|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Similarity to Chinese mythology?
I've long noticed a link between the characteristics of the third generation gods and the eight trigrams of the I Ching. Their attributes are remarkably similar. The order of birth differs, but they both seem to be trying to describe the forces in nature (including human nature). Anyway, it seems like:
Parents: Gaia = 坤 kūn (receptive/field), and Uranus (maybe Cronus?) = 乾 qián (creative force heaven/sky).
The daughters: Hestia = 離 lí (fire), Demeter = 兌 duì (joy/fertility), Hera = 巽 xùn (penetrating wind).
The sons: Hades = 艮 gèn (mountain), Poseidon = 坎 kǎn (water), Zeus = 震 zhèn (thunder).
Did these two proto-scientfic systems evolve independently, or were these cultures in contact? If anyone has studied this, I'd love to know more!
Hillbillyholiday81 (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
This article is full of somewhat confusing comments on the poem Theogony (mostly so if you have not read it) and it reads more like part of a school essay than an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure what to do with it: it has a sort of vague summary, but maybe a more specific listing of the myths dealt with in the Theogony would be a good start. Andrew123 06:17, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"After Ouranos had been castrated, Gaia mated with Pontos to create a descendent line " - I don't see the name Pontos anywhere else before this statement. Is it supposed to be Pontos? or Pontus? or Ponos? --BlueRaja 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Why are certain sections written in different tenses? This reads awkwardly, especially during shifts from past to present tense. The use of the present tense to describe the events also makes little sense seeing as the events were written about in the past as if they occurred even further in the past. Is there any reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-16T03:01:28
This article seems to be drifting farther from a report on Hesiod's poem. We have a general article Greek mythology, which, if it were better, would cover thie generations of gods, and their futures, more generally. --Wetman 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article should present geneaologies as laid forth in Hesiod's poem, but I see no special reason why it must exclude them altogether. Since other versions of myths may lay forth alternate lineages, having the Hesiod versions collected in this article seems practical and useful. It would be quite difficult to summarize the poem without mentioning any filiations. Robert K S 07:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sticking close to Hesiod's text surely involves the genealogies. Spinning them out with details that are not in Hesiod is simply distracting. --Wetman 08:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Khaos borning Gaia
The author of the article mentions that Zeus created woman as a punishment for the theft of fire, and names her Pandora. However, the name "Pandora" is not substantiated by the text of the Theogony itself (it is a general assumption based on a similar theme in "Works and Days" which does mention Pandora). In the Theogony, the woman is nameless, and there is no discussion of her opening the jar of hope or any of the other activities associated with her. I think it should be re-written to be authentic to the text, or at least mention that this is supposition based on other works by Hesiod. Madnessandcivilization (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's Pandora. Any decent interpretation of the Theogony will tell you so. There's no reason to avoid using her name, though it should be mentioned that the Theogony doesn't use it. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
RE: Creation of the world-mythical cosmogonies
In general, I agree with people that this article has a number of confusions. With regard to the section on "Creation of the world-mythical cosmogonies" specifically:
First, "creation of the world" and "cosmogony" are synonyms, so the title of the section is odd. The author must mean something like "Comparison with Other Cosmogonies".
Second, however, there are thousands of cosmogonies, so it is not clear why an arbitrary sample of Orphic, Vedic, Judaic, and Babylonian cosmogonies should be offered, especially when they seem to shed no particular light on Hesiod's.
Third, and in a related way, concatenating Babylonian, Vedic, Judaic, Hesiodic, and Orphic cosmogonies together creates a false impression that they are contemporary somehow, when in fact they differ in time by thousands of years.
Fourth, more than this, the specific valences implied by each are radically divergent as well. The Judaic, Orphic, and Hesiodic cosmogony, for instance, have put a very different spin on the Female. The patriarchal revision of the Great Goddess and her consort (Eve and the serpent) are overly familiar, while the Orphic version makes the feminine contribution one-remove distant, when a male creator-god (Phanes) results from the splitting the "world-egg" by Khronos and Ananke, and the world-egg formed of Gaia and Ouranos. With Hesiod, the feminine is still discernible, but merely as the vaginal "gap" of Chaos.
So I see no value in this section, except that it covers some of the first events. The author had the sequence wrong, leaving out the creation of Tartaros before Eros, but I made that change as an uncontroversial addition. That part of the text being kept, I really don't see what the rest has to do with the Theogony, even as a contrast. I'd delete it.
Fifth, though this is kind of non sequitur in a Hesiod article, but I'm not sure the sequence of Orphic creation provided by the author is correct. Specifically, I'm not certain why Aither or Chaos are being mentioned in regard to the world-egg or Phanes' creation. Just one more reason to delete this section as irrelevant. Talastra (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
As a further addition, to cite that "the spirit of God" did anything is problematic, since the deity claimed to do so in this biblical passage is Elohiym, not God (and not even yet YHWH). It doesn't matter if it is convention to refer to YHWH as God (capital letter in tact); that obviously has a Judeo-Christian bias, but is also inaccurate as figures like Chaos and Gaia and so forth might just as readily be identified as "God". In other words, god is a title, not a name, and to use a title in place of a name, in a passage where other names, not titles, are being used is biased in the wrong way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talastra (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've made it less gibberish, but the section needs to be based upon reliable sources. West's survey of Theogonic literature in his commentary doesn't bother with Mummu. I don't own his East Face of Helicon or Walcott's Hesiod and the Near East, but these are the sorts of works that should inform this section, not the addition of parallels adduced by editors of online sources. — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 20:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I know google translate probably isn't the best source for this kind of thing (well, it's actually quite good). nonetheless, I put the greek word for Theogony into it & had a listen. I must admit, the voiced velar stop (g) sounds a bit more like a voiceless velar nasal (ŋ̊) (voiced if you count the Ohs on either side). Lostubes (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)