please ignore the short body

I’ll take the children to the farm with my mother, and when I get back, I hope to find you very bored in the funeral home.

Okay, let's say there was a man with 12 ships, who did exist, and sailed from Troy to Ithaca, encountering troubles on his journey. What do you think would be the real world counterparts of the mythical things he encountered on his journey? Like, if the odyssey really did happen, and it was just something that ended up being incredibly exaggerated, what would be a realistic interpretation of the events in the poem?

In the Roman version of the myth by Ovid, Athena cursed Medusa and turned her into a monster with snakes for hair after Posiedon violated Medusa inside Athena's sacred temple. I just noticed that the statue of Athena Parthenos inside the Parthenon resembles in silhouette when viewed from the front, Medusa's own head after being turned into a monster...and I find that interesting.

It's for a story I'm writing were one of the main characters is a smuggler

- Ever since I started reading the myths, I’ve always found it funny how Athena jumps into a fight at the drop of a hat—especially with Ares.

- I have to admit, I used to think Dionysus was harmless before reading about everything he actually did.

- I was always told Athena was the strategist, but honestly, I remember Hermes using his head more than she did (Argus, Apollo’s cattle, Typhon, Circe); that guy is really underrated.

I heard a lot of them suck.

If you want to know more information on the brothers of Cronus, and some inspiration for your art or book, this is the right place. Cronus and four of his brothers were all gods of the Sky, yes, all five of them. The thing is, what was the difference between them? The only source is the Scholia to Hesiod Theogony, that analyzes them from a pre-socratic philosophical point of view, where certain gods were allegories for the elements of nature, instead of being literal, so is not exactly what we want, but is the best we got.

Coeus: "property, likeness, attribute... Coeus as being quality"

Phoebe: "The pure part of the air; on this account she is also called ‘gold-wreathed’, because gold is pure."

So both represent the pure aspects and qualities of the Sky and Air, they gave it their appearance. Their descendant is Apollo is said to be the most beloved of the gods, very beautiful, and bright. Some later interpreted Apollo and Artemis as having domain over the air because they spread plagues (miasma). Apollo also received in one tradition (Aeschylus) the Oracle of Delphi from Phoebe, so she was also a prophetic goddess.

Hyperion: "Hyperion, the motion of everything above the Earth... and Hyperion as Heaven, who passes up above us"

Theia: Theia is the power overseeing all things, from theâsthai (‘to see’); or from théein (‘to run’), that is, being carried everywhere.”

Hyperion and Theia are the parents of Helios, Selene and Eos. Thus, Hyperion can be interpreted as the god who estabilished the motions of the Heavenly Lights, of everything above is. The philosophers believed that fire was the least heavy element, it floated above where it moved in cycles. Hyperion was responsible for this. Theia is the power of sight as she birthed the Sun, Moon and Dawn (altrough Hemera and Aether already existed). Pindar also says she is the creator of the light that emanates from gold. Helios and his children were said to have golden eyes that glittered with light.

Iapetus: "And Iapetus is from iénai (‘to come’), for because it has the nature that all heavy things let loose fall down (píptein) from above, he calls this kind of species (eîdos) Iapetus... and Iapetus as his motion, from íesthai (‘going’) and pétesthai (‘flying’), because Heaven is ever-moving."

Iapetus is interpreted here as the power that pushes all things down. The philosophers believed that the nature of the elements was to be separated from one another, so mortals and earthly materials could not raise to Heaven without being pushed down by the star force that keeps things on earth. So Iapetus can be understood as the god that pushed things down. This may be a stretch on my part, but this connect to his children: Atlas is the god that was punished to keep the Sky separate from the Earth, while Prometheus and Epimetheus were related to mankind, beings that can't go to Heaven (unless a god invites them). Iapetus wife was a Oceanid so there is not much to say.

Crius: "Crius is that which is kingly and rules... Crius is separation"

Cronus: "Kronos is the separation of the elements, which they continue to maintain in good order after they have been made (separate) from each other. Or Kronos is Time (Chronos), because time hides some things, and makes others manifest; or because it passes imperceptibly."

I decided to analyze Crius together with Cronus because they are oddly similar in the allegory, as Crius is said to be both a aspect that rules, and that separated things; but so is Cronus, the titan king who separated the elements (he separated the sky and earth) and here is connected to Time in the sense that Time reveals things (just like Cronus revealed the space between Sky and Earth). Crius children and grandchildren were also very disconnected from one another, as some were winds, other stars, others war spirits, and the goddess of magic. His wife is the sea goddess Eurybia so is all even more disconnected. So I am not sure on how to interpret him.

Rheia is a earth goddess; and Mnemosyne and Themis are Memory and Natural Laws. But on these three we have a lot so no need to elaborate on them. Oceanus is separated from his five brothers because he with his wife Tethys received the "middle domain", the waters that sorrounds the Earth, instead of anything on the Sky. So Oceanus was always the odd one who never joined Cronus in anything. Orphic Fragment 117: "Cronus is superior to Oceanus... Cronus himself received the Celestial Olympus, and there he reigns over the Titans; but Oceanus received the middle allotment... Cronus is above Oceanus, and Rhea above Tethys."

I'm currently writing a Dnd campaign setting about Greek mythology and I just wrote a text about Pan. I would love some feedback on my interpretation.

Pan: The Primordial Madness

Sometimes, there are things that never get questioned. They were simply always there, and no one really thought to ask where they came from. Somewhere between the moment Gaia emerged from the primordial chaos and the creation of her husband Uranus, the being known as Pan came into existence. Was he created by Gaia intentionally? Was he a byproduct of another creation? Was he a subconscious thought that manifested itself into being? No one really knows.

He didn't start off as a true entity. At first, he was the silence in the primal forest, the wind between the leaves that sounded eerily like a whisper. He was the figure you caught in your periphery between the trees—the shadow you swore was standing there, but was ultimately just a trick of the light. Pan was everything and nothing.

For an eternity, Pan remained a mere flicker of existence: the raw essence of the woods and the untamed wilds. But as time passed and life began to spring forth, Pan shifted into something far more tangible. He became the suffocating realization of being utterly alone in the dark—the sudden, breathless helplessness before an indifferent wilderness. He became the very root of panic: the feeling that the trees are closing in, watching, breathing, while you have nowhere left to run.

Slowly, a physical form took shape. Not human, nor Olympian, nor Titan, nor beast—yet possessing a fraction of each. His shape and state of being vary wildly, but he is most often seen as a satyr, or at least something resembling one.

As humans became the most prevalent of all creations, Pan adapted to their reflection. He could appear kind, cheerful, and relaxed—like an old shepherd met by chance along a woodland path. Or he could be a figure with piercing eyes watching from the thicket, waiting for the exact moment you spot him. Are these all the same entity? Is there even one true Pan?

To the Olympians, he is just a loud, harmless satyr—a whimsical quirk of the brush. They are too blinded by their own squabbles to realize they are sleeping in a forest that belongs entirely to him. For now, he simply enjoys his days in the wild alongside the satyrs, the nymphs, and the occasional wanderer. But who knows when the primordial madness inevitably reawakens? Their golden thrones won't save them from the wild.

¿Y si Agamemnon no era tan horrible como solemos imaginar? Una cosa que me llama muchísimo la atención es la cantidad de gente que llora su muerte

Siempre me ha parecido curioso que Agamemnon tenga en la cultura popular una reputación de ser prácticamente el peor ser humano de la mitología griega, pero cuando vuelves a los textos antiguos encuentras algo completamente distinto.

No quiero defender todas sus acciones. El sacrificio de Ifigenia, su relación con Clitemnestra, el trato hacia Aquiles, etc., no son justificables. Pero creo que hay un detalle que a veces olvidamos:

Agamemnon muere, y las personas que lo conocieron no reaccionan como si hubiera muerto un monstruo al que todos odiaban.

Aquiles habla de él con compasión. En la Odisea canto XI, Agamemnon aparece entre los muertos y Aquiles se dirige a él. Y recordemos que la relación entre Aquiles y Agamemnon era nefasta. Sin embargo, cuando se encuentran en el Hades, Aquiles no aprovecha para insultarlo ni para alegrarse de su desgracia. Lo trata como a un gran héroe y lamenta que haya tenido una muerte tan miserable. De hecho, Aquiles básicamente le dice que habría sido mucho mejor morir en Troya, rodeado de gloria, que regresar a casa para acabar asesinado.

En la Odisea, Agamemnon también es presentado como un hombre digno de compasión. Agamemnon considera que Odiseo tuvo una suerte inmensamente mejor: volvió a casa y encontró a Penélope fiel, mientras que él regresó a su hogar y fue asesinado por su propia esposa. Y la escena no está escrita como:

«“Bueno, se lo merecía.”»

Es todo lo contrario. Su muerte es presentada como una desgracia terrible.

En Esquilo, cuando Orestes regresa, va directamente a la tumba de Agamemnon. Se lamenta de no haber estado presente para llorarlo ni para llevar su cadáver. Y Electra también participa en los ritos funerarios de su padre. Esto puede parecer obvio porque son sus hijos, pero precisamente por eso es importante: Agamemnon sigue siendo presentado como alguien cuya muerte merece duelo y cuya memoria merece honores funerarios.

La lista de personas que lloran su muerte es bastante grande para alguien a quien todo el mundo considera "odioso":

Orestes y Electra, ambos hermanos lloran y piden justicia ante la tumba de Agamemnon, invocando su espíritu para que los ayude a castigar a los asesinos.

Néstor se lamenta por su muerte cuando se la cuenta a Telémaco.

Odiseo llora al encontrarse con el alma de Agamemnon en el Hades. Y también en el Hades Aquiles lamenta su muerte.

Menelao específicamente le comenta a Telémaco que no es feliz a pesar de tener muchas riquezas porque lamenta y llora la muerte de muchos aqueos y en especial la de su hermano. Y cuando le cuenta a Telémaco como se enteró de su muerte vuelve a llorar frente a él.

¿Realmente, como podemos seguir creyendo que Agamemnon era odioso? ¿Creéis que lamentarían de esa forma la muerte de alguien que realmente fuera un monstruo?

Gods take the form of people a lot in the Homeric epics, pretty clearly as a way to interact with mortals and the world in specific ways.

When they do so, are they themselves transforming into a disguise? Or are they “possessing” a real person in order to accomplish whatever it is they want? Maybe a mix of both? Something like Athena appearing as a generic shepherd in The Odyssey appears to fit the former, but I recall gods also taking the form of preexisting people pretty often in The Iliad, seemingly as a “possession”

Given the subject matter of witchcraft and the curious place of Hecate in the Greek pantheon, her presence could have added an interesting element both to the witchcraft theme as well as the war between Titans and Olympians, yet she is not referenced even once if I recall.

Curiously, Hecate is alluded to in Song of Achilles when Patroclus is tormented by dreams of the boy he killed:

“Our goddess of the moon is gifted with magic, with power over the dead. She could banish the dreams, if she wished.”

Hecate is of course associated with the dark side of the moon, as well as witchcraft and necromancy. Yet she’s not mentioned by name.

Did anyone else notice this/have thoughts on her exclusion?

Kind of a weird one but I’m tinkering at a short story (or novel, idk, still in the developmental phase) about Tantalus and Sisyphus. An adaptation of those myths. Merging them a little bit...

I don‘t really want to call my MC Tantalus because I feel that gives a lot away right at the start, so I’ve been looking at alternatives. A couple websites say that Tantalus is occasionally referred to as Atys, but don’t have solid sources for that. When I Google Atys or Attis I get stories about another Greek myth figure, some dude who castrated himself at his own wedding or smt.

Anywayyyyyyys just wondering if Tantalus was ever called that and if so where, and if not, any other name suggestions?

Well, this is the start of my next series – the Heroes!! I thought it’s time to do the Titans, or the Primordials, but these won the Instagram poll, so we’ll be doing them first

(I’d write a long design description but I’m soooo sleep deprived.. Just point out anything you catch from the looks of them, I’ll be replying :P)

I think I either made her torso and arms too small, her thighs too thick, or both.

I've always seen people making this bold claim on the internet, especially when it comes to the discussion about Zagreus and Melinoe actually being the children of Zeus and Persephone rather than Hades and Persephone. They often claimed that Orphism and the Orphic version of the myths are not considered real Greek Mythology because of it being "weird, freaky, and disgusting" such that it was widely rejected and viewed as some sort of heresy by the ancient greeks, hence Orphism failed to be a valid source for teaching Greek Mythology. But is there actually any evidence for this being true? Do we have any proof that shows that was people's attitude towards the Orphic traditions back then, like a quote from a famous Greek poet or author that critizes the Orphic version and calls it weird or freaky, so it should be rejected?