Greek Mythology: Geryones

[Kyriakos]

Geryones (Γηρυόνη&#962 or Geryon in english, was one of the antagonists of Heracles. According to myth he lived in an island beyond the pillars of Heracles, and seems to have been a shepherd. His flock was of some worth to the Hero in his quest, therefore he had to kill Geryones to acquire it.

What is more interesting though is the actual form this adversary had. There is a degree of variation as to that.
Namely one view is that Geryones was a trisomatos, which means he had three bodies. Six arms, six legs and three heads.
The other belief is that he was merely a tricephalos, that is he had only two arms and two legs, but again three heads.
In depictions, most commonly in amphorae he is presented as wearing full-hoplite armour, something which lends some historical significance to him as it has been theorized he may have represented the old order of warrior-farmers/herdsmen.

Geryones tried to prevent Heracles from stealing his flock, but in the end he got hit by an arrow, dipped in the poison of the Lernaia Hydra, piercing his forehead.

Personally i find this myth very interesting. It appears that Geryon had done nothing wrong to bring about his end. However as is common in greek mythology, a being that has a monstrous form is presented as an antagonist nonetheless. His genealogy boasts of being linked to Medusa, and even Poseidon, however as was also the case with Polyphemus, such divine links are not enough to protect from heroes.
However, unlike in the case of Polyphemus we do not know of Geryones being also an antagonist to the gods, or mocking them or claiming he is stronger than them and therefore immune to their law.

 

[Plotinus]

Namely one view is that Geryones was a trisomatos, which means he had three bodies. Six arms, six legs and three heads.
The other belief is that he was merely a tricephalos, that is he had only two arms and two legs, but again three heads.

Given what happened in the story, Geryones clearly should just have tried harder.

But what exactly are you inviting us to discuss?

 

[Kyriakos]

I meant it as a very brief article on myth, which can always be studied as to its connections to pre-History. I was inspired by similar articles posted here from time to time about pieces of national legend, folklore etc.

Perhaps there are incentives to discuss some things even in the OP, if not the mythology of Heracles or more general the ancient Greek one. For example what do you think gave inspiration to form the mythical creature of this herculean labour? Was it some historical basis in warrior-shepherds, and some possible distrust against that old order? Why did he have three heads? (incidentally he also had a dog with two heads, which was related to Cerberus).
But other posts, unrelated to these points, are too welcome as long as they are relevant to the myth

 

[NovaKart]

I really like red figure and black figure amphora and kylix so I appreciated it for that reason at least.

 

[GoodGame]

I kind of believe that pantheons evolve from stories of tribal heroes, personally. Just my 2 cents.

I can't imagine a reason for inventing such an evolved set of characters otherwise. Though maybe it's just convenient for the storytellers to keep inventing.

 

[Dreadnought]

I, for one, am always intrigued by the Ancient Greek mythology's notion of right and wrong -- and hero and antagonist.

 

[Kyriakos]

From the myths that i have read it would appear that the sense of right and wrong in greek mythology is not similar to the largely christian-influenced one.

Whereas in the testaments you see bad things happening to those who oppose god, and thus a god is the center from which all ethic behavior is counted, in greek Mythology it is not always a case of displeasing a god which will lead to one's annihilation.

In the Odyssey it becomes obvious that what today would be deemed as unethical, or even murderous, behavior, was possibly not equated with anything clearly wrong. Thus in the 9nth chapter of it we see Odysseus lead his army against the Cicons, another kingdom in the hellenic world. In the land of the Cicons murdering and plundering goes on, and it is stopped only when the main bulk of the Ciconian army arrives, and pushes Odysseus back to his ships.

Also it is not at all evident that the demise of Polyphemus was due to some unethical behavior, apart from his obvious hubris against the gods, since he boasts that he is stronger than them. However his barbarism, and his slaying brutally of the companions of the Hero does not seem to be described as a basis of casting the shadow of critical to his future catastophy, wrong behavior on Polyphemus; it merely serves to frighten perhaps.
In fact we learn that the demise of Polyphemus, by Odysseus, was already prophesied long ago.


In the circle of myths concerning Theseus again we see him cleaning up Attica from the bandits that were roaming the countryside, usually maiming, torturing and robbing their victims. Theseus is their equal, though, in violence; more often than not in fact he forces them to have the same death as the one they brought to their victims

 

[Plotinus]

I kind of believe that pantheons evolve from stories of tribal heroes, personally. Just my 2 cents.

That's Euhemerism - named after Euhemerus of Messene, who formulated that theory.

I can't imagine a reason for inventing such an evolved set of characters otherwise. Though maybe it's just convenient for the storytellers to keep inventing.

Even in anquity, there were various theories about where the stories of the gods came from. Prodicus of Ceos thought that, in extreme antiquity, people thought that all beneficial things in nature were divine - the sun, water, crops, and so on. And the gods of the pantheon began as representations of these things, and evolved accordingly. Critias, by contrast, thought that the gods had been deliberately invented by politicians as a means of controlling the people.

Whereas in the testaments you see bad things happening to those who oppose god, and thus a god is the center from which all ethic behavior is counted,

Job?

I think you're right on the whole, though. The crucial difference is that in Judaism and Christianity, morality is a matter of behaviour, while in classical Greek thinking, morality is a matter of who you are. This is illustrated nicely in the section of the Iliad where the gods meet to discuss what to do about Achilles after he has killed Hector and dishonoured his body. Apollo says, "Let him beware lest he become angry with him, even though he is good." From a modern, Christian-influenced viewpoint, we'd say that Achilles isn't good at all - he's behaved very badly. But from a Homeric viewpoint, Achilles just is good, because of who he is - his nobility, youth, strength, and so on. The fact that he's behaved atrociously doesn't affect his goodness.

 

[Kyriakos]

In greek (originating from the ancient era) there is the phrase kalos kagathos (καλός καγαθό&#962, which literally means "good (as in having a strong, healthy, beautiful body) and good-souled as well".
It would appear that there was, concurrent with its antithesis (for example in the case of Socrates) the view that a person who was an ideal of psychical virtue, would also be good on the outside in all those meanings.
Of course of Socrates we know that he once replied to a fellow thinker who said he (Socrates) had an awful soul, that "this person knows me very well!" (i must note that my recollection of this particular quote is schematic, but i hope i did not alter its meaning).
Other thinkers, like Nietzsche, have claimed that Socrates was a thinker of decadence, and i would suspect that with the rest of the theories Nietzsche had going this was at least to a degree influenced by Socrates not being of the ideal form* (but also of course the larger metaphorical tome of Nietzsche's argument would lay in his actual thoughts).

As for the story of Job, i read it many years ago and seem to mostly recall that he got struck down by god, was patient thinking that this ill-fate will be reserved, then got dismayed after a visit from some of his friends who noted both his stance and what had happened.
It may be that in that story the friends were also religious, and claimed that Job did something to provoke his punishment? In such a case they were later seen as wrong too, although arguably they were typically at least following their religion (not that this always stops god from killing someone in the testaments).

*I base this on two things: That we know of descriptions of Socrates that he had a strange, and unattractive bodily form, and on the other hand that Nietzsche attributes (for example in his work titled The Genealogy of Ethics) an overall weakness of the mind (not necessarily low ability to think, but a preoccupation with false thoughts, which were formed to protect the thinker from his conscience of his own deficiencies) on "hereditary decadence", by which phrase in context it seams he mostly means either somatic uglyness, or some deformity of physical sort.