Poetic Edda/Lokasenna, Wikisource.}

Is there a story that explains how Odin and Loki came to be blood brothers?

Answer accepted (score 9)

According to an annotation by translator Henry Adams Bellows,

There exists no account of any incident in which Othin and Loki thus swore blood-brotherhood, but they were so often allied in enterprises that the idea is wholly reasonable. The common process of “mingling blood” was carried out quite literally, and the promise of -which Loki speaks is characteristic of those which, in the sagas, often accompanied the ceremony; cf. Brot af Sigurtharkvithu. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/poe/poe10.htm#page_151)

Assuming this information is correct, there is no extant story for this.

Answer 2 (score 1)

In the first chapter of “Demonology and Devil-lore”, Moncure Conway proposes that Loki’s reminder to Odin in the Lokasenna suggests the two gods may have originated from the same primitive concept; that they once were the good and evil side of the same coin:

The intermediate processes by which the good and evil were detached, and advanced to separate personification, cannot always be traced, but the indications of their work are in most cases sufficiently clear.

…

Not less clear is the illustration supplied by Scandinavian mythology. In Sæmund’s Edda the evil-minded Loki says:—

Odin! dost thou remember
When we in early days
Blended our blood together?

The two became detached very slowly; for their separation implied the crumbling away of a great religion, and its distribution into new forms; and a religion requires, relatively, as long to decay as it does to grow, as we who live under a crumbling religion have good reason to know.

Question

A number of sources claim Loki to have originally been a fire god of some description. This, for instance:

Loki was originally a fire deity before he became more closely associated with the trickster archetype, and this better explains the odd story of conception. Farbauti, meaning “fierce strike”, was a representation of lightning. Nal meant “pine needles”, and her other name, Laufey, meant “leaves”. In this way, Loki – fire – was created by Farbauti – lightning – striking Nal or Laufey – pine needles or leaves.

Loki appears as a fire god (Loge) in Wagner’s Ring Cycle, as well.

However, I’ve also read that this is a mistake, caused by the similarity between the names Loki and Logi, who is a personification of fire, as seen together in the Prose Edda:

So it was also with the games, in which ye did contend against my henchmen: that was the first, which Loki did; he was very hungry and ate zealously, but he who was called Logi was “wild-fire,” and he burned the trough no less swiftly than the meat.

Was Loki really once considered a fire god?

(On a related note, does Farbauti’s name (“fierce striker”) really refer to, or could it reasonably refer to, a lightning strike?)

Answer accepted (score 21)

It’s true, Loki is believed to have been a god of fire, before being considered a trickster god. But, as Karl Seigfried tells us:

The “god of fire” idea is a famous mistake that is due to the similarity between the names Loki and Logi, the latter being a personification of fire in the well-known story of Thor’s visit to the giant Útgarða-Loki. The connection to fire was popularized by the composer Richard Wagner in his Ring operas, in which he portrayed Loki as a sort of fire-sprite named Loge.

_{Norse Mythology Blog}

So, is he just a trickster god? No, he was neither a fire god, nor a trickster god.

Loki is not referred to by either of these titles in the source texts of Norse mythology. Rudolf Simek calls him “a god without a function,” and all the major scholars of Norse mythology and religion agree that Loki was never actually worshiped in ancient times.

_{Norse Mythology Blog}

Someone could say that whether or not he was worshipped could be a matter of conflict among historians, but it seems noone disagrees with this view:

John Lindow:

In Runemarks’ character list, all the gods and goddesses are defined by their (antagonistic) relationships with Loki. He appears more in both novels than any of the Æsir or Vanir. John Lindow writes that “[e]veryone agrees that there was never any cult of Loki,” yet he is a favorite fictional character today.

_{Interview with Joanne Harris}

Ellis Davidson:

(…) for there is no evidence of his worship among men (…)

_{Gods and Myths of Northern Europe}

Gabriel Turville-Petre

There is nothing to suggest that Loki was ever worshipped.

Rudolf Simek

There was no cult of Loki, and place-names based on his name are equally unknown.

Answer 2 (score 21)

It’s true, Loki is believed to have been a god of fire, before being considered a trickster god. But, as Karl Seigfried tells us:

The “god of fire” idea is a famous mistake that is due to the similarity between the names Loki and Logi, the latter being a personification of fire in the well-known story of Thor’s visit to the giant Útgarða-Loki. The connection to fire was popularized by the composer Richard Wagner in his Ring operas, in which he portrayed Loki as a sort of fire-sprite named Loge.

_{Norse Mythology Blog}

So, is he just a trickster god? No, he was neither a fire god, nor a trickster god.

Loki is not referred to by either of these titles in the source texts of Norse mythology. Rudolf Simek calls him “a god without a function,” and all the major scholars of Norse mythology and religion agree that Loki was never actually worshiped in ancient times.

_{Norse Mythology Blog}

Someone could say that whether or not he was worshipped could be a matter of conflict among historians, but it seems noone disagrees with this view:

John Lindow:

In Runemarks’ character list, all the gods and goddesses are defined by their (antagonistic) relationships with Loki. He appears more in both novels than any of the Æsir or Vanir. John Lindow writes that “[e]veryone agrees that there was never any cult of Loki,” yet he is a favorite fictional character today.

_{Interview with Joanne Harris}

Ellis Davidson:

(…) for there is no evidence of his worship among men (…)

_{Gods and Myths of Northern Europe}

Gabriel Turville-Petre

There is nothing to suggest that Loki was ever worshipped.

Rudolf Simek

There was no cult of Loki, and place-names based on his name are equally unknown.

Answer 3 (score 3)

You do not mention the Snaptun stone, a smith’s item used to protect the bellows from the fire by blowing though a hole in the large stone. On the stone is a carving of a bearded face whose lips are sown shut. There is only one myth where lips are sown shut, and that revolves around Loki. In the context of this hearthfire stone this means a warning to the fire deity: “Be not treacherous and do not burn the bellows - remember the traitor’s punishment.”

There is the Danish proverb “Locke beats his children”, spoken when the hearthfire cracks.

The contest between Loki and Logi is obviously one between the domestic fire, which consumes only what it ought to consume, and the wildfire, which consumes everything. Loki is considered a friend of the Aesir, in his role as domestic fire, helpful and useful, an indispensable companion in a country like Scandinavia.

Loki furnishes the Aesir with Mjölnir, Skidbladnir, Gungnir, Draupnir, Gullenborsti et al. - weapons, jewellery, technical masterpieces that can only be produced by the most skilled smiths. And for smithing you need fire.

In American research, the native folklore hero “trickster” has been given much attention. The characteristic traits of the trickster have been compared to deities of European, African and Asian mythology, to fulfill that great scientific dream to find the nucleus of all things.

Unfortunately, in Loki’s case, this has led to a marginalization of his fire qualities.

Question

Heracles and Perseus were two well known sons of Zeus fathered by mortal women.

How many other male offspring did Zeus father by human women?

Included names should be sourced back only to Zeus, no “of uncertain parentage” folks included please.

Answer accepted (score 14)

There is a list of offspring of Zeus on Wikipedia. To avoid simply repeating it, I’ve tried to add more detail. This list is not complete, as they are many “possible offspring”, and many with confused or unclear heritage, which may be Zeus’, but may not.

• Perseus, son of Danae, who went on to behead Medusa and save Andromeda. Conceived when Zeus was in the form of “a shower of gold”.
• Heracles, son of Alcmene. Conceived while Zeus was disguised as Alcmene’s husband
• Dionysus, son of Semele. After Semele’s death during her pregnancy, Zeus sewed Dionysus into his thigh, before releasing/“birthing” him several months later.
• Amphion and Zethus, twin sons by Antiope. Conceived when Antiope was raped by Zeus in the form of a satyr.
• Arcas, son of Callisto. Conceived while Zeus was disguised as Artemis, the only person Callisto would be with.
• Tityos, a giant, son of Elara (who was not a giant - ouch). Zeus hid Elara from his jealous wife Hera beneath the Earth (it is assumed that Tityos’ giant-ness was caused by this hiding, and Tityos is sometimes said to be a son of Gaia, Earth goddess).
• Castor and Pollux, sons of Leda (conceived when Zeus was disguised as a swan)
• Helen of Troy, daughter of Leda
• Minos, son of Europa, and owner of that labyrinth
• Myrmidon, son of Eurymedusa (said to have conceived when Zeus turned her into an ant before raping her)
• Keroassa, daughter of Io, who later gave birth herself to a son by Poseidon who went on to found Byzantium
• Tantalus, son of Plouto, a nymph. Known for his eternal punishment of standing in a pool with fruit hanging over him, but never quite within reach, and the water always receding before he could drink.
• Pirithous, son of Dia (father could also be Ixion). Best friend of Theseus, and husband of Hippodamia, at whose wedding the Battle of Lapiths and Centaurs occurred.

Lesser-known offspring:

• Rhadamanthus, son of Europa, a king somewhere in the Aegean islands, sometimes considered the husband of Ariadne.
• Sarpedon, son of Europa, king of Lycia
• Alagonia, daughter of Europa
• Carnus, son of Europa, and a seer
• Arcesius, king in Ithaca
• Thebe, daughter of Iodame, who married Ogyges
• Epaphus, son of Io, kind of Egypt (conceived by the touch of Zeus’ hand)
• Argus, son of Niobe
• Opus, son of Protogenia, and a king of the Epeians
• Lacedaemon, son of Taygete, a nymph. King of Laconia and husband of Sparta
• Magnes (first king of Magnesia) and Makednos (ancestor of Macedonians), sons of Thyia
• Carius, son of Torrhebia - he learned music from nymphs and later taught it to the Lydians
• Solymus and Milye, son and daughter of Chaldene, who later married each other
• Argus, son of Niobe. Later king of Argos.

Possible offspring: (aka those mentioned on the Wiki’s list that I need to research more, will update when I do)

• Dardanus, son of Electra
• Iasion, son of Electra
• Harmonia, daughter of Electra (according to one account - other sources call her the daughter of Ares and Aphrodite)
• Aethlius, son of Protogenia
• Sparaios, Kronios and Kytos, sons of Himalia, a nymph
• Balius and Xanthus, two immortal horses
• Aecus and Damocrateia, children of Aegina
• Olenus, son of Anaxithea
• Acragas, son of Asterope, an Oceanid
• Britomartis, daughter of Carme, the Minoan goddess of mountains and hunting
• Atymnius, son of Cassiopeia and beloved of Sarpedon (above)
• Dodon, son of Europa
• Cres, son of the nymph Idaea
• Orchomenus, son of Isonoe
• Achilleus and Herophile, sons of Lamia, who was cursed by Hera to eat children (legend varies on whether she devoured her own, or those of others)
• Locrus, son of Maera. Said to have assisted Zethus and Amphion (above) in the building of Thebes
• Pelasgus, son of Niobe, and ancestor of the Pelasgians
• Meliteus, son of Othreis, a nymph. He was nurtured by bees after an incident involving Othreis’ fear of Hera’s wrath.
• Graecus and Latinus, sons of Pandora II (Pandora’s granddaughter)

• Hellen, son of Pyrrha (father could be Deucalion), progenitor of the Hellenes

• Taenarus, Calabrus and Geraestys, three brothers said to have sailed to Peloponnese and founded a sanctuary of Poseidon

Question

Many tools and weapons were given to the gods as gifts in order to perform their daily tasks. However there is no mention about how Hermes got his fabled shoes. So were they crafted or given as a gift? How did Hermes get his winged shoes?

Answer accepted (score 21)

Zeus did that. Hermes was the son of Zeus, but he grew up very quickly and one day he decided to seek out adventure. The first thing he thought of was to steal Apollon’s oxes and he actually did that. Apollon didn’t know who it was at first, but he soon found out that Hermes stole the oxes and took Hermes to Olympus on trial. Hermes confessed the crime and made a deal with Zeus which made him the messenger of the gods. After that, Zeus gave Hermes a wand, a round hat and the Sandals.

When Zeus called Hermes to Olympus to chide him for stealing and lying, Hermes promised he would never again lie if Zeus named him as his messenger and herald. Zeus quickly accepted this offer, and told his son that his duties would also include protecting travelers, promoting trade, and negotiating treaties.

To ensure rapid delivery of his messages, Zeus presented Hermes with golden winged sandals as swift as the wind

_{The Little Rascal: Hermes}

Answer 2 (score 10)

It would appear that you are correct in saying that there is no mention—at least not in the ancient mythographers—of the origin of Hermes’ shoes. In the Wikipedia article about the shoes, it is claimed that “They were said to be made by the god Hephaestus of imperishable gold and they flew the god as swift as any bird.” There is, however, no source indicated for this assertion (hence the 2013 citation needed tag on the statement in the article).

In the Odyssey, Homer does indeed say that the sandals are golden and composed partly of ambrosia, but, as noted both by Wikipedia, and by William Smith’s 1870 Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, “Homer no where says or suggests that they were provided with wings.” It was later writers and also sculptors who portrayed them this way, whereas they originally were more ordinary, wingless footwear.

With all that being the case, Hephaistos [Hephaestus] would be the natural choice for the origin of the shoes, winged or not, since he was the resident metalworker and craftsman for the Olympian deities. If not him then the original three Cyclopes who were the great-uncles of Hermes and Hephaistos, and together with whom Hephaistos worked on Zeus’ lightning bolts, would be the next best candidates.

As the ancient sources stand, however, there seems to be no explicit indication of where the shoes came from, or if, like a few of the treasured items of Hermes, he stole them from, say, the Telkhines [Telchines], or made them himself using the wings of the defeated rainbow-goddess Arke, or any other likely alternative.

Question

Are there any Navajo tales that explain how one becomes a skin-walker? Is it an innate or an acquired ability? Can anyone become a skin-walker, or is there a hereditary element or other constraints?

Answer accepted (score 6)

According to this blog post by Adam James Jones the “Skinwalker curse is desired and acquired”:

They are stories of shape-shifting creatures acrosss Navajo Nation, the 24k-plus reservation land encompassing most of northeastern Arizona and the adjacent corner sections of New Mexico and Utah. A taboo subject amongst natives, Skinwalkers are seldom discussed with members outside the tribe, and rarely even inside it. The Navajo Skinwalker legend is not unlike that of the European werewolf: A once-ordinary human discovers the ability to shift into animal form at night where his doings then become almost exclusively evil. Unlike the werewolf, however, the Skinwalker curse is desired and acquired, that is, Skinwalkers do not have the bad luck to be “bitten” and forced into the curse. Rather, they want it and are willing to perform extraordinary rites of evil in order to achieve it.

There are multiple legends behind the origin of the Navajo Skinwalker. One claims the Navajos mastered shapeshifting in order to escape persecution and relocation — the Kit Carson-led cornering of the tribe deep in Canyon de Chelly and later their forced and disastrous relocation to Bosque de Redondo. Another version relates to the Navajo belief in the Anasazi curse — that the Anasazi were responsible for the prevailing witchcraft in the Navajo tribes — and that Navajo Skinwalkers used the off-limit Anasazi ruins and grave sites to gain certain powers.

The most prominent history of the Skinwalker tells of a particular form of Navajo witch, or an ’ánt’įįhnii, called ayee naaldlooshii, translated to mean “with it, he goes on all fours.” The yee naaldlooshii is usually a medicine man or high-ranking priest who has obtained supernatural powers through breaking a cultural taboo, including murder, seduction, or the corrupting of a family member.

Upon accepting this deep and consuming level of witchcraft, Skinwalkers are banished forever from a tribe (but considering the foreknowledge of this as well the despicable acts required for the transformation, the aspiring Skinwalker surely possessed an early, pre-seated hate for the tribe). Prowling alone in the desert, a Skinwalker (and also unlike the werewolf) has the ability to shape-shift into any animal they wish, although most commonly the animal is a coyote, wolf, cougar, fox, owl, or crow — a reason why pelts of these animals are widely restricted among the Navajo.

The site Navajo Legends isn’t as detailed, but also mentions that becoming a skinwalker takes the murder of a family member:

To become a skinwalker requires the most evil of deeds, the killing of a close family member. They literally become humans who have acquired immense supernatural power, including the ability to transform into animals and other people.

Question

Fairies – sidhe, elves (not the Tolkien type), fairy folk etc – have the bad habit of replacing human babies with their own for whatever reason, creating changelings (“children that have been changed, replaced”). A changeling grows among humans and later discovers his true calling.

But what happens with the kidnapped human children? Is there some sort of consensus as to what fairies actually do with them? I’m assuming it’s nothing good, but besides a brief note in the Wikipedia saying that “in Scottish folklore, the children might be replacements for fairy children in the tithe to Hell” there is very little information about the possible fate of such kids.

EDIT: While I’m interested in all possible cultures, I’m especially interested in Ireland and Britain.

Answer accepted (score 1)

“Is there some sort of consensus as to what fairies actually do with them?”

No. Because there is no consistent Hiberno-British folk mythology. Any apparent or alleged consistent anything about that was made up (or, let’s be generous, synthesised) later.

You can look at any attempt to record folk traditions from various places and periods, and they will be different. Some suggest both good and evil purposes in the kidnappings. Sometimes they are raised and live among the fairies in joy, in some they are used as servants (treated cruelly or kindly), and some they are used for torturous entertainment (though possibly only once they’ve grown up a bit).

The nature of changelings varies in different sources as well. In some they are fairies pretending to be human children - in at least one reference I read, that’s the whole purpose of the deception, rather than the taking of the child - they want human milk. In those, the fairy will sneak off at some later date. In others they are fairies who don’t know they are fairies pretending to be human children, and they awake to their otherly nature later. In yet others, they are short-lived magical constructs and sicken and die.

The versions recorded by folklorists from prior centuries are of no inherently greater value than those ‘created’ by fiction writers in the second half of the twentieth century, or in the early years of the twenty-first. We have so little to go on in terms of reliable sources that it’s all anyone’s guess.

Answer 2 (score -1)

I’ve heard, that they take children, could find several fates, they could be made slaves/servants, they could be raised as one of the fairies, living long happy lives, sometimes returning to the human world, as powerful witches, sometimes the child was simply killed, or even eaten. The one taken could be an adult, that the fair folk found interesting or useful, they could also be made slaves, midwives, or even lovers. It is said that children born from fairies and humans would be very skilled for sorcery (especially females) more powerful than any human witch and could become more powerful than the fairies themselves, for they would have the magic of a fairy, and the human connection to magic, that allows us to perform witchcraft. An example of this would be Morgana Le’Fay, arguably the most powerful witch of all time

Answer 3 (score -2)

Faeries swapped their offspring with human babies because faerie children were weak and frail, and that’s why they got the human mothers to raise their faerie children; so that they could grow strong. I’m not too sure, but I think it’s commonly thought that the humans they steal are slaves and when the faerie child is older and stronger, they take it back, and keep the human children as servants. But it’s widely speculated and there isn’t a concrete theory.

Question

Hermes was a messenger god. And Iris, with her rainbows, was also a messenger goddess.

Why would the Greeks have two different messenger gods?

Answer accepted (score 8)

It’s helpful to not consider Greek mythology as a unified, logically consistent whole. That they have two gods for one task is because humans are creating stories about the gods. Moreover, neither of the two are truly “messenger gods” per se, but rather they both manifest characteristics which allow storytellers to use them as messengers.

For Iris, the rainbow which appears to go from heaven to the ground can be conceived of as some sort of pathway from the divine to the mortal spheres. This easily lends itself to the interpretation of rainbows as pathways for gods to communicate with mortals. The Iliad, the earliest Greek work we have, Iris is the messenger of the gods.

For Hermes, since he’s the “patron” (of sorts) of travelers, that function lends itself to his being cast as a messenger, as one who travels from the gods to mortals. He relays messages in the Odyssey, the second oldest Greek work we have, but not the Iliad.

Since the two oldest works of Greek literature use either of these two gods for messages, they both became “messenger” gods. Note though that they have domains far beyond that, especially Hermes, who protected flocks, looked after traders and merchants, guided souls of the dead to Hades, and even protected Horace in battle.

Answer 2 (score 3)

Hermes was a lot of things.

• “Helper Hermes” (Iliad)
• A companion to men (Iliad)
• “pro-eminent in subtle thoughts” (Iliad)
• “keen-sighted” (Odyssey)
• Deceitful (Works and Days)

Other sources mention further variances.

Hermes is a clever thinker, an aid to the gods, and a guide for mankind. He plays many parts.

Iris, on the other hand, though sometimes replacing Hermes’ position (as in the Odyssey), is more purely a messenger.

She is described in more single-minded terms, repeatedly so throughout the Iliad:

• “wind-footed” (Iliad)
• Bearing messages (Iliad)

and very directly,

• a “messenger” (Iliad)

Other sources describing her, such as the Argonautica, were probably written later than the Iliad and the Odyssey, so their adherence to this structure can probably be largely disregarded.

The reasons for the difference between Hermes and Iris, and the need for both of them, so to speak, could be debated; I’m not expert enough to offer any real opinion on the matter. Certainly Homer (if he was indeed the author we believe him to be) wrote wrote works containing both Hermes and Iris, so the real reason for the parts they play may be buried in author’s intent.

There may not really be much of a reason other than that. Deities tend to double up on duties and roles as they serve the needs of their authors. Especially for humanistic deities such as those in classic Greek mythology, it makes sense for writers like Homer and others to use and discard them as needed to make the plot and lessons flow. After all, it is more imperative for them to make a clear point than to uphold a certain standard for one individual deity.

Answer 3 (score 0)

One must also remember that the Greeks, like the Romans after them, “never met a god they didn’t like.” That’s why the Greco-Roman religious Panthenon greatly resembled that of the Indian subcontinent, with so many gods one may often require a programme from which to select the more appropriate god to whom one should pray, for one’s specific problem.

It is difficult to prove at this remove in time, but it’s very possible that, at an earlier point in Greek history, Iris and Hermes had been the messenger-gods of different independent Greek city-states.

Others have pointed out the approximate chronology—Iris being described as more of a “dedicated messenger-god” from the earliest literary references, while Hermes really seemed to have come by “messenger-duty” a bit later. The larger numbers of diverse and disparate “duties” assigned to Hermes suggests he had originally begun “god-life” as a sort of “composite-god,” who had united the functions of a number of earlier male deities who had been worshiped by the people of smaller Greek city-states, which had later been vanquished by or incorporated into later and more-powerful city-states.

From the “deceitful” reference to Hermes’ behaviour, it’s evident one of those earlier “incarnations” had been a “trickster-god;” while the “helper of men” role may have come from an agrarian god whose original function had been to assist men with completion of hard tasks; and the chronology continues.

I believe, (though after 45 years and more I freely admit I may be mistaken) that it was Dr. T. C. Lethbridge who had explored at very great length the habit of Mankind to “recycle” the gods worshiped by earlier peoples (and, those who had later been “assimilated peoples”) of a particular area, into either later versions of gods. This also included merging traits of earlier gods into the “aspects” of later manifestations of gods belonging to later and more powerful regional peoples.

(One of his related, comprehensive, projects had been to demonstrate how the monuments and churches dedicated to more modern Christian Saints throughout Greater Britain had been “recycled” from pagan holy places that had originally been dedicated to gods of the so-called “Old Religion.”)

Sorry for going on at such length, but I’ve always been fascinated by the European, Middle Eastern, and Oriental propensities for “Bending Knee At The Drop Of A Hat,” so to say! [As shown by the chronicle of “Moses and the Wandering Hebrews,” people would cast a “golden calf” to worship, rather than wait about a bit over a mere month, for “something better.”]

I’d a “tertiary Minor” (covering about 270 hours) in “comparative religions” as a recreational venue at university: I’d found it supremely interesting and entertaining to examine how humankind had seemingly so missed childhood that they created gods to be “surrogate parents” during their adult lives! Not content merely to have “matergod” and “patergod,” however, they created extra “parents” (or perhaps “elder-god-siblings”) to assist them with virtually every civic, military, and domestic task imaginable.

This may seem laughable, and it’s obviously easy to sneer at forebears who’re 3,000 years and more removed, but please remember: The Romans, Greeks, and their far-eastern kinfolk, the Indians, had all been pleased to adopt the gods of both the older cultures from which they had come, and the newer cultures whom they had met in transit, behaving (on the whole) in very unselfish manners, rather than acting like spoiled and pouty little children.

There’s nothing more demeaning and depressing than observing two or more cultures gearing for battle, shouting at one another: “My God Can Whup Yer God!” like little boys brandishing “heavenly fathers” at one another. (The addle-pated ninny who’d invented the first “jealous god” should have been sent to bed without supper for the rest of his life!)

Question

I’m assuming that the Gilgamesh myth is fairly distinct from the Mesoamerican Fountain of Youth and the Hindu Soma, but are there any corroborating myths or other research into the details of the plant in Gilgamesh?

The myth itself has the plant growing in or under water, and so has obvious connections with the lotus. Was the lotus a possibility for the time and region of the story?

Answer accepted (score 13)

The plant Gilgamesh found was not a lotus

(emphasis mine)

So Utanapishtim revealed to Gilgamesh another secret of the gods. Under the sea there is a wondrous plant, like a flower with thorns, that will return a man to his youth. Gilgamesh then opened the conduit, tied stones to his feet, plunged into the deep (Apsu), and retrieved the plant.

_{source: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sunrise/49-99-0/mi-wtst.htm}

Lotus doesn’t grow underwater. Neither does it have thorns. Also, lotus growing in a sea is highly unlikely because it doesn’t favor the conditions needed for the lotus to exist.

This is confirmed in another translation of the same text (emphasis mine).

Then Utnapishtim spoke unto Gilgamesh (and said): “Gilgamesh, thou didst come here weary; thou didst labour and row. What now shall I give thee, that thou mayest return to thy country? I will reveal unto thee, Gilgamesh, a mystery of the gods I will announce unto thee. There is a plant resembling buckthorn; its thorn stings like that of a bramble. When thy hands can reach that plant, then thy hands will hold that which gives life everlasting.”

_{source: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/epic-of-gilgamesh.html}

So the plant Gilgamesh found was most probably a species of Rhamnus.

A myth related to the plant that Gilgamesh found is related to the snakes (emphasis mine):

At twenty double-leagues they then took a meal: and at thirty double-leagues they took a rest. And Gilgamesh saw a well wherein was cool water; he stepped into it and bathed in the water. A serpent smelled the sweetness of the plant and darted out; he took the plant away, and as he turned back to the well, he sloughed his skin.

_{source:http://www.jasoncolavito.com/epic-of-gilgamesh.html}

This myth serves as an explanation to the skin shedding of the snakes. By implying (indirectly) that the snakes achieved eternal youth

Answer 2 (score 0)

sea urchin

OR if looking for a true plant outside of water: soursop, durian and rambutan are all ‘spikey’ and have claims of anti-cancer properties BUT…the sea urchin spines do sting and they are high in protein and omega-3

Question

A very common trope in vampire fiction is that vampires can’t walk in the sun, and will die if they try to. See, for example, Suicide by Sunlight on TVTropes.

Why is that? What is the origin of the myth?

Wikipedia’s Vampire folklore by region article doesn’t offer an answer, and neither does the source of much vampiric lore, Bram Stocker’s Dracula. Sunlight limits the Count’s powers, but it doesn’t kill the creature.

Answer accepted (score 6)

We should perhaps first note that vampires are hardly the only creatures that can not stand sunlight; it is a common attribute among mystical creatures that they only appear at night, and that some of them die in sunlight (we can take as examples Grendel of Beowulf, and the Chinese jiangshi, a creature that originally was a reanimated corpse that died when exposed to sunlight, but has acquired more attributes of Western vampires in modern lore).

This general association with the night seems to have been a feature of the early folklore vampires, one of the few aspects that survives into the modern vampire (in folklore, the vampire is a dirty, wild, bloated thing, governed by primal urges; they seem more akin to zombies than Count Dracula). It also featured in the vampire works that saw a huge boom in the early 19th century, such as Byron’s The Giaour, in which the titular creature is doomed to walk the earth at night and drain the blood of everyone in his family.

This also illustrated why, even if the step from “only appears at night” to “dies if exposed to sun” is not a long one, it took a while to take it: early vampires tended to be cursed to walk the earth in tragic isolation. For someone cursed like that, having such an easy way to kill themselves was obviously not a useful trait. In stories where vampires were antagonists (more or less monstrous), having them be killed off by something as ordinary as sunlight would easily be seen as anti-climatic; far better to have a showdown with fire or wooden poles.

Sources

I have checked two books in Swedish about vampires:

• Katarina Harrison Lindbergh’s Vampyrernas historia, an accessible general history. She does not spend much time on the sun motif, but notes that it is indeed present in the folklore.
• Anna Höglund’s Vampyrer, based on her doctoral thesis. Much more scholarly, but sadly lacking a useful index. It does give many interesting perspectives on how the vampire mythos developed in the Western world. I could, however, not find any discussion about this particular aspect, perhaps because it does not seem to carry the same amount of significance as other aspects.

Answer 2 (score 4)

If you’re looking for a Doylist answer, as it were, vampirism is linked to the actual disease porphyria. Someone with chronic porphyria develops blisters after being out in the sun for a short amount of time. A number of the symptoms of chronic porphyria can be linked to the classic appearance of vampires.

I don’t have any suggestions for a folklore-based answer, however.

Answer 3 (score 0)

As other users have said, the characteristic of being hostile to the sunlight is not unique to vampires, it is common in many creatures in folklore from around the world. In the case of the Christianized vampire of Western European literature and mythos, I assume it’s probably a metaphor as God and his angels are seen as the light of the heavens and vampires are evil creatures of the night. Therefore vampires being exposed to light, a holy symbol, harms them.

Question

Was the story of Adam and Eve from Book of Genesis influenced by the Sumerian story of Enki and Ninti?

On Wikipedia page about Ninti we can read:

Some scholars suggest that this served as the basis for the story of Eve created from Adam’s rib in the Book of Genesis.

Also based on this article seems it is.

Can you elaborate what are the main clues which proves that theory? Or what evidence goes against it (if you think it isn’t)?

If it’s more likely, then Adam would refer to Enki and Eve to Ninti?

Answer accepted (score 16)

This idea based on the Sumerian myth known as Enki and Ninhursag (see ANET, pp. 37-41) keeps popping up, especially in popular literature and on the internet. Kramer, however, did give credence to it, as mentioned by the blogger to whom you linked (see Kramer’s History Begins at Sumer, pp. 143-44).

To make a long story short, the god Enki out of curiosity eats 8 plants in the paradise of Dilmun (cf. Eve eating the forbidden fruit), which the goddess Ninhursag considers a mortal sin, so she causes 8 of Enki’s body parts (including his rib) to suffer, and he is on the brink of death. Enlil takes up Enki’s cause and persuades Ninhursag to relent, and so various deities then come to heal each of Enki’s body parts. The one who heals his rib is the goddess Ninti, whose name means both “lady of the rib,” and “lady who makes live,” which serves as a pun. Thus is established a possible parallel between Ninti and Eve, who was created from Adam’s rib (in Hebrew tesla) and whose name in Hebrew (hawwa) connotes life (thus Eve was called “the mother of all the living” in Genesis 3:20). The pun doesn’t work in Hebrew since the words for rib and life differ, but I’m not sure the biblical writer knew about it or, if he did, cared. (Having said that, it looks like the biblical writer made his own pun, because the Hebrew word for rib, tsela, can also connote “stumbling,” so although Eve was ostensibly created to be Adam’s helper (Gen. 2:18), she proved to be his stumbling block.)

There are obvious parallels here, which have gotten many people excited, but proving a direct influence has proved elusive, and I know of no biblical scholars (whether faith-based or secular) who maintain that there is any such direct influence, because the usual scholarly criteria for proving intertextual influence are not strongly met here; but this remains a reasonable possibility. More generally, many prevalent ancient Near Eastern mythological motifs do show up in the Hebrew Bible, so it is clear to me that biblical Palestine shared a common cultural (including mythological) context with the broader ancient Near East.

Answer 2 (score 1)

I find myself agreeing with Arthur George: The connection is indeed tenuous, as to Enki and Ninti being recast as Adam and Eve in the Bible, based on Professor Kramer’s suggestion. I have written two books on the subject in 2010, available at Amazon.com on the internet, (1) Eden’s Serpent: Its Mesopotamian Origin, and (2) The Garden of Eden Myth: Its Pre-biblical Origin in Mesopotamian Myths. My research, based on the findings of PhD scholars, 1850-2010, understands that biblical Eden is a recast of ancient Sumer’s EDIN, a desert-like wilderness waste that is today’s Iraq. Apparently the Hebrew word Eden means “delight” and the Hebrews, mishearing the Sumerian word EDIN, mistakenly equated it with their Eden. The bible’s Adam and Eve are understood to be a composite of several mythical characters found in various Mesopotamian accounts about the EDIN. Adam is (1) Enkidu, (2) Adapa/Adaba, and (3) Dumuzi/Tammuz, while Eve is principally (1) Shamhat, and (2) Inanna/Ishtar, her patron goddess. EDIN’s gods and goddesses have been recast as Eden’s god, Yahweh-Elohim. Ningishzida and Tammuz have been recast as the Cherubbim. Eden’s serpent is a recast of several Sumerian gods, living in the EDIN, who bore the epiteth usumgal, meaning “great serpent or”great dragon," a mythical beast with four legs, two horns, two wings, serpentine body and tail, and poisonous teeth. The creators of man in Sumerian myths are several gods and goddesses. Among them Enlil of Nippur is called an Usumgal. Enki of Eridu is also called an usumgal. Ningishzida and Dumuzi who offered Adapa/Adaba what he thought was the bread of death, were also called usumgal. That is to say, in some myth the god who owns the city-garden in EDIN is a human, with legs and arms and a voice to speak, but this god is called an usumgal as an epiteth to inspire fear and respect from sinner-man, fearing the usumgals’s poisonous bite. My website, www.bibleorigins.net also covers this subject in more depth. Why are the Hebrews refuting the Sumerian account of man’s creation in EDIN? The Sumerians understood the gods participated in all the vices of mankind: murder, rape, incest with daughters, sex with animals, homosexual sex, lying, oath-breaking, etc. Man, made in the image of sinner-gods was a sinner. The Hebrews rejected this notion. Their god lived in a place called EDEN , not EDIN, he was not a sinner-god, he was righteous, ethical and just, and man, made in his image was expected to behave in a similar manner. The gods of Sumer made man to care for their fruit tree gardens in the EDIN. He was to be a gardening slave, alleviating the gods of toil for their food, The gods had bodies of flesh and could die of starvation if having no food to eat. So their city-gardens in the EDIN were created for for them to eat from, BEFORE man was later created, and became their gardening slave.

Question

Many of the Greek gods were bisexual. Did Zeus have any male lovers?

Answer accepted (score 21)

It seems there is only one: Ganymede.

I’ve consulted these sources for a list of Zeus’ lovers:

• Zeus Lovers by J.M. Hunt
• Zeus’ Lovers | GreekMythology.com
• Zeus’s Love Affairs by Nancy Conner
• Zeus’s Many Lovers by Kip Wheeler

Here are his lovers, in alphabetical order:

• Aegina, a nymph
• Alcmene, princess of Mycenae by whom Zeus fathered Heracles
• Callisto, a nymph
• Danaë, princess of Argos by whom Zeus fathered Perseus
• Demeter, goddess of the harvest
• Dione, a Titaness
• Electra, princess of Mycenae
• Eurynome, an Oceanide and Zeus’ third bride, mother of the Charities
• Europa, a Phoenician woman
• Ganymede, Trojan hero
• Hera, Zeus’ sister and first wife
• Io, a priestess of Hera in Argos
• Leda, a Spartan queen
• Leto, Titan goddess of motherhood
• Maia, one of the Pleiades
• Metis, a Titaness
• Mnemosyne, Titan goddess of time, and mother with Zeus of the Nine Muses
• Nemesis, goddess of revenge
• Persephone, Zeus’ daughter
• Semele, princess of Thebes by whom Zeus fathered Dionysus
• Taygete, a nymph and one of the Pleiades
• Themis, Titan goddess of law

Again, Ganymede is the only male on this list. But given Zeus’ romantic eclecticism, it’s probably safe to assume he’s not the only actual male lover. The earliest version of the myth (in the Iliad) doesn’t claim they were lovers, however.

Answer 2 (score 21)

It seems there is only one: Ganymede.

I’ve consulted these sources for a list of Zeus’ lovers:

• Zeus Lovers by J.M. Hunt
• Zeus’ Lovers | GreekMythology.com
• Zeus’s Love Affairs by Nancy Conner
• Zeus’s Many Lovers by Kip Wheeler

Here are his lovers, in alphabetical order:

• Aegina, a nymph
• Alcmene, princess of Mycenae by whom Zeus fathered Heracles
• Callisto, a nymph
• Danaë, princess of Argos by whom Zeus fathered Perseus
• Demeter, goddess of the harvest
• Dione, a Titaness
• Electra, princess of Mycenae
• Eurynome, an Oceanide and Zeus’ third bride, mother of the Charities
• Europa, a Phoenician woman
• Ganymede, Trojan hero
• Hera, Zeus’ sister and first wife
• Io, a priestess of Hera in Argos
• Leda, a Spartan queen
• Leto, Titan goddess of motherhood
• Maia, one of the Pleiades
• Metis, a Titaness
• Mnemosyne, Titan goddess of time, and mother with Zeus of the Nine Muses
• Nemesis, goddess of revenge
• Persephone, Zeus’ daughter
• Semele, princess of Thebes by whom Zeus fathered Dionysus
• Taygete, a nymph and one of the Pleiades
• Themis, Titan goddess of law

Again, Ganymede is the only male on this list. But given Zeus’ romantic eclecticism, it’s probably safe to assume he’s not the only actual male lover. The earliest version of the myth (in the Iliad) doesn’t claim they were lovers, however.

Question

I read in a Solomon Grimoire that there was a species of Angels called Half Angels Half Demons. I haven’t found any other information on them. Does anybody know?

Answer accepted (score 3)

The Grim Reaper is a possible candidate. He or She is more or less a “neutral” entity, who works for both god and the devil. Doing his or her job. That’s the only creature (as far as i know) I can think of who could be considered as half way between an angel and a demon.

If you could tell us which grimoire it is we could search more specifically.

Mostly these creatures feature in videogames like Diablo (Nephalem)

All in all angels and demons are opposites

• Angels are considered to be good and demons are considered to be evil.

• Angels are good spirits and considered to be saviours of mankind whereas demons are evil spirits who tempt mankind to indulge in evil acts.

• Angels are known to be protectors of the innocent and the faithful.

• Angels are known to perform many tasks that include maintaining order of the universe and also bridging the gap between mankind and God.

• The demons want utter chaos of the universe.

  • They are not protectors but only destructors.

  • They wish to widen the gap between human kind and god.

• The angels impart love, kindness and brotherhood whereas demons impart hatred and cruelty among mankind.

• The demons believe in rebellion against god.

So putting these two entities together would be illogical

Answer 2 (score 0)

Nephilim - the offspring of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1–4 of the Bible.

Question

It is said in Greek Mythology that a swear over the river Styx cannot be broken. So what would happen, theoretically of course, if two swears from the same person contradicted one another?

For example, suppose I said:

“I swear by the river Styx that I will murder my father.”

and then I said

“I swear by the river Styx that I will prevent the death of my father at all costs.”

What would happen?

Answer accepted (score 9)

In your example, the second oath is a reneger of the first. Going by the Olympian rules regarding a Styx oath, the swearer would have to suffer the punishment for failing to fulfill the first one. The second oath is quite a bit more open to interpretation. E.g., if the swearer’s father dies, the manner of his death exponentially complicates the question of the swearer’s punishability, which would be based on just how well it is deemed that sattempted to prevent that death.

While a Styx oath was by no means casual, it was actually not unbreakable. Similar to ancient covenants, the whole point of the oath is the assumption that individuals (even Greek gods, so it would appear) do break promises, and lie, hence the need to qualify the covenant or oath with penalties for such reneging.

In the region on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea, commonly referred to, in “Western” parlance, as the Middle/Near East, a covenant was made between two parties by cutting an animal in two and walking in between and around its pieces (in a sort of Figure 8 formation) so that the participants’ feet were drenched in its blood while each said something along the lines of “May it be done to me as it has been done to this animal should I fail to fulfill my obligations in this contract or if I should break this deal.” The point of the covenant is not that it is literally impossible for the participant to break it, rather it is meant as a deterrent from breaking one’s promise(s) and also it is the kind of thing one does in order to convince others that sis as deathly serious as can be about what ssays.

The principle is the same with the Styx oath. It was the most solemn vow that a [Greek] god could swear because of the consequences involved in breaking such a promise. According to Hesiod’s Theogony the reason for taking the oath was because disputes sometimes erupted among the gods on Mt Olympos [Olympus] in which some would suspect or accuse others among them of dishonesty. On such an occasion Zeus would send the super-swift messenger-goddess Iris to fly to the Underworld to fetch water from the Styx River.

Carrying what she’d collected in a golden pitcher, Iris then handed it to the deity who was making the oath so that the swearer could pour the water out as a libation to the primordial deities Sky [Ouranos] and Earth [Gaia] and to those ancient ones in the chasm of Tartaros [Tartarus] (which meant, usually, the Titans and, sometimes, the Tritopatores, who, in rites like these, were honoured as the gods whose reign came after that of Sky and Earth but prior to the time of the Olympians). According to Lycophron’s poem Alexandra, Zeus himself had established this practice by pouring out the same libation when he was about to go to war against the Titans, and which he repeated before going into battle against the Gigantes.

The name Styx means “Abomination” or “Abhorrent,” a characteristic apparently describing this river’s toxic water, which was as black as ink, and supposedly fatal to man and beast if touched or drunk. The beginning of the penalty for breaking a Styx oath was that the god who did so had to drink this same water. For a deity the effect of this was instant madness. Hereafter, in insanity, the offending deity would be stretched out in Tartaros in a sort of coma, deprived of any of the privileges given to deities, including their food and drink, thus rendering the offender unable to speak (doubtless as retribution for misusing his/her speech). That would be for a complete “Great Year,” which is equal to nine years among humans in ancient Greek calendars. After this the deity would remain in his/her demoted condition incarcerated for another eight Great Years so that his/her total sentence would be 81 human years.

Circling back to your example, making the two oaths therein could end in some quite dire results. After being punished for breaking the first one, the offender would not have been available to prevent his/her father’s death, in which instance scould end up in a fresh round of punishment: in the renewed cycle of an additional nine Great Years.

Answer 2 (score 0)

No sources really say anything about this. Very well. From pure logic, I will create three theories.

A quote that carries some base information.

So Jupiter [Zeus] spoke, and then by [Styx] the stream of his Stygian brother, the banks where boiling pitch flows in black maelstrom, he nodded, confirming his promise: the nod caused all Olympus to tremble.

Death or Insanity

If both vows were placed, then each would nudge you to do whatever it said you to do. They would then get so strong, they would explode your mind. Or, if you fulfilled one of them, then you would go insane because you broke your Styx vow. Very unpleasant.

You can’t / Replacement

I have a feeling that the Greeks saw through this, and did NOT want to make people’s mind explode. So if you were to make two contradictory vows, then the second one was the only one you had to fulfill.

Nothing

In the quote, Zeus spoke. The River Styx could only make Olympus tremble if a god/ goddess did it. If you are a god/goddess then resort to 1 or 2.

Question

The myth of dragons can be found in many different traditions, with the major two being the European dragon and the Chinese dragon.

“There are two distinct cultural traditions of dragons: the European dragon, derived from European folk traditions and ultimately related to Greek and Middle Eastern mythologies, and the Chinese dragon, with counterparts in Japan (namely the Japanese dragon), Korea and other East Asian countries^[1].”

According to Smithsonian, one theory behind this myth is the unearthing of dinosaur fossils:

“Ancient people may have discovered dinosaur fossils and understandably misinterpreted them as the remains of dragons. Chang Qu, a Chinese historian from the 4th century B.C., mislabeled such a fossil in what is now Sichuan Province.”

As you can see, the Chinese historian in the article discovered these dinosaur fossils in the 4th century B.C., however, when (and where) did the earliest known myth of ‘dragons’ originate?

Answer accepted (score 22)

Sumer, sometime in the 4th or 3rd millennium B.C.

My first instinct was to check out the Wikipedia article again. One interesting quote was

The presence of dragons within Chinese culture dates back several thousands of years with the discovery of a dragon statue dating back to the fifth millennium BC from the Yangshao culture in Henan in 1987, and jade badges of rank in coiled form have been excavated from the Hongshan culture circa 4700-2900 BC.

That would seem like a likely candidate. Unfortunately, the in-text citations do not work, I can find no other mention of either of these that does not quote Wikipedia verbatim, and this probably doesn’t count as mythology, either. Neither are associated with “myths”.

I stumbled across this blog post/whatever-it-is. Either way, it was helpful insofar as it led me somewhere. Citing Sumerian Mythology, 1944, 1961, by; Samuel Noah Kramer, it states

KUR

Sumeria 3rd Millennium B.C.

“Since the dragon-slaying theme was an important motif in the Sumerian mythology of the third millennium B. C., it is not unreasonable to assume that many a thread in the texture of the Greek and early Christian dragon tales winds back to Sumerian sources.”

We find mention of Kur in three myths from the 4th - 3rd Millennium B.C., (more than a millennium before Tiamat!), In the introductory prologue to the epic tale “Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Nether World,”( written on eight tablets - seven excavated in Nippur and one in Ur), Where Enki, the water-god, fights Kur after he learns that The goddess Ereshkigal was carried off violently into the nether world, by Kur. Enki fought Kur from a boat, and Kur fought back savagely with stones of all sizes, and attacked Enki’s boat with the primeval waters which it controlled. Unfortunately for us, the author of this tale is so anxious to proceed with the Gilgamesh tale that he doesn’t finish the dragon part, and leaves us hanging. It is certain that Enki wins though because he is in the rest of the poem, Kur is not.

The second version of the slaying-of-the-dragon myth can be found in “The Feats and Exploits of Ninurta.” (49 tablets) A significant version, due to the fact that it is evident that it was utilized by the Semitic redactors in the creation of the Babylonian Creation Myth featuring Tiamat.

In this version, Ninurta, the warrior-god, is the hero of the story. His personified weapon, Sharur, kisses up to him in a drawn out speech extolling the heroic qualities and deeds of Ninurta to convince him to go after Kur, and attach and destroy him. What Sharur has against Kur is not written in the text that is available. Ninurta leaves to do as asked, but finds himself lacking and “flees like a bird”. Sharur though, won’t let it go and speaks, reassuring and encouraging Ninurta with his words. “Ninurta now attacks Kur fiercely with all the weapons at his command, and Kur is completely destroyed.”

The third version of the slaying-of-the-dragon myth can be found in “Inanna and Ebih.” A one hundred and ninety line poem. (12 tablets)

The dragon-slayer in this version of the story is a goddess, Inanna, curiously known as both the goddess of love and also as the goddess of battle and strife, (She must have been married), and is also referred to in many Sumerian hymns as “The Destroyer of Kur.” Kur, is also referred to as The ‘mountain,’ in the Poem. Did I mention that Kur was also the first fire breathing dragon?

Interesting. I decided to learn more.

First, the relevant part of Sumerian Mythology appears to be available here. No part of it quotes any relevant sections of the myths that imply or outright state that Kur is a dragon. So I decided to find them for myself. (By the way, related notes on many Sumerian myths, including these, can be found here).

Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Nether World

The relevant passage appears to be

1 It began in the early days of the world, after the earth and the heavens had been separated. It was a turbulent time. Ereshkigal had been taken by the dragon Kur and Enki was sailing after to put things into the order that they belonged in.

2 The waters that Enki sailed were being pummeled by rocks. The smallest of these hit the side of Enki’s boat like they were like hammers. The largest of these hit with the impact of a boulder thrown from a catapult.

This is all that remains of the explicit tale of the fight of Kur against Enki.

The Exploits of Ninurta

The Asag leapt up at the head of the battle. For a club it uprooted the sky, took it in its hand; like a snake it slid its head along the ground. It was a mad dog attacking to kill the helpless, dripping with sweat on its flanks. Like a wall collapsing, the Asag fell on Ninurta the son of Enlil. Like an accursed storm, it howled in a raucous voice; like a gigantic snake, it roared at the Land. It dried up the waters of the Mountains, dragged away the tamarisks, tore the flesh of the Earth and covered her with painful wounds. It set fire to the reed-beds, bathed the sky in blood, turned it inside out; it dispersed the people there. At that moment, on that day, the fields became black potash, across the whole extent of the horizon, reddish like purple dye – truly it was so!

Asag is often considered to be different from Kur. However, this (of dubious reputation) states

Are Asag and Kur synonymous, both referencing a dragon? Or are they different entities attributed as the dark force overcome by Ninurta? Owing to the age of Sumerian literature, and its predecessors adapting the myths, this remains uncertain.

Inana and Eibh

An, the king of the deities, answered her: "My little one demands the destruction of this mountain – what is she taking on? Inana demands the destruction of this mountain – what is she taking on? She demands the destruction of this mountain – what is she taking on?

"It has poured fearsome terror on the abodes of the gods. It has spread fear among the holy dwellings of the Anuna deities. It has poured its terror and ferocity over this land. It has poured the mountain range’s radiance and fear over all the lands. Its arrogance extends grandly to the centre of heaven.

. . ."

My lady confronted the mountain range. She advanced step by step. She sharpened both edges of her dagger. She grabbed Ebih’s neck as if ripping up esparto grass. She pressed the dagger’s teeth into its interior. She roared like thunder.

The rocks forming the body of Ebih clattered down its flanks. From its sides and crevices great serpents spat venom. She damned its forests and cursed its trees. She killed its oak trees with drought. She poured fire on its flanks and made its smoke dense. The goddess established authority over the mountain. Holy Inana did as she wished.

Huh. That’s disappointing. The literal interpretation states that Inana’s foe is a mountain, not a dragon. Indeed, as that earlier dubious source states,

Another disambiguation should be made between Kur the dragon and the myth of Inanna and Ebih. Inanna was the Sumerian goddess of love, battle, and strife and among her many epithets was the ‘destroyer of Kur.’ In this myth, Kur is also called ‘mountain Ebih,’ which is a district northeast of Sumer.

Therefore, Inanna overcame Kur, but in this myth, Kur is an hostile land, not a dragon.

Is the myth being metaphorical when it describes Inana’s foe as a mountain?

This myth is doubtful, as are, come to think of it, the other two.

In my (non-expert) opinion, Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Nether World is not strong evidence for a dragon. The source I gave is the only translation I could find that explicitly calls Kur a dragon. Most others do not refer to that. Inana and Eibh also seems to be a lost cause, because, quite literally, Inana is fighting a mountain, not a dragon. I doubt that the myth is being figurative. Mythology tends to be literal, realistic or not.

The Exploits of Ninurta seems to be the best evidence available. It says

like a snake it slid its head along the ground.

like a gigantic snake, it roared at the Land.

It set fire to the reed-beds

Circumstantial? Perhaps. But it seems like a dragon-like creature. I’m calling this one the winner.

Now for the date. Embarrassingly enough, I haven’t found any date for this other than the one Kramer gave, somewhere in the 4th or 3rd millennium B.C.

Answer 2 (score 12)

The excellent answer by HDE mentions the Chinese dragon from 4700-2900BC, but did not explore further. This answer will attempt to source the claim for the Chinese dragon, which is arguably older and more complete than the Sumerian dragon.

A photo of the dragon, made from clams embedded within sandstone, can be found here:

1987年在河南省濮陽縣西水坡仰韶文化遺址發現的用蚌殼堆積的龍形圖案，距今已有6000多年，被考古界譽為“中華第一龍”（2006年9月26日攝）。新華社

The dragon-shaped artwork found in 1987 in Henan Province, Puyang District in the Yang Shao culture ruins is more than 6000 years old. Archaeologists have named it “The First Chinese Dragon”. Photo credit Xinhua, 2006 September 26.

The history of this dragon sculpture is described in greater detail here:

1986年，境内出土的石磨盘、石磨棒、三足陶等裴李岗文化典型器物证明，七、八千年前这里已有人类活动。1987年，在濮阳西水坡发掘出三组蚌砌龙、虎图墓葬。据测定，其年代距今6400年左右，蚌壳龙被考古界公认为“中华第一龙”。

In 1986, millstones, pestles, and pottery showed that the Fei Li Ridge culture has existed in Puyang since 7000-8000 years ago. In 1987, three groups of burial art depicting dragons and tigers were found in Xishuipo, Puyang. They were dated to 6400 years ago; the clamshell dragon was unanimously recognised by archaeologists as “The First Chinese Dragon”.

Answer 3 (score 2)

I just want to draw attention to the Perseus search tool, where I found this reference for dragon town Echinus:

So called from Echion, fabled to have sprung from the dragon’s teeth. Its site is marked by the modern village called Akhino.

Of course dragons seem to come from middle eastern civilizations, lots of quotes that show that appear with a simple dragon search.

Question

In Harry Potter, there are magical creatures thestrals

A Thestral is a breed of winged horses with a skeletal body, face with reptilian features, and wide, leathery wings that resemble a bat’s. . . . they are visible only to those who have witnessed death at least once (and fully accepted the concept) or due to their somewhat grim, gaunt and ghostly appearance.

J. K. Rowling has been known to reference Greek mythology in her work. For example, one of her characters is named Minerva, and her writing features mythological creatures such as a sphinx.

Is there a myth that explains the origins of these creatures? Which myth system would they come from?

Answer accepted (score 1)

I have a late answer. Some in the My Litle Pony fandom have tentatively referred to bat ponies as thestral and that’s lead me down this rabbit hole… I study Old English as well for a fandom project. thester is Middle English for “dark, gloomy” from Old English thīestre. The -al ending is means “Of or pertaining to” from Latin. THEREFORE thester+al = thestral = A/one creature “Of or pertaining to the dark” To my knowledge there’s no mythological creature called this but many creatures are named this way in other/older languages. Etymology is a wonderful thing!

Answer 2 (score 1)

I have a late answer. Some in the My Litle Pony fandom have tentatively referred to bat ponies as thestral and that’s lead me down this rabbit hole… I study Old English as well for a fandom project. thester is Middle English for “dark, gloomy” from Old English thīestre. The -al ending is means “Of or pertaining to” from Latin. THEREFORE thester+al = thestral = A/one creature “Of or pertaining to the dark” To my knowledge there’s no mythological creature called this but many creatures are named this way in other/older languages. Etymology is a wonderful thing!

Question

I’m wondering what the difference is between Ra and Horus. I know there are both the gods of the sun/sky.

Answer accepted (score 6)

Egyptian Mythology is not my area of focus, but I’ll attempt a high-level answer.

Both are associated with the sky, and they even seem to merge in the form of Ra-Horakhty. Merging of gods is not uncommon, as civilizations often need to absorb multiple gods with similar functions and domains. [See Pallas and Athena–in this model, Athena “accidentally” kills her friend and takes on her name, in essence, absorbing Pallas. Syncretism would be the fancy term;]

• Ra’s function is more primal, and his domains are wider than Horus

Ra’s domain is not just the sky, but the earth and underworld, and Ra is held to be the creator of all life on earth, in addition to the seasons.

• Horus, although very ancient, becomes the son of Isis and Osiris, no less important, but of more limited domain

Horus is said to be associated with the sky, war and hunting, all of which are reflected by his fierce falcon visage. Where Ra is also a god of the underworld, Osiris takes on this function in relation Horus.

Sorry for not providing more links–I was having trouble finding reliable online resources. Although I relied largely on the wikis for Ra and Horus, which have some citations, hopefully, in providing general mythological context, this answer will be of some value.

Answer 2 (score 5)

The comment above stated already that mixing Deities and attributes was not uncommon (astralistic bionic statues, appeal and invocation rites and ancient magic) and depending on the region and temple (Noma) and the period on age with which we concern ourselves it would be interesting to retrace and compare the attributes of Ra - commonly identified with the Sun disk - and Horus - the Falcon-Headed Cosmic God of the Ennead, son of Isis identified as one with Sothis: Sirius - in different dynasties. We might explore many occult meanings, but let’s keep to the narration pursued in this academic text, to keep it succinct:

Although the left eye of the supreme cosmic deity is the lunar eye of Horus, and his right eye the solar eye of Re, there are numerous associations of the two eyes. In the Coffin Texts Hathor even states that she “is that eye of Horus”. The two eyes are both protectors of their cosmic lord, and in this capacity they combine in a class of amulets taking the form of the Udjat-eye, with the figure of a goddess on one side. An understanding of these amulets clarifies several obscure text passages referring to the apotropaic eye; the amulets also appear to relate to the heliacal rising of Sothis (Sirius Star) and the celebration of the coming of the new year

Darnell, J. C. (1997). The Apotropaic Goddess in the Eye Goddess in the Eye. Studien Zur Altägyptischen Kultur, 24, 35–48.

The possible relation between Ra and Horus is represented here, not inflating or deflating any analogies in metaphysics or mystery schools:

Although the left eye of the supreme cosmic deity is the lunar eye of Horus, and his right eye the solar eye of Re, there are numerous associations of the two eyes. In the Coffin Texts Hathor even states that she “is that eye of Horus”. The two eyes are both protectors of their cosmic lord, and in this capacity they combine in a class of amulets taking the form of the Udjat-eye, with the figure of a goddess on one side. An understanding of these amulets clarifies several obscure text passages referring to the apotropaic eye; the amulets also appear to relate to the heliacal rising of Sothis and the celebration of the coming of the new year.

The religious importance of the eyes of the supreme cosmic deity for the ancient Egyptians is well known, and certain convolutions and interchanges between the two eyes and various cosmological interpretations are well attested and acknowledged, though perhaps less well understood.

For the ancient Egyptians the sun and the moon could represent the right and left eyes respectively of the supreme deity. The lunar left eye can appear as the eye of Horus, the solar right eye as the eye of Re. Both the solar eye and the eye of Horus can be the avenging eye who shoots arrows of fire into the enemies of the solar deity; the solar eye is also a goddess, the wandering daughter of the sun, and the womb of the solar mother from which the morning Sun is born. which the morning sun is born. In the nature of the raging, angry goddess of the solar eye the Horus eye and wandering daughter merge. There are many associations and interchanges of the eye of Horus and the goddess of the eye of the sun in Egyptian texts and representations, some more explicit than others. A goddess associated with the fiery power of the sun may protect the eye of Horus"

Darnell, J. C. (1997). The Apotropaic Goddess in the Eye Goddess in the Eye. Studien Zur Altägyptischen Kultur, 24, 35–48.

Answer 3 (score 0)

Ra represents the exoteric or outer ideal of a concept, whereas Heru, represents its esoteric /inner nature which is why he is always linked with his source/Mother/Au Set/Golden Seat!

Question

Paris of Troy was presumably an adult at the time of the marriage of Peleus and Thetis and the Judgement of Paris. That would mean Paris was at least 15-20 years older than Achilles. Other than that, I have no idea how old either was at the time of the Trojan War.

Is there any mention in the Iliad, or any other ancient source of their ages?

Answer accepted (score 9)

Time and chronology tend to be fairly loose in Greek mythology, particularly as there are usually multiple authors treating the same subjects.

Regardless, Achilles is presumed to be a youth at the start of the war. In this famous vase painting, he is depicted as beardless:

_{You can read more about this vase at the Perseus site at Tufts.}

You may recall that Cúchulainn, a warrior of similar prowess and invincibility, is also noted to be beardless during the action of the Táin, which causes some warriors to balk at dueling him. In this passage he resorts to using berry juice and grass to fake a beard. [The Tain, Kinsella, p.134]

Both Achilles and Cúchulainn performed amazing martial feats in childhood–the latter killed the monstrous hound from which his name derives, and the former was said to have killed his first boar by age 6. Thus extreme youth, as early as 11 or 12, is not implausible for Achilles at the outset of the war.

There is also the very well known story from several post-Homeric sources of Thetis spiriting Achilles away to Skyros to dress as a girl and hide among the women there as a way of avoiding his tragic fate were he to sail to Troy. When Nestor, Ajax and Odysseus went to suss him out, it is mentioned they never would have pierced the disguise had Odysseus not tricked him into revealing himself. (Legend holds that Odysseus dumped out a pile of gifts for the girls, but also included a shield and spear, which Achilles seized, stripping himself to the waist. [The Greek Myths, Graves, 160k]

This implies he has to be young enough to pass for a girl. Unless Achilles was extremely feminine, a possible implication is that his voice had not yet changed.

Achilles was also said to have fathered Neoptolemus at Skyros, but I’d caution against imposing contemporary mores in terms of appropriate ages for fatherhood. He could have just hit puberty when he conceives his son.

Robert Graves mentions the age of 15, citing Homer himself [The Greek Myths, Graves, 160.l], but I haven’t been able to track down the exact passage—the version of the Iliad Graves was working from may have had different numbering or may have had passages that are now considered apocryphal. However, he does lead to some useful passages. In one, Phoenix says:

It was to thee that the old horseman Peleus sent me on the day when he sent thee to Agamemnon, forth from Phthia, [440] a mere child, knowing naught as yet of evil war…

_{Iliad, Murray, ix.438-440}

What is interesting about that passage, when you go to Greek, is that Homer uses the term νήπιον (“nhay-pee-on”) which not only means child, but in some cases, specifically a pre-pubescent child. (The LSJ entry from the word link makes direct reference to this passage in the Iliad.)

My best guess is that he would have been in his mid-teens at the outset of the war, but he certainly could have been a few years younger or older.

As for the age of Paris, that’s much more of a rabbit hole. However, based on the age differential you mention, we can infer that he was in his late twenties to his mid-thirties.

Hope this answer provides some satisfaction. I’ll continue to try and hunt down the mystery passage cited by Graves.

Answer 2 (score 2)

The Actual Duration of the War

Towards the end of the Iliad, whose action takes place in the tenth and final year of the Trojan War, Helen says (in Line 765 of Book 24) that “this is now the twentieth year” since she departed from Lakedaimon [Lacedaemon] with Paris. “The words have puzzled the Scholiasts and commentators”¹ for centuries because one might have expected the duration mentioned by her to be closer to the length of the war; but the war’s length accounts for only half of the amount of time she’s talking about.

Having been lost in ancient times, the portion of the work attributed to Apollodorus entitled the Epitome was discovered in 1891, and it contains a full explanation for this duration. For the Greeks the war had indeed lasted about twenty years. They had landed in Troas only nine years prior to the beginning of the Iliad and had engaged the Trojans immediately. However, they had first mustered up their forces to head for their enemy’s territory in Asia eight years before their arrival in Troas.

Not really knowing their way there, combined with additional shenanigans that transpired, they landed in Mysia, mistakenly thinking that that was Troas, and eventually all ended up back home in Greece. They only managed to reassemble eight years after that debacle, which is narrated in Epitome 3.17-19ff. Prior to the first assembly, they had spent two years making preparations to build their army. So 2 years of prep + 8 years of reorientation & re-prep + 10 years of combat = Helen’s 20 years as mentioned in the Iliad.

Akhilleus’ [Achilles’] Age

Just before the chaos at the first gathering ensues, the Epitome tells us (3.16):

So Agamemnon in person was in command of the whole army, and Akhilleus was admiral, being fifteen years old.
_{[Emphasis mine]}

The Iliad mentions nothing so specific about the ages of Akhilleus and Paris, but the Epitome does inform us of how old Akhilleus is when the timeline is set at eight years before the beginning of the siege of Troy.

15 + 8 = 23. So Akhilleus is about twenty-three years old when the Greek army lands in Troas. Akhilleus dies in the last year of the war a decade later = about Age 33.

This also accounts for the pesky issue of the fact that Akhilleus’ son Neoptolemos [Neoptolemus] arrives at Troy in the same year that the city falls, by then evidently a full-grown warrior of a man! If Neoptolemos was born in the same year of the first army gathering, or even the year after that (allowing that he could’ve been born in his father’s absence), he would be roughly 17 or 18 years old when he helps to take Troy.

Paris’s Age

Like Akhilleus, Paris, when he was quite young, had a son. Paris’s childhood sweetheart was a Naiad named Oinone [Oenone]. His intrigue with her does not receive mention in the Iliad, but other mythographers tell us that Paris was already married to Oinone when he met Helen, and even before he met Hera, Athena and Aphrodite.

The son of Paris and Oinone was called Korythos [Corythus], who, together with his mother, was abandoned by Paris when the Trojan prince left Asia in pursuit of Helen. After Paris had returned to Troy with the Lakedaimonian [Lacedaemonian] queen, as we know, the Greek army was eventually coming for him.

As observed above, this army did not enjoy immediate success finding its way to Troy. Oinone, perhaps because she was a prophetess (as in Apollodorus’ Bibliotheka and Ovid’s Heroides), was apparently aware of this since she sent Korythos to the Greeks to help them navigate (going by Lycophron’s Alexandra 57 [via Tzetzes’ commentary]).

In Conon’s Narrations 23, Oinone sends Korythos to Helen, while in Parthenius’ Erotika Pathemata 34, Korythos

came to Troy to help the Trojans, and there fell in love with Helen. She indeed received him with the greatest warmth—he was of extreme beauty—but his father discovered his aims and killed him.

By all accounts Korythos was at least a young man by the time of the war, and if we follow Lycophron on this, we was old enough to set out by himself to go meet a fleet of enemy ships and offer them directions which they, presumably, received well enough.

I would say that, reasonably, he should have been at least fifteen years old at that point. This would be, perhaps, roundabout the year before the siege of Troy begins. (I.e. Korythos guided the Greeks to Troy and they attacked in earnest when they landed the following year.) If we borrow the age calculations of Akhilleus from the breakdown above, let’s say that Paris was also at least fifteen years old when he had Korythos.

15 + 15 = 30. Paris is (at least) thirty years old the year before the Greeks make landfall in Troas.

30 + 10 = 40. Paris dies at around the age of forty in the last year of the Trojan War.

There isn’t much difference in the final result if Paris is 20 at the birth of Korythos and/or if Korythos is five years younger than in the preceding calculation (if we allow that Korythos can be younger in the versions of his story which don’t involve him granting help to the Greek military). In the higher estimate, Paris would be about 35 at the beginning of the siege, and 45 at death.²

_{1. Footnote 4 on p. 187 of Apollodorus: The Library, with an English Translation, in Two Volumes by Sir James George Frazer. 1921. William Heinemann, London, & G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York}

_{2. Assuming that Akhilleus was born in the same year as his parents’ wedding; and allowing that Paris was about, say, eighteen when he adjudicated the beauty contest of the goddesses, this would mean that the goddesses had been squabbling for at least six years, between that inauspicious wedding and their fateful meeting with the Trojan prince. The calculations for this are as follows:}

• _{45 - 33 = 12. Paris is (at most) 12 years older than Akhilleus (based on their ages at death).}
• _{18 - 12 = 6 years between the wedding of Peleus and Thetis & the Judgement of Paris.}

Answer 3 (score 1)

Another way to deduce the age of Paris is from the story that Paris killed his son Korythos when he found Korythos and Helen together. This implies that Paris was jealous because he consider Korythos old enough to be sexy.

So if Korythos was at least 14 years. old, and if Paris was at least 14 years older than his son Korythos, he should have been at least 28 during that incident, which could have been years before the end of the Trojan War.

Or assume that Korythos was about 20 to 30 years old at the time and that Paris was about 20 to 30 years older than his son Korythos. Thus Paris should have been 40 to 60 years old when he killed Korythos according to that story.

Adinkra’s answer based on the age of his son Korythos calculates that Paris was about 30 when the Greeks landed at Troy and 40 when he died.

Adinkra’s answer also calculates that Achilles should have been about 23 when the Greeks landed at Troy and about 33 when he died in the last year of the Trojan War.

Assuming that Paris was a young man about 20 to 30 years old at the time of the Judgement of Paris, as he is usually depicted, And if Achilles was born after the Judgement of Paris, and if Achilles was 33 years old when he died as in Adinkra’s answer, Paris should have been about 53 to 63 years old when he killed Achilles, soon before Paris died.

And the problem is that Paris is usually depicted as a young man about 20 to 30 years old, often in depictions of events in the last year of the Trojan War, such as scenes from the Iliad, or the death of Achilles.

And that tends to imply that the age of Paris should have been a negative number when he ran off with Helen or when he made the Judgement of Paris!

So possibly some of the data used to estimate the age of Paris come from stories that are not part of the main myth cycle and can be disregarded.

Even if one assumes that Achilles was born years before the Judgement of Paris, the gods taking many years after the marriage of Achilles’s parents to find a naive mortal to trick into making the Judgement of Paris, the Judgement of Paris still has to be before Paris and Helen run off to troy, which has to be before the Greeks begin the Trojan War twenty years before the death of Paris and the Fall of Troy.

So if Paris was 20 to 30 years old at his death in the last year of the Trojan war, he should have been aged 0 to 10 years old at the time of the Judgement of Paris and the time he ran off with Helen to Troy.

So I think that it would make chronological sense to depict Paris as a naive child when he is suckered into making the Judgement of Paris, and Paris and Helen as gullible children or at most teenagers when they follow the advice of the Goddess Aphrodite and her assurances that everything will work out all right (“after all, what’s the worst thing that could possibly happen”) and run away to Troy.

Question

The material I was taught in school spoke of how Artemis never sought the company of man (romantically or sexually). Said material merely described the huntress as ‘celibate’, but this was sort of a PG, kid-friendly interpretation of mythology (for a Catholic school, no less) and since then I have occasionally come across more, shall we say- explicit versions of the legends. Was the sexual orientation of Artemis ever described in detail?

Answer accepted (score 12)

I agree that there isn’t evidence that Artemis was exclusively a lesbian, and no myth as far as I know that explicitly states that either, but there is was such an implication.

In the Callisto myth, Zeus takes on the form of Artemis in order to have sex with Callisto, one of her followers. He does this to “lure her into his embrace”.

So even though she might not have been popularly thought of as such, Zeus and Callisto at least share enough belief that Artemis might have sex with her female follower for Zeus to try it and Callisto to fall for it.

I agree that she was definitely not strictly a lesbian, and maybe not at all, but there was some implication of homosexuality even in ancient times.

Answer 2 (score 9)

Artemis doesn’t seek the company of man, that is true.

She is the virgin goddess of the hunt, and she usually is escorted by young virgins.

Virginity is linked to purity, and Artemis is one of the symbols of this.

She fell in love only one time with Orion. But he was killed by Gaïa because he threatened to kill every beast on the earth in his mad hunt with Artemis. That is from the Homer and Hesiod myth.

Another explanation for his death is that Apollo didn’t agree with Orion being with his sister, and challenged his sister to shoot a target, which was Orion’s head.

Anyway, the constellation of Orion exists because Artemis asked Zeus for a memorial for Orion.

She also killed the only man who saw her naked, Actaeon.

There is no mention of Artemis being a lesbian, and, as I said, we know that she was at least in love with one man.

Answer 3 (score 5)

The thing is, the ancient Greeks and Romans simply didn’t have categories for “gay” or “lesbian”. In modern times, their idea of sexuality is described as “polymorphic perversity”, which translates to “whatever feels good” – men, women, children, animals, whatever. While data on women is sketchy (their doings were beneath notice for most writers), we do have Sappho’s erotic poems making it clear that women did have sex with other women at least sometimes. Men might well have a wife, perhaps concubines, fool around with their slaves, and/or sleep with male friends (which last was considered unremarkable and routine). Some people were known to prefer men or women exclusively, but this was considered simply a matter of personal taste. There is at least one dialogue where two writers “argue” the comparative benefits of male or female lovers.

That said, male/female relations still had political ramifications, because of potential children (and marriage), not to mention drastic power issues. The three “virgin goddesses” (Artemis, Hestia, Athena), and later the Vestal Virgins, were called that not because they were sexless or even chaste, but because they were not bound to any male.

Question

It is hard to miss the resemblance:

Liberty (example: the Statue of Liberty)
Columbia (example: the Columbia Pictures logo)

Both are seen as female personifications of the United States (similar to Britannia, of the UK). They both seem to represent similar values, as well.

I’d be inclined to call them one and the same, but there does seem to be a distinction drawn between them. Are they considered to be the same entity? If not, how are they related?

Answer accepted (score 10)

Coincidentally, my July 3rd blog post, entitled Independence Day Mythology: Our Goddess Liberty, touched on this very issue of Liberty and Columbia being versions of the same goddess, but did not go into technical details of proving their identity for reasons of space. I won’t duplicate here what I said in my post (since it is all relevant here and would all have to be repeated here), so will simply “incorporate” that here for background as part of this answer, so that I can focus here on the narrow question asked, i.e., whether Liberty and Columbia are the same goddess. Now I get to include some things that I had researched but did not have room for in my blog post!

But first regarding the threshold issue of whether we are dealing with myth here: If we were merely dealing with Columbia Pictures and its symbol, then I can see why there would not be real myth. But there is a long historical background to this showing that we are dealing with the evolution of classical Greek and Roman goddesses (Eleutheria and Libertas respectively). In the American Colonies and in the later USA, this goddess (Liberty and Columbia) became part of our own mythology of our struggle for independence, and later of our country. And while they were not worshipped as goddesses, they were revered, sacred figures that made us feel that our country is larger than life. Finally, our division of this goddess into two separate but related figures is instructive as a wonderful illustration of how in the ancient world too the same deities had different aspects and epithets reflecting the various functions they served (think of the Triple Goddess, or the various faces of Aphrodite as Ourania, Pandemos, and many other titles). It also helps us appreciate the phenomenon of syncretism of deities in the ancient world, since Columbia did get swallowed up by Liberty, in the form of the Statue of Liberty, by the 1920s. This question offers us a wonderful exercise in this respect.

Turning to the evidence for the narrower question at hand. As mentioned in my post, the goddess Liberty did emerge as a symbol for American freedom from the British Crown in the pre-revolutionary war years, but by the time of the revolutionary war itself both Liberty and Columbia (from Christopher Columbus) were names for this same goddess. This can be seen most simply and easily by comparing coins struck during that time. Below is a coin struck in Boston in 1776 by Paul Revere himself, depicting “Goddess Liberty” sitting on a globe with her trademark cap, holding her trademark rod in one hand and the scales of justice in the other.

Then, right after the war, in Connecticut and New York essentially the same image was minted (except the cap is on the rod, also a traditional image of Libertas), only now her title was Immunis Columbia (i.e, “Immune Columbia,” since we had won the war) (see below).

But as the two originally identical figures evolved they came to represent different aspects of the goddess and feature differing traits. Liberty was a “higher” figure representing not so directly America itself (not wearing the stars and stripes) but more particularly America’s highest ideals of liberty and freedom. Columbia, on the other hand, represented America itself more than just its ideals, was usually dressed in the stars and stripes, and was invoked for popular patriotic and political purposes (see image below). Her name was also used in a variety of titles, including the District of Columbia, Columbia University, and yes Columbia Pictures, among others.

So right here in America we see the same kind of syncretism and multiple aspects/epithets of the same goddess that we saw in ancient classical mythology. The mere fact that we can find this confusing, as evidenced by this question itself, is part of the proof of that.

Question

From Wikipedia article on Hades:

Zeus got the sky, Poseidon got the seas, and Hades received the underworld, the unseen realm to which the souls of the dead go upon leaving the world as well as any and all things beneath the earth.

I had read certain articles which in some way imply that he was betrayed by Zeus and cast as the ruler of the Underworld. Was Hades forcibly made to accept his position or was it his own free will?

Answer accepted (score 17)

There is some disagreement on this issue.

According to Theogony, lines 881-885 (emphasis mine):

But when the blessed gods completed their toil and made settlement of honors for the Titans by brute force, they urged wide-seeing Olympian Zeus in accord with the advice of Gaia to be king and lord, and he apportioned provinces to them well.

However, in the Iliad, it says this (emphasis mine again):

[185] “Out upon it, verily strong though he be he hath spoken overweeningly, if in sooth by force and in mine own despite he will restrain me that am of like honour with himself. For three brethren are we, begotten of Cronos, and born of Rhea,—Zeus, and myself, and the third is Hades, that is lord of the dead below. And in three-fold wise are all things divided, and unto each hath been apportioned his own domain. [190] I verily, when the lots were shaken, won for my portion the grey sea to be my habitation for ever, and Hades won the murky darkness, while Zeus won the broad heaven amid the air and the clouds; but the earth and high Olympus remain yet common to us all.

Answer 2 (score 15)

According to Pseudo-Apollodorus, the three brothers drew lots to decide their dominions:

But when Zeus was full-grown, he took Metis, daughter of Ocean, to help him, and she gave Cronus a drug to swallow, which forced him to disgorge first the stone and then the children whom he had swallowed, and with their aid Zeus waged the war against Cronus and the Titans. They fought for ten years, and Earth prophesied victory to Zeus if he should have as allies those who had been hurled down to Tartarus. So he slew their jailoress Campe, and loosed their bonds. And the Cyclopes then gave Zeus thunder and lightning and a thunderbolt, and on Pluto they bestowed a helmet and on Poseidon a trident. Armed with these weapons the gods overcame the Titans, shut them up in Tartarus, and appointed the Hundred-handers their guards; but they themselves cast lots for the sovereignty, and to Zeus was allotted the dominion of the sky, to Poseidon the dominion of the sea, and to Pluto the dominion in Hades.

_{Source: Apollodorus, Library, 1.2.1}

Interestingly, the three brothers shared dominion over the earth. This is why Poseidon is also the god of earthquakes.

Answer 3 (score 7)

Based on Zeus’ having rescued his siblings from the belly of their father Kronos; and on the deal that he made with the Titans who eventually sided with him (which is the majority of the Titan population, by the way), starting with his personal bodyguard the four winged children of Pallas and Styx, namely Zelos, Kratos, Bia and Nike; and on his leadership in the war which led to Kronos’ defeat, it would seem that it had already been decided that Zeus would be king of the gods and ruler over the entire universe.

As for the family estate which they inherited from the first Titan generation—consisting mainly of the realms of Earth, Sky, Sea and Underworld—Zeus, Poseidon and Haides [Hades] first decided that the Earth would be the domain of all three in common so that each of them would have some control over it from whichever realm one ended up with. Whether from the Sky, from which rain and lightning issued forth upon the ground; from the Sea, which “embraced” the world’s land; or from the Underworld, which received the dead delivered through the ground and also rendered up mineral wealth.

The three brothers then cast lots to see who would get which realm, and thus Zeus became Ouranios, the Sky-God; Poseidon became Gaieokhos, “Earth’s Embracer”; and Haides became Plouton [Pluton], the “Wealthy” One who owned all the Earth’s buried treasure which mortals have to mine from it.

There is no hint in any original myth that Haides was either forced or reluctant to receive his cast lot. In fact if anything he is the source of the least drama and is supported by Zeus in almost every major action that he takes, most notably when he asks Zeus for his daughter Persephone’s hand in marriage, against the wishes both of the prospective bride herself and of her mother Demeter, and Zeus nonetheless accepts, even though this literally changes the world.

Also, when Zeus’ own grandson Asklepios [Asclepius] is depleting the population of Haides’ realm by resurrecting so many of the dead, and Haides complains about this to Zeus, Asklepios is summarily zapped dead with a thunderbolt by his granddad, no negotiations apparently needed. This gives rise to the anger of Asklepios’ father Apollon [Apollo], but by that point in the story, Haides has left the scene and is minding his own business again.

Haides’ behaviour in the myths implies that he quite rather likes his kingdom under the Earth, which affords him a great deal of privacy and power. In a way, he rules the largest portion of the universe, housing the most subjects (eventually there must have been way more dead people than those alive), including the powerful ancient ones caged in Tartaros, which itself was as vast as the Sky.

Of especial note is the fact that Haides was considered to be as much and as powerful a king in his own right as Zeus was in the sky so much so that the king of the dead was sometimes referred to as Zeus Khthonios, “Zeus of the Underworld,” and depicted in art the same way Zeus was: installed on a golden throne and wielding an eagle-tipped sceptre.

In essence, Haides was an upside-down version of Zeus. Orphic mythology further blurs the line between the two brothers, such as in Nonnus’ epic the Dionysiaka, which has Zeus consorting with Persephone to produce Zagreus, a pre-incarnation of Dionysos [Dionysus], who occurs as a son of Haides in Aeschylus. The Underworld demoness Melinoe is another such child of Persephone who is referred to as the daughter of both Zeus and Haides.

Question

Everyone knows that the goddess Frejya’s chariot was pulled by cats, but what kind of cats are we talking about? Are they giant sized house-cats? Were there any puma-sized cats in ancient Scandinavia?

Answer accepted (score 9)

There are actually two references to her cats in Gylfaginning (part of the Prose Edda):

Sessrumir, her hall, is large and beautiful. And when she travels, she drives two cats and sits in a chariot. (Faulkes: 24)

…Freyr drove in a chariot with a boar called Gullinbursti or Slidrugtanni. But Heimdall rode a horse called Gulltopp, and Freyia her cats. (Faulkes: 50)

The passage about Baldr’s funeral in Skaldskaparmal (also part of the Prose Edda) uses the word fress for Freyja’s cats, which means tom-cat, although apparently it could also mean “bear” which led to some confusion. (Modern scholars translate fress as “tom-cat” in this case.) Another reference to Freyja’s cats in Skald., saying that Freyja can be called “possessor of tom-cats”, uses the same word.
The two references to Freyja’s cats in Gylfaginning use the word köttr, which could also mean a marten or weasel. This makes a little more sense, as you can see how cats, weasels and martens could be lumped together. However, both parts of the Prose Edda were written by the same person, Snorri Sturluson, so presumably he meant the same thing in both cases.

Cat-lovers are partial to the idea that Freyja’s cats were the ancestors of modern Norwegian forest cats, which are large, powerful cats (like Maine Coon Cats). The Scandinavians did have cats as pets, but whether Freyja’s cats were simply medium-sized furry animals or actual cats is open to question, although the detail about the volva’s outfit in andejons’ answer is suggestive.

Quotes from Edda, Snorri Sturluson/Anthony Faulkes, Everyman Press, Penguin, 1992.

Answer 2 (score 9)

There are actually two references to her cats in Gylfaginning (part of the Prose Edda):

Sessrumir, her hall, is large and beautiful. And when she travels, she drives two cats and sits in a chariot. (Faulkes: 24)

…Freyr drove in a chariot with a boar called Gullinbursti or Slidrugtanni. But Heimdall rode a horse called Gulltopp, and Freyia her cats. (Faulkes: 50)

The passage about Baldr’s funeral in Skaldskaparmal (also part of the Prose Edda) uses the word fress for Freyja’s cats, which means tom-cat, although apparently it could also mean “bear” which led to some confusion. (Modern scholars translate fress as “tom-cat” in this case.) Another reference to Freyja’s cats in Skald., saying that Freyja can be called “possessor of tom-cats”, uses the same word.
The two references to Freyja’s cats in Gylfaginning use the word köttr, which could also mean a marten or weasel. This makes a little more sense, as you can see how cats, weasels and martens could be lumped together. However, both parts of the Prose Edda were written by the same person, Snorri Sturluson, so presumably he meant the same thing in both cases.

Cat-lovers are partial to the idea that Freyja’s cats were the ancestors of modern Norwegian forest cats, which are large, powerful cats (like Maine Coon Cats). The Scandinavians did have cats as pets, but whether Freyja’s cats were simply medium-sized furry animals or actual cats is open to question, although the detail about the volva’s outfit in andejons’ answer is suggestive.

Quotes from Edda, Snorri Sturluson/Anthony Faulkes, Everyman Press, Penguin, 1992.

Answer 3 (score 2)

Read something somewhere of a story of Thor running across a magic male cat who was singing to two grey kittens. When Thor asked if the cat was the father it said yes and explains that he methrew a girl cat and they had the kittens and the mother cat left him as a single parent. The cat then asks Thor for help. Thor accepts thinking to give the kittens to Freya. The magic cato then turns into a bird and flies away.. Speculation is then they are the “Russian Blue” breed. Being as they had a magical father they could possibly be strong enough to pull a chariot, maybe change their size at will?

Question

If there was a diagram with every god in it, that would be cool, but I doubt you can find that, so a number will do I guess.

How many gods/goddesses are there in total in greek mythology?

Answer accepted (score 8)

A lot.

Theoi has a nice family tree-

And so you count, and get a total of…

3142 gods/godesses

If you count the Potami, Naiads, and Astriaos as 1 god/goddess, and including Titans as gods.

Question

In the west, we tend to think outside dragons as purely reptilian in nature - in other words, all scales, no fur - but many Asian representations of dragons show them with substantial amounts of fur (or hair).

Scaly Western Dragon

Furry Japanese Dragons

Furry Vietnamese Dragon

Furry Chinese Dragon

This is even true in more recent depictions of dragons from the east - these two images were produced by the Japanese animation company Studio Ghibli:

Why is this the case with Asian dragons, and why the discrepancy between Asian and Western dragons?

Answer accepted (score 25)

It is important to note that East Asian dragons are in fact quite unrelated to Western dragons. While they may have influenced each other, the two traditions emerged separately. They share the same name essentially only because of translation choices; there is fundamentally no reason why Chinese dragons shouldn’t be different to European ones. Hence, the hair disparity ought to be unsurprising since they are not the same creature in the first place.

Secondly, East Asian dragons do not have furs in the usual sense of the word, although they are often depicted with beards or manes. Canonically, the body of the Chinese dragon (from which Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese dragons originate) have fish like scales. While the exact appearance have varied over time, the fish scaled body has remained a constant feature of dragons in the Far Eastern tradition.

As early as the Han Dynasty, a scholar named Wang Fu introduced the concept that dragons resemble nine animals. The Ming Dynasty and scholar doctor Li Shih-chen writes in his magnum opus the Compendium of Materia Medica that:

龍者，鱗蟲之長也，王符言其形有九似：眼似兔，角似鹿，嘴似牛，頭似駝，身似蛇，腹似蜃，鱗似魚，爪似鷹，掌似虎 … 口旁有鬚冉，頜下有明珠。
Dragons are the first of the scaled beasts. Wang Fu says it resembles nine animals: eyes like rabbits, antlers like deers, mouth like cows, head like camels, body like snakes, belly like shellfish, scales like fish, claws like eagles, and paws like tigers … its mouth is bearded, and there’s a bright pearl below is jaw.

More relevant to visual depictions, a traditional mantra for dragon painting is:

一畫鹿角二蝦目，三畫狗鼻四牛嘴，五畫獅鬃六魚鱗，七畫蛇身八火炎，九畫雞胸。
First, deer antlers. Second, shrimp eyes. Third, dog nose. Fourth, cow mouth. Fifth, lion’s mane. Sixth, fish scales. Seventh, snake’s body. Eighth, fire flames. Ninth, chicken’s breast.

These traditional descriptions of dragons also gives us some insight into why the Chinese version has hair. Whereas the European dragon has a strong reptilian quality, their Asian counterparts are considered a composite of different beasts - many of whom has plenty of hair. Thus, despite a (probably) serpentine origin, the Chinese dragons acquired hair on the head and limbs. These were also the same body parts that did not come from fish or snakes.

Note that the protrusions on the back of the dragons are not hair, but rather backfins. This is an ancient feature of Chinese dragons, dating back over three thousand years to Shang Dynasty era depictions.

See below for a Song Dynasty conception of the dragon, painted by the artist Chen Rong. This was about 1000 years ago,

IMHO The question’s anime dragon and 3D art examples do not really depict traditional dragons.

Question

One of Studio Ghibli’s (excellent) films, named Princess Mononoke, has depictions of kodama:

In Japanese folklore, kodama are tree spirits that inhabit trees that are older than 100 years.

In the collection of yōkai depictions, the Gazu Hyakki Yagyō by Toriyama Sekien, under the title 木魅 (“kodama”), an aged man and woman are depicted standing alongside the trees, and here it is stated that when a tree has passed a hundred years of age, a divine spirit would come dwell inside it, and show its appearance.^[6]

This depiction mentioned here is this:

What the Wikipedia article does not answer, possibly doesn’t even touch on, is the origin of the kodama. I have two very related questions on this matter:

• What myth (if there is one) first describes or talks about kodama?
• Is there a myth that talks about where the kodama came from? If so, what is their origin?

In essence, what is the original myth? and where did they come from?

Answer accepted (score 10)

One of my favourite Japanese myths. According to the 百物語怪談会 Hyakumonogatari Kaidankai webpage Kodama – The Tree Spirit,

In ancient times, kodama were said to be kami, nature dieties that dwelled in trees. Some believed that kodama were not linked to a single tree but could move nimbly through the forest, traveling freely from tree to tree.

However, it seems that the sounds of the forests were related to the kodama:

But they were also a sound. Echoes that reverberated through mountains and valleys were said to be kodama. The sound of a tree crashing in the woods was also said to be the plaintive cry of a kodama. (In modern times this mountain echo is associated with the yokai yamabiko and not with kodama).

In ancient times, their form was either considered to be invisible or indistinguishable from the trees themselves.

The oldest known reference is from the 10th century CE (Heian period) in the Wamuryorui Jyusho (和名類聚抄; Japanese Names for Things; written 931 – 938 CE), this was a dictionary of sorts:

listed 古多万 as the Japanese word for spirits of the trees. Another Heian era book, Genji Monogatari (源氏物語; The Tale of Genji), uses木魂 to describe kodama as sort of tree-dwelling goblin. Genji Monogatari also uses the phrase “either oni or kami or kitsune or kodama,” showing that these four spirits were thought to be separate entities.

During the Edo era, the kodama became ‘humanised’ and even stated that they could change their form to be human.

Question

The Four Horsemen are the ones who will bring the apocalypse. Are they under the command of the devil? Are they more powerful than the devil?

Answer accepted (score 12)

This depends on your definition of “power.”

The four horsemen have certain powers according to Revelation 6:

2: I looked, and there was a white horse, and its rider had a bow. He was given a crown, and he rode forth victorious to further his victories.

4: Another horse came out, a red one. Its rider was given power to take peace away from the earth, so that people would slaughter one another. And he was given a huge sword.

5: When he broke open the third seal, I heard the third living creature cry out, “Come forward.” I looked, and there was a black horse, and its rider held a scale in his hand.

8: I looked, and there was a pale green horse. Its rider was named Death, and Hades accompanied him. They were given authority over a quarter of the earth, to kill with sword, famine and plague, and by means of the beasts of the earth.

Note that the passage does not state who or what gave them this power: was it the Devil acting via proxy? Was it the Wrath of God? There are myths about this, but the question is specifically asking about the Christian apocalypse which implies source material would have to be in the book of Revelation.

What we can infer from this:

• The Horsemen were destructive in nature: this goes against the nature of God as defined in the new testament as being a kinder, gentler diety compared to the old testament. Clearly their power must derive from evil, but we do not know their origin. This makes it difficult to measure them against the Devil: i.e. if Satan created them we might know they are strictly lesser in power.

• The Horsemen are able to affect earth directly by killing, starving, and infecting men. In verse 4, we learn that War is able to cause men to fight each other.

What do we know about the Devil?

• He is one of God’s archangels, fallen from heaven. He clearly must be powerful, and evil.

• Numerous times throughout the Bible, we see the Devil act. However, he never actually does anything. His power is that of suggestion and temptation. In Genesis he tempts Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, so she will cause the fall of man from grace. In the Gospels he tempts Jesus multiple times, but is unable to sway him or to harm him.

Genesis 3 shows the snake is “cunning” and tricks Eve:

1: Now the snake was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the LORD God had made. He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?”

13: The LORD God then asked the woman: What is this you have done? The woman answered, “The snake tricked me, so I ate it.”

This great deceiver, the serpent, is later identified to be the Devil in Revelation 12:9:

The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it.

The Devil persuades Eve to commit the original sin without actually doing anything other than talking.

In Matthew 4, we see the Devil tempt Jesus:

1: Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.

3: The tempter approached and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become loaves of bread.”

5-6: Then the devil took him to the holy city, and made him stand on the parapet of the temple, 6and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down…”

8-9: Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence, and he said to him, “All these I shall give to you, if you will prostrate yourself and worship me.”

10: At this, Jesus said to him, “Get away, Satan! …”

Jesus specifically identifies the tempter as Satan, the Devil. All he can do is suggest to Jesus that he do certain things: he did not make Jesus turn rocks into bread, or jump off a roof safely. His power is clearly that of suggestion and temptation.

Given what we know, how do they compare?

• If we measure known quantities about where they came from, the Devil is likely more powerful. He is a fallen archangel, one of God’s lieutenants. We know almost nothing (in scripture) about the origin of the Horsemen: this implies they are not major players in the grand scheme of things.

• If we measure what they are capable of actually doing, the Horsemen are likely more powerful. They can directly impact earth, killing people either directly via sword, famine or disease, or by causing mayhem wherein men kill each other. The Devil can merely suggest that men cause themselves to fall from grace.

Answer 2 (score 7)

The satan

With very few exceptions throughout history, Christian theology has unanimously believed there is but one omnipotent being: ‘God’ (Yahweh, the god of Israel), who created all things, including the angelic being who would come to be known as ‘the satan’. No matter how we might define ‘power’, it is consistent throughout the whole stream of Christian beliefs, legends, folklores, and myths that the devil’s power is limited while God’s power is unlimited.

To get to the original question, though, we want to clarify how ‘powerful’ the satan is relative to the four horsemen found in the Book of Revelation. Muddying this question, however, is which version of the satan are we looking at? Even within the whole canon of Christian scriptures, the satan is not depicted consistently. In the Hebrew bible the satan makes but three appearances, in the books of Job, Chronicles, and Zechariah. In none of these text is the satan explicitly ‘evil’; he is a sort of prosecutor acting on behalf of heaven’s court, his mission to test and object to the faithfulness of God’s people.

In later Second Temple-era literature, the satan begins to take on a more ominous role, becoming conflated with one of several angels who abandoned their home in heaven when the earth was young (an interpretation of Genesis 6.1-4 popular by the first century BC). By the time of the earliest Christian era, apocalyptic Jews perceived the satan as a fallen angel or a demon. In apocalyptic thought, the satan is the archetype of evil, his influence wide, but nevertheless doomed to fail in the eschaton. This is the satan we see in the Revelation, and the version we should stick with.

Conveyed through the Revelation’s symbolism, the satan antagonizes Israel (the woman in Rev 12), inspires the brutal idolatry of Rome’s emperor cult (the two beasts in Rev 13-19), and must be restrained to prevent similar influences from spreading across the earth (the dragon’s imprisonment in Rev 20). For the author of the Revelation, the satan is dangerous because he causes violent hatred and greed in the world’s empires.

The four horsemen

The four horsemen are not four literal people riding horses.

As I pointed out in an answer to another question, the Revelation’s symbolism runs deep, and the four horsemen are an amalgam of symbols and concepts drawn from across the Hebrew bible:

Ezekiel 1-7 has the prophet see a vision of God on his throne, holding in his right hand a scroll with writing on its front and back. The scroll, Ezekiel is told, represents God’s judgment against the kingdom of Judah for the people violating their covenant with him. Ezekiel receives the scroll, ingests it, and then speaks its message of judgment against his fellow Judeans. A handful of times he warns about ‘the sword’, ‘pestilence’, ‘famine’, and even ‘wild animals’. This cluster of disasters — war, plague, famine, and attacks from wild animals — comes from a common tradition seen throughout Hebrew prophetic literature. It is encapsulated in Leviticus 26, a chapter that warns these exact things will fall on the Hebrews if they do evil and disobey God.

A century and a half later, Zechariah 1 has another prophet receive a vision of four men/angels riding four differently colored horses. In chapter 6, the prophet sees four chariots drawn by four differently colored horses. The two visions each symbolize judgment against the Judeans’ enemy, Babylon.

Revelation 4-6 combines parts of the vision of Ezekiel 1-7 with parts of the visions of Zechariah 1 and 6, to make a new scene: The revelator sees a vision of God on his throne, holding in his hand a scroll with writing on its front and back. The revelator sees a slain lamb (Jesus) receive the scroll and begin to break the wax seals keeping it shut. As each seal is broken, more of the scroll’s contents are revealed. The first four revelations are symbolized as four men/angels riding four differently colored horses. They carry authority to enact a cluster of disasters — war, plague, famine, and attacks from wild animals — and are given instructions from either God or Jesus (Rev 6.6, ‘a voice in the middle of the four living creatures’, being the location of God’s throne).

Conclusion

Based on the sources the revelator depends on to form his vision in Revelation 6, the four horsemen appear to symbolize various judgments from God. The likely target of these judgments is the forces of evil identified in Revelation 12-19: the dragon (the satan), the two beasts (the Roman Empire and its emperor cult), Babylon (Rome itself), and ‘the kings of the earth’ (a general catch-all for world leaders and nations that ally with Rome’s ideology).

The Revelation is a Second Temple-period apocalypse. Although these apocalypses carried explicitly dualistic themes of good and evil, the authors were not ditheistic: no evildoer can ultimately match God; it is guaranteed that good will triumph over evil.

For the four horsemen to represent God’s judgment against evil forces, including the satan, this would make the four horsemen ‘more powerful than the devil’ as far as the revelator is concerned.

Question

Obviously because her eyes are that color, but I suspect there are deeper, symbolic reasons for that particular color and description.

This is in regard to the epithet γλαυκῶπις, in the lexicon defined as “bright eyed”, but which is often translated as “gray eyed” by poets.

Answer accepted (score 6)

The word γλαυκῶπις shares its root with γλαύξ, the word for owl.

Owls are known for their large and distinctive eyes, which are adapted for low light hunting. Thus, I believe the epithet is a comment on Athena’s perceptiveness, telling us that the goddess of wisdom can see even through the dark.

You may find more information on Athena’s association with owls in Wikipedia.

Answer 2 (score 3)

It depends, as Yannis said, on the translation. Wikipedia says:

In Homer’s epic works, Athena’s most common epithet is Glaukopis (γλαυκῶπις), which usually is translated as, “bright-eyed” or “with gleaming eyes”. The word is a combination of glaukós (γλαυκός, meaning “gleaming, silvery”, and later, “bluish-green” or “gray”) and ṓps (ὤψ, “eye, face”). It is interesting to note that glaúx (γλαύξ, “little owl”) is from the same root, presumably according to some, because of the bird’s own distinctive eyes.

Answer 3 (score 3)

It depends, as Yannis said, on the translation. Wikipedia says:

In Homer’s epic works, Athena’s most common epithet is Glaukopis (γλαυκῶπις), which usually is translated as, “bright-eyed” or “with gleaming eyes”. The word is a combination of glaukós (γλαυκός, meaning “gleaming, silvery”, and later, “bluish-green” or “gray”) and ṓps (ὤψ, “eye, face”). It is interesting to note that glaúx (γλαύξ, “little owl”) is from the same root, presumably according to some, because of the bird’s own distinctive eyes.

Question

Zeus was a Greek god, Iseous was a Roman god and Jesus is the Christian faith Messiah, who is also referred to as “Son of Man.” My question is: What is the origin of the name Jesus, and what is its relationship with Zeus and Iseous?

Answer accepted (score 8)

Jesus is the Medieval Latin spelling of Iesus (the ‘i’ is consonantal), itself derived from the Greek Ἰησοῦς, as bleh noted, which transcribed in Latin characters would be Iesous, close to your Iseous (which does not otherwise exist as a name).

The name is ultimately Semitic, and came into Greek as the Aramaic שׁוּעַ (Yeshua), from the Hebrew יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yehoshuah, which in English we usually “translate” to Joshua).

There is no relationship between that name and Zeus, which is proto-Indo-European and only looks similar to Iesus in its late form—its stem is dio- (whence Dios “of Zeus”, and its many derivatives in names like Dionysus and Diomedes or even Dioscuri, the two “sons of Zeus”). This name ultimately comes from the PIE root *dewos, and is related to the Latin deus, Old Persian daiva-, both words for god, as well as the Latin dies or Russian день (dyen’) meaning “day”.

Answer 2 (score -1)

Zeus is Greek. This Iseous guy does not seem to exist.

As for the origin of the name Jesus, well Iseous seems to play a role here interestingly.

Jesus in Greek means “Joshua” in another language (Arabic I think). Iseous is another name for Joshua, and sort of looks like “Ιησούς” (Jesus in Greek).

Jesus means God saves, if that’s any help.

Question

Most of the time, the term “demigod” is used to describe people who are the offspring of a god and a human. As far as I know, Gilgamesh is the child of a goddess and a king. Why then is Gilgamesh considered to be one-third human and two-third god when he is the offspring of a god(dess) and a human? Is there a story behind this, one that’s about his conception?

Answer accepted (score 9)

Gilgamesh was a recurring character in Mesopotamian myths/stories. The most renown of those stories is the Epic of Gilgamesh where those numbers appears. But he and his slave/servant/friend/buddy/lover Enkidu are in numerous other stories. And in none other those funny proportions are mentioned.

It is also good to be aware that the Epic comes to us in various versions. There is no (right now) any complete version of the myth per se. It is just a reconstruction from different tablets.

Now the Epic does not give any rational explanation about the proportion. Just remind it is barely a detail trying to make clear Gilgamesh is far beyond any normal human being. As long as it is striking you enough as being “totally abnormal” the one who wrote it did succeed.

Answer 2 (score 8)

Presumably because he seemed that much more like a god than like a man.

Our present understanding of heredity was not yet available, and absent that, the proportion between the genetic inheritances from father and mother was pretty much anyone’s guess. In the Eumenides of Aeschylus, the god Apollo claims the father’s share is 100%! (The chorus of Furies does not buy it.) Sterne in Tristram Shandy (Vol. 1 [1759] Chap. 2) mocks the somewhat similar theory of the spermatozoon as containing a miniature but complete version of the person to be begotten, the homunculus.

Even with the benefit of modern understanding of chromosomes, meiosis, and fertilization, the notion persists that one can be one-quarter Czech (or whatever), because exactly one grandparent was supposedly pure Czech, despite the obvious arithmetical fact that the number of chromosomes in our species’ somatic cell nuclei, forty-six, is not an integral multiple of four. This obsolete notion is even written into current law, with current real consequences, as applied to membership in recognized Indian tribes within the United States.

Answer 3 (score 5)

He had three parents. The belief in the divinity of royal lines, in several ancient cultures of the region, was maintained by the concept that the king was possessed by a god (usually the head of the pantheon) on the night that he begot the next king. In this way each king is both the son of his father (the last king) and a god.
In the case of Gilgamesh his mother was also a goddess. So he had two parents who were gods and one parent who was mortal making him 2/3rds divine.

Question

I searched a lot but I couldn’t find a creature that is similar to a frost phoenix or a frost bird, or a giant creature similar to a frost bird for example.

It’s for a project (I like to keep real mythology in my story) and I want something as close as this as possible.

Answer accepted (score 17)

The Pomola is a snow bird spirit in Native American mythology, it lived on Mt Katahdin and caused cold weather

In Penobscot folklore, the Pomola was a bird spirit that lived on Mt Katahdin. It was associated with night, wind, snow, and storms. Apparently it had a moose’s head according to some legends. The Penobscots and Abenakis avoided climbing to the top of this mountain so as not to disturb it.

Answer 2 (score 15)

In Greek mythology, the giant Alcyoneus had seven daughters: Phthonia, Anthe, Methone, Alcippe, Pallene, Drimo, and Asteria.

When their father was slain by Heracles, they threw themselves into the sea, and were changed into ice-birds.

To be more specific, the species they transformed into was the kingfisher.

_{source: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0104:entry=alcyonides-bio-1&highlight=}

Question

According to Christian mythology, Adam and Eve were the first people created. So their children were living alone in the world.

In Genesis 4:16-17 it says that Cain left Eden and went towards the east to live. There he met his wife and got married and had a child. Where did that woman come from? Weren’t Adam and Eve the first people created?

Answer accepted (score 19)

Adam and Eve had many other unnamed sons and daughters besides Seth, Kain and Abel (Gen. 5:4).

Marriage to a sister in the early stage of the human race was not considere wrong or unnatural. Even later on Abraham’s wife was his half-sister (20:12); also 24:4 and 28:2. God did not prohibit such marriages until the time of Moses when is was specifically stated it was against the law of God according to Lev. 18:9, 18:11, 20:17, and Deut. 27:22.

Because there were no human beings except those born of Adam and Eve, sibling marriages were a necessity. St Augustine says,

As, therefore, the human race, subsequently to the first marriage of the man who was made of dust, and his wife who was made out of his side, required the union of males and females in order that it might multiply, and as there were no human beings except those who had been born of these two, men took their sisters for wives,—an act which was as certainly dictated by necessity in these ancient days as afterwards it was condemned by the prohibitions of religion . . . and though it was quite allowable in the earliest ages of the human race to marry one’s sister, it is now abhorred as a thing which no circumstances could justify. (The City of God XV.16)

So Kain married a woman who was related to him by blood.

_{Source: Catholic}

Answer 2 (score 19)

Adam and Eve had many other unnamed sons and daughters besides Seth, Kain and Abel (Gen. 5:4).

Marriage to a sister in the early stage of the human race was not considere wrong or unnatural. Even later on Abraham’s wife was his half-sister (20:12); also 24:4 and 28:2. God did not prohibit such marriages until the time of Moses when is was specifically stated it was against the law of God according to Lev. 18:9, 18:11, 20:17, and Deut. 27:22.

Because there were no human beings except those born of Adam and Eve, sibling marriages were a necessity. St Augustine says,

As, therefore, the human race, subsequently to the first marriage of the man who was made of dust, and his wife who was made out of his side, required the union of males and females in order that it might multiply, and as there were no human beings except those who had been born of these two, men took their sisters for wives,—an act which was as certainly dictated by necessity in these ancient days as afterwards it was condemned by the prohibitions of religion . . . and though it was quite allowable in the earliest ages of the human race to marry one’s sister, it is now abhorred as a thing which no circumstances could justify. (The City of God XV.16)

So Kain married a woman who was related to him by blood.

_{Source: Catholic}

Answer 3 (score 13)

Adam and Eve had more children; this is found in Genesis 5:4

And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

I found my answer on this Christian site. On that particular site it is argued that the woman Cain married had to be one of his sisters. They argue against the theory that God created other humans as well, saying that according to the Bible all men descended from Adam. (I’m still looking for an exact bible verse to say that, but it fits with what I’ve been taught).

The relationship would be incestual, but the command against incest appears in Leviticus - it is given long after the events in Genesis.

Question

Does there exist alternative names for vampires? Perhaps an euphemism; for example, in Harry Potter, those who feared Voldemort called him “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named” in lieu of his real name. Or perhaps something like a true name.

Is there anything like this with vampires?

To clarify, I don’t mean translations of the word vampire in different languages, nor do I mean variations on vampire lore in different cultures. I am writing a book, and considering using vampires perhaps, but I would like to be specific, and not calling them just vampires.

Answer accepted (score 7)

In Romanian language you will come across the term Moroi who translates roughly as “dead nightmare”.

Another such term is Strigoi.

These terms are used by many modern authors who want to present a vampire-like-creature as something: undead, bloodthirsty, evil (so no Twillight for you).

Example of these books are:

• Bloodlines, by Richelle Mead.

• The Strain, by Guillermo del Toro and Chuck Hogan.

In all of these books, the Moroi term is used to describe what the reader perceives as a “vampire” creature.

Answer 2 (score 6)

I picked up a copy of the Element Encyclopedia of Vampires for 4 bucks plus shipping for a reference on the book and I think it definitely would be handy if you do decide to go the vampire route in your book.

It’s 700 pages and has entries about everything from historical vampire panics to folklore all the way to vampires in tv and movies. Not everything is useful but there’s definitely enough to make it worth the low cost and having your own copy means you can notate it.

As far European vampires go, there are a ton of variations in “vampire species” (Upir, Upyr, Upor, Obour, Ubour, Murony, Moroi, Nachzehrer) those are just a few examples.

They vary wildly in abilities, how they feed, what they eat and many have some pretty weird traits. Like having only one nostril. Not sure why but there are several like that. There are also like 20 species that are just just floating heads with their spines dangling.

I’d advise you to get the book. It’s an interesting read if nothing else. Personally though I think you need to just commit if you go the vampire route. They’re so engrained in our minds that if they act like a vampire that’s how the audience is going to think of them no matter what they go by.

If you decide not to do the vampire route the book still has a lot you might be able to use. You could take some of the traits from this and that and make your own creature.

I’ll leave the link here. If you think of anything specific you’d like me to look up feel free to ask. Otherwise good luck.

http://www.amazon.com/Element-Encyclopedia-Vampires–z-Undead/dp/1435123409/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1448507773&sr=8-1&keywords=element+encyclopedia+of+vampires

Answer 3 (score 4)

No. I’ve done some (admittedly brief) research, and I can’t find any mention of vampires having a “code name” that they use to talk about themselves.

Let’s talk about your question. Looking at the original revision for the question, your thought process seems to be something like:

1. I am writing a book, and I want to include vampires in it.
2. It would be really cool if the vampires had a secret name that they could use to refer to themselves.
3. Maybe Vampires actually (i.e. in mythology) had a secret name that they used to refer to themselves.

There is nothing “wrong” with this thought process, but it doesn’t represent the best way to learn about vampires. If you want to learn more about vampires, the best way is to get a book from your local library, and then ask question here if you are confused about anything the book says.

However, if you want to write a book about vampires, I would just use your imagination, and not worry about about whether your story corresponds to mythology. Your book is going to be judged on how interesting/entertaining/thought provoking it is; no one is going to go through your book to make sure that everything you say about vampires is correct.

If you really want to write a realistic book about vampires (not that vampires are realistic), again, my advice is to go to a library and find a book about vampires. Whether vampires use code names is only a small piece of information you need to know about vampires: you also need to know more about what vampires look like, their personality, etc. The best place to learn about all of that would be a book from your local library.

Just my two cents.

Question

When Hercules fought the Hydra, it had 9 heads I think.

But the way of the Hydra is that when one is cut down 2 grow up.

So obviously some foolish fighters went in and cut some heads before, to know that information.

So what I am asking, when the Hydra was first born, How many heads did he originally have?

Answer accepted (score 6)

There are many different accounts. I don’t believe a simple, conclusive “it started with X heads” is possible.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Author       | Source         | # of heads    | Regeneration             |
============================================================================
| Hesiod       | Theogony       | N/A           | N/A                      |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Alcaeus      | scholiast on   | 9             | N/A                      |
|              | Theogony       |               |                          |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Simonides    | scholiast on   | 50            | N/A                      |
|              | Theogony       |               |                          |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Euripides    | Herakles       | Many          | Yes                      |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Plato        | Euthydemas     | N/A           | Many for each severed    |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Apollodorus  | Library        | 9             | 2 for each severed       |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Pausanias    | Description    | 1             | No                       |
|              | of Greece      |               |                          |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Diodorus     | Library of     | 100           | 2 for each severed       |
|   Siculus    | History        |               |                          |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Quintus      | Fall of Troy   | Many          | >1 for each severed      |
|   Smyrnaeus  |                |               |                          |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Hyginus      | Fabulae        | 9             | N/A                      |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Ovid         | Metamorphoses  | 100           | 2 for each severed       |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Seneca       | Hercules       | Many          | N/A                      |
|              | Furens         |               |                          |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Nonnus       | Dionysiaca     | Many          | Yes                      |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer 2 (score 3)

The Hydra was a multi-headed monster–according to Diodorus (first century B.C.), it had a hundred heads; Simonides (sixth century B.C.) said it had fifty. The most common opinion, however, seems to be that it had nine. What made the Hydra so difficult was the fact that, whenever one of its heads was chopped off, two would grow in its place. Hercules managed to get around this rather major obstacle by having his nephew, Iolaus, cauterize each stump with a hot iron as soon as Hercules could chop off a head. The hero then buried the monster’s immortal head beneath a rock. The task was made somewhat more difficult by Juno, who sent a crab to nip at the feet of Hercules while he battled the Hydra. - Hydra

Various authors have given us different numbers for how many heads Hydra had originally. The earliest known author Hesiod of the 8th or 7th B.C says only many heads.

Alcaeus seems to be the first person to give us a number for how many heads Hydra originally had: NINE.

Alcaeus, Fragment 443 (from Schoiast on Hesiod’s Theogony) (trans. Campbell, Vol. Greek Lyric II) (Greek lyric C6th B.C.) : “The Hydra is called nine ­headed by Alcaeus, fifty­ headed by Simonides.”

Simonides, Fragment 569 (from Servius on Virgil’s Aeneid) (trans. Campbell, Vol. Greek Lyric II) (Greek lyric C6th to 5th B.C.) : “One hundred snakes as in Simonides, as we said above [he spoke of Simonides fifty­ headed Hydra]; others say there were nine.” - Labors of Hercules: Second, to Thin the Lernaean Hydra

Black figure vase by the Eagle Painter, ca. 525 BCE, now in the Getty Museum (© 2008 Wolfgang Sauber via Wikimedia Commons)

Question

I am a little bit confused by the way the terms giant, frost giant, jotun (or jötunn), ettin and troll seem to overlap in Norse mythology.

I don’t understand if they refer to a single race or multiple (or even variations within the race).

It adds to my confusion that some of the terms seem to refer to strikingly similar beings, but that some of these creatures are inconsistently depicted. The same beings can be portrayed both as both hideous or beautiful (I understand how good or evil characters could vary in appearance, but the physical appearance seems inconsistent for the whole “race”).

Another example: the word “giant” would make you think that beings of this race were of a greater size (greater than average, being this “greater than human size” or “greater than god/Æsir/Vanir size”), but this doesn’t seem to be a problem sometimes in order to interact (intermarrying, procreating, etc.) with other beings. That makes me think that the all those names depict different creatures, and not just one race, still, as pointed above, there doesn’t seem to be consistency for the traits of each of these races..

Could someone clarify if these are different classes of beings, the same class with different names, or clarify what they were an “embodiment” of (like, giant or troll is another way of depict a race as “evil”)?

Answer accepted (score 24)

Giants are said to be element-based creatures.

Giants are extremely strong and are associated with cold and frost.^[1] One giant is supposed to bring about the wind (Hræsvelgr), while another is associated with the sea (Ægir) and yet another with fire (Logi).

_{source: http://www.germanicmythology.com/original/cosmology4.html}

_{[1]: Vafthrüthnismal 33 and Grimnismal 31.}

So, frost giants come under the category of giants.

Now, the jotun (jǫtunn). A Jotun is a giant with superhuman strength; their homeland is Jotunheim. Ægir is said to be the sea jotun. And from the above quote, it is clear that Ægir was a giant. Hence confirming that the terms jotun and giants are very same.

In modern Icelandic, jötunn has kept its original meaning. In Old English, the cognate to jötunn is eoten, whence modern English ettin. Hence ettin is another term for giants, which evolved from the ancient roots of its original term.

This extract from the Prose Edda book Skáldskaparmál, suggest that trolls were opposites to the giants (emphasis mine).

They call me a troll,
moon of the earth-Hrungnir
wealth sucker of the giant,
destroyer of the storm-sun
beloved follower of the seeress,

The giants were often involved in incidents of higher degree (eg. battles with gods) whereas trolls live isolated and are not involved (not as much of the giants) with the higher degree incidents. Another major difference is that, as I have mentioned earlier in the answer, giants are element based. Trolls however, were not.

_{Further reading: http://netlibrary.net/articles/j%C3%B6tunn}

Answer 2 (score 1)

There are two kinds of giants; frost giants and fire giants. Frost giants live in the realm called Jotunheim, therefore frost giants and jotuns are the same thing. Fire giants live in another realm, Muspelheim, the world of flame. Jotunheim appears in the first Marvel Thor film. Muspelheim has a cameo in the Dark World.

Trolls are another case altogether. They live in yet another realm called Nidavelir.

Answer 3 (score 0)

Jotuns and Ettins are the same things (the J makes the Y sound, so Jotuns becomes Eotenas, then Ettins). They are giants, but not entirely humanoid. Some are huge birds, some have vulture or wolf heads, some are firey, etc. ‘Giant’ and ‘Frost Giant’ are translations of Jotun (or also Thurs and Risi). As for trolls, they are sort of Jotuns. Most probably they are from an older legendarium, from which probably came the Vanir and dwarfs and elves. It then overlapped with the new one of Aesir, Jotuns, and etc. Trolls are creatures of the wilderness, like Huldrefolk, and in fact they often have a Hulder or Hulderskall as their leader.

Question

The myth of Pandora is basically the story of a woman who is given a box by the gods, and told not to open it. Of course, she opens the box, and evil is released to the world.

Is it possible that the box represents a womb? I think that makes a lot of sense, because it’s a cavity with an opening, and things come out of it (that were never seen on earth before). The myth also is a commentary on gender, because it’s a woman who releases evil to the world, and Pandora’s husband is at fault only because he is stupid enough to marry her.

Answer accepted (score 5)

It is 100% supportable that the “box” represents the womb in Hesiod’s version of the myth from his Theogony. In brief:

• In the Theogony, Hesiod never mentions any vessel save Pandora herself.

• Pandora is cast as the mother of the “race of women” who were created to vex men (i.e. they are the source of evil named by Hesiod in the Theogony.)

• In other versions of the myth, no “box” is mentioned, but instead a pithou meaning “jar” for wine or oil. (If wine, it could represent blood, and oil is a lubricant.)

• The idea of woman as vessel is a major point in Apollo’s notorious arguments in Orestes’ defense in The Eumenides, demonstrating the existence of this concept in Ancient Greek thought.

You can find a more detailed explanation of this element of the myth here, as well as a discussion of the possible meaning in Aesop and Hesiod.

Answer 2 (score 2)

I don’t think that the point of the myth lies to the fact that it was Pandora that openned the box, neither that the box necessarily symbolizes the womb. It could have been her husband, Epimetheus, that oppened it, and it wouldn’t matter, the result would be the same. What matters is that Zeus knew all along that the box would be openned. The box was given to the couple as their wedding gift by Zeus, and he wanted to punish humanity this way, because humanity accepted the gift of the Holy Flame stolen by Prometheus. That made the humans more powerful than they were, and some of them became greedy and invaded Olympus to overthrow the gods, and become rulers in their place. Zeus zapped those who even tried to climb Olympus with lighnings, and to take revenge he thought of that trick with the box.

So basically the main point of the story is that accepting stolen goods is bad.

Note that Pandora’s husband, Epimetheus is NOT a man. He is a Titan. Humanity prior to Pandora existed as beings that had no sexes and were given birth by Earth, literaly (According to the myth) sprouting out of soil like plants do. Thus women through Pandora is the oldest sex of the two. This is not something explicitly written, but one is lead to that conclusion one he realizes that the first humans didn’t had a gender / sex and had no sex.

Answer 3 (score -1)

To be honest, Pandora’s Box might represent why there is evil and misery in the world. In my opinion, it was Zeus’s fault that she opened the box because he was the one who gave her the power of curiosity.

Question

For instance, according to the supernatural wiki, silver is a metal with strong supernatural properties. But historically, why is specifically silver considered harmful to vampires? Is there a reason why it could not be gold or bronze?

Answer accepted (score 7)

First I’ll get this out of the way: No research is truly comprehensive without TVTropes:

The myth of silver’s mystical properties goes deep into human history. As a noble metal akin to gold, this is often attributed to something along the lines of silver’s Incorruptible Pure Pureness. In fact, it’s because of something people noticed a very long time ago: if you put water in a silver pitcher, it takes a lot longer for it to get unhealthily scummy. Silver has antimicrobial properties that make it quite useful in medicine. In ancient and medieval alchemy silver was also the metal with an affinity corresponding to the moon, so many of the mystical properties of the moon also became associated with the metal . . . Unlike in post-Medieval works, many pre-Christian pagan mythologies also associated it with the Sun, and many solar deities are described with silver objects (like Saule’s silver thread, Apollo’s silver bow and arrows or Amaterasu’s silver mirror). Though ancient alchemists couldn’t know it, silver does have a unique property among the elements — it exists in a naturally excited form — i.e. it has a single electron that exists in a higher energy level, leaving a gap in the shell immediately “below” it.

(I assume “unique among the elements” means rather “unique as an element that exists in amounts and malleability to the extent that humans can fashion discrete and widely-distributed objects with it” - however, I am not even an armchair chemist.)

As DukeZhou’s comment indicates, The Strain develops a “hard sci-fi” angle to explain the connection in the case of a ‘vampire species’:

While silver poses low toxicity and risk to humans, certain bacteria and possibly fungi may be genetically susceptible to silver interfering with their enzyme production. A similar biological reaction to silver may be supernaturally present in strigoi. Regardless of the debated status on the medical effectiveness of silver, the retention of silver in the body associated with chronic intake of colloidal silver would prove disagreeable to vampires.

(If I could participate in Meta yet I would have checked to see how (un)acceptable it is to include a ‘retcon’ on this level, i.e. 21st century fiction employing/explaining folklore. However, since there were apparently still Romanians flouting a law banning a ritual designed for vampire prevention in 2004 …)

You also ask

Is there a reason why it could not be gold or bronze?

which carries a whiff of roleplaying/worldbuilding/writers about it, but let that pass; and leaving aside just how much “[a] reason” could play into mythology:

Significance in Egyptian hieroglyphics:

One of the older uses of the gold hieroglyph . . . typically featured the image of a Horus falcon perched above or beside the hieroglyph for gold.

The meaning of this particular title has been disputed. One belief is that it represents the triumph of Horus over his uncle Seth, as the symbol for gold can be taken to mean that Horus was “superior to his foes”. Gold also was strongly associated in the ancient Egyptian mind with eternity, so this may have been intended to convey the pharaoh’s eternal Horus name.

This is easily translates to “eternal and/or divine aspect = proof against undead” … pretty speculative though.

From the Wikipedia entry, regarding culture and medicine:

In some forms of Christianity and Judaism, gold has been associated both with holiness and evil. In the Book of Exodus, the Golden Calf is a symbol of idolatry, while in the Book of Genesis, Abraham was said to be rich in gold and silver, and Moses was instructed to cover the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant with pure gold. In Byzantine iconography the halos of Christ, Mary and the Christian saints are often golden.

Perhaps this ambivalence accounts for gold not being considered exclusively holy or unholy - associations with idolatry or greed vs. use with relics. But in the tales where a crucifix or other holy symbol may be used to ward off a vampire, there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with that device being golden.

Metallic and gold compounds have long been used for medicinal purposes. Gold, usually as the metal, is perhaps the most anciently administered medicine (apparently by shamanic practitioners) and known to Dioscorides. In medieval times, gold was often seen as beneficial for the health, in the belief that something so rare and beautiful could not be anything but healthy. Even some modern esotericists and forms of alternative medicine assign metallic gold a healing power.

In the 19th century gold had a reputation as a “nervine”, a therapy for nervous disorders. Depression, epilepsy, migraine, and glandular problems such as amenorrhea and impotence were treated, and most notably alcoholism (Keeley, 1897).

As to ‘why not bronze’, well … the mystical properties of bronze just wasn’t ever ‘a thing’, as far as I can tell. All I see so far is references to copper associated with Venus and tin associated with Jupiter, but no substantive suggestions regarding the alloy.

So … nothing much so far; looking forward to seeing what everyone else digs up!

Question

I couldn’t find much (any) info about this question. According to wikipedia:

Prometheus, in eternal punishment, is chained to a rock in the Caucasus, Kazbek Mountain or Mountain of Khvamli, where his liver is eaten daily by an eagle, only to be regenerated by night, due to his immortality. The eagle is a symbol of Zeus himself. Years later, the Greek hero Heracles (Hercules) slays the eagle and frees Prometheus from the eagle’s torment.

But what happens after he was freed? Did he think of a rebellion again against the gods with the other titans?

Answer accepted (score 10)

You are referring to the Aeschylus fragment “Prometheus Unbound”. Unfortunately this play was mostly lost.

(The source text can be found here: “The Prometheus bound of Aeschylus and the fragments of the Prometheus unbound” on page 145, but it won’t be especially helpful unless you have some Latin and Greek.)

For the Prometheus Unbound fragments on Theoi, use this link and look for “PROMÊTHEUS LYOMENOS”.

I’ll amend if I find any further information, but it looks like any parts of this text that may have told what happens to Prometheus after he is unbound in this play are lost.

However, there is a third play, Prometheus the Fire Bringer, again, surviving only in fragments and only. On Theoi, use this link and look for “PROMÊTHEUS PYRPHOROS”.

One theory on this third play hold that Prometheus is reconciled with Zeus after revealing to Zeus the prophecy of Thetis’ child becoming greater than Zeus himself [see Brian Donovan’s comment below for more clarification], which may derive from Hyginus, Fabulae, 54, and is predicted by Prometheus himself in the Aeschylus. (If true, this 3rd play might have contained the answer on what Prometheus does after he is unbound, but there is an alternate theory holding that this play was actually the first in the trilogy, and depicted the events concerning the theft of fire.)

Graves says that

“Mankind now began to wear rings in Prometheus’ honour, and also wreathes, because when released, Prometheus was ordered to crown himself with a willow wreath.”
_{Source: Robert graves, The Greek Myths, 133.m, citing Athenaeus}

so there’s that.

For more info on this punishment and Athenaeus, see “The Author of the Prometheus Bound” by C.J. Herington.

RELATED: Prometheus Unbound by Percy Bysshe Shelley

Note: Shelly is not part of the classical canon, but is a poet of sufficient stature to be included in the overall literary canon, so he is worth reading if you have an interest in this subject.

Question

There are a lot of mythological references, which states that the crow of a rooster is fatal to a Basilisk.

From CHAPTER XXXVI of the Bulfinch’s mythology, MODERN MONSTERS- THE PHOENIX- BASILISK- UNICORN-SALAMANDER.

There is an old saying that “everything has its enemy” – and the cockatrice quailed before the weasel. The basilisk might look daggers, the weasel cared not, but advanced boldly to the conflict. When bitten, the weasel retired for a moment to eat some rue, which was the only plant the basilisks could not wither, returned with renewed strength and soundness to the charge, and never left the enemy till he was stretched dead on the plain. The monster, too, as if conscious of the irregular way in which he came into the world, was supposed to have a great antipathy to a cock; and well he might, for as soon as he heard the cock crow he expired.

And from the Aelian’s characteristics of animals (mythology from the 2nd century):

With its crowing a cock scares a lion and is fatal to a basilisk.

In addition, there are a lot of instances where this is mentioned in the Wikipedia article too:

From Tales of Canterbury:

basilisks can be killed by hearing the crow of a rooster

From the Cantabrian mythology:

The weasel is the only animal that can face and even attack it. It can only be killed with the crowing of a rooster, so, until very recent times, travelers were carrying a rooster when they ventured into areas where it was said that the basilisks lived

So, why is it that a rooster can fell such a monstrous creature?

Is there any reason behind the formulation or origin of this?

Related question on SciFi.SE: Can the crow of a rooster petrify/kill a basilisk?

Answer accepted (score 7)

Pliny the Elder describes the Basilisk like this:

[The basilisk] is produced in the province of Cyrene, being not more than twelve fingers in length. It has a white spot on the head, strongly resembling a sort of a diadem. When it hisses, all the other serpents fly from it: and it does not advance its body, like the others, by a succession of folds, but moves along upright and erect upon the middle.

Lives in Northern Africa, venomous, able to envenom from a distance (ie. spitting), able to maintain an upright posture while moving (see image). The length in Pliny’s account is quite a bit off for an adult, and the white marking would seem more consistent with a Spectacled Cobra, but many believe that this sounds quite a bit like an Egyptian Cobra:

The Evolution of the Basilisk by R. McN. Alexander draws this conclusion, and provides a great deal more detail (including some possible reasons for the white crown mark detail).

As far as the source of roosters as deadly to the Basilisk, the above paper, unfortunately, doesn’t address it, and I can’t find much that does. However, many birds are known to deter or even eat snakes. Roosters have been known to kill and eat snakes at times, guineafowl are galliformes (that is, closely related to chickens and turkeys) endemic to Africa and are noted for deterring snakes, and the ibis was a sacred bird in Egypt which also eats snakes.

Question

Do we know how and in which circumstances Gilgamesh died?

According to these answers seems that The Epic of Gilgamesh doesn’t mention that, however Wikipedia page mention something about Sumerian poem - The Death of Gilgamesh.

Answer accepted (score 6)

According to The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, my best guess from reading the translated text provided is he died of old age :

….. hero …… has lain down and is never to rise again. …… has lain down and is never to rise again. He of well-proportioned limbs …… has lain down and is never to rise again. …… has lain down and is never to rise again. He who …… wickedness has lain down and is never to rise again. The young man …… has lain down and is never to rise again. He who was perfect in …… and feats of strength has lain down and is never to rise again. ……

It doesn’t give an specific explanation for his death, but the text is fragmentary at best and several parts are missing.

Question

The creation myths of the Abrahamic religions declares humanity’s protoplasts to be Adam and Eve. Norse lore declares them to be Ask and Embla.

Linguistically, these seem to be fairly similar names. Is there actually a connection there, or is it just a coincidence?

Answer accepted (score 12)

First, note that the first known mention of Ask and Embla is in the Völuspá, in the Poetic Edda:

17. Then from the throng | did three come forth,
    From the home of the gods, | the mighty and gracious;
    Two without fate | on the land they found,
    Ask and Embla, | empty of might.

18. Soul they had not, | sense they had not,
    Heat nor motion, | nor goodly hue;
    Soul gave Othin, | sense gave Hönir,
    Heat gave Lothur | and goodly hue.

19. An ash I know, | Yggdrasil its name,
    With water white | is the great tree wet;
    Thence come the dews | that fall in the dales,
    Green by Urth’s well | does it ever grow.

_{Source:Völuspá, The Poetic Edda, tr. Henry Adams Bellows 17-19}

Obviously, it’s difficult to analyze the comparative nature of a question like this without being a well versed scholar in the authorship of the original myths. Fortunately, Henry Adams Bellows has already done such an analysis in the introduction to the Völuspá:

This final passage, in particular, has caused wide differences of opinion as to the date and character of the poem. That the poet was heathen and not Christian seems almost beyond dispute; there is an intensity and vividness in almost every stanza which no archaizing Christian could possibly have achieved. On the other hand, the evidences of Christian influence are sufficiently striking to outweigh the arguments of Finnur Jonsson, Müllenhoff and others who maintain that the Voluspo is purely a product of heathendom. The roving Norsemen of the tenth century, very few of whom had as yet accepted Christianity, were nevertheless in close contact with Celtic races which had already been converted, and in many ways the Celtic influence was strongly felt. It seems likely, then, that the Voluspo was the work of a poet living chiefly in Iceland, though possibly in the “Western Isles,” in the middle of the tenth century, a vigorous believer in the old gods, and yet with an imagination active enough to be touched by the vague tales of a different religion emanating from his neighbor Celts.

_{Source:Völuspá, The Poetic Edda, tr. Henry Adams Bellows, Intr.}

This suggests to me that, even though the author was decidedly not a Christian, it is entirely possible, and even likely, that the author used the Adam and Eve myth as inspiration for the Ask and Embla story. Note also that Ask and Embla were created out of trees (Ash and Elm), reminscient of the Garden of Eden but giving it an Icelandic spin.

17. Here the poem resumes its course after the interpolated section. Probably, however, something has been lost, for there is no apparent connection between the three giant-maids of stanza 8 and the three gods, Othin, Hönir and Lothur, who in stanza 17 go forth to create man and woman. The word “three” in stanzas 9 and 17 very likely confused some early reciter, or perhaps the compiler himself. Ask and Embla: ash and elm; Snorri gives them simply as the names of the first man and woman, but says that the gods made this pair out of trees.

_{Source:Völuspá, The Poetic Edda, tr. Henry Adams Bellows, 17 footnotes}

Answer 2 (score 12)

First, note that the first known mention of Ask and Embla is in the Völuspá, in the Poetic Edda:

17. Then from the throng | did three come forth,
    From the home of the gods, | the mighty and gracious;
    Two without fate | on the land they found,
    Ask and Embla, | empty of might.

18. Soul they had not, | sense they had not,
    Heat nor motion, | nor goodly hue;
    Soul gave Othin, | sense gave Hönir,
    Heat gave Lothur | and goodly hue.

19. An ash I know, | Yggdrasil its name,
    With water white | is the great tree wet;
    Thence come the dews | that fall in the dales,
    Green by Urth’s well | does it ever grow.

_{Source:Völuspá, The Poetic Edda, tr. Henry Adams Bellows 17-19}

Obviously, it’s difficult to analyze the comparative nature of a question like this without being a well versed scholar in the authorship of the original myths. Fortunately, Henry Adams Bellows has already done such an analysis in the introduction to the Völuspá:

This final passage, in particular, has caused wide differences of opinion as to the date and character of the poem. That the poet was heathen and not Christian seems almost beyond dispute; there is an intensity and vividness in almost every stanza which no archaizing Christian could possibly have achieved. On the other hand, the evidences of Christian influence are sufficiently striking to outweigh the arguments of Finnur Jonsson, Müllenhoff and others who maintain that the Voluspo is purely a product of heathendom. The roving Norsemen of the tenth century, very few of whom had as yet accepted Christianity, were nevertheless in close contact with Celtic races which had already been converted, and in many ways the Celtic influence was strongly felt. It seems likely, then, that the Voluspo was the work of a poet living chiefly in Iceland, though possibly in the “Western Isles,” in the middle of the tenth century, a vigorous believer in the old gods, and yet with an imagination active enough to be touched by the vague tales of a different religion emanating from his neighbor Celts.

_{Source:Völuspá, The Poetic Edda, tr. Henry Adams Bellows, Intr.}

This suggests to me that, even though the author was decidedly not a Christian, it is entirely possible, and even likely, that the author used the Adam and Eve myth as inspiration for the Ask and Embla story. Note also that Ask and Embla were created out of trees (Ash and Elm), reminscient of the Garden of Eden but giving it an Icelandic spin.

17. Here the poem resumes its course after the interpolated section. Probably, however, something has been lost, for there is no apparent connection between the three giant-maids of stanza 8 and the three gods, Othin, Hönir and Lothur, who in stanza 17 go forth to create man and woman. The word “three” in stanzas 9 and 17 very likely confused some early reciter, or perhaps the compiler himself. Ask and Embla: ash and elm; Snorri gives them simply as the names of the first man and woman, but says that the gods made this pair out of trees.

_{Source:Völuspá, The Poetic Edda, tr. Henry Adams Bellows, 17 footnotes}

Question

I am currently very interested in Sumerian mythology and would like to find out more about it. However, I am finding it very hard to keep track of the gods lineage and parentage as well as their descendants.

To keep track of them I would like to have a family tree of them. Do you know where I can find a family tree of these gods?

Answer accepted (score 9)

If what you want is a family tree “per se”, you can find a good dozen of them for free on the internet via your old pal Google. Here is a very solid one:

Notice this tree (as a lot you will find) is a Mesopotamian one, and especially Babylonian. The presence of Tiamat and Marduk clearly signs the Babylonian nature. The fact Inanna is the daughter of Nanna and not Enki is another clear proof. A pure Sumerian tree would begin with An (the Anu of the Babylonian).

If you need some sources.

First imagine that anything centered on old Mesopotamia is vastly partially known, because it is OLD, terribly OLD, and what is written, was written on tablets most of them quite broken, or not so readable. And a lot of what we know of the Sumerian people is coming from the Babylonian or even later Hittites… if not in the Holy Bible!

As an example, one of the most notable pieces known and renown from Mesopotamia is The Epic of Gilgamesh which in its most well acknowledge format is Babylonian. The main source tablets we have are from the Assyrian city of Nineveh dating from king Assurbanipal. That demonstrates that most of out tablets source are either coming from unknown place or known and was a copy of older text (The Assyrians coming after the Babylonians). On a side note, the Sumerian language was used as latin and greek in paste time, not the linga franca but much more the intellectual language. That also makes difficult to know what is and what is not from Sumer.

The definitive Sumerian source is Samuel Noah Kramer, the best myth introduction is that book (freely available on sacred text):

Sumerian Mythology: 
Study of Spiritual and Literary Achievement in the Third Millennium B.C.

You can also check:

The Sumerians, their history, cultures and character

There is there a lot of fairly solid translations of major mythes/stories, as well as a great introduction to the Sumerian culture. this is by far a better book than the former but it is not free. And quite dated (As Sumerian mythology is).

Bibliography

the Litterature of Ancient Sumer by Jeremy Black, most texts are in the ETCL
The World’s Oldest Literature A fairly good (but ridiculously over priced) book
Epic of the Sumerian kings: the matter of Aratta by Herman Vanstiphout, a solid tranlation of one of the 2 big cycle of stories, the other one being for Gilgamesh
Ancient mesopotamia by Leo Oppenheim, a fairly solid book on Mesopotamia in general

To avoid:
Inanna queen of heaven and earth by Diane Wolkstein and (unfortunately) Samuel Kramer a modern soup of transreading with no connection at all with Inanna.

Sitography

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/ TONS of good material, with decent translations, lots of texts, poetries, songs. REALLY a great source. Really less expensive that Hallo’s book…

Question

Charon is known as the ferryman of the River Styx, letting certain people cross the river with a fee. Charon himself is well known for helping many significant heroes in multiple Greek legends.

He always seems to collect a toll from those who cross the River Styx with his assisstance. What exactly does Charon do with the toll money he receives from his passengers? And why exactly does he need to collect a toll?

Answer accepted (score 17)

Coins (specifically a type called an obol or obolos) were left on the body or placed in the mouths of the dead.

The dead give Charon the coin, which shows they have had proper funeral rites and therefore deserve to be transported to Hades.

The Aenid by Vergil, Chapter 6 has this to say

Why some were ferried o’er, and some refus’d. “Son of Anchises, offspring of the gods,” The Sibyl said, "you see the Stygian floods, The sacred stream which heav’n’s imperial state Attests in oaths, and fears to violate. The ghosts rejected are th’ unhappy crew Depriv’d of sepulchers and fun’ral due: The boatman, Charon; those, the buried host, He ferries over to the farther coast;

Despite having neither coin, nor being dead, Heracles managed to cross as did Orpheus and various other heroes.

Question

Are there any known children of Hades (god or mortal)?

If there are any mortal children of Hades, would they have abilities related to spirits and souls?

Answer accepted (score 14)

Yes, and for future questions of this type, Theoi is a great resource.

Depending on the source, he had three children plus the Erinyes. The latter are problematic, as Aeschylus’ Oresteia presume their primordial, pre-Olympian existence.

Still, the others are given as Zagreus in a fragment in a tragedy of Aeschylus’, Melinoe by Persephone in an Orphic hymn, and Makaria in a Suidas entry.

Zagreus was also said to be the son of Zeus and Persephone (as related in an Orphic hymn and then later authors). This is probably secondary, though, and doesn’t really jibe with the very early Hymn to Demeter, where Persephone is a young maiden before she is taken away by Hades—when would Zeus have had a chance?

Melinoe was actually the child of Zeus, but Zeus had taken on the form of Hades, so take that as you will.

Nothing contests Makaria’s parentage, but the Suidas is very late (10th century AD, so well into the Middle Ages already) and often full of inaccuracies, so we have no idea how early or late or even correct the attribution is.

Question

Did ancient Egyptian gods have weapons, like the Greek gods (Zeus’s thunderbolt or Poseidon’s trident, for example)? If so, who made them? I’ve never read anywhere where they had weapons.

Answer accepted (score 5)

The only particular weapon given more than passing mention that I can find is Isis’s harpoon in The Contendings of Horus and Seth (part of the Papyrus Chester Beatty I), which she makes herself from some yarn and copper:

Then she fetched a skein of yarn. She fashioned a line, fetched a deben-weight’s (worth) of copper, cast it in (the form of) a harpoon, tied the line to it, and hurled it into the water at the spot where Horus and Seth had submerged. / But then the copper (barb) bit into the person of her son Horus. So Horus let out a loud shriek, saying: Help me, mother Isis, my mother. Appeal to your copper (barb) to let go of me. I am Horus, son of Isis. thereupon Isis let out a loud shriek and told copper (barb): Let go of him. See, it is my son Horus. He is my child. So her copper (barb) let go of him.

The same story contains other references to weapons used by the gods, but they don’t seem to have any special properties, or supernatural qualities.

• …having his cleaver of 16 deben-weight in his hand.

  (16 deben-weight would be about 1.5 kg, I believe, which according to wikipedia is a pretty typical weight for an axe designed for warfare)

• …seized the copper (knife), cut off his hand(s)

• Horus took his copper (harpoon) and hurled it at the person of Seth.

Answer 2 (score 4)

It was fairly typical for Indo-European gods to have associated weapons or tools. For example, Thor’s hammer and Lugh’s spear. Vishnu, having 4 arms, can dual-wield a club and a oddjob-esque death Frisbee.

However, Semitic people did their deities a bit differently. They tended to have non-human aspects, in some cases being entirely based on animals. Egypt particularly tended towards the latter. There are humanoid depictions of their main gods holding flails, but those are generally considered agricultural (herding) symbols rather than war weapons.

Answer 3 (score -2)

The Gods of Egypt use weapons that they fashion themselves. The had spears and swords they use against Apep. They use wands or was and amulets, fill them with magic or inscribe them with words of power for specific purposes. There greatest weapon was the magic of words and transformation/shapeshifting of objects or themselves.

Question

As far as I understood the myth of Medusa, she was punished by Athena (either for letting herself being raped by Poseidon or for succumbing to Poseidon’s woes). Her sisters, Euryale and Stheno (all daughters of Phorcys and Ceto) stood with Medusa, and Athena transformed all of them in gorgons.

I’m not surprised about the punishment of the gods, neither to Medusa for her offenses nor to her sisters for staying with her (most Greek mythos depict similar punishments for something that is almost responsibility of the gods), but I’m surprised by the fact that Medusa is depicted as the only mortal of the Gorgons:

And again, Ceto bore to Phorcys the fair-cheeked Graiae, sisters grey from their birth: and both deathless gods and men who walk on earth call them Graiae, Pemphredo well-clad, and saffron-robed Enyo, and the Gorgons who dwell beyond glorious Ocean in the frontier land towards Night where are the clear-voiced Hesperides, Sthenno, and Euryale, and Medusa who suffered a woeful fate: she was mortal, but the two were undying and grew not old.

_{Source: Hes. Th. 275}

Why this difference between the three of them? Is something that is attributable to Athena when transforming the sisters? Or for any reason they were different in spite of being daughters of the same father and mother? Is is just due to the definition of “immortal” (meaning from “not growing old” to “can’t be killed or die”)?

Answer accepted (score 13)

I believe there is simply no clear explanation offered for this.

Two sources I’m aware of make reference to the mortality of Medusa. They are:

• Hesiod, Theogony, 276

  Gorgons who dwell beyond glorious Ocean in the frontier land towards Night where are the clear-voiced Hesperides, Sthenno, and Euryale, and Medusa who suffered a woeful fate: she was mortal, but the two were undying and grew not old. With her lay the Dark-haired One in a soft meadow amid spring flowers.

• Pseudo-Apollodorus, Library, 2.4.2

  …he flew to the ocean and caught the Gorgons asleep. They were Stheno, Euryale, and Medusa. Now Medusa alone was mortal; for that reason Perseus was sent to fetch her head.

Neither of these offers any explanation of the phenomenon.

Possible explanations:

• Athena’s punishment - While both of the quotes sources refer to Medusa having offspring with Poseidon, the first mention I can find of Athena’s (more accurately Minerva’s) punishment is Ovid’s Metamorphosies, Book 4, in response to the question of “…why Medusa, alone among her sisters, had snakes twining in her hair.” Which is somewhat difficult to reconcile with the quoted Apollodorus myth, in which all three are described as similarly monstrous:

  But the Gorgons had heads twined about with the scales of dragons, and great tusks like swine’s, and brazen hands, and golden wings, by which they flew; and they turned to stone such as beheld them.

• Perhaps it just works out that way sometimes. Looking at the offspring of Phorcys and Ceto, some few of them appear to have been killed. In one version of the story, Ladon was killed by Heracles, in pursuit of the Apples of the Hesperides (his 11th labor). Echidna was killed by Argus Panoptes, as related in pseudo-Apollodorus Library.

  The idea that, by some chance of fate, she was born mortal seems more in line with my impression from the phrasing used in translations of Hesiod, with phrases like “suffered a woeful fate” or “suffered grievously”, in the two translation I’ve seen. That turn of phrase seems interesting to me. Analysis of the original text might be valuable here, but I am unequipped to provide it.

Answer 2 (score 2)

Unfortunately, the actual answer is… there is no answer. The reason being, it is like all myths that have been adapted, changed, added to, corrupted and retold over a long period of time - the story becomes incoherent and cannot be reconciled in a manner which would make a sensible narrative.

The sisters were a later addition to a myth that had been around for centuries. Another incoherent part of the story that one might use as an example is the fact that it is often the Parthenon that is claimed as the temple in which Medusa served. However, the original Medusa myths predate the construction of the Parthenon by centuries. Remember, it was supposedly Perseus (Ruler of Mycenae, around 1300 BCE) that ended her life.

Sorry, that won’t be the answer you are probably hoping to hear… but it IS the correct answer :)

Question

Native Americans, including some from here, Brazil, are afraid of photos. They don’t like it when you take pictures of them because they think that you are stealing their souls.

Why do they think that?

Answer accepted (score 6)

Well, not many do anymore. I found this on a question on the skeptics stack exchange

[Carolyn J. Marr] illustrates a change in Native Americans’ attitudes towards photography from the late 19th to the early 20th century.

At first, many Native Americans were wary of having their photographs taken and often refused. They believed that the process could steal a person’s soul and disrespected the spiritual world.

Over time, however, some Native Americans came to cherish photographs as links to ancestors and even integrated them into important ceremonies.
_{Source: Historical Analysis and Interpretation: Photographs and Symbols}

As to why, the indigenous people didn’t understand this technology. In their minds, they saw this as magic that could trap a person or an image inside something. Hence the idea that it would steal your soul. This is similar to the ideas of medieval peoples that found alien things magical and often evil (hence the witch hunts, even though they weren’t as huge as they seem), I’m sure the reaction of a medieval person to photographs would be very similar.

Question

In many religions, such as the Greeks, the number 12 is considered holy and sacred for many generations. There are 12 main gods in Greek mythology, Odin had 12 sons in Norse mythology, 12 disicples of Christ in Christinaity, and 12 Imams in the Islam religion.

So why exactly is the number 12 considered sacred and holy by many religions?

Note: This answer by naltipar has inspired my question. He has said this, which deems my question unanswered as of now:

I have found no reference (and I believe there isn’t any) as to why it is deemed a special number, apart from the fact that it had many mathematical properties, such as being the first number with six divisors.

Answer accepted (score 5)

According to Kabbalah mysticism, The Tree of Life is the developed symbol which can be used as a full model of reality, using the tree to depict a map of Creation.

A Tree of Life consist 10 sephiroth (11th is hidden) and 22 paths (22 Hebrew letters) - 3 horizontal, 7 vertical and 12 diagonals.

^{Source and image credits: The Tree of Life at Hermetic Kaballah}

In Renaissance occult philosophy, Cornelius Agrippa provides tables of correspondences (“scales”) for all the numbers up to twelve.

There are close relationship to the ancient hermetic notion of sympathies and harmonic connection via a higher world of the divine essences.

These are the dimensions of Creation and the fundamental building blocks of our reality.

We can divide them into the following groups:

Motion:

1. Time (Physical motion).
2. Feeling (Emotional motion).
3. Thought (Mental motion).

Space:

4. Spherical separation (Sphere).
5. Circular separation (Diameter).
6. Linear separation (Radius).

Energy (All matter is energy):

7. Electric energy (the building block of physical matter).
8. Magnetic energy (the primal field of the universe).
9. Etheric energy (Life energy, traditionally referred as Prana or Chi).

Consciousness of the Creator:

10. Infinite Universes.
11. Mother Creator principle.
12. Father Creator principle.

Our life on Earth functions within first 3 by 3 matrix (9 intertwined dimensions).

^{Source: The 12 dimensions of Creation.}

Answer 2 (score 5)

According to Kabbalah mysticism, The Tree of Life is the developed symbol which can be used as a full model of reality, using the tree to depict a map of Creation.

A Tree of Life consist 10 sephiroth (11th is hidden) and 22 paths (22 Hebrew letters) - 3 horizontal, 7 vertical and 12 diagonals.

^{Source and image credits: The Tree of Life at Hermetic Kaballah}

In Renaissance occult philosophy, Cornelius Agrippa provides tables of correspondences (“scales”) for all the numbers up to twelve.

There are close relationship to the ancient hermetic notion of sympathies and harmonic connection via a higher world of the divine essences.

These are the dimensions of Creation and the fundamental building blocks of our reality.

We can divide them into the following groups:

Motion:

1. Time (Physical motion).
2. Feeling (Emotional motion).
3. Thought (Mental motion).

Space:

4. Spherical separation (Sphere).
5. Circular separation (Diameter).
6. Linear separation (Radius).

Energy (All matter is energy):

7. Electric energy (the building block of physical matter).
8. Magnetic energy (the primal field of the universe).
9. Etheric energy (Life energy, traditionally referred as Prana or Chi).

Consciousness of the Creator:

10. Infinite Universes.
11. Mother Creator principle.
12. Father Creator principle.

Our life on Earth functions within first 3 by 3 matrix (9 intertwined dimensions).

^{Source: The 12 dimensions of Creation.}

Answer 3 (score 4)

The number twelve is considered holy by many religions and in many circumstances. Usually, it’s never argued why it is such an important number, but it’s present in many holy texts, accompanying important figures. Since the quote in the question is mine, I’d like to insist that there is not clear evidence as to why it is an important number from a religious aspect. Yes, once can judge from the multiple occurrences that it is an important number, but the mythological texts never go into details as to why it is so.

It’s usually explained in a mathematical essence. The number 10 is quite important nowadays due to the use of the decimal system. Since the use of the Duodecimal and Sexagesimal systems was widespread at the time, 12 was considered to have an important meaning on a mathematical aspect.

That said, it is wrong to treat the number 12 as… 12.

It’s:

• 10 in the duodecimal system
• C in the hexadecimal system
• 1100 in the binary system

and so on. We should rather focus on properties which are independent of the numerical system.

• First number with six divisors
• 12 hours a day, 12 hours a night, 12 months etc (actually attributed to the use of the duodecimal system)
• Considered a divine number by mathematicians such as Pythagoras.

Question

Sun Wukong, the Monkey King, seems to have got his start as a fictional character in the classical novel “Journey to the West” by Wu Cheng’en (though I have read a vague statement somewhere that earlier stories of a monkey assistant to Xuanzang may have existed).

Today, he seems to have transitioned to a religious figure, outside the context of the novel, with his birthday celebrated in September in the “Monkey King Festival”.

J. Gordon Melton’s Encyclopedia of Religious Celebrations presents the following brief accounting of the establishment of the Sun Wukong as a religious figure:

Monkey King is a minor Taoist figure appearing in a Buddhist novel. The novel, however, had the effect of elevating him to a high status, at least relative to popularity. Thus, in the wake of the novel’s popularity, Monkey King temples began to appear, and a biography constructed.

What novel is this (certainly not Journey to the West, the article already covered that, and calling him a minor figure in that novel would be grossly inaccurate)? And what does this phrase “a biography constructed” mean? Does this refer to some sort of official state, or religious, biographical document that describes a recognized religious figure?

Answer accepted (score 15)

To expand on @plannapus’ answer:

Chinese folk religion or Taoism doesn’t worship Sun Wu Kong (孫悟空) per se, but rather a monkey deity usually referred to as the Great Sage (大聖) or Heaven Rivaling Great Sage (齊天大聖). Historically, this has been particularly prevalent in Fukien, but stories similar to Sun Wu Kong’s backstory can be found in several regions. This predates the c. 1592 Journey to the West, but the popularity of that novel furnished the traditional monkey deity with a standardised (sort of) backstory and the name Sun Wu Kong.

Roots of the modern monkey deity worship certainly predates the late 16th century fictional work, however. From about the late Yuan dynasty, elements of traditional folklore were incorporated into fictional works. A play by the Mongolian playwrite Yang Jing-xian, confusingly also titled Journey to the West, contains an autobiographic line by a certain “Itinerant Monk Sun” (recycled into the much later novel as a common title for Sun Wu Kong):

《元·楊景賢·西遊記·第三本》小聖弟兄、姊妹五人，大姊驪山老母，二妹巫枝祗聖母，大兄齊天大聖，小聖通天大聖，三弟耍耍三郎

I have five brothers and sisters. Big sister is the Old Lady of Mt Li; little sister is the Wu Zhiqi Sage; big brother is the Heaven Rivaling Great Sage; I am the Heaven Reaching Great Sage; and little brother is Shua Shua.

Note that here, Xuanzhong’s monkey companion has a name (Heaven Reaching Great Sage) that’s different form its usual modern version (Heaven Rivaling Great Sage). Both names do however appear for the monkey brothers in contemporary works such as the play 二郎神鎖齊天大聖 or the novella 陳從善梅嶺失渾家. They are also found in an archaeological site on Baoshan mountain in Shunchang, Fukien, known as the Twin Sages Tomb. it’s located near the Southern Heaven Gate, a temple first built in 1391 and rebuilt in 1548, which some scholars argue are the upper and lower bounds for the tomb’s age.

^{(順昌寶山雙聖墓 - Twin Sages Tomb, at Baoshan, Fukien)}

The inscriptions are difficult to read from the photo, but the left is the spirit tablet for a certain Heaven Reaching Great Saint (通天大聖), while the right is for the more familiar Heaven Rivaling Great Saint. The positioning (left is senior) and style of the steles matches the play’s version that the Heaven Reaching Great Saint is the younger brother.

On this basis it is thought that the Journey’s character of Sun Wukong - and the monkey deity - is in fact an amalgamation of both Great Sages and their sister, Wu Zhiqi. That is in fact a considerably more ancient name, tracing back to at least ninth century. During the Tang Dynasty, Li Gongzu, a fantasy novelist who penned the famous Governor of Nanke, wrote that:

《唐·李公佐·古岳讀經》 禹理水，三至桐柏山，驚風走雷，石號木鳴，五伯擁川，天老肅兵，不能興。禹怒，召集百靈，搜命夔龍，桐柏千君長稽首請命，禹因囚鴻蒙氏、章商氏、兜盧氏、犁婁氏，乃獲淮渦水神，名無支祁，善應對言語，辨江淮之淺深、原隰之遠近。形若猿猴，縮鼻高額，青軀白首，金目雪牙，頸伸百尺，力逾九象，搏擊騰踔疾奔，輕利倏忽，聞視不可久，禹授之章律，不能制，授之鳥木由，不能制，授之庚辰，能制。鴟脾桓木魅水靈，山妖石怪，奔號聚繞，以數千載，庚辰以戰逐去，頸鎖大索，鼻穿金鈴，徙淮陰之龜山之足下

While trying to control the flood, Yu came to Tongbai thrice … [there he] captured the river god of Huai. It is named Wu Zichi and shaped like a money, with a sunken forehead and tall nose, a green body and white face, golden eyes and white teeth … With a chain tied around his neck, [the monkey] was imprisoned under the Turtle Mountain of Huai.

While it might only be his own fictional invention, the story was collected into 戎幕閒談, a compilation of strange tales by the Tang writer Wei Xuan (韋絢), as the explanation for a supposed incident he heard:

時有漁人，夜釣於龜山之下，其釣因物所制，不複出。漁者健水，疾沉於下五十丈，見大鐵鎖，盤繞山足，尋不知極，遂告湯。湯命漁人及能水者數十，獲其獲，力莫能制，加以牛五十餘頭，鎖乃振動，稍稍就岸。時無風濤，驚浪翻湧，觀者大駭，鎖之末，見一獸，狀有如猿，白首長口，雪牙金爪，闖然上岸。高五丈許，蹲踞之狀若猿猴，但兩目不能開，兀若昏昧，目鼻水流如泉，涎沫腥穢，人不可近。久乃引頸伸欠，雙目忽開，光彩若電，顧視人焉，欲發狂怒，觀者奔走，獸亦徐徐引鎖，拽牛入水去，竟不複出

A fisherman was fishing by the Turtle Mountain at night. His hook was caught on something and would not budge. Knowing how to swim, he dived in 50 yards, and saw a seemingly endless, large iron chain surrounding the foot of the mountain. He reported what he saw to the governor, who sent dozens of swimmers and more than 50 bulls to pull the chain out. There was no wind at the time, but to the shock of bystanders huge waves formed on the river. At the end of the chain, there was a beast, shaped like a monkey/ape, white faced and long moused, white teeth and golden eyes. He stumbled onto the shore, some five yards tall, moving like a monkey but with his eyes closed … [after a while] his eyes suddenly opened, looking around like lightening, and looked around like he’s about to go on a rampage. Everyone started running off, and he slowly walked back into the water, dragging the bulls with him, and vanished.

Furthermore, the Tang scholar Li Zhao records in his Addendum to Tang Histories (唐國史補) that:

楚州有漁人，忽于准中釣得古鐵鎖，挽之不絕，以告官。刺史李陽大集人力引之。鎖窮，有青獼猴躍出水，复沒而逝。後有驗《山海經》云：水獸好為害，禹鎖于軍山之下，其名曰無支奇

A fisherman from Chu found an old iron chain in the Huai River. He pulled on it but it went on endlessly, so he reported it to the government. The governor gathered many men to pull. At the end of the chain, a green monkey lept out of the water, then vanished. Consulting the Classics of Mountains and Seas found a passage saying: A water beast was being a pest, and Yu locked it under the Jun Mountain. Its name is Wu Zichi.

The Classics of Mountains and Seas cited in the last passage is an ancient bestiary that dates back as far as the fourth century B.C., but the extant versions do not contain this supposed quote. It is quite possible that this part is a fabrication - citing old documents lend credence to the story. Nonetheless, the numerous references to the story suggests that, while the specifics might be inventions of writers, the idea of a monkey river god was an established concept in Chinese folklore.

Moreover, there are obvious parallels with the Sun Wukong character from the Journey to the West. The imprisonment under a mountain is particularly notable, and the physical description of the monkey Wu Zichi’s golden eyes is an obvious precursor to Sun Wukong’s fabled true seeing Flaming Eyes and Golden Iris (火眼金睛). These similarities are why Wu Zichi is widely considered the origin of Chinese folk religion’s monkey deity, the Great Sage.

An alternative school of thought argues that the Great Sage was inspired by the Hindu monkey god Hanuman. Whether a native Wu Zichi absorbed influences of Hanuman, or whether Wu Zichi itself was inspired by Hanuman, is a matter of some scholarly debate. Regardless of the true sequence of events, a tradition of a monkey deity most likely found itself transplanted from India into China. An (originally) Tang era Hindu-Buddhist Kaiyuan Temple at Zayton contains a stone mural widely considered to depict Sun Wu Kong.

^{(泉州開元寺仁壽塔 - Renshou Pagoda, rebuilt in 1237, at the Kaiyuan Temple, Fukien.)}

This “Itinerant Monk Sun (Monkey)”, as the mural is often called, predates Journey to the West by centuries.

Since the Ming Dynasty, Fukien has been a primary source of Chinese emigration and colonialisation. Unsurprisingly, veneration of the monkey god was transplanted by Hokkien settlers to Taiwan and South East Asia by Hokkien settlers.

Answer 2 (score 11)

From the original, historical account of the pilgrimage of Xuangzang (i. e. The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions) supposedly compiled in 646 AD to Wu Cheng’en’s Journey to the West written during the 16th Century, there have been several novels relating the same story.
The english translation of Journey to the West by WJF Jenner contains in the foreword a detailed account of the known versions of that story. The earlier account including Sun Wukong seems to be from the Song Dynasty (960-1279):

The character of Monkey first appears in the stories as one of Xuanzang’s escorts on his mission in the Song Dynasty, becoming an almost universal participant in the expedition during the following Southern Song Dynasty. In an extent printed storyteller’s prompt book of the Southern Song Dynasty, titled The Tale of How Sanzang of the Great Tang Dynasty Fetched the Scriptures, Monkey appears among Xuanzang’s companions in episodes such as The Mountain of Flowers and Fruit, Slaying the White Tiger Spirit, Expelling the Dragon Kui, Overcoming the Deep Sand God and Stealing and Eating the Peach of Immortality. Although the characterization is somewhat coarse and unimaginative, Monkey is from then on a permanent fixture in the framework of the stories.

There are several theories on where does this character come from, the main theories being that he derives from the indian monkey-god Hanuman, or that his roots can be found in the Fukien cult of Ch’i-t’ien Ta-sheng, some link Sun Wukong with the monkeys worshipped in Lingyin Si, etc.

Whichever theory is correct, it seems that the path Sun Wukong followed is not actually from fantasy novel to mythology/folklore but instead from mythology to novel, and then only to mythology/folklore again. And whichever theory is correct, the fact remains that the post-Journey to the West Sun Wukong and whichever monkey-god he originally was are significantly different, as he was completely reshaped by the novel(s).

Concerning the novel to mythology transition, here is what Whalen Lai (1994) says about it in Protean Ape to Handsome Saint: the Monkey King:

We scholars may think of Monkey as nothing more than a literary creation, but the common folk of China know better. To us, a text is just a text, but to them Journey is more than fable: it tells of reality. The Sage Equal to Heaven is a living reality, as real as St. Christopher is to an old-time Catholic. As St. Christopher still protects travelers, Monkey still answers prayers. Monkey has his own temple; he was worshipped and prayed to as a god by the history-making rebels of the Boxer Rebellion. This Great Sage is still present to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Question

I was in a charms shop a while back and they had a section laid out for Celtic Mythology charms and their meanings. I had a look and found Thor’s hammer. I ask my mom and she said the Mythologies are connected. I ignore this with my small mind, thinking, “How?”

Then I get some money and took the family to Barns and Nobles. There I found a Norse Mythology book by Helen A. Guerber (I have yet to read it, but will when I get back from Basic Combat Training and AIT). I look at the cover and ask mom who it is. She looked and suggested the Green Man from Celtic Mythology.

So I now ask, how are the two Mythologies connected/related/compared?

Answer accepted (score 4)

How are Norse and Celtic mythology related? In a few different ways, I suppose.

1. Because they are the mythologies of similar human societies.

An example: the “Green Man” isn’t exclusively Celtic, faces made from or surrounded by leaves, fruits, vines or branches, or men with green skin, are found in ancient cultures throughout the world. Often they are related to dieties of rebirth and regeneration, responsible for the return of spring. In a society in the climate of north-western Europe during the first millennium, with rather “primitive” agriculture, without supermarkets and without refrigerators, people were much more dependent on the rebirth of nature in spring for their food supplies. A long winter could literally cost lives, so it is no wonder the return of spring was seen as a godly gift. With the earth turning green again, and plants getting leaves out of nowhere, it doesn’t seem such an illogical step to represent the god responsible for this as a green man surrounded by leaves.

Joseph Campbell, autor of a popular book with the title The Hero with a Thousand Faces, even goes as far as proposing a basic structure for myths in general, based upon a Jungian conception of archetypes.

2. Because the roots of Norse mythology supposedly lay in a Common Germanic mythology, which in turn goes back to a common (Western) Indo-European mythology from which also Celtic mythology is thought to originate.

An example: The celtic god Taranis’ name (meaning “thunderer”) is likely connected to Norse Thor (and Anglo-Saxon Thunor, German Donar, all from Common Germanic Thunraz meaning “thunderer”). Even the name of the Hittite god Tarhun might reflect the same root. But there is more: in Norse mythology, the mother of Thor is Fjörgynn. Her name is etymologically equivalent to the names of thunder gods in a lot of other Indo-European cultures, and even of other cultures influenced by the Indo-European: Slavic Perun, Lithuanian Perkunas, Sanskrit Parjanya, Albanian Perëndi, Thracian Perkon… The name is associated with the oak-tree. Maximus Tyrius in his 38th dissertation states that the Celts, too, venerate their Jupiter (i.e. their god of thunder) not with statues but by worshipping oaks instead. Germanic pagans are said to have worshipped Donar’s oak, according to Wilibald in his Life of Saint Boniface. Also the Greek God of thunder, Zeus, was worshipped in an oak tree at the ancient oracle of Dodona. Etc. etc.

3. Because they are mythologies that were in contact with each other during a considerable period of time, which favours mutual cultural influences.

As a matter of fact, Germanic and Celtic cultures have been in close contact during a long time. When the Norwegians started settling the Faroe islands and Iceland, they encountered Gaelic monks who were already living there. Lots of vikings also settled on the British isles and assimilated into society, but not without leaving traces in the culture. For example, Viking ships and weapons became models for later Irish ship and weapon designs.

Answer 2 (score 1)

Actually, the ancient people of northern Europe are all related (for all intents and purposes shall be referred to as Nords); as are those of the south (the pre-migration civilisation/culture known as the Pelasgians in Roman and Greek sources and were their predecessors).

One only need to look at and compare myths, language (particularly sound and core words) and art/material culture. It is technically inaccurate in most cases to claim a connection/ difference between Celtic and Norse/Germano-northern European myth considering the absence of written records during the time of a fully realised, living breathing Celtic pagan tradition before the mass conversion to Christianity and/or interpretatio Romana or the influence of either (this includes Ireland and Wales, from which current mythic texts derive).

Despite this, for the discerning scholar, even the surviving myths, folk tales and legends recorded in works such as the Cath Maige Tuired and the Lebor Gabála Érenn of Irish myth, and the Four Branches of the Mabinogi of the Welsh; all of which were written during the Middle Ages (prior to the Norse invasions) and after the Christian conversion, adapted from a muddled and compromised oral tradition stooped in taboo. Nonetheless, they hold much insightful information.

Note, the only (potentially) unaffected Celtic cult to survive for quite some time (some claim to this day, though that is not for me to argue) is that of the Druids, whom it is noted the Danes (Vikings) respected and saw much solidarity. To add to that, it should also be noted that a similar issue details much of ‘Germanic’, ‘Slavic’ and ‘Uralic’ myths and at times, even known gods; due to Christianisation ~ take the Prose Edda as a prime example!

All of this does not deny close contact and back and forth influence through time, as the days of the Nords and Pelasgians stretch far into prehistory, their true myths becoming subject to mutation as they became the latter tribes we are more familiar with: Pelasgians) Greeks, Italics (including Romans, Etruscans etc.), Thracians, Iberians, Anatolians, Illyrians. Nords) Celts, Scandinavians/Norse (N. Germanic), Germans (S. Germanic ~ Anglos, Saxons, Goths etc.), Uralics, Slavs ~ These are just to name those I can remember without inquiry, and is not limited to European peoples, if one observes carefully, the world is full of allusions to the once great “core” cultures of the most distant past (Indo-European is a fallacy, derived from inaccurate reconstruction based on a misunderstanding of lingua franca languages and the koine which may develop from them such as Sanskrit, as being purely original and therefore related via common ancestry).

Question

Who was the oldest being ever to have existed in Greek mythology? In other words, were there a set of beings before all of the primordial gods? Who was to have created the primordial gods? What was the beginning of everything? If this is a chicken and the egg paradox, that could be an answer.

*By primordial gods I mean Gaea, Ouranos, and Pontus.

Answer accepted (score 16)

Hesiod’s Theogony is widely regarded as the most ubiquitous of the Greek “creation myths”.¹ One of the earlier passages reads

(ll. 116-138) Verily at the first Chaos came to be, but next wide-bosomed Earth, the ever-sure foundations of all the deathless ones who hold the peaks of snowy Olympus, and dim Tartarus in the depth of the wide-pathed Earth, and Eros (Love), fairest among the deathless gods, who unnerves the limbs and overcomes the mind and wise counsels of all gods and all men within them. From Chaos came forth Erebus and black Night; but of Night were born Aether and Day, whom she conceived and bare from union in love with Erebus.

Chaos is sometimes depicted as an entity rather than a deity of some sort - the thing that existed before the universe. If you ascribe personification to it, then it counts as the first being. However, if not, then the so-called primordial gods were first:

• Earth (Gaia)
• Tartarus
• Eros
• Erebus
• Night

Aether and Day are also considered by most authors to be two other of the primordial gods, though not created directly from Chaos.

¹ There are variations on the idea. For example, Gaius Hyginus, a Roman scholar of Greek mythology, wrote that Chaos was formed from Mist, treating Chaos more as a being and Mist as something similar to Hesiod’s depiction of Chaos. Hyginus is also notable for treating Earth as the child of Day and Aether, making the four deities born of Chaos and Caligine (a related but not well described entity) be Night, Day, Erebus, and Aether.

Answer 2 (score 3)

This is just to supplement @HDE 226868 ’s excellent answer:

Aristotle, quoting Hesiod, notes the implication that Love (attraction) must be the prime force of creation:

And Hesiod says, “ First of all things was Chaos made, and then/Broad-bosomed Earth . . ./And Love, the foremost of immortal beings,” thus implying that there must be in the world some cause to move things and combine them.

“Hesiod… assumed Love or Desire as a first principle in things.”

_{Aristot. Met. 1.984b}

Aristotle uses literally calls love (erota) and desire (epithumian) the origin (arkein) of all things (ouseen).

However, this is a philosophical conception of myth, and may be related to the Taoist idea that “out of two came all the myriad things”, which is also a description of the symbolic system of the I-Ching.

The implication is that there must be two primordial things, such as Gaia and Tartarus, as HDE notes, although the type of generative interaction (combinatorial) may be more easily conceptualized in the subsequent unions, and offspring, of Gaia and Ouranos.

Answer 3 (score 1)

It depends who you ask.

As others have said, according to Hesiod the oldest one that existed was Chaos, and then Earth came to be.

According to Orpheus though, originally there was an Egg out of which the Universe came, but before the Universe, Eros (Love) came out of it, making Love the oldest one.

Finally, Plato says another version as he talks about a benevolent, omnipotent, Creator, that created both Heaven, the Universe and the ‘gods’.

Question

I can’t think of any case of a Greek mythological hero having a son who achieved more fame, glory and “heroic status” than him.

Looking the descendency of Perseus, Heracles, Theseus, Jason, Achilles, Odysseus, etc, they all had sons. Some of them were noble and quite heroic, but still they were way far from achieving the feats and fame of their fathers.

So, is there any case in Greek mythology of a son surpassing or even equaling the fame of his heroic father?

Answer accepted (score 39)

If you only look at the greatest Greek heroes, yes, of course their offspring don’t surpass them. They are the greatest heroes, after all. I mean, Telemachus is no slouch, but you’re comparing him to Odysseus.

The greatest heroes do have heroic fathers as well:

• Peleus was king of the Myrmidons, a member of the Argonauts, and participant in the hunt for the Calydonian Boar. He overcame the sea nymph Thetis with the help of a god, to gain her as his wife, and it was at his wedding feast that Eris would interrupt with her famed apple, starting a chain of events that would lead to the Trojan War. He was surpassed by his son, Achilles.
• Aegeus was the conqueror and founder of Athens. He is the namesake of the Aegean Sea. He was surpassed by his son, Theseus.
• Laërtes was king of the Cephallenians, a member of the Argonauts, and participant in the hunt for the Calydonian Boar. He was surpassed by his son, Odysseus.

Answer 2 (score 12)

Achilles son of Peleus.

Peleus was a minor hero and companion of Hercules in various of his adventures, and was also with Jason as an Argonaut.

His son Achilles was more famous as the leading warrior of the Trojan War.

Answer 3 (score 0)

If you consider the gods to be heroes too, then I’d say Zeus surpassed his father, Kronos.

Question

According to Wikipedia, The myths of Ragnarok as we know them were compiled in the 13th century, and while describing events in some detail, these were considered to be prophetic, as the events described had not yet occurred.

Moving forward to today, could it be considered that Ragnarok has taken place between the time when the myths were written down and now? The mythological landscape of Europe has largely changed from Norse-influenced to Judaeo-Christian, so could this shift be interpreted as Ragnarok and its aftermath?

Answer accepted (score 7)

If you want to. The three years without summer, the Fimbulwinter, a portent of Ragnarök, has been speculated by some to have been a memory of the years 535-536, when temperatures dropped sharply and crops failed.

And while the Ragnarök is indeed the end of the known world, as cybermike noted, the earth will rise again from the sea afterwards, renewed and better than before.

Answer 2 (score 6)

No. Ragnarok isn’t just the fall of the Norse pantheon, it’s the destruction of the entire world. The stories vary, but something apocalyptic like the whole earth being set on fire or the sky splitting apart normally happens.

Answer 3 (score 2)

As far as I know this heavily depends on whether you consider later additions to the mythology by Christian missionaries to be canon.

The original idea was to describe the end of the world that hasn’t happened similar to the Christian Revelation. Otherwise they’d worship dead gods, there’d be no Walhalla waiting, etc. which would basically screw up everything.

However missionaries used those exact thoughts to mix their original mythology with the Christian Bible to explain and introduce a continuity to convert them. Ragnarok already happened, but two people, a man and a woman survived hiding under Yggdrasil, named Adam and Eve.

Question

He is the father of many gods, but certainly not all, and he is not the creator of the Norse universe.

Is this epithet merely an honorific, referencing Odin’s status as patriarch, or are there other meanings?

Answer accepted (score 6)

Snorri Sturluson comments on this in the Gylfaginning (emphasis mine):

9. Then said Ganglere: Much had been done, it seemed to me, when heaven and earth were made, when sun and moon were set in their places, and when days were marked out; but whence came the people who inhabit the world? Har answered as follows: As Bor’s sons went along the sea-strand, they found two trees. These trees they took up and made men of them. The first gave them spirit and life; the second endowed them with reason and power of motion; and the third gave them form, speech, hearing and eyesight. They gave them clothes and names; the man they called Ask, and the woman Embla. From them all mankind is descended, and a dwelling-place was given them under Midgard. In the next place, the sons of Bor made for themselves in the middle of the world a burg, which is called Asgard, and which we call Troy. There dwelt the gods and their race, and thence were wrought many tidings and adventures, both on earth and in the sky. In Asgard is a place called Hlidskjalf, and when Odin seated himself there in the high-seat, he saw over the whole world, and what every man was doing, and he knew all things that he saw. His wife hight Frigg, and she was the daughter of Fjorgvin, and from their offspring are descended the race that we call asas, who inhabited Asgard the old and the realms that lie about it, and all that race are known to be gods. And for this reason Odin is called Alfather, that he is the father of all gods and men, and of all things that were made by him and by his might. Jord (earth) was his daughter and his wife; with her he begat his first son, and that is Asa-Thor. To him was given force and strength, whereby he conquers all things quick.

_{Prose Edda/Gylfaginning. (2016, February 8). In Wikisource . Retrieved 09:06, January 20, 2017, from https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Prose_Edda/Gylfaginning&oldid=6105167}

Earlier on, Har (yet another manifestation of Odin) informs us that the epithet is Odin’s name in the language of the gods, and thus the first in the very long line of his names (emphasis mine):

3. Ganglere then made the following question: Who is the highest and oldest of all the gods? Made answer Har: Alfather he is called in our tongue, but in Asgard of old he had twelve names. The first is Alfather, the second is Herran or Herjan, the third Nikar or Hnikar, the fourth Nikuz or Hnikud, the fifth Fjolner, the sixth Oske, the seventh Ome, the eighth Biflide or Biflinde, the ninth Svidar, the tenth Svidrer, the eleventh Vidrer, the twelfth Jalg or Jalk. Ganglere asks again: Where is this god? What can he do? What mighty works has he accomplished? Answered Har: He lives from everlasting to everlasting, rules over all his realm, and governs all things, great and small. Then remarked Jafnhar: He made heaven and earth, the air and all things in them. Thride added: What is most important, he made man and gave him a spirit, which shall live, and never perish, though the body may turn to dust or burn to ashes. All who live a life of virtue shall dwell with him in Gimle or Vingolf. The wicked, on the other hand, go to Hel, and from her to Niflhel, that is, down into the ninth world. Then asked Ganglere: What was he doing before heaven and earth were made? Har gave answer: Then was he with the frost-giants.
   

Odin did produce a great number of sons, but he certainly didn’t father every god in Norse mythology. And although he did have a hand in the creation of man, he wasn’t the only god involved in it. Hoenir and Lodurr also played a role in the tale of Ask and Embla.

Why Allfather then? I think it would be a fair to assume that the epithet is more of an honorific title, emphasizing Odin’s role as leader of the Aesir, patriarch of gods and men. It is the simpler answer, and the one that would be correct even if there was a deeper meaning to the name.

That said, at least four of the Aesir (Heimdallr, Hod, Tyr, Bragi) are only mentioned as sons of Odin by Snorri. Whether this is by accident or a conscious effort to emphasize Odin’s role as a father figure and elevate him even further from the rest of the gods is anyone’s guess. But a case could perhaps be made that Snorri’s general tendency of presenting Odin as creator and omnipotent may be a sign of Christian influence. Placing Odin firmly above everyone and everything else could possibly be a step towards reconciling the Norse and Christian traditions.

Lastly, the epithet may very well be a reminder of Odin’s simpler past. Tacitus records Odin worship amongst the Germanic people in the late 1st century, and for all we know Odin may have indeed been the father of all gods of a presumably far simpler Germanic pantheon.

Answer 2 (score 1)

As Yannis says, Snorri’s Edda tried to make Odin father of all the gods, perhaps because of Christian influence. Another possible reason is that he wanted to present an organized pantheon like the Greek one, instead of the patchwork of local and national cults that was probably the real story.

Also, other sources give some of the gods different parents. Tyr had a giant father in the poem Hymiskvida, and according to the prologue to Snorri’s Edda, Thor was Odin’s ancestor, while according to a lost poem about him, which Snorri quotes says Heimdall was the son of nine mothers, with no father. (Snorri is our only source for it, ironically.)

Question

According to Wikipedia, three spellings can be found for the Griffin, and the source of the word is uncertain. Is it simply a case of different sources choosing their favorite spelling that led to three different spellings?

Answer accepted (score 2)

Ok, remember this

• Gryphons/Griffins/Griffons are originally greek. It also doesn’t really have a literal translation, so we go by the phonetics.

• I’ll have to trust Wikipedia on this, but γρύφων is the greek word for the creature.

Also looking on the theoi page for this, most English translators agree that it is in fact Grypes. (Since you tagged it greek)

Aeschylus “[Prometheus warns the wandering Io :] ‘But now listen to another and a fearsome spectacle. Beware of the sharp-beaked hounds of Zeus that do not bark, the Grypes (Griffins), and the one-eyed (monôpoi) Arimaspoi (Arimaspians), mounted on horses, who dwell about the flood of Plouton’s (Pluton’s) stream that flows with gold. Do not approach them.’”

Aristophanes “Euripides : ’Twas all Skamandros (Scamander), moated camps, and Grypaietoi (Griffin-Eagles) flashing in burnished copper on the shields.”

Ok fine. Grypaietoi. Same thing.

Herodotus “But in the north of Europe there is by far the most gold. In this matter again I cannot say with assurance how the gold is produced, but it is said that one-eyed men called Arimaspoi (Arimaspians) steal it from Grypes (Griffins). The most outlying lands, though, as they enclose and wholly surround all the rest of the world, are likely to”

Ctesias There is also gold [in India], not found in rivers and washed, as in the river Paktolos (Pactolus) [in Lydia], but in many large mountains which are inhabited by Grypes (Griffins). These are four-footed birds as large as a wolf, their legs and claws resembling those of a lion; their breast feathers are red, those of the rest of the body black. Although there is abundance of gold in the mountains, it is difficult to get it because of these birds." have those things which we think the finest and the rarest."

Pausnias “Grypas (Griffins), Aristeas of Prokonnesos says in his poem, fight for the gold with the Arimaspoi (Arimaspians) beyond the Issedones. The gold which the Grypas guard, he says, comes out of the earth; the Arimaspoi are men all born with one eye; Grypas are beasts like lions, but with the beak and wings of an eagle.”

Note: There is an exerpt that he calles them Gryphoi.

“I have also heard that Gryphoi (Griffins) have spots like the leopard.”

The rest of them are some variant of Grypes.

So, to go by one book (Guide to Greece) over many other sources is kinda unfair in my opinion, but to answer your question, its mostly just disagreeing on the phoenetics on the word Grypes. Or Gryphoi. They had not disagreed, mostly, on the spelling.

Question

according to Wikipedia, Ananke is

the personification of inevitability, compulsion and necessity. She is often depicted holding a spindle. One of the Greek primodorial deities, Ananke marks the beginning of the cosmos along with her father and consort, Chronos, the personification of time. She is also the mother of the Fates.

Is there a Greek god/goddess/deity of freedom. Or is freedom a peculiarly modern Western concept that has no purchase on the ancient Greek imagination and so no personification of such?

If so, what is the closest approximation?

Answer accepted (score 8)

Freedom is definitely an important concept in Ancient Greece, which is reflected in the status of independent city-states throughout it’s early history (prior to Athenian hegemony, Alexander, Roman Empire, etc.) The word democracy is based on the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) “rule by the people”. This freedom was, of course, qualified, and only extended fully to landowners.

• The goddess Eleutheria

See: ἐλευθερία, ἐλευθ-ερία, ἐλευθ-έρια (festival)

The name is said to be an epithet of Artemis, who was quite free in the sense that she was the goddess of the wilderness, and never subject to a husband’s rule. Similarly, Eleutheria has been linked to Aphrodite, also quite unrestrainable.

Libertas is the Roman equivalent, and was the inspiration for Lady Liberty.

Eleuthereus is also an epithet of Dionysus, as the one who “sets free” Pausanias, Description of Greece 1.38.8, referring to his ecstatic rites.

Answer 2 (score 5)

As DukeZhou mentions, the Statue of Liberty is partly modeled on the Greek Goddess Eleutheria, who personifies liberty. The Goddess, Libertas, is the Roman variant.

Lady Liberty’s name comes from the Roman goddess Libertas, but she had a Greek precursor, the goddess Eleutheria (meaning “freedom” or “liberty” in Greek). Zeus in his role as protector of political freedom also was known as Zeus Eleutherios (“Zeus the Liberator”), in whose name a stoa at the Agora in Athens was built after deliverance from the Persians. Eleutheria was actually an epithet of Artemis, for whom we have much mythology, but no mythology in her aspect as Eleutheria survives, only her face on some coins.
_{SOURCE: Independence Day Mythology: Our Goddess Liberty}

This was the goddess people brought their slaves to before freeing them:

Having escorted the Republic into being, her role then evolved into one of overseeing the manumission of slaves. In the city of Rome, the master would take his slave before the Temple of Liberty, where a Roman official pronounced the slave free while touching him with a rod called the vindicta, in honor of Vindicus.
_{SOURCE: ibid.}

Question

A recurring theme in Irish stories about the Faerie is that they can be kept away by clothing turned inside-out. This (according to this particular Wikipedia source about Spriggans) is “as effective as holy water or iron in repelling fairies”.

Holy water makes sense, as the Irish reconciled their original stories with the Christian mythology by saying that the Good Folk were the angels who had stayed neutral during God’s conflict with Lucifer. Not good enough for heaven, not bad enough for hell, they remained on Earth, repelled by Christian symbols.

There are some theories about why iron would repel them, one of them being that this was influenced by the Picts, who apparently had not discovered iron-working and could be defeated by the superior iron weapons.

But turning one’s clothing inside-out? Why would such a method repel these beings?

Answer accepted (score 10)

Turn your cloaks / For fairy folks / Are in old oaks - Old English saying

I couldn’t find a definitive explanation of why this legend happens. What I have ascertained is that it turns up absolutely everywhere, not just in Irish stories. I have found a few quotes that begin to offer a reason (although, I have to say, not a hugely satisfying one).

The main reason offered appears to be to confuse the fairies. These sort of beings are depicted as mischeivous, and to counter their mischief, one could do something unexpected, to confuse them. This didn’t necessarily repell them, in the same way that iron (which they were generally scared of) or other things might - it was more a last-minute distraction, designed to give you time to escape any enchantments, rather than a lasting effect.

It’s largely associated with pixies, as well as spriggans - it is often offered as a solution to being pixie-led:

[Pixies] took a delight in misleading night-bound weary travellers until they became exhausted and lost; this was called being “pixy-led”… The usual manner of disenchanting oneself from this situation was to remove one’s jacket and put it back on inside out.

Spirits, Fairies, Leprechauns and Goblins, Carol Rose

Humans become lost on the trackless moors of Dartmoor are said to have been “pixie led”, or led astray by the pixies. It is said that if travelers feel the onset of the pixie spell, they can turn their coats inside out to confuse the pixies and escape.

An Encyclopedia of Mythology and Folklore, Josepha Sherman (emphasis mine)

One way of avoiding fairies and their magic was to wear one’s clothing inside out, which would confound them. Fairies were also reputed to be terrified of iron or steel, so even a single pin could prove effective against them.

The Everything Celtic Wisdom Book, Jennifer Emick (emphasis mine)

This source also offers another alternative:

Actions could break the fairy spell. The most common one was turning one’s clothing inside out or wearing it backward, the latter presumably based on the idea that the fairies fail to torment someone who seems to be departing rather than approaching.

The Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folkore, Patrician Monaghan (emphasis mine)

Finally, not an official source by any means, but this blog post offered an explanation which seems plausible and takes the idea of confusing the fairies a step further (and which I quite like - emphasis mine):

The presciption, intended to break the binding spell of the fairy otherworld, is a fight fire with fire recommendation; turning your coat inside out corresponds to and counters the inherently contrary nature of Elfland (It is Summer there when it’s Winter here; we grow old, they grow young, etc.) ~ thus by doing something irrational within irrationality, one may flip the coin and come out back in the comfortably predictable and thus, safe, world of the mundane.

Question

This is a question across all pantheons and mythologies. Overall what is the easiest way to become a god? It should be an one-time act. But perhaps for simplicity sake we can use immortality as the main attribute of godhood.

So we do not count being born a god; neither being made a god by the other gods, given how fickle they are; nor the continued use of Idun’s apples.

EDIT: Alright, so some more information for better understanding. The standard way to become a god is through apotheosis (or currently divinization). This is however only after death. Remember Hercules, Roman Emperors, the Chinese Emperors, various Saints…

What I am looking for is quite similar to Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality. He did find a plant that at least restored youth. Or sometimes Ambrosia is described as granting not only immortality, but making a god out of a mortal.

Also in Taoism humans are able to gain immortality and god-like powers.

So I ask again, across the plethora of mythologies that exist in the world, what is the easiest way a mortal can become a god?

I truly have to draw a parallel with Gilgamesh and his search for immortality here. First he visits Utnapishtim, whose type of immortality is ideal, but was a gift from a god, so not easily obtainable. I am unsure if successfully passing Utnapishtim’s test would have led to something, but this appears to me as the most easiest way. Then there is the Ur-shanabi, which is probably the same thing as ambrosia, Idun’s apples, but we cannot be sure, so it could be an solution. Finally we have the solution of cultural immortality, which is for me not a solution at all, given that he feared to become a forgotten rotting corpse, and become a remembered rotting corpse.

So what if Gilgamesh was more open minded and cunning. Why settle for immortality when you can become a god? Why limit the search in Mesopotamia, when there is the whole world. Within all the world religions what is the easiest way to become a god?

Answer accepted (score 1)

Immortality and divinity aren’t synonymous. Aside from those you’ve ruled out, the easiest and quickest war to become a god would be to possess some great magical ability and use it for an epic act. This still would be no guarantee of reverence however. The gods of the great polytheistic religions are not only powerful immortal beings, what makes them gods is that they are also worshipped, often after conferring some favour on the mortals who worship them.

In general becoming deified and being worshipped as a god is a much more difficult path, and usually is conferred after death. In the case of most major beliefs it is a combination of charisma, great works, original teachings, and transcendence to a higher plane. Think Jesus or Buddha (in some schools of Buddhism). Most recently Elvis upon death (or alleged death) has received a sort of god-like status, although some consider this to be more of a sainthood. Ghandi also pledged subservience to multiple religions so has achieved more of a saintly status.

The major case of a living god I can think of is Haile Selassie being worshipped in Rastafari as a reincarnation of Jesus, though this is also due to how he lived his life to that point, so again not what you would call easy.

The Dalai Llama is conferred quite early in life, although I wouldn’t necessarily say he is considered a god.

The other way is by starting a cult. This generally only makes you a god, or reincarnation of one, to a few people. It’s small scale, but still divinity of sorts, and comes with plenty of perks.

Another way is to embody an archetype, as it is with many polytheistic gods. A modern example might be Hendrix as a guitar god.

A final way is to create a species or even a whole world. Frankenstein was the god of Adam. The founders in Star Trek are the gods of the Vorta and the Jem’Hadar

“What’s the easiest way to become immortal?” Would be a whole different question. My answer to that would be to kill someone famous.

Answer 2 (score -2)

You could drink from the holy grail. It is extremely hard to find in King Arthur legend and you needed to have a quest for it. Most of the nights that quested to find it died. It’s not that easy but relatively simple.

Question

Can the traditional location of Santa Claus home and workshop be traced to older folklore stories, or is it a modern invention, a piece of fakelore?

Answer accepted (score 19)

Thomas Nast and the Northern side in the US Civil War

The idea that Father Christmas, Santa Claus, has a workshop at the North Pole may have originated with illustrator Thomas Nast, whose work was published in Harper’s Weekly between 1863 and 1886 and in other publications including on Christmas cards.

In an introduction to a reprint of Nast’s collected drawings first published in 1890, his grandson Thomas Nast St Hill states that “Santa’s workshop at the North Pole was (…) a product of Nast’s imagination”. He goes on to say that “why Santa chose the North Pole as his base of operations has never been quite clear but the chances are that logistics had something to do with it. The North Pole was equidistant from most countries that Santa visited in the Northern Hemisphere”. As further reasons, he writes that it would be difficult for inquisitive youngsters to spy on him there, and that as a resident of the North Pole he could not be claimed by any country as a national. He also reports that the reindeer and sleigh described by Clement Moore suggested a snowy environment.

This is quite an informative article in the New York Times.

It is probable that there was also a political reason for the choice of the North Pole. During the US Civil War of 1861-65, Nast made propaganda for the Northern (Union) side. Some of this featured Santa Claus, and Abraham Lincoln called Nast’s use of Santa Claus “the best recruiting sergeant the North ever had”. Santa was in a way being portrayed as a kind of spirit of the North.

The North Pole is of course the most Northern place in the world.

Meanwhile on the Southern (Confederate) side, the Richmond Examiner described Santa in negative terms as “a Dutch toy monger” who was a New England cleaning worker and a Hottentot who had nothing to do with traditional Virginian celebrations of Christmas.

One interesting source is Kevin Rawlings’s article on Christmas during the civil war.

Answer 2 (score 6)

Complicated

Well, it definitely doesn’t claim to be folklore at all, it was just in a book by Thomas Nast.

(Linked full size image is over 7 MiB; Wikimedia Commons page; image is in the public domain)

Santaclausville, N[orth] P[ole]

Another example related to Nast is by George P. Webster:

“His home through the long summer months, you must know,
Is near the North Pole, in the ice and the snow.”

Nast drew the Illustrations for the poem, but the 1863 example remains the 1st.

Question

I remember reading somewhere that in Norse mythology dwarves and dark elves are the same thing. Then I started reading Gylfaginning and it sounded like they were different, but then later on they send someone to get help from the dwarves in Svartalfheim, which I’m pretty sure is probably ‘dark elf home.’

So, are dwarves and dark elves the same thing? Or are they different beings that happen to live in the same place? Something else?

(Note: I haven’t finished Gylfaginning yet, I’m finding it a bit of a tough read.)

Answer accepted (score 6)

Norse mythology often alludes to nine worlds. Eight of these are known with relative certainty:

• Asgard, realm of the Aesir
• Vanaheim, realm of the Vanir
• Alfheim, realm of the (light) elves
• Midgard, realm of men
• Jotunheim, realm of the Jotun (giants)
• Muspell, realm of fire
• Niflheim, realm of ice
• Hel, real of the dishonorable dead

The missing ninth world depends on the source. The two most frequently cited are Svartalfheim, realm of the dark elves, and Nidavellir, realm of the dwarves. As there are supposed to be exactly nine worlds, not ten, the logical conclusion is that Svartalfheim and Nidavellir are the same. Thus dark elves and dwarves refer to the same creature.

Answer 2 (score 6)

Norse mythology often alludes to nine worlds. Eight of these are known with relative certainty:

• Asgard, realm of the Aesir
• Vanaheim, realm of the Vanir
• Alfheim, realm of the (light) elves
• Midgard, realm of men
• Jotunheim, realm of the Jotun (giants)
• Muspell, realm of fire
• Niflheim, realm of ice
• Hel, real of the dishonorable dead

The missing ninth world depends on the source. The two most frequently cited are Svartalfheim, realm of the dark elves, and Nidavellir, realm of the dwarves. As there are supposed to be exactly nine worlds, not ten, the logical conclusion is that Svartalfheim and Nidavellir are the same. Thus dark elves and dwarves refer to the same creature.

Answer 3 (score 1)

In Tolkien’s Silmarillion the Dark Elves (Moriquendi) are definitely elves and distinct from dwarves.

Tom Shippey, a professor of Old and Middle English, believed that Tolkien took the concept from the ljósálfar (light-elves) and dökkálfar (dark-elves) of the Prose Edda.

Sturluson seems to contradict himself by stating that the dark elves are dwarves, and this inconsistency has been investigated since at least the 19th century. Shippey suggests that “one of [Tolkien’s] starting points of his whole developed mythology was this problem in nomenclature, this apparent contradiction in ancient texts…”

Question

Long ago, people believed cats had 9 lives. (As shown in ice age)

When and where did that belief come from?

Answer accepted (score 7)

It may not be possible to trace the exact origins of the phrase that a cat had nine lives. Nevertheless there are a few sources from which we can find a possible origin of cats having nine lives.

First of all, it may have an Egyptian (and thus the oldest believed) origin as the following statement reveals:

The old belief that a cat has nine lives goes back to ancient Egypt. The cat-headed goddess, Bast (or Ubasti), was associated with the benevolent aspect of Hathor, the Lioness, and was said to have nine lives. The Egyptians did not fear the cat, but rather reverenced it, and they elevated cats far above the role of domestic pet. To the Egyptians, the cat was transformed from mouse catcher to supreme deity, the “Sayer of Great Words.” The Egyptian word for cat was Mau, which is at once an imitation of the animal’s call and the nearly universal human cry for mother. Cats came to be worshipped with such intensity that the wanton killing of a cat was punishable by death. - Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained: Superstitions, Strange Customs, Taboos, and Urban Legends.

The follow point could be taken into consideration here:

Nine is also a magic number- and this could be partly why cats are attributed with having nine lives, because they have been both worshipped and feared throughout the ages for being magical. The ancient Greeks said that the number nine referred to the trinity of all trinities- and is a mystic number which invokes tradition and religion. - Cats have 9 lives: the facts behind the myth.

There is also the Celtic mythological legend of the Cat Sìth, which offers us its own possibility of being the source of this belief that cats had nine lives!

The Cat Sìth is a fairy creature from Celtic mythology, said to resemble a large black cat with a white spot on its chest. Legend has it that the spectral cat haunts the Scottish Highlands. The legends surrounding this creature are more common in Scottish folklore, but a few occur in Irish. Some common folklore suggested that the Cat Sìth was not a fairy, but a witch that could transform into a cat nine times.

Some people believed that the Cat Sìth was a witch that could transform voluntarily into its cat form and back eight times. If one of these witches chose to go back into their cat form for the ninth time, they would remain a cat for the rest of their lives. It is believed by some that this is how the idea of a cat having nine lives originated. - Wikipedia.

More on cats in Celtic folklore can be read here: Cats in Celtic Folklore.

Some believe the origins stem from William Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet:

Tybalt: What wouldst thou have with me?

Mercutio: Good king of cats, nothing but one of your nine lives.

There is also an ancient proverb of unknown provenance:

“A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays.”

Question

In the short story Descent of the Goddess Ishtar into the Lower World, Ishtar travels to the underworld, and then returns.

To the land of no return, the land of darkness,
Ishtar, the daughter of Sin directed her thought,

…

Ishtar on arriving at the gate of the land of no return,
To the gatekeeper thus addressed herself:

Unfortunately, I don’t understand why she would do that. Can anyone explain?

Answer accepted (score 15)

The Descent of Inanna (Ishtar) was unearthed from 1889 - 1900, but as far as I can tell, it wasn’t really considered that well reconstructed until around the 1940s or later. Early published versions were based on less complete information, and had to make assumptions that turned out incorrect, especially with regards to Dumuzi’s (Tammuz) role in the story (See: Kramer’s explanation of the decipherment in this print version, and also “Tammuz and the Bible”).

I will be using Wolkstein and Kramer’s translation of the text, published in 1983. Both because it’s excellent and well-explained, and because it’s the one sitting on my desk. Full text here.

So, we could take Inanna (Ishtar) at her word. Her overt reason is given:

Inanna answered:
"Because . . . of my older sister, Ereshkigal,
Her husband, Gugulanna, the Bull of Heaven, has died.
I have come to witness the funeral rites.
Let the beer of his funeral rites be poured into the cup.
Let it be done.

That, however, is just the excuse she gives at the gate. It doesn’t seem likely this is her real reason for the trip. More likely the real reason is shown here:

From the Great Above she opened her ear to the Great Below.
From the Great Above the goddess opened her ear to the Great Below.
From the Great Above Inanna opened her ear to the Great Below.

Which gives us the hint that she has heard the Great Below, the underworld, in some way. Wolkstein’s explanations, however, give us more to go on:

Inanna is the Queen of Heaven and Earth, but she does not know the underworld. Until her ear opens to the Great Below, her understanding is necessarily limited. In Sumerian, the word for ear and wisdom is the same … In order to fully appreciate or “know” what is said or meant, a great understanding is needed - an understanding of all things. It is the Great Below, and knowledge of death and rebirth, life and stasis, that will make Inanna an “Honored Counselor” and a guide to the land.

So Inanna, already powerful and knowledgeable of Heaven and Earth, needs to acquire knowledge of death and the underworld to be complete in her wisdom. This is further supported later, from the statement of Enlil, when hearing that Inanna has not returned from the underworld:

“My daughter craved the Great Above.
Inanna craved the Great Below.
She who receives the me of the underworld does not return.
She who goes to the Dark City stays there.”

Here Enlil (and later, Nanna, in an identical statement) states that Inanna has gone seeking the me of the underworld. me is a tricky word that most translators refuse to translate, and too much can be said about it to address completely here. Suffice to say, the me represent knowledge and wisdom. So, the gods know that she has gone seeking that knowledge that can only be gained in the underworld.

To go just one more step, a very popular interpretation of the text is through a Jungian lens. Just to hit the main points very briefly.

The goal of gaining wisdom of the underworld, to complement the wisdom of the heavens and of the earth, speaks of Inanna becoming complete, but this interpretation views it, instead of her completing her body of knowledge, she is completing herself, developing into a whole person (goddess).

In this light, we see Inanna and her sister Ereshkigal as part of the same whole person. In order to become complete, Inanna must become vulnerable, and face the dark side of herself (Ereshkigal), die and be reborn.

Inanna abandons her temples on the way to the underworld, and has to leave her crown, robe and other vestments (also me. Like I said, complicated) at the gates of the underworld. She arrives naked, powerless and vulnerable. The death and rebirth are fairly clear to be read, but of particular interest is that after Inanna’s death, and preparing for rebirth, Ereshkigal is in pain “With the cries of a woman about to give birth.” Which does rather speak to the interpretation of being reborn from her darker half.

Answer 2 (score 7)

Ishtar was the goddess of fertility. She was married to Tammuz and when he died Ishtar was still young. She fell then in love with Gilgamesh (when he was king) but it seems he was not interested in her.

After being rejected by Gilgamesh, Ishtar became depressed and decided she would descend into the Underworld to be with Tammuz

_{source: Ishtar’s journey into the Underworld}

So she goes there due to her sorrow, in order to rejoin with her former husband and lover.

There she goes trough the seven gates that lead to the underworld. As she passes each door she loses her jewels, clothing, etc. The Ruler of the underworld has her striped of her powers and memories (and all memories of her past existence, of her great love Tammuz, disappeared too). Then the other gods must “rescue” her from the underworld to bring back fertility on earth.

Answer 3 (score 1)

According to the myth, she “opened her ear to the underworld”, and, after prudently arranging for help if it goes wrong, she goes to the doors of the underworld and demands entrance. The other myths about her tell us how she got her power and dominions, in this myth she goes to the one place where she has no power, and survives, just. It seems to be a model of heroic initiation, like Odin hanging on the World Tree.

Question

I am looking for a more concrete definition of what an eastern sage is and an explanation of the background of the eastern sage.

Many translations of eastern martial arts feature sages. They are generally people who have “transcended” humanity, possessing supernatural powers, and very long lifespans, but short of godhood.

This is opposed to the traditional western definition of a sage, which is a very wise and knowledgeable person, with connotations of great age, but still very much human. I am not looking for more information on this type of sage.

I’ve tagged this as Chinese, but I’ve seen references to sages in many Asian cultures including Japanese and Korean as well.

Answer accepted (score 5)

Before we can derive the meaning behind the word, we need to first understand where the term originates. These sages can be considered philosophers that use their wisdom to help shape the foundation of Chinese culture, society, and even politics. But is that all?

Because much of Eastern Asian culture, language, and philosophy were borrowed from the Chinese to some extent, (I understand there are exceptions), for brevity I will focus mostly on its Chinese origin.

There is a work originating from before the Xia Dynasty concerning the “Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors” (三皇五帝, Sānhuáng wǔdì) (who they are differ depending on the source [see link]. I will not attempt to name them in order to avoid confusion). In it, there are three figures regarded as “Three Sovereigns,” who are hailed as “god kings,” and are considered the ultimate cultural heroes (and regarded as demi-gods in the myths) of Chinese history. They are said to have had magical powers and are credited with the basic technological inventions, social structure, and political norms of the time. During despotic times these figures are said to have been invoked as paragons of leadership.

The “Five Emperors” subsequently were regarded as legendary figures,“sages kings” depicted with perfect moral character. These figure were more worldly but historically intangible figures, like a mythical tribe leader, compared to the “Three Sovereigns,” who were considered divine beings.

In essence these can be considered the first “sages” of Chinese legend.

Confucius is known to have revered these figures, Emperor Yao and Emperor Shun (two of the Five Emperors, according to some sources), Yu the Great (described to be a decendant of the Yellow Emperor, one of the Three Soverigns by some sources) the three true sages 聖(人) (Shèng[rén]), as the pinnacle of human perfection, the equivalent of a saint in some regards.

In Taoism the equivalent would be “仙” (Xiān), (the character itself can mean hermit or rather literally “mountain person”［人＋山］), related to Eight Immortal Scholars of the Han, but the meaning has changed quite a bit over time. Thus the meaning of those two titles by themselves are the equivalent of the Buddhist term for the “enlightened/awakened one” (Buddha, which is a title, not a name).

In short, the title of “sage” is what you would call an “enlightened one,” in a philosophical and/or spiritual sense. While the names may differ their end destinations are the same. Both Confucianism and Taoism walk the same path, but their ideals about it are different. Taoism seeks to free itself from worldly desires (as a hermit would live, confronting problems through the way of nature), but Confucianism is more about being a man of action, upholding the established hierarchy and fulfilling their given role as best they can (i.e. conquering problems through cultivating intellect and morals).

Answer 2 (score 4)

The term sage usually seems to be a translation of the character: 聖 (simplified: 圣, Pinyin: shèng)

Or a combination of it with other characters.

Sun Wukong’s title in Journey to the West, for instance, is 齊天大聖, and is translated “Great Sage, Equal of Heaven” (or similar), where 大聖 is the “Great Sage” bit (大 for large, great).

So, what does the character 聖 mean:

The Chinese character 聖 (shèng) refers to a sage or a saint, or the quality of being holy, sacred, or revered.
聖 (shèng) is an ideogrammic (associative) compound, created from the combination of three other characters.
壬 (rén) on the bottom depicts a scholar, gentleman, or soldier (士, shì/shi) carrying a load on a pole (丿, piě). 口 (koǔ/kou) on the top-right is the character for mouth, and 耳 (ěr) on the top-left is the character for ear. Together they depict a person with superior speaking and listening skills.
_{Chinese Character for Saint, Sage: Shèng (聖)}

The character, in this context, certainly seems to refer to a wise teacher or authority, and seems to imply holiness or divinity. The precise meaning would likely depend on context:

圣贤 - Might refer to a wise holy man
圣人 - Might be used to refer to Confucius or the Emperor
圣手 - A sage/divine doctor

A number of other usage examples can be found:

• https://chinese.yabla.com/chinese-english-pinyin-dictionary.php?define=%E8%81%96
• http://dictionary.hantrainerpro.com/chinese-english/translation-sheng_holy.htm
• https://www.fastchinese.org/word?word=%E5%9C%A3-%E8%81%96-sheng4

Answer 3 (score 1)

I can see this topic hasn’t been touched upon recently, so this may me void of any purpose, for you all may have already found this out for yourselves.

I would like to point out that TimLymington has a good point. There’s a certain connotation of context, and what your intention of the meaning you seek of the word.

I believe the actual term you are looking for is 仙人, which is apparently a middle-Chinese loanword borrowed by the Japanese. It specifies, someone who is generally considered a hermit, wise, sage-like, and more often than not immortal (transcending dozens of generations). English transliteration is Sēnnin.

These different terms encompass the epitome of what we all imagine a “sage-like” figure to be. Generally old in appearance, hermitical, knowledgeable in multiple disciplines if not also archaic and esoteric arts, and more often than not the immortality often associated with being a “sage.” Many of these sages can also perform unique feats outside their “divinity” or “enlightenment” like manipulation of elements, the transmutation of substance, teleportation, astroprojection, flight, and increased various physical capabilities that would otherwise be considered “immortal” as in not of mortal quality/standards/parameters.

Question

It is weird to see two different mythologies so closely related to each other. Roman mythology seems to have some Greek mythology and vice versa. For example:

Greek - Zeus, Roman - Jupiter

Two of the same gods with different names. Much of the two mythologies are closely related to each other and it can be confusing to know which is which. Why are the two mythologies so closely related to each other and what is the major thing that makes them two different mythologies?

Answer accepted (score -1)

Romans had little mythology of their own when they occupied Greece. One of the many aspects they were lacking cultural wise that they borrowed from Greece. Thus they inherited many (or the lot) of ancient greek mythology which led to their existing Gods getting many of the characteristics of the Ancient greek ones.

Question

I read wikipedia and some mythology sites about the fox spirit that came from India but surprisingly they never mentioned about story in Indian version?

Only can find China - Daji, Japan - Kitsune, Korea - Kumiho

So what about Indian version? Any one know the original story from India?

Thank you!

Answer accepted (score 6)

The Dakini connection

Here is an extract of Chinese Magical Medicine by Michel Strickmann implying the direct connection between the Inari and the Dakini (p. 272).

The “Dakini” or “Dagini” for which this complex of modern Japanese possession-rites is named is, of course, the dakini of older Tantric sources, identified since at least the eighth century with the fox-phantom. As we have noted, the Chinese linking of the voracious and ill-omened dakini-demonesses with the fox was based on their Indian associations with the jackal. In medi­eval Japan, it became customary to identify figures from the complex Indian pantheon of Tantric Buddhism with native deities (rather like the interpret at ioromana in the world of late antiquity). Thus it was natural for this interpretatio nipponica to see in the supernatural fox-dakini the original of Japan’s own Inari, a god of rice cultivation often depicted in vulpine form.

Now why the Dakini. The Dakini is a Tantric Buddhist monster. It appears in the Mahavairocana Tantra and he (the Dakini) is overwhelmed by Mahavairocana Buddha and (s)he rides a jackal. The text is well known in Japan (as Mahavairocana sutra).

Note that the Dakini is present in numerous Indian stories with lots of variants… LOTS of (including sex, appeance, attributes, malvolence). It is also known in Tibetan version. Jackal being unknown in China and Japan, they translated by another small canine fox.

Note also that the Inari appears to be from an old local Japanese tradition, it later been related to fox (around the 12th century) before joining more or then with the Dakini. The Inari also has the particularity to not be well defined, especially if (s)he is male or female. The blur with mysterious Dakini is quite obvious (Hence why be wary of my claim about one version specifically of the Dakini, or to compare too much the Inari and Dakini, or even Dakini and Dakini-Ten).

So the local deity Inari is identified by the Buddhist Indian Dakini to some extend. Here is the Japanese Dakini-ten riding her legendary fox (I pick this one because it is a gorgeous one, notice the small rice sheaf in her hand) (Note also it exists a male version of Dakini-ten, carrying a sword/weapon instead of a sheaf of rice):

The Kitsune

Now regarding the Kitsune/Huli jing(princess Daji). Here is from the Cult of the Fox by Xiaofei Kang (p234, note 13):

The fox motif in stories of Reynard and the fables of Aesop have appeared frequently in European paintings and architecture since the 13th… tales are found in all countries of Europe, including Russia and the Near and Middle East. The motif of the fox wife [ie Daji/Kitsune, note by me] wa salso found in Chinese and Japanese folklore and accross the Berling Strait among the Eskimos in North America.

Tales of Reynard is a Medieval French book telling the adventures of Reynard. In modern French, fox is renard, and the novel is Roman de Renard, where the main character, Renard was a goupil (ancient French word for fox). The novel was so popular that foxes are now called renard and no more goupil.

Here is now a kitsune from a japanese temple:

Notice the kitsune DOES not have nine tails, only one tail on this statue. Notice also the sheaf of rice in his snout! In japan you will find kitsune garding Inari’s temple. So don’t assume the Chinese Huli jing and the japanese kitsune are strictly speaking the same creature. The kitsune is more than probably a port of the former, but it evolves quite differently.

Finally, there is no connection implied between India and Daji/Kitsune. They are from local Chinese tradition.

Tamamo-No-Mae

Here is now an example of a “true” Kitsune story (I mean by true, from japanese culture, not that you will find a kitsune as your girl next door). I push you first there, where you will find a resume of the original text as well as very beautiful original drawings.

See here some japanese warriors hunting an innocent two-tailed fox (The site I linked give you the Otogizoshi, browse it for the text and marvelous illustrations):

The story goes like that (short summary): Tamama-no-mae is the favourite concubine of Emperor Toba-no-in, reputed for her extreme beauty, marvelous scent as well as incredible cleverness. But unfortunately she is in fact a terrible kitsune.

Later tradition, not the Otogizochi, will link her to Chinese princess Daji, possessed by a fox spirit, due to the similitude in story. Now Daji story predating Tamamo story there is still a chance this is a port.

And here is the thing, all of that is buddhist in nature. And buddhism comes from India, so most of the time, you find those creatures (princess Daji, or Tamamo) mentioned as “coming form India” (Note that the Otogizoshi does not, she is Japanese, period). But one as to not see that as “coming from true India” but much more a way for Chinese and Japanese to mention something exotic.

Tamamo is still an incredibly popular character, you find her haunting dozen of modern stories, novels, mangas and video games:

Here is a VERY nice modern representation. I push you to notice the 9 tails. Modern japanese does not know their own folklore ;D

Answer 2 (score 1)

There are actually Japanese kitsune with 9 tails known as Kyubi no Kitsune. However, not all kitsune have 9. A Kitsune gains its tails about 1 per century, and only attains 9 (Kyu) after 1,000 years. These kitsune are much more powerful than the typical nogitsune/yako of common folklore.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/九尾の狐#Japanese - etymology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsune - about half way down the page it talks about Kyubi no Kitsune.

Question

If I remember the story correctly, Penelope spends over a decade telling her suitors that she will choose one of them as a husband some day, but continues inventing elaborate reasons why she cannot yet make that choice. It seemed clear to the reader that she simply doesn’t want to remarry. Which begs the question: Is there a reason why she didn’t she just say so?

Did the society of ancient Greece not allow a woman to refuse remarriage? Was she so indecisive she couldn’t bring herself to either make a choice or refuse to make a choice? Was she afraid they would revolt and try to take her by force if she refused? Was it considered unfathomably rude to ask guests to leave your house, ever? (I recall hospitality toward guests was a common theme in that story)

Answer accepted (score 19)

tl;dr Mob rule.

Penelope didn’t have a choice. She may have been Queen of Ithaca, but she had little actual power. All men loyal to Odysseus had followed him to Troy, she simply had no way of forcing the suitors to leave the palace. And of course she feared that antagonizing the suitors in any way would put Telemachus’ life in danger.

Nevertheless, Telemachus did try to order the suitors out of the palace, in front of the Ithacan assembly:

Telemachus took this speech as of good omen and rose at once, for he was bursting with what he had to say. He stood in the middle of the assembly and the good herald Pisenor brought him his staff. Then, turning to Aegyptius, “Sir,” said he, “it is I, as you will shortly learn, who have convened you, for it is I who am the most aggrieved. I have not got wind of any host approaching about which I would warn you, nor is there any matter of public moment on which I would speak. My grieveance is purely personal, and turns on two great misfortunes which have fallen upon my house. The first of these is the loss of my excellent father, who was chief among all you here present, and was like a father to every one of you; the second is much more serious, and ere long will be the utter ruin of my estate. The sons of all the chief men among you are pestering my mother to marry them against her will. They are afraid to go to her father Icarius, asking him to choose the one he likes best, and to provide marriage gifts for his daughter, but day by day they keep hanging about my father’s house, sacrificing our oxen, sheep, and fat goats for their banquets, and never giving so much as a thought to the quantity of wine they drink. No estate can stand such recklessness; we have now no Ulysses to ward off harm from our doors, and I cannot hold my own against them. I shall never all my days be as good a man as he was, still I would indeed defend myself if I had power to do so, for I cannot stand such treatment any longer; my house is being disgraced and ruined. Have respect, therefore, to your own consciences and to public opinion. Fear, too, the wrath of heaven, lest the gods should be displeased and turn upon you. I pray you by Jove and Themis, who is the beginning and the end of councils, [do not] hold back, my friends, and leave me singlehanded- unless it be that my brave father Ulysses did some wrong to the Achaeans which you would now avenge on me, by aiding and abetting these suitors. Moreover, if I am to be eaten out of house and home at all, I had rather you did the eating yourselves, for I could then take action against you to some purpose, and serve you with notices from house to house till I got paid in full, whereas now I have no remedy.”

With this Telemachus dashed his staff to the ground and burst into tears. Every one was very sorry for him, but they all sat still and no one ventured to make him an angry answer, save only Antinous, who spoke thus:

"Telemachus, insolent braggart that you are, how dare you try to throw the blame upon us suitors? It is your mother’s fault not ours, for she is a very artful woman. This three years past, and close on four, she has been driving us out of our minds, by encouraging each one of us, and sending him messages without meaning one word of what she says. And then there was that other trick she played us. She set up a great tambour frame in her room, and began to work on an enormous piece of fine needlework. ‘Sweet hearts,’ said she, ‘Ulysses is indeed dead, still do not press me to marry again immediately, wait- for I would not have skill in needlework perish unrecorded- till I have completed a pall for the hero Laertes, to be in readiness against the time when death shall take him. He is very rich, and the women of the place will talk if he is laid out without a pall.’

_{Source: The Odyssey, Book II, translated by Samuel Butler}

Telemachus insolence was not only ignored, but it also instigated a plot amongst the suitors to kill him as he returned from his visits to Nestor and Menelaus.

Answer 2 (score 12)

Stalling her suitors for as long as possible was probably her best tactic. If she were to turn them away, or even to make a selection, those rejected could well have turned to violence. More generally speaking, trigger warnings rejecting advances bluntly is not always the safest idea. This commonly manifests in Greek mythology (and medieval history, btw) as abduction.

1. Abduction of Persephone by Hades
2. Attempted abduction of Persephone by Theseus and Pirithous
3. Abduction of Europa
4. Abduction of Hilaeira
5. Abduction of Phoebe
6. Attempted abduction of Deianira by Nessus
7. Abduction of Helen by Theseus
8. Abduction of Orithyia by Boreas
9. Everyone else raped by Zeus
10. Abduction of Chrysippus

Which isn’t to say that the suitors would have abducted Penelope per se, but that this was an environment where people easily resort to violence to get what they want. Given this context delaying tactics was probably the better option than risking a confrontation with oturight rejection.

That Helen’s father had to institute the Oath of Tyndareus, binding all suitors against quarrels, is a good illustration of the pitfalls of rejecting suitors in Greek mythology.