Final Post

My three best posts of the Semester:
1.Ah ha!
     I liked this one because it really did take me that long to realize the significance of Gilgamesh not being able to stay awake. Prior to realizing death and sleep were "twins" in Greek mythology I just thought it was quite odd that Utnapishtim would use that as a test.

2. Passive Aggressive God
    This one I re-examined my view of God and his attitudes. I'd never noticed  before how the God of the Old Testament seems to have passive aggressive issues.

3. Death in Beowulf
   Views of death in Beowulf, as well as noting the inconsistencies in religion in the text. It is fairly obvious Beowulf was originally a pagan tale which has been adopted by Christianity.

I chose these three posts because they were the ones I enjoyed writing the most and/or learned the most in the process of writing. I really enjoyed having my views changed in the process of taking this class and writing this blog.

At the beginning of this semester I didn't have an opinion of literature from this time period. The only book from this time I had read was the Bible, and that was not read as "literature". After being exposed to a wide variety of medieval literature I  was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't at all written like the bible, Gilgamesh for instance could possibly even be written by a modern author, and you can see all the major types of stories one can write in the text. 

It is interesting to see how these stories have effected modern literature as well. I had no idea Beowulf was the basis for Conan, and I would like to go check out some of the fan sites for Beowulf, showing the views of the minor characters in the text.

Throughout this semester I have learned to look at literature in different ways, rather than just reading it for pleasure, it is possible to understand other cultures and times by examining stories more thoroughly. It is also interesting how often we add things that aren't there to stories, especially in the Bible, because our "common sense" tell us it's there, even if it's not.

Some of my strengths are that I am on top of my assignments (most of the time) and I can generally motivate myself to do well. As a writer I am usually able to convey what I think to paper. A weakness would be that I tend to lose my words. I may know there's a perfect word, but often it will not come to me.

Over all, I think I earned an A or a high B this semester. I came to every class at least somewhat prepared, and tried to contribute to them. This semester I was able to learn a lot, not just about literature, but other cultures as well. I almost wish I was an English major so I could take more of the literature classes and learn about the more modern literature as well.

Different Attitudes in Hell

I was rather struck by the discription of Capaneus and how he took his punishment.
"The great one seeming to pay no heed to the fire,
who lies disdainful and scowling, so the rain
seems not to ripen him."

Comparing that discription to the rest of the men in his pariticular potion of hell who, "kindled like tinder under flint, and made/ the pain redouble-with their dancing hands."  I have to wonder why Dante chose to chide Capaneus, saying his "unquenchable pride...punishes you the more."

It seems to me Capaneus is the wiser of the people. He's resigned to his fate and in being resigned to his fate he doesn't make it worse by trying in vain to undo it.

I also found it interesting that Dante did not seem to heed the warning written on the gates of Hell. "Abandon all hope you who enter here." Virgil explains to him that this means "All fear/ Must be left here, and cowardice die." Dante is often fearful though, fainting on many occasions. When he has barely entered hell Dante, faced with just the light bursting from hell, "Began to shake; so violently..and so (he) fell as though seized by sleep." Is this because he hadn't had the same luxury, of having "Divine Justice" spur him on to turn his fear to desire?

Dante seems to have a rather bleak view of sin, which I assume reflects the wisdom of the day. Many times, Virgil tell him that the sinners have no hope, even at the second coming. Only once does he have anything hopeful to say concerning sinners, which of course I can't seem to locate now. He says that those who repented of their sins can drink the waters of lethe and enter heaven, or perhaps Purgatory? Of course it's possible I'm remembering it wrong!

Surprising things about the Inferno

It's astonishing that Karma continues to play a role in Dante. I don't typically picture Christians holding great stock in Karma because the main focus seems to be on Jesus and accepting him as ones personal savior, the pagans in the Inferno are dammed for this reason alone.

When researching this question I came across a Yahoo question in which Christians responded in regard to how they feel about Karma. One respondent summed up the tennant which makes this surprising to me:

     Karma is return for your own works.

      We Christians don't want what we deserve because what we deserve is death (the wages of sin is death).

     What we want is what we don't deserve; GRACE.

Many others pointed out that the Bible does include the belief that you shall "reap what you sow." 

On another note, I was pleasantly surprised by the beauty of the writing in the Inferno. The images evoked were brilliantly detailed. Passages such as, "As when Divine Love set those beautiful Lights into motion at creations dawn," were especially moving. Even with the stilted reading, sentences taking up more than one stanza, it some how still manages to flow gracefully. I think this is a testament to Dante's great skill with words.

Dante does show himself to be a bit less than humble in Canto II. Not only does he have Beatrice to look out for him, but she has been sent by Saint Lucia, who was in turn sent by the Virgin Mary. I have to wonder if it was a common belief that the Virgin Mary sends "guardian angels" to look after every one in those days. Either that or perhaps since Dante can say he's not "Dante the pilgrim" he can just say that he is writing about some one else and so not seem so conceited.

I rather liked the idea Clynton brought up in his blog post, "the reward for a life of justice comes in the afterlife." I have to wonder if this idea was come up with because people noticed the injustice of life and how people who seem to be bad were getting good things. I know even now people who seem to be bad can be quite successful. Ardiaeus the Great was probably specified because he had riches in life.


It seems to me this is a way to explain how bad people can get good things in spite of Karma.  I have heard a theory that all religions main purpose is to control the people’s actions.  In this way, they could convince people to do good even if they don’t see any immediate reward. Not only that, but it’s rather comforting to think that someone who has wronged you will get his or her just desserts in the end.

How we all like to think life works.

Economy of words

One story in particular really stood out for me from this weeks readings, "The Myth of Er".  I found the opening statement both amusing and thoughtful. This story was certainly not "like Odysseus' tale to Alconous," but despite this fact I think he managed to say a lot.


I found the idea that souls would spend one thousand years in the afterlife being punished, or rewarded as the case may be, 10 times over for their deeds which they had done in life. The punishment/reward would be meted out over  ten life times, once every hindered years. Thus, if one was only a little bad, they would only be punished a little. There's more middle ground between "heaven" and "hell". I like that idea, it's not just black and white.

We see that the souls who spent the last one thousand years at ease react by not taking proper care in choosing their new life. Having spent on thousand years peacefully, and presumably luxuriously they are eager to begin anew and pick a life of fame or great rewards only to belatedly realize they have doomed themselves in the end. Those who have just been punished for one thousand years are far more cautious, picking the lives which will guarantee them 1000 years of luxury. In this way, it seems as if their lives have been chosen by them, not as it is happening, but before it begins.I found it interesting that Odysseus made a cameo appearance in this text, choosing a life of "quiet obscurity."

Can you find Odysseus?

"The Myth of Er" would serve many purposes. It would give people a road map for making decision, as well as a reason to make the ones which would be socially acceptable and explain what happens when you die all at once.  I think Auerbach would approve.

Small Group Discussion Reflection

During this past week when preparing for the small group discussion, I did a few things I do not normally do.  I re-read the text, I took notes and I *gasp* wrote in my book. (I like to sell my books after I'm done with them but I don't think it will make that big of a difference, at least I hope not.)  Normally, I will just read the text once, often re-reading parts that don't make sense after a full nights sleep, and call it good. I have found that if something makes no sense whatsoever it is usually a lack of sleep issue.

Three things I learned from this exercise; I need to learn to plan for the worst case scenario, I need to be less more confident and I learned that all the stories you read can relate to each other in one way or another.

I found that as the time went on in class the questions which I had prepared well for kept being taken by other students, had I planned well, and prepared well for all the questions, this would not have been an issue. I am glad I answered the question I did, even though my thoughts were not as coherent as I would have liked them to be, because the questions after that one I had next to nothing on.  Had I been less mousy maybe I wouldn't have learned this lesson but, since I am who I am, I will never know.

I did find it interesting how the stories we've read so far all fit together into certain themes, rather through their dealings with death and life or even the symbolism of water. It makes the statement that all the types of stories which can be written are contained in "The Epic of Gilgamesh" much more believable.

Comitatus or a promise is a promise

It seems comitatus was on every ones minds this week. Clynton points out "Comitatus is not about what’s proper or not, it is an agreement." I really didn't think of it that way. I just kind of saw it as Beowulf trying to prove he still had it, and was tough enough to take the dragon on. Ultimately we see he was wrong and he left his men and his people in a bind. 


I think you could even go so far as to say it was selfish of Beowulf to risk his life like he did. He wasn't showing much concern for his people when he chose to go fight the dragon. Wiglaf knew that Beowulf's passing would leave them open to attack from the Swedes so I have to assume Beowulf would be at least as aware of that fact as Wiglaf was. 


So my question is, why is it that the men are disdained and looked down upon but Beowulf's reputation is not even effected at all?

Beowulf's undoing

Scott pointed out in class that Beowulf essential flouted the warrior code of comitatus by telling his men he would handle the dragon on his own. It seems, though, that Beowulf made a habit of setting comitatus aside when dealing with supernatural creatures.

Before entering the lair of Grendel's mother (odd she doesn't have a name) Beowulf makes an impassioned speech about what to do for his men if he should happen to die. He doesn't tell him men, "I got this", yet none of them follow him into the sea. In this battle he almost lost his life as well, had his chain-mail (or God in the Christianized version) protected him he would have been toast.

Was Beowulf's overconfidence his undoing? Did he think that because he had survived Grendel and his mother he could survive anything? Before fighting Grendel's mother, Beowulf tells the king, "with Hrunting I shall win honor and fame, or death will take me." Ironically, he didn't win fame with Hrunting, Hrunting failed him in battle. Is this symbolic of his pride failing him?

Before fighting the dragon, Beowulf proclaimed, "It is not your way, nor proper for any man except me alone, that he should match his strength against this monster." Here is the climax of his pride. His final speech, wherein he dooms himself. Of course, we also once again see his weapon fail him, this great sword which is spoken of so highly, breaks because "his hand was too strong.(he)... overtaxed every blade with his mighty blows." Perhaps the teller of the tale thought Beowulf could use a little more finesse. Perhaps the point was that men needed to use their minds and not just blindly destroy everything in sight?

It has been theorized that the last battle of Beowulf was added in much later than the first two, which make sense as the story doesn't flow quite as smoothly as one continuous tale, rather two tales about the same character. Was the first author trying to teach the lessons of strength and the second the lesson of restraint?

Finally, I just wanted to share this, to bring a little levity into your day:

Sometimes timing is everything

RE: Supernatural strength

 Clynton pointed out that Beowulf was a supernatural man, much like Gilgamesh here. I really didn't think about that until after class. It's rather interesting that the tellers of his tale didn't feel the need to explain how Beowulf got his "powers".  It's almost as if they took it for granted. It just happens sometimes.

We know how Gilgamesh got so strong, he was part god, and Superman was an alien, so where does Beowulf's strength come from? In my attempt to figure out where Beowulf's strength came from I found several instances where people pointed out that Beowulf seemed to rely less on his strength in each subsequent battle. Also, his weapons seem to fail him. source

I think Clynton was on to something when he wondered "if one wrote about a mortal with super natural strength, maybe that was a desire for the ancient time." In ancient tales the hero often had supernatural strength. Hercules, Achilles and Samson are a few that come to mind. It seems that all had supernatural beast to fight as well. Samson and Achilles did both fail in the end, much like Beowulf so perhaps this was the ancient formula for story telling?

This line of thought made me curious, what does Grendel represent? Micheal Delahoyde claims he "represents everything a warrior should not be." source  He further muses that Grendel's mother is the opposite of what a woman should be, as women were thought of as the "peace-weavers". The dragon also serves as an opposition to a good king, as a good king is generous and a bad king is miserly.

With these things in mind, maybe Beowulf was more of a cautionary tale. The people who were hearing the tale would know what a good warrior, wife and king is and know that the monsters were the opposite. It could be said to be a cautionary tale, on which they could base their lives.

Death in Beowulf

It seems as if death is a fairly constant theme so far, perhaps because that was the reality of the times they lived in, death was a fairly constant concern. Beowulf does not seem terribly concerned about his seemingly ensuing death, for many did not think he would be returning to his homeland again.

I found it very  interesting that Beowulf advised the king "Sorrow not, wise one! It is always better to avenge one's friend than to mourn overmuch."  In this way he reminded me of Marcus Aurelius and the stoic philosophy found in Meditations.


The deaths always seem to be foreshadowed, I don't know if the creator of the story did this as a way to remember what came next better, as this was originally an oral story, or as a way to keep interest. I did enjoy the line "They sank into sleep- one paid sorely for his evening rest, as often happened when Grendel guarded the gold-hall."

It also bears noting that Grendel, much like Humbaba seems to serve a purpose in the story. While Humbaba guarded the forest, Grendel seems to be punishment for lack of humility, or perhaps practicing pagan religion. On page 1210 we see that "he bore God's anger." He seems to be described almost as a demonic being. 

One small inconsistency confused me. The story said that there were prayers offered to pagan gods, and they had even called on the devil for deliverance. When Beowulf arrives, he obviously believes in God and offers glory to his name for his success, as does the king. Is Grendel able to be defeated because they are not practicing pagan ways? When did they make the shift from pagan to seemingly Christian? Am I just reading too much in to this?

The most demonic depiction of Grendel I could find.

Midterm Essay

I've been kicking around a few different ideas for my mid-term essay. For me the topic is the first half of the battle when it comes to writing essays. Maybe I just over think it? Here I am going to present my most promising idea at the moment.

Compare and Contrast of Gilgamesh and Creon: It seems as if Creon and Gilgamesh have quite a bit in common. They are both set in their ways and it seems as though, in practice, they don't necessarily do what is best for the people.  Perhaps intent is really what separates them. Creon seems to genuinely believe he is doing what is best for the people when he refuses the burial of a traitor but Gilgamesh doesn't seem to care how what he does effects the people.

Both Creon and Gilgamesh are stubborn to a fault. Creon refuses to listen to reason when told that he is more or less defying the gods. Gilgamesh presses on in his quest for immortality even though the gods tell him it is futile.

Extreme circumstances are necessary for both to see the light. Creon doesn't realize he's wrong until it is too late, his son dies as does his wife. Gilgamesh has to go through the entire  journey to Utnapishtim to find the secret to immortality, not letting go until he is defeated by the "little death" of sleep.

The period of time seen in both tales makes it a bit difficult to fully analyze the character's growth. Gilgamesh, by means of his long journey is able to grow and learn that death is a necessary part of life. Creon is not given that opportunity, but since this is a Greek Tragedy I can only assume he would have killed himself in some dramatic way had he been given the chance.

*Sources thanks for the reminder. :) Found on google books Gilgamesh Epic by Jeffery Tigay I wasn't able to find it in the public library database so I will have to use it from google books.

Also on google books The Three Thebian Pays

Oh that I should ever see a poem as lovely as a tree

Reading the variety of lyric poems this week was enlightening. The styles and even the level of seriousness with which the poets seemed to view themselves was interesting.  I never really gave much thought to how important poetry can be. To think that it was part of the tests one had to take to be a member of the government in China is mind boggling. I don't know that we would ever see "write a poem about the President" on an entrance exam to be the Attorney General or FBI agent.  This just illustrates how much times have changed and how different our cultures are. 

I think it would be interesting though, if civil servants did create poetry relating to their field of work. Members of the DEQ could write about water quality and the loss of species. Civil engineers could write about roads and traffic. Senators could write about their beliefs.

Perhaps it would be a good idea if politicians were to write poems instead of debate. It would certainly be less headache inducing as they couldn't simply insult their opponent.... Or perhaps they could. I think the hardest part would be making sure they didn't hire a "poem writer" and had to write their own poetry.

On second thought, I'm not sure this exercise would tell us anything about the candidates other than how imaginative they are.

Creon v Antigone

According to dictionary.com, a tragic hero is "a great or virtuous character in a dramatic tragedy who is destined for downfall, suffering, or defeat: Oedipus, the classic tragic hero." link With this defintion in mind I can see how both Creon and Antigone could be considered to have two tragic heroes. Both are destined to suffer and in the end both are "defeated" in one way or another. I would have to say Creon suffers more. He loses not only a son, but a wife and loses credibility as well.

Creon feels he's in the right, after all, why should a traitor be honored in death? I'm not sure if that's the "new" mindset or the "old" mindset but he's very sure that's the way it should be. He seems to have the support of the people. That is until Antigone is brave, or foolhardy, enough to oppose him in this view.

The chorus, or rather the people, came to agree with Antigone, and even Creon's son tries to help him see the error of his ways. Haemon insists "there is no disgrace for a man, even a wise man,/ to learn many things and not to be too rigid" He warns Creon of the danger of being too rigid and points out that the trees which are too rigid are destroyed.

It is not until the soothsayer reasons with Creon that he realizes he has acted hastily.  By then, of course it is too late. His son is dead and his wife is soon to follow. Creon is really the focus of the story, we see how he goes from certainty that he's right to realizing he's mistaken. He's the most dynamic character and the one all the other characters interact with. Creon is the tragic hero as far as I can see.

You Cannot Escape Your Fate

When the Greeks do a tragedy they really do a tragedy. I guess that's fitting considering they did define what a tragedy is. If the story of Antigone and Creon has a moral (I haven't decided if it does) it's that, try as you might, you cannot escape your fate. Oedipus's father brought about his own fate in attempting to escape it by sending giving Oedipus to some one else to get rid of. In attempting to escape this same fate Oedipus brought it about. In the end even Creon learned fate is inescapable, though why the seer came so late is a point worth pondering.


Perhaps Sophocles was of the opinion that people were too stubborn? Was he hoping that the politicians viewing the play would take Creon's role to heart and question if they should do things differently? As he was a member of the ruling class he would have first hand experiences...

Homer- Analysis v Interpertation

Auerbach claims that "Homer can be analyzed... but he cannot be interpreted." In his Essay "Odysseus Scar" we read about how intensely Homer describes everything, from what people are thinking, down to which hands they use for things, such as when Odysseus grabs his nurse.

Auerbach points out a stark contrast to Biblical writers. In the case of Issac and Abraham, for example, we have no idea what God's motives are, it doesn't say how Issac or Abraham feel and there are no details about the journey itself, which I had not realized was a three day journey. With so few details, the reader is forced to "fill in the blanks".  This is where the interpretation comes in. Two people can read the same Biblical passage and come away with different impressions. For instance, when a father reads this story, he will think about what it would be like to give up his only child, but when a child reads this he or she is more likely to think what it would be like to almost be sacrificed.

Had Homer written the story of Issac and Abraham, I believe we probably would have seen God conversing with some one, perhaps other Gods, and telling them why he needs to test Abraham.  We would have read a lamentation by Abraham over the impending loss of his only son.  His son would have probably said something more than "where's the sheep". 

Is one style better than the other? Is Homer better because he explains everything? Is the Bible better because we can glean our own meaning? I'm not sure the Odyssey could survive a Biblical re-write. It would end up very short, that's for sure. The themes could still be present, the wife who waited when everyone else said "he's not coming back", the son's journey from boyhood to manhood, etc.I don't know that it would have had the staying power it did though.

Ah Ha! Now I get it.

When reading the Epic of Gilgamesh, where he was trying to find the secret to eternal life from Utnapishtim I didn't understand why Utnapishtim would set forth the challenge for Gilgamesh to stay awake. Sometimes I guess I just need to have things spelled out for me. Here, in what is a children's version of the story I got it. Sleep was considered a "little death".

The Sumerians were not alone in their opinion of sleep.  According toG. de Purucker, "Sleep and death are brothers, according to the old Greek proverb." He claims that sleep and death are virtually identical, death being the "perfect sleep." Framed with this belief I can see how staying awake would be a fitting test, though not very easy, or reasonable considering Gilgamesh's worn out state.

Greek Gods of Death and Sleep, Hynos and Thanatos

Here, Hypnos and Thanatos are describes as twins even. These beliefs have even made their way into Christianity in very interesting ways. " the Angel of Death Thanatos inherited from Zeus his role as a judge of who shall live and who shall die, and he did this by weighing the living on a balance scale. Centuries later Christians would depict St. Michael the Archangel at the Last Judgement wielding a sword in one hand and with the other weighing the souls of the dead in a similar balance scale."

 

Flood Myths

The three most important differences in the flood myth are:
1. The reason that Man was to be destroyed
2. The importance of dreams and
3. There is not promise not to flood the earth again in Gilgamesh but there is in the Bible.

In the Biblical flood story Man was to be destroyed because of  their sinful nature. God is quoted as saying "the end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth." In Gilgamesh, Enlil proclaimed "The uproar of mankind is intolerable, and sleep is no longer possible by reason of the babel." This passage also mirrors the Epic of Creation, when Apsu is annoyed at the noisiness of the younger gods.

In Gilgamesh, Utnapishtim is warned of the flood in a dream, but in the Bible, God speaks to Noah personally. This either shows a greater fear, or respect to the gods in ancient times or perhaps this was due to a greater belief in dreams. I also found it odd that Noah could save only his family but Utnapishtim was able to save all his servants as well. Would Noah's servants not have been righteous as well?

In the Biblical flood story God sets his rainbow in the sky as a promise not to flood the earth again. In Gilgamesh it seems as if the Gods regret the flood, stating, "Would that a lion had ravaged mankind... Wold that a wolf had ravaged mankind... Would that famine had wasted the world... Would that pestilence had wasted mankind Rather than the flood," but they make no promise not to allow it to happen again.

On a side note, I did find it interesting that the ship built by Utnapishtim was made in seven days. Was this intended to be a reflection of the time it took to create the earth or just because the number 7 was significant?

Passive Aggressive God?

Was it just me, or did it seem as if the God of the Exodus story was a little over aggressive? It seems to me that he felt the need to not just free the Jews, but also make the Egyptians suffer. Was this because the Egyptians with their many gods annoyed him? Perhaps it was that he knew the Jews would revert to Egyptian practices if not given a large enough show? In the end they did any way so really, what did it accomplish? If he had the ability to harden the Pharaoh's heart, why not soften it instead?

We see this again in Job when God feels the need prove that Job is righteous by testing him to his limit.Couldn't he have been able to just tell the satan that Job had been through enough after the first trial?  It's easy to see how the satan morphed into Satan. If Lucifer's job is to make men suffer, the satan seems to fill that role.

Speaking of Satan, isn't it interesting how people who sacrificed animals in biblical times were considered righteous, but people who sacrifice animals now are Devil worshipers? I wonder if that was due to an attempt to make Jews seem more evil.

The god of the flood story is a very stern, but merciful god. He says of his creations, “It repenteth me that I have made them.” In this way it seems as if the earth were an experiment gone horribly wrong and he is deciding it’s time to throw out the Petri dish, so to speak and start over.  To me this indicates a god who doesn’t necessarily know what’s going to happen.

At the same time, he shows mercy to Noah, because “Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation.”  This seems to indicate that perhaps he is still a merciful god, not willing to punish the righteous along with the evil.

He once again shows that he is merciful when he “remembered Noah…and made a wind to pass over the earth and the waters assuaged.”  Again he shows mercy in his promise that he “will never again curse the ground any more for man’s sake for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything living as I have done”. This would lead me to think that perhaps he feels he acted hastily?

I would say that this god isn’t all powerful. He doesn’t have the power to act over men. He may be all knowing; perhaps he predicted that men would become evil? If that is the case, he may have known that men would become evil once again. I kind of wonder why he would be willing to let future evil live when he felt the need to eradicate it once. Of course he doesn’t say he’ll never destroy all creation again, jus that he won’t flood the earth. Being a stickler, he has left other possibilities open.  He has also left it open to flood just one city, or region if he should chose.

Musings

 

It's rather interesting to me that all the myths show men being born, Eve gave birth to boys, no girl's names were mentioned, all of Earth's children were male in Theogony. Only the castration of Ouranous creates a female child. Was this a product of a male dominated society or was it all part of making male dominated society acceptable? Perhaps these stories were accepted more because women were more content with their roles in society.

I think in a lot of way myths are art imitating life. In all of the creation myths we read, either a younger generation of gods or god creations (in the case of Genesis) seems to rebel against authority.  As any one with teen children can tell you, children always rebel against authority. Granted, there are always exceptions to every rule but they are few and far between. 

If we look at governments in history we see that people often rebel against government as well. Even our own government is becoming more controlling and we see people protesting the controls  more and more.  It's not a stretch to state that rebellion is human nature. Perhaps the authors of the myths of creation were attempting to explain where that rebellion stems from, as well as how the earth was made.

One another note, It's kind of amazing what the ancient people were able to determine with their limited understanding of the world. They knew there were planets, they knew the sun was the center of the universe, etc. Which I find interesting considering man later thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe. When Galileo therorized that the earth revolved around the sun, the church did not react kindly.Galileo v. the Church

Similaitities in different stories

To understand the myths of creation it is important to understand the purpose of myths. A myth was generally a way to explain something happening in nature that could not be explained, such as thunder being caused by God bowling (not a real myth, just something someone made up).

According to PBS, “In Search of Myths And Heroes”, “Myths are stories that are based on tradition. Some may have factual origins, while others are completely fictional” While some myths include moral lessons, some do not and I believe these ones do not.

In the beginning of both “The Epic of Creation “ and “Metamorphosis”  earth, the sky, the ocean etc. existed by had not yet been named. “The Epic of Creation” begins, “When skies above were not yet named” and “Metamorphosis” states, “Before the ocean was or earth or heaven”. This is the introduction of making order out of chaos.

“The Epic of Creation” at first creates order with the birth of more gods, the notes state that “After setting up the primordial order of deities, the poem describes the conflict between old and new generations.” This assigning order would be the creation of order from chaos. In Metamorphosis the order is created when “God, or kindlier Nature, / settled all argument and separated/ Heaven from earth, water from land”.

We can see that it doesn’t take long for conflict to occur. In “Metamorphosis” it occurs because, “These brothers brawl and quarrel; though each one/Has his own quarter”. In “The Epic of Creation “The gods of the new generation would meet together/ And disturb Tiamut.” It is interesting also that in both myths the downfall of orderly existence in the younger generation of gods.  Could this be because in human history it is often the younger generation which is not happy to maintain the status quo?

Two Observatons on the Myths of Creation

Did you notice how contradictory Genesis 1 and 2 are? It's kind of like two stories just got put together from no apparent reason.

I also found it intersting that both Genesis and Metemoroses reference Man being made in Gods image. Do you think that's because Man likes to think of Himself as being godlike or did one influence the other?