Re: Lovers and Fighters

From: aelarsen_at_facstaff.wisc.edu
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:32:34 -0600

>From: Dan McCluskey <daniem_at_microsoft.com>
>Subject: re: lover not a fighter... ?
>
>Andrew on warlike Ulerians:
>>So IMG Uleria has a martial aspect which is generally neglected
>>in most areas because there are other dieties who perform that role much
>>more effectively.
>
>Which is absolutely fine IYG, but I don't ever remember seeing any
>"canonical" references to Uleria having a warlike aspect.

        Absolutely true, as far as I know. It's entirely my own take on the cult.

>From: "Weihe, David" <Weihe_at_danet.com>
>Subject: Figher, not a lover (was Lover, not a fighter... ?)
>
>> Andrew E. Larsen
>> Yeah, I knew someone was going to bring this up. My take on Uleria
>> is that she's fairly close to Innana/Ishtar. That's what inspired my idea
>
>No. That would be Ernalda or Dendara/Entekos. Uleria is not Queen
>of Heaven, nor of Earth, nor anywhere else. She is more like a
>philosophical ideal. The other gods and goddesses who have Fertility
>aspects can have more complex characters, as they devolved and
>combined aspects of other members of the Celestial Court.

        That's why I'd say that she does combine love and violence. In ancient Mesopotamia, these two concepts are very closely intertwined, whereas more refined cultures, like the Greeks, separate them and make them more abstract. Innana/Ishtar is not a complex goddess. She's very straightforward and simple.

Andrew E. Larsen

---