> Clearly the two are different to the Greeks. Does anyone know if they
> had big debates in the symposia about the two?
>
Ask rather if there was something they *didn't debate* in the symphosia. :
While I concur with David's reasoning, the example given has another explanation, equally pertinent to Glorantha. Greek mythology didn't become *Greek* mythology until very late, if ever. There was archaic Dorian mythology, Athenian mythology, Spartan mythology, numerous colonia(l) (MEand Asiatic- influenced) mythologies, and Roman interpolations of Thebian misrepresentations of Cretan goddess myths (Ariadne et al). In essentials unity, in details, diversity. Epics such as the Iliad unified Greek theogonies even as it savagely sent up the gods. While there's a literary (and therefore unifying) influence stretching back to Hesiod and the Homeric hymns, there were significant regional variations right up to Roman and Christian times.
I don't know if this even applied to Helios and his impersonators. Syncretisation comes easy to the mythic mind - look how the many breasted Asiatic Great Mother became the virgin Artemis. I asked Pip (a classicist) and she replied that Helios was sometimes considered an aspect of Apollo, for light is greater than the sun.
If Roderick's prophesy for the hero Wars holds true, in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Ages (why not look ahead? :)) warriors will no longer fight to prove that Elmal is the true sun. They'll simply burn heretics who mistakenly believe he isn't. So mythos yields to logos, and the many to the one.
It's Elmal. 'Tis! :)
John
nysalor_at_primus.com.au John Hughesjohnp.hughes_at_dva.gov.au
The most important function of art and science is to awaken the cosmic religious feeling and keep it alive. - - Albert Einstein.
John
Powered by hypermail