> > Bolen's thesis, like in her earlier book, Goddesses in
Everywoman,
> > is that personalities of major Greek/Roman Gods can be
found in
> > each and every man.
Or, to make the whole thing a bit less mystical, the Greeks and
Romans created their images of gods and goddesses to
conform to their observations of human nature. (That is, to relate
real people to the gods is, arguably, backward.)
BTW, Dean--the reason the huntress Diana/Artemis is described
as a virgin is that in very old/primitive cultures, once a woman
gave herself to a man sexually, it was over for her--he owned her
in every respect. (The exception would be the courtesan, who
had some autonomy in the classical world--but still not the level
of independence ascribed to the huntress.) That is, in the old
days one had to make some very tough choices--if one could
choose at all. ("Shall I be a vestal virgin and be buried alive?--oh,
maybe not.")
> Oh yeah, if I remember correctly, this was a refinement on an
> earlier theory which held that every man was in fact one of
> "Groucho", "Chico", "Harpo", "Zeppo", or "Gummo".
>
> [and that theory was a refinement on the yet earlier "Moe",
> "Larry", "Curly", "Shemp" theory.]
And every woman a different day of the week . . . or maybe that
was more local . . . .
But I'm so glad you said this. This looking for meaning and
pattern, the drive to classify reminds one of astronomy--excuse
me, astrology.
> > (Dean you might actually be a kind version of Zeus)
>
> Call me old-fashioned, but wasn't that EE?
Yes, Sir. It was. Back in the days when he used capital letters on
occasion.
> Bark!
A meow would make so much more sense--but I'm sure you
have your reasons.
--Q.M.
Received on 2002-08-06 11:15:15
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: 2020-02-04 07:16:14 UTC