The Misconceptions Of The Deity Lamia

photo

The Misconceptions Of The Deity Lamia

Throughout the Internet, and not to mention, all of history, one finds different sources that have mistakenly recorded monsters, vampires, legends from ages past. There are three different types of information, in my opinion; accurate information, inaccurate information, and speculative information. When writing about mythological and folkloric creatures, it’s great to see a writer speculate, and give their own theories. But it remains a bitter aftertaste to see the facts, and legends of ages past mangled and distributed by the illiterate, finance-grubbing, inconsistent sources. That is to say, nonsense, false facts, from people who just want something on their sites. As I’ve trekked over my voyage, I have found one source claiming that Lamia had something to do with sharks. The articles also early on calls Lamia a “daimon” but nowhere in the site does it actually give a definition of what a “daimon” is. Daimon is the early Greek form of the Latinised daemon, or dæmon, which is an entity neither god nor mortal, in Greco-Roman mythology, that can be both benign or malevolent.

This source of information claimed that “the Greek word lamia means dangerous lone-shark”, when actually, the name Lamia comes from “laimos” which means in Greek, “gullet.” The articles then asserts that “Zeus then transformed her into a monster allowing her to exact her revenge by hunting and devouring the children of others” after Hera murdered Lamia’s children. Zeus did not transform Lamia into a monster. Lamia became a monster after being obsessed by the grief of seeing her dead children; Zeus then gave her the gift of second sight in an attempt to appease her. Only afterward, did Lamia then begin her pursuit of human blood. The same article then further asserts other inaccuracies, such as the “fact” that “Skylla” (Scylla) was actually Lamia’s mother, instead of one of her children. This is but one of the many ill-conceived conclusions that some writers have come to by not doing any actual research on the subject of their work.