Enjoying Myths in Psychotherapy

Enjoying Myths in Psychotherapy

Karapostoli, N., Assimina, E., Dogramatzi, D., Terlidou, Ch., Morarou, E., 2003. “Enjoying Myths in Psychotherapy”. International Journal of Therapeutic Communities, Vol. 24 (4), p.p. 289-300.

ABSTRACT: Several kinds of arts have been used as therapeutic means in different settings and especially within Therapeutic Communities. The Mythology Group is, as far as we know, and as concerns its activity, an original group, which started in January of 1985, in the context of the Daily Psychotherapeutic Community of the OPC. In this specific group we approach mythology not through reason nor interpretations, but through pure enjoyment, following the belief that every myth has a basic element of poetry and creative fantasy. Myth is by nature something pleasant, fascinating and hilarious, even when it is tragic. It has converted into speech the unexpressed emotions of the individual, the group and the people. Myths can serve as a basis or a connective link of the group procedure and offer an additional mean of communication, especially for patients who have difficulty in expressing directly their deepest emotions, fears and thoughts to the others. Narrating myths is by nature a communicative procedure which offers a link between reason and fantasy and reconciles the condradictions of the human nature.

Introduction

The first problem which somebody will face trying to study ‘myths’ will be the difficulty of the experts in arriving at an acceptably shared definition. The relevant bibliography is impressively huge. The number of definitions is rather bigger than the number of fields which are preoccupied with myth and, sometimes,the plethora of all these definitions, rather obscures than illuminates.

In this farrago of definitions it is possible to forget the initial meaning of the word.  It is worthwhile to keep in mind that, in the beginning, the meaning of the word was ‘logos-speech’ which means ‘without the distinction between true and false’, as we find it in Homer and Aeschylus.  It also meant ‘word of mouth’, that is, something which is contained in verbal speech in contrast to ‘action’. The latin word fabula has the same meaning.  According to Aristotle (Poetics), ‘myth’ also refers to the plot of a tragedy.  Since the time of Pindarus the word began to lose its initial meaning and, unlike logos, began to mean both ‘false stories’ and ‘historical narration’ of the mythological years (Mitta, 1997, p.18).

Mythology, according to Kerenyi, means an ancient experience of the world, which is irreplaceable for the man of the present, something like a language through which one can discover one’s position in the world. Kerenyi also compares mythology with music. The right attitude towards mythology, he says, emerges through this combination.  Myths have a ‘musical appearance’ and like music, are full of meaning.  ‘Let the myths speak and just listen to them’ (Jung and Kerenyi, 1941, p. 9).

The present paper does not aspire to define the various versions of myth, as this would not be feasible. We shall try to discuss this issue by focusing on the use of myths in psychotherapy and, more specifically, we will discuss a clinical application of mythology in psychotherapy, the Mythology Group.

The Use of Myth in Psychotherapy

There are many who think that as psychotherapists, we are preoccupied with the stories or myths of our clients on a daily basis,  and that in a way, we have often invented other stories (occasionally ‘mythical’) in order to respond to their needs. Tsegos believes that psychotherapy, like every other kind of apprenticeship, represents a meeting of two myths: the myth of the therapist or teacher and the myth of the patient or student (Tsegos, 2002b, p. 22).

Freud, who considered that myths were ‘deposits’ from unconscious processes, began his preoccupation with mythology by formulating the theory of the Oedipus complex. He borrowed myths or mythological characters in order to describe psychopathological conditions (eg. narcissism) and some times arrived at exaggerated and extreme interpretations of various myths. As a result, he was accused as being himself a myth-fabricator.  In Wittgenstein’s words:  ‘psychoanalysis is a powerful mythology’ (Wittgenstein, L., 1938, p.52)

Foulkes comments on myth and psychoanalysis as follows:

‘the therapists are roundly accused of amassing their data to test, not operational hypotheses, but analogies, and more often than not, mythologies. It is not sufficient to claim that a patient behaves in approximately the same way as King Oedipus of Thebes; one must be able to make hypotheses about him which are testable. Otherwise the statement remains, at best, an elaborate and colourful description giving ancient support to thin, modern ideas’ (Foulkes and Anthony, 1957, p.148).

Jung considers myths as ‘original revelations of the preconscious psyche’ and he argues that ‘myth originates and functions to satisfy the psychological need for contact with the unconscious’ (in Segal, 1998). The psychoanalytic notion (Freudian or Jungian) was followed later, by many theoreticians who accepted the etiological character of mythology, i.e. the belief that myths explain or interpret human conditions, historic periods etc.

However, there is also the very opposite side of this etiological approach.  Bronislaw Malinowski (1926) refers to the social function of mythology× He initially rejects the symbolic and afterwards the etiological character of the live myth, believing that myth is not an interpretation which can be used in order to satisfy the scientific curiosity, but it is the awakening of a primitive reality in a narrative form. According Malinowski myths never and by no means interpret anything.

Kerenyi agrees with Malinowski and adds:

mythology provides a basis, lays the foundations. It does not have a reply to the question ‘why’ but ‘from where?’. In fact, mythology does not indicate the ‘causes’ (‘reasons’), but the ‘beginnings’. It is the ‘beginnings’ from which springs and to which returns everything that is individual and separate, while them, they remain eternally young, inexhaustible and lasting. The same science which has closed the road to Mythology through its interpretations, the same science is obliged to open it’ (Kerenyi  p.13 (Preface), in Jung & Kerenyi, 1941).

Several kinds of arts have been used as therapeutic means in different settings and especially in therapeutic communities.  The Mythology Group, which we are going to describe is, as far as we know, and as concerns its activity, an original group, which started in January 1985, on the initiative of Mrs. Eleni Morarou in the context of the Daily Psychotherapeutic Community. A second one is functioning within the Fortnight Psychotherapeutic Community, since 1998. In these specific groups we approach mythology not through reason nor interpretations, but through pure enjoyment, following the belief that ‘every myth has a basic element of poetry and creative fantasy. Only if one overlooks the issue of truth, then one is able to enjoy myth, or to wonder and start thinking’ (Burkert, 1979, p.21).

Description of the Mythology Group

Context: The Therapeutic Community Enviroment

Before proceeding any further, it is necessary to present the framework within which the Mythology Group is functioning. The services which are provided by the Open Psychotherapy Centre are addressed to individuals who face any type of psychiatric problems, and are coming of their own free will. The Therapy Department, among its other activities, includes three Psychotherapeutic Communities (the Daily, the Fortnightly and the Summer Therapeutic Community), each of them suitable for the various therapeutic and practical needs of our clients. The Therapeutic Communities include sociotherapy groups, psychodrama and large groups, and their main therapeutic approach is influenced by the principles of group analysis. They constitute a new version of the democratic model, suitable for the treatment of severe psychiatric disorders (i.e. psychotics, borderline personality disorders, psychosomatics etc) which has been described by Tsegos (1982) as a Group Analytic Psychotherapeutic Community.

During their  participation in the therapeutic community, the members have the opportunity to make a large number of relationships through different activities, of varying orientation and size,  thus having the opportunity to communicate on different levels, as well as to get familiar with different means of expression. All these numerous relationships are divided into two main orientations: the sociodynamic (relating to others and to reality)  and psychodynamic (relating to the self).

Structure and Content of the Group Activity

The Mythology Group has the same boundaries as the other groups of the therapeutic community.  That is, it consists of 8-12 members, including the two conductors, meets once a week in a fixed place, lasts one hour and a half and is a quick-open group. The activity of the group is reading Mythology, using the the books of its own library. Apart Greek Mythology, there are also myths and  fairy tales from all over the world. We would like to cite here an indicative session of this specific group:

It is the third session of the group after the summer holidays and everybody is present (10 members). There are many occurrences which concern the group, but so far they have not been discussed: there are two new members who have joined the group, two old members have announced that they will leave the group, the conductor has just been married, and there were absences and delays during the previous sessions. The discussion begins with Maria, who mentions that it is the first weekend after a long time, that she did not argue with her mother, and Alexandros, another member of the group, continues about his fights with his mother.  Ioanna and Labros are trying to speak about their impending farewell but they find no response from the other members. It seems like nobody wishes to speak and the whole group looks reluctantly at  the books on the table.

Katerina reads about the labours of Hercules (Augean Stables)[1] and Maria reads the story of Minotaur and the Labyrinth[2]. Then, Alexandros continues reading with the Castration of  Uranus by his son Cronus with the help of his mother Gea (Earth)[3]. Labros asks Alexandros what was the matter with him?  Why is he reading something so violent? Alexandros says: ‘I don’t know, it was accidental, but recently whatever I do goes wrong’.  A discussion follows regarding personal matters, and each of the members narrates events or situations which have gone wrong, especially love affairs. Labros reads about the love affairs of Zeus and the ploys and transformations which he used in order to carry out his intentions. The women of the group start accusing Zeus of being deceitful. Theodoros reads the Pandora’s myth[4], according to which all evils have emerged from a woman’s box. The tension grows and Eleni (the conductor) responds by reading the myth of the Aphrodite’s birth[5], the Goddess who keeps our luck in her hands. Alexandros, on the other side, responds with the Apple of Discord[6], according which a mortal man chooses among three godesses the pretiest oneֹ at this moment everybody starts laughing.

Katerina mentions that whereas at the beginning of the session, she was feeling depressed and wanted to leave the group, she is now enjoying every moment of it. Labros adds that he was scared by the first myth (the one about the castration of Uranus) and this was the reason for trying to find something ‘light’ to read, like the love affairs of Zeus.  Everybody is teases him because Labros has a particular difficulty with his sexual relationships, considers a such a relationship as something unachievable. How come he can now characterise  it as ’light’?  The discussion moves on easily to matters of relating to the group, i.e. the anger which some of the members felt because of the summer holidays, the mixed feelings concerning the conductor’s marriage, the previous absences from the group, and the impending farewells.

The Group Process

During the Initial Phase, the members may discuss whatever they wish, while the books are already placed on the table. The exchange of ideas, thoughts, emotions, wishes and fantasies, formulate a network of commu-nication, the group matrix*, which constitutes the shared common ground of the group members. We assume that the selected reading themes do not concern only the member who reads, but the group as a whole. Papadakis (1983) and Roberts (1984) also refer to similar phenomena in psychodrama and art groups, considering their products as an expression of an underlying unity. The choice of the theme to be read, is spontaneus and it is not under the guidance of the conductor or a single member.

During the Second Phase, every member holds a book and reads either silently  or loud to the others. We should point out again that the analysis (literary, psychological or scientific) of the material is avoided. The choice of the material is made either because the member enjoys reading it, or because it reminds him/her of something, or because he/she wishes to say something to another member of the group or to the whole group. The members can ‘play’ with emotions and fantasies in relation to the reading text, they can attribute its characteristics to other members, they may connect it with something which occurs in the group or may remain silent after its reading (Voyatzaki & Morarou,  1987).

During the Third Phase the group talks about whatever was expressed or felt during reading. The creative process of the second phase has enriched the group’s communication with new ingredients, which have to deal with the ‘here and now’ situation. ‘From the group analytic viewpoint it is through the creation of this powerful matrix that individuals can change, can redefine themselves’ (Pines, 1984, p.25).

It is accepted that for all myths in every culture there is a common denominator at a universal level, regardless of their formal variations. And it is exactly, this universal nature, that prompted Carl Jung to formulate his observations in his theory that all people have common dreams, fantasies and myths and to conceive of the ‘collective unconscious’ which, after all, it is closely connected with the group-analytic meaning of ‘matrix’.  ‘And thus, every week, the Mythology Group reads texts about love, murder, incest, incredible love stories and copulations and any kind of confused and unexpected relationships and actions, while within all these, the new members are wondering:  “In which way this group is going to help me with my problem?” ‘ (Voyatzaki & Morarou, 1987).

Theoretical Considerations

Myth as the Basis of the Group Process: Re-orientation and Mobilization of the Healthy Part of the Ego

One of the main characteristics of mental patients, regardless OF their diagnosis, is that they have established a rigid and concrete role.  They may be pathetic, weak, destructive, passive or extremely energetic. So, the first step of the therapeutic procedure is to re-orientate the patient from his illness to himself as a person and to assist the patient to get involved in the group procedure through the mobilization and strengthening of the healthy part of his or her ego (Tsegos, 1982).  The ‘real and healthy part of the ego’ is crucial.  Brian Haddon (1979, p.38) writes that ‘the concentration on a person’s sick part to the exclusion of healthy attributes, was in itself unhealthy’.

Petros, is a young man, 28 years old, who joined the group after a  9 years period of total confinement in his house – he didn’t go even to his verandah. The only people with whom he had contact was his family. In the beginning he was very hesitant to participate in any group activity, as it was very difficult for him even to walk alone, to be on time and obviously to talk and to have relationships with the others. He was very anxious about the way that he would be confronted, when the other members found out that he had done nothing for the last 9 years and he anticipated that everybody would laugh at him. And that’s why he preferred to keep his ‘big secret’. During his first day in the group and after the initial acquaintance, nobody, to his great relief, asked him about his case. The group discussed several matters and afterwards the others start to read myths.

The first one was about Prometheus[7], then about Cronus who devoured  his children and then about the ploys and the spicy stories of the gods of Olympus. Petros decided to read one of these stories and the other members told him that they were very happy about his  participation  in the group’s  activity. After a few sessions, he confided in the group about the way he lived during the last nine years and he added that, while some of the myths appeared to him like describing his condition, some others made him  remember again the taste of life and to abandon the idea fixed in his mind that he had lost the ‘train’ of life.

Nobody asked Petros ‘why?’ (i.e. how come he confined himself at home for nine years?). This was not the issue, since communal approach does not focus on symptoms and on seeking aetiologies. It focuses on the encouragement and the strengthening of the healthy parts of the personality (in the above illustration  the main issue was that Petros is participating in the group, he is reading like the other members and, through this group procedure, he relates to them). Proportionately, mythology speaks about sources (‘from where’) and not aetiologies (“why”). No matter how ill or regressed somebody is due to their present psychological condition, the activity and the boundaries of the group will prompt them to remember their healthy parts.

Myth as an Additional Means of Communication or as a Connective Link of the Group Process

Creative activities, such as reading mythology, offers group members an additional means of communication with the others, an attractive and playful way of relating. The noticeable element of this specific group is that the activity itself, i.e. mythology, is by nature, both a group and a communicating process.

‘The meaning of the “whole” can not be expressed by any science, but only through the mythological method, because mythology includes the archetype of existence. Mythology is unlimited; it is like a carpet without webbing-label’ (Kerenyi, 1974,p.13).

‘Mythology is a live language, which is created-with and recreated by the community’s members, it is a verbal dialogue which is assimilated and impressed on the mind through hearing, repeating, and continual use and, in general, through an unconscious dialectic and ritual procedure on which the group creation is based. It is an experience which  cultivates communication.  (Mitta, 1997,p.55).

Myth, as a means of communication, is not connected only to the expression of the individual emotional condition, but to the group itself. Having had long  experience of the mythology group we are able to observe that the same myths are used many times in order to express analogous situtations.  For instance, when a new member comes, the group usually reads something ‘light’, like the Olympus scandals.  In periods of confusion or conflicts the group reads extracts from Herodotus or the story of Titans. During the reading of a tragedy, in the beginning there is a discussion concerning matters about the fear of madness and at the end of the session, more pleasant matters prevail, such as the effectiveness of therapy, or the pleasure which arises from the participation in the group. Usually, after reading a tragic myth something lighter will follow, like the amusing adventures of the gods of Olympus.

Myth as a Link between Reason and Fantasy

All kinds of creative activities include and refer to the fantasy level of communication.

‘Fantasy is a space into which the individual is organised, expresses him/herself and takes guidance. Thought, myth, vocal and aesthetic expression, as well as the spirit, are not qualities, but activities of fantasy; fantasy itself constitutes a quality completely necessary for the human being» (Panethymitakis, 1999, p.32).

Each person has of course, his/her own fantasies and some of the patients are already absorbed in their own fantasy. However, the group may provide its members with the following:

• Fantasy is expressed in a concrete way and therefore becomes harmless. The pages of the book are real objects, which can be seen or touched at any moment. They are not just «fantasies» which may «disappear».
• Fantasy, although it is a regressive and primitive activity, is also rendered harmless, because it takes place within the protective and stable environment of the group, and which in turn forms part of the wider network of the T.C.
• Fantasy becomes less frightening because it is shared with the others. In this way the whole group is able to contain a destructive or otherwise fearful fantasy.
• The group’s concrete procedure enables the patient to travel into the fantasy world and be assured that he/she will find the way back to the real world. The activity of the group is the vehicle for this journey, which, on the one hand facilitates the expansion of fantasy, while on the other sets limits on it. (Papadakis, 1985)

In this way every member becomes able to play with fantasies (their’s  or other’s), desires, dreams and even madness itself with less fear.  It is a psychological play between Winnicott’s transitional phenomena, which are closer to external reality (such as action, play, roles, symbolism) and mental phenomena, which are closer to inner reality (such as fantasy and matrix) (Winnicott, 1970).

‘The myth itself, connects the objects by placing an order between them, with the purpose to replace the lack of knowledge for the needs of survival, and reinforces instict which hides inside the fear for the unknown’ (Panethymitakis, 1999,p.73).

The group’s ability to «play» with destructive impulses and to incorporate them in the therapeutic process, seems to allow the possibility of resolving transpersonal, as well as inner conflicts. Reading mythology facilitates catharsis and insight. But, these are not the optimum therapeutic factors, since this kind of approach seeks recreation rather than insight (Tsegos, Tseberlidou, 2002). Foulkes (1975) said that the most powerful factor in bringing about change is based on the ego training in action and not so much on insight and interepretation. We observe that there is the same belief for mythology itself. Bernis (1964, p.16) says: ‘myth is much more an emotion source than a knowledge test. What gives life to myth is not the pursuit of an explanation, but the human need for escape and freedom. It has the nature of a sensational activity.’

Creative activities are therapeutic ‘because they are an attractive point of reference for participating in a procedure which has to do with structural elements of psychism, which the mental patient usually lacks (Tsegos, 1993). With the extensive use of group-analytic and community groups of different size and purpose, it is assumed that each member’s personality traits can be modified through participation in this experience of different kind of relationships.

‘Myth always remains a deepest demand of the psyche and a wish to look  at the view which spreads outside the palace of Logos, of the rational. It remains an emotional love of the irrational, which guides to the surprise of mystery and the astonishment of the unexpected, and which is beyond the human standards. Myth is by nature something pleasing, fascinating and hilarious, even though when it is tragic. Myth has helped desire and the human will to conciliate the contradictions and to demand the transcendent and the absolute, the perfect, and the timeless, the wealth and the freedom. Myth has converted into speech the unexpressed emotions of the individual, the group and the people» (Evaggelou, 1993, p.230).

References

Aristotle, The Poetics. Trans. by W.H. Fyfe &W.R. Roberts. Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press.

Assimina, E. (2001) Myth in the Mythology Group of the Daily Psycho-therapeutic Community of the OPC. Diploma Thesis. Institute of Psychodrama and Sociotherapy, OPC.

Bernis, J. (1964) Fantasy.  Zaharopoulos: Athens

Burkert, W. (1979) Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual. MIET: Athens (1997)

James, C. (1982) Transitional Phenomena and the Matrix in Group Psychotherapy. In: Individual and the Group: Boundaries and Interrelations. Theory. Vol. I (Eds. Pines, M. & Rafaelsen, L.) Plenum: London.

Jung, C.G. & Kerenyi, C. (1941) Einfuhrung in das Wesen der Mythologie. IAMVLIHOS: Athens (1989).

Evaggelou, I.  (1993) Fantasia. Mia Adiereuniti Psychiki Leitourgia. IAMVLIHOS: Athens.

Foulkes,S.H. & Anthony,E.J.  (1957) Group Psychotherapy. The Psychoanalytical Approach. Maresfield Reprints: London.

Foulkes, S.H. (1964) Therapeutic Group Analysis. George Allen & Unwin Ltd: London

Foulkes, S.H.  (1975) A Short Outline of the Therapeutic Processes in Group Analytic Psychotherapy. Group Analysis, 8, 69-83.

Haddon, B. (1979)  Political Implications of Therapeutic Communities. In:  Therapeutic Communities. Reflections and Progress (Eds. Hinshelwood, R.D. & Manning, N.). Routledge and Kegan Paul : London.

Kerenyi, K. (1974)  Mythology of the Greeks. ESTIA:  Athens.

Mitta, D. (1997) Apologia gia ton Mytho. University Studio Press: Thessaloniki.

Malinowski, B. (1926) Myth in Primitive Psychology.  The New Science Series: New York.

Panethymitakis, G. (1999) Metamorphosis ton Mython. Αlexandreia: Athens.

Papadakis, Th. (1983) Group-Analytic Psychodrama: The Reenactment of the Matrix. Diploma Thesis. Institute of Group Analysis (Athens).

Papadakis, Th. (1985) The Use of Art Activities in a Psychotherapeutic Community in Athens. Paper presented in the Symposium of Arts and Disabled People, St.Alban’s.

Pines, M. (1984) The Frame of Reference of Group-Analytic Psychotherapy. In:  Spheres of Group Analysis (Ed. Lear,T.E.).  G.A.Society Publ.: London.

Roberts, J.P. (1984) Resonance in Art Groups. Group Analysis,17(3), 211-220.

Segal, R.A. (1998) Jung on Mythology: Key Readings.  Routledge: London.

Tsegos, I.K. (1982) A Psychotherapeutic Community in Athens. A Windsor Conference Paper, Windsor, 1982.

Tsegos, I.K., (1993) Moreno’ s Fracture (or, about ²God², Director and Conductor). Paper presented at the two day workshop ²The Group-Analytic Psychodrama², Athens, 1993.

Tsegos, I.K. (1996) Fifty Years of an Amateur Enthusiasm (On the Avoidance of Training and of Professional Identity in TC). International Journal of Therapeutic Communities, 17(3),159-165.

Tsegos, I.K. & Tseberlidou, M. (2002a) The Oneirodrama Group. The Therapeutic and the Supervisory Process of a Dream Drama Group. In:  Dreams in Group Psychotherapy (Eds. Neri, Cl. & Pines, M.). Jessica Kingsley Publishers: London and Philadelphia.

Tsegos, I.K. (2002b) Oi Metamphieseis tou Psychotherapeutou.  Stigmi: Athens.

Voyatzaki, Z., Morarou, E. (1987) Communication and Expression through the Irrational: Mythology and Surealistic Reading Groups. Paper presented in the 11^th  Psychiatric Congress in Athens, 1987.

Winnicott, D.W. (1970) Playing and Reality. Penguin: Harmondsworth.

Wittgenstein, L. (1938) Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief (Ed. Barrett, C.) University of California Press: Berkeley, California (1967)

Natassa Karapostoli is an Occupational Therapist, Psychodramatist-Sociotherapist and the Coordinator of the Training Community of the Institute of Psychodrama and Sociotherapy of the OPC.

Eleftheria Assimina is a Military Nurse, Psychodramatist-Sociotherapist working at the Greek Naval Hospital.

Diamando Dogramatzi is a Midwife, Psychodramatist-Sociotherapist and Family Therapist.

Christina Terlidou is a Clinical Psychologist, Psychodramatist-Sociotherapist, Current Leader of the Fortnight Psychotherapeutic Community of the OPC.

• “ Matrix is the hypothetical web of communication and relationship in a given group. It is the common shared ground which ultimately determines the meaning and significance of all events and upon which all communications and iterpretations, verbal and non-verbal rest” (Foulkes, 1964, p.292). “ The group matrix can be regarded as the operational basis of all mental processes in the group in the same way as the individual’s mind is the operational basis of all mental processes in the individual” (Foulkes & Anthony, 1957, p.258).

Myths mentioned in the text (in  short)

[1] Augean Stables: One of the twelve labours of Hercules was the cleaning of the Augean Stables. Augeas, king of Elis, had a herd of three thousand oxes, whose stalls had not been cleansed for thirty years. Hercules brought two rivers through them, and cleansed them thorougly in one day.

[2] Minotaur in the Labyrinth: Half bull, half man, the Minotaur was the fearsome monster of ancient times. Minos, king of Crete, kept the Minotaur  in the labyrinth, a great maze of winding passages at Knossos Palace, from which no one could escape. Minos sacrifised seven Athenian youths and seven Athenian maidens to the Minotaur each year. Theseus of Athens finally killed the Minotaur, and escaped form the Labyrinth by following a thread given to him by Minos’ daughter, Ariadne.

[3] Castration of Uranus: Cronus overthrew his father ,Uranus, by cutting off Uranus’ genitals and casting them into the sea. Gaea (mother of Cronus and wife of Uranus) enticed Uranus to bed with her and when he got close enough, Cronus came out of hiding and murdered him.

[4] Pandora: The first woman of creation. She was made in heaven, every god contributing something to perfect her. According to Hesiod, Zeus sent Pandora to Epimitheus as a gift and soon after they were married. Pandora was sent with a strange jar (or box) that was given to her by Zeus. She secretely opened up the box  and  out flew evil, despare and other unpleasurable obstacles for mankind to face. The only element remained was hope.

[5] Aphrodite’s Birth:  According to Hesiod, Aphrodite was born during the primal murder of Uranus, when Cronus threw his genitals into the sea. From the foam rose a beautiful maiden standing naked within a shell.

[6] Apple of Discord: At the wedding banquet of Peleus and Thetis, Zeus called eveyone except Eris, since she was known far and wide as a trouble maker.  Eris was greatly angered by this and created a golden apple, uppon which she wrote Kallisti (meaning “to the prettiest woman”). At the day of the event she rolled the apple into the banquet and took off. Athena, Hera and Aphrodite each claimed the apple and eventually began to battle over it. Zeus decided to end the quarral and send them to an arbitrator (a shepard named Paris), who would decide which one of them deserves the apple. Athena offered him victories, Hera offered vast wealth, and Aphrodite offered him the most beautiful woman. Paris took Aphrodite’s offer.

[7] Prometheus: Prometheus was one of the Titans, a gigantic race, who inhabited the earth before the creation of man. To him and his brother (Epimitheus) was commited the office of making man, and providing him and all other animals with the faculties necessary for their preservation. Animals were given the greatest of qualities and Prometheus noticed that there were no great qualities left to give mankind. Prometheus went up to heaven, and lighted his torch at the chariot of the sun and brought down fire to mortals. Zeus punished him for his presumption in stealing fire from heaven and man for accepting the gift.

Graves, R. (1955) The Greek Myths. Penguin Books (1986)